Elizabeth Jackson, JTR victim?

[Edward]

Jack and the Torso murders

Hello All,
Jack killed his victims very near where he encountered them (in the open). If Kelly is truly a Ripper victim, he got lucky with an indoor killing field (and took full advantage of it).

On the other hand, the torso killer most probably had a private (secluded, indoor) place in which to lure, kill and dismember the victims. To me, this is a huge difference between the two murderers. If Jack had secluded locations in which to do his "work", I believe that there would be more Kelly-like victims.
Best Regards,
Edward

[corey123]

[QUOTE=smezenen;118624][QUOTE=corey123;118520]Yes you did post #16 last sentence, I quote "He like the Killer of Stort, proped her for the same reason I stated above."
Not saying the same way, but a good example.
How is it not saying the same thing? you stated that you never said Jack posed his victims like the Dahlia killer. I showed you your quote (See the bold part of YOUR statement above) and you still deny it by saying it’s not said the same way.
Where is the blood on her arm? There isn’t any, so the blood on the sheet if there is any (I don’t see it in the picture) didn’t come from the arm wounds.
I still do not see how this is supposed to signify that he added those after the stomach mutilations, they could have been before, after, or even after all other bodily injuries. The blood stopped flowing after the throat wound.
We were not discussing whether the wounds on the arm occurred before or after the stomach wounds we were discussing whether they are defensive wounds
At least you agree that it is assumption. but if its not relevent then why did you post it?
It is an assumption, but not relavent in a way. I was going into further detail to prove my point. About how Jack the Ripper never laid a hand on Liz Jackson.
I am still on the fence about whether JTR killed Liz Jackson but that is not what I thought we were discussing. I thought we were discussing weather Jack posed bodies or not.

I would have to say, that is a really confusing post. Some of the highlights are my posts and some are yours.

I however can answer one question clearly, the reason why we SHOULDN'T discuss weather Jack posed the bodies or not is because this is a thread about weather Jack killed Liz Jackson.

Yours truly

[smezenen]

[QUOTE=corey123;118520]Yes you did post #16 last sentence, I quote "He like the Killer of Stort, proped her for the same reason I stated above."
Not saying the same way, but a good example.
How is it not saying the same thing? you stated that you never said Jack posed his victims like the Dahlia killer. I showed you your quote (See the bold part of YOUR statement above) and you still deny it by saying it’s not said the same way.
Where is the blood on her arm? There isn’t any, so the blood on the sheet if there is any (I don’t see it in the picture) didn’t come from the arm wounds.
I still do not see how this is supposed to signify that he added those after the stomach mutilations, they could have been before, after, or even after all other bodily injuries. The blood stopped flowing after the throat wound.
We were not discussing whether the wounds on the arm occurred before or after the stomach wounds we were discussing whether they are defensive wounds
At least you agree that it is assumption. but if its not relevent then why did you post it?
It is an assumption, but not relavent in a way. I was going into further detail to prove my point. About how Jack the Ripper never laid a hand on Liz Jackson.
I am still on the fence about whether JTR killed Liz Jackson but that is not what I thought we were discussing. I thought we were discussing weather Jack posed bodies or not. [QUOTE]

[corey123]

Yes you did post #16 last sentence, I quote "He like the Killer of Stort, proped her for the same reason I stated above."

Not saying the same way, but a good example.

That is an assumption not supported by fact or evidence as I pointed out in my post. The underlined "I would think" is the key to your statement it is your thought/theory/assumption.

That is the bases of many things, Jack the Ripper, Profiling, and every current non-solved criminal case. Assuming something, does not mean it is wrong, and it is supported by one thing, knowledge.

Where is the blood on her arm? There isn’t any, so the blood on the sheet if there is any (I don’t see it in the picture) didn’t come from the arm wounds.

I still do not see how this is supposed to signify that he added those after the stomach mutilations, they could have been before, after, or even after all other bodily injuries. The blood stopped flowing after the throat wound.

At least you agree that it is assumption. but if its not relevent then why did you post it?


It is an assumption, but not relavent in a way. I was going into further detail to prove my point. About how Jack the Ripper never laid a hand on Liz Jackson.

Show your evidence. I have re-read the entire thread and unless some of your posts have been removed you have only given speculation, I see no supporting evidence.”

Well re-read the thread. If you refuse to take the evidence then don't. It is really based on the persons belief. No evidence says he did, none that says he didn't, well not enough at least. The rest is based on personal opinion.

I don’t dismiss your theory, I actually agree with most of what you have said in this thread except the body positioning. I am open to changing my mind but I like you must see hard evidence, it must be something that supports the theory that can’t be explained any other way.

Glad my arguement was convincing, about Liz Jackson.

Corey.

P.s Yes, I found those photos about a couple of months ago, dreadful pictures. Interesting case however, clearly domestic.

[smezenen]

Your welcome TJ,
Im sorry I didnt link the site I only typed the name into my post. like i said i really dont support the idea of presenting photos like that for purely sensational reasons. if they used them for research purposes like the photos here it would not bother me. I think the photo of Ms Shorts upper torso, the one taken from her left side, with that grimace cut into her face will haunt my dreams for a long time. As a soldier i have seen many nasty things when I was in combat and that picture for some reason went right to the top of my "bad stuff to see list".

[tji]

Hi Smezenen

P.S. for those interested in the Black Dahlia, there are newly discovered photos of the crime scene posted on Rotton.com. (I don’t support that website because I think they post these pictures for sensational purposes) but the photos are very high resolution. Warning: these pictures are very graphic, very clear, and very chilling.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for that although I had to type rotten.com to get to them.

As you say very clear and graphic.

tj

[smezenen]

“First I have never said Jack positioned the body the same way as the killer of Elizabeth Short,”

Yes you did post #16 last sentence, I quote "He like the Killer of Stort, proped her for the same reason I stated above."

“I had said, if you had read correctly, that thats what I would think Elizabeth Jackson would look like if she was killer by Jack the Ripper. In another words, all her viscera, or limbs, would be there, not dumped. Sorry if I was not clear enough.”

That is an assumption not supported by fact or evidence as I pointed out in my post. The underlined "I would think" is the key to your statement it is your thought/theory/assumption.

“Also, there was a sheet saturated in blood with many rips on its, so it is possible to have been devensive wounds.”

Where is the blood on her arm? There isn’t any, so the blood on the sheet if there is any (I don’t see it in the picture) didn’t come from the arm wounds.

“My assumption is not even relavent to the thread, and has nothing to do with Jack the Ripper killing Elizabeth Jackson.”

At least you agree that it is assumption. but if its not relevent then why did you post it?

“Also, I have plenty of enough evidence to say he possitioned the body.”

Show your evidence. I have re-read the entire thread and unless some of your posts have been removed you have only given speculation, I see no supporting evidence.”

"I think to say that the arm was left in a "Natural possition" would have to rely on the fact that he added the cuts to the arm after all the previous mutilating of the abdomen, a fact we dont have.”

We do in fact have supporting evidence to make this claim (see the part about no blood on her arm.)

“I admit, it is possible that the bodies are laying in a natural possition, but I still see some aspects of the possitioned bodies in which could have given a sexual sadist pleasure.”

I will agree with this statement but only as far as to say he did things for his own pleasure like nicking the eye lids and cutting the face, these wounds serve no other purpose than his personal gratification. As far as where he place internal organs once again its natural positioning. He left it where it fell. He placed it on a convenient table, tossed it over their shoulder to get it out of his way. He was in a hurry remember. I will agree that the body parts found under MJK's head are harder to explain but looking at the picture you can see that if they were placed next to her head on the bed, then when her head is turned during/after the face mutilations its comes to rest over the body parts. (Thats someone elses explaination on another thread not mine I dont remember who posted it or on what thread but it is an alternate explaination.)

“Perhaps the later accounts of the bodily possition reported in the news? I still think the eye nicks, the arm in the abdomen, the skirts up, the intestines over the shoulder, although all maybe because of natural design, seem to add to the horror, which I feel were purposly put the way they were.”

Once again just the natural position of where it all fell and/or for his own satisfaction not to send a message, not to position the body for greater horror effect.

I don’t dismiss your theory, I actually agree with most of what you have said in this thread except the body positioning. I am open to changing my mind but I like you must see hard evidence, it must be something that supports the theory that can’t be explained any other way.

P.S. for those interested in the Black Dahlia, there are newly discovered photos of the crime scene posted on Rotton.com. (I don’t support that website because I think they post these pictures for sensational purposes) but the photos are very high resolution. Warning: these pictures are very graphic, very clear, and very chilling.

[corey123]

Smezenen,

First I have never said Jack possitioned the body the same way as the killer of Elizabeth Short, I had said, if you had read correctly, that thats what I would think Elizabeth Jackson would look like if she was killer by Jack the Ripper. In another words, all her viscera, or limbs, would be there, not dumped. Sorry if I was not clear enough.

Also, there was a sheet saturated in blood with many rips on its, so it is possible to have been devensive wounds.

My assumption is not even relavent to the thread, and has nothing to do with Jack the Ripper killing Elizabeth Jackson.

Also, I have plenty of enough evidence to say he possitioned the body.

I think to say that the arm was left in a "Natural possition" would have to rely on the fact that he added the cuts to the arm after all the previous mutilating of the abdomen, a fact we dont have.

I admit, it is possible that the bodies are laying in a natural possition, but I still see some aspects of the possitioned bodies in which could have given a sexual sadist pleasure.

Perhaps the later accounts of the bodily possition reported in the news? I still think the eye nicks, the arm in the abdomen, the skirts up, the intestines over the shoulder, although all maybe because of natural design, seem to add to the horror, which I feel were purposly put the way they were.

Yours truly

[smezenen]

Oh yea, he just held her arm through out the mutilations.

Good conclusion.

Thanks for your strong amount of evidence. I am sure it will be enough for some, but not for me. You failed to get what I was comparing Liz short to, I was stating that is how Liz Jackson would have looked if killed by Jack the Ripper.

Yours truly

p.s I am sure you can realize that they may be defensive wounds, done before mutilating the body.

If they where defensive wounds done before the heart stopped beating there would have been more bleeding present on the arms, since she is laying on her back that blood would have ran down her arm toward her shoulders, the lack of blood on her upper arms prove they were done after the heart stopped. That’s forensic science, provable thru trial and observation. That’s evidence not assumption or theory. The large wounds on her arm are not defensive.
I didn’t say he held her arm thru-out the mutilations, just when he mutilated her arm I’m sorry if that wasn’t clear enough for you.
WOW what an assumption to make that Jack would position a body the same way as another killer 59 years in the future.
There simply isn’t enough evidence to say Jack positioned/posed anybody for any reason. If he wanted to send a message by posing a body wouldn’t it have been dramatically evident? The evidence only shows that he left them where they fell when he was done.
Your assumption that a victim of Jack the ripper would look any other way than the way they were found is just that, an assumption, unsupported by fact or evidence

[corey123]

Oh yea, he just held her arm through out the mutilations.

Good conclusion.

Thanks for your strong amount of evidence. I am sure it will be enough for some, but not for me. You failed to get what I was comparing Liz short to, I was stating that is how Liz Jackson would have looked if killed by Jack the Ripper.

Yours truly

p.s I am sure you can realize that they may be defensive wounds, done before mutilating the body.

[smezenen]

Elizabeth Short (Black Dalia)
Evidence
1. She was killed somewhere else and her body moved to the location where it was found.
2. Her body was positioned so that her upper body was in proper relative position to her lower body.
conclusion = body was posed. Had the body been dumped without thought the two half’s would not have likely landed in the position they were found.

Mary Kelly's body
Evidence
1. She was killed and mutilated where she was found.
2. The body was lying naked in the middle of the bed, the shoulders flat but the axis of the body inclined to the left side of the bed. The head was turned on the left cheek. The left arm was close to the body with the forearm flexed at a right angle and lying across the abdomen. (From the post mortem of DR. Bond)
3. There is a large wound with a fair amount of flesh missing from the left arm (see attached picture)

conclusion = the arm resting in/over the abdominal cavity can be described as being in a natural position. The killer simply dropped the arm when he was done making the wound seen in the picture.


There is a lack of evidence proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that JTR posed his victims. Had he position Mary Kelly at the dinner table with fork and knife in hand as if she where sitting down to a candle light dinner with a trusted lover then I would agree that he posed them but the evidence just doesn’t support the theory.

[corey123]

Well we will see wont we Mr.Detective.

[Pontius2000]

I will stop infesting your thread now.

Good day.

thanks. that's what you said on your last post. now let's see if you're a man of your word.

[corey123]

Pontius,


So you are saying I am a mature adult and you an immature child? Because all you have said to my remarks is that I am wrong, all I have said to you is you dont have enough evidence but that it is possible.

If so, thanks for the comment.

I will stop infesting your thread now.

Good day.

[Pontius2000]

Pontius,

I am done arguing. I have said all the evidence against the case of jackson vrs. Ripper and you choose to ignore all but one of the pieces I have brought. You are ignorant of the many points I have stated and are full of yourself.

I refuse to talk with one like you, I have said what need be said and that is all.

Good day,
Mr.Detective.

p.s All the evidence availiable is not enough for court. You should know that if you are a cop. That is why we get no farther in identifying the murderer.

thank you. I am glad that you are done arguing because you have infested my thread with enough tripe.

for future reference, a civilized adult will say, "I do not agree", an immature child will say, "you are wrong". there's a difference between not agreeing with a theory and saying a theory is wrong. perhaps one day you will be mature enough to understand the difference.