Mary Jane Violence

[Abby Normal]

Yes, becasue it is infinitely easier to dispose of a body with the liver, spleen, kidneys and intestines left inside it but with the uterus, heart and lungs removed. Tell me, somebody: can an argument be less valid than this? Can it get even more nonsensical?

We also know for a fact that there were parts missing from other torso victims, and it seems a given that the Rainham victim - butchered and parted in the exact same way a Jackson with the torso taken apart in three sections - was ALSO eviscerated, having lost (would you believe it?) the EXACT same organs as Jackson, but for the uterus.

You are perfectly welcome to claim that you reason that it may be that this was all done for practical reasons. But stating it as a near certainty is undressing intellectually. Not a pretty sight!

bingo fish
and people need to keep in mind that the ripper wasnt just an eviscerator. as in.. he didnt just pluck out internal organs. he also cut throats, gashed faces, cut off noses, flayed flesh to the bone, slashed arms, cut off breasts.

[Fisherman]

If the killer of MJK wanted to disguise his crime as work of "Jack The Ripper", would he need to eviscerate her, and at any rate, why to that extent?
Stride was accepted at the time as a victim of the same killer. Several female deaths after were thought of as being the same killer. If someone wanted Mary dead and for it to look like a serial killing, all he had to was kill her. The police and press would have undoubtedly linked it. They included Tabram and Smith at the time.
I'm not arguing for one, two or however many killers, just seems unlikely for a cover up by someone known to her.

The idea goes that the supposed copycat was so anxious to have the murder written up on the Rippers account that he overdid things. Apparently, he was well en ough read up to know that Chaman had had her abdominal wall removed in large sections. And this is where I quote the magnificent Steve Earl: If you believe that, weīre gonna get along just fine!

[Sam Flynn]

Sorry Sam, I wasn't clear there...I suggest possible mimicry exists within the Canonical Group

It's possible, I suppose, although I don't incline to that conclusion.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

If the killer of MJK wanted to disguise his crime as work of "Jack The Ripper", would he need to eviscerate her, and at any rate, why to that extent?
Stride was accepted at the time as a victim of the same killer. Several female deaths after were thought of as being the same killer. If someone wanted Mary dead and for it to look like a serial killing, all he had to was kill her. The police and press would have undoubtedly linked it. They included Tabram and Smith at the time.
I'm not arguing for one, two or however many killers, just seems unlikely for a cover up by someone known to her.

[Fisherman]

Trying to imitate an unknown killer with a decided pattern of activity in order to hide the real motives for a new murder is in my opinion, not only possible here...its probable.

You got that wrong again: it is possible (only just) but not probable. When three houses burn to the ground in the same village in ensuing weeks, it may be that there were three pyromaniacs involved, copycatting away. But it can never be a likelier suggestion than that of a single one.

The world is like that.

[Fisherman]

There's no mimicry between the Ripper murders and the torso murders, as they're entirely different in nature, timing and location.

That is of course untrue.
The nature of the two series both involve cutting out hearts and uteri, they both involve cutting from pubes to ribs, they both involve ring taking, they both involve cutting away the abdominal wall in flaps, they both involve prostitute victims and so on - so claiming that they are entirely different in nature is an uniformed and misleading statement that needs to be disallowed in any rational exchange. But itīs nevertheless - hilariously - par for the course!
Deny away - maybe it will work. Not.

The timings are essentially 1874-1889, so that is not something that can in any way exclude a sole killer.

The location is something we cannot establish - because we have the killing sites in one series and only the DUMPING sites in the other. However, how is Pinchin Street "entirely different" from the Ripper grounds?

Maybe you wanted to say that the two series are somewhat different in some respects and very similar in others? The way any honest and rational poster would? And then it came out wrong?

I note that Fisherman is still banging on about the torso killer(s) being an "eviscerator", but that's not the case.

Yes, it is. The killer cut out uterus, heart and lungs from Jackson, and cutting out organs is what is known as eviscerating. We have been over this before and it has not changed since I corrected you last time.

On the few occasions where a torso was eviscerated...

But wait! Wasnīt it the case that the killer was NOT an eviscerator? Then how could his victims possibly have been eviscerated? Didnīt the organs plop out for entirely different reasons, all totally unconnected to - ugh - evisceration?

, it was almost certainly done for very practical reasons relating to the disposal of the body - it wasn't to scratch some kind of "eviscerator's itch".

Yes, becasue it is infinitely easier to dispose of a body with the liver, spleen, kidneys and intestines left inside it but with the uterus, heart and lungs removed. Tell me, somebody: can an argument be less valid than this? Can it get even more nonsensical?

We also know for a fact that there were parts missing from other torso victims, and it seems a given that the Rainham victim - butchered and parted in the exact same way a Jackson with the torso taken apart in three sections - was ALSO eviscerated, having lost (would you believe it?) the EXACT same organs as Jackson, but for the uterus.

You are perfectly welcome to claim that you reason that it may be that this was all done for practical reasons. But stating it as a near certainty is undressing intellectually. Not a pretty sight!

[Abby Normal]

There's no mimicry between the Ripper murders and the torso murders, as they're entirely different in nature, timing and location. I note that Fisherman is still banging on about the torso killer(s) being an "eviscerator", but that's not the case. On the few occasions where a torso was eviscerated, it was almost certainly done for very practical reasons relating to the disposal of the body - it wasn't to scratch some kind of "eviscerator's itch".

Hi Sam
why did he gash the face of Tottenham cutting off the nose just like Eddowes? was that for practical reasons too?
was the vertical gash to pinchins torso just for practical reasons?
scalping the face of the 73 victim for practical reasons?
was lugging the Whitehall torso into the highly risky and difficult to access vaults of NSY for practical reasons?

[Michael W Richards]

Heart, uterus and kidney are ALL internal organs. They have that in common. How likely is it that in Whitechapel in the Autumn of 1888 that there would have been a killer who was specifically targeting hearts, one that was specifically targeting kidneys and one that was specifically targeting uteri? Seems extremely unlikely.

c.d.

ONLY in Annies case did the physician who examined her suggest that her killer...just hers....killed and cut in a manner specific to locating and obtaining the specific organ he eventually took. He wanted a female uterus. Specificity. There are so many potential symbolic reasons for that specific uterus choice,(the only thing taken from 2 victims),....for the kidney, none that come to mind...with the heart, very different potential symbolic inferences. In that case, the fact that evidence exists to suggest that Marys killer was on intimate terms with Mary might well help in identifying what symbolic meaning her heart had to him.

The fact that other organs are taken from later victims doesn't negate that simple fact about Annies murderer. So, if you want to have all the organs explained, you need to look for reasons for taking them...or accept what Ive been saying, its possible the victims after Annie had internal materials removed and taken away is just because the killer or killer in those cases knew of Annies physical damages and sought to "hide" their crime in those details. Trying to imitate an unknown killer with a decided pattern of activity in order to hide the real motives for a new murder is in my opinion, not only possible here...its probable. And pretty clever too.

[Michael W Richards]

There's no mimicry between the Ripper murders and the torso murders, as they're entirely different in nature, timing and location. I note that Fisherman is still banging on about the torso killer(s) being an "eviscerator", but that's not the case. On the few occasions where a torso was eviscerated, it was almost certainly done for very practical reasons relating to the disposal of the body - it wasn't to scratch some kind of "eviscerator's itch".

Sorry Sam, I wasn't clear there...I suggest possible mimicry exists within the Canonical Group, I didn't mean eviscerating and disarticulating are examples. In fact Ive been suggesting that the 2 acts are very unlike.

[Sam Flynn]

What you are discounting is the principle of mimicry

There's no mimicry between the Ripper murders and the torso murders, as they're entirely different in nature, timing and location. I note that Fisherman is still banging on about the torso killer(s) being an "eviscerator", but that's not the case. On the few occasions where a torso was eviscerated, it was almost certainly done for very practical reasons relating to the disposal of the body - it wasn't to scratch some kind of "eviscerator's itch".

[Fisherman]

The reason, as you say, that this has never occurred on planet earth... with 2 or perpetrators working their specific manias out at the same time and in the same rough geographical area,..is because its only in modern times, with even larger concentrated populations, that we can see that real rarity of certain acts.

And what examples can you tell me about from modern times when there were as many and rare similarities between two eviscerating serial killers...? None. I can answer that for you. And the reason for THAT is that regardless of how we in modern times keep track of things in a much more efficient manner, the odds of finding two killers of this kind of character in the same town and time are higher than Burj Khalifa.
Speaking of how modern times are different is all good and well, b ut they cannot provide you with what you are looking for just the same. It just does not happen, Michel, and for very good reasons.

What you are discounting is the principle of mimicry and how fortuitous that would be to someone who commits murders while an assumed madman is running amok.

No, I am not discounting mimicry at all - I am simply pointing to how similarities in 99 cases out of a 100 are about the same killer and not about copycats. They are primarily the stuff of tv-series and crime fiction. And I have already told you that if there WAS copycatting involved, then the copycatting amazingly went in BOTH directions. And that effectively puts an end to what was already a VERY fringe possibility. Write a crime story by all means, if you feel a need to use that concept. But donīt impose it upon a ratioinal discussion!

If someone felt they needed to kill someone during that Fall, after the murder of Annie, then evisceration is a very attractive way to disguise true intention.

Yes, and we all know how the history of crime is riddled with people who disguise their fould deeds by tearing out hearts and uteri and cutting away abdominal walls, donīt we? What you are proposing are things that are incredibly less likely than the very simple and obvious explanation that when victims have the same extremely odd damage, that points to a mutual killer. It is by far the easiest and least tortured solution to what is only a very strange thing if we start introducing the "Whitechapel Four" or whatever tou like to call the array of eviscerators you propose.

Marys killer for example...he could be the man in the triangle with her and Joe and after struggling and slashing and cutting her throat, he decides to act like the madman and cut her to bits. Problem is, that killer didn't know what meaning any acts had to the killer, and his choice of action maybe directly related to the specific nature of the mutilations. On that point....I believe its clear from what Phillips said that he believed the killer of Annie Chapman killed her so he could mutilate her, and when mutilating her, he cut in a way that allowed him to access a specific organ. The one he took.

Once again, why would we favour this far-fetched nonsense over a simple, logical and rationally and empirically based suggestion of a single killer? Why? And why not suggest that a menīs choir from the local parish was responsible, all of them wanting to have a go at evisceration? The more the merrier, surely?

PS. So you would opt for accepting the ten similarities I listed in post 236 as ten examples of coincidences, pure and simple ...? Really?

[Michael W Richards]

The reason, as you say, that this has never occurred on planet earth... with 2 or perpetrators working their specific manias out at the same time and in the same rough geographical area,..is because its only in modern times, with even larger concentrated populations, that we can see that real rarity of certain acts. What you are discounting is the principle of mimicry and how fortuitous that would be to someone who commits murders while an assumed madman is running amok. If someone felt they needed to kill someone during that Fall, after the murder of Annie, then evisceration is a very attractive way to disguise true intention. Marys killer for example...he could be the man in the triangle with her and Joe and after struggling and slashing and cutting her throat, he decides to act like the madman and cut her to bits. Problem is, that killer didn't know what meaning any acts had to the killer, and his choice of action maybe directly related to the specific nature of the mutilations. On that point....I believe its clear from what Phillips said that he believed the killer of Annie Chapman killed her so he could mutilate her, and when mutilating her, he cut in a way that allowed him to access a specific organ. The one he took.

[Fisherman]

With all due respect bud, I believe that's exactly what it was.

And that would be a possibility - if it was not for the similarities. They put an effective end to lofty speculations.

[Fisherman]

The numbers that corelate are small, 4 victims had this, 2 had that, 1 had no cuts, 1 was indoors.

That does not mean anything at all when the correlations we know are there, are extremely rare ones. If one man is killed by a gunshot in New Jersey and another one three days later in Boston by strangulation, the clever thing to do is to go for two different killers - up to the point that it is revealed that both victims had their left pinky cut away.

Same thing with abdominal flaps. Same thing with missing colon sections. Same thing with taken out hearts. Same thing with taken away uteri. Same thing with cutting from ribs to pubes.

All of these matters are examples of the same mechanism. One by one. And when we put them together, it takes a very severe case of denial not to acknowledge a probable common originator.

Otherwise we are saying:

Yes, the series both involved taken out hearts - but that must be a coincidence only.

Yes, the series both invoilved taken out uteri - but that must be a coincidence only.

Yes, the series both involved cut away abdominal walls - but that must be a coincidence only.

Yes, the series both involved missing colon sections - but that must be a coincidence only.

Yes, the series both involved cutting from ribs to pubes - but that must be a coincidence only.

Yes, the series both involved stolen rings - but that must be a coincidence only.

Yes, the series both involved prostitute victims - but that must be a coincidence only.

Yes, the series were both perpetrated in Victorian London - but that must be a coincidence only.

Yes, the series both appeared in the late 1800:s - but that must be a coincidence only.

Yes, both series were described by medicos as having been had inclusions of very skilled cutting - but that must be a coincidence only.

This kind of coincidence collection has never occurred on planet earth and subsequently been proven to have had two originators. It just will not happen. It is so very close to impossible as to represent something extremely close to ironclad proof. Being the charitable man that I am, always willing to accept that incredibly strange things MAY happen, I am prepared to say that although I think any court of law would be satisfied that this cannot involve any real doubt, I would merrily accept any claims from a freak fraction that the case is not 110 per cent proven.

But that does not entail opening up for any acceptance that the scales are evenly matched. The weight difference between our different takes compare to that between an elephant after a sumptous supper and an anorectic mosquito.

[Michael W Richards]

Because the "compulsion" the combined killer had was a wider one of disassembling. It was never a case of one killer compelled to dismember and another one compelled to eviscerate. These killers were BOTH eviscerators, and in the Ripper cases, there was never any need for dismemberment. Easy-peasy.

With all due respect bud, I believe that's exactly what it was.