Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The case evidence and its implications

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

  • Originally posted by John G View Post

    But he didn't need to retain the body for 6 to 8 weeks.
    I cannot for the life of me see how we can know that he retained the body for 6-8 weeks. The arm was found on September 11, the medicos allowed for the body being killed close in time to that day, the examining medico said that he believed it to have been amputated recently. Why can it not be a case of the killer not having retained the body at all, or only for a very short period of time, before dumping it?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
      That's interesting, John, because I don't think too many of the other torso victims were kept that long, so we have to wonder why. Was the victim somehow "special" to the killer, e.g. a girlfriend or wife? Does this prolonged period of storage point to a different killer than the other torso cases? Either way, this doesn't really look like Jack the Ripper, does it?
      It wouldn't take that long to source a wheelbarrow or a good, sharp knife, but - as I suggested - there could have been many other practical reasons behind the delay.
      No, it most definitely does not look like the Ripper.
      As noted earlier, The Whitehall victim had the pelvic viscera removed from the rest of the torso, so the victim had been effectively eviscerated. It is certainly not how a defensive dismemberer would go about cutting up a body. The following victim, Liz Jackson, had internal organs removed. Once again, this is not consistent with defensive dismemberment, i.e because once internal organs are exposed "they will leak copiously and create a really noxious stench." (Sue Black.) The perpetrator is therefore making things unnecessarily complicated for himself and repeating past mistakes. In fact even Pinchin Street had a deep gash in the abdomen, suggesting the killer may considered opening up the abdominal cavity.

      The perpetrator is also taking other unnecessary risks. For instance, Whitehall victim deposited in the catacombs of the foundations of the new police headquarters. In fact, one of the workman stated that the vault where the reamins were found would be difficult to find, and it was so dark a torch was required even in daylight. And Pinchin Street was deposited in an area frequented by homeless people, placed between two drunks, who swore the victim wasn't there when they arrived.

      Then there's the scattering of body parts. I believe this was probably part of the perpetrator's signature, becuse it can't be an efficient way to dispose of a body. In the case of Jackson, for instance, body parts were scattered in numerous locations over a wide area-he even lobbed a thigh over the wall of Sir Percy Shelley's garden wall. Sir Percy was the ancestor of Mary Shelley, who wrote Frankenstein. Make of that what you will!

      Comment


      • Originally posted by John G View Post

        No, it most definitely does not look like the Ripper.
        As noted earlier, The Whitehall victim had the pelvic viscera removed from the rest of the torso, so the victim had been effectively eviscerated. It is certainly not how a defensive dismemberer would go about cutting up a body. The following victim, Liz Jackson, had internal organs removed. Once again, this is not consistent with defensive dismemberment, i.e because once internal organs are exposed "they will leak copiously and create a really noxious stench." (Sue Black.) The perpetrator is therefore making things unnecessarily complicated for himself and repeating past mistakes. In fact even Pinchin Street had a deep gash in the abdomen, suggesting the killer may considered opening up the abdominal cavity.

        The perpetrator is also taking other unnecessary risks. For instance, Whitehall victim deposited in the catacombs of the foundations of the new police headquarters. In fact, one of the workman stated that the vault where the reamins were found would be difficult to find, and it was so dark a torch was required even in daylight. And Pinchin Street was deposited in an area frequented by homeless people, placed between two drunks, who swore the victim wasn't there when they arrived.

        Then there's the scattering of body parts. I believe this was probably part of the perpetrator's signature, becuse it can't be an efficient way to dispose of a body. In the case of Jackson, for instance, body parts were scattered in numerous locations over a wide area-he even lobbed a thigh over the wall of Sir Percy Shelley's garden wall. Sir Percy was the ancestor of Mary Shelley, who wrote Frankenstein. Make of that what you will!
        John, you have misunderstood the pelvic viscera part, I'm afraid. It was never established that any of the pelvic organs/viscera were taken out. The lower part of the torso was never found, and so we cannot tell whether the killer plucked anything out of it.

        I agree overall with the rest of your post - we are dealing with an offensive dismemberer who made it his business to shout out from the rooftops the he was around.

        Comment


        • I think that Abby is the one poster who has actually answered the question I ask on this thread: Is it not true that once we know that a serial killer has eviscerated a victim, when there are organs missing from other victims, the likelier thing is that this also depends on eviscerations on behalf of the killer?

          Any takers?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
            I think that Abby is the one poster who has actually answered the question I ask on this thread: Is it not true that once we know that a serial killer has eviscerated a victim, when there are organs missing from other victims, the likelier thing is that this also depends on eviscerations on behalf of the killer?

            Any takers?
            Maybe people are unlikely to answer if they disagree with the premise?

            but worded as you have done now I would say yes, it is true.

            but it’s not what you asked at first, and we don’t know that any of the torso victims were eviscerated, in the sense you use it. Yes, Jackson had inner organs removed but this may have been a byproduct of cutting her up.

            just saying. Evisceration is a theory, not a fact. We can discuss whether it can be proven or disproven but it’s not certain either way with the current evidence.

            Just because the murderer dismembered differently to what CSI used as the norm does not mean anything in itself. Just because it does not conform to some late 20th century model of common dismemberment does not mean anything in itself. The dismemberer(s) lived in another time.
            just as the fact that body parts were found does not mean that the dismemberer wanted them to be found.

            So yeah. If a killer takes organs in one case, and another victim of the same killer lacks organs, it’s probably reasonable to surmise the killer took them.
            But we still don’t know that anyone deliberately took organs from the torso victims.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Kattrup View Post

              But we still don’t know that anyone deliberately took organs from the torso victims.
              Or, if they did, we don't know if the viscera weren't buried in a shallow grave, thrown down a drain, fed to pets, incinerated or immediately disposed of by some other means. Dennis Nilsen left the entrails and internal organs of some of his victims on scrubby wasteland to rot and/or be eaten by scavenging animals, whilst he burned the victims' dismembered corpses on a bonfire.
              Last edited by Sam Flynn; 04-09-2019, 09:37 AM.
              Kind regards, Sam Flynn

              "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

              Comment


              • I think we can perhaps establish one thing about the Torso man that does match up with Jack, I think the fact that the parts were dispersed in town, where they would be discovered, rather than taken out of town and buried somewhere likely indicates a local man. Which I believe also goes well with the notion that the body parts were probably just collateral issues, not real objectives per se. The fact that he may have spent some time with the deceased could be indicative of a lot of things, but I cant help but think that dismemberment was the ultimate goal. That created parts that have to be tossed away. I cant immediately recall....were the heads ever found in any of these cases?
                Michael Richards

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                  I think the fact that the parts were dispersed in town, where they would be discovered, rather than taken out of town and buried somewhere likely indicates a local
                  Indeed, but local to the West of London, judging by the overwhelming majority of the torso cases.
                  man
                  ... or men, as the case may be.
                  Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                  "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                    I think we can perhaps establish one thing about the Torso man that does match up with Jack, I think the fact that the parts were dispersed in town, where they would be discovered, rather than taken out of town and buried somewhere likely indicates a local man. Which I believe also goes well with the notion that the body parts were probably just collateral issues, not real objectives per se. The fact that he may have spent some time with the deceased could be indicative of a lot of things, but I cant help but think that dismemberment was the ultimate goal. That created parts that have to be tossed away. I cant immediately recall....were the heads ever found in any of these cases?
                    It certainty doesn't suggest a Whitchapel local. It does, however, indicate a commuter killer, which JtR most definitely was not.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                      John, you have misunderstood the pelvic viscera part, I'm afraid. It was never established that any of the pelvic organs/viscera were taken out. The lower part of the torso was never found, and so we cannot tell whether the killer plucked anything out of it.

                      I agree overall with the rest of your post - we are dealing with an offensive dismemberer who made it his business to shout out from the rooftops the he was around.
                      Yes, but the point I was trying to make is: the pelvic viscera had been removed from the rest of the torso, and that is not how a defensive dismemberer would be expected to cut up a body (I did quote Rutty on this point in an earlier post, the most relevant bit being, "leaving the torso and pelvis as a single piece). It, of course, means that internal organs are now exposed, which would be a very bad idea, as Sue Black's comments, which I quoted earlier, perfectly illustrate.

                      Not only that, as a "defensive" dismemberer he then apparently repeats the mistake with Jackson, suggesting he must have been a bit of a simpleton if he was, indeed, a defensive dismemberer!

                      Just to clarify the point about Whitehall Torso:

                      "The date of death was from six weeks to months previously.", per Dr Hebbert.
                      Last edited by John G; 04-09-2019, 12:23 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Kattrup View Post

                        Maybe people are unlikely to answer if they disagree with the premise?

                        but worded as you have done now I would say yes, it is true.

                        but it’s not what you asked at first, and we don’t know that any of the torso victims were eviscerated, in the sense you use it. Yes, Jackson had inner organs removed but this may have been a byproduct of cutting her up.

                        just saying. Evisceration is a theory, not a fact. We can discuss whether it can be proven or disproven but it’s not certain either way with the current evidence.

                        Just because the murderer dismembered differently to what CSI used as the norm does not mean anything in itself. Just because it does not conform to some late 20th century model of common dismemberment does not mean anything in itself. The dismemberer(s) lived in another time.
                        just as the fact that body parts were found does not mean that the dismemberer wanted them to be found.

                        So yeah. If a killer takes organs in one case, and another victim of the same killer lacks organs, it’s probably reasonable to surmise the killer took them.
                        But we still don’t know that anyone deliberately took organs from the torso victims.
                        Hello there, Kattrup!

                        Many thanks for answering "yes" to my question. Most people have not gotten round to doing that, and I really don't think it is because they disagree - I think it is because they agree but don't want to say that.

                        At any rate, you are of course completely correct. The answer is sort of statistical/logical and unavoidable; whatever a killer does to a body goes down with the police as being likely/logical to appear with the next body too. It belongs to how the police did their work - whenever a series of murders appear in a geographically defined area, they will look for similarities, the reason being that it is less likely with one killer per murder than with a series of murder perpetrated by the same killer.

                        Now, moving on, you say that we don't know that any of the torso victims were eviscerated, "in the sense you (being me) use it".

                        The sense I use it is the one suggested by the dictionaries, f ex the Oxford dictionary:
                        Definition of eviscerate in English:

                        eviscerate

                        VERB

                        [WITH OBJECT]formal
                        • 1Disembowel (a person or animal)
                          ‘the goat had been skinned and neatly eviscerated’
                          More example sentences
                          Synonyms
                          1. 1.1 Deprive (something) of its essential content.
                            ‘myriad little concessions that would eviscerate the project’
                            More example sentences
                          2. 1.2Surgery Remove the contents of (the eyeball).
                        Origin

                        Late 16th century: from Latin eviscerat- ‘disembowelled’, from the verb eviscerare, from e- (variant of ex-) ‘out’ + viscera ‘internal organs’. Pronunciation

                        eviscerate

                        /ɪˈvɪsəreɪt/

                        If you ask Gareth, he will conform that this is how I define evisceration: it is about the removal of inner organs from a body. Nota bene that there is no underlying reason as such added, just as there should not be. And here is where there's good news for you: evisceration can be led on by a large number of reasons! It can be about an urge to take organs out, about sadism, about necrosadism, about cannibalism, about curiosity, about a psychosis, telling somebody that it is vital that organs are taken out and in all probability about a few more reasons too.

                        So this is good for somebody who is arguing that the eviscerations performed on Jackson could/would have had other reasons than those performed on the Ripper victims - we can suggest innumerable reasons. There is a candy box full of them.

                        But here's the problem.

                        You agree that when there are organs missing from a person who has been killed by somebody who we know has eviscerations on his CV, those missing organs are likely to have been removed by the killer. And that is on account of how statistics and logic rules these matters. They support your take, in other words.

                        But on the "why did they eviscerate?" issue, it is the other way around.

                        Whenever two series of murders contain striking and odd similarities, just as I said at the outset, the police will work from the assumption of a single killer. If there are dissimilarities in the case that makes it impossible, they will work from an assumption of two or more killers, perhaps with internal knowledge about what the other/s killer/s are doing. For example, if two people are killed manually and simultaneously in Oslo and Rio de Janeiro, they cannot have the same killer. It is impossible. But if they both have "Kilroy did it" engraved on their butts, there WILL be a link nevertheless. More than one killer, thus, but a certainty about a link.

                        In our cases, there is no such difference involved. We have the same city and the same time period, and we have the murders and dumpings close to each other (regardless of how some will have it that they were worlds apart). If we measure the walking distance from Durward Street (formerly Bucks Row) down to Dymock Street, right by where the river Wandle enters the Thames, the place where the police believed the parts from the torsos were thrown in the river, we get less than eight miles, a stretch that can be walked in under two and a half hour!

                        So no geographical or chronological obstacle is in place, whatsoever. Meaning that all we have is the fact that some bodies were dismembered, and there are many examples of killers who dismembers only occasionally, removing that obstacle too. The rest lies in personal interpretations of the mindsets of the killers and perceived dissimilarities inbetween the damage done to the bodies.

                        In short, logic dictates that we must do what the victorians could not on account of a lacking insight into these matters - we must accept what all police forces accept: if two series of murders involve a shitload of similarities, one rarer than the other, there can be no doubt that the originator of these crimes are one and the same.

                        And here is where you are deprived of the usefulness of knowing that there can be many reasons behind eviscerations. Because with the insight of how a common originator is the inevitable conclusion that must be drawn, follows - of course - a likelihood bordering on a certainty that the reasons for the eviscerations was the same in all cases. It generally is, with just the one killer.

                        We don´t know what reason the Torso killer had for eviscerating, that is correct. It is just as correct to say that we don't know what reason the Ripper had for eviscerating. They are both unknown factors. But we DO know, that the killer was in all likelihood one and the same, and we therefore also know that whatever reason there was for eviscerating, it will logically have been the same in all cases.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by John G View Post

                          It certainty doesn't suggest a Whitchapel local. It does, however, indicate a commuter killer, which JtR most definitely was not.
                          HI John
                          what if torsoripper lived in WC but his chop shop was in the west?
                          or vice versus?
                          Last edited by Abby Normal; 04-09-2019, 02:32 PM.
                          "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 Sam Flynn View Post
                            Or, if they did, we don't know if the viscera weren't buried in a shallow grave, thrown down a drain, fed to pets, incinerated or immediately disposed of by some other means. Dennis Nilsen left the entrails and internal organs of some of his victims on scrubby wasteland to rot and/or be eaten by scavenging animals, whilst he burned the victims' dismembered corpses on a bonfire.
                            We don´t know if the Rippers stolen entrails weren't buried in a shallow grave, thrown down a drain, incinerated ot immediately disposed of by some other means either, Gareth. We have no knowledge of this in either case. But we DO have a long series of rare similarities effectively linking the series, so whatever happened to the Ripper entrails is likely to have happened to the Torso entrails too.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                              Indeed, but local to the West of London, judging by the overwhelming majority of the torso cases.
                              ... or men, as the case may be.
                              Untrue. It was thought that he (yes, he, not them) used a carriage when dumping parts but for in one case - the Pinchin Street case. In THAT case, he was believed to have carried the parts manually in a sack from his lair.

                              Now, help me out here, where would that put his lair, in the East or in the West...? Hmmm... tough call....

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by John G View Post

                                It certainty doesn't suggest a Whitchapel local. It does, however, indicate a commuter killer, which JtR most definitely was not.
                                That would depend. Maybe he killed en route to work? That would be a sort of commuter killer, would it not? he could have come into Whitechapel from, say, Doveton Street and passed through it on his way to, say, Broad Street.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X