JTR a Pranzini Copycat?

[Sam Flynn]

You have to admit how similar the Anatomical Venus is with the murder site of Kelly, both in evisceration and display.

Oh, indeed I do, Mike. My only question relates to whether the exhibit looked like that all the time, or whether it just happened to be so displayed when photos were recently taken.

In short, I don't see that that the Anatomical Venus was necessarily a "blueprint" for the murder of Mary Kelly, nor does it have to have been. The important lesson here is that there were ways of learning about human anatomy in the LVP that were easily within reach of an otherwise untrained public. And, in terms of the Ripper case, that's a hugely important point in itself.

[SuspectZero]

Oh, indeed I do, Mike. My only question relates to whether the exhibit looked like that all the time, or whether it just happened to be so displayed when photos were recently taken.

In short, I don't see that that the Anatomical Venus was necessarily a "blueprint" for the murder of Mary Kelly, nor does it have to have been. The important lesson here is that there were ways of learning about human anatomy in the LVP that were easily within reach of an otherwise untrained public. And, in terms of the Ripper case, that's a hugely important point in itself.

Agree

[mklhawley]

Oh, indeed I do, Mike. My only question relates to whether the exhibit looked like that all the time, or whether it just happened to be so displayed when photos were recently taken.

In short, I don't see that that the Anatomical Venus was necessarily a "blueprint" for the murder of Mary Kelly, nor does it have to have been. The important lesson here is that there were ways of learning about human anatomy in the LVP that were easily within reach of an otherwise untrained public. And, in terms of the Ripper case, that's a hugely important point in itself.

Yes, I see. I tracked the evolution of professional and public anatomical museums from the 17th century to the 20th century, and at first, the Venuses were for educational reasons. When the public anatomical museums got ahold of them, such as the Venuses that were destroyed by Comstock and the New York City police in January 1888, the goal was getting the people into the front door. Sex. The Venuses were continuously displayed on beds wearing sexy nightgowns with everything exposed.

How coincidental that these New York Venuses were trashed the very same year at the Ripper murders.

The French 'Florentine' or 'Parisian' Venuses were also displayed this way.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Joshua Rogan]

Superficially, there does seem to be a lot of correlation between the scene at Miller's Court and an anatomical Venus. But then, what about the stripping of flesh from the thighs, the slashes to the arms and legs, the destruction of the face?

[mklhawley]

Gareth,

I will be presenting some of this at the April Rip Convention in Baltimore. You should take a trip to the States!

Mike

[Sam Flynn]

The Venuses were continuously displayed on beds wearing sexy nightgowns with everything exposed.

Even their intestines? Ye gods, no wonder there was trouble!

[Sam Flynn]

Gareth,

I will be presenting some of this at the April Rip Convention in Baltimore. You should take a trip to the States!

I'm thinking about it, Mike. I'll have to see what me finances are like in the new year.

[mklhawley]

Superficially, there does seem to be a lot of correlation between the scene at Miller's Court and an anatomical Venus. But then, what about the stripping of flesh from the thighs, the slashes to the arms and legs, the destruction of the face?

Hi Joshua,

I apologize for not replying to your first post. I have to go to a birthday party for my nephew (I'm already late!). The wife is going to kill me.

No, I don't believe JTR was merely using the Venus as a blueprint, just inspiration. I see another motive, which conforms with the excessive mutilation: anger-retaliatory.

Sincerely,

Mike

[SirJohnFalstaff]

Hi SirJohn and Shaggyrand,

The close proximity of the Nichols murder (and date) suggests Jack the Ripper may very well have visited the Chamber of Horrors wax museum with an effigy of Henri Pranzini in his deathstate, his execution. It would not have had a display of the women, probably just a write up of the reason for his execution. My reference to being a copycat was more for a short title than an exact motive.

Sincerely,

Mike

Oh, I'm not questioning your hypothesis, au contraire, it's very interesting.

But since French is my first language, I wanted to read about this man, and the stuff I found didn't include mutilations. I just wanted you to know that.

[SirJohnFalstaff]

This isn't directly related, except to prove that what one sees can affect a mind in disturbing ways: somewhere I came across a reference to a serial killer who stated his reason for cutting open women's stomachs was because as a child he had seen an exhibit of a model of a pregnant woman with a window in her abdomen showing the fetus inside.
I cannot remember which killer, or where I found it mentioned (maybe in one of Errata's posts at this forum), but it would seem to lend credit to the notion that a killer might want to recreate something he'd seen in a museum.

He wanted a womb with a view?


Sorry, I'll see myself out.

[Sam Flynn]

He wanted a womb with a view?


Sorry, I'll see myself out.

I'm trying to work out whether that's one or two jokes there, Sir John...

[Fisherman]

I don't know why that post is addressed to me. I wasn't asking anything about Tumblety, nor do I care where he was in June 1889.

Well, you chipped in about Tumbletys whereabouts in 1873 and 1874, and I thought you had an interest in the matter. If I was wrong, I´m sorry.

[Fisherman]

My only question relates to whether the exhibit looked like that all the time, or whether it just happened to be so displayed when photos were recently taken.

That touches on a matter of great relevance: exactly what was on display in London at the relevant stage of time. Potentially, the wax figures are an important part of the underlying motivation behind both the Ripper and the Torso deeds, but as long as we cannot tell exactly what was on display, it is hard to point to specific figures as having had an impact.
That said, there is also a possibility that our man travelled at some stage, and saw the wax figures somewhere else. It´s therefore a complex matter.

However, there can be no discarding of the suggestion that the figures were connected to the murders. The eerie scene in Millers Court, with all the innards strewn around the victims body is just too reminiscent of what was offered by the anatomical Venuses to be a mere coincidence. Lift away the abdominal wall and the thorax skin, and you can pluck out the innards and put them by the bodies´side.
It´s either that, or we have a killer who coincidentally created something that was a carbon copy of what the Venuses offered, but for some other reason, unknown to us. I cannot favour such an explanation, much as we cannot rule it out, evidencewise.

The added fact that there were wax figures where the face could be removed, revealing the underlying skull, should be added to this, together with our knowledge that this exact thing was what happened to the Battersea Torso of 1873. Another coincidence? For my own part, I don´t think so - when the pieces can all be fit together to an overall pattern, then that must be considered as being a likely explanation.

As for the Torso man and the Ripper not being one and the same - as I think you may believe, Gareth - can you tell me just how many serial murder (or singular murder) cases you are aware of, where the abdominal walls have been cut away from the victims in a couple of large flaps, reaching all the way down to, and involving, the outer genitalia?
To keep these two killers apart, we need to accept that they:
-Worked in the same town. I can live with that.
-Worked in overlapping time periods. I can live with that too, London was a large town.
-Targetted prostitutes. That makes me wonder, I have to say.
-Both cut open the abdomens of their victims to some extent. That screams of "Look here!"
-Both removed the abdominal walls of victims in large skin sections, involving the outer genitalia (meaning that they opened them up like the Florentine Anatomical Venus´ abdomen was opened up), in three cases, all of them within a time span of nine months, September 88, November 88 and June 89. To me, that comes extremely close to putting the matter beyond doubt.

The Ripper (if he was just the one man) and the Torso man (if HE was just the one man) were in all probability one and the same. Once we accept that, we can clearly see the possible connection via the anatomical figures, not just in the removals of the abdominal walls but also in the loosened face and in all the innards garnishing the corpse of Mary Kelly.

What needs to be done now is to try and look into what was on display in London, which parallel cases there may be, to answer the question what kind of killer takes an interest in disassembling women in the way of an anatomical wax figure, the possible underlying motivations, any other implications pointing to the wax figures and so on. Important work, all of it!

[Fisherman]

Superficially, there does seem to be a lot of correlation between the scene at Miller's Court and an anatomical Venus. But then, what about the stripping of flesh from the thighs, the slashes to the arms and legs, the destruction of the face?

There are numerous Venuses (or to be more exact: wax figures) where you can see the structure and muscles of an arm or a leg, just as there are many where the underlying anatomy of the skull is shown. These figures were not just about relaxed beauties with their abdomens opened up - google "anatomical venus" and look at the pictures that come up!
Plus, just like Mike points out, we cannot know what state of mind the killer was in, making his real life replicas (if that was what he did) - was he cool and calm, did he feel joy, was he filled with rage...?

[David Orsam]

Well, you chipped in about Tumbletys whereabouts in 1873 and 1874, and I thought you had an interest in the matter. If I was wrong, I´m sorry.

I wasn't really chipping in. You said "I don´t think that Tumblety can be placed in London in 1873-74" and I pointed out that he was, in fact, in London in 1873. I don't have any further interest in the subject.