Patterns formed by murder locations

[Phil H]

It strikes me that it might have been a domestic.

the intimacy of the place. The fact that Mary was practically naked, probably asleep and leaving space in the bed for another.

The mutilation of her face, the attempt to eradicate her personality, even her humanity strike me as very personal and perhaps suggest that the perpetrator was someone who was or had been intimate with Mary.

In the mix of fury and passion, the murderer may have sought to emulate what he had read about in the papers - especially Eddowes - but not seen. So he goes too far. The mutilations are greater, less controlled, more extreme.

I don't think this is the same butchery as was done by the man who killed Nichols and Chapman and probably Eddowes too.

A thought struck me as I wrote this - new to me maybe not to others. I don't know whether it has been discussed before, pardon me if it has.

Could a woman have done this? Could Mary have killed a female lover. or simply another woman? We know women had stayed in the room. If mary was murderer not victim it might explain why she was seen, even why Mrs maxwell as keen to say so. It might explain burnt clothing - to conceal the identity of the victim. It might explain Mary's singing and drawing attention to herself - almost saying - I can't be dead 'cos you can see/hear me.

Having ensured people knew she was around, she does the deed and vanishes.

Full of holes, but I had never examined the murder from that perspective before and I found it interesting.

Phil H

[DVV]

It strikes me that it might have been a domestic.
Phil H

Oh, here you're preaching a converted, Phil.
It's a domestic affair, I have no doubt, and more precisely a "ripper-domestic" affair. Serial killers can have a private life, can't they ?

As for the rest of your post, I'll never believe there were two killers with similar obsessions/fantasies in the East End during the same period.

[Phil H]

As for the rest of your post, I'll never believe there were two killers with similar obsessions/fantasies in the East End during the same period.

I think you are wrong for various reasons. But to consider just the Torso killer shows there was at least one other murderer around at the time focusing on unfortunates.

Phil H

[DVV]

As for the rest of your post, I'll never believe there were two killers with similar obsessions/fantasies in the East End during the same period.

I think you are wrong for various reasons. But to consider just the Torso killer shows there was at least one other murderer around at the time focusing on unfortunates.

Phil H

As you like, but you're clearly wrong here. There is absolutely no chance that two serial killers with similar (understatement) fantasies were active in the same little area at the same time. The Torso killer is not to be compared, really not.

[Fisherman]

Phil H:

" to consider just the Torso killer shows there was at least one other murderer around at the time focusing on unfortunates."

Possibly focusing on unfortunates, Phil - Jackson was a prostitute, but of the others we donīt know whether they shared her profession or not, but I do believe it was said that one of them was still a virgin, something that talliies rather poorly with prostitution.

On the other hand I very much agree that both the Torso killer and Jack were men with an at least partly similar obsession - that of cutting into dead bodies. So if these killers were not one and the same (different schools argue different things here - big surprise! ), you will be correct on this score, I think.

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Hi Fish, here (for once !) I have to disagree.
What JtR did in the Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly cases isn't to be compared with the Torso affair. Of course it's about cutting dead bodies, but JtR has his distinct MO, and nothing tells us that the Torso killer used to walk back home (ie : Victoria Home - sorry couldn't resist) with an uterus in the pocket.

[DVV]

Eh ! oh ! mettez-vous d'accord....

Combining Phil and Fish posts, I came to realize that the Torso killer could be JtR...but whose one ?
The one who murdered Chapman ? Or the other, who took care of Kelly ?
Wait...

[DVV]

one of them was still a virgin, something that talliies rather poorly with prostitution.

Fisherman

Here I agree... and enjoy !

[Fisherman]

David:

"What JtR did in the Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly cases isn't to be compared with the Torso affair. Of course it's about cutting dead bodies, but JtR has his distinct MO, and nothing tells us that the Torso killer used to walk back home (ie : Victoria Home - sorry couldn't resist) with an uterus in the pocket."

Nothing? Not even the fact that a uterus WAS missing from one of the torso victims?

Jack has his distinct MO, you tell me. Does that involve cutting flesh from the thighs? Carving the breasts away? Removing the buttocks?

Or do these matters NOT belong to his MO? If so, why did he do it to Kelly? Or was that not Jack?

The torso murders are different from what Jack did, yes. But we know that the torso killer cut off the nose in one case - and Jack did so in two. We know that Jack cut off breasts in one case - and a removed breast was found floating in the Thames in one torso case. Such things are similarities, not dissimilarities. A wish to cut into a dead womanīs body is also a similarity, not a dissimilarity. Killing in 1887-89, mainly, was of course ALSO a similarity, and dumping a torso in Pinchin Street also creates a similarity, not a dissimilarity. And I know what people tell me about how proximity in time and space speaks for Jack being responsible for Stride!

So, David, what Jack did IS to be compared to the torso killer on many a level. Serial killers who seemingly derive satisfaction from killing first and cutting up afterwards are very, very rare creatures, and that applied even more back in those days.

Now, donīt misunderstand me - I am not saying that the two must have been one and the same. Not at all. They produce different results when they kill. But ruling out a connection would be very unwise - and saying that two killers with similar intents cannot co-exist the way the torso killer and Jack did, is simply wrong.

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

I don't misunderstand you Fish, and I can agree with some of your points (but not for the MO). Anyway, at the end of the day I'll safely assume that we're dealing with two different cases and can't understand the multiplication of Jacks (sort of miracle of the loaves and fishes), which seems the current tendency.
I'm an awful reactionary, I suppose.

[Fisherman]

David!

You forgot to answer the question I posed to you. If you are going to speak of a defined MO of Jack, then you need to come clear about that definition. And you clearly state that you disagree with me on the MO, without, though, telling me how and why.
Once again, thus:
Do you regard cutting away the buttocks, cutting the flesh from the thighs and removing the breasts as something that belongs to the Ripperīs MO?

Or did Jack deviate from his MO with Kelly?

Or was it not Jack at all?

I am also slightly uneasy when it comes to the uterus bit. You claimed that the torso killer did not use to walk away with this organ pocketed, but the uterus WAS missing in one torso case. Did you not know this?

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Once again, thus:
Do you regard cutting away the buttocks, cutting the flesh from the thighs and removing the breasts as something that belongs to the Ripperīs MO?

As you know, Fish, what he did with the dead bodies varied, and that, by the way, is only an aspect/part of the MO. Choosing an unfortunate, at night, in or around Whitechapel, following her to a secluded spot, cutting her throat (savagely), etc, that's JtR.

Or did Jack deviate from his MO with Kelly?

Certainly this murder stands apart, because MJK wasn't a random victim and was killed indoors.

Or was it not Jack at all?

Oh, that was Jack. I can even give you his name and address. Even his height (5'7).

I am also slightly uneasy when it comes to the uterus bit

Don't ! - after all, you're a grown man.

You claimed that the torso killer did not use to walk away with this organ pocketed, but the uterus WAS missing in one torso case. Did you not know this?

Do you know where and when that uterus was cut ? Had the killer (if it was the killer, btw) have to "walk away" with it ? We don't know.

[Fisherman]

David:

"As you know, Fish, what he did with the dead bodies varied, and that, by the way, is only an aspect/part of the MO."

If it varied, David - and it did - we may need to be careful before ruling out a connection with the torso murders. Thatīs what variation means.

"Choosing an unfortunate, at night, in or around Whitechapel, following her to a secluded spot, cutting her throat (savagely), etc, that's JtR."

U-huh. Letīs compare that to the torso killer!

"Choosing an unfortunate."

Elizabeth Jackson was a prostitute. And the Tottenham torso had a tatto of a rose, implicating that she too may well have been. And we are not sure that the five canonicals WERE prostituting themselves on the murder nights. No difference, thus.

"At night."

Could work for both.

"In or near Whitechapel."

Could actually work for both too. Nobody knows where the torso victims were picked up, although we DO know that Jackson prostituted herself near Battersea park. But that does of course not mean that the torso killer must have found her there!

"Following her to a secluded spot"

We donīt know that this held true for the Ripper, do we? Maybe HE led THEM to the spot. And maybe the torso killer led HIS victims.

"Cutting her throat savagely"

The torso victims were supposedly killed by having their necks severed, David.

So, all in all, you are not on thin ice here. You are on the open sea.

"Certainly this murder stands apart"

It does. And it displays a wish to take a body apart in pieces, just like ... you get my drift!

"... because MJK wasn't a random victim and was killed indoors."

Thatīs your take, David, and unproven. She may or may not have been a random victim, and the jury is out on the issue. She WAS killed indoors, yes - but you can cut breasts away outdoors to. And buttocks. If you want to.

Back on the open sea, are we not?

"Do you know where and when that uterus was cut ? Had the killer (if it was the killer, btw) have to "walk away" with it ? We don't know."

Of course we donīt know. But we donīt know that Jack did either, do we? We SURMISE this, but thatīs because the organs were missing from the abdominal cavity. And the organ was equally missing from the abdominal cavity of one of the torso victims. If you want to believe that it - but no other organs - went missing at some stage after the killer was handling the body, feel free. But claiming that the torso killer differed from Jack in this respect would be rather a careless thing to do, donīt you think?

Ohoy, captain! Sea what I mean?

Fisherman

[DVV]

How can I take a nap with Fish sharpening his arguments nearby ?

[Fisherman]

Worse, David - they need no sharpening. They speak for themselves in this case.

The best,
Fisherman