Idiots Folly

[protohistorian]

How would disposing of her in the river thwart identification? Dave

[corey123]

Hello Dave,

I am trying to see why that was a response to???(englighten me???) anyhow, regarding identification, that and scar's as in Jackson's case.

The identification came about by means of the clothing of the victim, her description, pregnant condition at the time of her disappearance and also the fact that Elizabeth had a scar on her wrist as a result of a childhood accident. This was investigated by the doctors and by lifting away a small amount of skin from the slightly decomposed arm of the victim they were able to locate traces of similar scar on the wrist.

Again written by Debra Arif.

[protohistorian]

Corey photographic identification was in it's infancy if it existed at all. Clothes were more of a feature for identification than photos. Dave

[corey123]

Past attempts

Here are my past attempts at connecting the murders. Please excuse my horrible grammer and spelling

11-27-09

i have a new theory that rules out dr.tumblerty. i believe the murderers of the five canonical didn’t stop all together after Kelly. as it was noted that the mutilations started out as slight abdominal mutilations as on Nichols and increased in degrees ending in Kelly being unrecognizable. so if the ripper went to that degree with five victims why stop there? Why not say that on September the 9th 1889 when the pinchin street torso was found that that may have been another victim of the ripper? There are clues that point to the ripper
1.severe abdominal mutilations
2.the victim was killed on sept 8 1889 the one year anniversary of Chapman
i think the killer might have killed again to relive his murders of the previous year and maybe the degree of mutilation was upped again to making the victim unrecognizable. I believe if the ripper did kill another that he wouldn’t just stop at the degree of mutilation found with the woman killed in No.13 millers court but that he would advance again to more mutilations as in disemboweling his victims and mutilating them. i believe there was one report of the womb missing but this is not very likely. This theory needs some research and i invite anyone who would like to help me prove or disprove this

but on the other hand if it is related to the Whitehall torso of oct 3rd 1888 it cant be related to the ripper murders because the ripper wouldn’t go from that degree of mutilation to a lesser degree as that of Nichols but if it isn’t related to the Whitehall torso then it may then be related.

11-28-09

ok heres a layout of what i have so far.first in the killing of MJK the ripper killed her INDOORS!!!which could have resulted in him liking the privicy and solitary.and in MJK her head was almost cut off,the right arm was seperated from her body,maybe and attempt to disjoint the right leg.
TIMELINE

1.nichols/throat cut/slight abdominal mutilations/outdoors
2.annie/throat cut/more severe abdominal mutilations/still outdoors
3.eddowes/throat cut/sever abdominal mutilations/slight facial disfigurment/still outdoors
4.MJK/INDOORS/EXTREAM facial AND body mutilations/almost limb severing
5.pinchin street torso/possibily killed indoor.this is just guessing but maybe the ripper liked killing indoors but also liked the show of the body,the publicity so he killed the victem indoors then disposed it openly/heavy abdominal mutilations/limbs severed/we dont know the condition of the legs or face.

but then again it was noted that the attack on the genitals was absent.
i still need to do more reserch

[corey123]

Hello Errata,

You have a point with the disposal vrs. posing or as you said, sending a boat of limbs into the Thames. I still have trouble trying to guess why Jack the Ripper would change to such a different feature in his murders. Perhaps he was experimenting? I dunno if you noticed but I posted some anatomical reports detailing the injuries of four of the Torso murders as reported by Debra Arif, very interesting.

You are right, he didn't try to weigh them down. However I disagree on the head. I think he kept them to keep the authorities from identifying the bodies. You have to remember that just after the Rainham mystery, the Thames police division did a very thourough search of the banks and waters that month.

Just for reference, as seen in Dickens dictionary of London, 1888:

Thames Division.
Wapping, near the river.
George Skeats, Supt,;
Inspectors 49; Sergeants 4; Constables 147. Total 201.

It is clear they made a search by this news report in the Times of London, July 26, 1887.

The Rainham Mystery

The various human remains, which have been found from time to time at Rainham, Essex, in the Thames off Waterloo Pier, on the foreshore of the river off Battersea pier, and in the Regent's canal, Kentish Town, the remains comprising the arms(divided), the lower part of the thorax, the pelvis, both thighs, and the legs and feet, in fact the entire body excepting the head and upper part of the chest, are now in the possession of the police authorities.

To the point, I believe if the head's were at the bottem of the Thames, they would have been found.

[Errata]

Hello Errata,

It is obvious that when one disposes of a body in a river they are trying to do away with the evidence, even more when they rap it in a cloth. I am of the opinion that the jump from leaving the victims where they died to disposing the corpse is too great to try and connect so quick.

Yours truly

It is all in the interpretation. But here is why I disagree.

He wrapped each package of remains. With string. He did not weight them so they would sink. If he thought they would sink, why wrap them? And if he didn't think they would sink, and was trying to dispose of them, why not weight them? And even in the event he was kind of an idiot, when he let the first package go, and saw it float down the river, why not weight the remaining ones? And why toss one into some posh's garden?

I think he let them go like model boats into the Thames. Including the head, which sank. Theoretically he killed her in Battersea Park. He didn't have to dismember her to get rid of her. He could have just rolled her into the Thames. He certainly didn't have to remove the fetus, put it in a jar, and let in go down the river. The fact is, dismembered body parts are not so common that they would not eventually be put together.

And if this guy did the other torso murders, you would think he would realize after all the hullabaloo generated by not one but two previous failures to dispose of the bodies in the river, that his method of disposal clearly just isnt getting the job done. That maybe he should try say, a sack with some rocks in it.

As for Mary Kelly, I don't know. It looks like it in the picture. But I also can't tell what is gore at the hip joints and what is bloody and wadded chemise. But she also has that line on her calf just below the knee. Which is a part of disjointing, but there is no mention of it in her catalog of injuries. But I have no idea what else it could be. Any ideas?

[corey123]

Hello Dave,

Actually the basis of my attempt to further connect Kelly with either the Pinchin Street or Battersea torso would be, that as you said, the escilation from Kelly to Jackson is possiblde and very logical. Or even the Whitehall torso.

Your right, I believe that both positive and negative reiforcement helped shape his learned behavior although, I would be willing to say that they next step would be full body dismemberment. However, like I said before, and I can't help these things keeping me from pursuing further, the things that keep me away from the conviction of a torso murder(how about we group these not on the basis of a single killer, but rather on a basis of likeness, so that the number of hands involved will remain subjective)is the disposal.

Yea I know, but it just seems to be a far cry from what Jack did. I can't really comprehend any logical, or out of the box, reason why he would need to resort to such a method as that.

I admit, my line of thinking has it's flaws but so does everyone's. I have trouble veiwing events out of context when alot of evidence(at least in my line of preceiving them as evidence) suggests that the sequence of events were connecteed by a individual. I guess it is a form of bias I have.

[protohistorian]

Corey I applaud your ambition buddy. The first thing I would do along your line of reasoning is establish as best you can a justifiable connection in the torso cases. If you can demonstrate a case for them being a series that would go along way to securing the idea of two distinct series. Dave

[corey123]

If many haven't read this, this is a post by Debra Arif on the medical details regarding these cases.

I foward them here.

Case I July 1887 human remains consiting of eight separate parts found in Thames and Regent's canal.
the parts were:
a) lower part of the thorax and the upper part of the abdomen, from the fifth dorsal vertebra to the third lumbar vertebra
b) the pelvis below the third lumbar vertebra
c) the right thigh including patella
d) the left thigh
e) both legs and feet, the left having patella attached
f) the arms from the shoulders to the fingers.

Diaphragm was intact, lungs, heart and other thoracic viscera were absent. Liver, stomach, both kidneys and spleen present. No part of small intestines from duoedenum was found, nor the large intestine except the sigmoid flexure and rectum. In the pelvis were the uterus, vagina, ovaries and appendages and bladder.
An incision had evidently been made from the ensiform cartilage to the pubes.

Doctors inferences
Female aged over 25 to 35, fair skin of caucasian origin with dark complexion shown by the pubic hair.No mark of a wedding ring, uterus was that of a virgin, garter marks below the knee common among the lower classes.Had not borne a child and was would possibly have been unable to conceive.
Decomposition had taken place in water and some months had elapsed since death.
Cuts on the vertebrae were such as would be made by a saw, long sweeping incisions through the skin showed a very sharp knife had been used, disarticulations were neatly and cleanly done, in each case the joint being exactly opened, absence of echymosis showed all cuts made after death.
No special knowledge of anatomy shown, the cuts indicated a practical skill in amputating limbs at joints, and making clean sweeping skin cuts, such skill would be gained by a butcher or hunter, as these are in the habit of rapidly and skillfully separating limbs and cutting up a trunk into several parts. Doctors opinion that any surgeon or anatomist could not have done the work so well as they are not constantly operating, while a butcher is almost daily cutting up carcases. The limbs were separated in almost precisely the way a butcher or hunter would adopt ie making a series of cuts around the flexure of the joint and then by strong twist, wrenching out the head from the joint and cutting the capsule.


Case II September 16 1888 Whitehall torso

Right arm found first, amputation made by seven separate cuts, cleanly dividing the tissue
A few days later a portion of the trnk was found in Whitehall, it consisted of the whole thorax and upper part of the abdomen as far as the 4th lumbar vertebra.
Trunk of a female, both breasts present, comprising upper part of thorax and upper part of abdomen, head having been separated at 6th cervical vertebra, pelvis and lower part of the abdomen and at the 4th lumbar vertebra.
Heart, lungs (right one adherent to the chest wall by old adhesions) liver, spleen and kidneys present.small intestine with mesentery are in situ, a few remains of the transverse ascending and descending parts of the colon but lower parts absent as well as the pelvic viscera.
A fortnight after the trunk was found the left leg and foot were discovered, the limb had been separated from the thigh at the knee joint, the patella being absent. The joint was exactly opened, incisions had clean and well defined edges.

Doctors inferences

Trunk is that of a large well nourished female, appearance of breasts suggest she was of an age of sexual maturity and had not suckled children, it could not be decided if she had been a mother [uterus was missing ]
The trunk was mutilated after death and death had probably occured 2 months previously, decomposition had taken place in the air as shown by the presence of maggots.
The arm in the second case had been cut from the trunk in a precisely similar manner to that in the first case [1887 Regent's Canal]; Doctors believed that the modes of separation of the arms and the mutilation of the trunk was in every respect identical.

Case III Thames and Battersea area

Parts found were:
a) two large flaps of skin, the uterus and placenta
b) Both arms and hands
c) Both thighs
d) Both legs and feet
e) The trunk divided into 3 parts

Head and neck taken off opposite the 6th cervical vertebra, skin muscles and vessels divided cleanly by a series of cuts.This part was separated from the trunk below at the junction of the 7th and 8th dorsal vertebrae.
Chest opened in front by the mid line, upper part of sternum cut through, contents of chest removed.
Arms removed by 3 or 4 long sweeping cuts, joints neatly disarticulated. Decomposition had not far advanced.
Legs had been removed at the knee joint, the left having the patella attached.
Second portion of trunk included both breats and the upper part of the abdomen, also opened down the sternum.
Intestines had been removed duodenum and a piece of stomach remained. Also present both kidneys, splean, pancreas and liver.
Third portion of trunkconsisted of pelvis from below 3rd lumbar vertebra, thighs taken off by long sweeping incisions through skin and muscle, heads of joints neatly disarticulated. Pelvis contained the lower part of the vagina, lower part of the rectum, front part of bladder and urethra.
Flaps of skin consisted of 2 long irregular slips taken from the abdominal walls, left piece included the umbilicus, greater part of the mons veneris, left labium majus, and labium minus. Right piece included the rest of the mons veneris, right labium majus amd minus and part of the skin of the right buttock. The upper part of the vagina was attached to the uterus, both ovaries and broad ligaments present and posterior wall of bladder. Uterus had been opened on the left side by a vertical cut 6 in long through the left wall, inside uterus were the placenta, cord and membranes.

Doctors inferences
Pegnant female, pregnancy advanced to between 6 and 7 months, Undelivered at the time of her death, the foetus had been removed by an incision throught the walls of the uterus after death. Decomposition partly in water, partly in air, death occured 24 hours before the first discovery.Marks made on the left ring finger by forcible removal of a ring, scar on the left wrist.
24 to 25 years old with sandy coloured hair and fair complexion.Well formed and well nourished.
Mutilations carried out after death by some person with considerable technical knowledge of the speediest mode of cutting up animals. the system of division of the parts gave evidence of design and skill, not the anatomical knowledge of a surgeon but rather the aptitude learned by a butcher, horse knackerer or other person used to dealing with dead animals and to readily separate limbs at the joints.
Victim later identified as Elizabeth Jackson




Case IV September 11 1889 Pinchin Street Whitechapel

Remains consisted of the trunk and arms of a female body, head cut off at lower part of neck, thighs sparated at hip joints.
Rigor mortis had passed off, the cut surfaces of the hips were black and dry but the surfaces at the neck moist and red.
The skin of the abdomen had been cut by a vertical incision, running from two inches below the ensiform cartilage downwards and ending on the left side of the external genitals, just opening the vagina but not opening the peritoneal cavity. There were a number of small round bruises on the forearms and arms, most on the inner surface of the forearms and varying in size from a shilling to a sixpence.On the left wrist were 2 cuts one just grazing the skin.
Incision sparating the head was 2 in number. The spinal column was divided at the junction of the 5th and 6th cervical vertebrae.
Thighs separated at hip joints, the skin cut through by 2 or 3 sweeping circular incisions. the capsule of the hip joints were opened and the heads neatly disarticulated.

Doctors inferences

Age above 25 but not yet reached menopause, possibly over 25 but under 40. Had not borne children. Apparently not a virgin. Skin fair and hair dark brown, hands shapely and the skin soft with right little finger showing a small circular hardening, as might be made by writing.
No mark on the ring finger.
Immediate cause of death was syncope, as shown by the condition of the heart and general bloodlessness of the tissue which would indicate hemorrage as the cause of syncope.
All cuts made after death with a sharp knife and all made from left to right except those separating the right thigh and right arm which had been carried from right to left across the flexure joints so probably done by a right handed man.
The incisions were made with skill and design and were skillfully performed as by a man who had some knowledge of the position of joints and the readiest means of separating limbs, such as a butcher or slaughterer would possess. No secial knowledge of anatomy of the human body shown.

[corey123]

Hello Dave,

Lets leave it at that. I think agreeing to disagree would be a wise choice.

[protohistorian]

I cannot even go that far sir. There is NO empirical data connecting the torsos. The were connected by people who saw the word Thames and the word torso and connected them on that basis. While I have grave doubts regarding Manhaghten's grouping, it is a damn site better than that.

When we apply a psycho dynamic model, if the diathesis is not remediated and the behavior it spawns not negatively reinforced, it will eventual reach a level of violence on par with the torsos. The problem with applying a psychological model (and I fight it every day) is that to infer anything we rely on a grouping. We do not have a grouping so solid we can say "this is the way it is". The best we can say is that if you accept the Macnaghten grouping, you accept a progression of wound types, you accept the flexibility of wound morphology, you accept jackass wound placement, you accept jackass scene selection therefore given the sequencing of these elements the most logical (in the non ripperological sense, in the rightfully thinking sense) pre and post events are x and Y.

[corey123]

Hello Dave,

I agree with your thinking, like I said, I am willing to search for evidence to help the contrary to my belief.

How about this. Ok so we have two different murder spree's. They are different in some ways yet alike in others. They have the same victim type and motive is perhaps similar. Yet, when veiwed by a psychological standpoint, they seem to be two completely different mindsets.

I agree, instead of debating what is possible and what isn't how about we try and find evidence that may help either of our point of veiws.

However, I would like to add that my connective critera are more complecated than what is stated. Those two facts are only two examples.

[protohistorian]

We agree to differ sir. Given the density of the population, the less than adequate social, educational, and living conditions I find multiple unsubs more likely than a singular unsub that killed to a metronome over decades. Your grouping criteria as stated are in the river and dismembered. Are we to now play six degrees of separation with every body in the river that was dismembered rather than seeking a finer criteria for inclusion? I will not play this tired old game, I would rather look for evidence based indicators for inclusion and exclusion. Just to give an example of far far this ridiculous mindset has gone, there is a published ripperologist suggesting victims in Germany and America. I will not play six degrees of separation with every damned dead person in the world because someone does not buy my line of thinking. My line is more solid than that line of reasoning and I don't like picking on those who cannot think of a better way to participate than this ridiculous line of logic that JtR killed every dead person we can find in 1888 just because some torturous line of "logic" can "link" them. Dave

[corey123]

Dave, Errata, all,

I would like to add however, that I would love to try and find evidence to connect these crimes. I have tried before with minimal results but am willing to try again.

I like keeping an open mind and again it is possible, but I would need to see more evidence to actualy consider it probable.

[corey123]

Hello Dave,

I guess you could say that, however, I do believe that while the legnth between each murder was long, it was at regular intervals which indicate that it may have indeed been commited by a single individual. Also, keep in minde that the method of disposal, tossing the bodies into the river, would make it more probable that theses were not the only torso victims to be included in this series. I am of the opinion that there were many more undiscovered murders like that of Jackson.

Regarding the possibility of mutiple unsubs, I would find it odd that more than one individual killed the exact same victim type, and disposed of the body in a identicle fashion, also distributing the limbs out within small legnths of time , also seperating the limbs in almost exact method. By the way also all of these mutiple unsubs would need to share the need to keep or destroy the head, as none were found except for that during the torso of Salamanca ally in 1902, which the head was torched, again possibly an attempt to destroy.

I just don't find it very likely that Jackson was apart of the ripper cimes, and even less likely that she would be alienated from the torso series.

Not to say it isnt possible, just not in my mind very likely.

Yours truly