Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Practicality or madness?

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

  • #91
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    I disagree control over what they do to the living ! before killing them

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    I find it kind of baffling that you seem to be unable to understand the concept, Trevor. Control is somehting you can exert over living AND dead people. Some of the killers amongst us actually prefer the latter type of control, many times on account of how they have felt deprived of any possibility to gain control over living people, creating a frustration that is quenched by how they kill people in order to gain total control.

    You can read up about this - if you are really interested in understanding how these people work. Gillis himself was very clear on it, and I did quote him:

    When interviewed by the police after being caught and confessing, the interviewer brought up the dismemberments, saying "Iīm talking about manipulating dead bodies", whereupon Gillis immediately latched on:
    "Thatīs an interesting term you used, thatīs exactly the way looked at it - and would it surprise you that the control of another beings limbs is a part of it?" he asked.


    Just like Abby says, Dahmer is another example. He was so afraid that the men he invited and had sex with would leave him that he killed them to disenable them to exert that form of control themselves. Once they were dead, Dahmer had full control of them, before, he had no such thing.

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

      well there were anatomy books and coincidentally the venus anatomical display at the museum just happened to close shortly before the first torso in 1873 which I find very interesting. he may have had some medical background or experience of cutting up animals if had any type of butchering, hunting experience.
      Which museum was this and how long was it exhibited there?

      I've been thinking for a while that the killer viewed these wax models but, apart from Paris in the mid-1880s, I haven't been able to find out when or where they were specifically exhibited in the late 19th century.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by Curious Cat View Post

        Which museum was this and how long was it exhibited there?

        I've been thinking for a while that the killer viewed these wax models but, apart from Paris in the mid-1880s, I haven't been able to find out when or where they were specifically exhibited in the late 19th century.
        hi curious
        I forgot the name of the museum, Fish probably knows it-but it was in London and closed the venus exhibit in 1873.
        "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


        • #94
          Dr. Kahn’s Anatomical and Pathological museum that displayed a venus was prosecuted and closed in 1873. There was also Cotton’s waxworks museum in the building at 123 Whitechapel Road, where Joseph Merrick was later exhibited after the space had been taken over by Tom Norman. Then there was the waxworks at 106/107 Whitechapel Road that displayed the wax figures of the Ripper victims.

          JM
          Last edited by jmenges; 01-02-2020, 08:30 PM.

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by jmenges View Post
            Dr. Kahn’s Anatomical and Pathological museum that displayed a venus was prosecuted and closed in 1873. There was also Cotton’s waxworks museum in the building at 123 Whitechapel Road, where Joseph Merrick was later exhibited after the space had been taken over by Tom Norman. Then there was the waxworks at 106/107 Whitechapel Road that displayed the wax figures of the Ripper victims.

            JM
            What is important to realize is that the wax museums were predominantly visited by the working class, and so we would for example have had quite a number of Whitechapel dwellers who were versed in anatomy. At Louis Kahnīs museum (the first to get closed after the law about obscenity had been driven through, and it was not just the Venus that was disallowed, it was all of the waxworks. The prosecutor asked for and was granted permission to smash the models himself), there were exhibition objects that were solely to be seen by professionals such as doctors, but it transpired that anybody who chipped in a little more money could take a peak. The go to book on all things wax is Joanna Ebensteins fantastic work from two or three years back. In it, she establishes that there was a period stretching for many, many decades during which there was always at least one anatomical Venus on display some place in London.
            And if Jack the Ripper/the Torso killer did not visit such an exhibition - or all of them, numerous times - I will merrily eat my hat. I look silly in hats anyway.
            Last edited by Fisherman; 01-02-2020, 09:34 PM.

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

              What is important to realize is that the wax museums were predominantly visited by the working class, and so we would for example have had quite a number of Whitechapel dwellers who were versed in anatomy. At Louis Kahnīs museum (the first to get closed after the law about obscenity had been driven through, and it was not just the Venus that was disallowed, it was all of the waxworks. The prosecutor asked for and was granted permission to smash the models himself), there were exhibition objects that were solely to be seen by professionals such as doctors, but it transpired that anybody who chipped in a little more money could take a peak. The go to book on all things wax is Joanna Ebensteins fantastic work from two or three years back. In it, she establishes that there was a period stretching for many, many decades during which there was always at least one anatomical Venus on display some place in London.
              And if Jack the Ripper/the Torso killer did not visit such an exhibition - or all of them, numerous times - I will merrily eat my hat. I look silly in hats anyway.
              thanks fish. were they all closed in the 73 timeframe?
              "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


              • #97
                Hello everyone,

                I'm new so go easy on me. I could agree with parts of what Fisherman has said.

                I think dismissing JTR as mad or insane is a serious mistake.

                There are many reasons to believe JTR was quite sane besides his M.O. he never drew enough attention or gave enough away to the Police to be charged. I realize that Policing was in its infancy but the fact remains.

                I also believe he had extreme hatred towards prostitutes and left them in pieces as not only a shock factor but to make them look like objects and not as people. Less than human. I dont believe there was anything sexual involved for him as none of the victims were sexually assaulted.

                As far as his being an organized or disorganized offender I believe he was quite organized. You only need look at the facts of he case for that. A crazy person imo would not act as JTR had, he would attack when he felt the urge and would be careless in his actions. Clearly JTR was not careless. He didn't even allow the victims to bleed on him as he strangled them to death before his unspeakable acts.

                While it is also true JTRs crimes escalated this shows me that he had not killed before the whitechapel crimes. As far as why he stopped he was no fool and believed the police were closing in. A mad person I don't believe could just stop.

                Thank you for going easy on me.

                MK114

                Comment


                • #98
                  I believe it was more a case of possession than control.Control to me would indicate more a mental condition than a physical one,and I presume a person would have to be alive for mental control.The taking of trophies,another physical characteristic of some killers,is an extension of that possession.One however cannot take into possession the mind of a dead person in the same way.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by MK114 View Post
                    Hello everyone,

                    I'm new so go easy on me. I could agree with parts of what Fisherman has said.

                    I think dismissing JTR as mad or insane is a serious mistake.

                    There are many reasons to believe JTR was quite sane besides his M.O. he never drew enough attention or gave enough away to the Police to be charged. I realize that Policing was in its infancy but the fact remains.

                    I also believe he had extreme hatred towards prostitutes and left them in pieces as not only a shock factor but to make them look like objects and not as people. Less than human. I dont believe there was anything sexual involved for him as none of the victims were sexually assaulted.

                    As far as his being an organized or disorganized offender I believe he was quite organized. You only need look at the facts of he case for that. A crazy person imo would not act as JTR had, he would attack when he felt the urge and would be careless in his actions. Clearly JTR was not careless. He didn't even allow the victims to bleed on him as he strangled them to death before his unspeakable acts.

                    While it is also true JTRs crimes escalated this shows me that he had not killed before the whitechapel crimes. As far as why he stopped he was no fool and believed the police were closing in. A mad person I don't believe could just stop.

                    Thank you for going easy on me.

                    MK114
                    hi mk
                    welcome and itll be very easy for me at least to go easy on you because i agree with everything you say. lol.
                    "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


                    • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                      thanks fish. were they all closed in the 73 timeframe?
                      No, it took years. And since Ebenstein tells us that there was always an anatomical Venus on display in London over the decades (and long after 1873, stretching, I believe, long into the 1900:s), it remains that some institutions never closed down. The law would foremost have been aimed at the circus type, if you like, of anatomical displays.
                      Last edited by Fisherman; 01-03-2020, 06:43 AM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by harry View Post
                        I believe it was more a case of possession than control.Control to me would indicate more a mental condition than a physical one,and I presume a person would have to be alive for mental control.The taking of trophies,another physical characteristic of some killers,is an extension of that possession.One however cannot take into possession the mind of a dead person in the same way.
                        No, of course you cannot mentally control a dead person - very true. But it nevertheless applies that you CAN control a dead person, and that control is total. You can take that person apart if you wish, you can engage in sex with him or her, you can even eat parts of him or her.
                        The dead person becomes a possession of yours, quite simply.
                        It seems Trevor Marriott has serious problems to undertand this concept, and maybe even you? Once again, we have Gillis telling us about how his control over his victims involved taking their limbs away, plus he never wanted them to be alive as he exerted that control - he quickly dispatched them, and he looked at that part of the deed as by and large uninteresting, something that he needed to do before he could do what he really wanted to do. He used his "objectifier" to turn them from living, breathing women to an object he could treat as he wished to.
                        That, Harry, is all about gaining and exerting total control. And there are those who are willing to risk everything to get that control.
                        Last edited by Fisherman; 01-03-2020, 06:37 AM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by MK114 View Post
                          Hello everyone,

                          I'm new so go easy on me. I could agree with parts of what Fisherman has said.

                          I think dismissing JTR as mad or insane is a serious mistake.

                          There are many reasons to believe JTR was quite sane besides his M.O. he never drew enough attention or gave enough away to the Police to be charged. I realize that Policing was in its infancy but the fact remains.

                          I also believe he had extreme hatred towards prostitutes and left them in pieces as not only a shock factor but to make them look like objects and not as people. Less than human. I dont believe there was anything sexual involved for him as none of the victims were sexually assaulted.

                          As far as his being an organized or disorganized offender I believe he was quite organized. You only need look at the facts of he case for that. A crazy person imo would not act as JTR had, he would attack when he felt the urge and would be careless in his actions. Clearly JTR was not careless. He didn't even allow the victims to bleed on him as he strangled them to death before his unspeakable acts.

                          While it is also true JTRs crimes escalated this shows me that he had not killed before the whitechapel crimes. As far as why he stopped he was no fool and believed the police were closing in. A mad person I don't believe could just stop.

                          Thank you for going easy on me.

                          MK114
                          First, I would like to welcome you to the boards. After that, I would point to two matters here where I do not agree with you.

                          The fact that there was no semen or any signs of sexual contact present in the Whitechapel murders as well as in the Torso ditto does not necessarily mean that the killings were not sexually motivated. There are those who cannot perform any sexual act as such, but who have a sexual drive nevertheless, just as there are those who CAN perform sexual acts but who prefer to take parts from people they kill and masturbate over them afterwards, reliving their crimes. Plus, of course, what we normally describe as sexual acts is not something all people will agree about. For some, it can be a sexual act to cut the thigh flesh away from a body.

                          Personally, I am more or less certain that the Ripper and the Torso killer were one and the same, and so I do not agree that the killer started his murderous work in 1888.

                          I can agree with many other things you say, though, and you make good points about how the killer was probably not outwardly mad.

                          Comment


                          • All that the killer(JTR) could control was his own actions.The victims were dead and unresponsive,therefor not in a position to accept or reject any act,or command a killer could impose.Unless of course it can be shown there was a time before death,where such a situation of contol of a victim by the killer existed.
                            Killers whose actions are of a contrlol nature,I consider are those who abduct and subject a victim to torture and deprivation before killing them.Such characteristics are lacking in the ripper crimes,but unknown in the torso killings.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by harry View Post
                              All that the killer(JTR) could control was his own actions.The victims were dead and unresponsive,therefor not in a position to accept or reject any act,or command a killer could impose.Unless of course it can be shown there was a time before death,where such a situation of contol of a victim by the killer existed.
                              Killers whose actions are of a contrlol nature,I consider are those who abduct and subject a victim to torture and deprivation before killing them.Such characteristics are lacking in the ripper crimes,but unknown in the torso killings.
                              Exactly well said !

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by harry View Post
                                All that the killer(JTR) could control was his own actions.

                                No, Harry. The killer could also control whether the arms and legs of the victim were to stay on the body or come off it. For example. he was in complete control of that body and could do whatever he wished to do with it. Once again, Gillis hgimself tells us that thgis was exactly what it was about:
                                "the interviewer brought up the dismemberments, saying "Iīm talking about manipulating dead bodies", whereupon Gillis immediately latched on:
                                "Thatīs an interesting term you used, thatīs exactly the way looked at it - and would it surprise you that the control of another beings limbs is a part of it?" he asked."

                                Can you see which word Gillis uses about cutting away the limbs of his victims? Exactly: control!
                                You said in your earlier post that you thought it was about possession, but the psychological term that applies here, and the one that is used by forensic psychologists is "control". Sexual crime is almost always about that - control. To take possession over the bodies is to take full control over them. So letīs not start a game of semantics if we can avoid it.
                                Hopefully, you can at the very least see the apparent similarities between Gillis and the Ripper deeds: the killers interest lies in the phase AFTER killing the victim, wherefore the murder as such is of no real interest to him - it is all about aqyuiring a body to control.


                                The victims were dead and unresponsive,therefor not in a position to accept or reject any act,or command a killer could impose.

                                And that is the very idea, Harry - there should be no hint of rejection from the victims side, there should be the total and final submission that comes with being a dead body. Once a person has it in himself to reject or protest, there is no 100 per cent control.

                                Unless of course it can be shown there was a time before death,where such a situation of contol of a victim by the killer existed.

                                All we know is that there are no signs of torture, there is a speedy deed and the victims never had any time to cry out. This is all in perfect line with the killer dispatching the victim dispassionately and quickly so as to be able to move on to the phase he came for.

                                Killers whose actions are of a contrlol nature,I consider are those who abduct and subject a victim to torture and deprivation before killing them.

                                Yes, those are killers who like to exert control - but why would we rule out the ones who choose to kill to exert control? Control is not solely about living people!

                                Such characteristics are lacking in the ripper crimes,but unknown in the torso killings.
                                Absense of evidence does not equate evidence of absense. Have a look at the 1873 victim. The medicos noted apparent muscle contraction to a degree that led them to speculate that the dismemberment was started while the victim was still alive. However, it was also found out that the bllod had been totally drained from the body, there was not a drop to be found in any vessel. The conslusion was that the killer must have hung his victim up and bled her off.
                                This means that he killed her (likely by the blows to the temple that were found) and then he strung her up, probably by her feet. He then cut the neck and drained the blood out completely by leaving he hanging. Aftyer that, he cut her down, and set about dismembering her - so close in time to her death that there was very apparent muscle contraction afterwards!
                                That, Harry, is not a killer who spends a lot of time beating about the bush. It is the same type of killer as Gillis, who takes care of the practicalities first to enable him to as swiftly as possible move on to the main course.

                                These are the indications throughout. There are no signs of any torture on the bodies in the Torso series, and so we have to speculate that there may perhaps have been mental torture involved. This we cannot deny is a possibility. But what we actually have before speculation away are two series of murders where it seems the killers were both eager to procure a dead body to cut into. And we also have clear signs of mutual interests of an utterly and extremely rare character.


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X