Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Could Jack have killed some of the torso victims?

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

  • Could Jack have killed some of the torso victims?

    Does anyone think it possible that any of the victims (not all) could have been killed by Jack the Ripper? I'm talking the more likely ones such as Pinchin Street / Whitehall? I would have dismissed them a few years back but now my mind is changing and thinking it is a possibility, especially with Pinchin Street.
    Best regards,
    Adam


    "They assumed Kelly was the last... they assumed wrong" - Me

  • #2
    Originally posted by Uncle Jack View Post
    Does anyone think it possible that any of the victims (not all) could have been killed by Jack the Ripper? I'm talking the more likely ones such as Pinchin Street / Whitehall? I would have dismissed them a few years back but now my mind is changing and thinking it is a possibility, especially with Pinchin Street.
    Why don´t you ascribe all the torso cases to the same man? Charles Hebbert said that the Rainham case, The Whitehall case, Liz Jackson and the Pinchin Street case were in all probability the work of the same man. He based it on the similarities of the cutting done to the bodies: "In almost every respect they (the two latter murders, Jackson/Pinchin Street, my remark) are similar to the first two cases (Rainham/Whitehall, my remark), and appear to belong to a series of murders and dismemberment by the same hand."
    Further to that: "The mode of dismemberment and mutilation was in all similar, and showed very considerable skill in execution, and it is a fair presumption from the facts, that the same man committed all four murders."

    I include the 1873 torso too, and probably the 1874 ditto, although there is very scarce evidence relating to the latter case.

    And yes, I think we have the same killer in all these cases AND the Ripper series.
    Last edited by Fisherman; 01-07-2019, 03:25 AM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Uncle Jack View Post
      Does anyone think it possible that any of the victims (not all) could have been killed by Jack the Ripper? I'm talking the more likely ones such as Pinchin Street / Whitehall? I would have dismissed them a few years back but now my mind is changing and thinking it is a possibility, especially with Pinchin Street.
      Pinchin Street is the best bet, if at all. The other torso victims were dumped in West London, where they probably lived and died, if Elizabeth Jackson is anything to go by. All the torso victims, Pinchin included, were almost certainly killed and dismembered in private, with the killer(s) only venturing onto the streets to dispose of body parts.

      This is very unlike what happened to all the canonical Ripper victims except Kelly, and even in her case the privacy only comprised a rented room with a thin wall and a broken window. There was no dismemberment either, a factor completely absent in the other canonical/non-canonical Ripper murders.
      Kind regards, Sam Flynn

      "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
        Why don´t you ascribe all the torso cases to the same man? Charles Hebbert said that the Rainham case, The Whitehall case, Liz Jackson and the Pinchin Street case were in all probability the work of the same man. He based it on the similarities of the cutting done to the bodies.

        I include the 1873 torso too, and probably the 1874 ditto, although there is very scarce evidence relating to the latter case.

        And yes, I think we have the same killer in all these cases AND the Ripper series.
        I notice that you failed to respond to questions I put to you before xmas on your belief that the torsos and the WM were the work of the the same person. Perhaps you would be so kind as to answer now?

        Perhaps you would care to share with us any evidence which shows the police in 1888 suspected that firstly, all the torsos you refer to were the subject of homicides.

        Secondly that the police believed they were all the work of one solo killer?

        And thirdly that they suspected that JTR was responsible for murdering the women whose torsos were found in the thames.

        If you cannot answer those questions definitively then what you are postulating becomes nothing more than your own wild speculative theory, partly based on your own personal interpretation of the inquest testimonies give by the Victorian doctors, which as you have been told is nothing more than uncorroborated opinions especially with regards to the torsos where they suggested blows on the head had been the cause of death. That is really good especially as no skulls were found in most cases.

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
          Pinchin Street is the best bet, if at all. The other torso victims were dumped in West London, where they probably lived and died, if Elizabeth Jackson is anything to go by. All the torso victims, Pinchin included, were almost certainly killed and dismembered in private, with the killer(s) only venturing onto the streets to dispose of body parts.

          This is very unlike what happened to all the canonical Ripper victims except Kelly, and even in her case the privacy only comprised a rented room with a thin wall and a broken window. There was no dismemberment either, a factor completely absent in the other canonical/non-canonical Ripper murders.
          The Ripper deeds were all much swifter deeds, and the killer would not have brought a saw along. That alone may explain the left out dismemberment. More how the head of he Pinchin Street victim was taken off with a knife, whereas the earlier torso victims were decapitated by saw, including Jackson in the summer of 89. Hebbert said that it marked a progression within the killer.
          So if he did. ot decapitate by knife any sooner than in the summer of 1889, it seems totally logical that Kelly was not decapitated.

          This discussion of course predisposes that the killer WOULD have decapitated the Ripper victims if he could. But WOULD he have done so? Not necessarily, no. And personally, I think he would NOT have done so, even if he could. I think he wanted the heads to remain on the bodies, and that this was important to what the killer did. I believe that the decapitations in the torso series were practical matters, and that the killer initially left the heads on the bodies. A pointer to this can be seen in the Pinchin Street case, where the legs had been taken away first while thee had had been left on the body - the surfaces of the taken of thighs left on the body were blacked and dry, but the neck was red and moist.
          So the killer took the legs of long before the head; this he left on the body and he would have done so for a reason - it was included in what he used the body for. The legs were not, and so they were discarded immediately.

          Similarly, I think that the Ripper victims´ heads were important to the killer, and that he would not want to take them off. They were part of his phantasy.

          Comment


          • #6
            Trevor Marriott: I notice that you failed to respond to questions I put to you before xmas on your belief that the torsos and the WM were the work of the the same person. Perhaps you would be so kind as to answer now?

            Oh dear! Trevor has me up against the wall!! Now he will reveal my misconceptions for all to see - help!

            Perhaps you would care to share with us any evidence which shows the police in 1888 suspected that firstly, all the torsos you refer to were the subject of homicides.

            They speak of the cases as murders, as we have done since. Hebbert, the top authority on these cases, said that they were murder cases - by a single perpetrator.

            Secondly that the police believed they were all the work of one solo killer?

            They would have listened to Hebbert, and there is a reason that this is the normal take on things. Since 1889, these cases have been referred to as the Tames Torso murders, Trevor. Since 1889, it has been well known that the missing heads made it hard to identify the cause of death, but the cases are NEVERTHELESS referred to was murder cases. And wisely so - it is by far the best guess we can make, and there can be little doubt that it is the correct verdict. Some of the cases were actually ruled murders at the inquests, for these very reasons.

            And thirdly that they suspected that JTR was responsible for murdering the women whose torsos were found in the thames.

            The idea was launched and considered, but rejected on grounds involving an idea that dismemberment murders were always about practical matters like transport or disenabling identification.
            I actually know a poster out here who is eager to claim that the medicos knew next to nothing and had to guess. Maybe that does not apply here, though? What do you say? Do you want it the other way around now?

            If you cannot answer those questions definitively then what you are postulating becomes nothing more than your own wild speculative theory, partly based on your own personal interpretation of the inquest testimonies give by the Victorian doctors, which as you have been told is nothing more than uncorroborated opinions especially with regards to the torsos where they suggested blows on the head had been the cause of death. That is really good especially as no skulls were found in most cases.

            Trevor, people who claim that the Ripper victims had their innards stolen by enterprising mortuary attendants are not fit to suggest that other people entertain "wildly speculative ideas". As for the lost heads, you would perhaps know how that works better than most.
            And that is all I have to say to you for now. You've had your answers, adieu.
            Last edited by Fisherman; 01-07-2019, 04:02 AM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Uncle Jack View Post
              Does anyone think it possible that any of the victims (not all) could have been killed by Jack the Ripper? I'm talking the more likely ones such as Pinchin Street / Whitehall? I would have dismissed them a few years back but now my mind is changing and thinking it is a possibility, especially with Pinchin Street.
              Some do think it not only possible, but likely. Personally I consider it possible, of course, but as there’s no real proof of a link, I do not at present accept it.

              Most compelling reason in my opinion for considering a common origin is the overlap in time.

              While Hebbert writes that he believed the four torso cases to be by the same hand, I don’t believe he ever compared them to JtR.
              Monro did, saying he did not believe them to be connected, although he did ascribe the four torso cases to the same man.

              Bagster-Phillips said he did not believe Pinchin St. and MJK to be similar enough to be by the same man.



              Drew Gray is co-authoring a book apparently about the possibility of JTR and Torso Killer being the same, it comes out this spring, I believe. It will be interesting to read a reasonably argued case for this theory.

              But so far most people are unconvinced, I believe.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Kattrup View Post
                Some do think it not only possible, but likely. Personally I consider it possible, of course, but as there’s no real proof of a link, I do not at present accept it.

                Most compelling reason in my opinion for considering a common origin is the overlap in time.

                While Hebbert writes that he believed the four torso cases to be by the same hand, I don’t believe he ever compared them to JtR.
                Monro did, saying he did not believe them to be connected, although he did ascribe the four torso cases to the same man.

                Bagster-Phillips said he did not believe Pinchin St. and MJK to be similar enough to be by the same man.



                Drew Gray is co-authoring a book apparently about the possibility of JTR and Torso Killer being the same, it comes out this spring, I believe. It will be interesting to read a reasonably argued case for this theory.

                But so far most people are unconvinced, I believe.
                Monro was not a medical man or a forensic expert.

                And Bagster Phillips? Surely HE was a medical man?

                Indeed! And let's take a fuller look on what he did say:

                I have not noticed any sufficient similarity to convince me it was the person who committed both mutilations, but the division of the neck and attempt to disarticulate the bones of the spine are very similar to that which was effected in this case. The savagery shown by the mutilated remains in the Dorset-street case far exceeded that shown in this case. The mutilations in the Dorset-street case were most wanton, whereas in this case it strikes me that they were made for the purpose of disposing of the body. I wish to say that these are mere points that strike me without any comparative study of the other case, except those afforded by partial notes that I have with me. I think in this case there has been greater knowledge shown in regard to the construction of the parts composing the spine, and on the whole there has been a greater knowledge shown of how to separate a joint.

                A very similar division of the neck, to begin with - that is the medical implication.

                What Phillips then does is to say that there was much more savagery in Dorset Street, and he says that this was a wanton case, whereas the Pinchin Street case seemed to him to be about disposing the body.

                As I have said before, the concept of aggressive dismemberment was not something the victorian doctors would have been acquainted with. One has to wonder how a fifteen-inch gash in the lower abdomen would have helped to dispose of the body...? Phillips does not go into that, sadly, probably because it did not fit with his suggestion of disposal intentions.
                Others made the suggestion that its could be about mimicking the Ripper, but Phillips wisely didn't go there.
                He added that there seemed to be a greater insight about how to separate a joint, which is kind of funny since there was no effort on the Rippers behalf in that particular discipline. So how Phillips could conclude that one was more skilled than the other on this issue is something I fail to understand. It should ne noted though, as I did before, that Hebbert points out that the Torso killer only graduated to decapitation by knife with his last victim - almost a year after Kelly.
                Once more, I don't think the Ripper had any intentions at all to decapitate, for reasons given in post 5.

                I think you may be correct that most people are unconvinced - today. Tomorrow is another matter. The matter has started moving at long last...

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                  And Bagster Phillips? Surely HE was a medical man?

                  Indeed! And let's take a fuller look on what he did say:

                  I have not noticed any sufficient similarity to convince me it was the person who committed both mutilations, but the division of the neck and attempt to disarticulate the bones of the spine are very similar to that which was effected in this case.

                  A very similar division of the neck, to begin with - that is the medical implication.
                  You've overlooked the medical implications of the first part of that sentence: "I have not noticed any sufficient similarity to convince me it was the [same] person who committed both mutilations".
                  Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                  "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I doubt very much that the Ripper and Torso Man where the same person. Both sets of murders show an entirely different way of killing and a murderer with too many mo's and a wrong decision of shall I rip or hack would have almost certainly led the murderer being caught. IMHO. So the Ripper "Ripped" and The Torso Man "Hacked".

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                      You've overlooked the medical implications of the first part of that sentence: "I have not noticed any sufficient similarity to convince me it was the [same] person who committed both mutilations".
                      Nope, I have read and understod it all, Gareth. However, here he does not specify what he looked at. It would have helped if he did. Otherwise he is correct in saying that the the two murders look dissimilar. They do.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Busy Beaver View Post
                        I doubt very much that the Ripper and Torso Man where the same person. Both sets of murders show an entirely different way of killing and a murderer with too many mo's and a wrong decision of shall I rip or hack would have almost certainly led the murderer being caught. IMHO. So the Ripper "Ripped" and The Torso Man "Hacked".
                        So here we have somebody who actually knows how the torso victims were killed - that's about time!

                        Tell us all about it!

                        The Ripper cut and the torso man cut. It is normally said that Kelly was "hacked to pieces", so you may wish to avoid your distinction criteria in that respect.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                          Trevor Marriott: I notice that you failed to respond to questions I put to you before xmas on your belief that the torsos and the WM were the work of the the same person. Perhaps you would be so kind as to answer now?

                          Oh dear! Trevor has me up against the wall!! Now he will reveal my misconceptions for all to see - help!

                          Perhaps you would care to share with us any evidence which shows the police in 1888 suspected that firstly, all the torsos you refer to were the subject of homicides.

                          They speak of the cases as murders, as we have done since. Hebbert, the top authority on these cases, said that they were murder cases - by a single perpetrator.

                          Secondly that the police believed they were all the work of one solo killer?

                          They would have listened to Hebbert, and there is a reason that this is the normal take on things. Since 1889, these cases have been referred to as the Tames Torso murders, Trevor. Since 1889, it has been well known that the missing heads made it hard to identify the cause of death, but the cases are NEVERTHELESS referred to was murder cases. And wisely so - it is by far the best guess we can make, and there can be little doubt that it is the correct verdict. Some of the cases were actually ruled murders at the inquests, for these very reasons.

                          And thirdly that they suspected that JTR was responsible for murdering the women whose torsos were found in the thames.

                          The idea was launched and considered, but rejected on grounds involving an idea that dismemberment murders were always about practical matters like transport or disenabling identification.
                          I actually know a poster out here who is eager to claim that the medicos knew next to nothing and had to guess. Maybe that does not apply here, though? What do you say? Do you want it the other way around now?

                          If you cannot answer those questions definitively then what you are postulating becomes nothing more than your own wild speculative theory, partly based on your own personal interpretation of the inquest testimonies give by the Victorian doctors, which as you have been told is nothing more than uncorroborated opinions especially with regards to the torsos where they suggested blows on the head had been the cause of death. That is really good especially as no skulls were found in most cases.

                          Trevor, people who claim that the Ripper victims had their innards stolen by enterprising mortuary attendants are not fit to suggest that other people entertain "wildly speculative ideas". As for the lost heads, you would perhaps know how that works better than most.
                          And that is all I have to say to you for now. You've had your answers, adieu.
                          What a load of waffle you duck and dive more times than an Olympic swimmer 🏊*♀️

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Uncle Jack View Post
                            Does anyone think it possible that any of the victims (not all) could have been killed by Jack the Ripper? I'm talking the more likely ones such as Pinchin Street / Whitehall? I would have dismissed them a few years back but now my mind is changing and thinking it is a possibility, especially with Pinchin Street.
                            hi uncle
                            I lean towrd they were the same man. for many reasons.

                            one similarity is they both stopped at the same time with McKenzie and pinchin. Ive never seen any response, if they were not the same man, why this was. among all the other similarities this one sticks out for me-too much of a coincidence.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                              one similarity is they both stopped at the same time with McKenzie and pinchin.
                              What if the Ripper series ended with Kelly... Eddowes, even? Why were there no undoubted Ripper murders before August 1888, when the torso cases started many years earlier? As to the end of the torso murders, what about the 1902 case?
                              Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                              "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X