Patterns formed by murder locations

[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 - heīd 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

[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.

[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 letīs settle on "disassemblement" then! As long as we understand each other, weīll 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.

[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, Iīm 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 thereīs 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 didnīt, 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, Iīd 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

[DVV]

For the discussion you and me were having was not one of whether people believed in Smith as a Ripper victim or not, but instead a discussion of whether thrusting a blunt object into a womanīs vagina compares favourably to cutting her neck and ripping her abdomen open with a sharp knife.
Fisherman

And my answer is....... :

Certainly, Fish, that infamous and ill-defined Blunt Instrument displays a cruel, morbid and violent interest for our dear and innocent friend The Vagina, and surely, at the same time, a murderous instinct - indeed, that was the cause of Mrs Smith's death.
That Vagina, you would note, had been the property of a poor and not so young unfortunate of the East End. And that deplorable tragedy, as you know, occurred in April 1888.

I therefore confess (as I belong to the old scale...sorry, I mean the old school) that I wouldn't be surprised at all if the anonymous Blunt Instrument Thruster turned out to be JtR, whose murderous instinct is well-proven by a handful of severed necks, while his problem with our dear friend The Vagina (and other neighbouring organs) is also well documented.

So, after all, the Smith case and the canonical ones could well be the work of the same hand, at least that's my take, but I sincerely fail to see any reasonable connection between a breast floating in the Thames in 1872 and the murder of MJK, whatever the age of Lechmere-the-Ripper at the time of the floating breast.

Did I answer the question I was asked, my friend ?

[Fisherman]

Ha! You do have balls, David, Iīll give you that!

Me, mixing and confusing? I was merrily conducting a simple discussion on whether the torso slayings gave away a wish on the killerīs behalf to obscure the victimīs identities, when YOU suddenly dropped the subject and started talking about the lack of likenesses inbetween the Ripper killings and the torso series.

How does that make ME the mixer and confuser???

I would gladly have stayed on topic, but fore some unfathomable reason (sarcastic joke), you preferred to ... well, mix and confuse instead.

"...for the record (but don't tell anyone about that, it's almost a secret), I'm not the first guy on Earth to consider Smith a possible Ripper-victim."

Lord knows, David! But Iīm afraid you are once more doing exactly what you warned against yourself: mixing and confusing. For the discussion you and me were having was not one of whether people believed in Smith as a Ripper victim or not, but instead a discussion of whether thrusting a blunt object into a womanīs vagina compares favourably to cutting her neck and ripping her abdomen open with a sharp knife.
So letīs stay sharp ourselves and on topic, and we will get the answers to the questions asked instead of answers to questions that were NOT asked! Okay?

All the best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Fish, you're mixing and confusing everything.
For what purpose ?
And for the record (but don't tell anyone about that, it's almost a secret), I'm not the first guy on Earth to consider Smith a possible Ripper-victim.
It even happened that some police officials and contemporary newspapers shared my view. Or is it the reverse ?

[Fisherman]

David:

"Sounds like desperate arguments here, Fish."

It truly does - and they are all on your behalf. First you duck out of a discussion where you claimed that the torso killer did everything to hide his victimīs identities - and that was a wise move on your behalf, since it could very easily be shown that this was not the case at all; leaving tattoos, clothes and heads is a very good indicator of not having too many cares about the identity issue! Good choice to leave that discussion, thus, before you got any further tangled up!

Sidestepping that issue, you then brazenly claimed that the built-in differences in what "happened to the bodies" of the Ripper and the torso killer, respectively, was the only thing of significance, confidently brushing away any suggestion of a possible link - whereas you on adjacent threads speak of a MUCH LARGER differerence in body damage as something that tallies quite well with the deeds of a throatcutter and eviscerator. Wow, sort of! And to boot, you ALSO claim Smith must have lied about the circumstances.

Allowing yourself liberties like that, I find it a bit amusing when you tell ME that I am "desperate", David. The desperation seems to me to lie in your lap only. You canīt go to any ridiculous lengths in comparisons, only to criticize others for making suggestions of much smaller leaps - it immediately tells the story, you see.

Over and out, David.

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

What happened to Emma Smith was that she got a blunt object forced into her vagina.
What happened to the Ripper victims was that they were cut up and had their throats severed.

That, David is COMPLETELY different. But I donīt see that stopping you regarding it as a more or less given that Smith WAS a Ripper victim ...?

I am having a whole lot of trouble trying to understand how differing dispatch methodologies is a clincher for a common killer in one case, but a total no-go in another. But I feel confident that you can explain that!

Needless to say, the torso victims as well as the Ripper victims were all subjected to sharp violence and all had their necks cut - and there was abdominal opening up in more than one torso case, plus a uterus disappeared. To my simple mind, this trumphs the comparison between a blunt object inserted in the vagina to a cut-up abdomen and a severed neck.

But that may just be me, of course. I can be really picky at times.

The best,
Fisherman

Sounds like desperate arguments here, Fish.
But feel free to go ahead.
In order to stimulate your thoughts, let me tell you that I also tend to consider Horsnell, Millwood and Wilson as possible early ripper-victims.
There is also Marie-Antoinette, whose throat had been savagely severed, if I'm correct.

[DVV]

@DVV

You mean the Ripper didn't try to destroy the identity of the body at 13 Miller's Court? Bit difficult to identify with perfect certainty if that is really Mary Jane Kelly...

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.

[RavenDarkendale]

@DVV

You mean the Ripper didn't try to destroy the identity of the body at 13 Miller's Court? Bit difficult to identify with perfect certainty if that is really Mary Jane Kelly...

[Fisherman]

What happened to Emma Smith was that she got a blunt object forced into her vagina.
What happened to the Ripper victims was that they were cut up and had their throats severed.

That, David is COMPLETELY different. But I donīt see that stopping you regarding it as a more or less given that Smith WAS a Ripper victim ...?

I am having a whole lot of trouble trying to understand how differing dispatch methodologies is a clincher for a common killer in one case, but a total no-go in another. But I feel confident that you can explain that!

Needless to say, the torso victims as well as the Ripper victims were all subjected to sharp violence and all had their necks cut - and there was abdominal opening up in more than one torso case, plus a uterus disappeared. To my simple mind, this trumphs the comparison between a blunt object inserted in the vagina to a cut-up abdomen and a severed neck.

But that may just be me, of course. I can be really picky at times.

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Bah, fact is that what happened to the body of the ripper and and Mr Torso's victims is COMPLETELY different. That's what is significant, Fish.

[Fisherman]

David:

"Well, how many Torso victims were identified, then ?"

Wrong question, David. You suggested that the torso killer went out of his way to keep his victims unidentified, and people who do so do not wrap their victims in their own garments. In this specific case, there could be no mistake made, since the garments we are speaking of were even labelled with a name, "L Fisher", and Jacksons mother instantly recognized the clothing.

Morevoer, if a woman has a tattoo and if you want her unidentified, then you REMOVE that tattoo.

Likewise, if you cut the heads off, then why leave two of them out in the open where they could/would be found, if the purpose was to conceal? Maybe it was just coincidence that the other heads went missing - other bodyparts did, useless for identification purposes though they were.

So the question is wrong, David! We should not judge by the outcome, but by the possibilities he willingly left open.

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Well, how many Torso victims were identified, then ?