Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Torso Killer discussion from Millwood Thread

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

  • Originally posted by bolo View Post
    Hi Jerry,

    interesting article indeed, thanks for posting. According to Hebbert's dissertation, Jackson was identified by some old injuries she received on one of her arms when she "fell onto a broken bottle" (don't remember the exact words). Did the clothes play a role as well?

    The Chelsea Dissector... intriguing nom de guerre, still does not roll off the tongue as nicely as Torsoman, if I may say so.
    The London Dissector covers Jack the Torso Ripper quite nicely

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

      The phrase "The girl had been rescued from a wild life by a London missionary, but escaped from him two day's before the murder" doesn't exactly ring untrue in the context. Its the expected victimology if it was really Barker.
      Who was the missionary?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by RockySullivan View Post

        Who was the missionary?
        Jack the Torso Ripper. “ “you would say anything but your prayers””
        "Is all that we see or seem
        but a dream within a dream?"

        -Edgar Allan Poe


        "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
        quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

        -Frederick G. Abberline

        Comment


        • Originally posted by RockySullivan View Post

          Who was the missionary?
          His name was Reverend Winter. The reports of Emily leading a "wild life" and "escaping" from him seem like newspaper hyperbole, as she'd apparently only run away from home a week earlier and now just wanted to return. Here is the whole sad story as related by him (from the Leeds Mercury 1 Oct);

          "There seems to be no doubt, however, that the girl Emily Barker did find her way to Whitechapel; that she was friendless there; and that she endured some terrible privations after she left home. The Rev. Mr. Winter, curate of St. John’s Church, Bethnal Green, who had some knowledge of Miss Barker, says – It was about six o’clock on the first Friday evening in this month that I was told that a young girl wanted to see me. I asked her what she wanted, and she told me that she wanted to know if I could assist her back to Northampton. She wanted me to pay her fare, as she said she wanted to go back home to her father. I was very short with her, and told her I had no funds for any such purpose. She told me she came to London on the previous Monday, and as she did not know where to go she went and procured a night’s lodging at the Salvation Army’s shelter in Whitechapel. I have no Home for girls, and as so many are given to lying, I preferred not to have much to say to her; but I got one of my female helps to interview her. She said that on the first night she had to pay 3d. for her night’s lodging at the Salvation Army; but when she went the second night she had no money, and they would not take her in. They told her that if she was a fallen girl, and if she would admit it, they would send her to one of their Homes. She, however, persistently refused to make such an admission. As she did not possess any money, she said that the next night she walked about Whitechapel, and at last got into Hanbury-street, where one of the murders was committed. She walked about in that dark street all one night. As I had no place to send her, I gave her the addresses of several places for girls. She, however, elected to go back to the Salvation Army, and I gave her 3d. I telegraphed to her father, and he replied that he could not have her back, as it would only cause another row in his house. She did not return to me on the following morning, and what became of her I do not know. In appearance she was rather short, dark, and plump."

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Patrick S View Post

            I think it's unlikely that the Whitechapel Murders weren't a "reflection of what (the killer) truly desired to do". I think the only way one can even suggest that idea is if one attempts to present the Whitechapel Murderer/Jack the Ripper and the Torso Killer as one and the same, which is your objective, and so be it. Variety is the spice of life, as they say. In my view, though, JtR, especially in the cases of Nichols, Chapman, Stride, and Eddowes took far too many chances and subjected himself to substantial risk for it not to have been what he "truly desired to do". As well, especially in the cases of Chapman, Eddowes, and (particularly) Kelly, the extent of the injuries were so severe that it would seem, in my opinion, that the killer was doing exactly what he "desired to do". In fact, taking into consideration the risks the killer took and extent of the injuries he inflicted upon his victims, it would seem to me that "desire" likely had very little to do with it. The killer was compelled to commit these crimes. He needed it. His physiology, his psychosis, his illness, whatever you want to call it, REQUIRED it of him.
            I regard the Ripper killing as Torso Murders Light, Patrick. I think they represent what he wanted to do, but not as fully as the torso murders would have. Think of it as a case where Michelangelo is given a canvas and paint and a studio where he can do a painting - and then he is given a canvas, paint but no studio, and he is told to produce a painting double quick in darkness.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

              awesome find Jerry!

              Well the author of this article certainly thinks the removal of heads to prevent ID was part of it, and that not leaving clothes with pinchin was a lesson learned. Which is entirely possible.

              but of course, having killed and mutilated these women in his own place, could lead the police back to him easier if the victims could be IDed, something he didn't have to worry about with the ripper victims.
              The overall idea in the victorian society was that dismemberment was ALWAYS about concealment only. Heck, Hebbert himself even forgot that the torso killer also took out organs, naming that procedure as something that told the Ripper apart from him...!

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Kattrup View Post

                How then do you know that Hebbert was correct in determining that the four torso murders were committed by the same hand?

                I mean, you argue that because he, according to you, was unaware of the possibility of dismemberment in itself being a motivator, he was unable to correctly compare the knife work behind the torso and JtR murders.

                If that were so (which I do think is the case at all), how do you know that his Victorian simplicity would not lead him to falsely attribute similar dismemberments to the same man? He simply saw a similar wish to practically dispose of the bodies on four different occasions and believed they probably came from the same hand. Perhaps only one or two were by the same dismemberer?
                "Which I do think is the case at all"? A Freudian slip-up?

                It is all very easy:

                1. The comparison of the wounds, where Hebbert said f ex that cuts inbetween the Whitehall murder and the Jackson case were "exactly similar", involves a verdict based on factual, measurable entities, whereas ...

                2. Guesswork about driving forces behind deeds do not.

                If Robert Anderson was asked to describe how a human looks, he would say that they have a body, two legs, two arms and a head, and he would base it on factual measurable entities. If he was asked why humans looked like that he would say that it is because God created us that way, basing his verdict on guesswork based on his personal beliefs. And I´d be more inclined to think the he was right on the first matter and wrong on the second.

                Once we look at it this way, it is all very easy to understand. Once we do not WANT to understand, and favor quibbling over things because we have an agenda, it becomes much harder to swallow. Its a pain in the lower part of the back, I know, but it is nevertheless so.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Kattrup View Post
                  Should have been "If that were so (which I do not think is the case at all)"

                  Ah! Freudian mistake corrected. Good!

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X