Idiots Folly

[Errata]

Well, maybe the dismemberment had nothing to do with removing the body. First of all, they thought Jackson was killed in the park. Secondly, it's kind of an odd way to cut someone up if the sole mission is transport.

[Iain Wilson]

Is it not easier to transport a body when it's in pieces?

(this isn't me speaking from experience btw )

[Pinkerton]

Perhaps the torso victims were ones who JtR was able to finagle back to his place, and the C5 were not.

This has always been my pet theory if indeed the torso killer was the Ripper. The victims the Ripper got to come to his residence became the torso victims.

They didn't necissarily stop in 1889, you forget the torso of Salamanca ally in 1902.

While I am familiar with the torsos from 1873 and 1874 which were quite different than those of 1887-1889, I am not familiar with the one from 1902 Corey. I will read up on this though. Thanks for the info!

Maybe, if he was of mutiple personalities. The distribution of victims shows alot about a killer, and I don't believe that a individual could hold both preferences.

This is where you and I fundamentally disagree Corey. I personally do not believe in some of the more narrow "categories" of serial killers. Seems a little too pop psychology for my liking. Serial killers do have tendencies I believe, but I don't believe they adhere to these strict categories. "If they cut up the body it means X. If they transport it it means Y." Specifically I fundamentally disagree with the idea that Jack the Ripper was a "mutilation" killer. That is he killed in order to mutilate. I think given the opportunity he might mutilate a victim. But I don't think this was necessarily his "motivation". I think he liked to kill prostitutes and he liked to "shock" people to get attention.

As I troll through the Old Bailey cases I keep waiting to find the supposed multitude of prostitute killings in London over the years that would leave one to believe that such murders were so common that the murder of prostitutes in 1887-1889 in the East End could have been the work of MULTIPLE unrelated killers. And yet I seem to only come across such murders a few times in a year usually in very disparate locations in London and under very different circumstances. This has lead me to the very unpopular opinion that the Ripper killed Tabram, the C5, McKenzie, and I'm 50/50 on both Coles and the Torso victims.

[Iain Wilson]

I personally do not believe in some of the more narrow "categories" of serial killers. Seems a little too pop psychology for my liking. Serial killers do have tendencies I believe, but I don't believe they adhere to these strict categories. "If they cut up the body it means X. If they transport it it means Y."

Hear, hear.

[protohistorian]

On the matter of corpse treatment. The street is the most readily available common area. The river is also a readily available common area. I do not think we can take too much away from the difference. River disposal also solves the problem of having to dispose of the major parts. If this were done on land, each major part would cause a stir, not unlike a whole corpse would. As we see in the Macnaghten sequence, this ratchets up a. press coverage and b. policing with c. a healthy dose of social paranoia thrown in. If it was the same unsub, one or more of these things may be responsible for the shift in disposal. The fact that the pieces require more disposal events than walking away from the corpse is signifigant here.

For those familiar with the Thames I apologise, for the rest of us, the Thames is a tidal river. It changes it's level with the tides. This change is measured in meters. Even if dumped in a singular location, pieces would end up in different places. Dave

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thames

[Errata]

Is it not easier to transport a body when it's in pieces?

(this isn't me speaking from experience btw )

Well, of course it is. Removing legs from the torso certainly, and I can even see an argument for removing the arms. Removing feet from calves from thighs from torso seems a bit much. I have no idea why anyone would saw the pelvis from the upper torso, remove the buttocks, and an unborn fetus to make it easier to move. That officially tips it over the edge from portable to unnecessary.

[Debra A]

There is medical opinion that this victim (who was pregnant) suffered a botched attempt to perform an abortion. I don’t think Jack was in the business. If the victim died as the result of an attempted abortion, what do you do with a dead body? It would be far easier to dispose of dismembered body parts than it would be to dispose of an intact human body. Just cut it down to portable pieces.

This is still the most likely explanation for Elizabeth's death and subsequent dismemberment for me.
Although medical evidence stated that no instruments normally used in abortion practices had been used on Elizabeth, all areas prone to injury during these types of procedures were healthy and uninjured, there is one thing that could point to the fact that some sort of procedure may have been attempted.
In my research summary on Elizabeth Jackson's murder, here on casebook, I mention the precise reporting in only one newspaper of a linen square, rolled up and inserted into Elizabeth's rectum, other papers refer to it only as a 'plugging.'

Researching Victorian abortion techniques in medical texts, (Victorian doctors could legally induce premature labour when the mother's life was at risk) I noted that one of the methods commonly used by doctors, and listed in a medical jurisprudence book, involved the use of large enemata, or the introduction of plugs into the rectum or vagina. The book also goes on to state that all the means mentioned as being properly employed to induce premature labour when the case neccessitates it, have been imitated by abortion-mongers.

However, using this method alone could not possibly have killed Elizabeth.

[protohistorian]

Hello Debs, her missing bits are interesting also. Part of the intestine,most of the bladder,stomach in multiple pieces? Sounds like someone learning as he goes, like maybe thinking "how hard can this be" and then when she dies thinking," I might as well learn something". It is certainly odd. Dave

[Errata]

In my research summary on Elizabeth Jackson's murder, here on casebook, I mention the precise reporting in only one newspaper of a linen square, rolled up and inserted into Elizabeth's rectum, other papers refer to it only as a 'plugging.'

Researching Victorian abortion techniques in medical texts, (Victorian doctors could legally induce premature labour when the mother's life was at risk) I noted that one of the methods commonly used by doctors, and listed in a medical jurisprudence book, involved the use of large enemata, or the introduction of plugs into the rectum or vagina. The book also goes on to state that all the means mentioned as being properly employed to induce premature labour when the case neccessitates it, have been imitated by abortion-mongers.

However, using this method alone could not possibly have killed Elizabeth.

Actually using enemas to induce labor, while certainly an old faithful in medical practice, really only works on cows. And sometimes sheep. Not humans. As I understand it, warm or very very cold water was forced into the rectum, and then a cork or a rubber plug was inserted to prevent the liquid from coming out. The insertion of an object alone was not used in triggering labor. And a rolled up handkerchief would not prevent liquid escaping the rectum. And as it doesn't really work, I would expect there to be other methods used on the poor girl, if it was an abortion attempt.

The fact is, there are three often used abortion methods that I would expect before a destitute woman would pay someone to do it. I would expect she would first try an abortifacient. This could easily be lethal, but there would be signs of poisoning. Next I would imagine she would try abdominal trauma. To this day people still try this, and it requires quite a bit more force than they think it does. Had this been tried to a fatal end, she would look like she'd been pulped. Lastly I imagine she would try the infamous knitting needle approach. And that could easily kill her, except there were no signs of perforation and infection.

And lastly, unless she had a legitimate medical need for labor to be enforced, anyone whom she approached for an abortion would have been a woman. It was illegal after all. No doctor would risk his license on a nothing girl from the street, and any man offering those services could not be trusted. A pregnant girl would go to a woman, because a: another woman was safe b:if they were caught, another woman had just as much to lose as she, and c: they would trust another woman to know what she was doing more than they would trust a man. Likely in this one instance only, but Victorian women still did not trust men, doctors or no, when it came to reproduction. It's why midwives were still so common.

[Debra A]

Hello Debs, her missing bits are interesting also. Part of the intestine,most of the bladder,stomach in multiple pieces? Sounds like someone learning as he goes, like maybe thinking "how hard can this be" and then when she dies thinking," I might as well learn something". It is certainly odd. Dave

Hi Dave, Yes that aspect is interesting and puzzling at the same time. The removal of two flaps of skin from the abdominal wall has always interested me...sounds familiar.
I wonder how many of the internal organs would be lost through accident rather than design during dismemberment and disposal though?

[Debra A]

Actually using enemas to induce labor, while certainly an old faithful in medical practice, really only works on cows. And sometimes sheep. Not humans. As I understand it, warm or very very cold water was forced into the rectum, and then a cork or a rubber plug was inserted to prevent the liquid from coming out. The insertion of an object alone was not used in triggering labor. And a rolled up handkerchief would not prevent liquid escaping the rectum. And as it doesn't really work, I would expect there to be other methods used on the poor girl, if it was an abortion attempt.

The fact is, there are three often used abortion methods that I would expect before a destitute woman would pay someone to do it. I would expect she would first try an abortifacient. This could easily be lethal, but there would be signs of poisoning. Next I would imagine she would try abdominal trauma. To this day people still try this, and it requires quite a bit more force than they think it does. Had this been tried to a fatal end, she would look like she'd been pulped. Lastly I imagine she would try the infamous knitting needle approach. And that could easily kill her, except there were no signs of perforation and infection.

And lastly, unless she had a legitimate medical need for labor to be enforced, anyone whom she approached for an abortion would have been a woman. It was illegal after all. No doctor would risk his license on a nothing girl from the street, and any man offering those services could not be trusted. A pregnant girl would go to a woman, because a: another woman was safe b:if they were caught, another woman had just as much to lose as she, and c: they would trust another woman to know what she was doing more than they would trust a man. Likely in this one instance only, but Victorian women still did not trust men, doctors or no, when it came to reproduction. It's why midwives were still so common.

Errata, yes, all points I have made in the past, and I did say in my post that the doctors saw no signs of injury to the relevant parts of Elizabeth's body usually caused through violent methods being employed.

I am not putting forward the idea that a doctor was involved in Elizabeth's death just the thought that maybe the torso murders themselves are not a 'series' as such and there could be individual motives for disposal of the body after death in each case. I feel the 'plugging' may be relevant here, although I admit there could be other explanations for it, and like I said, that alone could not have killed Elizabeth.

BTW, the foetus in the pickle jar was not linked to Elizabeth in the end.

[Errata]

I am not putting forward the idea that a doctor was involved in Elizabeth's death just the thought that maybe the torso murders themselves are not a 'series' as such and there could be individual motives for disposal of the body after death in each case. I feel the 'plugging' may be relevant here, although I admit there could be other explanations for it, and like I said, that alone could not have killed Elizabeth.

Yeah, the only thing I can come up with for plugging that may have been "useful" rather than... whatever is dysentery. I know they used to plug the anuses of slaves to mask the signs of dysentery or even trauma during auction. I have no idea whether or not that was practiced amongst the general populace.

I'm still toying with the idea of all of them being ineligible for sex as a link. But while I could see some screwed up zealot killing them for it, I still haven't made the jump to dismemberment.

[Abby Normal]

This has always been my pet theory if indeed the torso killer was the Ripper. The victims the Ripper got to come to his residence became the torso victims.



While I am familiar with the torsos from 1873 and 1874 which were quite different than those of 1887-1889, I am not familiar with the one from 1902 Corey. I will read up on this though. Thanks for the info!



This is where you and I fundamentally disagree Corey. I personally do not believe in some of the more narrow "categories" of serial killers. Seems a little too pop psychology for my liking. Serial killers do have tendencies I believe, but I don't believe they adhere to these strict categories. "If they cut up the body it means X. If they transport it it means Y." Specifically I fundamentally disagree with the idea that Jack the Ripper was a "mutilation" killer. That is he killed in order to mutilate. I think given the opportunity he might mutilate a victim. But I don't think this was necessarily his "motivation". I think he liked to kill prostitutes and he liked to "shock" people to get attention.

As I troll through the Old Bailey cases I keep waiting to find the supposed multitude of prostitute killings in London over the years that would leave one to believe that such murders were so common that the murder of prostitutes in 1887-1889 in the East End could have been the work of MULTIPLE unrelated killers. And yet I seem to only come across such murders a few times in a year usually in very disparate locations in London and under very different circumstances. This has lead me to the very unpopular opinion that the Ripper killed Tabram, the C5, McKenzie, and I'm 50/50 on both Coles and the Torso victims.

Hi Pinkerton
I know its kind of a stretch, and I think the chances are slim-but what if we are dealing with a much bigger monster here than people think. Could the murder of the small boy(in Dec 88 i beleive) whom had both abdominal mutilations and dismemberment be a link between the JtR mutilations/organ removal and the dismemberment of the Torso killings? Could Barrett the milkman be this monster?

[Errata]

Hi Pinkerton
I know its kind of a stretch, and I think the chances are slim-but what if we are dealing with a much bigger monster here than people think. Could the murder of the small boy(in Dec 88 i beleive) whom had both abdominal mutilations and dismemberment be a link between the JtR mutilations/organ removal and the dismemberment of the Torso killings? Could Barrett the milkman be this monster?

Someone on the order of Chikatilo? Obviously it's possible. The only problem is that the press was so detailed in the descriptions of these crimes, that they essentially are inviting copycat victims. Even if they died some other way, a blow to the head, starvation, lung disease, etc. if someone was afraid that they would be blamed, the easiest thing to do would be to cut up the victim like a Ripper crime. Evidently the police did not hold back something to identify the real killer, or if they did they didn't subsequently share what that was. I'm not even sure we can define a Ripper crime. I guess the question is why would the killer want this kid, and how did he get to him?

[corey123]

Hello Debra,

I was woundering when you would end up here Anyhow, this idea that Jackson's death could be explained by a botched attemp to peform an abortion on her. I agree, the dissapearnece of organs seem rather an accident than by design.

However, remember the note from your sum of the anatomical evidence.

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.

Edward,

I agree with most of what you said. However, your comment:

I think that the wrapping of the body parts was more to disguise them during transport from point A to point B. I feel that the river was used as a means of disposal, not in an attempt to thwart identification

supposing it is in response to one of my ealier post's, I must say I only believe the removal and non-appearnce of the head to be an possible attempt to thwart indentification.

Iain,

I agree.

Pinkerton,

Yes the torso of Salamanca ally is interesting, the odd part being the head WAS discovered, however it had been charred, as if it was boiled in a pot(I believe). Also interesting is the TOD(discovery not death) related to the other cases involved in the series. I also don't believe he was a "mutilation murderer" but as I stated ealier in this thread, something totally different. I also believe the mutilations had not so much to do with the motivation as do other aspects. I rather look at the mutilations as a sort of vehicle in which his motivation is seen through.

I personally think Jack killer Tabram and the C5 and possibly Mackenzie. I talk about this topic in great detail in my upcoming article. Also, one last thing, I LIKE PSYCHOLOGY!!!!

Yours truly