Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Torso Killings: torso maps - by Abby Normal 27 minutes ago.
Torso Killings: torso maps - by Abby Normal 48 minutes ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: Lechmere was Jack the Ripper - by caz 1 hour and 4 minutes ago.
Torso Killings: torso maps - by Sam Flynn 1 hour and 20 minutes ago.
Torso Killings: torso maps - by FrankO 2 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by caz 2 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - (17 posts)
Torso Killings: torso maps - (14 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: Was the ripper and also the torsomans crimes totally non sexual in nature? - (13 posts)
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: Lechmere was Jack the Ripper - (7 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Sergeant Thick's Sketchy Connections? - (6 posts)
Rippercast: Colin Wilson: Jack the Ripper Conference in Ipswich, 1996 - (1 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Motive, Method and Madness

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1141  
Old 10-25-2017, 05:17 AM
RockySullivan RockySullivan is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,868
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
You are right, so that is why I have taken the common sense approach and I refer to them as The Thames Torso Mysteries

However there has to be a grave doubt as to murder in any event when you cannot prove a cause of death.

Do you not accept that women did die as a result of failed back street abortions etc or being given noxious substance to procure an abortion, and when that happened what happened to the bodies. The deaths could not be reported to the authorities for obvious reasons, and the bodies still had to be disposed of, and so where is a good place to dispose of a body, in the Thames. These people would no where to sell organs so even money can be made out of the dead.

There is also the possibilty that one or more died as a result of a domestic assault, which happened with no witnesses. If that be the case the other half is not liklely to report the matter to the police but simply dispose of the body and hope that no one misses the victim. If that did occur the offender could simply say the victim has gone away etc etc.

You people on here who keep babbling on about a serial killers need to take the rose tinted glasses off.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

.
Trevor, only one of the victims was pregnant.
Quick reply to this message
  #1142  
Old 10-25-2017, 07:39 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,351
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
Among the less well-off, I don't suppose there was a difference. It's not as if most of them had the luxury of choosing between daywear and nightwear, and many people lived, and slept, in their everyday clothes. The very fact that this chemise was dirty and tatty suggests that it was worn very frequently, not just for a few hours a night.
I think you are basically correct when saying that there was probably not much of a difference among those not so very well off. However, what I am suggesting is that the chemise may have been supplied by the killer, and thus it may not have been worn at all by the victim before she was killed. Of course, I have not a scintilla of proof to tell me that the chemise was supplied by the killer, but I do have an overall scheme in which such a thing would fit in, hand-in-glove, and so I am interested and intrigued by the possibility. Don´t let that annoy you too much, Gareth!
You are saying that the chemise being dirty and tatty suggests that it was worn frequently, not just for a few hours a night, but that has to be something that we cannot know. Obviously, the chemise may have been dragged along a dirty floor, victim inside, and then it was thrown onto what was basically a scrap-heap in Pinchin Street. It would be extremely odd if it was shiny white at that stage, methinks.
However, IF the chemise was supplied by the killer as per my possible scenario, I would have expected it to be clean at that stage, although it is no absolute prerequsite for my thinking to work.

A final point: You are saying that among the less well-off, chemises were worn day and night, no difference made. And as I said, I agree. But do we know that the victim WAS less well-off? The guess is a useful one, but still a guess only.

Last edited by Fisherman : 10-25-2017 at 07:42 AM.
Quick reply to this message
  #1143  
Old 10-25-2017, 07:42 AM
RockySullivan RockySullivan is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,868
Default

Hey atleast we can rule out Lechmere as the torso killer since he'd be feeding them to the cats instead
Quick reply to this message
  #1144  
Old 10-25-2017, 07:57 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,351
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RockySullivan View Post
Hey atleast we can rule out Lechmere as the torso killer since he'd be feeding them to the cats instead
Well, Rocky, nobody would be happier to discuss that than me, but as you know...
Quick reply to this message
  #1145  
Old 10-25-2017, 08:01 AM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,345
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
I think you are basically correct when saying that there was probably not much of a difference among those not so very well off. However, what I am suggesting is that the chemise may have been supplied by the killer, and thus it may not have been worn at all by the victim before she was killed. Of course, I have not a scintilla of proof to tell me that the chemise was supplied by the killer, but I do have an overall scheme in which such a thing would fit in, hand-in-glove, and so I am interested and intrigued by the possibility. Don´t let that annoy you too much, Gareth!
You are saying that the chemise being dirty and tatty suggests that it was worn frequently, not just for a few hours a night, but that has to be something that we cannot know. Obviously, the chemise may have been dragged along a dirty floor, victim inside, and then it was thrown onto what was basically a scrap-heap in Pinchin Street. It would be extremely odd if it was shiny white at that stage, methinks.
However, IF the chemise was supplied by the killer as per my possible scenario, I would have expected it to be clean at that stage, although it is no absolute prerequsite for my thinking to work.

A final point: You are saying that among the less well-off, chemises were worn day and night, no difference made. And as I said, I agree. But do we know that the victim WAS less well-off? The guess is a useful one, but still a guess only.
HI Fish
IMHO I think if the chemise/s have any significance we should focus on how it was cut and what it was then used for afterward re dumping.

How was it cut again?
__________________
"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"

-Edgar Allan Poe


"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

-Frederick G. Abberline
Quick reply to this message
  #1146  
Old 10-25-2017, 09:33 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,351
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
HI Fish
IMHO I think if the chemise/s have any significance we should focus on how it was cut and what it was then used for afterward re dumping.

How was it cut again?
Torn down the middle, and cut from neck lining to the sleeve linings in both directions.
Quick reply to this message
  #1147  
Old 10-25-2017, 12:28 PM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,345
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Torn down the middle, and cut from neck lining to the sleeve linings in both directions.
Thanks Fish

how many other of the torsos or parts were found with a chemise?
__________________
"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"

-Edgar Allan Poe


"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

-Frederick G. Abberline
Quick reply to this message
  #1148  
Old 10-25-2017, 12:49 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,351
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
Thanks Fish

how many other of the torsos or parts were found with a chemise?
None, as far as I know.
Quick reply to this message
  #1149  
Old 10-25-2017, 02:20 PM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 10,249
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal
how many other of the torsos or parts were found with a chemise?
None, as far as I know.
But then, none of the others were dumped anywhere near the East End.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message
  #1150  
Old 10-25-2017, 03:28 PM
drstrange169 drstrange169 is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 970
Default

Unless you were so poor not have a choice, chemises were not sleepwear, i.e. something that you specifically put on for sleeping, that was called a nightdress.

The fact that those that saw it called it a chemise, indicates, rightly or wrongly, that they believed it looked like underwear.
__________________
dustymiller
aka drstrange


"Whenever an expert says something that bolsters the Lechmere theory, it is not my task to disprove him ..."
Fisherman
Quick reply to this message
Closed Thread


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:17 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.