Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Torso Murders

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

  • Did butchers slaughter in 88?

    Could the Whitehall victim have been practice for "Annie Chapman" and possibly others...

    She is killed around or between August 30th and the 8th of September. Her body is deposited on or around the 30th of September. Dr. Bond reports that "portions of the body are missing."; however, we know she remains with her heart, liver, stomach, lungs, calling into question: which portions exactly are missing since, from his pm, he is obviously moving down her body - neck, chest, lungs, heart, liver, stomach, "portions of the body",...?

    Add to the modernization, the fact that there is a large leap in technique from the manner that Jack the Ripper cuts the abdominal area of Polly Nicholls to how he slaughters Annie Chapman. There is little indication that Polly Nicholls cuts were with the intention of removing her organs unless that was how "thought" you open a person. By Jack the Ripper standards, it is either a lazy, ignorant or trepidatious murder because he shows no apparent intent to take her uterus using his method. {Is "fortnight" here appropriate?} Yet, little over a week later, Jack the Ripper opens and removes Annie Chapman's uterus in the dead of night under the shade of a fence.

    It calls into question, how recently would Jack the Ripper have had to familiarize himself with the internal anatomy of a woman?

    Slaughter is a profession as is butchery. If they are similar, it is because Jack the Ripper and the torso killer share these traits (or, 'talents'). Jack the Ripper is known more for his slaughterer persona while the torso killer is recognized by his butcher reputation.
    I would define slaughter as the numbed remorse of taking life (usually by cutting the throat or a smashing of the skull) and the removal of the organs. And, butchery would be the cutting of the muscular and skeletal structure. When Jack the Ripper cuts into Catherine Eddowes' skull, that s butchery. As is, removing the flesh from Mary Jane Kelly's corpse. Nicking the vertebrae of the neck is borderline butchery.

    In terms of the C5+1:
    Tabram - murdered
    Nicholls - murdered, [attempted slaughter]
    Chapman - slaughtered
    Stride - murdered
    Eddowes - slaughtered, butchered
    Kelly - slaughtered, butchered
    there,s nothing new, only the unexplored

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Robert St Devil View Post
      Could the Whitehall victim have been practice for "Annie Chapman" and possibly others...

      She is killed around or between August 30th and the 8th of September. Her body is deposited on or around the 30th of September. Dr. Bond reports that "portions of the body are missing."; however, we know she remains with her heart, liver, stomach, lungs, calling into question: which portions exactly are missing since, from his pm, he is obviously moving down her body - neck, chest, lungs, heart, liver, stomach, "portions of the body",...?

      Add to the modernization, the fact that there is a large leap in technique from the manner that Jack the Ripper cuts the abdominal area of Polly Nicholls to how he slaughters Annie Chapman. There is little indication that Polly Nicholls cuts were with the intention of removing her organs unless that was how "thought" you open a person. By Jack the Ripper standards, it is either a lazy, ignorant or trepidatious murder because he shows no apparent intent to take her uterus using his method. {Is "fortnight" here appropriate?} Yet, little over a week later, Jack the Ripper opens and removes Annie Chapman's uterus in the dead of night under the shade of a fence.

      It calls into question, how recently would Jack the Ripper have had to familiarize himself with the internal anatomy of a woman?

      Slaughter is a profession as is butchery. If they are similar, it is because Jack the Ripper and the torso killer share these traits (or, 'talents'). Jack the Ripper is known more for his slaughterer persona while the torso killer is recognized by his butcher reputation.
      I would define slaughter as the numbed remorse of taking life (usually by cutting the throat or a smashing of the skull) and the removal of the organs. And, butchery would be the cutting of the muscular and skeletal structure. When Jack the Ripper cuts into Catherine Eddowes' skull, that s butchery. As is, removing the flesh from Mary Jane Kelly's corpse. Nicking the vertebrae of the neck is borderline butchery.

      In terms of the C5+1:
      Tabram - murdered
      Nicholls - murdered, [attempted slaughter]
      Chapman - slaughtered
      Stride - murdered
      Eddowes - slaughtered, butchered
      Kelly - slaughtered, butchered
      I don´t think any of the victims were slaughtered/butchered - although I can easily see what you mean.

      Most would say that the Kelly deed was a senseless slaughter, but I think it is the other way around. Of all the Ripper murders, this was arguably the one that followed a set course most closely of all the deeds, and where the killer took great care to produce what his mind was set on. It makes sense that way - why would he be sloppy and possessed by a frenzy when he for once had some privacy and time on his hands?
      When it comes to the Torso deeds, they may well have been even more precise in this respect, but since we do not know what happened to the bodies before they were thrown in the river, we will never know. All we can say is that a lot of careful and precise work went into the cutting itself. And as I said before, I think there is a clear line leading from the 1873 deed to the Kelly deed; those are the two murders that are clearest in showing what agenda the killer worked to, if I am correct.

      Comment


      • Fisherman;382592

        I think there is a clear line leading from the 1873 deed to the Kelly deed; those are the two murders that are clearest in showing what agenda the killer worked to, if I am correct.
        Hi Fisherman,

        And yet there are big differences in the methods of these two cases. I have not studied the case from 1873 and do not think it is the work of Jack the Ripper so I do not know what sources you use. But reading this article (no idea how reliable it is) it is clear that there are substantial differences between the case in 1873 and the murder of Kelly.

        And yet you say they are clearest in indicating the "agenda" of the killer, whatever that is. That agenda is your own construction, if you induce it from these two cases, since there are so many differences.

        Do remember that Kelly was known around Dorset Street. But in the case of 1873 the identification of the woman was impossible.

        http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=3600

        Regards, Pierre
        Last edited by Pierre; 05-28-2016, 12:42 PM.

        Comment


        • Hi All,

          London Evening Post, 9th November 1888—

          “Two women aver that they saw her in a public-house, drinking with a man. This was between ten and half-past, but the persons residing in the public house state that they have no recollection of her, and the point is rendered the more difficult through Kelly not being generally known.”

          Regards,

          Simon
          Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
            Hi All,

            London Evening Post, 9th November 1888—

            “Two women aver that they saw her in a public-house, drinking with a man. This was between ten and half-past, but the persons residing in the public house state that they have no recollection of her, and the point is rendered the more difficult through Kelly not being generally known.”

            Regards,

            Simon
            And yet several people said they knew her.

            Regards, Pierre

            Comment


            • Hi Pierre,

              "Not being generally known" does not mean she was completely unknown.

              Regards,

              Simon
              Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
                Hi Pierre,

                "Not being generally known" does not mean she was completely unknown.

                Regards,

                Simon
                Hi Simon,

                The hierarchy of sources for the statement of Kelly being known around Dorset Street here is:

                1. Inquest source
                2. Police investigation source
                3. Newspaper article (London Evening Post in this case)

                And there is no need for us to operationalize "how known" she was. And we would not get a valid ordinal scale for it. But we can count the people who said it.

                Regards, Pierre
                Last edited by Pierre; 05-28-2016, 01:31 PM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                  I don´t think any of the victims were slaughtered/butchered - although I can easily see what you mean.

                  Most would say that the Kelly deed was a senseless slaughter, but I think it is the other way around. Of all the Ripper murders, this was arguably the one that followed a set course most closely of all the deeds, and where the killer took great care to produce what his mind was set on. It makes sense that way - why would he be sloppy and possessed by a frenzy when he for once had some privacy and time on his hands?
                  When it comes to the Torso deeds, they may well have been even more precise in this respect, but since we do not know what happened to the bodies before they were thrown in the river, we will never know. All we can say is that a lot of careful and precise work went into the cutting itself. And as I said before, I think there is a clear line leading from the 1873 deed to the Kelly deed; those are the two murders that are clearest in showing what agenda the killer worked to, if I am correct.
                  And another thing, Fisherman. Your ideas of "flaps" does not seem to match the discussion about flaps in this article, (same source):

                  "...it is in a manner different from what obtains in the performance of any operation, for there are no flaps. "

                  The flaps are discussed in relation to how the bones were disarticulated and not to the abdomen, but -

                  Flaps would indicate operation and no flaps would indicate no operation. Also there were no flaps mentioned at all in that case so it does not seem to match your hypothesis about the same killer if you induce from flaps.

                  Again, this is not my research area and I do not know how reliable the newspaper is. Someone else should know better than me.

                  Regards, Pierre
                  Last edited by Pierre; 05-28-2016, 01:55 PM.

                  Comment


                  • In keeping with John's thread ...Hutchinson the herbalist anyone?
                    ,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸, Debs ,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,

                    I am not DJA. He's called Dave.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                      Hi Fisherman,

                      And yet there are big differences in the methods of these two cases. I have not studied the case from 1873 and do not think it is the work of Jack the Ripper so I do not know what sources you use. But reading this article (no idea how reliable it is) it is clear that there are substantial differences between the case in 1873 and the murder of Kelly.

                      And yet you say they are clearest in indicating the "agenda" of the killer, whatever that is. That agenda is your own construction, if you induce it from these two cases, since there are so many differences.

                      Do remember that Kelly was known around Dorset Street. But in the case of 1873 the identification of the woman was impossible.

                      http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=3600

                      Regards, Pierre
                      How do you know that the "agenda" is my own construction when you can´t tell what I am referring to?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                        ...there were no flaps mentioned at all in that case so it does not seem to match your hypothesis about the same killer if you induce from flaps.

                        Regards, Pierre
                        Conclusion, Pierre?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                          How do you know that the "agenda" is my own construction when you can´t tell what I am referring to?
                          Fisherman,

                          as I said, if you induce it from these two cases.

                          Regards, Pierre

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                            Fisherman,

                            as I said, if you induce it from these two cases.

                            Regards, Pierre
                            But you still don't know WHAT in the cases I would be inducing it from, Pierre, so my point stands.

                            Comment


                            • 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?

                              Comment


                              • 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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X