Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Could Jack have killed some of the torso victims?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by John Wheat View Post
    No need as I am right.
    Yeah, that would be the day...!

    Comment


    • #62
      Fisherman

      Let's begin from the end: Does the Ripper seek anonymity? And does the Torso man not?

      Given the fact that the Ripper deeds was a worldwide sensation, we may perhaps need to accept that anonymity can be reached in more efficient ways than by killing and ripping and eviscerating unfortunates in the East End of victorian London?
      Or are you saying that the Ripper wanted to stay undisclosed? If so, how does that tell him apart from the Torso man?


      I am suggesting that Jack didn't do any planning or thinking, he was an opportunist and the bodies laid where they fell. The Torso Killer shows imagination, he wanted his 'dumps' to make a definite statement.

      It is all about how we interpret things, is it not?

      You claim that the Torso killer had a very dark sense of humor and that the Ripper lacked that sense, and that would somehow tell us that they cannot be the same man. I disagree totally. To begin with, the dark sense of humor you identify (and which is in no way a proven thing)

      To you the Whitehall and Pinchin Street dumps don't scream FU to the authorities? Are you suggesting that the Whitehall dump was a coincidence; that he din't know it was the New Scotland Yard HQ? My lord the man had to breach a fence to place the body, he knew what he was up to and the message he was sending was a very dark and deliberate message.

      all builds on how the Torso killer was able to transport body parts to different spots. How would the Ripper compete with that? By throwing Chapman over his shoulder and carrying her to Leman Street police station?

      No he wouldn't compete with that, he was an opportunist and left the bodies where they lay; he had no imagination.

      Let's change the perspective and skip the dark humor part. What if the killer simply was sending another message: "This is what I can did to you, and there is nothing you can do about it!"

      OK I agree with that.

      How does that sit with the actual evidence? Not at all bad, I´d say. He shows us that we are not safe in the streets, that the police cannot shield their citizens or even their own headquarters, that the famed, like Percy Bysshe Shelley, is at risk as well as anyone of us.
      If we look at it from that angle, there is no difference, is there?


      OK you can make that claim and it is logical and reasonable, but we are talking about a man (the torso killer) who breached a fence to make that statement; dropping a body right at the feet of CID. He was willing to go out of his way to get noticed, Jack on the other hand just did his thing and ran off. We can see a message to society in what Jack did but there is no direct evidence to support the argument that Jack was sending us a message. The Torso Killer's made sure we recognized he was sending a message to the police. From Jack's point of view his victims were just left-overs to a frenzied event, he never looked back. The Torso Killer had a game plan.

      But more simply this goes back to my initial premise that if you have a 'chop-shop' you don't risk the streets to begin with.

      It is not a question of whether it was one or two killers. Logic and an abundance of evidence tell us that it was just the one. That is why we must make sense of the surrounding factors. If we begin by claiming that one killer had a sense of humor that the other lacked, we are doing ourselves a disservice and we lock ourselves to a position we really don't need to accept. Why not just say that both killers seemed to shun society in a spiteful way, trying to install maximum fear into the citizens of London? It is just as viable, and it is in line with the evidence.

      Na! I don't feel like I am doing myself a disservice. I am just willing to accept an unimaginative, opportunist, marauder as the infamous 'jack the ripper.' But making Jack a drunk, smelly, urine stained predator stumbling through the dark just doesn't sit well with many, they want him to be so much more.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by APerno View Post
        Fisherman

        Let's begin from the end: Does the Ripper seek anonymity? And does the Torso man not?

        Given the fact that the Ripper deeds was a worldwide sensation, we may perhaps need to accept that anonymity can be reached in more efficient ways than by killing and ripping and eviscerating unfortunates in the East End of victorian London?
        Or are you saying that the Ripper wanted to stay undisclosed? If so, how does that tell him apart from the Torso man?


        I am suggesting that Jack didn't do any planning or thinking, he was an opportunist and the bodies laid where they fell. The Torso Killer shows imagination, he wanted his 'dumps' to make a definite statement.

        It is all about how we interpret things, is it not?

        You claim that the Torso killer had a very dark sense of humor and that the Ripper lacked that sense, and that would somehow tell us that they cannot be the same man. I disagree totally. To begin with, the dark sense of humor you identify (and which is in no way a proven thing)

        To you the Whitehall and Pinchin Street dumps don't scream FU to the authorities? Are you suggesting that the Whitehall dump was a coincidence; that he din't know it was the New Scotland Yard HQ? My lord the man had to breach a fence to place the body, he knew what he was up to and the message he was sending was a very dark and deliberate message.

        all builds on how the Torso killer was able to transport body parts to different spots. How would the Ripper compete with that? By throwing Chapman over his shoulder and carrying her to Leman Street police station?

        No he wouldn't compete with that, he was an opportunist and left the bodies where they lay; he had no imagination.

        Let's change the perspective and skip the dark humor part. What if the killer simply was sending another message: "This is what I can did to you, and there is nothing you can do about it!"

        OK I agree with that.

        How does that sit with the actual evidence? Not at all bad, I´d say. He shows us that we are not safe in the streets, that the police cannot shield their citizens or even their own headquarters, that the famed, like Percy Bysshe Shelley, is at risk as well as anyone of us.
        If we look at it from that angle, there is no difference, is there?


        OK you can make that claim and it is logical and reasonable, but we are talking about a man (the torso killer) who breached a fence to make that statement; dropping a body right at the feet of CID. He was willing to go out of his way to get noticed, Jack on the other hand just did his thing and ran off. We can see a message to society in what Jack did but there is no direct evidence to support the argument that Jack was sending us a message. The Torso Killer's made sure we recognized he was sending a message to the police. From Jack's point of view his victims were just left-overs to a frenzied event, he never looked back. The Torso Killer had a game plan.

        But more simply this goes back to my initial premise that if you have a 'chop-shop' you don't risk the streets to begin with.

        It is not a question of whether it was one or two killers. Logic and an abundance of evidence tell us that it was just the one. That is why we must make sense of the surrounding factors. If we begin by claiming that one killer had a sense of humor that the other lacked, we are doing ourselves a disservice and we lock ourselves to a position we really don't need to accept. Why not just say that both killers seemed to shun society in a spiteful way, trying to install maximum fear into the citizens of London? It is just as viable, and it is in line with the evidence.

        Na! I don't feel like I am doing myself a disservice. I am just willing to accept an unimaginative, opportunist, marauder as the infamous 'jack the ripper.' But making Jack a drunk, smelly, urine stained predator stumbling through the dark just doesn't sit well with many, they want him to be so much more.
        and yet the ripper got all the "glory" and torsoman nada.

        so much for that theory.

        unless of course its really the torsoripper.
        "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

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Fisherman or APerno
          He shows us that we are not safe in the streets, that the police cannot shield their citizens or even their own headquarters, that the famed, like Percy Bysshe Shelley, is at risk as well as anyone of us.
          Shelley died in 1822, so he was pretty safe I think!

          (Not sure whose post that was, because the Quote feature wasn't being used.)
          Kind regards, Sam Flynn

          "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by APerno View Post
            Fisherman

            Let's begin from the end: Does the Ripper seek anonymity? And does the Torso man not?

            Given the fact that the Ripper deeds was a worldwide sensation, we may perhaps need to accept that anonymity can be reached in more efficient ways than by killing and ripping and eviscerating unfortunates in the East End of victorian London?
            Or are you saying that the Ripper wanted to stay undisclosed? If so, how does that tell him apart from the Torso man?


            I am suggesting that Jack didn't do any planning or thinking, he was an opportunist and the bodies laid where they fell. The Torso Killer shows imagination, he wanted his 'dumps' to make a definite statement.

            It is all about how we interpret things, is it not?

            You claim that the Torso killer had a very dark sense of humor and that the Ripper lacked that sense, and that would somehow tell us that they cannot be the same man. I disagree totally. To begin with, the dark sense of humor you identify (and which is in no way a proven thing)

            To you the Whitehall and Pinchin Street dumps don't scream FU to the authorities? Are you suggesting that the Whitehall dump was a coincidence; that he din't know it was the New Scotland Yard HQ? My lord the man had to breach a fence to place the body, he knew what he was up to and the message he was sending was a very dark and deliberate message.

            all builds on how the Torso killer was able to transport body parts to different spots. How would the Ripper compete with that? By throwing Chapman over his shoulder and carrying her to Leman Street police station?

            No he wouldn't compete with that, he was an opportunist and left the bodies where they lay; he had no imagination.

            Let's change the perspective and skip the dark humor part. What if the killer simply was sending another message: "This is what I can did to you, and there is nothing you can do about it!"

            OK I agree with that.

            How does that sit with the actual evidence? Not at all bad, I´d say. He shows us that we are not safe in the streets, that the police cannot shield their citizens or even their own headquarters, that the famed, like Percy Bysshe Shelley, is at risk as well as anyone of us.
            If we look at it from that angle, there is no difference, is there?


            OK you can make that claim and it is logical and reasonable, but we are talking about a man (the torso killer) who breached a fence to make that statement; dropping a body right at the feet of CID. He was willing to go out of his way to get noticed, Jack on the other hand just did his thing and ran off. We can see a message to society in what Jack did but there is no direct evidence to support the argument that Jack was sending us a message. The Torso Killer's made sure we recognized he was sending a message to the police. From Jack's point of view his victims were just left-overs to a frenzied event, he never looked back. The Torso Killer had a game plan.

            But more simply this goes back to my initial premise that if you have a 'chop-shop' you don't risk the streets to begin with.

            It is not a question of whether it was one or two killers. Logic and an abundance of evidence tell us that it was just the one. That is why we must make sense of the surrounding factors. If we begin by claiming that one killer had a sense of humor that the other lacked, we are doing ourselves a disservice and we lock ourselves to a position we really don't need to accept. Why not just say that both killers seemed to shun society in a spiteful way, trying to install maximum fear into the citizens of London? It is just as viable, and it is in line with the evidence.

            Na! I don't feel like I am doing myself a disservice. I am just willing to accept an unimaginative, opportunist, marauder as the infamous 'jack the ripper.' But making Jack a drunk, smelly, urine stained predator stumbling through the dark just doesn't sit well with many, they want him to be so much more.
            long, lawende and company, schwartz, PC smith, and marshall IMHO probably saw the ripper. none describe him that way. It runs the gamut from shabby to shabby genteel to respectable.

            and considering the circs and the class of lawende its no surprise he described him as shabby.

            given all the evidence its more than likely the ripper was employed.

            no idiot, or brute, or lunatic could have pulled off what the ripper did.

            especially the double event. Getting away in the nick of time. rusing victims at the height of the scare to go with him. cmon.
            "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

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
              and yet the ripper got all the "glory" and torsoman nada.

              so much for that theory.

              unless of course its really the torsoripper.
              TRUE! -- but why does it kill off my theory (my hypothesis)?

              He would have at least gotten pleasure knowing he was causing some of the reaction around him. I suspect (yes, just speculation) the Torso Killer was paying homage to Jack with the Pinchin Street dump. He was probably a fan.

              Let me also add, it was Coroner Baxter who started the 'ripper' ball rolling (the frenzy) and then proceeded to fuel it, but with no chance for identification and thus no scores of witnesses to call, Baxter wasn't much interested in sensationalizing the torso murders. He wasn't going to draw a crowd; there was just no point in reserving Working Lad's hall when you got no witnesses to call, the newspaper won't show-up. That is how the torso murderer got cheated out of his fame, Baxter wasn't much interested in making it infamous. "Jack" on the other hand, he made Baxter special for several weeks and Baxter loved it. Baxter was ready to talk all 'Jack" all the time.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                Shelley died in 1822, so he was pretty safe I think!

                (Not sure whose post that was, because the Quote feature wasn't being used.)
                Yes, the house belonged to his son, also Percy Shelley (no Bysshe) but I believe it was rented out as he was abroad at the time.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
                  Yes, the house belonged to his son, also Percy Shelley (no Bysshe) but I believe it was rented out as he was abroad at the time.
                  Thanks to Debs we know the renter was Sir Arthur Charles.

                  Charles was appointed a judge to the Queens Bench in 1887. He was away in June 1889 in the Isle of Wight when the thigh would have been deposited in the garden of the Shelley estate.

                  Most of you know this but the person who found the thigh of Elizabeth Jackson in the Shelley garden was Claude Mellor. A few months later, during the Pinchin Torso investigation in September 1889, Mellor suggested John Cleary could be an acquaintance of his that was formerly a compositor working for the Globe.
                  Last edited by jerryd; 01-08-2019, 02:52 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                    Shelley died in 1822, so he was pretty safe I think!

                    (Not sure whose post that was, because the Quote feature wasn't being used.)
                    Mine, I'm afraid. And I meant to write Percy Florence Shelley, of course. Then again, you already know that.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                      and yet the ripper got all the "glory" and torsoman nada.

                      so much for that theory.
                      Intent vs impact

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by APerno View Post
                        Fisherman

                        Let's begin from the end: Does the Ripper seek anonymity? And does the Torso man not?

                        Given the fact that the Ripper deeds was a worldwide sensation, we may perhaps need to accept that anonymity can be reached in more efficient ways than by killing and ripping and eviscerating unfortunates in the East End of victorian London?
                        Or are you saying that the Ripper wanted to stay undisclosed? If so, how does that tell him apart from the Torso man?


                        I am suggesting that Jack didn't do any planning or thinking, he was an opportunist and the bodies laid where they fell. The Torso Killer shows imagination, he wanted his 'dumps' to make a definite statement.

                        It is all about how we interpret things, is it not?

                        You claim that the Torso killer had a very dark sense of humor and that the Ripper lacked that sense, and that would somehow tell us that they cannot be the same man. I disagree totally. To begin with, the dark sense of humor you identify (and which is in no way a proven thing)

                        To you the Whitehall and Pinchin Street dumps don't scream FU to the authorities? Are you suggesting that the Whitehall dump was a coincidence; that he din't know it was the New Scotland Yard HQ? My lord the man had to breach a fence to place the body, he knew what he was up to and the message he was sending was a very dark and deliberate message.

                        all builds on how the Torso killer was able to transport body parts to different spots. How would the Ripper compete with that? By throwing Chapman over his shoulder and carrying her to Leman Street police station?

                        No he wouldn't compete with that, he was an opportunist and left the bodies where they lay; he had no imagination.

                        Let's change the perspective and skip the dark humor part. What if the killer simply was sending another message: "This is what I can did to you, and there is nothing you can do about it!"

                        OK I agree with that.

                        How does that sit with the actual evidence? Not at all bad, I´d say. He shows us that we are not safe in the streets, that the police cannot shield their citizens or even their own headquarters, that the famed, like Percy Bysshe Shelley, is at risk as well as anyone of us.
                        If we look at it from that angle, there is no difference, is there?


                        OK you can make that claim and it is logical and reasonable, but we are talking about a man (the torso killer) who breached a fence to make that statement; dropping a body right at the feet of CID. He was willing to go out of his way to get noticed, Jack on the other hand just did his thing and ran off. We can see a message to society in what Jack did but there is no direct evidence to support the argument that Jack was sending us a message. The Torso Killer's made sure we recognized he was sending a message to the police. From Jack's point of view his victims were just left-overs to a frenzied event, he never looked back. The Torso Killer had a game plan.

                        But more simply this goes back to my initial premise that if you have a 'chop-shop' you don't risk the streets to begin with.

                        It is not a question of whether it was one or two killers. Logic and an abundance of evidence tell us that it was just the one. That is why we must make sense of the surrounding factors. If we begin by claiming that one killer had a sense of humor that the other lacked, we are doing ourselves a disservice and we lock ourselves to a position we really don't need to accept. Why not just say that both killers seemed to shun society in a spiteful way, trying to install maximum fear into the citizens of London? It is just as viable, and it is in line with the evidence.

                        Na! I don't feel like I am doing myself a disservice. I am just willing to accept an unimaginative, opportunist, marauder as the infamous 'jack the ripper.' But making Jack a drunk, smelly, urine stained predator stumbling through the dark just doesn't sit well with many, they want him to be so much more.
                        I don´t think we have evidence enough to say that Jack the Ripper was a drunk, smelly, urine stained predator with no fantasy. Not do I think that we have enough evidence to say that the Torso killer was not! We may THINK we have, but we actually don't.
                        What we DO have enough evidence for, it to point to how people make their minds up about these things on no evidence at all and then treat their prejudiced choices as facts.

                        I must say that I am baffled about how you are trying to manouver me into a corner where I supposedly don't think that the Whitehall deed sent a message of "FY" to the authorities. As a matter of fact, few have argued this point more than I have - of course it would have sent that precise kind of a message.
                        What I am saying is instead that much as you propose that there was an element of dark humor involved, this is nothing but a suggestion that cannot be bolstered by any facts. You regard it as dark humor, but as I said, it may all have been about a wish to taunt the police and terrify the citizens they were supposed to shield, no humor at all involved. And if it WAS, then it seems to be in perfect line with the Ripper deeds, where society on the whole was appalled and terrified and where the police looked totally incompetent.
                        If this was what the killer was after, then we are looking at two branches from the exact same trunk and not at one elegant variety artist with a dark sense of humor and one piss-stinking, lowlife, fantasy-deprived killer.
                        You may want to take that into account before inventing a take on things for me and passing judgment on it.

                        As I keep saying, there can be no serious doubt that we have two series with one originator. We may of course invent things like a sense of dark humour on behalf of one of them and claim that it is a proven thing that the other one lacked that sense. But since the evidence implicates a single killer, I would propose that trying to make sense of things in a more rational manner is the wise way to go about things.
                        Last edited by Fisherman; 01-09-2019, 02:56 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by APerno View Post
                          I suspect (yes, just speculation) the Torso Killer was paying homage to Jack with the Pinchin Street dump. He was probably a fan.
                          This comes very close to the musings about copy-cat killing, and I never invest in such things, since they are more than anything else the stuff of fiction.

                          The Rainham victim lacked her heart. The Ripper them took out Kellys heart. It seems to me that the Ripper emulated the Torso man if we look at it from this angle.
                          Similarly, the Rainham victim was also cut from sternum to groin - meaning the we have another matter here that the Ripper seems to have emulated.

                          So who is copycatting who? It seems to me that there are matters that flow in BOTH directions, and guess what that implicates? Exactly - that there was never any case of one killer "paying hommage" to the other one - it was just the one killer, including the same elements into both series of murders.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                            The Rainham victim lacked her heart.
                            She also lacked the entirety of her upper thorax, so no wonder her heart was missing.
                            The Ripper them took out Kellys heart. It seems to me that the Ripper emulated the Torso man if we look at it from this angle.
                            The "angle" the Ripper took was to burrow up between the lungs and remove the heart from there. Quite different to the Rainham torso.
                            Similarly, the Rainham victim was also cut from sternum to groin
                            There are only so many sensible ways to cut open an abdomen, but there are many and varied reasons for doing so.
                            Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                            "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Sam Flynn: She also lacked the entirety of her upper thorax, so no wonder her heart was missing.

                              She lacked the shoulder part, the uppermost part, and NOT the part where the heart is situated. The part recovered represented the part of the torso between the fifth dorsal vertebra down to the third lumbar vertebra, and Hebbert accordingly pointed out that the lungs, heart and other thoracic viscera were absent, while liver, stomach, both kidneys and spleen were present. This he did because those were the parts expected to be in that part of the trunk. Note how he does not account for the knee-caps, the uterus, the toes and the tongue in this section. Any guess why?

                              The "angle" the Ripper took was to burrow up between the lungs and remove the heart from there. Quite different to the Rainham torso.

                              How do you know how the heart was taken out in 1887? Please tell us how he did it in the Rainham case, and exactly how you have come across the information!

                              There are only so many sensible ways to cut open an abdomen, but there are many and varied reasons for doing so.

                              The Rainham victim was cut from Sternum to groin, and none of us can prove why. This means that any suggestion from your side that the reason was another one than the Rippers is just that: a suggestion. Nothing else. My suggestion that the reason was the exact same ids just as viable or non-viable as yours. What remains is that all we actually KNOW is that BOTH killers cut from sternum to groin on more than one occasion, and that this is a VERY clear similarity of a thing that is very, very, very, very, very rare. And it only becomes rarer if it is done to remove inner organs. And even rarer if both uteri and heart are taken, along with the abdominal wall.
                              Those are the facts, The Gareth Williams Show is another matter entirely.
                              Last edited by Fisherman; 01-09-2019, 03:56 AM.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                how many torso victims had a vertical gash to their midsection?

                                Ive got Rainham and pinchin definite, and I think Whitehall too?
                                "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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X