Originally posted by Fisherman
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
The strange and horrible case of Ruth Jenkins
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Michael W Richards View PostWhen you bait the hook as you did Fisherman, by using details from individual murders and culling them under one mans work, its difficult to play along. You've cited details from individual murders, not just the details from a murder we can safely say was committed by the character who was known as The Ripper, Annie Chapmans. Yes the flaps are there, and the intestines over the shoulder, and the missing organs...but in that murder there was no facial marking...only in Kate and Marys murders, no organs placed under the head...as in Mary's murder, and no mention of items placed about the body or the fact that this Ripper fellow cuts throats deeply twice.
So the above example wouldn't lead a true investigator to anyone, let alone 2 characters who engaged in very different activities.
If Ruth Jenkins murder had the attributes of Annie Chapmans murder, then you have a storyline. Throwing acts into the mix that we cannot say with any certainty represent what we had learned about the killer to that point in time doesn't help.
On this point Ill say that for anyone to compare The Torso Acts with the Rippers act the samples should be from any Torso murder and Annie Chapmans murder, the ONLY one of the Five that is certainly a murder that virtually everyone attributes to this Ripper fellow.
Comment
-
-
-
-
Originally posted by harry View PostJust a question Fisherman.Why would she tell her husband where she was going?
Comment
-
Now, lets change the story:
Ruth Jenkins was a typical East End woman, 36 years old, married and living in a small flat with her husband and two young boys in Mile End Road. On the night of October 14, 1888, she quarelled with her husband, and he threw her out at 1.30 AM. Mrs Jenkins then set off for a friends lodgings in Edward Street (having said this to her husband as she left), but she never made it there.
The day after she disappeared, her full torso was found floating in the Thames, head, arms and legs missing, and wrapped in cloth that had been tied around the torso with some string. Over the next few days, her mutilated remains were found one by one, but for the head, all of them between Canary Wharf and Woolwich. Following the post-mortem, it was disclosed that the woman had had had her abdomen ripped open from ribcage to pubes before the division of the body was made, and the intestines had apparently been cut loose from their attachments. The abdominal wall had been cut largely away in three panes, two of which were found in a parcel together with the uterus. All of the internal organs were in place except the beforementioned uterus and the liver. The latter had been removed, apparently by the killer. The cause of death was believed to be bleeding from the arteries in the neck.
A particularly disturbing find was a nosetip, two ears and what is believed to be cut away skin from the forehead, wrapped up in a parcel formed by the third flap of the abdominal flesh cut away from Jenkins, rolled into cloth and tied up.
A search and interviews along the stretch from Mrs Jenkins Mile End Road home and Edward Street has turned up nothing. Nobody professes to have seen the poor woman, and the mystery is total.
So - who killed her?
The Ripper?
The Torso killer?
The combined Ripper and Torso killer?
Or somebody else?Last edited by Fisherman; 10-12-2017, 02:38 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Fisherman View PostNow, lets change the story:
Ruth Jenkins was a typical East End woman, 36 years old, married and living in a small flat with her husband and two young boys in Mile End Road. On the night of October 14, 1888, she quarelled with her husband, and he threw her out at 1.30 AM. Mrs Jenkins then set off for a friends lodgings in Edward Street (having said this to her husband as she left), but she never made it there.
The day after she disappeared, her full torso was found floating in the Thames, head, arms and legs missing, and wrapped in cloth that had been tied around the torso with some string. Over the next few days, her mutilated remains were found one by one, but for the head, all of them between Canary Wharf and Woolwich. Following the post-mortem, it was disclosed that the woman had had had her abdomen ripped open from ribcage to pubes before the division of the body was made, and the intestines had apparently been cut loose from their attachments. The abdominal wall had been cut largely away in three panes, two of which were found in a parcel together with the uterus. All of the internal organs were in place except the beforementioned uterus and the liver. The latter had been removed, apparently by the killer. The cause of death was believed to be bleeding from the arteries in the neck.
A particularly disturbing find was a nosetip, two ears and what is believed to be cut away skin from the forehead, wrapped up in a parcel formed by the third flap of the abdominal flesh cut away from Jenkins, rolled into cloth and tied up.
A search and interviews along the stretch from Mrs Jenkins Mile End Road home and Edward Street has turned up nothing. Nobody professes to have seen the poor woman, and the mystery is total.
So - who killed her?
The Ripper?
The Torso killer?
The combined Ripper and Torso killer?
Or somebody else?
1st example :
Very Much the Ripper.
Issue of date is unimportant, day of week is of more interest,
2nd example.
A person with at the feel least knowledge of how to Butcher a carcass.
The alleged opening up before dismemberment is important in this regards.
It is also a very practical approach to process of dismemberment.
(One assume the claim is made as the cut is evident on two sections of the bodyAlso I am not sure how the neck wounds could be determined as cause of death at PM; but that is not the business of this thread I beleive. ).
If the dismemberment was carried out with skill, such has described in the genuine TK cases , we do not know given it is not mentioned and such cannot therefore be used to compare it.
I therefore suggest this is the work of the TO.
STEVE
Comment
-
Originally posted by Fisherman View PostNow, lets change the story:
Ruth Jenkins was a typical East End woman, 36 years old, married and living in a small flat with her husband and two young boys in Mile End Road. On the night of October 14, 1888, she quarelled with her husband, and he threw her out at 1.30 AM. Mrs Jenkins then set off for a friends lodgings in Edward Street (having said this to her husband as she left), but she never made it there.
The day after she disappeared, her full torso was found floating in the Thames, head, arms and legs missing, and wrapped in cloth that had been tied around the torso with some string. Over the next few days, her mutilated remains were found one by one, but for the head, all of them between Canary Wharf and Woolwich. Following the post-mortem, it was disclosed that the woman had had had her abdomen ripped open from ribcage to pubes before the division of the body was made, and the intestines had apparently been cut loose from their attachments. The abdominal wall had been cut largely away in three panes, two of which were found in a parcel together with the uterus. All of the internal organs were in place except the beforementioned uterus and the liver. The latter had been removed, apparently by the killer. The cause of death was believed to be bleeding from the arteries in the neck.
A particularly disturbing find was a nosetip, two ears and what is believed to be cut away skin from the forehead, wrapped up in a parcel formed by the third flap of the abdominal flesh cut away from Jenkins, rolled into cloth and tied up.
A search and interviews along the stretch from Mrs Jenkins Mile End Road home and Edward Street has turned up nothing. Nobody professes to have seen the poor woman, and the mystery is total.
So - who killed her?
The Ripper?
The Torso killer?
The combined Ripper and Torso killer?
Or somebody else?"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
Comment