Is Jack someone we have never heard of?

[RivkahChaya]

Absolutely serial killers change there MOs based on the situation. Just off the top of my head-the Boston Strangler, Zodiac, Bundy and BTK all changed their MOs drastically depending on the circumstances.

Just for the record, "The Boston Strangler" is more of an enigma than JTR. First, the person usually credited with the murders, Albert DeSalvo, was never charged with them. It's true that he confessed to them, but that was to avoid the death penalty, and receive a life sentence instead, for another set of murders.

Most experts think that the Boston police at the time confabulated at least two sets of strangulation-murders which happened to overlap. Aside from other differences, though, in one set, the victims were elderly, and in the other, notably young. There were also two stabbing murders, and one death of a woman who died of a heart attack during a sexual assault, which were credited to the same "Boston Strangler." The only commonality among all the deaths was that they were of women living alone whose apartments were not broken into, so the killer appeared non-threatening, or had some very successful coercion or subterfuge. So, actually, there may have been four, or even five killers, as one stabbing victim was beaten, and one was not, and the heart attack victim was a felony murder, not a deliberate murder-- there's no way to know what the actual intentions of the person who assaulted her were.

This is a vast oversimplification, but there are essentially three kinds of serial killers, in terms of outward appearance. The rare totally crazy ones, like Richard Chase, the rare totally sane ones, like John Wayne Gacy, and then there's the odd ones. Ed Gein was odd. He clearly had few screws loose, but no one ever thought he was dangerous. Jeffrey Dahmer was odd. The whole "quiet, shy, kept to himself" neighbor thing is a little odd. It makes you wonder if the police who were looking for some snarling maniac should have been looking for the guy all his neighbors sort of made fun of for, I don't know, hoarding stuffed birds.

Also, just for the record, no one is actually sure that Ed Gein killed anyone. He may have "just" been a grave-robber. Yikes. Definitely strange, even among people who liked dead bodies.

Which is one thing about Jeffrey Dahmer I remember reading a couple of different places. He wasn't so much a pleasure-killer, as a necrophiliac, who made his own bodies. He didn't actually like killing people. Sometimes he poisoned people, and even left the room while the poison took effect.

I agree with you on the continuum of craziness, and also that the Victorian police probably had difficulty conceiving of someone who appeared and acted essentially normal, other than when he was engaged in his ripper activities, and so they were on the look-out for the snarling maniac. That was probably their biggest mistake, and they didn't stop to consider that the prostitutes of Whitechapel were also on their guard for snarling maniacs. They were probably avoiding anyone with any sort of superficial oddity, like a slight movement disorder, or a stutter, and therefore missed the Ted Bundy-types completely.

Regarding "types," there are also types in regards to what they get out of killing. Some are necrophiliacs, who may not relish killing at all. Some are sadists, who may torture victims extensively before dispensing with them-- and may only do because the victim is exhausted, and it just happens, or so as not to leave a witness, or just because the torture seems anti-climactic without it, and then there are serial killers who are extreme versions of power-assertion rapists. The ultimate power over people is killing them and watching them die. Corpse desecration while the body is still fresh may be another assertion of power, and isn't quite the same thing as necrophilia.

There are also terrorist-killers, like the Zodiac, and the DC sniper, but I think they are really a subgroup of power-assertion killers. They make one person stand in for the entire community they are trying to hurt. They don't rape, because it isn't personal, and they want people to be aware that it could have been anyone.

I can't remember where I read that, but it isn't original, except the bit about the terrorist sub-group. Since we have very clear statements from people that their goal was to create fear, I think I'm justified.

[Debra A]

Hi Debs
Just trying to look at these from a differnet perspective, I beleive that in some of the cases doctors decsribed antamoical knowledge in the way the body parts had been cut up or off as the case may be.

When body parts or in the some cases the full bodies were taken as medical specimens etc. It was the responsibilty of those taking them to dispose of them in a proper way. Perhaps that wasnt always the case and dumping them in the thames was a much easier option.

I quote from The Pall Mall Gazette

"One corpse" - £3.5shilling
"One thorax" - 5 Shillings
" One arm,one leg,one head,one neck,and one abdomen" - 15 shillings

No matter how much you doctor it up it cannot be proven that the owners of the body parts were actually murdered although I have to agree with you that an inference may be drawn.

Trevor, Bond and Hebbert (yes, those two again ) thought that the 'anatomical' skill shown was that of butcher of slaughterer in that there seemed to be some expertise in the disarticulation of the joints in all the four cases. They also felt that there had been some possible progression of skill throughout the four cases when it came to division of the vertebra.

If these were medical specimens discarded why are there no males or children or elderly among the bodies dumped, surely an anatomist would be grateful for any specimen? Why are there no signs of disease or a natural cause of death in the same way you say there are no signs of violent death? Why were some parcelled up in paper and items of clothing? One proven to be her own clothing.

Why are there not more clusters of dumped 'anatomical specimens' appearing in other areas and cities? Why no other years?

A verdict of willful murder was given on Elizabeth Jackson, that's a legal finding down on record. I can't prove the other three were murdered, no, but I can study the cases, read what two contemporary doctors (one a lecturer in forensic medicine, one head of anatomy at the Westminster Hospital) concluded after their own careful forensic examinations and autopsy of the four sets of remains (ordered by the Home office) and weigh up the probability. These doctors would have been fully aware of the trade in anatomical specimens, yet they found no evidence to show that was the case with any of the remains. I will go with them every time until someone can prove they were wrong.

[Bridewell]

Hello Colin. Thanks.

OK, weeks and months are right out. How about days? Hours? How many?

Distance? There was a serial killing in which another body was found nearby--same alley. But no connection. (I think Norma Buddle found this titbit.)

Sorry if I seem to nitpick.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,

Okay. I get the point. There's no exact dividing line which could be objectively set.
For me, as I posted earlier, it's the combination. I think that within a half-mile AND within an hour throws up a likelihood of a common killer - not a certainty, just a likelihood. Some agree with me; some don't. I can live with it.

(No need for apology. I nitpick too!)

Regards, Bridewell.

[Bridewell]

I don't see it as 'highly improbable'. She'd left a pub with one man and appeared to be waiting for another. She may or may not have been loitering for prostitution, but loitering she was, and she was a known prostitute.

If I may say so, that is entirely an assumption.

Entirely an assumption? 'Left with one man, waiting for another' is assumption. Loitering is not. She had been on the same street for around an hour. Known prostitute is not. It's a matter of historical record.

Regards, Bridewell.

[sleekviper]

It would not surprise me either way if the deaths of these women were caused by someone known or unknown. I have seen one too many "Black cards", with Mary Turner type scenes, to even guess a level of sanity. When a fear of retribution is not present, whether outwardly or internally, anyone can be capable of about anything. They called them Black cards since most of the victims were Black; they basically were postcards that places printed up to show what they do to people in that area. Sundown towns made sure people knew what was expected since if they were caught in town after sundown, what they see on the card could happen. As for Mary Turner in 1918, well seems insane to me, but someone with this type mentality, actually able to get away with it, could be anybody.
"Twenty year-old Mary Turner, 8 months pregnant at the time and whose husband had been killed in this "lynching rampage" on Sunday, May 19th, made the mistake of publicly objecting to her husband's murder. She also had the audacity to threaten to swear out warrants for those responsible. Those "unwise remarks," as the area papers put it, enraged locals. Consequently, Mary Turner fled for her life only to be caught and taken to a place called Folsom's Bridge on the Brooks and Lowndes Counties' shared border. To punish her, at Folsom's Bridge the mob tied Mary Turner by her ankles, hung her upside down from a tree, poured gasoline on her and burned off her clothes. One member of the mob then cut her stomach open and her unborn child dropped to the ground where it was reportedly stomped on and crushed. Her body was then riddled with gunfire from the mob. Later that night she and her baby were buried ten feet away from where they were murdered. The makeshift grave was marked with only a "whiskey bottle" with a "cigar" stuffed in its neck."

[lynn cates]

forensic evidence

Hello Colin. Well, that would certainly catch my attention. Ultimately, however, I'd put my faith in forensic evidence.

Cheers.
LC

[Phil H]

Entirely an assumption? 'Left with one man, waiting for another' is assumption. Loitering is not. She had been on the same street for around an hour. Known prostitute is not. It's a matter of historical record.

If that's what passes for intellectual argument in your book, Bridewell - I'll remember that when reading future posts from you.

Phil H

[Michael W Richards]

Hi all,

On the point that Phil and Bridewell have been back and forth on...what we have with Polly, Annie, Kate and also Liz are Unfortunates who at the time of their death had not secured a bed for the night...that we know of anyway, in Liz's case. They are middle aged women who have all resorted to prostitution at some point in their lives, Polly and Annie were actively pursuing clients the night they are murdered. We have their own words via witnesses that verify that. However, there is no proof that Liz was doing so, there is no proof that Kate was soliciting, and it would appear that 26 year old Mary was killed while in her bed and underwear.

Only 2 of the Canonical Group are known to have been soliciting the night they are killed. That being the case, it would seem Martha Tabram belongs more with Polly and Annie than the remaining 3 of the Canonical Group, we know she was a middle aged Unfortunate soliciting on the night she is killed.

If within the Victimology is the answer we would never have had a Canonical Group in the first place. If this Jack fellow killed the Canonical Group, ..then he killed some women we cannot say for a fact were soliciting at the time.

That should flip a few wigs.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, Bond and Hebbert (yes, those two again ) thought that the 'anatomical' skill shown was that of butcher of slaughterer in that there seemed to be some expertise in the disarticulation of the joints in all the four cases. They also felt that there had been some possible progression of skill throughout the four cases when it came to division of the vertebra.


If these were medical specimens discarded why are there no males or children or elderly among the bodies dumped, surely an anatomist would be grateful for any specimen? Why are there no signs of disease or a natural cause of death in the same way you say there are no signs of violent death? Why were some parcelled up in paper and items of clothing? One proven to be her own clothing.

Why are there not more clusters of dumped 'anatomical specimens' appearing in other areas and cities? Why no other years?

A verdict of willful murder was given on Elizabeth Jackson, that's a legal finding down on record. I can't prove the other three were murdered, no, but I can study the cases, read what two contemporary doctors (one a lecturer in forensic medicine, one head of anatomy at the Westminster Hospital) concluded after their own careful forensic examinations and autopsy of the four sets of remains (ordered by the Home office) and weigh up the probability. These doctors would have been fully aware of the trade in anatomical specimens, yet they found no evidence to show that was the case with any of the remains. I will go with them every time until someone can prove they were wrong.

Hi Debs

I think you have to consider that there were diferent degrees of anataomical skills for example a medical student would have less skills than a doctor who in turn would have less skills than a surgeon. These doctors were obviously giving their opinions based upon their own medical and surgical skills, and not those of persons less skilled.

Clearly in the case of Jackson by the reports she had been subjected to some form of illegal medical procedure (abortion) which the doctors initially considered was the cause of death. Then they change their opinions and suggest murder. Their opinions appear to be based on no hard evidence to suggest murder. The coroner then directs the jury to bring in a verdict of wilful murder. In my opionin having reviewed all of this it was a wrong verdict and it should have been left as an open verdict as were the other verdicts on the other part bodies.

The reason there were no children or old persons is quite simple, with regards to children they would not normally be considered due to the fact that the internal organs etc would not be fully developed. As to old people well as you know with old people their bodies age to the point where there is very little skin and muscle on the body and therfore the external organs are of very little use to an anatomist. So younger specimens weremuch sought after.

One has to consider that for a person to dismember a body they need some time. they also need somewhere out of the way. They then run the risk of leaving pools of blood where the dismemberment takes place. Then they run the risk of moving the body parts and being seen.

I would suggest that if any of these had been murdered or simlpy died of natural causes then why would the killer not simply leave the dead body behind where the murder took place or the natural death and simply disappear.

If I were a gambling man I would put money on perhaps the deaths being linked by reason of illegal operations being performed on the women. That would necessitate the person repsonsible having to get rid on the bodies to avoid being caught by the police. This would allow for the lack of professional medical knowledge as was described.

[Bridewell]

If that's what passes for intellectual argument in your book, Bridewell - I'll remember that when reading future posts from you.
Phil H

Hi Phil,

The argument was factual. I make no pretence to intellect. Apologies if I've caused offence.

Regards, Bridewell.

[RivkahChaya]

Regarding the doctor/butcher skills question, I've always wondered if it wasn't a question of drawing a target around the dart. The medical examiners who thought the organ removals showed some medical knowledge, or butchering skill, possibly made an assumption that JTR went to the crime with the intent of removing a particular organ before he had even selected his victim. That certainly would necessitate skill. He'd have to be able to recognize the organ under limited light, and "operate" mainly by touch.

However, if he just grabbed something squishy, and sliced until it was free, and then when he got home, was able to identify it, at least in the case of Catherine Eddowes (assuming for argument that the Lusk letter is authentic), it might be simply because a human kidney looks pretty much like a cow or sheep kidney that someone at the time might buy from a butcher's shop. Had he happened to grab something else, like the spleen or uterus, maybe he wouldn't have been able to identify it. Or maybe he would have found out if the newspaper reports on the coroner's inquest said what it was.

At any rate, assessing his skill seems to me to require knowing what his intent was, and we don't know that. If he wanted a kidney from the outset, then he had some sort of knowledge, at least what an experienced butcher would have; if he just wanted something, then all he really needed was grip strength and determination.

Anyway, a difference in assumptions about intent might account for the discrepancies in assessments of the different medical examiners, regarding whether or not JTR must have had medical training, or been a butcher.

[Wickerman]

I quote from The Pall Mall Gazette

"One corpse" - £3.5shilling
"One thorax" - 5 Shillings
" One arm,one leg,one head,one neck,and one abdomen" - 15 shillings

Trevor.
Does the article say to whom these prices are applicable, the general public, or just professionals with a medical certificate?

Thanks, Jon S.

[HelenaWojtczak]

Jeepers creepers! I will have to take a whole day off writing my book just to read the replies that came in yesterday!

There are some people,believe it or not,who don't have the slightest interest in Jack the Ripper, if you ask them who they think Jack the Ripper was they will probably have some vague idea about a mad doctor, through cultural osmosis.

One person to whom I mentioned that I was researching the life of someone who happened to also be a Jack-the-Ripper suspect replied, 'Oh, you mean the wrong man may have been hanged for the Ripper crimes, then'?

Helena
PS Why does everyone on here call me Helen?

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Wickerman;235525]Trevor.
Does the article say to whom these prices are applicable, the general public, or just professionals with a medical certificate?

Thanks, Jon S.[/QUOTE

Full article attached

[HelenaWojtczak]

Full article attached

I see that uteri and kidneys are omitted.

Helena