Ripper Facts

[MsWeatherwax]

Sorry, honour mutilations? I'm not sure I understand what you mean Pierre. Could you clarify, please?

[Pierre]

Sorry, honour mutilations? I'm not sure I understand what you mean Pierre. Could you clarify, please?

If someone has broken a social rule which is considered important for the family for example, that person could get punished by being killed, mutilated and put on display. This type of behaviour is considered the "right" thing to do if someone has been shamed by the breaking of a rule, and this type of murder is aimed at putting the social order back in place again. It is also a type of revenge. And punishment.

"Bodily mutilations, such as nose-cutting, are recorded worldwide from different cultural settings...

The underlying notion is that cultural categories, such as “honour” and “shame”, are encoded in body morphology and affect behaviour."

(Honour, Shame, and Bodily Mutilation. Cutting off the Nose among Tribal Societies in Pakistan. Jürgen Wasim Frembgen. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Third Series, Vol. 16, No. 3 (Nov., 2006), pp. 243-260)

And here is another interesting reference to an article about nose cutting:

http://wilsonquarterly.com/stories/b...acks-on-women/

I think we must understand that the killer meant something with his actions. They were not random. He targeted special areas on the bodies he attacked. He let the bodies lie in the street and where they would be found easily, on display. His signature is a set of honour mutilations used to disgrace a certain type of victim.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

I think we must understand that the killer meant something with his actions. They were not random. He targeted special areas on the bodies he attacked. He let the bodies lie in the street and where they would be found easily, on display. His signature is a set of honour mutilations used to disgrace a certain type of victim.

I can understand the first four sentences in the above paragraph. But I fail to understand why you draw the conclusion in the final sentence that the killer's signature was "a set of honour mutilations". What is it that leads you to this conclusion about the specific mutilations in the Ripper murders?

[Pierre]

I can understand the first four sentences in the above paragraph. But I fail to understand why you draw the conclusion in the final sentence that the killer's signature was "a set of honour mutilations". What is it that leads you to this conclusion about the specific mutilations in the Ripper murders?

Hi David,

As you know, I like to work empirically. So do you, by the way. And as you know, newspaper articles can be really informative sometimes. So if you go through British Newspaper Archives and search for "mutilated", "mutilations" and so on, you will find a range articles about this during the 19th century. Many of those articles describe nose cutting, cutting of ears, disembowelling or even cutting off heads, like this one:

In December 1877, two naked dead bodies were found outdoors, under a tree in Lucknow, India. (Morning Post, Tuesday 25 December, 1877). Both of the victims were headless, disembowelled and mutilated. They were the dead bodies of a young man and a young woman and the crime was understood to be an honour crime. It has even been used in war, systematically, through history, to disgrace the enemy.

The typical signature we see in the series 1888 is this type of signature. Nose cutting, mutilations of faces, disembowelling and - if you include the torso cases - cutting off heads. It is so clear and distinct that we can not miss it. It is his signature. And if we do not understand it, it´s just because we have seen to many horror movies from the 20th century with sexually motivated serial killers who torture people first by doing some of the above actions.

But in 1888, he killed them first.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

As you know, I like to work empirically. So do you, by the way. And as you know, newspaper articles can be really informative sometimes. So if you go through British Newspaper Archives and search for "mutilated", "mutilations" and so on, you will find a range articles about this during the 19th century. Many of those articles describe nose cutting, cutting of ears, disembowelling or even cutting off heads, like this one:

In December 1877, two naked dead bodies were found outdoors, under a tree in Lucknow, India. (Morning Post, Tuesday 25 December, 1877). Both of the victims were headless, disembowelled and mutilated. They were the dead bodies of a young man and a young woman and the crime was understood to be an honour crime. It has even been used in war, systematically, through history, to disgrace the enemy.

The typical signature we see in the series 1888 is this type of signature. Nose cutting, mutilations of faces, disembowelling and - if you include the torso cases - cutting off heads. It is so clear and distinct that we can not miss it. It is his signature. And if we do not understand it, it´s just because we have seen to many horror movies from the 20th century with sexually motivated serial killers who torture people first by doing some of the above actions.

But in 1888, he killed them first.

I like specifics, Pierre, and it seems to me that in terms of specifics you have found a single example from India in 1877 (which you have posted about before) where there has been disembowelling and mutilation of a woman and a man which was believed to have been an "honour killing" (or killings). But how from that single example in a foreign country, in a very different culture, some eleven years before the JTR murders do you get to the notion that some women being murdered and mutilated in London in 1888 were also "honour killings"?

I appreciate that you say that you are aware of other examples but are you saying that every single case of a murder and mutilation is an "honour killing"? Or is there something special about the JTR murders which leads you to the conclusion that they were "honour" killings?

[Elamarna]

Pierre

Were honour killings known in the uk at this time?
Do you have any evidence of any having taken place in 1888 or prior to it that can be specifically said were honour killings?

Are you not taking the idea of honour killings/mutilations from Eastern cultures and applying it to a completely different culture which may not understand it.

You have been pushing this idea from some considerable time, with not one shred of any evidence supplied to back the idea, no doubt this is because you wish to use it to tie your suspect into the murders.

"I think we must understand that the killer meant something with his actions. They were not random. He targeted special areas on the bodies he attacked. He let the bodies lie in the street and where they would be found easily, on display. His signature is a set of honour mutilations used to disgrace a certain type of victim."

Once again, we are being told the something is a "fact"; of course you are entitled to express your opinions and views.

BUT this is not given as an opinion but has a "fact"



We do not know that the killer meant something with his actions, other than a need to kill and mutilate, to suggest anything else is an assumption.


We do not know the the facial wounds were not random. (Facial attacks such as nose and ear cutting are often involved in Honour mutilation).

It seems safe to say that the attacks on the abdomen, and internal organs, including the uterus and kidney, were not random, however that is a long way from suggesting honour killings/mutilation.


The signature you describe is your belief, the victims were already at the bottom of the social structure in 1888 Whitechapel, so in whose eyes is he trying to disgrace them? In a society of 1888 London who will understand the concept and the meaning of the suggested reason for the wounds.

Regards

Steve

[Debra A]

Is Pierre specifically linking those crimes to his suspect who was perhaps in India, perhaps involved in war and witnessed similar events?

[Elamarna]

Is Pierre specifically linking those crimes to his suspect who was perhaps in India, perhaps involved in war and witnessed similar events?

Debra,

that would be the obvious conclusion.

Steve

[Debra A]

There was something about Pierre's posting style that reminded me of another poster I've encountered on JTRforums. After a little digging I noticed that the particular poster I had in mind looks like he(she) had published a fictional account of the ripper crimes quite recently and after reading that book on Kindle, the fictional suspect seems to fit with Pierre's suspect too on most points I have encountered so far.
I don't know for definite they are the same person but they sure have a lot in common!

[Elamarna]

Debra,

someone else said much the same some time back, would the book be a kindle edition priced at £2.86?

i have the title but obviously don't want to post it

steve

[jerryd]

There was something about Pierre's posting style that reminded me of another poster I've encountered on JTRforums. After a little digging I noticed that the particular poster I had in mind looks like he(she) had published a fictional account of the ripper crimes quite recently and after reading that book on Kindle, the fictional suspect seems to fit with Pierre's suspect too on most points I have encountered so far.
I don't know for definite they are the same person but they sure have a lot in common!

I think I know who you are talking about, Debs. I've mentioned that's who I think Pierre is, all along. No denial from her, yet. But the more I listen to Pierre speak, the more it sounds like this other person's suspect.

[Debra A]

I think I know who you are talking about, Debs. I've mentioned that's who I think Pierre is, all along. No denial from her, yet. But the more I listen to Pierre speak, the more it sounds like this other person's suspect.

I sent you a PM, Jerry. I haven't been able to read all the posts concerning Pierre's suspect so sorry if you already mentioned this novel and author.

I don't mean Sophie H and Macnaghten btw. I'm not sure what gender the author of the fictional novel is as the name is genderless.

[Debra A]

Yes, we are on the same page, Jerry.

[Elamarna]

Jerry

i was not sure if it was you who mentioned it.

will need to read it i guess.

Steve

[Bridewell]

The typical signature we see in the series 1888 is this type of signature. Nose cutting, mutilations of faces, disembowelling and - if you include the torso cases - cutting off heads. It is so clear and distinct that we can not miss it. It is his signature.

A serial killer's signature is something he does every time with every victim. This is a series with different mutilations in each case, so I struggle to reach a conclusion that this amounts to an identifiable 'signature'.