Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Torso Murders

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

  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Pierre View Post
    1873 is not included in the time period I research.

    Regards, Pierre
    Ooops.

    Leave a comment:


  • MsWeatherwax
    replied
    Originally posted by Pierre View Post
    He did not care about hiding their ID:s.

    Regards, Pierre
    That doesn't mean that he didn't know them Pierre!

    What was he supposed to do with them to hide their ID? He could hardly sling them over his shoulder, then walk through Whitechapel with a corpse over his shoulder in order to dispose of them somewhere. He would never have had time to further mutilate them in order to make identification more difficult.

    You simply cannot say that he didn't know them based on the fact that he didn't hide them.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pierre
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    I would like to return to the 1873 "death mask" carved in one piece from the skull of on of the torso victims.

    Why did the killer do this? What is everybody´s best guess?
    1873 is not included in the time period I research.

    Regards, Pierre

    Leave a comment:


  • Pierre
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    Do you have the data to support that...?
    Yes. None of the C-5 victims were hidden.

    Regards, Pierre

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by jerryd View Post
    In posting some articles from the 1873 torso case on the jtr forum, a thought occurred to me. Three of the four victims that were credited to torso man were all un-identified. Elizabeth Jackson was identified mainly by her clothing, IIRC. The five canonical victims of Jack the Ripper were all women that were associated with other people that would have noticed their sudden disappearance and most likely reported it.

    A few questions then:

    Did torso man knowingly select victims that would likely NOT be identified? He knew their back-round and knew nobody would come looking for them.

    Were family members afraid to come forward after seeing what happened to their relative or friend and feared exposing their own name and location to the killer?

    Could the torso women have been foreigners that had left home or estranged from their loved ones? The face (mask) of the 1873 victim was said to have a slight "moustache". That to me sounds like an Italian or Parisian. Her hair was also cut to two inches and was thought to have been a patient in a workhouse infirmary. After her body was pieced together it was photographed and a comment was made that she had many distinguishing moles, scars and facial features that would easily be identifiable to a relative. Many claimed the woman to be their loved one, but it turned out none were. (I only include her to illustrate the "foreigner" point I suggested, but there is a slight chance she could be an early victim)

    Could the torso victims have been directly related to him and he would be the only person to be able to identify them?

    Pick a C-5 victim. Any of them. Then ask the question, if they had been dismembered and scattered in the Thames, would anyone have missed them or raised the alarm? I say, yes.

    With all this in mind another question is raised. If the same man was responsible for both series of murders, does this pattern make any sense? Were the torso victims ladies that lived in his slaughterhouse and he needed to silence them?


    There are so many questions that can be conjured up here. Any thoughts?
    Yes, one: that is interesting and something I have not thought about before. Thanks for pointing to it!

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Pierre View Post
    He did not care about hiding their ID:s.

    Regards, Pierre
    Do you have the data to support that...?

    Leave a comment:


  • Pierre
    replied
    Originally posted by MsWeatherwax View Post
    How can you possibly know that, Pierre?

    For all we know, he knew every single one of them.
    He did not care about hiding their ID:s.

    Regards, Pierre

    Leave a comment:


  • MsWeatherwax
    replied
    Originally posted by Pierre View Post
    Depends on who you think was the killer. If the killer was Jack the Ripper he had no personal connection to them.
    How can you possibly know that, Pierre?

    For all we know, he knew every single one of them.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pierre
    replied
    [QUOTE=jerryd;383225]
    In posting some articles from the 1873 torso case on the jtr forum, a thought occurred to me. Three of the four victims that were credited to torso man were all un-identified. Elizabeth Jackson was identified mainly by her clothing, IIRC. The five canonical victims of Jack the Ripper were all women that were associated with other people that would have noticed their sudden disappearance and most likely reported it.

    A few questions then:

    Did torso man knowingly select victims that would likely NOT be identified? He knew their back-round and knew nobody would come looking for them.
    Hi,

    If you postulate that there was a torso man who was the same person as Jack the Ripper, you have already answered the question above. If you think there was a torso man who hid the ID:s he was not Jack the Ripper. If you think Jack the Ripper killed any of some of the women in the torso cases he very obviously did not care about anyone knowing their ID(:s).

    Were family members afraid to come forward after seeing what happened to their relative or friend and feared exposing their own name and location to the killer?
    This is a question I have many times thought that someone should research. But not just families and friends. Witnesses seem to have been worried to testify in the C-5 inquests. You see it in the sources for the Chapman inquest were the man mistaken for being a pensioner complains that his name will be known in the newspapers and you see it in the sources for the Nichols inquest where Lechmere uses a name less known for him.

    Could the torso women have been foreigners that had left home or estranged from their loved ones? The face (mask) of the 1873 victim was said to have a slight "moustache". That to me sounds like an Italian or Parisian. Her hair was also cut to two inches and was thought to have been a patient in a workhouse infirmary. After her body was pieced together it was photographed and a comment was made that she had many distinguishing moles, scars and facial features that would easily be identifiable to a relative. Many claimed the woman to be their loved one, but it turned out none were. (I only include her to illustrate the "foreigner" point I suggested, but there is a slight chance she could be an early victim)
    There were many nationalities in London in those decades, why should nationality or ethnicity be priority 1 for the killer? Priority 1 was destitute women.

    Could the torso victims have been directly related to him and he would be the only person to be able to identify them?
    Depends on who you think was the killer. If the killer was Jack the Ripper he had no personal connection to them.

    Pick a C-5 victim. Any of them. Then ask the question, if they had been dismembered and scattered in the Thames, would anyone have missed them or raised the alarm? I say, yes.
    But the effect would have been weaker and they would not have been discovered directly. Also, he would have had to carry around parcels, which is a bit more demanding that the street attack where the bodies were left after the deed.

    With all this in mind another question is raised. If the same man was responsible for both series of murders, does this pattern make any sense? Were the torso victims ladies that lived in his slaughterhouse and he needed to silence them?
    Of course it made sense. To him. But the slaughterhouse idea has no historical support.

    There are so many questions that can be conjured up here. Any thoughts?
    Regards, Pierre

    Leave a comment:


  • jerryd
    replied
    In posting some articles from the 1873 torso case on the jtr forum, a thought occurred to me. Three of the four victims that were credited to torso man were all un-identified. Elizabeth Jackson was identified mainly by her clothing, IIRC. The five canonical victims of Jack the Ripper were all women that were associated with other people that would have noticed their sudden disappearance and most likely reported it.

    A few questions then:

    Did torso man knowingly select victims that would likely NOT be identified? He knew their back-round and knew nobody would come looking for them.

    Were family members afraid to come forward after seeing what happened to their relative or friend and feared exposing their own name and location to the killer?

    Could the torso women have been foreigners that had left home or estranged from their loved ones? The face (mask) of the 1873 victim was said to have a slight "moustache". That to me sounds like an Italian or Parisian. Her hair was also cut to two inches and was thought to have been a patient in a workhouse infirmary. After her body was pieced together it was photographed and a comment was made that she had many distinguishing moles, scars and facial features that would easily be identifiable to a relative. Many claimed the woman to be their loved one, but it turned out none were. (I only include her to illustrate the "foreigner" point I suggested, but there is a slight chance she could be an early victim)

    Could the torso victims have been directly related to him and he would be the only person to be able to identify them?

    Pick a C-5 victim. Any of them. Then ask the question, if they had been dismembered and scattered in the Thames, would anyone have missed them or raised the alarm? I say, yes.

    With all this in mind another question is raised. If the same man was responsible for both series of murders, does this pattern make any sense? Were the torso victims ladies that lived in his slaughterhouse and he needed to silence them?


    There are so many questions that can be conjured up here. Any thoughts?
    Last edited by jerryd; 06-02-2016, 08:45 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by John Wheat View Post
    To Fisherman

    You're probably right. Although he must have been aware that the finding of the skull would shock.

    Cheers John
    You mean the mask, I take it. That is a reasonable assumption, of course. But overall I find it hard to establish to what degree he acted to satisfy himself and to what extent he wanted to impress something upon society.

    Placing the torso in the cellar vaults of the New Scotland Yard seems very much like part of communicating his presence to society. It is hard to read any other way.

    Then again, going through all that trouble and meticulous cutting of the 1873 death mask, only to then take the risk that it floated out to sea unnoticed...?

    As of now, I am thinking that there were two stages to what he did with the torsos - an initial one, where there was a private, ritualistic element where he used the bodies for his own satisfaction, and a second stage, where he "recycled" the parts and put them to another use, that of shocking society and establishing his presence.
    Last edited by Fisherman; 05-30-2016, 10:49 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • John Wheat
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    But if he wanted to shock, why throw it in the Thames where it could easily get lost?

    I think that negates your first suggestion to at least some degree.

    The other suggestion is much better: He enjoyed it/wanted to do it/felt compelled to do it etc, or putting it more exact, covering all these aspects:

    It meant something to him.

    That is it, surely.

    For the record - I am not saying that the killer was not interested in shock value. It´s just that I am less convinced that it was the primary goal for him. I think he did what he did first and foremost to satisfy his own wishes/urges.
    To Fisherman

    You're probably right. Although he must have been aware that the finding of the skull would shock.

    Cheers John

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by John Wheat View Post
    To Fisherman

    My best guess is firstly to shock and secondly because the sick bastard enjoyed it. Good question by the way.


    Cheers John
    But if he wanted to shock, why throw it in the Thames where it could easily get lost?

    I think that negates your first suggestion to at least some degree.

    The other suggestion is much better: He enjoyed it/wanted to do it/felt compelled to do it etc, or putting it more exact, covering all these aspects:

    It meant something to him.

    That is it, surely.

    For the record - I am not saying that the killer was not interested in shock value. It´s just that I am less convinced that it was the primary goal for him. I think he did what he did first and foremost to satisfy his own wishes/urges.
    Last edited by Fisherman; 05-30-2016, 04:05 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • John Wheat
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    I would like to return to the 1873 "death mask" carved in one piece from the skull of on of the torso victims.

    Why did the killer do this? What is everybody´s best guess?
    To Fisherman

    My best guess is firstly to shock and secondly because the sick bastard enjoyed it. Good question by the way.


    Cheers John

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    I would like to return to the 1873 "death mask" carved in one piece from the skull of on of the torso victims.

    Why did the killer do this? What is everybody´s best guess?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X