Elizabeth Jackson, JTR victim?

[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]

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".

[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]

[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]

[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

[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

[Edward]

Hello-
I believe that Jack did pose his victims. Just not as "eloquently" as some others have. I believe that some of Jack's "posing" was a consequence of his "work". His desire to reach the abdomen (most likely from between the vicitim's legs) necessitated drawing the legs up, and raising the clothing. A hand in the empty abdomen is fairly consistent.

Edward

[smezenen]

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

Sorry for the confusion I was trying to show the entire conversation so that it could not be said I took anything out of context. So as to clear it up, the dark red comments where my original questions and comments about YOUR post concerning the POSING of bodies Jack -VS- Dahlia Killer. The black are your replies to those comments, and the bright red are my rebuttals.

As for the discussion YOU are the one that started the Possing conversation on this thread See post #16, I understand you where using the posing comparison as evidence to show that in your opinion Jack did not kill Liz Jackson. I was only trying to point out that your evidence was flawed becouse you cant prove beyond a reasonable doute that Jack posed any of his victims bodies.

[smezenen]

Hello-
I believe that Jack did pose his victims. Just not as "eloquently" as some others have. I believe that some of Jack's "posing" was a consequence of his "work". His desire to reach the abdomen (most likely from between the vicitim's legs) necessitated drawing the legs up, and raising the clothing. A hand in the empty abdomen is fairly consistent.

Edward

Edward,
That’s my view also.

I think it helps when we make a distinction between posing and positioning.

Posing is to put the body into a position that would increase the horror effect or send a message or in other words to put the body in an purposely unnatural position . An example of posing would be to nail the corpse to a wall in the form of a cross or place it in a seated position at a dinner table.

Positioning is who the killer moves the body or body parts in order to accomplish his goal. In other word putting the body or parts of the body in a naturally incidental position. An example is the arm across the abdomen the intestines placed beside the body or tossed over a shoulder.

But as Cory mentioned this thread is for discussing whether Jack the Ripper murdered Liz Jackson. So I will start a fresh thread for the posing question.

[smezenen]

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

Edward,
It could be argued that Mary Kelly's murder taught Jack that he would have more time and could fully explore his obsession indoors and that’s why we don’t see any more outdoor murders. It may be that Saucy Jack began taking his victims to his place after MJK. Naturally if he takes them home and kills them there he would have to dump the bodies somewhere. Carrying an intact body around the East End to dump in the river, under a bridge, or in a basement under construction, would likely get him caught so he cut them into smaller pieces and transported them to his dumpng places. The fact that we dont find the head, legs, and trunk in the same places may be explained by saying he dumped those on different nights maybe over the course of a week.

There where abdominal mutilations on Liz's torso to include some interaction with the uterus. That organ specifically warrants at the very least a closer look.
See Debra Arif's excellent article. Http://www.casebook.org/victims/jackson.html
"The uterus had been opened on the left side by a vertical cut, six inches long, through the left wall."

While it was left in the body in this case, the uterus was seemingly one of Jacks favorite organs in the other killings.
Taking these possiblilities into account I don’t think it’s really such a long stretch to include the torso killings as POSSIBLE Jack the Ripper victims. It would however take more hard evidence to be positively proven.

[Edward]

Evolution?

Smezenen –

While I’ve been lurking on the casebook site for a while, I’m not as well versed as many of you are. I am of the mistaken impression that the Ripper murders and the Torso murders were concurrent. Were the two series consecutive? If so, there may have been an “evolution” to the madness.

Respectfully,
Edward

[corey123]

Edward,

The "Torso" series started befor the "Ripper" series and lasted well after that. They were two different killers.

Let me help you with picturing the two different murder sprees.
The torso murders where starting before Mary Ann Nichols died and ended well after Mary Kelly was killed.
The two different killers showed two distinctive M.Os.
And two differnet methods of disposal.
The victim type was the same.
In the torso murders, the abdominal wounds found were far less prominant than the wounds found in the C5.
There was no evidence to suggest in the torso killings that the victims died from a throat wound.
The ONLY way I would connect any of the murders were to be if the killer had multi personality disorder, one being Jack the Ripper, the other being the Torso killer.
That is not very likely, even less likely that both of the persons personalities were murdering.

So, the conclusion would have to be, most likely no.

Yours truly

[Edward]

corey123,

Thanks. As I wrote in post #66, to me, it seems to be the work of two murderers (for the reasons that I stated). I just wasn't clear on the timelines of the two series.

Edward

[corey123]

Edward,

Oh sorry. Well the timelines as I said are intersecting. It is rare to get two serial killers hunting in the same city at one time. That is exactly what was happening during the laiter part of the 19th century.

As I have said before, only four torso victims were found, however, due to that killers disposal methods I can bet there were more victims. I would feel it safe to double, even tripple the victim count from the Torso killer.

It is even possible that Mary Ann Nichols and Whitehall torso were killed on the same day.

Yours truly

[Natalie Severn]

Edward,
The truth is that the matter has still not been researched sufficiently.
There are a number of features regarding the Whitechapel "canonical" murders of 1888 and those of the "torso" murders,that are similar.
The first is that several doctors saw skill and anatomical knowledge in both the canonical murders and the Torso murders; they also noted missing internal body parts and that heads were nearly severed in the canonical murders.The Torso murders began with body parts being found in the river in May /June [some found in Victoria Embankment] 1887 continued in September 1888 [corpse found in Whitehall near River] and again in June 1889,torso found in Battersea Park near river,other parts in river,and again in September 1889 in Pinchin Street, close to Berner Street, Whitechapel.

The jury is out.

Best

Norma