Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

JTR: Not even the skill of a butcher?

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

  • #31
    But I also dont think its impossible that this man had some rudimentary knowledge of surgery.....in which case a Tumblety type might fit the bill. And "Burke and Hare" might not be ludicrous.

    Right this way, Mr. Chapman.

    c.d.

    Comment


    • #32
      I find it very hard to believe that the Ripper was a "lucky dip" kind of man, who just slashed his way in stuck his hand inside the victims body had a feel and grabbed whatever felt good at the time.

      I think there, from the pure speed of the killings and the fact that they were fast considering the lack of light and the fact the majority of the killings were done outdoors during police patrols were he could of been caught at any given moment, that he went there knowing what he wanted and how to get it, to what degree of skill or knowledge he had is unknown, but i think its almost impossible to rule it out.

      I also think the excessive mutilations could of been a ploy to throw police off the track and make them think they are after some wacko insane killer who likes to do a slash and grab, its also possible i'm wrong but it does explain why in one instance there looks like he has skill or knowledge and other times it looks like he is just mutilating for fun.

      Comment


      • #33
        Hi cd,

        Hows the leg today? I read you on that comment....who knows? To my untrained eye Chapman seems like a completely different kind of creature, who kills for "gains"...but if Burke and Hare had any validity, he did have the rudimentary knowledge, and so there was possible financial gain.

        I think its very possible that Jack didnt mind killing outdoors at all, because the opportunities were there for "specimens" after midnight...and maybe all he wanted to do was lift the skirts, cut out his objective, and leave, after they were agreeable to that process...as in dead.

        If he starts a process that he know he can accomplish in less than 5 or 6 minutes, and the abdominal organs are all he really wants, what need is there for indoor privacy?

        "I also think the excessive mutilations could of been a ploy to throw police off the track and make them think they are after some wacko insane killer who likes to do a slash and grab,......"

        I think you just described the Kelly murder above JC.

        My best regards.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by perrymason View Post
          Hi cd,

          Hows the leg today? I read you on that comment....who knows? To my untrained eye Chapman seems like a completely different kind of creature, who kills for "gains"...but if Burke and Hare had any validity, he did have the rudimentary knowledge, and so there was possible financial gain.

          I think its very possible that Jack didnt mind killing outdoors at all, because the opportunities were there for "specimens" after midnight...and maybe all he wanted to do was lift the skirts, cut out his objective, and leave, after they were agreeable to that process...as in dead.

          If he starts a process that he know he can accomplish in less than 5 or 6 minutes, and the abdominal organs are all he really wants, what need is there for indoor privacy?

          "I also think the excessive mutilations could of been a ploy to throw police off the track and make them think they are after some wacko insane killer who likes to do a slash and grab,......"

          I think you just described the Kelly murder above JC.

          My best regards.

          Hi Michael,

          Thanks for asking about the knee. Off the crutches and using a cane with the leg brace. Did laundry and went to the grocery over the weekend. Small tasks but they were hard to do.

          As for indoor privacy, Jack gets to do whatever he wants to do to his victim. from a practical aspect, it simply might have been that he was anxious about the increased police presence on the streets and felt safer inside.

          As for the excessive mutilations to throw the police off the track...when was enough enough? Was there really a need to cut the flesh off the thigh, rip out intestines and cut off her breasts? All those things took time. The point had been made long ago (that this appeared to be a Ripper crime) so get the hell out of there as fast as you can.

          c.d.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by c.d. View Post

            As for the excessive mutilations to throw the police off the track...when was enough enough? Was there really a need to cut the flesh off the thigh, rip out intestines and cut off her breasts? All those things took time. The point had been made long ago (that this appeared to be a Ripper crime) so get the hell out of there as fast as you can.

            c.d.
            I think you are making my point for me....there was no objective in the stripping of flesh other than that, there was no objective in the slashing of the face other than obscuring her ID, or just venting....he had no real objective for all of the abdominal organs and glands he cuts out and off, so he just puts them around the body, sort of like what he read Jack did.

            He doesn't finish the thigh stripping, he doesn't have any real reason to hollow her out if he only really wanted her heart, and he takes approximately, at least, 4 to 6 times the amount of minutes he took with his most thorough outdoor job. And left behind one specific organ that the killer took twice before.

            Take care of the knee pal.
            All the best.

            Comment


            • #36
              Hi JC007,

              I think there, from the pure speed of the killings and the fact that they were fast considering the lack of light and the fact the majority of the killings were done outdoors during police patrols were he could of been caught at any given moment, that he went there knowing what he wanted and how to get it
              How does a lack of light coupled the speed with which he extracted the organs indicate that he knew "what he wanted and how to get it"? If I visited an English beach at the dead of night, quickly plunged my arm into the nearest rockpool and pulled out a starfish or a muscle, would that indicate that I was deliberately seeking a starfish or a muscle? Or was I just rummaging until my hand alighted upon something of interest?

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Ben View Post

                If I visited an English beach at the dead of night, quickly plunged my arm into the nearest rockpool and pulled out a starfish or a muscle, would that indicate that I was deliberately seeking a starfish or a muscle? Or was I just rummaging until my hand alighted upon something of interest?
                That depends entirely on your motivation doesnt it Ben, but I would say that one answer may be that you stuck your hand in that rockpool because you assumed or knew that you'd likely find a starfish or mussel in there...and maybe have been content with either.

                Was he just sticking his knife and hands in, cutting anything free....or did he have an objective, or more than one..that may be revealed in the results? Like perhaps Robbery and Internal Female organs, as an example? Did he know he had a kidney instead of a female specific organ from Mitre Square....the writer of the Lusk letter knew, but did that killer? Maybe he thought he had a "mussel" instead of a "starfish" but the mere fact that it came from inside a womans abdomen made it possible it was something he wanted?

                My best Ben as always.
                Last edited by perrymason; 03-24-2008, 09:29 PM.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by perrymason View Post
                  That depends entirely on your motivation doesnt it Ben, but I would say that one answer may be that you stuck your hand in that rockpool because you assumed or knew that you'd likely find a starfish or mussel in there...and maybe have been content with either.
                  A useful analogy by Ben, and it's useful to consider that a rock-pool may also contain:

                  Mussels; Starfish; Sponges; Whelks; Shrimps; Seaweed; Periwinkles; Condoms; Worms; Crabs; Driftwood; Insect larvae; Shells; Adult insects; Plastic bags; Sea-squirts; Anemones; Empty drinks tins; Sea urchins; Different species of small fish; Pebbles; Grit; ...and probably a lot more.

                  The point is, if one saw abandoned on a beach a bucket full of mussels or periwinkles one might reasonably think that whoever left the bucket there intended to eat the contents; if the bucket contained primarily plastic bags, condoms and drinks tins, one might think it was left by a person intent on cleaning up the beach; if pebbles, shells and grit - perhaps the person was stocking up for their aquarium or intended to make a collage; and so forth.

                  But what if the bucket contained a random mixture of the above? Would not one reasonably conclude that the person simply dredged the bucket along the bottom of a rock pool for a while, and then lifted it out again?

                  What kind of person would do that? Well, they might have been generally interested in the contents, perhaps conducting a survey - that's one possibility. Another possibility is that it was a child (or a simple-minded adult) with no particular goal in mind apart from having fun at the seashore.

                  Without knowing who abandoned the bucket, it's practically impossible to tell in which category the bucket's former owner would belong. All we know is that the bucket contains a representative sample of what we might expect to find in a rock pool - more precisely, we see a random sample of items typically found in a rock pool which can be easily transported.

                  By analogy, might it not be the same for wombs, bladders and kidneys?
                  Last edited by Sam Flynn; 03-25-2008, 12:28 AM. Reason: Tidied up a bit
                  Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                  "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Hi all

                    Not sure if this question has been asked before but as well as the obvious skill issue what about the 'stomach' issue?

                    Just because there were a lot of people with the capabailities of a knife surely the majority of them wouldn't have the stomach to cut up a woman who is dying/dead - it wouldn't be the same as gutting a fish or filleting a cow surely.

                    I think what I am asking is just because somebody spends all day cutting up carcasses would this lower there emotional/mental threshold for the horrors of cutting up a human?

                    thanks for your time
                    tj
                    It's not about what you know....it's about what you can find out

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Jack was not most people.

                      Nor are other killers who dissect victims.

                      With Mary Kelly, methinks he realized he had the time and safety to indulge himself.

                      Yours truly,

                      --J.D.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Ben View Post
                        How does a lack of light coupled the speed with which he extracted the organs indicate that he knew "what he wanted and how to get it"? If I visited an English beach at the dead of night, quickly plunged my arm into the nearest rockpool and pulled out a starfish or a muscle, would that indicate that I was deliberately seeking a starfish or a muscle? Or was I just rummaging until my hand alighted upon something of interest?
                        Hi Ben, in response to your question the obvious difference from plunging your arm into a rock pool as opposed to a human body is back in 1888 you wouldn't get hung for plunging your arm into a rock pool, but would almost certainly for the latter, so he was taking a awful big risk killing out in the open, so it seems hard to imagine he would take the risk he did for a slash grab lucky dip, he obviously knew before hand what he was going to do, when the time came he did it and got out of area rather quickly, if he just wated them dead out of pure hatred for woman, why take the extra time and risk to dig away for a organ?? you wouldn't?? not unless you there was some other motive for it, which there had to be, otherwise he wouldn't of gone fishing for it and wouldnt of taken it away. Also the fact that he killed his victims quickly would show he was not interested in making them suffer which would support somewhat that his main motive may not of been a pure hatred for woman, not to say he didn't, but i would of thought if he hated woman to the extent some people like to think that he would of put them trough a bit more pain and suffering before they died, which he didn't so the motive was something else, which i think leads you to the conclusion the removal of the organs was his motive, for what reasons i do not know, but it seems to me if that was his main motive then he probably knew what organ he was after before killing his victim as oppossed to slashing them then sitting there thinking for 10 minutes "gee should i take a kidney this time or maybe a uterus, or perhaps liver, no no i'll go with the kidney, no maybe i better go for the uterus"
                        Last edited by jc007; 03-25-2008, 02:30 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Hi tj,

                          Glad you asked that question, because that is at the heart of the matter isn't it? Exactly how many people around that time would have the desire to kill, and the fortitude to stomach the mess this killer was famous for creating....and in the case of East London in Early and Late Fall 1888 we have any number of them. Someone cuts up a woman around August and her torso is found in October on the 2nd, someone guts Polly Nichols, Annie Chapman and Kate Eddowes, and we dont know they were all by one man, its actually more of a investigatorial guess....maybe the same man who does those kills also kills Mary Kelly, but if not, then someone else sure does....and what of our early spring girls some who are cut, and what of Clay Pipe Alice, virtually a replica of an early Ripper kill...but if they thought Jack had finished in November, and only killed these 5 women, then who the hell are we supposed to think is killing the rest? All of the non-canonicals by one man?....maybe 3 men, maybe more?

                          Not only is there adequate proof to conclude that there were indeed at least a few more mini-jacks running about at the very same time and place, there is also adequate reason to question a kill assigned to Jack that in venue, manner of acquisition, manner of insuring compliance from the victim before using a knife, and causing injuries and wounds that are unlike, and are deviations from, all prior patterns and most acts established within the Canonical 4.

                          My best regards all.
                          Last edited by perrymason; 03-25-2008, 02:37 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Hi,
                            Originally posted by jc007 View Post
                            he probably knew what organ he was after before killing his victim as oppossed to slashing them then sitting there thinking for 10 minutes "gee should i take a kidney this time or maybe a uterus, or perhaps liver, no no i'll go with the kidney, no maybe i better go for the uterus"
                            The truth of the matter is that his choice was very limited. The uterus, bladder and kidney are the only (comparatively) accessible organs in a woman's abdomen which are sufficiently portable to be smuggled away with minimum fear of detection. (The liver is a huge organ, by the way, and is somewhat tightly berthed.)
                            Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                            "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Sam,

                              I did like the analogy we were using, you used it well.... but in simple terms, there is no reason at this point, nor has there ever been in these investigations, to disregard the possibility that some of these kills were motivated by the desire to acquire female organs, from the midsection down. At least in part.

                              I suggested robbery/mutilation where both can yield cash. Maybe it was trophies, maybe he was experimenting, maybe he needed to make a Thief candle of Germanic lore, or maybe he eats the stuff. But maybe he has a reason he does this beyond reckless slashing of female pedestrians out past midnight.

                              I would agree with the conclusion that to believe there are similar motivations that can be found present in all these 5 cases is likely futile. So maybe he bounces around and changes willy-nilly, or its not all one guy.

                              My best Sam, tj, all.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                so it seems hard to imagine he would take the risk he did for a slash grab lucky dip
                                Not with you here, JC007.

                                If it was not worth the risk of a "lucky dip", why was it worth the risk of a "deliberate dip", especially if the former was likely to take less time? The retreival of organs may indeed have ranked high on his agenda as he acquired criminal experience, but then evisceral depavity has proved popular amongst sexual serial killers, and in those cases there was never any motive beyond trophy-taking or cannibalism. No need to chalk it up to something silly such as organ collecting or medical research, not that I'm suggesting for a moment that you've advocated as much.

                                Gareth - your Bucket-on-the-Beach analagy sums up my sentiments on the subject even more precisely than my rockpool comparsion. No wonder the police were identifying suspects at the Seaside home.
                                Last edited by Ben; 03-25-2008, 05:16 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X