Jack the Ripper-The Secret Police Files

[The Good Michael]

I think Fish understood and his use of "escaped" corresponded to "fled" in my pun.

Mike

[Fisherman]

I think Fish understood and his use of "escaped" corresponded to "fled" in my pun.

Mike

Well spotted! Itīs like the paratrooper who landed on Peiīs glass pyramid outside the Louvre and went through great panes to make a soft landing...

[Pierre]

QUOTE=John G;405259

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,

may I ask you why you ask that question?

Regards, Pierre

[Debra A]

Making a New Nose out of a Finger

When I first mentioned the removal of flaps or 'slips' of skin from Elizabeth Jackson's abdomen it was in response to discussion that the removal of 'flaps' of skin from the abdominal walls to access the abdominal organs of both Chapman and Eddowes somehow linked them to the same killer. I said then, and think the same now, if Elizabeth Jackson had the same thing done to her that should show one of two things-either the same killer was involved in all three cases or this showed that at least two killers operating in the same city employed the same unusual method of accessing the abdomen. So it told us everything or nothing.

Until recently the published observations made by Hebbert didn't figure in to discussions about the torso cases, most argued points based on the work of Gordon or Trow, both inaccurate in many of the details and I know of at least one poster who was arguing a certain stance on the Jackson case who didn't even know that Elizabeth Jackson's uterus was removed from her body!

Elizabeth's abdomen was accessed by a cut from ribs to pubes, then removal of large 'slips' of skin and subcutaneous tissue and the uterus removed. I believe that some don't understand that this flesh was actually taken from Elizabeth's abdominal wall and placed in a parcel along with the uterus (foetus removed) and cord and placenta. Those were the sole contents of the first parcel retrieved and the misunderstanding has stemmed from the fact that neither Gordon, Trow or Marriott have reported this first parcel finding accurately. They all described it as a the 'torso', it wasn't. it was just two large flaps of flesh taken from the abdominal walls that included part of the external organs of generations and buttocks and also the navel. The uterus minus foetus which had been cut from the womb after death but including a portion of the bladder and upper part of the vagina , the cord and placenta, that's it. The three sections of the trunk and pelvis were found separately.
Whatever the reasons, curiosity, signature, ignorance or in an attempt to disguise the victim had been pregnant, some person targeted Elizabeth's uterus and its contents, by accessing the abdomen by flesh removal. It wasn't necessary was it? And seems like it made so much more mess than was necessary if it was to aid dismemberment.The skin of the back was left intact and attached to the upper portions of the torso.

[Abby Normal]

When I first mentioned the removal of flaps or 'slips' of skin from Elizabeth Jackson's abdomen it was in response to discussion that the removal of 'flaps' of skin from the abdominal walls to access the abdominal organs of both Chapman and Eddowes somehow linked them to the same killer. I said then, and think the same now, if Elizabeth Jackson had the same thing done to her that should show one of two things-either the same killer was involved in all three cases or this showed that at least two killers operating in the same city employed the same unusual method of accessing the abdomen. So it told us everything or nothing.

Until recently the published observations made by Hebbert didn't figure in to discussions about the torso cases, most argued points based on the work of Gordon or Trow, both inaccurate in many of the details and I know of at least one poster who was arguing a certain stance on the Jackson case who didn't even know that Elizabeth Jackson's uterus was removed from her body!

Elizabeth's abdomen was accessed by a cut from ribs to pubes, then removal of large 'slips' of skin and subcutaneous tissue and the uterus removed. I believe that some don't understand that this flesh was actually taken from Elizabeth's abdominal wall and placed in a parcel along with the uterus (foetus removed) and cord and placenta. Those were the sole contents of the first parcel retrieved and the misunderstanding has stemmed from the fact that neither Gordon, Trow or Marriott have reported this first parcel finding accurately. They all described it as a the 'torso', it wasn't. it was just two large flaps of flesh taken from the abdominal walls that included part of the external organs of generations and buttocks and also the navel. The uterus minus foetus which had been cut from the womb after death but including a portion of the bladder and upper part of the vagina , the cord and placenta, that's it. The three sections of the trunk and pelvis were found separately.
Whatever the reasons, curiosity, signature, ignorance or in an attempt to disguise the victim had been pregnant, some person targeted Elizabeth's uterus and its contents, by accessing the abdomen by flesh removal. It wasn't necessary was it? And seems like it made so much more mess than was necessary if it was to aid dismemberment.The skin of the back was left intact and attached to the upper portions of the torso.

Thank god another voice of reason and knowledge much needed here!

Happy new year Debra and hoping you had happy holidays! : )

[Kattrup]

I know of at least one poster who was arguing a certain stance on the Jackson case who didn't even know that Elizabeth Jackson's uterus was removed from her body!

I at least didn't realise it at first, having misread Hebbert's description (the dangers of reading these things on my phone), but I don't think I argued a certain stance

Whatever the reasons, curiosity, signature, ignorance or in an attempt to disguise the victim had been pregnant, some person targeted Elizabeth's uterus and its contents, by accessing the abdomen by flesh removal. It wasn't necessary was it? And seems like it made so much more mess than was necessary if it was to aid dismemberment.

I think the "parcel" was made in order for the pieces to sink when thrown in the river. It obviously did not work very well.

So I don't think it was strictly necessary to aid dismemberment, but it might have been thought a convenient way of disposing of the uterus.

[Fisherman]

I at least didn't realise it at first, having misread Hebbert's description (the dangers of reading these things on my phone), but I don't think I argued a certain stance



I think the "parcel" was made in order for the pieces to sink when thrown in the river. It obviously did not work very well.

So I don't think it was strictly necessary to aid dismemberment, but it might have been thought a convenient way of disposing of the uterus.

But Kattrup, if the killer actually believed that parts thrown into the water would sink, then one must surmise that he had not taken part of the numerous press reports about how the parts of his earlier victims, like for example the Rainham torso, did NOT sink, but were instead washed ashore along the river. All of them, more or less, save the heads, the one part that WOULD sink, owing to weight and density. The findings of the parts along the shores of the Thames would have been the talk of the town to a very large extent, so any supposition on behalf of the killer that a package with the uterus, the placenta, the cord and two large slips of the abdominal wall would actually sink would be a very odd one.

Moreover, if he thought the parts would sink, then why pack them up together? Why take that trouble, why not thrown the reproductive organs in by themselves, and then fling the abdominal wall flaps in afterwards? If he thought it all sank? Actually, since the uterus is rather a high-density organ, and shaped like a pear, more or less, it would be one of the parts that somebody could perhaps think WOULD sink when thrown into the water. Therefore, wrapping it in flesh that would definitely NOT sink, would be a very strange thing to do. To me, it seems much more as if the killer chose to give the package floatation, and wanted it to be found, the way all them other parts had been.

It would seem, from the placement of a torso in the cellar vaults of the New Scotland Yard and perhaps also from flinging a leg part into the garden of Percy Shelley, the relative of Mary Shelley who wrote about Frankensteins monster, a creature formed of dead body parts, that this killer was not uninterested in seeking attention. In my world, a package formed by two flaps of the abdominal wall, containing the cut-up and emptied uterus and itīs appendages, walks very much hand in hand with such strivings.

[Fisherman]

Debra A:

When I first mentioned the removal of flaps or 'slips' of skin from Elizabeth Jackson's abdomen it was in response to discussion that the removal of 'flaps' of skin from the abdominal walls to access the abdominal organs of both Chapman and Eddowes somehow linked them to the same killer. I said then, and think the same now, if Elizabeth Jackson had the same thing done to her that should show one of two things-either the same killer was involved in all three cases or this showed that at least two killers operating in the same city employed the same unusual method of accessing the abdomen.

This remains the most important question.

Letīs take it in impact order:

How likely is it that a city, in a period when serial killing had not even been given a name since it was more or less unheard of, would be stricken by TWO serial killers - simultaneously?

If that should nevertheless happen, how likely is it that these two killers would also engage in eviscerations? Eviscerators are extremely rare creatures.

If it should nevertheless be the case that two eviscerators struck the same city simultaneously, just how likely is it that they would both take out both reproductive organs and organs not coupled to sexuality at all?

Okay, if we accept that it is as likely as not that two eviscerating serialists with an interest in both sexually related and non-sexually related organs would surface in London of 1888, then just how likely is it that they would both make the maximum cut from ribs to pubes when eviscerating? Many eviscerators make smaller opening in their victims.

Now, if we buy all of the above as something that is more likely to happen than not, then just how big a chance is there that BOTH of these killers will cut away the abdominal wall from one or more of their victims? Something that is quite, quite rare?

People who do these kinds of things are often people with a mental disease, so called disorganized killers, who do what they do because of an inner pressure, inner voices speaking to them etc. But in THESE two series, there are examples of what seems to be posing of the victims, examples of a desire to shock, and not least, there are no traces left behind and - not least - in both series we have examples of the supposed two killers taking rings from the fingers of their victims, something a disorganized killer is not very likely to do.
So in this respect too, the two series are exactly similar.

Where does the borderline go? How many more similarities does it take before we conclude that the two series will in all probability have had the exact same originator? More importantly, what in the whole wide world would be an obstacle for that conclusion?

[Pierre]

QUOTE=Fisherman;405338

How many more similarities does it take before we conclude that the two series will in all probability have had the exact same originator?

More importantly, what in the whole wide world would be an obstacle for that conclusion?

Let us say, hypothetically, that someone who came to London in March-April 1887 and left London in November 1888, then returned in May-June 1889 and left again in October 1889 would be no obstacle.

What are your explanations for the starting and stopping during these periods?

Regards, Pierre

[Michael W Richards]

From Fisherman;
"How likely is it that a city, in a period when serial killing had not even been given a name since it was more or less unheard of, would be stricken by TWO serial killers - simultaneously?"

I think its clear within what we already know Fisherman that we DID in fact have 2 multiple killers, because what was said about Annie Chapmans killer defines what acts you can legitimately link him with..." Was there any anatomical knowledge displayed? - I think there was. There were indications of it. My own impression is that that anatomical knowledge was only less displayed or indicated in consequence of haste. The person evidently was hindered from making a more complete dissection in consequence of the haste",...."Are those portions such as would require anatomical knowledge to extract? - I think the mode in which they were extracted did show some anatomical knowledge", and very importantly.."I think I can guide you by saying that I myself could not have performed all the injuries I saw on that woman, and effect them, even without a struggle, under a quarter of an hour. If I had done it in a deliberate way, such as would fall to the duties of a surgeon, it would probably have taken me the best part of an hour. The whole inference seems to me that the operation was performed to enable the perpetrator to obtain possession of these parts of the body."

There is focus and specificity that is present there that is not the same as the Torso creation murders, nor is it the same as a few Canonicals.

[Fisherman]

From Fisherman;
"How likely is it that a city, in a period when serial killing had not even been given a name since it was more or less unheard of, would be stricken by TWO serial killers - simultaneously?"

I think its clear within what we already know Fisherman that we DID in fact have 2 multiple killers, because what was said about Annie Chapmans killer defines what acts you can legitimately link him with..." Was there any anatomical knowledge displayed? - I think there was. There were indications of it. My own impression is that that anatomical knowledge was only less displayed or indicated in consequence of haste. The person evidently was hindered from making a more complete dissection in consequence of the haste",...."Are those portions such as would require anatomical knowledge to extract? - I think the mode in which they were extracted did show some anatomical knowledge", and very importantly.."I think I can guide you by saying that I myself could not have performed all the injuries I saw on that woman, and effect them, even without a struggle, under a quarter of an hour. If I had done it in a deliberate way, such as would fall to the duties of a surgeon, it would probably have taken me the best part of an hour. The whole inference seems to me that the operation was performed to enable the perpetrator to obtain possession of these parts of the body."

There is focus and specificity that is present there that is not the same as the Torso creation murders, nor is it the same as a few Canonicals.

To begin with, I donīt think that is correct.
To carry on, it would not have mattered if it WAS correct.
The similarities are too glaring to be ignored just the same.

Skill:
It was said of Chapman and Eddowes that there was skill involved - the one sweep of the knife thing and the kidney extraction.
That leaves three canonicals.
With Nichols, it seems there was no time to display any skill.
Same for Stride.
Leaves us with Kelly - who, just like Eddowes, had her kidneys extracted from the front. Which supposedly was a sign of knowledge and skill in the Eddowes case.

The torso cases were all cases where the joints were cut open and disarticulated, something that is rare according to Guy Rutty, who has written a book on the subject. Furthermore, we know that Galloway was incredibly impressed by the knifework in the Rainham case, we know that the killer carefully cut the face away from the 1873 victim, eyelashes included (!), so we have once again skill displayed.

That means that both series were series where the cutter was a skilled man, at least when it comes to cutting with a knife. He also seems to have been well versed about the human frame, being able to locate kidneys from the front and having knowledge about how to open up joints and disarticulate neatly and with exact cuts, even with straight angles, cuts that did not damage the underlying cartilage.

So overall, we are dealing with somebody who was masterful at handling the knife, and who knew the human structure. In BOTH series.

[Jon Guy]

Letīs take it in impact order:

How likely is it that a city, in a period when serial killing had not even been given a name since it was more or less unheard of, would be stricken by TWO serial killers - simultaneously?

The term serial murder was in use by 1888, Christer

[Fisherman]

The term serial murder was in use by 1888, Christer

Yup, I remember the post from some months back (though I thought it was of a later date). But overall, the concept of serial killers was an alien one to the public, I think we can agree on that?

[Debra A]

Thank god another voice of reason and knowledge much needed here!

Happy new year Debra and hoping you had happy holidays! : )

Thanks Abby. Happy New year to you! I felt compelled to join in as there seemed to be a lot of repetition of old incorrect notions about Elizabeth Jackson's case that I thought had finally been set to rest or ironed out on other threads recently but it seems not.

[Fisherman]

The torso cases were all cases where the joints were cut open and disarticulated, something that is rare according to Guy Rutty, who has written a book on the subject.

I need to clarify this further, because although the limbs were generally opened up at the joints and disarticulated, there were exceptions to that rule. For example, the 1873 Batterse torso WAS opened up at nearly all the joints and disarticulated. But not all of them:
"Contrary to the popular opinion, the body has not been hacked, but dexterously cut up; the joints have been opened, and the bones neatly disarticulated, even the complicated joints at the ankle and the elbow, and it is only at the articulations of the hip-joint and shoulder that the bones have been sawn through."

So we have to ask ourselves why a killer who was perfectly able to open up and disarticulate at the joints did not do so in all instances. I would suggest that part of the understanding of what the deeds were all about - the Ripper deeds included - lies in the answer to this question.