Jack the Ripper-The Secret Police Files

[John G]

And, as we know, prostitues have been - still are - easy targets for assault or murder; compelled, as they are, to go off with strangers. If there were to be an entire spate of serious assaults/murders, involving two or more perpetrators (serial or otherwise), it should come as no surprise if prostitues were numbered among the victims.

Yes, this is an obvious point. However, I fear it will be totally lost on dear Fish, who much prefers the convoluted argument. I wonder if he's heard of Occam's Razor?

[Fisherman]

Organs which are "sexual and non-sexual" in character? Are there any other types of organs?

No, there are not. But there are eviscerators who take only sexually oriented organs - meaning that we have another similarity between the two series: they were BOTH into both types of organs.

[Fisherman]

Yes, this is an obvious point. However, I fear it will be totally lost on dear Fish, who much prefers the convoluted argument. I wonder if he's heard of Occam's Razor?

IŽve heard of silly people, getting everythng wrong. ThatŽs not half bad - itŽs ALL bad. You are one such operson. This time you are trying desperately to discard another point of a commonality between the series. It would seem that is your aim? To discard point after point, as if they did not exist?

Good luck with that.

No, on second thought, bad luck with that. And I will help out.

[John Wheat]

IŽve heard of silly people, getting everythng wrong. ThatŽs not half bad - itŽs ALL bad. You are one such operson.

Pot calling the kettle black again.

[Fisherman]

John G: Oh dear, you seem to be rather stressed. Have you considered deep breathing techniques?

Look, heŽs trying to steal my approach!

Anyway, I would start, once again, by pointing out that you're being highly selective with the cases in order to bolster a weak theory.

And by not exemplifying, as always.

Moreover, much of your post is, I'm afraid, pretty much incomprehensible...

That depends on how people are equipped intelligencewise, I guess.

...however, I will address the main points: by the way, you're allowed to have an opinion, despite your lack of medical knowledge, or supporting evidence from experts. It's just that it won't count for very much, that's all.

I know I am allowed to have an opinion. I had to tell you so, remember? And now I am telling you that you are not equipped to judge how useful that opinion is.

Firstly, Dr Brown. He considered Eddowes' Kidneys had been skilfully removed, however, and this may come as a surprise to you, he didn't view Kelly's remains and, not surprisingly, made no comment as to the skill of the perpetrator: In fact, he thought Eddowes kidney had been removed skilfully because it had been "carefully" removed, not because of how it was accessed-okay he did say this would require some "knowledge", but consider this exchange:

Coroner: " Would such a knowledge be likely to be possessed by someone accustomed to cutting up animals?"

Dr Brown: "Yes".

Hardly heavily reduces the number of possible suspects does it? Well, apart from Lechmere, of course! So that's that point demolished.

But just as you cannot understand the implications of the kidney business, you donŽt know what Lechmere was accustomed to or not. All you know is that his work took him close to the butchery business and that he was involved in the horse meat business. After that, it is just to put two and two together. Which is probably why you fail so miserably.

What's next? "A 'most wanton' murder is a murder is a murder that seems steered by a sexuality the killer could not control." Are you just making it this up? I mean, have you been conducting another seance with Dr Phillips, perchance? In fact, can you even understand plain English? "Wanton" means "capricious; random; arbitrary; motiveless" (OED). In the Pinchin Street case the mutilations were not "wanton", because they were carried out for the purpose of disposal of the body, per Dr Phillips. In Chapman's case the purpose, according to Dr Phillips, was "to enable the perpetrator to obtain possession of these parts of the body." Conversely, in Kelly's case absolute destruction was inflicted on the body. For instance, the whole of the surface of the abdomen and thighs were removed ; the face was heavily mutilated; and the breasts were removed. Dr Bond concluded that the perpetrator, "does not even possesses the technical knowledge of a butcher or horse slaughterer or any person accustomed to cut up dead animals", and not a single medical contradicted him. Frankly, I suspect only you, or your acolytes, could discern skill or purpose amongst this destruction!

So that's another point demolished.

From dictionary.com:

"wanton

adjective
1.
done, shown, used, etc., maliciously or unjustifiably:
a wanton attack; wanton cruelty.
2.
deliberate and without motive or provocation; uncalled-for; headstrong; willful:
Why jeopardize your career in such a wanton way?
3.
without regard for what is right, just, humane, etc.; careless; reckless:
a wanton attacker of religious convictions.
4.
sexually lawless or unrestrained; loose; lascivious; lewd: wanton behavior.

IŽm pretty adept at the British language, John. How about you?


What's next? Oh yes, Ed Gingrich. How did he remove his wife's organs? By making an incision in the abdomen and removing the abdominal wall! Ring any bells?

"In the kitchen of their western Pennsylvania farmhouse, he knocked her down, crushed her skull by stomping on her face, ripped off her clothing, and then opened up her belly with a kitchen knife. Through the gaping, seven-inch gash, he removed her heart, lungs, spleen, liver, kidneys, ovaries, and intestines, stacking these in a neat pile beside her corpse."


I would like to see any evidence for Gingrich removing the abdominal wall.

To be more specific. Chapman was clearly emaciated, with the body "showing signs of great deprivation" [the same was probably true of Liz Jackson, incidentally, as she'd been living rough on the embankment].

Now this is highly significant, and I'll explain why. According to Phillip Harrison, an experienced eviscerator, evisceration is more difficult if there is a poor covering of body fat (Marriott, 2015). This is because the skin looses its elasticity, and that makes it more difficult to carefully remove organs because the opening can't be stretched. However, a surgeon would use a retractor to make the opening as large as possible-and surgeons do need as much room as possible for internal workings [didn't know that, did you?]

So, let's just assume that Chapman's killer didn't have access to a retractor. It would, therefore, make sense that, in order to overcome these difficulties, he would need to make a number of incisions and remove the abdominal wall in pieces, rather than in, say, one big lump, which was probably completely impractical in these circumstances. Wait a minute! Isn't that what happened? Therefore, no need to hypothesize such nonsense as a two/three/four sectioned killer. The perpetrator's strategy was simply determined by circumstances.

No, John, they were not. He did what he did for another reason, and I know that reason.
As for Chapman, she was described as stout. Her physical health problems lay elsewhere:
The deceased was far advanced in disease of the lungs and membranes of the brain, but they had nothing to do with the cause of death.

There is also Kelly to consider, and she was definitely NOT emaciated. nevertheless, the abdominal wall was cut away.
There is also Jackson to consider, and she was described as plump. Nevertheless, her abdominal wall was cut away.

Three misses out of three lame shots. Four with Gingrich. Five with posting at all.

As for Kelly, no skill at all was demonstrated, so the killer probably inflicted a number of cuts to the abdomen, and simply gouged out the abdominal wall in pieces, or "sections", if you prefer. The fact that all of the pelvic organs were removed also supports this argument.

Your arguments are not supported at all. They are hapless and irrational and desperate. I may have got the order wrong, but you earned the title of being number two in line, suggesting that the removed abdominal wall was collateral damage only. Guess who was first?

So that's another argument destroyed.

No, itŽs another laugh and a half.

You think that Dr Phillips, a medical professional who attended a number of autopsies, wouldn't have been an incompetent doctor if he hadn't make the link that you, someone with no medical experience and relying on incomplete notes, have apparently made? Are you serious?

I am absolutely certain that I am the only one of us who can afford to claim to be serious.

Please let me know if you require any further assistance, I'm always ready to help out a struggling poster.

But able, John - how able are you? You are arrogant, clueless, a bit boring and predictable, you sign of with "Marriott 2013" and you have so far not produced one single original thought but for a few more or less deranged ones. And frankly, I can do without that sort of originality.
How could you possibly help anybody?

[Fisherman]

Next dictionary:

wan·ton (wŏn′tən)
adj.
1.
a. Lascivious or promiscuous. Used especially of women.
b. Exciting or expressing sexual desire: a wanton pose.
2. Marked by unprovoked, gratuitous maliciousness; capricious and unjust: wanton destruction.
3. Unrestrainedly excessive: wanton extravagance.
4. Luxuriant; overabundant: wanton tresses.
5. Frolicsome; playful: a wanton fawn.
6. Obsolete Rebellious; refractory.

[Fisherman]

Merriam-Websters dictionary:

Definition of wanton
1
a archaic : hard to control : undisciplined, unruly
b : playfully mean or cruel : mischievous
2
a : lewd, bawdy
b : causing sexual excitement : lustful, sensual
3
a : merciless, inhumane <wanton cruelty>
b : having no just foundation or provocation : malicious <a wanton attack>
4
: being without check or limitation: as
a : luxuriantly rank <wanton vegetation>
b : unduly lavish : extravagant <wanton imagination>

[Fisherman]

John G:

"According to Phillip Harrison, an experienced eviscerator..."

You sure you got that right, John? WasnŽt Harrison a surgeon or medico last time we spoke?

As an aside, I donŽt think the Ripper/Torso killer prioritized being careful when he eviscerated. His victims were dead, see.

If you want to find yourself a victim with low body fat, you need to look at Eddowes - whose abdominal wall was not removed.

Odd, is it not?

[Fisherman]

John G! IŽll show you a little more of what I mean.

Eddowes, who seems to have been the one victim with really little fat, SHOULD have been the one to have her abdominal wall removed, but she was not.

Compare this:

In 1873, the torso victim found had had her limbs cut open and disarticulated. The exceptions were the legs and arms at the hip and shoulder joints. The more complex and difficult joints at the ankles and elbows, however, had been opened up and disarticulated neatly.
So, once more logic fails:
Where it was difficult to cut open and disarticulate, he cut open and disarticulated. Where the bones were at their thickest and hardest to saw off, he sawed off.
He could have done it the easy way, he could have cut the joints at the hips and shoulders open and disarticulated there, and he could have sawed off the thinnest bones at the elbows and ankles.
Reasonably, he had the time to do it whichever way he wanted to. And I think he did just that.

Once you know why he took away the abdominal walls in sections, you will also understand this anacronism.

So bonne chance, John! Maybe you can get your namesake Mr Wheat to help out. Goodnight to you now.

[Abby Normal]

Yes, this is an obvious point. However, I fear it will be totally lost on dear Fish, who much prefers the convoluted argument. I wonder if he's heard of Occam's Razor?

I wonder if you, or Sam, have ever heard of victimology.

Of course prostititutes make easy targets, no **** Sherlock. But serial killers, and we are talking about serial killers here, also target coeds, mothers, children, single females living alone, teenage boys, homeless people.

The torso man and the ripper both targeted the same type of person, it's called victimology there Occam. Hopefully that's "obvious" enough to you (and Sam.)

[Fisherman]

I wonder if you, or Sam, have ever heard of victimology.

Of course prostititutes make easy targets, no **** Sherlock. But serial killers, and we are talking about serial killers here, also target coeds, mothers, children, single females living alone, teenage boys, homeless people.

The torso man and the ripper both targeted the same type of person, it's called victimology there Occam. Hopefully that's "obvious" enough to you (and Sam.)

Although I think a very good case can be made for these two series having been perpetrated by somebody who actively and purposefully targetted prostitutes, it must be said that no such thing can be established with full certainty, Abby. What we can say is that both originators (or just the one originator, responsible for both series) preyed on prostitutes - whether consciously or not.

It may be that the killer/s was/were active in an area and at a time that would only offer prostitutes as prey, and therefore we cannot positively establish that there was an active targetting of them as a group.

However, just like you say, it remains that the identified victims in both series can be argued to have engaged in prostitution, and in some cases we know that they were killed when prostituting themselves.

It therefore remains that this is a common denominator, and just like you say, from what we can tell, the victimologies behind the series seems to be one and the same. And much as John G and Gareth seem to want to bagatellize this, no such thing should be done by any responsible student of the case. It is a matter that would be of the utmost interest to any investigator, and not something that can be looked away from.

It would seem that efforts are made to try and dissolve the details speaking for a common originator of both series. Typically, we now have John G suggesting that rummaging around the abdominal cavity of Kelly, knife in hand, could accidentally produce a removed abdominal wall, taken away in three large sections and placed on the bedside table. Whoops, sort of.

That is no way to move the case forward, least of all when we have a preceding case displaying the exact same thing. It looks much more like a defeated and frustrated poster failing to recognize the obvious for purely egotistical reasons.
Sadly, I have little doubt that there is more of the same to follow.

[Abby Normal]

Although I think a very good case can be made for these two series having been perpetrated by somebody who actively and purposefully targetted prostitutes, it must be said that no such thing can be established with full certainty, Abby. What we can say is that both originators (or just the one originator, responsible for both series) preyed on prostitutes - whether consciously or not.

It may be that the killer/s was/were active in an area and at a time that would only offer prostitutes as prey, and therefore we cannot positively establish that there was an active targetting of them as a group.

However, just like you say, it remains that the identified victims in both series can be argued to have engaged in prostitution, and in some cases we know that they were killed when prostituting themselves.

It therefore remains that this is a common denominator, and just like you say, from what we can tell, the victimologies behind the series seems to be one and the same. And much as John G and Gareth seem to want to bagatellize this, no such thing should be done by any responsible student of the case. It is a matter that would be of the utmost interest to any investigator, and not something that can be looked away from.

It would seem that efforts are made to try and dissolve the details speaking for a common originator of both series. Typically, we now have John G suggesting that rummaging around the abdominal cavity of Kelly, knife in hand, could accidentally produce a removed abdominal wall, taken away in three large sections and placed on the bedside table. Whoops, sort of.

That is no way to move the case forward, least of all when we have a preceding case displaying the exact same thing. It looks much more like a defeated and frustrated poster failing to recognize the obvious for purely egotistical reasons.
Sadly, I have little doubt that there is more of the same to follow.

well that's for sure.

[Joshua Rogan]

Firstly, Dr Brown.....didn't view Kelly's remains"

Are you sure about that? I think one paper lists him among the doctors who were at Miller's Court. Could be mistaken identity though; no two papers seem to have the same list, and none are definitive as far as I can see.

[John G]

I wonder if you, or Sam, have ever heard of victimology.

Of course prostititutes make easy targets, no **** Sherlock. But serial killers, and we are talking about serial killers here, also target coeds, mothers, children, single females living alone, teenage boys, homeless people.

The torso man and the ripper both targeted the same type of person, it's called victimology there Occam. Hopefully that's "obvious" enough to you (and Sam.)

Hi Abby,

Okay, let's focus on victimology. Now I could say that only one of the Torso victims was identified, and we certainly do not know that all of the C5 were soliciting at the time they were murdered.

But let's say, for arguments sake, that they were. What does that prove? Serial killers, such as the Yorkshire Ripper and Jack the Stripper, commonly target street prostitutes. And I'm sure you don't need me to tell you the reason why: they are vulnerable women, out alone at night, when it's dark, who will happily accompany a total stranger to a dark, lonely, venue.

Or course, these scumbags may subsequently try and justify their behaviour, say, claiming they were inflicting divine retribution after receiving instructions from God, as the Yorkshire Ripper did. But we know differently, right? I mean, how does this explain why the YR subsequently targeted none prostitutes, or why he attempted to murder a schoolgirl down a quiet country lane?

[Fisherman]

A reminder for John G:

In post 359 on this thread you make this claim:

What's next? Oh yes, Ed Gingrich. How did he remove his wife's organs? By making an incision in the abdomen and removing the abdominal wall! Ring any bells?


I am very interested in finding out how you source this - I have never seen any information at all about Gingrich removing the abdominal wall of his wife, and I am searching high and low for parallel examples. IŽd be grateful for a clarification.