Jack the Ripper-The Secret Police Files

[John G]

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.

Excuse me! Kelly was eviscerated by a murderer demonstrating no skill or finesse whatsoever: see the opinion of Dr Bond, and Dr Phillips-who not only used the phrase "most wanton" to describe her injuries, but also "savagery". And by the way, Dr Bond thought that the Whitehall victim had been dismembered by a perpetrator demonstrating a significant level of skill, stating: "We found the leg had been divided at the knee joint by free incisions, and very cleverly disarticulated without injury to the cartilages."

However according to you the injuries to Kelly demonstrated the same level of skill as the Torso victims. So Dr Bond, a highly experienced doctor, who I believe was Dr Phillips' senior, would have to have been an absolute dunce not to realize this.

Accidental removal of the abdominal wall? How do you accidentally remove an abdominal wall? This is a gross misrepresentation of the point I was making, I.e. Kelly's murderer needed to access the abdominal organs, and he achieved this in an unskilled manner by making numerous incisions, and then probably hacking away at the abdominal wall piecemeal.

[Fisherman]

John!

Point out to me where I have claimed that Kellys injuries showed the same level of skill as the torso victims.

The removal of the abdominal wall of Kelly WAS accidental unless it was intended.

First and foremost - source your claim that Ed Gingrich removed the abdominal wall of his wife.

[John G]

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. Iīd be grateful for a clarification.

Okay, a biology lesson. Could you please explain to me how else he was supposed to have removed all of his wife's internal organs with removing/displacing at least part of the abdominal wall?

[John G]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;406581]

Point out where I say that Kellys injuries displayed the same level of skill as the torso victims, please!
[/B]
Accidental removal of the abdominal wall? How do you accidentally remove an abdominal wall? This is a gross misrepresentation of the point I was making, I.e. Kelly's murderer needed to access the abdominal organs, and he achieved this in an unskilled manner by making numerous incisions, and then probably hacking away at the abdominal wall piecemeal.

That IS an accidental removal of the abdominal wall. It was not intended but came about anyway = accidentally.

But this is VERY uninteresting stuff, gone over a million times. Please answer my question about Ed Gingrich instead!

This is a diagram of the abdominal wall whicjay help you with your deliberations: https://www.bing.com/images/search?q...eH0&ajaxhist=0

I would point out that I did study biology at UK Advanced Level, and during one step semester at university. Now that hardly qualifies me as a medical professional, but compared to you...

Do you need any other diagrams by the way? Or is this now suddenly hitting your consciousness like a horrible nightmare?

[Fisherman]

Okay, a biology lesson. Could you please explain to me how else he was supposed to have removed all of his wife's internal organs with removing/displacing at least part of the abdominal wall?

So you have no source stating that he removed the abdominal wall from his wife? You made it up? And whatīs this sudden adding of "displacing"? And "displacing part of the abdominal wall"?

[John G]

So you have no source stating that he removed the abdominal wall from his wife? You made it up?

Are you being deliberately obtuse? He removed all of his wife's internal organs. Some of these organs would have been contained beneath the abdominal wall. Ergo, he would have needed to remove the abdominal wall in order to access these organs!

Okay, another English lesson:

Remove (verb and noun) "take off or away from the place or position occupied". Source: OED.

[Fisherman]

Are you being deliberately obtuse? He removed all of his wife's internal organs. Some of these organs would have been contained beneath the abdominal wall. Ergo, he would have needed to remove the abdominal wall in order to access these organs!

Okay, another English lesson:

Remove (verb and noun) "take off or away from the place or position occupied". Source: OED.

John, I would advice you not to try and lesson me. I am being perfectly frank and straightforward, and it seems to me that your hysteria is led on by having been exposed as misleading grossly.

I will spell it out to you. Annie Chapman, Mary Kelly and Elizabeth Jackson had their abdominal walls removed in the sense that they had them cut away in large sections. In the Chapman case, three flaps were flung onto the body or the ground, and a fourth was taken by the killer. In the Kelly case, the flaps, three of them, were placed on the bedside table beside the body. In the Jackson case, the two flaps there were, were packed together with Jacksons reproductive organs and thrown in the Thames.

That is why these three cases are instrumental in tying the Ripper murders and the torso murders together - removing the abdominal wall in large sections, laying all the abdominal organs open to the naked eye, is more or less totally unheard of.

When I pointed this out to you, you answered that the abdominal wall HAS to be removed to take out the organs. I then posted how Ed Gingrich did it via a seven-inch cut to his wifes abdomen.

So when you said that Gingrich also removed the abdoinal wall, I was under the impression that you meant that he had cut the abdominal wall away from the body - which he of course never did at all. He took the organs out by reaching in and grabbing and tearing, and lifting them out through the hole in the abdomen. If you want to believe that the fact that the sides of the wound gave way equals that he removed the abdominal wall, I can only say that it is something totally different from what we were discussing.

This is where misleading, intentionally or out of ignorance, will inevitably lead you - to the hall of shame. If you want to discuss the matter further, be advised that Gingrich does NOT belong to it, other than in the capacity of showing that you do NOT need to remove the abdominal walls from a victim to be able to retrieve all of the organs inside.

And speaking about lessons, let this be one to you!

Goodnight.

[Fisherman]

Oh, and avoid to say that you never claimed that Gingrich cut the abdominal wall from his wife.

It would make your effort look even more pathetic. Take my word for it.

[Abby Normal]

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?

Hi johng
My point is simply that both torso man and the ripper targeted the same type of victims- prosttitutes. Not all serial killers do. It's just another similarity.

It don't know the stats but it would be interesting to know the percentage that do.

[John G]

John, I would advice you not to try and lesson me. I am being perfectly frank and straightforward, and it seems to me that your hysteria is led on by having been exposed as misleading grossly.

I will spell it out to you. Annie Chapman, Mary Kelly and Elizabeth Jackson had their abdominal walls removed in the sense that they had them cut away in large sections. In the Chapman case, three flaps were flung onto the body or the ground, and a fourth was taken by the killer. In the Kelly case, the flaps, three of them, were placed on the bedside table beside the body. In the Jackson case, the two flaps there were, were packed together with Jacksons reproductive organs and thrown in the Thames.

That is why these three cases are instrumental in tying the Ripper murders and the torso murders together - removing the abdominal wall in large sections, laying all the abdominal organs open to the naked eye, is more or less totally unheard of.

When I pointed this out to you, you answered that the abdominal wall HAS to be removed to take out the organs. I then posted how Ed Gingrich did it via a seven-inch cut to his wifes abdomen.

So when you said that Gingrich also removed the abdoinal wall, I was under the impression that you meant that he had cut the abdominal wall away from the body - which he of course never did at all. He took the organs out by reaching in and grabbing and tearing, and lifting them out through the hole in the abdomen. If you want to believe that the fact that the sides of the wound gave way equals that he removed the abdominal wall, I can only say that it is something totally different from what we were discussing.

This is where misleading, intentionally or out of ignorance, will inevitably lead you - to the hall of shame. If you want to discuss the matter further, be advised that Gingrich does NOT belong to it, other than in the capacity of showing that you do NOT need to remove the abdominal walls from a victim to be able to retrieve all of the organs inside.

And speaking about lessons, let this be one to you!

Goodnight.

I never said that Gingrich cut out the abdominal wall completely. I said he removed it in order to access the pelvic organs. And a synonym of remove is separate! I mean, it's hardly my fault if you're only semi-literate.

In the case of Jackson and Chapman I've argued that the perpetrators cut out the abdominal wall piecemeal in order to get better access to the abdominal cavity, i.e for practical considerations, and therefore nothing to do with some bizzare ritual. In the case of Kelly, her abdomen may have been cut up piecemeal, and pieces simply hacked out, by a perpetrator employing a totally disorganized approach.

An important point here is that in only three victims is there any evidence of the abdominal wall being cut out. On that simple basis you may as well argue that those victims were linked and the other victims were killed by someone else!

And if the removal of the abdominal wall had any meaningful, ritual significance, then this behaviour should have been repeated in other cases. But it wasn't. In fact, even with Eddowes, the eviscerated victim between Chapman and Kelly, the behaviour wasn't repeated!

I know, perhaps now your going to argue that Professor Lechmere Moriarty, master criminal for the ages, knifesman extraordinaire, was suffering from some sort of dissociative identity disorder!

[Fisherman]

John G: I never said that Gingrich cut out the abdominal wall completely.

You DID it! I just told you not to! There is no information telling us that Gingrich cut away the wall in any sense at all. He is thereofre not relevant to your reasoning. And he is decidedly not a comparison to the Ripper/torso murders and the cutting of the abdominal wall in those cases.

You are making a complete spectacle of yourself, Iīm afraid.

[Michael W Richards]

..... What we can say is that both originators (or just the one originator, responsible for both series) preyed on prostitutes - whether consciously or not.

No, what we can say is that in both series women were the targets, there is only evidence that in 2 of 5 Canonical cases that the women WERE soliciting. When an Unfortunate isn't soliciting, she is simply a woman without visible means of support and therefore it can be presumed a potential part-time prostitute.

[Fisherman]

No, what we can say is that in both series women were the targets, there is only evidence that in 2 of 5 Canonical cases that the women WERE soliciting. When an Unfortunate isn't soliciting, she is simply a woman without visible means of support and therefore it can be presumed a potential part-time prostitute.

Sorry, Michael, but I am correct on this. I am not speaking of all cases, necessarily, but I AM saying that we KNOW that some of the Ripper victims prostituted themselves regularly or on occasion, and we KNOW that Elizabeth Jackson did too.

After that, it is immaterial whether they did so as they were picked up by the killer/s, or whether all victims did so - what I am saying is that we know for a fact that the killer/s preyed - consciously or not - on prostitutes in both series.

It is less dramatic than you seem to think, but it is nevertheless an absolute fact. And it must be awarded a significance until we can dispell that it was a conscious decision on the killerīs behalf/s.
Thatīs how a discerning investigation works - find the common factors.

[John G]

John G: I never said that Gingrich cut out the abdominal wall completely.

You DID it! I just told you not to! There is no information telling us that Gingrich cut away the wall in any sense at all. He is thereofre not relevant to your reasoning. And he is decidedly not a comparison to the Ripper/torso murders and the cutting of the abdominal wall in those cases.

You are making a complete spectacle of yourself, Iīm afraid.

I didn't say that he cut away the abdominal wall from the body. I said he removed it, which is what he must have done, i.e. displaced from the position previously occupied.

[Fisherman]

I didn't say that he cut away the abdominal wall from the body. I said he removed it, which is what he must have done, i.e. displaced from the position previously occupied.

Which makes him useless in the issue at hand. The only interesting ones are the ones who DID cut the abdominal wall from their victims, and they are not around.

Can you remember what you wrote about Gingrichs deed? "Ed Gingrich removed the abdominal wall. Does it ring any bell?"

No, John, it rings absolutely no bell, but a warning bell when it comes to your arguments. They are obviously false and misleading. I can only hope it is not intentional, but instead a result of ignorance.

Not that itīs much better, but itīs at least not malicious.