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:
Witnesses: Kennedy and Lewis - by packers stem 2 minutes ago.
Torso Killings: JtR failed amputation. Torso killer was successful. - by Fisherman 5 minutes ago.
Torso Killings: JtR failed amputation. Torso killer was successful. - by Fisherman 2 hours ago.
Witnesses: Kennedy and Lewis - by Wickerman 7 hours ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: Did Mary Kelly meet the Bethnal Green Botherer? - by Wickerman 7 hours ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: Did Mary Kelly meet the Bethnal Green Botherer? - by Wickerman 8 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Motive, Method and Madness: Geoprofile of Jack the Ripper reveals Tabram and Nichols connection. - (53 posts)
Scene of the Crimes: distances between kills.odd - (15 posts)
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - (9 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim? - (7 posts)
Witnesses: Kennedy and Lewis - (5 posts)
Levy, Jacob: Jacob the Ripper - (5 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 > Victims > Non-Canonical Victims > Torso Killings

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #91  
Old 12-05-2018, 01:18 PM
Batman Batman is online now
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,916
Default

The very fact that there is escalation is his attempts to mutilate, through to Kelly, demonstrates that he did not understand, but was learning, how to mutilate.

So from the get-go, the man learning to mutilate does not resemble the learned man who can amputate, dismember and eviscerate.

Torso man would have known what to expect in these bone obstructions from experience, yet even JtR finds himself trying to do the same thing again, on another victim without success.

What this does is explain all the wounds JtR inflicted. There is a combination of successful attempts to mutilate some part around which are unsuccessful attempts to mutilate some parts. This is going all the way back to Nichols.

JtR is like a kid probing and playing around trying to find what he wants.

Torsoman didn't have to play. Should Torsoman have been the mutilator, the mutilations would be site-directed, efficiently completed and not the jagged, semi-frenzied, smash and grab, that is even evident in Kelly in part.

Torsoman would have produced a completely different set of injuries in the C5 if he intended mutilation.
__________________
Bona fide canonical and then some.

Last edited by Batman : 12-05-2018 at 01:23 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 12-05-2018, 01:22 PM
Batman Batman is online now
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
academic backing, academic shbacking. use your common sense. what? cant think for yourself?
Thinking for yourself does not preclude you from being able to reference others. In fact, you do reference others, even here from this board.

You took the same stand as FM on here by dismissing the post and then trying to poo-poo it with emotional content. That is why I told you to think for yourself because all you did was copy what FM did. Like reading a cloned response almost.

Anyway, more importantly, I see academic backing is no longer important to you. If that's the case do you also dismiss the academic backing brought to the table for other suspects and claims relating to this case?
__________________
Bona fide canonical and then some.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 12-05-2018, 01:37 PM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,070
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Batman View Post
Thinking for yourself does not preclude you from being able to reference others. In fact, you do reference others, even here from this board.

You took the same stand as FM on here by dismissing the post and then trying to poo-poo it with emotional content. That is why I told you to think for yourself because all you did was copy what FM did. Like reading a cloned response almost.

Anyway, more importantly, I see academic backing is no longer important to you. If that's the case do you also dismiss the academic backing brought to the table for other suspects and claims relating to this case?
I didn't copy anyone I don't even know who your referring to-whos FM???
so if your going to insult someone at least get it straight what your insulting them about-so I was "thinking for myself"- it was you who were wrong and made a faulty assumption.

Quote:
If that's the case do you also dismiss the academic backing brought to the table for other suspects and claims relating to this case?

nope. only if I don't agree with it and or it lacks common sense.


Also, one needs to take with a grain of salt so called experts views sometimes. like profiling for example.

I would venture that the average casebooker knows more about the case than some of these so called experts.
__________________
"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 Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 12-05-2018, 02:13 PM
Batman Batman is online now
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,916
Default

My statement at the top of this page is pretty much the same thing as the one you dismissed so if you want to try and answer that one you can. If not, that's up to you.
__________________
Bona fide canonical and then some.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 12-05-2018, 10:25 PM
DJA DJA is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Some Australian Mountain Range.
Posts: 1,720
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Batman View Post
I am able to find a peer-reviewed journal article that include mention of JtR's failure in these areas because even since the start of this thread I have discovered no less than 4 professionals, who have had this position reviewed by peers and published in academic journals.

Which is why I know positions to the opposite don't have the same academic backing.
Genuinely interested in reading those four.
__________________
My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 12-07-2018, 11:22 AM
Batman Batman is online now
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DJA View Post
Genuinely interested in reading those four.
I found this link to the peer-reviewed article. It is a PDF. The four writers are at the top of the article.

P.16 is on amputation attempts that failed and other mutilations efforts that failed in the last paragraph.

The paper ruled out a torso murder connection based on M.O and signature analysis.

As a note, when Dr. Philips on Chapman said " There were two distinct clean cuts on the left side of the spine. They were parallel with each other and separated by about half an inch. The muscular structures appeared as though an attempt had made to separate the bones of the neck.", what Philips is noting here is that along with notches on the bone from the knife, there is the additional evidence of an attempt to separate the bones of the neck.

He doesn't necessarily say this is the result of those notches or the knife injuries. Whatever was done, it was in addition to what was needed to kill her. Anyway, bone neck separation is an attempt at decapitation especially given the rest of her neck was cut through.
__________________
Bona fide canonical and then some.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 12-07-2018, 12:21 PM
DJA DJA is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Some Australian Mountain Range.
Posts: 1,720
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Batman View Post
I found this link to the peer-reviewed article. It is a PDF. The four writers are at the top of the article.

P.16 is on amputation attempts that failed and other mutilations efforts that failed in the last paragraph.

The paper ruled out a torso murder connection based on M.O and signature analysis.

As a note, when Dr. Philips on Chapman said " There were two distinct clean cuts on the left side of the spine. They were parallel with each other and separated by about half an inch. The muscular structures appeared as though an attempt had made to separate the bones of the neck.", what Philips is noting here is that along with notches on the bone from the knife, there is the additional evidence of an attempt to separate the bones of the neck.

He doesn't necessarily say this is the result of those notches or the knife injuries. Whatever was done, it was in addition to what was needed to kill her. Anyway, bone neck separation is an attempt at decapitation especially given the rest of her neck was cut through.
Thanks for that. Downloaded and will have a good read when I have the time.

I agree about Chapman's attempted decapitation.
Crikey,who would have guessed she had TB in her brain!

Authors have taken a liberty with Nichols.
Compare the remaining newspaper transcript of the inquest.
Jane Coram had an excellent depiction of her injuries,maybe someone still has it and shares.

These experts have failed to make any connection between Stride's bottom lip and the cachous.

Haven't got any further yet.
Not really interested anymore in the superfluous ie outside of the CV5.
Spent a lot of time on that nine years ago.

Gouldstone Street
__________________
My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 12-07-2018, 03:26 PM
DJA DJA is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Some Australian Mountain Range.
Posts: 1,720
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Batman View Post
I found this link to the peer-reviewed article. It is a PDF. The four writers are at the top of the article.

P.16 is on amputation attempts that failed and other mutilations efforts that failed in the last paragraph.

The paper ruled out a torso murder connection based on M.O and signature analysis.

As a note, when Dr. Philips on Chapman said " There were two distinct clean cuts on the left side of the spine. They were parallel with each other and separated by about half an inch. The muscular structures appeared as though an attempt had made to separate the bones of the neck.", what Philips is noting here is that along with notches on the bone from the knife, there is the additional evidence of an attempt to separate the bones of the neck.

He doesn't necessarily say this is the result of those notches or the knife injuries. Whatever was done, it was in addition to what was needed to kill her. Anyway, bone neck separation is an attempt at decapitation especially given the rest of her neck was cut through.
Wow.

That is some of the most pathetic junk that I have read.

My jaw just dropped at the "information" on Chapman.

They have confused the Nichols discovery with the Chapman case and then further inject the Nichols story as Chapman's.

Buggered if I know how Keppell got his PhD,if that is his level of research.

Mind numbing drivel.

Peer reviewed,by who?
__________________
My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

Last edited by DJA : 12-07-2018 at 03:36 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 12-07-2018, 03:56 PM
Batman Batman is online now
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DJA View Post
Wow.

That is some of the most pathetic junk that I have read.

My jaw just dropped at the "information" on Chapman.

They have confused the Nichols discovery with the Chapman case and then further inject the Nichols story as Chapman's.

Buggered if I know how Keppell got his PhD,if that is his level of research.

Mind numbing drivel.

Peer reviewed,by who?
Quote the part.

It tells you who peer reviewed it.

Now's your big chance to publish your rebuttal if it's wrong.
__________________
Bona fide canonical and then some.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 12-07-2018, 04:09 PM
DJA DJA is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Some Australian Mountain Range.
Posts: 1,720
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Batman View Post
Quote the part.

It tells you who peer reviewed it.

Now's your big chance to publish your rebuttal if it's wrong.

Details of Annie Chapman case.

Paragraphs 1 and 5.

As previously mentioned.
__________________
My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


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 01:58 AM.


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