Jack the Ripper-The Secret Police Files

[RockySullivan]

As low as my opinion is of the author's cognitive functioning I would still buy and read this book if it came in paperback.

[Monty]

The point is irrelevant.

Monty

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;404194]

Sorry Steve, I do need to press you a little on this. What do you mean by that? Our eyes adapt to low light today don't they? Our pupils expand and contract according to the light available right? So if we are plunged into low light, at first we might not be able to see very much but then our eyes will adjust after a few minutes.

Now Pierre says that there were people working in "complete darkness" in the British Empire and Phil responds by saying that Pierre has "a point worth thinking about" because our eyes are "accustomed" to bright light whereas in the Victorian period their eyes would be "more accustomed" to less light.

But surely the working of our eyes is exactly the same today as it was 125 years ago isn't it? Regardless of what one is "accustomed" to, the eyes work in exactly the same way, adjusting to the amount of light available.

That is not the point. THIS is the point:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbIHmql6UUU

Pierre

[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.

[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]

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.

[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]

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.

[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!

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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]

[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?