Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

More than just murder?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by joelhall View Post
    i find it hard to believe it was a killer after uteri, given:

    -only 2 victims had them removed.

    -one was the top part, the other with the cervix & portion of the vagina attached.

    -there were other parts missing, such as a part of the intestine, etc - hardly someone whos after something. who takes 2/3 of a bladder?

    i would say a killer in a hurry, who yanked stuff out as quickly as he could, and took whatever was easiest, as a personal trophy or as proof of killing (part of my own personal theory).

    to say he was specifically after a certain organ (i.e. he had a fixation to procure), is not a logical conclusion. if this were the case:

    -there would have been similar abdominal opening.

    -they would always/only have taken this.

    -a killer would surely have gone somewhere more secret to be sure of securing his prize.

    -the removing of organs would not have been so messily done.

    -other mutilations would not have been so purposefully done.

    i could add a few more, but in short - the killer(s) didnt really care what they took. just as long as it was something.

    joel
    You can believe what you will, based primarily on the lack of evidence to assert any motive or goals Joel, but Polly seems to me to be a step short of abdominal organ theft, THAT was perhaps an interruption, Annie is a complete uterus with partial bladder taken, and Kates is a partial uterus, kidney and other viscera, and Mary's killer didnt care for abdominal organs. If you look at the post mortem cutting victims within the C5, which include Mary, 3 of 4 were abdominally focussed. If you take Liz and Mary out...which should be looked at seriously, then you have a more focussed killer in the body geography and the environments.

    I think it depends on what you see here...one madmans rampage, or a series of murders of unfortunates.

    Best regards.

    Leave a comment:


  • joelhall
    replied
    i find it hard to believe it was a killer after uteri, given:

    -only 2 victims had them removed.

    -one was the top part, the other with the cervix & portion of the vagina attached.

    -there were other parts missing, such as a part of the intestine, etc - hardly someone whos after something. who takes 2/3 of a bladder?

    i would say a killer in a hurry, who yanked stuff out as quickly as he could, and took whatever was easiest, as a personal trophy or as proof of killing (part of my own personal theory).

    to say he was specifically after a certain organ (i.e. he had a fixation to procure), is not a logical conclusion. if this were the case:

    -there would have been similar abdominal opening.

    -they would always/only have taken this.

    -a killer would surely have gone somewhere more secret to be sure of securing his prize.

    -the removing of organs would not have been so messily done.

    -other mutilations would not have been so purposefully done.

    i could add a few more, but in short - the killer(s) didnt really care what they took. just as long as it was something.

    joel

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Hello all,

    Regarding Annie's items by her body,...they were there, whether by the ripping of the inner skirt pocket, or by being placed. Lets not forget he also took her rings.

    The murderer of the post mortem mutilation victims used their death as his nights beginning. The mere fact he doesnt kill and just walk away shows he killed to enable the mutilations. You cant very well cut a squirming screaming woman open in public and get away scot free. Plus the letting of blood is certainly relevant in the organ thefts.

    Why he wanted to cut them open....after the swift kill was over, is the daunting question.

    For me, the only real evidence that we have of his intentions are the results of his actions. What he takes....it would appear, ...is what he wanted. To do what with? Who knows? I know of two illicit uses for the uterus, and a story that an american doctor had been seeking them in recent past. As the Lusk letter intimates, kidneys can be quite 'nise' fried.

    I do think the only pragmatic way to address this though is to seperate out the women who were killed then mutilated.

    Best regards all.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nicola
    replied
    Hello,Mike

    Why do you think JTR committed these horrific acts?

    I tend to think that the simplest answer is sometimes right. But I like to hear other viewpoints as well.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Good Michael
    replied
    Nicola,

    You just gave the most common concept. It doesn't make it right, however.

    Cheers,

    Mike

    Leave a comment:


  • Nicola
    replied
    I'm afraid my answer is going to be very simple.


    JTR both hated and feared women. Maybe these ladies reminded him of mommy or a particularly nasty stepmother. From what I've seen,his hatred of women was visceral and bone deep. Those pics of CE and MJK chilled me to the bone when I first saw them.

    He went after prostitutes,because then as it is now,they represent an easy opportunity for a serial killer. I'm no expert but I would think upper and middle class women of that time wouldn't be out at the time of night/early morning that JTR creeped about. If they were,they would certainly not be alone. JTR was a coward. I don't believe he would've attacked a woman if she was accompanied by a man. I believe Whitechapel was where he lived,so he stayed close to home. The women he chose were easily obtained and had no problem going off with strange men. He cut them up because it got him off. I don't believe in Freemason rituals or the Queen's doctor or any other conspiracy theory. JTR ripped up those poor women because he hated women and he liked tearing them apart. It is hard for those of us who aren't psychopaths to understand such things,but I believe this is why he committed these murders.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dan Norder
    replied
    Hey FM,

    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    but if his sole intention was to eviscerate and procure inner organs, then the element of destruction suddenly becomes very secondary, does it not?
    If that were his sole intention, yes. I just don't see that as being likely.

    If he had just been out to procure organs without any violent mindset behind it, with evisceration being a step toward that or a side effect, then the extra mutilations were wholly unnecessary. If he liked eviscerating human beings and tearing out parts then he already clearly favored violence. I can't see any scenario in which he did the things we know that he did that doesn't include a preference for active human destruction.

    Leave a comment:


  • emlodik
    replied
    Originally posted by mike74 View Post
    I just don't buy it, sorry!
    That's because you're an... Well, you can figure that out on your own. (And here's a clue, I was not going to call you a "Freemason."

    Leave a comment:


  • emlodik
    replied
    Originally posted by mike74 View Post
    Iam still thinking that there was definately more to these murders than just a random killing spree!. If it was just a man with a hatred for prostitutes or even just women in general why all the mutilations?. Entralils over the shoulder?, two upside down v shapes on catherine eddowes cheeks?, items laid out neatly at annie chapmans feet?, come on this to me was not just a crazy lunatic walking the streets there had to more to it.
    Actually, the story about objects laid out at Annie Chapman's feet is an urban legend. Let's face it, usually the most simple explanation is the correct one. There was no big conspiracy involved in the Whitechapel Murders. Just a very cunning psychopath and a botched investigation, that is all.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Hi Dan, and thanks for answering!

    What I am after here is that I see no real intention to put people through pain. Of course there is a disregard for human life, but as Lord Byron said: "Iīd rather suffocate a newborn child in itīs crib, than look away from my own desires". That is my own translation, by the way...
    The problem with butchers shops is that they donīt provide human uteri. Mortuaries? A/ He could have worked at such a place for all we know, B/ Maybe he did not have a societal position that allowed him to work in a mortuary, he could have been slightly retarded or something, and C/ I think he wanted fresh meat, still warm.
    It is easy to see that he left behind what could be interpreted as an expression of destruction and violence, but what I want to know is to what degree it was of importance to him that he did so. It came with the killing and cutting, inevitably, but if his sole intention was to eviscerate and procure inner organs, then the element of destruction suddenly becomes very secondary, does it not?
    If we are to delve into a little bit of shaky psychology here, then maybe he was not all that interested in the primary killing (of the woman) that led to the secondary killing (of the possibility to create life, as per the uteri - ultimatley perhaps displaying a hatred for the organ that put him into the world).
    To me, the archaic moments, if you will, of the deeds all seem to suggest a very hurried man taking care of what must be taken care of (the killing and the silence gained by the throat cuts) in order to get at the abdomen.

    The best!
    Fisherman

    Leave a comment:


  • Dan Norder
    replied
    I consider it quit doubtful, Fisherman. Someone who had an unhealthy interest in dead bodies wouldn't just kill people outright without also having a strong disregard for human life. Someone who kills people to mutilate has chosen to do that instead of making do with what he could get at a butcher shop or trying to work at a mortuary. The Ripper's mutilations were an expression of destruction and violence, not just idle curiosity about someone's inner workings or a desire to be see protruding entrails.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Just found this thread that I think may be useful to ask a question. It is often thrown forward on the boards that Jack was a very sadistic killer, and that he was filled with hate. But is this really true?
    I believe that there is a very good chance that Jack would have settled happily for finding the occasional dead woman in the street, leaving him with the opportunity to eviscerate away, and sparing him the trouble of doing the killing himself.
    What do you think, ladies and gentlemen?

    The best, all!
    Fisherman

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by The Good Michael View Post
    Michael,

    I think Carroll was a Mason.

    Mike
    Oh, ....you meant those Masons, ......then nevermind.

    Cheers Mikey

    Leave a comment:


  • The Good Michael
    replied
    Michael,

    I think Carroll was a Mason.

    Mike

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by The Good Michael View Post
    Okay, let's use logic here.

    All men are guilty of sexual psychosis and have violent erotic fantasties involving female anatomy, specifically between (and including) the chest and knees.... Masons are men... therefore Masons have erotic fanta...... My God! They did it!

    Mike
    This is completely unacceptable. I categorically deny that it was anyone in my family, including my brother Free and his wife and kids. Cant we just forget the Masons....when we all know it was the guy that wrote those kids stories....that Carroll guy, thats who you should be after. The Carrolls. l'll find their address and email for all those that want to persecute them.

    Best regards,
    Perry....not one of the Rippers family....Mason.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X