|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
The 'Torso Murders'
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: General Topics:
The 'Torso Murders'
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 24 October 2000 - 09:30 am |        | Thanks Guy.
I think what I was trying to say was that, while Sutcliffe possibly saw prostitutes as an obvious example of 'fallen' women, after seeing that even his beloved Sonia could be less than perfect, he gave himself the excuse that most, if not all women, were probably tainted and equally deserved his special 'attention'.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Jon
Tuesday, 24 October 2000 - 01:23 pm | | Not wishing to drag this out for any reason, but I think I should make some statement of qualification here with regard to the above exchange with Wolf.
Psychiatry is not a science, it is a subjective study by one or more persons on the actions, thoughts or, in this case, evidence of actions of an individual, namely Jack.
Now, the studies that were quoted from by Wolf above are certainly not tabloid journalism, but they are also not studies by competant students of the case. The sentences about Jack are not a central thesis of the books, but are mentioned in passing.
Also, the suggestion by more modern psychiatric studies are based on the canonical 5.
And as any serious student of the case will appreciate, over recent years as the study has taken on a more serious tone, there have been credible proposals put forward that would preclude such victims as Tabram & Stride from being the work of Jack.
That is not to say they were not, but opinions by serious researchers are split over certain valid issues. And as a result we cannot simply lump all these victims together any more, and do a psychiatrical study of the evidence of the wounds. Tabram may not have been a victim of Jack and as the most incriminating evidence that the killer was in a frenzy, possible sexual frenzy, lies with the wounds of Tabram, then these findings cannot be automatically applied to the make-up of our killer.
A similar observation can be made with respect to Kelly. Her wounds are so varied that no-one can make a good case for sexually attacking the genital organs, when the flesh was also removed from her legs, abdomen, lower chest, upper chest & face.
All that can be said with a more acceptable margin of certainty is that Nichols, Chapman & Eddowes were the victims of the same individual.
And as the Doctors describe the abdominal wounds as commencing from the groin and slicing upward towards the rib cage, it is obvious that this was purely the most expeditious method for Jack to lay open the abdomen.
There were no frenzied stabs or mutilation of the breasts, in either case. There were also no frienzied stabbing or mutilation to the genital organs. It was a simple case of initiating a deep gash and rip upward to lay open the abdomen. That is the extent of the mutilation to the genital area, and as such is entirely inconclusive as to evidence of sexual perversion aimed at the genital organs.
We can all speculate as to why he removed the organ of generation, but let it be made clear that whether it is a psychiatrist or a Ripper student who is doing the speculation, it is entirely ONLY speculation. And as a result cannot be used to imply Jack was a sex maniac, or had a sexual perversion.
The whole sex issue is another Ripper myth. The Doctor tells us he went for the organs and the medical evidence entirely supports this finding.
Thankyou, Jon |
Author: Chandler
Tuesday, 24 October 2000 - 01:36 pm | | Hello Jon,
Just wanted to let you know that I'm
working on a response to your "small point". And will post sometime shortly.
regaurds,
chandler |
Author: Chandler
Tuesday, 24 October 2000 - 07:14 pm | | Hello Jon,
A small point eh? And Everest is a hill.
Since I cannot find any collaborating statements
as to stangulation on any of the victims;
I humblely concede the point and wander if you might pass me the salt for the crow I'm dining on tonight.
I just wish I hadn't spent the day wading through sk books which did mention strangulation and throat cutting. There are two fairly prominent ones: The Atlanta Ripper and The Blackout Ripper.
Now, before I dig myself in any deeper....
regaurds,
chandler |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Friday, 27 October 2000 - 01:47 am | | Jon, "What organs were removed from the little girl? If you are going to imply a comparison, then don't leave it half cooked, your leading the readers like so many others do. There was NO comparison to the Ripper killings, only your need to detract from witness testimony, implying it is potentially worthless."
In what way did I "imply a comparison" to the Ripper killings? Last time I looked the discussion heading was the ‘torso murders' or perhaps I am wrong about that? And if I am offering a comparison between a modern ‘torso murder' and those belonging to the Whitechapel series, why ask what organs were removed? Perhaps you have some information that has been kept from the rest of us regarding organ removal in Whitechapel, if so please enlighten us.
As for ‘opening my eyes to other possibilities', I have been doing this for a very long time and understand more than most, the importance of keeping an open mind. I have seen the study of the Whitechapel murders come a very long way and I have been quick to see new points of view but only if they have any merit. Organ retrieval as a motive for these crimes has no merit whatsoever. It is a non starter but don't let me dissuade you. If you truly want to believe that the Ripper murders were not sex crimes and that someone was harvesting organs, bits of organs, pieces of flesh, etc. then be my guest. You are free to believe that space aliens were responsible, if you wish and if you can't see that the removal of uteri, or a focus on the female reproductive system indicates a sex attack, well, what can I say?
Wolf. |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Friday, 27 October 2000 - 12:59 pm | | Chandler,
‘There could be little doubt that he first strangled or suffocated his victim, for not only were no cries heard, but the face, lips and hands were livid as in asphyxia, and not blanched as they would be from loss of blood.' The Lancet, Sept. 29th, 1888.
‘From the evidence which the condition of the yard affords and the medical examination discloses....The wretch must have then seized the deceased, perhaps with Judas-like approaches. He seized her by the chin. He pressed her throat, and while thus preventing the slightest cry, he at the same time produced insensibility and suffocation. There is no evidence of any struggle. The clothes are not torn. Even in these preliminaries, the wretch seems to have known how to carry out efficiently his nefarious work. The deceased was then lowered to the ground, and laid on her back....Her throat was then cut in two places with savage determination, and the injuries to the abdomen commenced.' From The Daily Telegraph, Thursday, September 27, 1888, Coroner Wynne Baxter's summation to the jury, inquest into the death of Annie Chapman.
‘The approach of the doctors in all the Ripper cases appears to have been on the basis of accepting the obvious. Viewed in the light of other sadistic sexual murders, strangulation would usually be a very significant feature. It seems very possible that the Ripper silenced all his victims by strangling them for, at least in two cases, obstruction of the mouth is mentioned and the absence of bleeding is also a matter of comment. In all cases there was no sign or sound of a struggle, which tends to confirm this.' Professor Francis E. Camps, ‘The Investigation of Murder'.
‘However, a brief reference to certain features which were common to the deaths of Mary Anne Nichols, Annie Chapman, Elizabeth Stride and Mary Jane Kelly, as well as Catherine Eddowes, are clearly of significance. All the women were prostitutes and alcoholics, and lived a precarious existence. They also shared in common wounds which had been inflicted with a sharp knife and yet were associated with far less spillage of blood than might have been expected. This is in direct contradiction with the fact that they were all stated to have died without crying out. The probable explanation may lie in a comment in a contemporary number of The Lancet that it was strange that their faces were congested under the circumstances, which suggests that the absence of a cry was due to strangulation being the real cause of death, a common practice of sexual murderers.' Professor Francis E. Camps, ‘Camps on Crime'.
Wolf. |
Author: Chandler
Friday, 27 October 2000 - 04:30 pm | | Hello Wolf and Jon,
I wished later I had not conceded the point so quickly; but having done so I felt it only right not to open my mouth again. It would have bothered my sense of fairplay.
I based my withdraw on The Mammoth Book of JtR's chapter: Autopsy Reports. I was looking for a clear desription of bruising to the throats of the victims. I could only find it when dealing with Nichols. So I shut up.
The next day my copy of Sugden came in and I started grinding my teeth, but having conceded...
Now I wonder if the savage nature of the throat cutting might not have bruised the throats or obscured signs of bruising due to "throttling".
I'll give a short excerpt for The Atlanta and Blackout Rippers from "Hunting Humans" by Michael
Newton vol2.
The Atlanta Ripper May 1911-May 1912 pg177 (paperback)
"In each case, there was evidence of the woman being choked unconscious, after which her throat was slit from ear to ear and "the carving of the victim-always in the same area of the body-begins." None of the women had been raped, but from the nature of the mutilations-tactfully unspecified in media reports- it was apparent the crimes were sexual in nature. As in the Case of London's Jack (and nearly all his imitators), newsmen noted that the killer "seems to posses some knowledge of anatomy."
I threw in that bit about the medical knowledge because it struck me the Atlantins were asking the same questions the Victorian Londoners were asking.
Also from "Hunting Humans" vol2 paperback pg74
The Blackout Ripper(Gordon Frederick Cummins)
(Admitedly Jouannet was his 3rd victim though he did strangle the first):
"Doris Jouannet was last seen alive around 10 o'clock on the evening of Febuary 13. She was stranguled with a stocking , her body
mutilated with a razor-by the time her husband, a hotel night manager, came home the next morning. Police were still swarming over the scence when their suspect struck again in another part of London."
He attempted 2 more strangulations and was unsuccessful in both attempts. He did mutilate victims 1 and 2. Doris Jouannet incorporates strangulation into the attack. Cummins next 2 attacks started with strangulation and I don't think it's too wild a leap to say that if he had been successful mutilation probally would have followed.
There are numerous other cases where strangulation was followed by mutilation but for brevity's sake I'll leave it with the 2 cited above.
Thanks Wolf!
Jon, I found something which might be a precursor to the Kingsbury Run Killings that happened about 100 miles east and 10 years prior
to the Cleveland murders. I'll try to post it shortly so as to get this board back to Torso Killings and I'm looking for the Nickel book on the Kingsbury Run murders.
regaurds,
chandler |
Author: Chandler
Saturday, 28 October 2000 - 12:48 am | | New Castle, PA-
Unsolved Murders
While homocide detectives in Ohio stalked the Cleveland "torso killer" through the latter 1930s,
they were periodically distracted by reports of unsolved slayings from the area of New Castle and West Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. No solid link between the crime sprees was established, but coincidence of timing, the proximity of common railway lines, and and the unanimous(?) decapitation of victims in both states have produced some tantalizing theories. No two reports agree on the number of New Castle victims, and several accounts make surprisingly detailed reference to non-existent crimes. A retrospective survey published in December 1971, refers to eleven victims slain between 1921 and 1940, but a detailed review of newspaper records reveals only five murders spanning a period of fourteen years.
The first victim, a young man, was found in a marshy area between New Castle and West Pittsburgh-later dubbed the "murder swamp"-on October 6, 1925. Nude on discovery, the man had been dead at least three weeks when he was found,
and discovery of his severed head on October 8 provided no clue to his identity. As with the other Pennsylvannia victims, he remains unidentified.
On October 17, 1925, a headless male skeleton was found in the swamp. The matching skull was unearthed two days later, along with that of a woman, killed at least a year earlier.
Niether victim was identified by authorities and no trace of the woman's body was ever found.
The local "headless murders" were a fading memory by July 1, 1936 when a man's decapitated
body turned up on a slag dump of the Pittsburgh &
Lake Erie Railroad, at New Castle Junction. The victim's head was never found, and he remains anonymus. Newspapers spread beneath the body included issues from Pittsburgh and Cleveland, dating from July 1933.
On October 13, 1939, another headless, and decomposing man was fished out of a swamp near West Pittsburgh. Charred newspapers surrounding the body included month-old copies from Youngstown, Ohio and the victim's head was found nearby, in a abandoned box car, five days later.
Were the Pennsylvannia crimes and Cleveland's murder spree connected? Did Ohio's "Mad Butcher" first try his hand in New Castle, taking a decade off before he resumed activities in Cleveland? Detective Peter Merylo, stalking the headhunter into retirement, blamed one man for both sets of murders, plus 20 to 30 more kills, nationwide.
"Hunting Humans" vol2 pgs 251-252
regaurds,
chandler |
Author: Diana
Saturday, 28 October 2000 - 06:32 pm | | | If you look at the morgue photo of Chapman her tongue is clearly protruding, a sign of strangulation. |
Author: Chandler
Sunday, 29 October 2000 - 02:23 pm | | Hello Diana,
Since I'm not a pathologist, I don't feel qualified to say that the tongue protruding is a sign of strangulation, it does seem to go along with what I've been reading though. At the time I was looking for a doctor's written description of bruising.
(My thanks again to Wolf)
I'm finally getting to the point where I can look at the postmortem photos with some detachment. Now I suppose I'll go back with a magnifying glass and see if there might be any indication of bruising apparent. Though, I know this method has so many drawbacks as to make it very doubtful, at best.
It was good to see your post on the other thread about this board being a testing ground for speculation.
Hope the chicken torsos in the Thames was taken in the spirit of silliness it was meant.
regaurds,
chandler |
|
|
|
|
