Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Practicality or madness?

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

  • Originally posted by John G View Post
    As you note there is no mention of Rainham being eviscerated
    One paper - Lloyds Weekly 10 July 87 - does actually say something of the sort;

    "It will be recollected that the first piece found on the 11th of last May was the lower half of the bust of a well-developed woman of 27 or thereabouts; that the lower viscera had been carefully extracted, and that the thighs had been taken from their sockets."

    How accurate that recollection is, in the light of Hebbert's notes, is open to debate.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Harry D View Post
      The final torso being dumped in Ripper territory must bear some significance. The Thames Torso killer hadn't ventured that far east before. It was also close to the anniversary of Annie Chapman's murder. It would be rare enough for two gruesome serial killers to coexist in the same city, but once they overlapped in locality it becomes a game-changer imo.
      On the other hand, perhaps the deviation from the previous dump areas points away from this torso being part of a series?

      Comment


      • Harry, in modern times we can often see multiple serial killers co-existing geographically, in some cases co-operatively. I would be far more inclined to accept some line of thought that has one being influenced by the other, or to have some connection between both killers...maybe even killing together at some point, than I would be to entertain Jack the Ripper as Torso man, I don't se them as the same acts nor do I believe we have one killer of 10 or more victims. There is no need to assume that, and it would be statistically far less probable anyway.
        Michael Richards

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post

          On the other hand, perhaps the deviation from the previous dump areas points away from this torso being part of a series?
          Then we're complicating matters and throwing more killers into the mix. Within a few months in 1889, we had Elizabeth Jackson, Alice McKenzie, and the Pinchin St victim. It's stretching credulity to think that none of those murders were connected.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
            Harry, in modern times we can often see multiple serial killers co-existing geographically, in some cases co-operatively. I would be far more inclined to accept some line of thought that has one being influenced by the other, or to have some connection between both killers...maybe even killing together at some point, than I would be to entertain Jack the Ripper as Torso man, I don't se them as the same acts nor do I believe we have one killer of 10 or more victims. There is no need to assume that, and it would be statistically far less probable anyway.
            Let's see some examples, Michael, and how they compare to the Whitechapel/Torso series.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Harry D View Post

              Then we're complicating matters and throwing more killers into the mix. Within a few months in 1889, we had Elizabeth Jackson, Alice McKenzie, and the Pinchin St victim. It's stretching credulity to think that none of those murders were connected.
              We're alao complicating matters when we throw more victims into the mix, particularly as McKenzie doesn't remotely resemble Jackson or Pinchin Street.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Harry D View Post

                Let's see some examples, Michael, and how they compare to the Whitechapel/Torso series.

                Rather than discussing specific off topic serial killer records Harry I thought that a reminder of how often we might have these kinds of cases can be might address any concerns whether Whitechapel in 1888
                could have
                had multiple killers who exhibited similar levels of violence.

                Published for Live Science in April of 2018 by author Stephanie Pappas...."The FBI defines a "serial killer" as someone who murders two or more victims, with a cooling-off period between crimes.

                Hargrove, a retired investigative journalist, arrived at his estimate of about 2,000 at-large serial killers by asking some contacts at the FBI to calculate how many unsolved murders linked to at least one other murder through DNA were in their database, he explained to The New Yorker last year. Those officials determined that about 1,400 murders, or 2 percent of those in the database, met that classification.

                However, not all murder cases involve DNA evidence, and not all cases are reported to the FBI, so that 2 percent is a low estimate, Hargrove said. Two thousand is a ballpark figure, but the numbers shouldn't be a surprise, he said." There are more than 220,000 unsolved murders since 1980, so when you put that in perspective, how shocking is it that there are at least 2,000 unrecognized series of homicides?" he said. The most prolific serial killer of the modern era was probably Harold Shipman, an English doctor who may have murdered as many as 250 patients with fatal doses of painkillers. The 2,000 theoretical killers don't have to meet such a staggering standard, considering that killing a minimum of two victims in separate incidents meets the FBI definition of serial killer.

                By a far more conservative method of accounting, there are about 115 serial killers dating back to the 1970s in the United States whose crimes have never been solved. That estimate comes from Kenna Quinet, a criminologist at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis. It's based on linkages between cases made by journalists or law enforcement, and includes a slightly different metric than Hargrove's estimate: The killer had to have murdered at least three victims, not two
                ."


                From the FBI website, …"
                Most serial killers have a very defined geographic areas of operation. They conduct their killings within comfort zones that are often defined by an anchor point (e.g. place of residence, employment, or residence of a relative)."

                Again, from the FBI..."The validity of spree murder as a separate category was discussed at great length. The general definition of spree murder is two or more murders committed by an offender or offenders, without a cooling-off period. According to the definition, the lack of a cooling-off period marks the difference between a spree murder and a serial murder."

                Now look again at Polly to Annie....spree or beginning of a series?

                Spree. Serial. Mass murder. These definitions exist because we know that not all multiple kills means that the same man killed all by virtue of timing or geography.






                Michael Richards

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post

                  One paper - Lloyds Weekly 10 July 87 - does actually say something of the sort;

                  "It will be recollected that the first piece found on the 11th of last May was the lower half of the bust of a well-developed woman of 27 or thereabouts; that the lower viscera had been carefully extracted, and that the thighs had been taken from their sockets."

                  How accurate that recollection is, in the light of Hebbert's notes, is open to debate.
                  I'm finding this very confusing, and I do think Christer's raised an important point. Thus, Dr Hebbert refers to quite a modest abdominal injury in respect of Rainham, at least in relationvto Jackson or Whitehall, where the Torso was bisected. But if that was the case, how could the heart and lungs be missing? Moreover, if we're dealing with an hedonistic killer, such as an offensive dismemberer, why leave the sexual organs alone whilst focussing on the heart and lungs?

                  Comment


                  • Precedent is very easy to cite in respect of an argument. Let me have a go. There's never been a serial killer who's alternated between dismemberment murders and JtR style street murders. There's never been a serial killer who's carried one type of murder within a tiny geographical area, whilst committing another type of murder over a much wider area.

                    Comment


                    • Where is the greatest variation between all relevant characteristics we measure murders with in the Canonical Group "series"?
                      From Annie to Liz.

                      Does that then make a Spree killer for Polly and Annie more likely? Same characteristics, short interval between kills.
                      Michael Richards

                      Comment


                      • Just took a look at a random year and how many murders happened in that year when a known serial killer operated. Like 1977. Some cases...

                        Bianchi, Berkowitz, Hillside Strangler, Ed Edwards, Oakland County Child Killer, Richard Chase, Roger Kibbe, Joe Franklin, Angelo Buono, Oklahoma Girl Scout murders, Thor Christiansen, Rodney Alcala, Lorne Acquin, Lorenzo Gilyard…….these are just some of the men and cases that involved multiple victims in just 1977, in some cases the prosecuted killer, and some, still Unsolved. Many other cases that were not connected remain unsolved from that year.

                        Maybe that was a banner year, maybe the unreported and unconnected murders might link more cases with some men above, or some other as yet unknown killer or killers.

                        Now, in 1888 I believe London was the most populous city in the world. Likely one of the most crowded too, at least the East End was. Does that bode well for a single killer theory involving different kinds of attacks and victims, some severe.. some barely fatal. I would imagine statistics say no.
                        Michael Richards

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by John G View Post

                          Hi Christer,

                          As you note there is no mention of Rainham being eviscerated, however, I take your point regarding the issue of the missing lungs. However, I don't think the heart was missing-I quoted Dr Hebbert in an earlier post. He does say the lungs were absent, however, this is a bit confusing because a contemporaneous newspaper report states that they were found.

                          Hebbert dows not leave us in any douts at all, Im afraid: "The diaphragm was intact but the lungs, heart and other thoracic viscera were absent." So no heart, John.


                          Could you explain the issue of tbe torso being divided up into three parts? I don't believe the torso was bisected, for instance, and no injury to the abdomen apart from the one I referrred to earlier.

                          The Rainham torso was divided above through the fifth dorsal vertebra and below through the third lumbar vertebra. The top part was never recovered.
                          Jacksons torso was divided above between the seventh and eight dorsal vertebra and below under the thrid lumbar vertebra. So in both cases, there was a division in three, and in both cases, the midsection was the largest one.


                          Nonetheless, food for thought. I will have to think about this, particularly as the issue with the lungs seems a little odd to me.
                          Can you see why I ask my question, John? We KNOW that the thoracic organs were removed by the killer in Jacksons case. In the Rainham case, we only know that they were absent, and so they could either have been removed by the killer or they could have gone lost on their own account. So in one case we know, in the other, it is either or. Now, why would we not opt for the Rainham torso having been eviscerated once we are aware that this happened to Jackson??? Surely, that must be the only alternative that makes things dovetail with each other?
                          Last edited by Fisherman; 01-21-2020, 03:14 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by John G View Post
                            Just to correct my earlier post, 491. Dr Hebbert does refer to both the heart and lungs being absent ftom Rainham, although the pelvic organs were present. But see post 385 regarding the issue of the the lungs.
                            Ah! You noted it - good!

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post

                              One paper - Lloyds Weekly 10 July 87 - does actually say something of the sort;

                              "It will be recollected that the first piece found on the 11th of last May was the lower half of the bust of a well-developed woman of 27 or thereabouts; that the lower viscera had been carefully extracted, and that the thighs had been taken from their sockets."

                              How accurate that recollection is, in the light of Hebbert's notes, is open to debate.
                              Hebbert clearly states that the lower viscera was in place, so it seems a very shaky thing to believe in. It is nevertheless interesting; the mere matter that careful extraction was mentioned has me listening very much...

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post

                                On the other hand, perhaps the deviation from the previous dump areas points away from this torso being part of a series?
                                Then again, Hebbert was very clear on how the cutting was the exact same in just about every respect.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X