Practicality or madness?

[Kattrup]

thanks kattrup

2. im having a hard time coming up with any scenario where she could have gone to some private place quack dr to have an abortion and anything they tried causing her immediate death. i beleive debra stated in the past that any poison type scenario would not kill immediately but take days. same for trying to insert something through the vagina, yes could cause bleeding obviously but how would that kill her immediately?? even the brutal insertion that emma smith received didnt kill her immediately, and took sometime. i guess i could imagine something along the lines of an immediate allergic or shock happening which might lead to prolonged stay in the "office" and eventual death. but that would seem so rare to me.

From an earlier thread:

The process usually involved dilating the cervical canal or squirting some noxious substance into the womb, rather than trying to physically traumatise the foetus. This often led to extremely rapid collapse and death due to catastrophic haemorrhage, cardiac air embolus or profound hypotension and bradycardia as a reflex response to stimulation of the cervix by stretching.

It is very possible that an abortion procedure could lead to a rapid demise.

We do not know if that is what happened. But you challenged posters to present a reasonable abortion scenario.You don't have to disprove it, just concede that yes, it could have happened. Debra Arif has shown reports that EJ wanted to get rid of the pregnancy and the coroner in the case mentioned that it would have been possible for an abortionist to pull it off.
So it's not outlandish to suggest.

As said, others viewed EJ's death as related to three others, so obviously that invalidates the abortionist scenario. But you personally asked for a reasonable scenario. As shown, there is one.

[Fisherman]

Letīs assume that the kind of character I have outlined in numerous posts now was a poster with a solid record of presenting his own rather odd ideas as facts over the years; what if such a person was to claim that I should not speak of facts...?

One would laugh. Or cry. But laughing IS funnier!

Maybe such a poster could also call me an a**, claim that I am spiteful, disingenuous, inaccurate, misleading and insulting, and then add that people will not debate with me because I scare them away? Would that not be very precarious? I mean, if somebody is ready to call me names and spout out all sorts of accusations, would not THAT kind of a poster be much more likely to deter others from debating?

Maybe such a poster would not consider the fact that the threads which I create and/or participate in regularly attract many hundreds of posts - like this one? Maybe he would not understand that far from pointing to how people avoid debating with me, I am instead one of the posters out here who is MOST engaged in debates with other posters?

Could it be that such a poster would in fact be so misguided as to claim that he is performing some sort of cleansing duty by calling me names and piling insults on each other? Would he be a self-proclaimed equivalent of Travis Bickle in "Taxi Driver", thinking he was on a mission to purify Casebook?

Normally, I would say no. But one learns something new every day. And MY, does it detract from the debate that SHOULD be had here; instead of discussing the case, what is served is a large helping of horse manure, suited to do accommodate somebody who seemingly has nothing to show for himself but a weird hangup that has nothing at all to do with debating the case.

I would ask such a poster to try and get a grip of himself and to engage in factual debating about the case. That would really be all I could do for him.

[Michael W Richards]

Fisherman, please don't use the word "facts" when espousing your claims, and claiming support you most clearly do not have, most don't post their disagreement with you because of your insulting manner of addressing such posts, but I have no problem dealing with comments from you because, in many ways, they are just hilarious. Spiteful. Disingenuous, inaccurate, and misleading, sure...but none the less, hilarious.

Not 1 of the contemporary investigators side with you. Few if any current students do. And insults are only unpleasant or hurtful if the source of them wasnt such an a**. But you do have a point, why am I bothering with such a useless idea anyway. Maybe its an interest in having newer people not mislead that keeps me dealing with some that seem to have an agenda to do so.

Maybe well bump into a thread that has its basis in fact next time.....

[Fisherman]

Maybe that somebody will resurface and try and shift the focus by saying that he agrees with everybody who do not think there is a link between the Ripper murders and the torso ditto, instead of realizing that what I ACTUALLY pointed out was that the character I spoke of may perhaps make the odd claim that all the evisceration victims in the two series, four in all, were killed by different people. Who knows? It would be laughable of course, but who knows? One sees all sorts of odd characters out here.

If that should happen, I can once again point to how it is sad if somebody who would rightfully be regarded as something of a joke by the rest of the boards on account of such a weird stance, actually was to think (well...) that he is in a position to claim that almost all "Ripper academicians" (whatever THAT would be...?) disagrees with me about a common killer. In fact, I think that fewer than a dozen posters have made their voice heard to disagree with me, whereas a number of other posters agree that much points my way.

Then again, would the kind of poster I am outlining here be interested in the facts? Or even recognize a fact if he saw it close up? Not very likely, no. He or she would be much more likely to follow his or her own well trodden path of shame, being led on a leash by sheer frustration.

One can only hope that this kind of poster would assert that he or she is not going to go on posting on this thread. Not that he or she is likely to come good on such a promise, but one can always dream...

[Michael W Richards]

Letīs see, is it possible that some character out here would claim that I am suggesting that everyone else here is wrong so that I can be right? And could it perhaps be a character who himself suggests that just about everyone else here is wrong so that he can be right about how the eviscerations victims in the two series were all killed by different people?
Surely, noone would be THAT presumptious...?

Then again, if one wants to go searching for somebody who is willing to combine a serious lack of insight with a desire to insult those who point that ignorance out, then I think there are few arenas better suited for that search than these boards.

Again you either misread or intentionally misrepresent, I should be getting used to it by now, but Ive been hopeful that an adult will resurface. I don't think everyone else is wrong Fisherman, Ive been saying quite the opposite actually, in fact I agree with ALL the contemporary investigators and almost all the Ripper academicians who believe that there are no links beyond a coincidental timing that Fall between Torsos and Rippers in London. Its just you that is wrong.

Funny how you would try and claim Ive said the exact opposite.

[Fisherman]

Letīs see, is it possible that some character out here would claim that I am suggesting that everyone else here is wrong so that I can be right? And could it perhaps be a character who himself suggests that just about everyone else here is wrong so that he can be right about how the eviscerations victims in the two series were all killed by different people?
Surely, noone would be THAT presumptious...?

Then again, if one wants to go searching for somebody who is willing to combine a serious lack of insight with a desire to insult those who point that ignorance out, then I think there are few arenas better suited for that search than these boards.

[Michael W Richards]

No, not frustration Fisherman, you misread me...its just appalling to me when someone suggests that everyone else is wrong just so they can be right. Its the arrogance of that that is so odious, thats all. But you seem fine with dousing yourself in that same stink over and over again, so maybe I just need to move along from this alley. Get some fresh air.

Thanks though for answering my question a while back...so that would be NONE of the contemporary investigator saw any possible links from the Ripper series to the Torso series. They coincided at a point in time is all.

Ill sign off this thread before the next dousing.

[Fisherman]

Now, what if somebody who had been informed that the crime of offensive dismemberment was not understood in 1888 still persisted to claim that the police and medicos would nevertheless have been right about the murders on account of having been "closest to the crimes"? As if being physically close to something that you cannot understand will make you a lot wiser.
I would say that such a post was nothing but a further waste of space.

And, of course, I would once again suspect that frustration was the underlying factor that produced such a post. I would not be surprised if it was coupled with accusations about me of thinking that I am somehow "superior". That is what often happens when somebody does not have the factual arguments to win a debate; itīs all about frustration.

Of course, if such a frustrated person would move on to claiming that it would take most persons less than five minutes to know that I am wrong, it would not look good if the frustrated person himself had spent hours and days on me, getting absolutely nowhere...

[Michael W Richards]

Actually, if somebody was to ask me the question: "How many of the men investigating one or both of these series believed there was a link of the series by the injuries inflicted on the victims?", I think I would answer that question in two ways.

First, I would point to how I repeatedly have said that there was virtually no chance that anybody in 1888 would think that the series were related for the simple reason that offensive dismemberment was not an identified paraphilia back then. When dismemberment occurred, it was ALWAYS reasoned that a wish to dispose of the parts or to hide the identity of the victim were the only underlying reasons. Therefore, we need not worry about how the victorians did not identify the series as connected - they were never going to do that.
A VERY interesting matter to look at in the context is Hebbert, who was as eager as anybody else to make a case for the torso murders being examples of a wish to dispose of the parts and to hide the identoty of the victims. In order to point out how very different the Ripper was, Hebbert speaks about how the Ripper was about destroying and desecrating his victims, and to really bring that message home, he writes that this hideous killer "even took out organs from his victims". This supposedly is the pinnacle of evil in Hebberts mind, but when pointing it out, he forgets that he himself has put his name to a paper where it is estblished that the Torso killer ALSO took out organs - he cut out the uterus, lungs and heart from the body of Elizabeth Jackson! And he may well have done much the same in the Rainham case, where heart and lungs were missing.

So the torso killer ALSO did that hideous thing: he removed organs. But in Hebberts mind, that was part of a defensive dismemberment (although Hebert was not aware of the term as such).

That is one of the things I would point out.

The other things I would point to is how some posters seem to think it is okay to push the idea that the police and medicos in 1888 must have been correct about two killers for the series, while at the same time they forward the idea of at least three, possibly four killer for the Ripper series, whereas MacNaghten said "The Ripper had five victims and five victims only" and Dr Bond asserted that the five murders Macnaghten spoke of wee unquestionably the work of the same killer.
What happens to the quality of the argument when the nposters who make it are willing to believe 100 per cent in the police and medicos in one case and then they throw the same sources to the wind in the next second?

Some small insights in the contemporary knowledge (or lack of it) of the driving forces behind the kind of murders we are dealing with, coupled with a little consistency and honesty in making an argument would be refreshing.

Again it seems all the other opinions, even ones that came from people closest to the crimes and with access to documents we will never see, are wrong. The truth is that they didn't associate both the series with one killer because there wasn't any evidence to warrant that position. As for this line..."Some small insights in the contemporary knowledge (or lack of it) of the driving forces behind the kind of murders we are dealing with, coupled with a little consistency and honesty in making an argument would be refreshing", it now appears your unique opinion about why these cases should be conjoined comes from a superior understanding of the driving forces behind such things.

Your superior understanding is actually based on your beliefs, not on any evidence, and the overwhelming majority of people who have investigated and/or studied these cases wouldn't have had to have spent more than five minutes looking at this idea of yours to know it has no value here.

[Fisherman]

Post 818 is apparently Mr Marriotts idea of how a civil debate is upheld. I will not report the post to the administration of the boards, although it would undoubtedly result in a ban. I find that reporting him would imply that I actually took interest in or was in any way hurt by anything Trevor Marriott has to say. And neither of those things are correct, which is why I will not waste any time with it. If he thinks it is okay to claim mental issues on part of those he cannot win a debate with, then that is his problem, not mine.

[Trevor Marriott]

I feel that may very well be true, Christer.

If the opportunity presents itself, it would indeed be nice to meet you in the flesh!

Visiting days at the mental institution are Mondays Wednesday and Fridays by appointment only

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FrankO]

If it was not for my suggestions about how the 1873 torso murder and Kellys murder are connected, I think we may very well have been at the exact same spot, Frank.

I feel that may very well be true, Christer.

It would be good to meet you some day, if the opportunity comes along!

If the opportunity presents itself, it would indeed be nice to meet you in the flesh!

[Trevor Marriott]

Just about every effort to speak for two or more killers uses the method of isolating a single victim, a single damage, a single detail and then an alternative explanation is used to try and explain away a matter.
In this case, it is about isolating Jackson from the other three torso victims of 1887-1889.

The main problem with this approach is that there is no evidence at all that encourages such a line. The one reason for trying to do so seems to be that it helps those who favour two killers if we allow for Jackson having been a one-off. A one-off, that is, who had the misfortune of running into a clumsy abortionist who not only kiled her, but also dismembered her and spread the parts on land and in water, clad in Jacksons own clothes, who thought that it would facilitate to take out her uterus if he first cut away the abdominal wall, who proceeded to cut the foetus out of the uterus once he had gotten that far, who took out the heart and lungs for good measure, and who - unwittingly - just happened to copy an earlier murder in the series, not only when it comes to the organs taken out (heart and lungs) but also as regards the partition of the torso in three sections.

Moreover, as he did this, he - again unwittingly - happened to cut in a fashion that was exactly reminiscent of how the other three bodies were cut, technically speaking. Hebbert very clearly laid down that the cutting work was in just about every aspect the exact same in the four cases. And as we know, it was not just any cutting work, ā la the phrase "there are only so many ways in which a body can be cut up" - it was instead cutting that had Dr Galloway, who examined the Rainham victim, speaking about an incredibly skilful cutting, more skilled than any surgeon could have achieved, with straight angles and clean, unjaded cuts.
This was how the four victims were cut up and that was what enabled Hebbert to say that the killer was one and the same in all four cases.

The revisionists out here, however, cannot accept to have a series of four, because that would dissolve the idea about an illegal abortionist doing the rounds in Battersea Park and at the Shelley house, tossing pieces of his sadly demised patient all over the place and floating some of them down the Thames.

Jackson is the worst possible news to the ones proposing two different killers. She has to go, therefore. Thatīs the kind of reasoning we are looking at.
Of course, at the other end of the spectre, we have those who find the Pinchin Street victim the dangerous one, on account of the geographical connotations, and who prefer to have her stricken of the list.

Itīs all a matter of which victim is regarded the most damning one for the two killer theory, but the remedy is nevertheless the exact same: quick, get her out of here!

If you accept Jackson was not murdered by a serial killer despite her body being cut up, and accept the reason for that was to hide her identity and for it not to be traced back to a back street medico.

Then without any evidence to prove that the others were murdered you have to ask serious questions as to what happened to all of them to cause their deaths. Could they also have all died under similar circumstances bearing in mind they were all young women, who were perhaps being treated for some condition or they simply thought they were pregnant and were given a noxious substance which killed them.

As has been fully documented the reason for the evisceration would have been to remove organs and sell them on. In Victorian times nothing went to waste not even body parts.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

i do however concede there could be a minute chance she wasnt tied to the other torsos and it was as you say, but so minute as to be highly improbable.almost impossible.

Just about every effort to speak for two or more killers uses the method of isolating a single victim, a single damage, a single detail and then an alternative explanation is used to try and explain away a matter.
In this case, it is about isolating Jackson from the other three torso victims of 1887-1889.

The main problem with this approach is that there is no evidence at all that encourages such a line. The one reason for trying to do so seems to be that it helps those who favour two killers if we allow for Jackson having been a one-off. A one-off, that is, who had the misfortune of running into a clumsy abortionist who not only kiled her, but also dismembered her and spread the parts on land and in water, clad in Jacksons own clothes, who thought that it would facilitate to take out her uterus if he first cut away the abdominal wall, who proceeded to cut the foetus out of the uterus once he had gotten that far, who took out the heart and lungs for good measure, and who - unwittingly - just happened to copy an earlier murder in the series, not only when it comes to the organs taken out (heart and lungs) but also as regards the partition of the torso in three sections.

Moreover, as he did this, he - again unwittingly - happened to cut in a fashion that was exactly reminiscent of how the other three bodies were cut, technically speaking. Hebbert very clearly laid down that the cutting work was in just about every aspect the exact same in the four cases. And as we know, it was not just any cutting work, ā la the phrase "there are only so many ways in which a body can be cut up" - it was instead cutting that had Dr Galloway, who examined the Rainham victim, speaking about an incredibly skilful cutting, more skilled than any surgeon could have achieved, with straight angles and clean, unjaded cuts.
This was how the four victims were cut up and that was what enabled Hebbert to say that the killer was one and the same in all four cases.

The revisionists out here, however, cannot accept to have a series of four, because that would dissolve the idea about an illegal abortionist doing the rounds in Battersea Park and at the Shelley house, tossing pieces of his sadly demised patient all over the place and floating some of them down the Thames.

Jackson is the worst possible news to the ones proposing two different killers. She has to go, therefore. Thatīs the kind of reasoning we are looking at.
Of course, at the other end of the spectre, we have those who find the Pinchin Street victim the dangerous one, on account of the geographical connotations, and who prefer to have her stricken of the list.

Itīs all a matter of which victim is regarded the most damning one for the two killer theory, but the remedy is nevertheless the exact same: quick, get her out of here!

[Abby Normal]

1. She may have gone on her own, without the boyfriend, or as you said with friends. I don't recall her having family close but I don't have her details present.

2. Why do you think a potion would take days to kill her?

she could have died quickly. From actual poison or from an allergic reaction or blood loss from hemorrhage.

3. The places her body parts were dumped were not places anyone could know she,d be found. That is merely yours and Fisherman's baseless theory. Because the body parts were found, the killer wanted them found? Not very convincing.

4. No family need have been involved.

Now, one has to consider that Hebbert and Monroe considered EJs case linked to others. So I'm not saying the abortion scenario is what happened.

But you asked for a reasonable abortion scenario. It should be noted that the coroner entertained this theory.

thanks kattrup

2. im having a hard time coming up with any scenario where she could have gone to some private place quack dr to have an abortion and anything they tried causing her immediate death. i beleive debra stated in the past that any poison type scenario would not kill immediately but take days. same for trying to insert something through the vagina, yes could cause bleeding obviously but how would that kill her immediately?? even the brutal insertion that emma smith received didnt kill her immediately, and took sometime. i guess i could imagine something along the lines of an immediate allergic or shock happening which might lead to prolonged stay in the "office" and eventual death. but that would seem so rare to me.

3. i have biggest problem with this one. obviously if above scenario happened, the "dr" would want to get rid of her body and hide id as much as possible, as she could be tied to him. it would be reasonable for said quack dr to assume she probably told someone she was going to see him. but even if not he still would want to try to make her disapear and not be ided as much as possible. leaving parts of her body with her clothes still on, dumping her torso in a park, some in the river, a leg in the shelley estate garden (when the river is on the other side of the road and a much safer place to dump) just dosnt make any sense at all, unless the killer did it for reasons other than trying to hide. more than likely these odd, public and scattered pattern has more to do with the killer doing it for there own weird psychological reasons.

taken with the fact that none of the other linked torsos involved pregnancies, that the killer also cut out the baby and other internal organs, and the odd and public way her parts were dumped all point to a post mortem serial killer and not a quack back street abortionist who jacked up an "operation". it really should be obvious isnt it kattrup?

i do however concede there could be a minute chance she wasnt tied to the other torsos and it was as you say, but so minute as to be highly improbable.almost impossible.