Patterns formed by murder locations

[Fisherman]

No. Since the question was how well a blunt instrument thrust into a vagina compares with a cut neck and an abdomen ripped open by means of knife.

You somehow seem to be very impressed with the deduction that Jack may have been a sexually motivated killer and for some reason you think that this proves a link to a blunt object inserted into a vagina. But I can assure you that ANY culprit with a sexual drive who commits a crime against a woman would normally take an active interest in her reproductive organs. And culprits with sexual drives come thirteen per dozen, David! That does not in any manner make a blunt object compare to a knife, I´m afraid.
All you have come up with is a possible correlation in interest in the reproductive organs of a woman. Otherwise, the deeds are worlds apart, the Smith "murder" in all probability never having been aimed at murder anyhow - that would have been collateral in her case, whereas the Ripper is extremely focused on ensuring death.

And there´s my answer for you, David. If the torso murders and the Ripper deeds are apples and pears, then you are comparing mango to a shredded newspaper. Or a pencil to a cup of tea. Or Smith to Chapman, for that matter. Equally disastrous.

Once again, the torso killer and Jack both ensured death by means of cutting throats, they both took people apart, they both used sharp violence, they both produced cuts to the abdomen and they both came up with victims that lacked their uteri.

The Smith assailant and Jack? They used very differing weapons,one blunt and one sharp. One cut necks, the other did not, one opened up the abdomen, the other didn´t, one took a way organs, the other did not - and indeed could not, since he (them) evinced no interest whatsoever in opening up the abdomen.

The likeness I see is that they both killed. One by mistake, though. Or four, more likely, not one.

Others agree that Smith could be the Rippers, I know. But personally, I´d say that even Mylett is a much better bid. She at least had the strangulation bit in common with some of the Ripper victims. Smith had nothing in common at all, methodologywise - not a iota.

The best,
Fisherman

[RivkahChaya]

I wonder how many individuals are involved in this "general consensus"

Isn't "general consensus" redundant?

"La confiance n'exclut pas le contrôle"

Wait-- isn't that a lawyery thing meaning something like "just because you have delegated authority to someone below you, doesn't mean you can't step in and make new rules"? How does that apply here?

Fumbled? Not too sure about that - taking out a kidney from the front, cutting through a membrane just may speak of something else than fumbling.

Hmmm. That makes me wonder something RE: JTR's medical knowledge. While you can get to the kidney from the front, if you are specifically seeking the kidney (and particularly if your time is limited), you want to seek it from the back. That's what surgeons do (although, there is a new technique for removing kidneys from live donors who are women, through the vaginal wall. No visible scarring, supposedly, less pain, and shorter recovery time. No implications for childbirth, as a living woman who donates a kidney is pretty much deciding to be done with child-bearing). Now, I have no idea what doctors, or surgeons, or whatever did in 1888. I have no idea how common it was do perform some kind of operation on a person's kidney; certainly, there was no transplanting going on. Still, if JTR came to the table seeking a kidney, before anyone's throat had even been cut, you'd think he would have turned the victims over. Now, I suppose he could have been after whatever thrill he got from abdominal mutilations, and swiping a kidney. I'm not a general surgeon, so I don't know how much easier it would be to get to a kidney once the abdomen is already opened, and other parts removed.

They MAY however be related to an extent that may produce a need to look at the possibility that there WAS a connection

You have to assume these two (at least) people knew about each other, from reading the newspapers. Is is possible they borrowed ideas from each other after reading them?

Wikipedia says: "Dismemberment is the act of cutting, tearing, pulling, wrenching or otherwise removing, the limbs of a living thing." And the Ripper did not do this. So let´s settle on "disassemblement" then! As long as we understand each other, we´ll be fine.

On a side note, was the Black Dahlia "dismembered? Her limbs were still in place, but she was sawed in two at the waist.

A lot of dismemberment of corpses isn't for thrill, it's for disposal. That was generally the theory with Elizabeth Short. Even though she had facial mutilations, she was bisected with a different instrument, and the police at the time theorized it was for ease of transportation. It was clear the dump site was not the murder site.

What happened to Mary Kelly was not for ease of disposal. Maybe JTR had an idea of taking a breast with him, and changed his mind, when he realized it would be too bloody, or something, but it's doubtful his cutting her apart was anything but part of the thrill for him.

Lastly, no, the Ripper never tried to "destroy her identity".

On that note: the main reason that killers try to hide victim's identities is that their own connection to the victim might bring them to the attention of the police. All of JTR's C-victim's were easily identifiable, including MJK, conspiracy theories aside, because she was killed in her own apartment, and nothing about the victim that was still recognizable was apparently incompatible with the victim being her.

So, that suggests that the victims were random, and otherwise unknown to the killer.

[DVV]

Hi Rivkah

Isn't "general consensus" redundant?

Yes. But why do you ask me ? Why do you quote my post ? I have myself quoted "general consensus", that originally belongs to Fish's post # 181.
Seen ?
That said, Fish speaks English very well, which is not my case.

Wait-- isn't that a lawyery thing meaning something like "just because you have delegated authority to someone below you, doesn't mean you can't step in and make new rules"? How does that apply here?

Nothing to do with my sentence that you don't understand at all - nor its context.
Your French is worse than my English, my dear.

All of JTR's C-victim's were easily identifiable, including MJK, conspiracy theories aside, because she was killed in her own apartment, and nothing about the victim that was still recognizable was apparently incompatible with the victim being her.

That was my point exactly. Perhaps you're redundant, here. Or is it that you (once more) don't understand what you read ?

the victims were random, and otherwise unknown to the killer.

Agreed. Random victims. Except Mary Kelly.

[Fisherman]

Rivkah:

"You have to assume these two (at least) people knew about each other, from reading the newspapers. Is is possible they borrowed ideas from each other after reading them?"

ONE, two OR more, Rivkah! And yes, of course it is entirely possible that they borrowed from each other to a smaller or lesser degree. Unless it was just the one killer, of course - he´d have to be a schizophrenic to borrow from himself in that case.

"A lot of dismemberment of corpses isn't for thrill, it's for disposal. That was generally the theory with Elizabeth Short. Even though she had facial mutilations, she was bisected with a different instrument, and the police at the time theorized it was for ease of transportation."

Yep. But what I specically wanted to know was whether cutting people in two at the waist is "dismembering".
I would also point out that the torso killer did NOT dump the bodies at one site - he spread the bits and pieces all over town, some floating in the Thames, some in parks, streets, yards etcetera. He did NOT facilitate things for himself, but instead went through a lot of trouble NOT to make the dumping an easy thing. In the Whitehal case, he seemingly first dug down some parts in the basement floor, and then returned to place the torso in the same basement at a later stage. He seems to both mock and shock.

"Mary Kelly ... his cutting her apart was ... part of the thrill for him.

Yes, that would seem apparent. No practical use can be traced. And since the torso killer cut his bodies in many parts, apparently NOT to facilitate dumping them, it can be reasoned that he either enjoyed the cutting or aimed to shock as many people as possible by the elaborate spreading of the parts.

The best,
Fisherman

[RavenDarkendale]

Hi Raven,

Of course, the best way to let the victim unidentified was to kill her where she lived... is that what you mean ?

Plus, have you read somewhere that Barnett and Hutch were not certain it was her ? That the police entertained doubts for that matter ?
It is true, however, that Barnett and Hutch didn't have the providential opportunity to follow some MJK threads on boards... I'd grant you that.

Lastly, no, the Ripper never tried to "destroy her identity". He did try to destroy her humanity, certainly, but as a result rather damaged his own - or so it seems to me.

In her room, yes, DVV but not necessarily her. Yes I know people were never certain it was MJK. Check the thread "Could MJK have survived Miller's Court".

[DVV]

In her room, yes, DVV but not necessarily her. Yes I know people were never certain it was MJK. Check the thread "Could MJK have survived Miller's Court".

I even know people who think Maybrick did it, or Van Gogh.
Fact is that MJK has been positively identified.

[Michael W Richards]

Hello all,

Ive been catching up on the posts Ive missed and wanted to add that in the case of the Canonicals, no victim suggests a killer that may have been preoccupied with dismemberment like Mary Kelly does. The torso murders that happened prior to, during and after the Ripper killings were never solved either so one might wonder whether there was some "overlap".

There is obvious issues with a killer that sought to dismember then didnt, even though in a private room, I agree,...but it seems to me that whomever killed her was more distracted than the person who killed Annie for example, because many actions were partial acts. The skinning of her left upper thigh on the inside of the leg only...the denuding of the bone only to the knee on the right...the almost severance of her head and her right arm...joined to her only by tissue strands. A few minutes more with any one of those acts and we have a severed lower leg, a severed arm, and a severed head.

Best regards

[RivkahChaya]

Yes. But why do you ask me ? Why do you quote my post ? I have myself quoted "general consensus", that originally belongs to Fish's post # 181.

I just quoted the most recent example of it, and the question was for the whole board.

Nothing to do with my sentence that you don't understand at all - nor its context.

Since I still have not idea why you quoted it, then no, that's not true at all.

Your French is worse than my English, my dear.

Quite true. I haven't spoken it in 20 years. My use has been limited to cartoons and movies, sometimes movies with subtitles, and the occasional internet post or webpage. I used to read real books, like Daudet and Maupassant, but I have not done that since my twenties, and even then, I had notes and a dictionary. Speaking French was a challenge, because I could never find other people to talk with, who also spoke second year college French.

Random victims. Except Mary Kelly.

Cite?

[DVV]

I just quoted the most recent example of it, and the question was for the whole board.

You wanted to ask the "whole board" if Fisherman's expression "General consensus" was, or not, redundant ?

Since I still have not idea why you quoted it, then no, that's not true at all.

What the hell is "not true" ?
"La confiance n'exclut pas le contrôle" was just a friendly "clin d'oeil" to my old friend Fisherman. Nothing to be obsessed with. You're becoming ridiculous.

Cite?

Sincerely Rivkah, I have no idea what you ask me here.

[RavenDarkendale]

I even know people who think Maybrick did it, or Van Gogh.
Fact is that MJK has been positively identified.

Really? As I recall she was also positively identified by witnesses to be alive long after that body was dead. Without knowing her fingerprints or DNA any identification of that mangled body could be mistaken. The biases would be that it's in her room, in her bed, and clothes that belong to her are folded neatly on a chair. This would make people forget that witnesses reported her alive as late as 10:00am, that she shared her room regularly, that witnesses said she had extra clothes, etc. I don't say the body wasn't MJK, but the possibility that it wasn't exists.

RD

[DVV]

Really? As I recall she was also positively identified by witnesses to be alive long after that body was dead. RD

No, Raven. Identification means identification. Barnett and Hutch were asked to identify the body.The people you're alluded to were not.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi all,

I dont think Ive ever posted this thought in these terms before, but lets face it...even with massive reconstruction of her face most people would be unable to positively identify her as someone they knew. The jury only saw her face while she was in a box, after reconstruction, the rest covered by the partial lid or cloth. When did Barnett identify her? Ive seen one report that states he was led to the window later that day to make the ID. When you consider that he could only recognize her "air" and eyes it makes sense that he saw her as the jury did. It makes perfect sense when you consider that her eyes are completely obstructed by hanging flaps of skin from the forehead slashes in MJK 1 and 3.

Cheers

[RivkahChaya]

Really? As I recall she was also positively identified by witnesses to be alive long after that body was dead.

Not really. Some people said they saw her, at a time, top their recollection, that would have been after the coroner reckoned the body in Miller's Court had already expired.

A "positive identification" would be bringing an actual person into the police station, and saying "This is Mary Kelly," at a time when the body was in the morgue. Or at least, something like producing a photograph of her holding a newspaper dated Nov. 10, 1888. I might even go with Joe Barnett running into the police station on the night of the 9th, and saying he was rescinding his identification, because he just saw spoke to MJK at the train station, and she'd bought a ticket for Limerick, so he couldn't produce her, but clearly, he was mistaken that morning.

Because the body in Miller's Court wasn't known to be there (other than by the killer) until about 10:45am, and the witnesses could be a little off on the time, as they were basing their statements on recollections that were themselves predicated on (probably) remembering what the nearest clock had just rung, and the coroner's time-of-death is an estimate, it is possible for the witnesses to have seen MJK after sunup on the 9th, and for her to be dead in Miller's Court by 10:45. It is also possible, since they were relying on recollections, for them simply to have been mistaken, either about the day, or the woman.

"La confiance n'exclut pas le contrôle" was just a friendly "clin d'oeil" to my old friend Fisherman. Nothing to be obsessed with. You're becoming ridiculous.

Sincerely Rivkah, I have no idea what you ask me here.

I guess to explain an in-joke, because I didn't understand your use of a legal term popping in out of any context that made sense to me.

Your strong assertion that MJK was not a random victim implied that you had some information that again, I am not privy to. Since the board is dedicated to sharing such things, pony up.

[RivkahChaya]

When you consider that he could only recognize her "air" and eyes it makes sense that he saw her as the jury did.

I think that's "hair," not "ear." Do you think you could recognize the people you know best from the back? I'm pretty sure I could recognize my husband and son from the back (in fact, I know I can pick my son out of other kids in his preschool, and I know I can pick my husband out from the back, even when he is in a platoon of soldiers, all dressed the same, and all with the same haircut, all standing in the same position, so there). Since MJK's skull wasn't crushed, her head was still its usual shape, and her hair wasn't cut, so the back of her head probably looked more or less the same.

[Michael W Richards]

I think that's "hair," not "ear." Do you think you could recognize the people you know best from the back? I'm pretty sure I could recognize my husband and son from the back. Since MJK's skull wasn't crushed, so her head was still its usual shape, and her hair wasn't cut, the back of her head probably looked more or less the same.

Hi Rivkah,

There has been some discussion over the years as to whether Barnett meant Hair or Ear in his remarks, thats why I posted it in that manner.

A few points....I would think Barnett should have been able to recognize her arms and hands, or her feet, ..but I dont think he had that opportunity based on his ID. I think he saw what the jury saw and Im unconvinced that even after the Volte Face she would be recognizable.

Her blood soaked hair may have been washed by the time the jury saw her but it would have been down her back and not visible.

I wonder though about the length of her hair...since it was noted by many witnesses one wonders if when the ID's took place the length was made known to the witnesses.

Cheers