Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A Victorian Apron Full of Questions...

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

  • #31
    [QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;n796836][QUOTE=BooksbyBJThompson;n796829]

    Maybe it's just me, but there's no way I'd know my way around body parts that shone wet inky-black in even a low light source.

    Does this mean anything?

    It means the killer did not remove the organs. and your own personal comments are spot on

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    No it doesn’t.
    Regards

    Sir Herlock Sholmes

    “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

    Comment


    • #32
      Should read ''My own personal theory is the killer did not remove the organs'' .

      The ''Truth'' is never as complicated in such a way as the abundance of theories going around these days.
      'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

      Comment


      • #33
        [QUOTE=Herlock Sholmes;n796837][QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;n796836]
        Originally posted by BooksbyBJThompson View Post

        Maybe it's just me, but there's no way I'd know my way around body parts that shone wet inky-black in even a low light source.

        Does this mean anything?

        No it doesn’t.
        Now how did I know you would pop out of the woodwork ?

        Could you after murdering a female, and in almost total darkness find your way round the inside of a blood filled abdomen to be able to find two vital organs, be able to take hold of them, despite them being wet and slippery and remove them in under 5 mins with a long bladed knife?

        I know I couldnt even after all these years of studying the location of these organs. But I could probably if the body was on a mortuary table with sufficient light available to me so I could see what I was doing. Bearing in mind this would be made easier due to the lividity of the body where all the blood left in the body sinks to the bottom half of the body, so given that I would not have a blood filled abdomen to hinder the removal as would those who removed the organs from the victims at the mortuaries making it easier for them.

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

        Comment


        • #34
          [QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;n796836][QUOTE=BooksbyBJThompson;n796829]

          Maybe it's just me, but there's no way I'd know my way around body parts that shone wet inky-black in even a low light source.

          Does this mean anything?

          It means the killer did not remove the organs. and your own personal comments are spot on

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

          stop misleading the noobs!
          "Is all that we see or seem
          but a dream within a dream?"

          -Edgar Allan Poe


          "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
          quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

          -Frederick G. Abberline

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Robert St Devil View Post

            hi abby. been awhile, currently in cali, doing my best to avoid the Stockton serial killer, seems like he’s causing his own autumn of terror round these parts.

            Haven’t read through this thread yet, so maybe it’s been mentioned before. However, your post inspired a random thought.

            taking “if’s” into consideration:

            at the eddowes inquest, inspector collard spoke of some of catherine’s items being found alongside her body (mustard tin, buttons). my questioning thought being, does the chalk belong to catherine?

            considering she is found with buttons, pins, needles, thimble… would chalk have been that random of a personal posession if, say, she had tendencies of sewing or tailoring?

            hey devil!
            good idea! sure he could have found chalk on her. perhaps thats what gave him the idea to cut her apron and write tje gsg!
            "Is all that we see or seem
            but a dream within a dream?"

            -Edgar Allan Poe


            "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
            quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

            -Frederick G. Abberline

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by BooksbyBJThompson View Post

              What level of injuries did Jackson & McKensie have compared to Kelly?

              Ripping to cutting off limbs - a pretty big jump. What makes you think those kills are connected?


              hi books
              is cutting off breasts, ears and noses, cutting out internal organs and cutting throats so deep as to almost decapitate so different from cutting off limbs? not to me it isnt.

              then you have the other connections of similar sig, victimology, time and place, unsolved and both end at the same time. then you have the very specific stomach flaps cut away in jackson, kelly and chapman.
              difference can be ascribed to not having his bolt hole available and or escaltion.

              added to that the rarity of two post mortem body parts removers in same town and time. the thought of two such cretins operating at the same time and place is too much a coincidence for me.

              now all that being said, i realize of course the differences could mean it wasnt the same man, i just lean heavily, say 75%, toward they were.
              Last edited by Abby Normal; 10-06-2022, 12:23 PM.
              "Is all that we see or seem
              but a dream within a dream?"

              -Edgar Allan Poe


              "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
              quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

              -Frederick G. Abberline

              Comment


              • #37
                [QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;n796845][QUOTE=Herlock Sholmes;n796837]
                Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                Now how did I know you would pop out of the woodwork ?

                My ‘nonsense alarm’ went off.

                Could you after murdering a female, and in almost total darkness find your way round the inside of a blood filled abdomen to be able to find two vital organs, be able to take hold of them, despite them being wet and slippery and remove them in under 5 mins with a long bladed knife?

                Under 5 minutes is simply a fabrication on your part. You have quite deliberately shrunk the time in an attempt to decrease the likelihood. The killer might easily have had 10 minutes.

                I know I couldnt even after all these years of studying the location of these organs.

                How long can it take to study the location of the organs Trevor? 20 seconds, 30 seconds, a bit longer?

                But I could probably if the body was on a mortuary table with sufficient light available to me so I could see what I was doing.

                Sequiera felt that there was sufficient light and he was there.

                Bearing in mind this would be made easier due to the lividity of the body where all the blood left in the body sinks to the bottom half of the body, so given that I would not have a blood filled abdomen to hinder the removal as would those who removed the organs from the victims at the mortuaries making it easier for them.

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                I couldn’t climb Everest or beat Magnus Carlsen at chess either Trevor but that doesn’t mean that it couldn’t be done. And as there’s not a single, solitary iota of evidence against this then we know that the killer managed to do it.

                Anyway…..back to the subject of the thread.
                Regards

                Sir Herlock Sholmes

                “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                Comment


                • #38
                  I wanna blame Trevor for shitting up another thread with his theory but more fool the rest of you for biting.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    #1: Maybe Jack didn't carry chalk, but Eddowes probably DID.

                    It's interesting how often opportunities where chalk would be used occur in the Ripper murders. Tailors certainly used chalk as did carters/porters.

                    Personal observation that might be pertinent: My mother (born 1914 in Kansas) loved to sew as a hobby. She came from a large family where she was the next to youngest and then had 3 girls closely-spaced, so having to repair hand-me-downs was important. She had several pieces of tailor's chalk in her basket. These were well-worn chunks of blue-colored chalk, about 2 inches on each side, but thinner. The chalk had kind of a more waxy feel to it than school chalk did (possibly a water-proofing additive). I don't know the origin, she may have gotten them from HER mother, whom I know virtually nothing about.

                    I don't remember colored chalk being widely available in my childhood ('60s-'70s). Do we know about different kinds/colors of chalk in the 1880s?
                    Last edited by C. F. Leon; 10-06-2022, 03:00 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Harry D View Post
                      I wanna blame Trevor for shitting up another thread with his theory but more fool the rest of you for biting.
                      I was merely answering a posters original question until polly parrot decided to get involved

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by BooksbyBJThompson View Post

                        Maybe it's just me, but there's no way I'd know my way around body parts that shone wet inky-black in even a low light source.

                        Does this mean anything?
                        Is this perp used to working at night?
                        Used to eviscerating guts at night?
                        (Ex. Stockyard killings done late at night in the East End?)

                        And as the Stride case goes, the killer wasn't thinking with his head -- that narrow entrance, no alternate exit without going through the club, zero light source, club packed -- I keep thinking Stride wasn't planned OR Jack needed to target Stride and couldn't locate her anyehere else, so he was forced to kill her there or not at all.
                        مرحبا كتب

                        for that matter...
                        you could also say he wasn't thinking with his head in regards to Chapman's murder location (no alternate exit, house filled with people, etc.). a step further, the stride murder location is less confined than the Chapman murder location (as in, the street - Berner Street - was more accessible to him from the IWEC passageway than Hanbury Street was from that backyard). However, I believe that the audacity of the crime speaks more towards his character as a serial killer rather than his cluelessness.

                        regarding your stockyard question...
                        i'm of the tendency that The Ripper had anatomical familiarity prior to the canonical series of murders in 1888. More so, I would favor the probability that The Ripper possessed human anatomical familiarities prior to the whitechapel murders. i can't discount "stockyard killings" or "butcher-shop, uh, butcherings" as possibly imparting The Ripper with the skill-craft knowledge to accurately identify & remove specific organs (uterus, kidney); however, my thoughts linger on details of the Chapman and Eddowes case.
                        The Ripper knew enough to dodge his blade around the navel in regards to his M.O. of eviscerating each woman; that, in itself, speaks on his familiarity of "dissection" in practice. However, where they differ is that he removed Chapman's belly in chunks whereas he simply sliced open Eddowes' belly. My personal belief is this difference in mutilation was directly in relation to Chapman being fat (more belly fat) and Eddowes being skinny (no belly fat).
                        Not an expert on stockyard killings or butcher-shop butcherings; still is it that much of a false assertion to claim that their professional manner of "eviscerating" a 'barnyard animal' probably didn't vary from one beast to the next based on whether or not the "horse, pig, whatever" was fat or not? No; I tend to think The Ripper had enough practice with the human form to differentiate his method based on body shape.
                        in regards to the casebook, i've learned to play probabilities over certainties. and, i've always ranked the "hannibal lecteresque" suggestion made by a professional criminal from 1888 high on my list of probabilities. The suggestion being that, Jack the Ripper had morgue knowledge.

                        regarding your "at night" questions...
                        his murder of catherine eddowes is a clear case of how he wasn't accustomed to working in the dark; the evidence being, how he incidentally both cuts through her intestine and jabs her liver when he is slicing her open. i can't purposely see any reason why he would have wanted her feces to spill out into her abdomen; proof being, how fecal matter is found on the removed part of the apron.



                        there,s nothing new, only the unexplored

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Robert St Devil View Post
                          i'm of the tendency that The Ripper had anatomical familiarity prior to the canonical series of murders in 1888.
                          Particularly if he had started another series of murders first.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Harry D View Post

                            Particularly if he had started another series of murders first.
                            there ya go!
                            "Is all that we see or seem
                            but a dream within a dream?"

                            -Edgar Allan Poe


                            "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                            quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                            -Frederick G. Abberline

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by BooksbyBJThompson View Post
                              I started my Ripper journey by binge listening to the Rippercast, virtually walking the streets - foot by foot - on Google Maps, and carefully dissecting the book, The London of Jack the Ripper: Then and Now by Philip Hutchinson and Robert Clack. With this grand triad of info, I have some questions. Maybe some of you learned folks can supply me with answers or better research ways of examining these issues and coming to estimated conclusions. Here goes. Answer all. Answer some. Answer none. Try and not rip the Messenger, i.e. me. ;-)

                              1) Goulston Street Graffito - why is Jack automatically carrying chalk? (Am I to assume he's created graffiti before? Why? Is he carrying chalk used on price signs because he was a Petticoat Lane merchant? There's not a lot to convince me here - time, purpose, risk vs reward - that the "Juwes" graffito was Jack's.)

                              8) Could this be the serial killer's signature? (Left hand on chest/torso? Head facing left? Chapman, Eddowes, Stride, Kelly) Any ideas as to its meaning?

                              13) Steve Blomer on July 21, 2019, podcast Inside Buck's Row - is 100% right. PC Mizen doesn't do anything wrong. Car men don't say Polly was attacked. No protocol breach needed as per an emergency. There is no conspiracy here. Charles Cross (Lechmere) is not the perp. This is a non suspect. Your thoughts?

                              15) What if Jack did voluntarily stop after Kelly? What if he was carrying out an art form only he could appreciate and Kelly was his magnum opus? Similar M.O. to the Black Dahlia killer?
                              1) I doubt the Goulston Street Graffito had anything to do with the Ripper. I also think the Ripper persona was created by newspapermen to sell more papers. There was a real serial killer, but we can't learn anything about him from the letters.

                              8) The Ripper's signature was very distinct. It was analyzed by experts.

                              13) Lechmere found the body, but there is no evidence that shows he was the killer. His actions are those of an innocent man or a stunningly stupid murderer. The timings of several of the other killings make him even less likely as a suspect.

                              15) While rare, there are examples of serial killers choosing to stop.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                                1) I doubt the Goulston Street Graffito had anything to do with the Ripper. I also think the Ripper persona was created by newspapermen to sell more papers. There was a real serial killer, but we can't learn anything about him from the letters.

                                8) The Ripper's signature was very distinct. It was analyzed by experts.

                                13) Lechmere found the body, but there is no evidence that shows he was the killer. His actions are those of an innocent man or a stunningly stupid murderer. The timings of several of the other killings make him even less likely as a suspect.

                                15) While rare, there are examples of serial killers choosing to stop.
                                So the writing that nobody came forward to say was there the day befor, a part of her apron that just happen to have Eddowes bloodstains on it, found right below where it was written !!

                                I doubt your doubt, and say it had everything to do with th Ripper murder of Eddowes.
                                'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X