Facial Mutilations

[Harry D]

My answer to that would be that there are within the Canonical Group 2 sequential victims that do have a continuing theme and physical evidence that they were killed in very similar fashion, and therefore it is quite possible even probable, that those 2 murders... at least... were committed by the same person or persons who did in fact have some obsession with specific locations on a womans body...and specific organs inside the body.

There is no other evidence within that Canonical group that strongly suggests a probable link by killer from one victim to the next.

Unless of course you feel a crazy guy was running about killing women in a variety of ways and performing unique acts each subsequent murder. For myself the "BOOGYMAN" conclusion is reliant more on emotional response than it is on any evidence.

Cheers

Hello, Michael.

Let's assume arguendo that you're right. Polly & Annie were killed by a different murderer than the rest of the C5. What becomes of this violent psychopath whose attacking prostitutes? He's suddenly out of the picture and another sick puppy (or puppies) happen to move onto his turf. Like the first guy, they cleanly dispatch their victims and slice their throats left-to-right, mutilate the bodies and remarkably all of them manage to evade capture. This all happens in the short space of three months within a localized hot zone. Now we have at least two or more knife-wielding killers terrorizing the streets of Whitechapel who are all unaccounted for until the murders quickly die out, with a couple of intermittent victims in the intervening years before the case is officially closed.

Now, of course, you can argue that there were other violent murders in Whitechapel leading up to and after the 'Ripper' murders. However, you know as well as I do that a lot of those murders are generally ruled out as Ripper victims due to various factors from the modus operandi and signature injuries to the timings. Very few of those murders bore the same trademarks as the C5, i.e. throat slicing, abdominal mutilations, evisceration and organ removal.

All things considered, I'll stick with my 'bogeyman' thanks.

[Harry D]

Please give an example were a serial killer has performed unique acts, which are consistent throughout a series. Serial killer signatures evolve or become more elaborate, for example, one killer progressed from genital mutilations to dismemberment. There is therefore nothing unusual in a series of crimes which involves certain dissimilarities, i.e. such as between Chapman and Kelley.

Quite right, John. It's naive to believe that a serial killer is going to murder in the same fashion each and every time. Peter Sutcliffe sometimes stabbed his victims to death with a knife, some he strangled with a rope, and some he used only a hammer. I'd daresay if he hadn't been caught someone like Michael would be on here arguing that the Yorkshire Ripper is another 'bogeyman' and these prostitutes were killed by no less than five different men. The Ripper murders are more consistent than those carried out by other infamous serial killers. All of them involved a deep slashing of the throat followed in most cases by abdominal mutilations. Mary Kelly is the one that stands out, owing to the extremity of her injuries, which were facilitated by her murder taking place indoors where the killer had the time and privacy to indulge himself.

Facial mutilations, for example, are not evidence of a different killer. We have no idea what was going through the murderer's mind when he was butchering these women. I, personally, believe the facial mutilations were motivated by the attractiveness of the victim. However, it could've been because those women reminded him of someone, or it was the simple result of direct escalation.

I think Michael is part of that small cadre who are on a mission to destroy the "sacred cows" of Ripperology. Nothing wrong with thinking outside the box, more power to them, but everything we've learned about the murders and serial killers in general all points to a lone killer.

[PC Fitzroy-Toye]

My answer to that would be that there are within the Canonical Group 2 sequential victims that do have a continuing theme and physical evidence that they were killed in very similar fashion, and therefore it is quite possible even probable, that those 2 murders... at least... were committed by the same person or persons who did in fact have some obsession with specific locations on a womans body...and specific organs inside the body.

There is no other evidence within that Canonical group that strongly suggests a probable link by killer from one victim to the next.

Unless of course you feel a crazy guy was running about killing women in a variety of ways and performing unique acts each subsequent murder. For myself the "BOOGYMAN" conclusion is reliant more on emotional response than it is on any evidence.

Cheers

MWR Why do you feel the need to belittling? the use of the word "boogyman" makes me think you view my thinking of it being one killer is child like? yet much of what we know of the killings would surggest that to be so, but we know not for sure so that makes things open to interperatation hence your theorem has some point, but it is a theorem none the less is it not? So neather idear has clarity each of are thinking is no less worthy than the others.

[John G]

Quite right, John. It's naive to believe that a serial killer is going to murder in the same fashion each and every time. Peter Sutcliffe sometimes stabbed his victims to death with a knife, some he strangled with a rope, and some he used only a hammer. I'd daresay if he hadn't been caught someone like Michael would be on here arguing that the Yorkshire Ripper is another 'bogeyman' and these prostitutes were killed by no less than five different men. The Ripper murders are more consistent than those carried out by other infamous serial killers. All of them involved a deep slashing of the throat followed in most cases by abdominal mutilations. Mary Kelly is the one that stands out, owing to the extremity of her injuries, which were facilitated by her murder taking place indoors where the killer had the time and privacy to indulge himself.

Facial mutilations, for example, are not evidence of a different killer. We have no idea what was going through the murderer's mind when he was butchering these women. I, personally, believe the facial mutilations were motivated by the attractiveness of the victim. However, it could've been because those women reminded him of someone, or it was the simple result of direct escalation.

I think Michael is part of that small cadre who are on a mission to destroy the "sacred cows" of Ripperology. Nothing wrong with thinking outside the box, more power to them, but everything we've learned about the murders and serial killers in general all points to a lone killer.

Hi Harry,

Absolutely. Serial killers are no where near as predictable as some people would like to think. For instance, it was argued at the time that Sutcliffe only targeted prostitutes, I.e because he must have had a hatred of such women (in fact, I believe he even made the same argument himself.) However, that doesn't explain why he attempted to murder a 14 year old schoolgirl, who he violently assaulted down a quiet country lane.

Of course, there's no doubt that Kelly's injuries were more extensive than the other C5 victims. However, there are numerous possible explanations for this. For instance, as she was killed indoors JtR had more time to indulge himself, and give full vent to his rage and perverted desires.

He might also have been under the influence of drink or drugs, or Kelly could have said or done something to make him lose control. It's also possible that he might have known Kelly and had been seen in her company, and therefore tried to confuse the police by creating doubt as to whether this was a Ripper murder.

Once again, Sutcliffe presents a valuable insight into the deluded mind of serial killers. Thus, with one of his victims he failed to retrieve a £5 note which he feared would be traced back to him. He therefore took the risk of returning to the body. However, after failing to find the incriminating evidence he began to mutilate the body, and even attempted to decapitate the victim. Subsequently, he explained his bizarre reasoning: "Having not found the £5 note I gave vent to my frustrations by picking up a piece of broken pane of glass and slashing it accross her stomach, when I did this there was a nauseating smell which made me reel back and immediately vomit, it was horrendous."

He added, "I forgot to say that before I did this it was my intention to create a mystery about the body...I had taken a hacksaw out if my car intending to remove her head...If I had cut the head off I was going to leave it somewhere else to make a big mystery out of it."

[c.d.]

"Realize that...fact... there were other murderers working in that area, (there are lots of murders in the Unsolved File besides the Canonical Group)...and that anyone can cut people up or open."

Hello Michael,

You are absolutely correct in your assertion. There were other murderers in London at that time and lots of simply bad people in general. But that same situation existed in London before the Fall of 1888 and after it as well. In fact, that same situation has existed in cities all around the world at different times throughout history. Therefore, you would expect to see Ripper-like murders occur on a regular basis but that is not the case. It takes a very special and very sick individual to do what the Ripper did and your argument doesn't take that into consideration.

c.d.

[lynn cates]

like

Hello Cd. What, exactly, is a "ripper like" murder?

Cheers.
LC

[c.d.]

Hello Cd. What, exactly, is a "ripper like" murder?

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

In general, I would define it as a woman having her throat cut and having her abdominal organs removed. And yes I know that Polly and Liz don't meet that specific criteria. You got me on that one.

c.d.

[John G]

Hello Lynn,

In general, I would define it as a woman having her throat cut and having her abdominal organs removed. And yes I know that Polly and Liz don't meet that specific criteria. You got me on that one.

c.d.

Hello c.d.,

But isn't that just the point? There are clearly significant differences between Polly and Annie, but few dispute that they were killed by the same murderer. The fact is the ritual doesn't have to be identical in every case and is unlikely to be so.

There can be all sorts of reasons why two murders in a series may exhibit differences in execution: natural evolution/elaboration of signature; the killer being disturbed; whether the murder was planned or opportunistic; the killer being intoxicated by drink or drugs; whether the murder was indoors or outdoors;declining mental state; the killer becoming enraged, and loosing control, because of something the victim said or did; killer losing control for some other reason, I.e the Sutcliffe example; killer trying to confuse the police.

To use my new favourite phrase, the possibilities seem endless!

[c.d.]

Hello John G.,

Yes, I agree with you completely. I was simply trying to head off Lynn's response.

c.d.

[Sam Flynn]

On the pull?

In general, I would define it as a woman having her throat cut and having her abdominal organs removed. And yes I know that Polly and Liz don't meet that specific criteria. You got me on that one.

Don't despair, CD. Polly sustained several long cuts to her abdomen which, it's fair to argue, might have been inflicted precisely to facilitate the removal of organs, even if none were subsequently removed.

Now I think about it...

I know the usual story is that Nichols' abdominal wounds "caused the bowels to protrude", but that wording sounds rather passive - we get the impression that the intestines just "happened" to bulge out of the incisions. Indeed, that's the picture I've always had in mind - albeit a picture shaped by whatever brief reports have survived. But what if the killer had actually started to pull the viscera out of the way, only to be thwarted and give up? If so, perhaps a novice Ripper learned a valuable lesson; he'd have to make more extensive cuts the next time.

[Trevor Marriott]

I know the usual story is that Nichols' abdominal wounds "caused the bowels to protrude",.

Hi Sam
In which official document does it say that ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

In which official document does it say that

I didn't claim to quote an official document, Trev, I simply meant that the intestines protruding from Nichols' abdominal wounds was part of "the usual story", which it is.

[Trevor Marriott]

I didn't claim to quote an official document, Trev, I simply meant that the intestines protruding from Nichols' abdominal wounds was part of "the usual story", which it is.

Is it ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

The lower portion of the abdomen also was completely ripped open, causing the bowels to protrude.
Echo, 31 Aug. 1888.

[avvie]

My personal theory for this (mostly in the case of Eddowes) is Syphilis.

I feel that the Ripper had somehow got Syphilis, most likely from a prostitute. He wanted revenge. One symptom of Syphilis is facial deformity, which apparently looks like this:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/A_young_girl_suffering_from_congenital_Syphilis_to_the_face_Wellcome_L0038265.jpg

In fact, apparently the gentleman i feel was Jack the Ripper contacted Syphilis in 1888. I haven't done much reading though, so don't know how true this is.