Tweet
Hello all,
I have recently posted my belief on the thread "Elizabeth Jackson,JTR Victim" adn to my disapointment was lashed out at by a very rude indavidual. He got upset to see that I disagree with him and suggested that he had made a fool of me at every point. I have tryed to make up with him and co-exist but he refused to do that, lashing out at me again. So I am making this Poll to discuss the provanece of Jackson being a ripper victim.
Before you read the below, read the red words in bold
I am going to post all the points I have addressed on that thread.
Post one:
The idea that jackson could be a ripper victim is entertaining, but there are several factors that may make this comparison difficult. I know what most all of you know about the torso murders, and Im no expert(however I believe Debra is the authority on the torso case). She might be able to help me out.
First, if there was another murder after Kelly, I would be supprised if the extent of mutilations were more severe and even shocked if they were the same. The only way I think the mutilations would be as severe as in Kellys case would be if the killer had the same circumstances on his side. It would most likely be indoors, like kelly to let him, again play the fantasy out.
I dont remember where Jacksons torso was found, but the methodology shown by the torso killer would be most likely abducting the women, then disembowling them in a isolated and secure location, then disposal of the limbs. The killer did not try at great lengths, as did Jack the Ripper, to display the body, but tried more to hide them.
I think its likely that she was a ripper victim, but in my opinion, she would have all be there, cut up, but there, all the peices, not scattered about.
I also believe that the killer(s)(torso murderer) more than likely never stopped killing, and probally killed more than those four found. Way more.
Post two:
Debra,
If an abortion gone wrong was the motive, then she would not even be a torso victim would she?
I think if Kelly had been destined for the Thames, the Thames she would go. I have no doubt in my mind that if Kelly was a victim or the Torso Killer(s) she would have been disposed of in a similar fasion.
From a prolific standpoint, the "Ripper crimes" seem to be sexual in nature, when the "torso crimes" dont necissarily show so.
Again, this is all from my little knowledge of the Torso murders, which is pretty much the injurys of the four cases you talked about in your wounderful thread about the mortitions notes.
On a personal note, do you know of any good books on the Victorian torso murders? I am thinking about ordering the one written by R. Micheal Gordon, is that reliable?
Yours truly
p.s A good example of what I think Jackson's body would look like if she had been killed by jack the ripper would be like the crime scene photos of the "Black Daliah" if any of you have seen them. Horrible photos, but an exalent example, the mutilations turned up a notch though and most likely without that horrible cut across her mouth.
Post three:
Throw out the ripper letters, they are not relavent. But as saying that he didnt try to prop the body, indeed he did. Pulling the legs up, pulling the apron above the waist, and in Chapman and Kellys case, the arm set in the abdomen AFTER mutilation. He did prop the body, that was part of the thrill he got after his murders. The horror was intended, that was the reason for his location of killing(partly) and the arrangment of the corpse.
Jack was a sadistical killer(as Im sure you know) and this is pretty much one of the more evil and unplesent types of serial killers. Take the "black daliah" murder for example. The killer shared some qualities of jack.
He was a sadist. He left Elizabeth Short in a fasion that showed he ment to put her where she was, he left her in a location to bring the maximum reaction. He left her almost right next to a walkway, in two peices, I believe as close as two feet away. The upper body(with the organs protruding and still intact) and the lower body. He cut a smile looking wound on each cheek from the mouth and took chunks out of her.
He proped her.
Ok, Annie Chapman, she was found with her legs drawn up, turned outward I believe. The skirt raised to her hips. He intestine pulled over her left should(I believe it was the left, I dont have the report in front of me at the time) and a chunk of abdominal skin above the right shoulder. She had her(one of them, cant remember which)arm resting in her abdomen, placed there AFTER mutilation.
He like the Killer of Stort, proped her for the same reason I stated above.
Yours truly
__________________
Post four:
Debra,Unknown person
I think if the breasts HAD been cut off, that would more likely help your theory of her being a victim of the Ripper.
On your suggestion that the killer never really tried to contact the police, sadistic killers would more likely try to contact the family/and or loved ones of the victim to make them relive the murder. Police, I dont believe would have been the target. Unless they had become personally attached to the case. Also, proping the body would have been as much for the police as it was for the on lookers.
Yours truly
p.s. Im of the opinion that the chance of the police or civilians finding pieces of the "Torso murderer(s)" victims would rely rather on luck more than anything. Chance per say. So the fact that 90% or more of her body was found, really does not change anything, not saying she is a victim or the "torso killer(s)". Like you pontius, I am ill prepared in the Torso case besides my knowledge of Patterns in repeating offinders.
__________________
Post five:
Natilie,
I truly think he would take the time to do so. Many a killer have done mutilation to a woman and leave her fully dressed, many leave them nakid.
If you closely look at the placement of the bodies, you will see he DOES arrange them. How do you explain the hand resting in the empty abdomen? The facial mutilation? Placing the chunk of Chapmans flesh over her shoulder? The placement of the intestines? The placement of the Victims belongings?
This is no coincidence.
Also, if he had to lift the clothes, which he didnt have too, he didnt have a problem in cutting through Kate Eddowes clothing did he?
Kelly was no different besides the fact that he had more time. He was just as much into disembowling as he was in the first three(excluding stride due to, well you all know)
Yours truly
__________________
Post six:
Killers dont just drop everything and drastically change the disposal in their murders. The killer obviously did not care for being "Too hot" as you say, for if he did he would not have taken the time to nick the eye lids on eddowes, or removed the organs, or even mutilated them in the first place. All these actions would have greatly increased the chance that he would get caught.
Say it all you want, but this killer would not try to hide his victims, period.
Post seven:
Not saying its impossible, but it will take some extensive solid evidence to prove it. Unless that is made it will be only a theory, a possible one at that, but not one I would lean to.
This type of offinder would not as quickly as you suggest, change his killing habits. His M.O might evolve with experiance and his fantasy would broaden as he got more time to fufill the fantasy. He is a sadist and he wanted to strike fear into the community, which I believe he was very succesfull in doing.
The unsub obviously, for reasons unknown(but easy to speculate why) hated prostitutes or women in general. The reason for saying so is he De-feminized them, taking the Uterus and cuting off the breast, taking away everything that made them women. Disfiguring their bodies beyond belief, he was sending a message, though not that he knew it. Its all in the tell tale signs in his crime.
Yes, that was all speculatory, but it is most likely correct.
The tell tale signs in that of the murder of Elizabeth Jackson show different signs. He(or she though definantly not) was a preditor. Maybe stalking them. I have not enough to say whether the Unsub would have approached his victim or not. He is heterosexual. He disposes of the body parts in what he thinks are safe areas, though some(I feel it safe to say a small percentage) of his total tally of victims were discovered. In each case(I believe) the head was missing, or not found, ever in any of the four, so he might have kept them for trophies or sold them on the black market. I would say the former. He most likely did not mutilate in the open street but proabally in a work place or home base, where he felt safe. Then probally disposed of the body parts far from that home base.
Again, all speculatory. But sense so is the idea of Jackson being a ripper victim, this should be ok.
Post eight:
"The heat was not hot on the night of Eddowes murder"? Are you serious? They had every police man out on the grounds searching for the killer. Mobs formed after the "Double event" in protest to the police, or in their words, lack of police success in the ivestigation. The ripper became 'Public enemy No.1' that day. The area in which Kate was killed was hot enough. A public square with some private housing, and wearhouses. A night watchmen standing but yards from the murder spot, and it was patroled every 15 minutes. It was hot enough.
Also, Jack the Ripper is not an organised killer. His methodology is partly disorganised. Yes, he is organised because of the lack of suspicion cast on him and the lack of bodily clues(Apart from the victims) left at the scene. But his lcation of murder of choice is very disorganised. His murders were perpertrated in a very small area, less than a mile, an organised killer would more than likely broaden his hunting ground. The sites of the murders of an organised killer would be miles apart. The areas he killed in were high risk locations, with no guarente of getting out. This is true with all murders, but his were highly risky. He rushed through the murders, not taking the time to do it properly, another disorganised traits. Leaving the apron for the police to find was also disorganised, I even believe there was a foot print near one of the crime scene(I seriously doubt I read this, but for some reason I remember doing so, please correct me if I am wrong) again disorganised.
The change in disposal in the victims that you suggest would not be a great change at all is incorrect. It would indeed be a great change.
Making public displays of the bodies would not have to be part of his motive in killing, the act gave him some thrill. If you are to suggest that he didn't arrange them, then I guess Annies and Kellys arms just flew into their empty abdomens on there own.
One last thing, which I sould have adressed befor this, if he was to kill a prostitute in her room, which he did do, he would not take the body with him, he would leave it as he did with Kelly.
Post nine:
Of coarse he would not stop his killing habits. The women lead them to there deaths, Kelly led him to her house. I never said he would not kill indoors, but he would not, and I repeat would not dispose of the body. He would and will always leave the body where it is.
That has nothing to do with his M.O. His M.O. is the victim type, the approach, the attack(suffication and cutting the throat). What comes after the M.O is the fantasy. I am sure you know all of this, so it confuses me on why you would include his disposial methods.
I would advise you to re-read everything on the murders, the heat is always on a killer, from the moment Annie was killed they knew they might have a repeat offinder on their hands. Your assesment that there was only "Heat" on him AFTER the "double even" is very untrue.
Anyways, a killer can change their M.O. but they wont change their disposal that rapidly. Sorry but they wont.
I would also advise you to check out those crime scene photos of "The black Daliah" to see what a ripper victim would look like if he had cut thme up in the way discussed.
Yours truly
If all I am saying is speculatory, then all YOU are saying must have alot of faith to go along with.
__________________
Post ten:
Let me tell you a bit about serial killers that you may or may not know. A serial killer is usually one person who kills for a reason, it can be profit, personal rage, or to express his belief. They usually have previous records, not always on record, but they do commit crimes before they commit their capital crimes. In the case of Jack the Ripper these crimes would be the C5.
A serial killers first murder can be exactly opposite of the more well know murders. In Marthas case, he killed her witha knife, same weapon. He stabbed her 39 times, still mutilation. He stabbed her in the throat, abdomen, and private parts, still the same areas of attack. He left her body where she died, same disposal. He killed her in a high risk are, same location. She fits the same victimology. So that would not be changing the M.O.
Here is a good example of what I am saying.
It comes from a newspaper article from 13,1888 Letter to Medical News.
It reads:
“Sexual perverts of this character never begin by the commission of crimes of such frightful atrocity, but yielding to impulses to do slight injury to their victims, find, as time goes on, that it is necessary to practice greater and greater cruelties, to arouse their desires and gratify passion, until a stage like the present is reached. Such has with probablility been the history of the present murderer [JTR].”
With Strides case, you cant really even use her as a example due to her controversy. You could say that something went wrong in the murder in which he did not begin mutilation. This, again, does not show a change in the M.O. He still more than likely approached her, upon asking her to go into the allyway with then she refused, enabaling him to peform his murder like usual, so he grabbed her by her scarf and pulled her into the yard.
But then you can say he stalked her and pulled her into the allyway without approaching her.
Shes not a stable example.
Sorry.
So in true, he keeps a fairly steady M.O as he kills.
Yours truly
p.s The idea that he is a sexually motivated killer is not even agreed upon
The other posts are of the arguement that happened with me and the unknown person.
you dont have to read the above if you already have a opinion, only for those who are interested in the above.
yours truly
I have recently posted my belief on the thread "Elizabeth Jackson,JTR Victim" adn to my disapointment was lashed out at by a very rude indavidual. He got upset to see that I disagree with him and suggested that he had made a fool of me at every point. I have tryed to make up with him and co-exist but he refused to do that, lashing out at me again. So I am making this Poll to discuss the provanece of Jackson being a ripper victim.
Before you read the below, read the red words in bold
I am going to post all the points I have addressed on that thread.
Post one:
The idea that jackson could be a ripper victim is entertaining, but there are several factors that may make this comparison difficult. I know what most all of you know about the torso murders, and Im no expert(however I believe Debra is the authority on the torso case). She might be able to help me out.
First, if there was another murder after Kelly, I would be supprised if the extent of mutilations were more severe and even shocked if they were the same. The only way I think the mutilations would be as severe as in Kellys case would be if the killer had the same circumstances on his side. It would most likely be indoors, like kelly to let him, again play the fantasy out.
I dont remember where Jacksons torso was found, but the methodology shown by the torso killer would be most likely abducting the women, then disembowling them in a isolated and secure location, then disposal of the limbs. The killer did not try at great lengths, as did Jack the Ripper, to display the body, but tried more to hide them.
I think its likely that she was a ripper victim, but in my opinion, she would have all be there, cut up, but there, all the peices, not scattered about.
I also believe that the killer(s)(torso murderer) more than likely never stopped killing, and probally killed more than those four found. Way more.
Post two:
Debra,
If an abortion gone wrong was the motive, then she would not even be a torso victim would she?
I think if Kelly had been destined for the Thames, the Thames she would go. I have no doubt in my mind that if Kelly was a victim or the Torso Killer(s) she would have been disposed of in a similar fasion.
From a prolific standpoint, the "Ripper crimes" seem to be sexual in nature, when the "torso crimes" dont necissarily show so.
Again, this is all from my little knowledge of the Torso murders, which is pretty much the injurys of the four cases you talked about in your wounderful thread about the mortitions notes.
On a personal note, do you know of any good books on the Victorian torso murders? I am thinking about ordering the one written by R. Micheal Gordon, is that reliable?
Yours truly
p.s A good example of what I think Jackson's body would look like if she had been killed by jack the ripper would be like the crime scene photos of the "Black Daliah" if any of you have seen them. Horrible photos, but an exalent example, the mutilations turned up a notch though and most likely without that horrible cut across her mouth.
Post three:
Throw out the ripper letters, they are not relavent. But as saying that he didnt try to prop the body, indeed he did. Pulling the legs up, pulling the apron above the waist, and in Chapman and Kellys case, the arm set in the abdomen AFTER mutilation. He did prop the body, that was part of the thrill he got after his murders. The horror was intended, that was the reason for his location of killing(partly) and the arrangment of the corpse.
Jack was a sadistical killer(as Im sure you know) and this is pretty much one of the more evil and unplesent types of serial killers. Take the "black daliah" murder for example. The killer shared some qualities of jack.
He was a sadist. He left Elizabeth Short in a fasion that showed he ment to put her where she was, he left her in a location to bring the maximum reaction. He left her almost right next to a walkway, in two peices, I believe as close as two feet away. The upper body(with the organs protruding and still intact) and the lower body. He cut a smile looking wound on each cheek from the mouth and took chunks out of her.
He proped her.
Ok, Annie Chapman, she was found with her legs drawn up, turned outward I believe. The skirt raised to her hips. He intestine pulled over her left should(I believe it was the left, I dont have the report in front of me at the time) and a chunk of abdominal skin above the right shoulder. She had her(one of them, cant remember which)arm resting in her abdomen, placed there AFTER mutilation.
He like the Killer of Stort, proped her for the same reason I stated above.
Yours truly
__________________
Post four:
Debra,Unknown person
I think if the breasts HAD been cut off, that would more likely help your theory of her being a victim of the Ripper.
On your suggestion that the killer never really tried to contact the police, sadistic killers would more likely try to contact the family/and or loved ones of the victim to make them relive the murder. Police, I dont believe would have been the target. Unless they had become personally attached to the case. Also, proping the body would have been as much for the police as it was for the on lookers.
Yours truly
p.s. Im of the opinion that the chance of the police or civilians finding pieces of the "Torso murderer(s)" victims would rely rather on luck more than anything. Chance per say. So the fact that 90% or more of her body was found, really does not change anything, not saying she is a victim or the "torso killer(s)". Like you pontius, I am ill prepared in the Torso case besides my knowledge of Patterns in repeating offinders.
__________________
Post five:
Natilie,
I truly think he would take the time to do so. Many a killer have done mutilation to a woman and leave her fully dressed, many leave them nakid.
If you closely look at the placement of the bodies, you will see he DOES arrange them. How do you explain the hand resting in the empty abdomen? The facial mutilation? Placing the chunk of Chapmans flesh over her shoulder? The placement of the intestines? The placement of the Victims belongings?
This is no coincidence.
Also, if he had to lift the clothes, which he didnt have too, he didnt have a problem in cutting through Kate Eddowes clothing did he?
Kelly was no different besides the fact that he had more time. He was just as much into disembowling as he was in the first three(excluding stride due to, well you all know)
Yours truly
__________________
Post six:
Killers dont just drop everything and drastically change the disposal in their murders. The killer obviously did not care for being "Too hot" as you say, for if he did he would not have taken the time to nick the eye lids on eddowes, or removed the organs, or even mutilated them in the first place. All these actions would have greatly increased the chance that he would get caught.
Say it all you want, but this killer would not try to hide his victims, period.
Post seven:
Not saying its impossible, but it will take some extensive solid evidence to prove it. Unless that is made it will be only a theory, a possible one at that, but not one I would lean to.
This type of offinder would not as quickly as you suggest, change his killing habits. His M.O might evolve with experiance and his fantasy would broaden as he got more time to fufill the fantasy. He is a sadist and he wanted to strike fear into the community, which I believe he was very succesfull in doing.
The unsub obviously, for reasons unknown(but easy to speculate why) hated prostitutes or women in general. The reason for saying so is he De-feminized them, taking the Uterus and cuting off the breast, taking away everything that made them women. Disfiguring their bodies beyond belief, he was sending a message, though not that he knew it. Its all in the tell tale signs in his crime.
Yes, that was all speculatory, but it is most likely correct.
The tell tale signs in that of the murder of Elizabeth Jackson show different signs. He(or she though definantly not) was a preditor. Maybe stalking them. I have not enough to say whether the Unsub would have approached his victim or not. He is heterosexual. He disposes of the body parts in what he thinks are safe areas, though some(I feel it safe to say a small percentage) of his total tally of victims were discovered. In each case(I believe) the head was missing, or not found, ever in any of the four, so he might have kept them for trophies or sold them on the black market. I would say the former. He most likely did not mutilate in the open street but proabally in a work place or home base, where he felt safe. Then probally disposed of the body parts far from that home base.
Again, all speculatory. But sense so is the idea of Jackson being a ripper victim, this should be ok.
Post eight:
"The heat was not hot on the night of Eddowes murder"? Are you serious? They had every police man out on the grounds searching for the killer. Mobs formed after the "Double event" in protest to the police, or in their words, lack of police success in the ivestigation. The ripper became 'Public enemy No.1' that day. The area in which Kate was killed was hot enough. A public square with some private housing, and wearhouses. A night watchmen standing but yards from the murder spot, and it was patroled every 15 minutes. It was hot enough.
Also, Jack the Ripper is not an organised killer. His methodology is partly disorganised. Yes, he is organised because of the lack of suspicion cast on him and the lack of bodily clues(Apart from the victims) left at the scene. But his lcation of murder of choice is very disorganised. His murders were perpertrated in a very small area, less than a mile, an organised killer would more than likely broaden his hunting ground. The sites of the murders of an organised killer would be miles apart. The areas he killed in were high risk locations, with no guarente of getting out. This is true with all murders, but his were highly risky. He rushed through the murders, not taking the time to do it properly, another disorganised traits. Leaving the apron for the police to find was also disorganised, I even believe there was a foot print near one of the crime scene(I seriously doubt I read this, but for some reason I remember doing so, please correct me if I am wrong) again disorganised.
The change in disposal in the victims that you suggest would not be a great change at all is incorrect. It would indeed be a great change.
Making public displays of the bodies would not have to be part of his motive in killing, the act gave him some thrill. If you are to suggest that he didn't arrange them, then I guess Annies and Kellys arms just flew into their empty abdomens on there own.
One last thing, which I sould have adressed befor this, if he was to kill a prostitute in her room, which he did do, he would not take the body with him, he would leave it as he did with Kelly.
Post nine:
Of coarse he would not stop his killing habits. The women lead them to there deaths, Kelly led him to her house. I never said he would not kill indoors, but he would not, and I repeat would not dispose of the body. He would and will always leave the body where it is.
That has nothing to do with his M.O. His M.O. is the victim type, the approach, the attack(suffication and cutting the throat). What comes after the M.O is the fantasy. I am sure you know all of this, so it confuses me on why you would include his disposial methods.
I would advise you to re-read everything on the murders, the heat is always on a killer, from the moment Annie was killed they knew they might have a repeat offinder on their hands. Your assesment that there was only "Heat" on him AFTER the "double even" is very untrue.
Anyways, a killer can change their M.O. but they wont change their disposal that rapidly. Sorry but they wont.
I would also advise you to check out those crime scene photos of "The black Daliah" to see what a ripper victim would look like if he had cut thme up in the way discussed.
Yours truly
If all I am saying is speculatory, then all YOU are saying must have alot of faith to go along with.
__________________
Post ten:
Let me tell you a bit about serial killers that you may or may not know. A serial killer is usually one person who kills for a reason, it can be profit, personal rage, or to express his belief. They usually have previous records, not always on record, but they do commit crimes before they commit their capital crimes. In the case of Jack the Ripper these crimes would be the C5.
A serial killers first murder can be exactly opposite of the more well know murders. In Marthas case, he killed her witha knife, same weapon. He stabbed her 39 times, still mutilation. He stabbed her in the throat, abdomen, and private parts, still the same areas of attack. He left her body where she died, same disposal. He killed her in a high risk are, same location. She fits the same victimology. So that would not be changing the M.O.
Here is a good example of what I am saying.
It comes from a newspaper article from 13,1888 Letter to Medical News.
It reads:
“Sexual perverts of this character never begin by the commission of crimes of such frightful atrocity, but yielding to impulses to do slight injury to their victims, find, as time goes on, that it is necessary to practice greater and greater cruelties, to arouse their desires and gratify passion, until a stage like the present is reached. Such has with probablility been the history of the present murderer [JTR].”
With Strides case, you cant really even use her as a example due to her controversy. You could say that something went wrong in the murder in which he did not begin mutilation. This, again, does not show a change in the M.O. He still more than likely approached her, upon asking her to go into the allyway with then she refused, enabaling him to peform his murder like usual, so he grabbed her by her scarf and pulled her into the yard.
But then you can say he stalked her and pulled her into the allyway without approaching her.
Shes not a stable example.
Sorry.
So in true, he keeps a fairly steady M.O as he kills.
Yours truly
p.s The idea that he is a sexually motivated killer is not even agreed upon
The other posts are of the arguement that happened with me and the unknown person.
you dont have to read the above if you already have a opinion, only for those who are interested in the above.
yours truly
However, I will tell you why I think it is easy to see which murder is more likely to fit where.
I think the title of the thread was a bad choice. I don't think her inclusion would be stupid choice, just a hard choice. I think the reason for the title was becuase of a(rather stupid) arguement I had with another poster(lol the unknown person) and I was in a rather bad mood when I made this thread.
Comment