JTR a Pranzini Copycat?

[Pcdunn]

The article and blog link about anatomical Venuses were fascinating, and definitely new information to me. (Aside: apparently any fully nude woman in art was all right if it was called a "Venus"!) It does answer my query about how ordinary folk (well, males, at any rate-- some of the advertisements state "men only") might have gained a rudimentary instruction in human anatomy.

But I get the impression that the popular displays were considerably cruder than the graceful, realistic waxworks of the better anatomical museums. That is evident from the newspaper clippings about the types of "entertainment" available to the denizens of Whitechapel.

[Fisherman]

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.

That being the case, I can only repeat that I am sorry to have taken up your time.

[David Orsam]

That being the case, I can only repeat that I am sorry to have taken up your time.

There's no need to apologise and I don't care about the time it has taken to clarify this; but I did want to clarify it.

[Fisherman]

The article and blog link about anatomical Venuses were fascinating, and definitely new information to me. (Aside: apparently any fully nude woman in art was all right if it was called a "Venus"!) It does answer my query about how ordinary folk (well, males, at any rate-- some of the advertisements state "men only") might have gained a rudimentary instruction in human anatomy.

But I get the impression that the popular displays were considerably cruder than the graceful, realistic waxworks of the better anatomical museums. That is evident from the newspaper clippings about the types of "entertainment" available to the denizens of Whitechapel.

I think there would have been great variation. Maybe the East End wax cabinets were more likely to exhibit gory figures, I don´t really know. That probably followed in the wake of the Ripper deds, instead of preceding them. But a cruder wax figure would not be less likely to inspire a killer to act on his inclinations, would it? Plus we can see that there were wax cabinets with skilled and realistic figures - like Dr Joseph Kahn’s Anatomical and Pathological Museum - that were predominantly visited by the working class.

[Sam Flynn]

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.

How do we know how they were displayed? Those models were clearly made so that they could be taken apart and reassembled methodically, and it's a fair bet that this is how they would have been used. I doubt very much that they were permanently posed in "roadkill" mode.

Lift away the abdominal wall and the thorax skin, and you can pluck out the innards and put them by the bodies´side.

You don't need a wax dummy to know you can do that. Anyone who's taken anything out of any sort of container would know it.

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?

Probably. Anyone who's carved a stick or peeled a potato would know that one can remove a layer to expose what lies beneath.

As for the Torso man and the Ripper not being one and the same 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?

Not many, but then I'm not sure that this is really what happened to any of the torso murder victims. For example, the 1873 Thames Torso killer evidently cut and "quartered" the victim, much like a butcher would divide a pig:

Contrary to the popular opinion, the body has not been hacked, but dexterously cut up; the joints have been opened, and the bones neatly disarticulated, even the complicated joints at the ankle and the elbow, and it is only at the articulations of the hip-joint and shoulder that the bones have been sawn through. In the trunk the sections have all been made in the most favourable parts. This is clearly shown on the left side of the trunk, for after the body had been divided longitudinally, the right side was severed into three portions, а thoracic, an abdominal, and a pelvic. To make these divisions, an incision had been commenced too high, and the knife coming in contact with the lower part of the costal arch, a fresh incision was therefore made lower down, in order to clear the ribs.

The killer was clearly cutting up the body, not merely peeling the skin from the belly.

Besides, as I've noted, the motivations of evisceration murderers ("rippers", if you like) and torso-murderers are rather different. In the former case, the act of cutting the victim is to expose and/or remove the innards; in the latter, it's usually to make the corpse more portable and/or easier to get rid of.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: How do we know how they were displayed? Those models were clearly made so that they could be taken apart and reassembled methodically, and it's a fair bet that this is how they would have been used. I doubt very much that they were permanently posed in "roadkill" mode.

I don´t. They must have lied down, to begin wity, otherwise the innards would fall out. And they would have lain on their backs, in order to make them function properly.
If you doubt that, here´s a contemporary advertisement, showing how the Florentine anatomical Venus was displayed, with clothes on, even! And with information on which days women were allowed. Enjoy!

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Signor_Sarti%27s_celebrated_Florentine_anatomical_Venus_Wellcome_L0068098.jpg

You don't need a wax dummy to know you can do that. Anyone who's taken anything out of any sort of container would know it.Probably. Anyone who's carved a stick or peeled a potato would know that one can remove a layer to expose what lies beneath.

The problem is that before you lift the lid off the container, you don´t know what is inside, Gareth.
These models enabled people to learn exactly where the organs were positioned, they gave insights into how the sexual and reproductive organs were shaped and sized etcetera. That is very different from opening containers.
There can be no doubt that the anatomical Venuses offered a carbon copy likeness with the Kelly crime scene, it is quite obvious that there could be no prctical reason for cutting the face from a human skull - but there WERE wax figures portraying this exact thing.
So we should skip the containers and potatoes; this is something very different.

Not many...

Not many??? Exactly how many examples can you list? Some, apparently, which is more than I have been able to find!

... but then I'm not sure that this is really what happened to any of the torso murder victims. For example, the 1873 Thames Torso killer evidently cut and "quartered" the victim, much like a butcher would divide a pig:

Contrary to the popular opinion, the body has not been hacked, but dexterously cut up; the joints have been opened, and the bones neatly disarticulated, even the complicated joints at the ankle and the elbow, and it is only at the articulations of the hip-joint and shoulder that the bones have been sawn through. In the trunk the sections have all been made in the most favourable parts. This is clearly shown on the left side of the trunk, for after the body had been divided longitudinally, the right side was severed into three portions, а thoracic, an abdominal, and a pelvic. To make these divisions, an incision had been commenced too high, and the knife coming in contact with the lower part of the costal arch, a fresh incision was therefore made lower down, in order to clear the ribs.

The killer was clearly cutting up the body, not merely peeling the skin from the belly.

There is no evidence that the 1873 torso had her abdomen wall cut away. But she DID have the skin of her face peeled away from the skull, Gareth!
We all know that the Torso victims were cut up in pieces, nothing new there. But there IS something new!
You write that you are not sure that any of the torso victims had their abdominal walls cut away in large flaps. Why is that? It is in evidence. This is what was found inside one of the packages floated down the Thames:
"The flaps of skin and subcutaneous tissue consisted of two long, irregular slips taken from the abdominal walls. The left piece included the umbilicus, the greater part of the mons veneris the left labium majus, and labium minus The right piece included the rest of the mons veneris, the right labium majus and minus[external organs of generation], and part of the skin of the right buttock."
The parts were fit in place with the rest of the parts found. They fit exactly, and thus were once parts of Elizabeth Jackson. So there is absolute proof that she had her abdominal wall removed in two large flaps.

Besides, as I've noted, the motivations of evisceration murderers ("rippers", if you like) and torso-murderers are rather different. In the former case, the act of cutting the victim is to expose and/or remove the innards; in the latter, it's usually to make the corpse more portable and/or easier to get rid of.

The abdominal flaps taken from Chapman, Kelly and Jackson put it beyond reasonable doubt that they were killed by the same man. Unless you want to reason that there was simultaneously two prostitute killers in London who cut away the abdominal walls in large flaps with the external genitalia hangong on to them...?
Do you?

If you look for them, you will be able to find killers who have mutilated at times and cut up their victims in parts on other occasions, by the way. Plus those who have involved both elements in one victim. Unusual? Yes. Impossible? No.

If all the evidence had pointed FROM a connection, I would have been more inclined to go with statistics. But logic dictates that Chapman, Kelly and Jackson were killed by the exact same man. Any detective worth his salt would swear on a connection if informed about the skin flaps - it is an extremely, extremely rare thing to do. Unheard of, that´s what I would say - but you hint about knowing of some case(s)? I´d be interested to hear more about them, if you are up to it.

[mklhawley]

We know how they were displayed because they were recreating the reclining Venus. The origins of this reclined pose can be found in art galleries all around Europe and the world. As early as 79 AD a reclining Venus was depicted in the Ancient Roman fresco of Venus (Aphrodite in Greek mythology) riding on a seashell across the sea excavated from Pompeii in 1960. Jack the Ripper would not have known about this fresco, but he certainly may have viewed the original painting of the Italian Renaissance artist Titian called the Venus of Urbino (1538) at the Uffizi Gallery Museum in Florence, Italy. The Venus of Urbino not only portrays a beautiful nude Venus staring back at the viewer, in the background are allegories of marriage between a man and woman. Other famous paintings of the reclining Venus fill the art museums of Europe from artists, such as Girolamo da Treviso (1520), Bordone (1540), Annibale Carracci (1602), Artemisia Gentileschi (1625), Reni (1639), Valazquez (1650), Goya (1792), Cabanel, 1863, and Manet (1683).

Probably most significant to the Whitechapel case is there was a reclining Venus in the National Gallery in London. It’s called the Rokeby Venus portraying a Venus lying in bed and staring at her beauty in a mirror held onto by the roman god of physical love, her son Cupid. It was painted by Diego Velazquez (1599 – 1660) and completed it between 1647 and 1651.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Sam Flynn]

We know how they were displayed because they were recreating the reclining Venus.

I'm not questioning the pose, Mike, only the notion that they had their guts poured out at their feet all the time, like some ghastly premonition of Miller's Court - which is an inference one might be tempted to draw.

[Sam Flynn]

These models enabled people to learn exactly where the organs were positioned

I know - and it's a point I made on a podcast before this thread started. I don't have a problem with this, and it's quite feasible that the killer learned some of his "anatomical knowledge" from such models.

There can be no doubt that the anatomical Venuses offered a carbon copy likeness with the Kelly crime scene.

Of course there's a doubt! We have no idea how the model viscera were distributed. These were ostensibly educational tools - sure, there may well have been a thrill-seeking element, but I doubt very much that they were invariably set up to foreshadow 13 Miller's Court every time.

There is no evidence that the 1873 torso had her abdomen wall cut away. But she DID have the skin of her face peeled away from the skull, Gareth!

The Ripper's signature was abdominal excavation and, whilst he may have hacked and slashed at Eddowes' and Kelly's face, there is no evidence that he attempted to systematically peel away the skin. Of course, he also left their bodies where they were - rather than chopping them into cutlets and throwing them in the Thames, for example.

The abdominal flaps taken from Chapman, Kelly and Jackson put it beyond reasonable doubt that they were killed by the same man.

Not so. There are legitimate reasons for doubting even Kelly's candidacy as a "true" Ripper victim (not that I entirely subscribe to them), let alone Jackson's.

[Fisherman]

I'm not questioning the pose, Mike, only the notion that they had their guts poured out at their feet all the time, like some ghastly premonition of Miller's Court - which is an inference one might be tempted to draw.

Aha - well, I ´m inclined to agree; in all probability, the innards were mostly left in place inside the abdomen.
But the very fact that they were meant to be taken out for pedagogical purposes tells us that this must have been very common practice too. You may have seen in the ad I posted that there were "illustrative lectures" given in combination with the exhibition. I don´t think it is far-fetched to make the guess that these illustrativ lectures involved taking the innards out and placing them outside the abdomen.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: I know - and it's a point I made on a podcast before this thread started. I don't have a problem with this, and it's quite feasible that the killer learned some of his "anatomical knowledge" from such models.

Glad that at least is agreed.

Of course there's a doubt! We have no idea how the model viscera were distributed. These were ostensibly educational tools - sure, there may well have been a thrill-seeking element, but I doubt very much that they were invariably set up to foreshadow 13 Miller's Court every time.

I am anything but sure that the liver ended up between the feet of the Venus too - not least since she had crossed legs in many examples. But that is not the point I am making. I am making the point that the innards were plucked out of the wax figure and placed outside her. Realistically, they ended up close to the figure, and quite probably on the surface she was lying on. That´s quite enough to produce a copy of what happened in Millers Court. The figure on the bed would be a very close match, adbominal wall and breasts removed, lying on her back.
We can quibble, I´m sure, about the details, but I will not contribute to such a thing. They will have been very, very alike, as has been observed by numerous posters out here already.

The Ripper's signature was abdominal excavation and, whilst he may have hacked and slashed at Eddowes' and Kelly's face, there is no evidence that he attempted to systematically peel away the skin.

I have never suggested such a thing either. I have said that the 1873 torso victim had her face peeled off from her skull, leaving HER a good comparison with a number of wax figures.
I want to discuss what I suggest only - not what others may suggest on my behalf. One has to keep close track of the different victims and their damages to keep up with the discussion.

Of course, he also left their bodies where they were - rather than chopping them into cutlets and throwing them in the Thames, for example.

Let´s be a bit charitable here, Gareth - cutting people up in pieces is time-consuming and toolconsuming too. In all probability, the torso victims were handled in much longer periods of time and with seclusion. There is, of course, the fact that Phillips suggested that the killer had tried to cut off Chapmans head, so if that sort of thing is what you require, there you are.

Not so. There are legitimate reasons for doubting even Kelly's candidacy as a "true" Ripper victim (not that I entirely subscribe to them), let alone Jackson's.

There perhaps used to be. But the removal of these victims abdominal walls in large flaps dissolves that suggestion into thin air. That matter is conclusively pointing in one direction only.

But you forgot to tell me the other cases you knew of where the victims had their abdomens cut away in large flaps à la Jackson/Chapman/Kelly. There were some examples, you mentioned. Such examples could of course raise the probability of more than one killer - albeit not much if it was just the one or two examples. But anyhow, since you have access to them, could we please share?

[Sam Flynn]

I don´t think it is far-fetched to make the guess that these illustrativ lectures involved taking the innards out and placing them outside the abdomen.

Not far-fetched at all, I agree. But we don't need a wax-dummy and an illustrated lecture to know that whatever's inside a body can be removed and placed outside the body. That's been common knowledge for hundreds of thousands of years.

Knowing exactly where those innards are, and how they relate to one another, requires a tad more knowledge, albeit not much more, and models such as these could have helped the Ripper in that regard.

[Sam Flynn]

But you forgot to tell me the other cases you knew of where the victims had their abdomens cut away in large flaps à la Jackson/Chapman/Kelly

I'm not going to play that silly game, Fish. I don't have the data, and I'm not going to go looking for it. Suffice to say that Jack the Ripper can't have been the only man in history to hit upon that method for removing abdominal flesh with a knife. There are only so many ways it can be done.

Still not convinced about Jackson, mainly because she ended up being thrown in kit-form into the Thames, whereas Chapman and Kelly (etc) were left where they lay, with their limbs still very much attached.

[Sam Flynn]

In all probability, the torso victims were handled in much longer periods of time and with seclusion.

Indeed, Fish. Another departure from the Ripper's way-of-working.

There is, of course, the fact that Phillips suggested that the killer had tried to cut off Chapmans head, so if that sort of thing is what you require, there you are.

I doubt that an experienced torso-killer wouldn't know how to remove a head. As recent horrors in the Middle East have shown us, it doesn't take long, once you know what to do.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: I'm not going to play that silly game, Fish. I don't have the data, and I'm not going to go looking for it. Suffice to say that Jack the Ripper can't have been the only man in history to hit upon that method for removing abdominal flesh with a knife. There are only so many ways it can be done.

That´s not a very nice thing to say, Gareth: "silly games", bearing in mind that you started them yourself:

My words: As for the Torso man and the Ripper not being one and the same 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?

Your words: Not many, but then I'm not sure that this is really what happened to any of the torso murder victims.

You thereby stated that you did not know of "many" such cases, which in it´s turn implicated that you knew of SOME.

That is what I call a silly game, when you thereafter are forced to admit that you know of NONE - but conveniently predispose that it must have happened.


Nota bene that it is NOT just a question of removing the abdominal wall, it is a question of removing it in large flaps with the external genitals attaching to them - EXACTLY the way it looks in the anatomical Venuses.

Myself, I have not been able to find one single such case apart from the ones we are discussing, and since you (understandably) say that you are not going to go looking for them (but instead you predispose that they are there - how very convenient!) there will be no examples from your side. You are out double-quick, and I don´t blame you...

Still not convinced about Jackson, mainly because she ended up being thrown in kit-form into the Thames, whereas Chapman and Kelly (etc) were left where they lay, with their limbs still very much attached.

Gareth, all the parts of Jackson, more or less, were found with very few exceptions. They were normally wrapped in cloth and floated down the river. One parcel involved two large flaps of the abdominal wall together with the uterus (but without the fetus that had been there) and parts of the placenta. The two flaps fit perfectly into what was left of Jackson, just as they fit perfectly together. So what exactly is there to not be convinced about? How could the flaps NOT have been removed from the abdomen? Who would have done it, other than the killer?
Are you drawing swords with Trevor Marriott here, and suggesting a medical student...?

It is PROVEN that the abdominal wall was taken away from Jackson in two large flaps. It is not suggested. But let´s do it theoretically, if that is what you prefer:

If Jackson indeed did have her abdominal wall removed in two large flaps with the outer genitalia attached by her killer, just as Chapman and Kelly had their respective abdominal walls taken away in large flaps with the outer genitalia attached by THEIR killer(s), would you say that it is a pretty damn good suggestion that the killer was one and the same in such a case?

Or would you rather stick with the notion that Chapman and Kelly could have been killed by different men, and that the torso man and the ripper were not one and the same, and that these three ladies actually ALL had their abdominal walls removed in large flaps with the outer genitalia attaching to them - BY THREE DIFFERENT MEN?

I am done for the evening - I can stomach only so much onedimensional naysaying, and I am less attracted to hear it from you than from anybody else, since I am quite aware that you don´t have to do it.

Goodnight, Gareth!