Patterns formed by murder locations

[Fisherman]

...and ethymologically:

"dismember
c.1300, from O.Fr. desmembrer (11c.), from M.L. dismembrare "tear limb from limb; castrate," from L. de- "take away" + membrum "limb""

What I have always done is to work from the presumption that dismember murders were the equivalent of the Swedish term "styckningsmord" - and to "stycka" is to cut up in pieces. And "styckningsmördare" is the Swedish term for people who cut others in pieces after having killed them, more often than not for practical purposes.

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Alas, Fish, whatever your dictionaries may say, what happened to JtR victims and to Mr Torso's is very much different.
The messy work at Miller's court is very much different as well. The Torso victims were carefully dismembered, with neat cuts at the jointures. And no part of MJK body was found in the Thames.
Another HUGE difference is that Mr Torso tried his best to cover his victims identity. The Ripper didn't care.

[DVV]

Not sure what you mean, David?
Fisherman

I believe you know what I mean, Fish. Unless you want to suggest that cutting a body in neat pieces and dumping that pieces in a convenient place is just like taking the risk of fumbling into a dead woman in the street.

[Fisherman]

David:

"Alas, Fish, whatever your dictionaries may say, what happened to JtR victims and to Mr Torso's is very much different."

That´s a strange way of putting things - have I ever claimed that it was not...?

"The messy work at Miller's court is very much different as well. The Torso victims were carefully dismembered, with neat cuts at the jointures."

Yes. And I fail to see that I have disputed this.

"And no part of MJK body was found in the Thames."

Nor was any part from the Pinchin Street torso, David. What does that tell you?

"Another HUGE difference is that Mr Torso tried his best to cover his victims identity."

Two heads were found, David. And the tattooed arm on the Tottenham torso was one of the few bits that surfaced in that case - most of the other parts went missing. Jackson was identified. Clothes belonging to her were used to wrap her, clothes that were later identified by her mother.

How do these things accord with your assertion that the torso killer tried his best to cover his victims identity?

"Unless you want to suggest that cutting a body in neat pieces and dumping that pieces in a convenient place is just like taking the risk of fumbling into a dead woman in the street."

You amaze me, David. Why would I do that? Anybody can see that difference. But there are other parameters to weigh in, and without doing ALL of the homework, we will end up with a dissatified teacher.

Let´s, for instance, look at what you say about dumping the cut up torso pieces in "a convenient place". It was not just the one place, David - the torso killer dumped parts in several places when he had struck. And he opted for anything but convenience, since he sometimes placed parts where there was massive police surveillance. He threw a part over the fence to Mary Shellys son - how was that "convenient"? He went down into the Whitehall basement when the new Scotland Yard house was erected, in total darkness - not once, but probably twice, to dump a torso and dig down body parts close to it. How is that "convenient"?

And no, I was not sure what you meant. If I am, I never say that I am not. Styckningsmord and dismemberment murders are not the same, but when we translate dismemberment murders, we write styckningsmord just the same. That´s why I was confused, and I fail to see why I would not be allowed to be.

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Well, how many Torso victims were identified, then ?

[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]

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]

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 don´t 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

[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...

[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.

[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 don´t 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.

[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 victim´s 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 can´t 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]

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]

Ha! You do have balls, David, I´ll 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 killer´s behalf to obscure the victim´s 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 I´m 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 woman´s vagina compares favourably to cutting her neck and ripping her abdomen open with a sharp knife.
So let´s 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]

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 woman´s 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 ?