Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A theory about some injuries!

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    I know that Mary Jane did not die in that position, Fisherman. That he moved her body from the far side of the bed to the middle, that he set her legs outwards, that he lifted & turned her head, and he placed her hand in her abdominal cavity. Since he placed the organs specifically about her body and under her head, I don't think he had the intention of flipping her over and removing more flesh off her backside. Nothing remains of her face, and he's obviously not a decapitator. It seems like he was focusing more on cutting into her side closest to him (eg the cuts on her left arm, denuding the left thigh moreso); the left arm being the only appendage remaining to be cut, but I suspect cutting the arm would have been intricate, time-consuming work. Then, there's the possibility that she cried "oh murder!" Rather than finding an Elizabeth Stride-style murder, the cops found the grotesque mutilation, meaning he obviously didn't get spooked by her supposed shout and continued on . So id contend that he was finished, and he wasn't about to be spooked away.
    there,s nothing new, only the unexplored

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
      Had Polly not had her abdomen opened, or had Annie not had her abdomen opened and the uterus taken, or had Kate not had her abdomen opened and a partial uterus taken, I might agree cd. It seems to me however that the victims I mentioned had killers who were obsessed with abdominal cutting, and this resulted in the same organ being taken from 2 of the three. The chest area of the victim was never attacked until Mary Kelly.
      Hello Michael,

      If we follow this line of reasoning then we have to conclude that Whitechapel in the Fall of 1888 was home to uterus takers, kidney takers and chest cutters. All of whom were focused on their own individual trophy. We also have to conclude that for anyone prior to Kelly cutting the throat of a woman and taking out her internal organs would somehow consider the chest area off limits because that would just be sick and kind of icky. Very hard to believe.

      c.d.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Robert St Devil View Post
        I know that Mary Jane did not die in that position, Fisherman. That he moved her body from the far side of the bed to the middle, that he set her legs outwards, that he lifted & turned her head, and he placed her hand in her abdominal cavity. Since he placed the organs specifically about her body and under her head, I don't think he had the intention of flipping her over and removing more flesh off her backside. Nothing remains of her face, and he's obviously not a decapitator. It seems like he was focusing more on cutting into her side closest to him (eg the cuts on her left arm, denuding the left thigh moreso); the left arm being the only appendage remaining to be cut, but I suspect cutting the arm would have been intricate, time-consuming work. Then, there's the possibility that she cried "oh murder!" Rather than finding an Elizabeth Stride-style murder, the cops found the grotesque mutilation, meaning he obviously didn't get spooked by her supposed shout and continued on . So id contend that he was finished, and he wasn't about to be spooked away.
        I am very satisfied with this explanation Robert....the "oh-murder" was exclaimed by Mary after she was woken.. drunk.. and padded to the door to see who knocked, the sound that woke Diddles. When she opened the door a crack, thats when the cry was made, it was exasperation...which was heard by one witness" as if at my door", and a second witness " as if from the courtyard". He was let in without further protest. Which for me makes him either a boyfriend or lover.

        We know she was seeing someone aside from Barnett. We dont know who that was....some assume its Flemming. I dont. I think it might be Issacs.
        Michael Richards

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
          I am very satisfied with this explanation Robert....the "oh-murder" was exclaimed by Mary after she was woken.. drunk.. and padded to the door to see who knocked, the sound that woke Diddles. When she opened the door a crack, thats when the cry was made, it was exasperation...which was heard by one witness" as if at my door", and a second witness " as if from the courtyard". He was let in without further protest. Which for me makes him either a boyfriend or lover.

          We know she was seeing someone aside from Barnett. We dont know who that was....some assume its Flemming. I dont. I think it might be Issacs.
          wow...that's a lot of detail, which comes from where? I have a lot of respect for you, but these comments are certainly stretching the imagination a bit...
          Last edited by SuspectZero; 11-22-2017, 05:23 PM.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by SuspectZero View Post
            wow...that's a lot of detail, which comes from where? I have a lot of respect for you, but these comments are certainly stretching the imagination a bit...
            lol. Isaacs?
            "Is all that we see or seem
            but a dream within a dream?"

            -Edgar Allan Poe


            "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
            quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

            -Frederick G. Abberline

            Comment


            • #51
              Michael W Richards: Thats precisely my argument for excluding Stride Fisherman, glad you mentioned it, because, as you stated above, there is no record of any disturbance, the last viable sighting of her is 10-15 minutes before she is cut once, and he chose to leave her undisturbed from that point on. So I understand your concept fine.

              That´s great, Michael. And I fully agree - if the killer of Stride was not disturbed or spooked, then he did what he wanted to do and left.

              Then again, I think he WAS disturbed. Alternatively, as Tom Wescott has suggested, he was not disturbed, but had decided to kill twice, and so he did not wish to get blood on his person with the first victim.

              But of course Stride must always be an open bid to both those who say it was the Ripper and those who say it was not.

              I would add only that this should apply to all the unsolved murders unless evidence indicates otherwise, and in the case of Polly and Annie, he chose to pretend to be a client, subdue them quietly, slit their throats deeply and twice, and then proceed onto abdominal cutting that in Annies case, resulted in some excisions. Thats what that killer wanted. Your torso killer wanted to kill then take people apart, then try to scatter the evidence so as to confuse any investigation, and Mary Kellys killer wanted to punish her. In what way...well, thats pretty evident, by murder then horrible disfigurement. He didnt covet the abdomen. Neither did the Torso man.

              That´s where you are demonstrably wrong. Both Kellys killer and the Torso killer opened up abdomens and took out organs from these abdomens. So all you can say is that in the Kelly case it is proven that the killer did not take any of the abdominal parts with himself as he left, and that in the torso cases, we can´t tell, since there are sometimes pieces lacking, like colon sections.
              Last edited by Fisherman; 11-22-2017, 11:15 PM.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Robert St Devil View Post
                I know that Mary Jane did not die in that position, Fisherman. That he moved her body from the far side of the bed to the middle, that he set her legs outwards, that he lifted & turned her head, and he placed her hand in her abdominal cavity. Since he placed the organs specifically about her body and under her head, I don't think he had the intention of flipping her over and removing more flesh off her backside. Nothing remains of her face, and he's obviously not a decapitator. It seems like he was focusing more on cutting into her side closest to him (eg the cuts on her left arm, denuding the left thigh moreso); the left arm being the only appendage remaining to be cut, but I suspect cutting the arm would have been intricate, time-consuming work. Then, there's the possibility that she cried "oh murder!" Rather than finding an Elizabeth Stride-style murder, the cops found the grotesque mutilation, meaning he obviously didn't get spooked by her supposed shout and continued on . So id contend that he was finished, and he wasn't about to be spooked away.
                I agree - he was finished. But I still say that those who point out that he COULD have cut much more flesh away if he wanted to have a fair point.
                A small side issue - you write that nothing remained of her face - but the eyes were seemingly undamaged. And if we are looking at a killer who had had the time and inclination to do everything he wanted to do and then leave, such matters count. Another matter is the hand - I don´t think it was shoved into her abdominal cavity. It seems to rest on top, but I agree that it will have been placed there by the killer. If the killer had wanted to give the impression of the hand being pushed into the cavity, my suggestion is that he could have done that in a much clearer fashion.
                Last edited by Fisherman; 11-22-2017, 11:14 PM.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by c.d. View Post
                  Hello Michael,

                  If we follow this line of reasoning then we have to conclude that Whitechapel in the Fall of 1888 was home to uterus takers, kidney takers and chest cutters. All of whom were focused on their own individual trophy. We also have to conclude that for anyone prior to Kelly cutting the throat of a woman and taking out her internal organs would somehow consider the chest area off limits because that would just be sick and kind of icky. Very hard to believe.

                  c.d.
                  That's not exactly my position cd, its that there were murders committed by people who, for reasons yet unknown to us, were varied in the actions taken by the killer, and some that were horrific.

                  And I didn't say anything about anything being off limits cd, I did say that choices were made, and although we may not understand what motivated the choices, that doesn't allow for wild speculation about a single metamorphic killer making all those choices.
                  Michael Richards

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by SuspectZero View Post
                    wow...that's a lot of detail, which comes from where? I have a lot of respect for you, but these comments are certainly stretching the imagination a bit...
                    All of those tidbits come from Sarah Lewis and Elizabeth Praters statements essentially, the only dramatic inclusion is my supposition that the reason that we didn't hear anything after the cry out, and the reason no sounds of scuffling or moving about were heard by Elizabeth after that sound...sounds she stated she could hear from Marys room..were because the person at the window or door was allowed to enter the room quietly. That suggests someone close to Mary, which we know was at least 2 of them at that time.

                    It could also explain why she was first attacked in bed, on the right hand side of the bed, facing the partition wall. Away from the door and window, and anyone in the room. She wasn't afraid.
                    Michael Richards

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                      lol. Isaacs?
                      We know she was seeing 2 Joes, 1 Joe moves in around the corner from Marys room days before her murder, and shortly after she ejects Barnett, and disappears the night she is killed, leaving behind belongings in his room. Landlady remembers he was up late at night and she seems suspicious of him.

                      Not much, but nothing to just toss away.
                      Michael Richards

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by c.d. View Post
                        Hello Michael,

                        If we follow this line of reasoning then we have to conclude that Whitechapel in the Fall of 1888 was home to uterus takers, kidney takers and chest cutters. All of whom were focused on their own individual trophy. We also have to conclude that for anyone prior to Kelly cutting the throat of a woman and taking out her internal organs would somehow consider the chest area off limits because that would just be sick and kind of icky. Very hard to believe.

                        c.d.
                        It's madness to believe Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes & Kelly weren't slain by the same man. Michael wants to atomize the case, remove any connection between the nature of these murders, exaggerate the dissimilarities and create ulterior motives through tenuous links.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Harry D View Post
                          It's madness to believe Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes & Kelly weren't slain by the same man. Michael wants to atomize the case, remove any connection between the nature of these murders, exaggerate the dissimilarities and create ulterior motives through tenuous links.
                          Actually my goal is much less complicated than that Harry, Id like the these broad assumptions to be seen for what they are and for people to remember that its just opinions, not the physical evidence itself, that links most of these murders. It was then, and still is.

                          To suggest that there are other possible answers here isn't radical or right wing, its prudent considering the weight of the evidence one way or another. If you cant except that there were possible alternative reasons for any of these murders that do not include a mad killer killing solely because he has a mental aberration, that's your shtick.

                          The facts are that very few of these murders closely resemble one another in circumstance, evidence or acts performed. Alice most closely resembles the Polly and Annie murders, and the "authorities" tell us the person responsible for the first 2 Canonicals was dead, in an asylum, or still at large. Not the kind of statements one should base any premise on.
                          Michael Richards

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                            a fair point.
                            I'm thinking that your mention of the eyes is related back to the eye injuries inflicted on Catherine. I hope that we can return to the subject of the eyes soon. I've wondered if the condition of the eyes at the time of death may be an indication of the killer's method. And whether a person is more inclined to die with the eyes open (Polly) in cases of strangulation, with the eyes closed (Catherine) in cases of stabbings, or whether it matters at all. In Catherine's case, I question if he was attacking either the eyes or the eyelids.

                            I'll keep in mind the fair point. I feel the 800 lb. question here is whether or not this was the work of the Torso Killer. In that case, much more could have been, uh, accomplished. Nothing about the facial or abdominal mutilations seem surgical, but there does seem to be sensibility on how he dissected her leg down to the bone. Given more time or tools, maybe he could have gotten into the more intricate mucles of the shoulder, elbow or wrist. But the fact that he made silly cuts along her left arm makes me consider that he was finished with that appendage.
                            there,s nothing new, only the unexplored

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Robert St Devil View Post
                              I'm thinking that your mention of the eyes is related back to the eye injuries inflicted on Catherine. I hope that we can return to the subject of the eyes soon. I've wondered if the condition of the eyes at the time of death may be an indication of the killer's method. And whether a person is more inclined to die with the eyes open (Polly) in cases of strangulation, with the eyes closed (Catherine) in cases of stabbings, or whether it matters at all. In Catherine's case, I question if he was attacking either the eyes or the eyelids.

                              I'll keep in mind the fair point. I feel the 800 lb. question here is whether or not this was the work of the Torso Killer. In that case, much more could have been, uh, accomplished. Nothing about the facial or abdominal mutilations seem surgical, but there does seem to be sensibility on how he dissected her leg down to the bone. Given more time or tools, maybe he could have gotten into the more intricate mucles of the shoulder, elbow or wrist. But the fact that he made silly cuts along her left arm makes me consider that he was finished with that appendage.
                              I am not particularly openminded about the question if whether Kellys killer was the torso killer or not. To me, it is as close to a done deal as we can come.

                              Just like Liz Jackson, Mary Kelly had her abdominal wall removed in a few large flaps. To my mind, that cannot possibly be coincidental, least of all given how there are many more similarities involved.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Kelly had her entire abdomen laid open from front to back, and from the diaphragm to the pelvic girdle, evidently to facilitate the complete emptying of her abdominal viscera. Jackson had a "panel" of flesh removed from just above the navel to the vagina, arguably to enable her womb to be opened and her baby removed. There is very little comparison.
                                Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                                "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X