Jack the Ripper-The Secret Police Files

[Fisherman]

Hello Fisherman,

Which victims did Randy Kraft eviscerate?

You will have to read up on it yourself. Like I said, he dismebered some victims, while he dod not do so with others. And like I said, the torso killer/Ripper did NOT go from dismemberment to eviscerations and back again. Eviscerations may well have been present in all the cases.

Don´t compare pears to apples, John, that´s what I am saying.

[Pierre]

What do you mean "involved the preying on prostitutes". What evidence do you have that any of the victims were soliciting when they were murdered? How many victims were involved in prostitution when they were murdered. In fact, considering only one Torso victim was ever identified, good luck with answering those questions!

You've highlighted that different body parts were removed from different victims. How does that imply the same perpetrator? What evidence do you have that the purpose of removal was the same?

Posing of victims? In respect of the C5 that's just so theory. In what way were the Torso victims' dismembered body parts posed?

What victims had their rings missing?

The matter of surgical insights I've already discussed in a previous post. And it would be immensely helpful if you stopped cherry picking the evidence to prop up a weak theory.

Cutting of necks? In the case of the Torso victims they were decapitated, almost certainly to prevent identification as the heads were never recovered. How on earth do you discern the same purpose in relation to the C5?

What do you mean "the same town"? London, for instance, didn't exist until the creation of the London County Council in 1889. Until then there was simply the "Square Mile", or City of London. Where's your evidence that any of the Torso victims were murdered in "London"?

What about the Tottenham Torso of 1884? I believe Debra has argued that there were significant differences when compared with the other victims, and I note that even you're not including this one in your massive two decade series. This suggests that at least two dismemberers were operating in "London" during the latter part the nineteenth century.

What do you mean by flaps? How large were they in comparison with one another? Flaps isn't a medical term. In fact today "skin flaps" refers to grafting. Do you think the perpetrator was a plastic surgeon?

This is the best post you have ever written, I think.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

You will have to read up on it yourself. Like I said, he dismebered some victims, while he dod not do so with others. And like I said, the torso killer/Ripper did NOT go from dismemberment to eviscerations and back again. Eviscerations may well have been present in all the cases.

Don´t compare pears to apples, John, that´s what I am saying.

But compare all victims to eachother, say they are alike and put them all in a box called "Lechmere".

That BOX is a social construction constructed to give you a little television time.

[Henry Flower]

But compare all victims to eachother, say they are alike and put them all in a box called "Lechmere".

That BOX is a social construction constructed to give you a little television time.

Oh Pierre, do we detect a hint of jealousy here? Always such personal attacks against Fisherman, yet always so prickly when attacked yourself.

Don't worry, I'm sure once your very media-friendly conspiracy theory is completed you'll get your ten minutes on the news one night.

[Henry Flower]

Pierre, out of interest, if Fisherman requested that you stop attacking his work, as you did to David, GUT, and myself, what would your response be?

[Fisherman]

Pierre, out of interest, if Fisherman requested that you stop attacking his work, as you did to David, GUT, and myself, what would your response be?

It´s not going to happen, anyways. I am of the meaning that these are public boards, and that anybody who wishes to post out here has a right to do so. And that applies no matter to which kind of thinking and/or methodology he or she ascribes. So when somebody takes it upon him- or herself to criticize other posters for not following the exact methodology he or she prefers, I find that a total waste of time on their behalf.
I have spent an entire life researching material and writing articles about it for newspapers, and I have always done it according to the rules of the game. I know what I am capable of. If that is not good enough for Pierre, then I am fine with that - he is at liberty to think the rest of the ripperological world an incompetent bunch of people, who either needs to adjust to his demands or stay silent. But that is of no consequence for our respective rights to post out on these public boards. Out here, Pierre does effectively not lay down the rules for how we should post, and much less for how we should think. Together, we are exactly what is needed to ensure that the broadest possible thinking is represented, and in that respect, our combined efforts are going to be very much more effective in finding out what happened back in 1888 than a poster like Pierre, who has so far only contributed to the field of winding people up, whereas his legacy in terms of shedding light on the case is as painfully empty as could be.

Summing up, the reason I don´t criticize Pierre for his "work", is because there is no work to criticize.
Moreover, my overall approach to the case involves quickly cutting off the inflow or material I think is useless. That is why I do not spend any time on either of the Maybricks or on the shawl, for example. And that is why I try to be economical about how much time and effort I spend on Pierre. If he ever presents anything at all of interest, it is an attitude that will immediately change, since I try to put the factual content first.

And at the end of the day, why would I spend any time on revealing Pierre, when others make such a Sterling job of it?

[John G]

This is the best post you have ever written, I think.

Regards, Pierre

Thank you Pierre. Your comments are much appreciated.

[John G]

Yes, that you have misunsderstood the cases even further. Chapman did not loose any kidneys either. Does that tell YOU something?

Why do you speak of dividing the abdominal wall? I am speaking about cutting the abdominal wall away, and removing it in pieces.
Can you tell that there is a difference? Or is it too hard a task for you?

Before I answer in more detail show me specifically, in the Torso medical reports, where the word "eviscerated" is used. Show me where it says the abdominal wall was cut away and removed in pieces: http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=3607 In fact, show me that where this is stated in relation to any of the C5 victims.

Flaps is not a medical term, therefore it's usage is ambiguous: much like the term "panes" that you used earlier, which actually refers to windows!

You do not know that any of the Torso victims were prostitutes, except Liz Jackson. Even if they were, if they weren't soliciting at the time they were killed how did the perpetrator know that they were prostitutes?

[John G]

He might have castrated and/or dismembered (literally, as in cut off the [external] "male member") them, but I can't recall that he removed any internal organs. Besides, didn't he take most of his victims home, drug and torture them for some time before dumping their bodies on the freeway? Apropos Dahmer, his MO was to pick up a victim, take them home, where he'd "experiment" on some and/or kill them before flaying them, displaying their bodies for souvenir photographs, butchering and/or eating them etc.

These are very different patterns of behaviour, and no doubt the motivations behind them were quite different also. Where they converge is how they met their victims - more often than not in bars - and how they got them to the scene of the crime - via private and/or hired transport. But these are matters of practicality, and as such are by no means unique to these two killers, nor to their predecessors or successors.

Thanks Gareth. It appears this is something else Fish has got wrong.

[Fisherman]

Thanks Gareth. It appears this is something else Fish has got wrong.

How can I have gotten it wrong if I didn´t say that Kraft eviscerated, John? How does that work?
He cut away the penis from some victims, and the scrotum from at least one victim, and that rather parallels cutting away the uterus from a woman, sice it is taking away the reproductive organs.

The only misunderstading here is when you thought that the torso man dismembered, then eviscerated, then went back to dismemberment again, and requested parallels.
The torso man may have eviscerated all his victims, with the possible exception of the Pinchin Street victim, who nevertheless had the abdomen opened up from ribs to pubes. So what I want to know is why you request examples of serialists who did what neither the ripper or the torso man did.

What is your answer to that, John?

[Fisherman]

John G: Before I answer in more detail show me specifically, in the Torso medical reports, where the word "eviscerated" is used.

Jacksons uterus was cut out and packed together with placenta and cord inside the two abdominal flaps.
Jacksons abdomen was cut open from ribs to pubes.
The killer therefore took out her uterus from the opening in her abdomen.
If you think that such a thing amounts to something else than evisceration, you need to explain how that works.

It is not a very clever approach to say that the word evisceration is not present, when we know that an evisceration has taken place, is it, John?

Show me where it says the abdominal wall was cut away and removed in pieces: http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=3607 In fact, show me that where this is stated in relation to any of the C5 victims.

The Echo, Sept 19, 1888:
"Dr. Phillips - The abdominal wall had been removed in three portions, two taken from the anterior part, and the other from another part of the body. There was a greater portion of the body removed from the right side than the left. On placing these three flaps of skin together, it was evident that a portion was wanting."

People, Sept 23, 1888:
Dr. Phillips (continuing) in the course of his evidence, some of which was unfit for publication, said: The abdominal wall had been removed in three portions, two taken from the anterior part. There was a greater portion of skin removed on the right side than on the left. On adjusting these three flaps of skin it was evident that a portion surrounding and constituting the navel was wanting.

Flaps is not a medical term, therefore it's usage is ambiguous: much like the term "panes" that you used earlier, which actually refers to windows!

Phillips used the term flaps as you can see, so I am happy with it. If you could provide a better and more correct medical term for pieces of abdominal wall flesh with subcutaneous tissue attaching to them, then do so.

You do not know that any of the Torso victims were prostitutes, except Liz Jackson. Even if they were, if they weren't soliciting at the time they were killed how did the perpetrator know that they were prostitutes?

Are you having comprehension problems, John? Have I not told you that I am not saying that these women were killed while prostituting themselves? Have I not told you that what I am saying is that as far as we know, ALL the named victims of the torso killer and the Ripper had a history of prostitution? Have I not told you that this is nevertheless of immense interest, no matter if the were actively prostituting themselves when killed?

Now, let´s have your detailed answers to my questions, please!

[Fisherman]

By the way:

British Dictionary definitions for pane
/peɪn/
noun
1.
a sheet of glass in a window or door
2.
a panel of a window, door, wall, etc
3.
a flat section or face, as of a cut diamond
4.
(philately)
any of the rectangular marked divisions of a sheet of stamps made for convenience in selling
a single page in a stamp booklet See also tęte-bęche, se tenant
Word Origin
C13: from Old French pan portion, from Latin pannus rag

The underlining is mine, John.

[The Good Michael]

By the way:

[I]British Dictionary definitions for pane
/peɪn/
noun
1.
a sheet of glass in a window or door
2.
a panel of a window, door, wall, etc
3.
a flat section or face, as of a cut diamond
4.
(philately)

You forgot this usage: The window closed on the intruder as he was entering the premises. He fled with nothing but a pane in the ass.

Helpful Mike

[Fisherman]

You forgot this usage: The window closed on the intruder as he was entering the premises. He fled with nothing but a pane in the ass.

Helpful Mike

That one escaped me.

[Abby Normal]

That one escaped me.

play on words for humor.

Pane as in window pane vs Pain in the ass.