|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Archive through October 25, 2000
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: General Topics:
The 'Torso Murders':
Archive through October 25, 2000
Author: Philip Hanson
Tuesday, 16 November 1999 - 05:39 am |        | | I don't want to sound silly, but what are the 'torso murders' I keep hearing about on here, and what connection do they have to the Jack the Ripper murders? |
Author: Sara
Tuesday, 16 November 1999 - 07:46 am | | Philip: The "torso murders" referred to on these pages took place contemporaneous with the Ripper murders. Some believe that these grisly acts were purpetrated by Jack as he was refining or perfecting his technique. Headless, and limbless, or ruthlessly hacked, female victims were found - under railway trestles, forgotten byways, etc. Personally, I cannot recall the exact count. With further reading and research you will be able to form an opinion.
While Sugdon makes no mention of the Torso murders, (and BTW, "The Complete History of JtR" by PS is a terrific place to start reading the facts about JtR) other sources listed on these boards will point you in the direction of more murder most foul - attributable (or not) to the object of our contempt and fascination, JtR.
Welcome to the boards - the game is afoot!
(and the door is ajar)
All the best,
Sara |
Author: JackisBack
Tuesday, 16 November 1999 - 03:40 pm | | | Kudos, Lovely posting, Sara |
Author: Philip Hanson
Wednesday, 17 November 1999 - 01:51 pm | | | Thank you Sara, I must try and see if I can find a book or something on them. Does anyone know if any of the Ripper books cover these murders? |
Author: jill
Thursday, 18 November 1999 - 01:26 am | | | In the A-Z, there is some mentioning of them. |
Author: Jerry Taylor
Wednesday, 18 October 2000 - 07:31 pm | | This is a short bit on the case courtesy of the Internet Crime Archives.
"Also known as the Mad Butcher of Kingsbury Run. His official tally was 12, but some believe that he killed up to 40. His bloody rampage spanned from 1935 to 1938. Some believe he was active from 1923 to 1950. He decapitated most of his victims and cut off their limbs. Unwittingly he caused the downfall of Eliot Ness who failed to capture him. The Mad Butcher apparently was very knowledgeable of anatomy leading many to believe he might have been a surgeon. The Butcher's precise cutting style also linked him to the Black Dahlia murder in Los Angeles.
Ness believed the Butcher was a medical student from a prominent and politically active Cleveland family. The name of the suspect was never released due to the family's powerful connections. Curiously, the murders stopped in August of 1938 when Ness forced the student doctor into a hospital. The killings resumed briefly in 1950 when he was let out and stopped when he was hospitalized once again n.
In 1939 the sheriff's department extracted a confession from a Bohemian immigrant named Frank Dolezal. When the confession was questioned Dolezal recanted and was soon found hanged in his jail cell. It is believed his apparent suicide was in fact a cover-up for the brutal treatment he received from the police."
Hope that helps anyone that has questions on this case. |
Author: Jon
Wednesday, 18 October 2000 - 08:02 pm | | Jerry
The Torso murders were committed in London at the same time as the Ripper murders, collectively they are all refered to as The Whitechapel Murders.
Not to be confused with the Kingsbury Run Torso Murders, which as you kindly quoted above, happened in America, much later.
There is an existing Topic on these boards that are dedicated to the London Torso Murders, and if I'm not mistaken our good friend Stewart Evans made an excellent contribution to summarize the murders.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Chandler
Thursday, 19 October 2000 - 04:19 pm | | Hello All,
Does anyone know of any other torsos found between the Pinchin St torso of '89 and the Salamanca Place victim of 1902?
regaurds,
chandler |
Author: stephen stanley
Thursday, 19 October 2000 - 05:16 pm | | I seem to recall the Kingsbury Run murders are well coverered in the sequel to 'the untouchables'
written by Frayley(?) & Ness but I can't recall the precise title |
Author: Jon
Thursday, 19 October 2000 - 07:12 pm | | Chandler
I took the liberty of reposting an older poste by Stewart, which summarizes the Torso murders:
The series of Thames torso murders began in May 1887, when a canvas bundle was found floating in the water by the ferry at Rainham in Essex. It was found to contain the trunk of a woman aged 28/29 years. The head, arms, and legs were missing, and appeared to have been removed by someone with anatomical knowledge. On June 8th another canvas parcel containing human limbs was recovered from the Thames near Temple Stairs. Dr. Calloway examined them and it was believed they came from the torso previously found. It was reported in the 'Penny Illustrated Paper' of June 11, 1887. A Mrs Cross had reported her 28 year old daughter missing since May 20th, and she was in the habit of going down to Richmond ferry. The girl had been accosted by the river in the direction of Staines shortly before her disappearance by a sinister looking man, who had stated he would kill her if she didn't give him her purse. She did so and he had left.
In July 1887 some more remains were found in Regent's Canal, Chalk farm. They also appeared to be from the same girl, and a complete body except for the head, and upper part of the chest had been recovered. Dr. Thomas Bond was called in by the Home Office and was of the opinion the body had been dissected by someone with anatomical knowledge.
On September 11, 1888, a female left arm was found in the Thames at Pimlico, and about two weeks later another arm was found in the grounds of the Blind Asylum at Lambeth. This was followed on October 2, 1888, by the discovery of the female torso in the cellars of the building construction site of the New Scotland Yard building on the banks of the Thames, this became known as 'The Whitehall Mystery.' Dr. Thomas Bond, and Dr. Hebbert examined the remains.
On June 4, 1889, a part of a body wrapped in what appeared to be an apron was found in the Thames near St. George's Stair, Horselydown. Soon after this a human leg and thigh was found, tied in what appeared to be part of a ladies ulster under the Albert Bridge. On the afternoon of June 6, 1889, another part of a body was found wrapped in linen in Battersea Park. Similar discoveries were made on the Chelsea Embankment, off Copington Wharf, Bankside, Southwark, the West India Dock and other places. As with the previous cases no head was found. Drs. Bond, Kempster and Hebbert examined the remains and declared them all to come from the same body, that of a woman aged between 24 and 26 years. Some skill, possibly that of a butcher, was shown in the dissection. Dr. Bond said that she was pregnant at the time of death. An old lady attended the mortuary and declared the remains to be those of her daughter Elizabeth Jackson, 24 years. A verdict of murder by person or persons unknown was returned after a long inquiry.
The final torso murder was the Pinchin Street case of September, 10, 1889, which was investigated as part of the Whitechapel series. A gash on the abdomen led to some speculation that it may be another 'Ripper' crime but this was totally without foundation. Again it resulted in the cerdict wilful murder against person or persons unknown. Although connected by the press as a series there was no positive connection established.
Stewart
Regards, Jon |
Author: Chandler
Thursday, 19 October 2000 - 09:18 pm | | Thanks Jon,
I suppose it's naive to be shocked by the thought
of 2 serial killers operating in the same locale, at the same time, in the 19th Century, but I am.
You have to wonder about the WhiteHall torso and whether that was the torso killer's version of a "Dear Boss".
regaurds,
chandler |
Author: Jon
Friday, 20 October 2000 - 10:49 am | | What IS naive, is to think that all the murders in the East End could be the doings of one insane maniac.
An editorial by 'The Star' following Chapmans murder gives us a little insite to the possible figures the authorities were dealing with.
That in 1886, 177 verdicts of murder were recorded. Out of these only 72 charges of murder arose. But only 35 sentences of death were pronounced. Even supposing, however, that all the 72 accused persons were guilty and were dealt with by the law, we have the startling fact that 105 men and women who committed murder are at large!
Taking 1886 as an average year and applying its figures to the foregoing ten years we must suppose that over a thousand men (killers) are now in our midst whose hands are dyed with the blood of their fellows.
(The Ripper File, Jones & Lloyd, pg 110)
Also, we know that a consensus would have us determine that Nichols, Chapman & Eddowes were killed by the same individual. Accepting for a moment that Kelly is to be included, to make it 4.
Then we have to wonder who was responsible for Smith (gang), Tabram, Stride, Torso (4?), McKenzie & Coles.
The facts are quite strong that London had its share of killers in the late 1880's.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Jon
Friday, 20 October 2000 - 10:56 am | | Stephen
One book I would strongly recommend that covers the Kingsbury Run 'Torso' murders is, "Torso" by Steven Nickel.
Jon |
Author: Chandler
Friday, 20 October 2000 - 03:04 pm | | Hello Jon,
You're right it's a preconcieved idea on my part not taking into account London's metropolitan area population at the time.(I may plead not guilty due to reason of Gilbert and Sullivan; and a traumatic incident, as a child, with Basil Rathbone;)
I actually have doubts about the other torsos
being the work of the same killer though there is that Dr Taylor statement linking "The Salamanca" to the Jackson torso of 89. It's that doubt which prompted my first post above. I was trying to find if there might have been anymore evidence of another "monster" being on the loose.
After wading through a great many back posts on this site I'm totally cofused as to the crime
stats. Is the "Star" article covering London as a whole or just the East End?
For what it's worth. I see it as Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly at the moment; with Stride I'm arguing it either way, in my head. I'm not convinced on Mckenzie and Coles due to my not being more familar with their murders, but I'm trying to keep an open mind.
I would like to know more about those Jamaica and Nicaragua killings since they seem to float out there casting doubt as to the possibility of JtR
taking his operation to "sunnier" climes.
For Mr. Stanley, I believe I read a back post in which you mentioned workers avoiding the Eddowes
corner in Mitre Square decades after the murder. I just wanted to say that was interesting to hear.
regaurds,
chandler |
Author: Jon
Friday, 20 October 2000 - 04:13 pm | | Chandler
There are only so many ways you can cut up a body, anyone trying to cut through bone is going to have his work cut out for him, without a saw or cleaver.
They will undoubtably go for the joints, and I believe it is the care, or skill with which they seperate the joints that tells investigators whether any two Torso's are linked. And whether the killer displayed any anatomical knowledge.
It is likely, in my opinion, that the London Torso's were connected, it is more likely that 4? women were disected by the same killer, than it is that two or more killer's were creating torso's.
What is something to ponder is, if Coroner Baxter's suggestion is correct then possibly 'Torso' & 'Jack' were the same guy.
I personally see no reason to propose such a theory because I believe you need to find a connection before that can be proposed, and to-date, there is only one known connection, anatomical skill.
And as the extent of this cannot be agreed on in the case of the Ripper murders, and as we do not know why the Doctors thought it was true with the torso murders, then this alone is not a good enough connection.
So long as 'Jack' is regarded as a sexual serial killer, there will likely never be any sound resolution to either of these series of murders.
But, if you take another perspective, that of organ retrieval, for a purpose, then you open up a whole new line of questioning. And that can only have a positive effect on the case.
I think someone should write & research the London Torso murders, inquest records, police files, news reports, geneology records, etc....not enough is known about them.
Funny how Doctors at the time mention degrees of 'anatomical skill' with both series of murders, and yet, no-one appears to have put 2 & 2 together.
People are too hung-up on 'signature' as a clue to 19th century crimes.
Presently, I dont propose that Jack & Torso are the same, but we should not be so sure they are not, especially when we know so little about either series of murders.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Friday, 20 October 2000 - 04:17 pm | | | Jon, what is your opinion on these questions I'm going to ask you. When Nichols was found, her intestines were protruding and her throat was cut in a savage manner----but not all round the neck. Chapman's neck was cut all round. Eddowes throat was cut in a savage way but not cut all round,--(maybe time was a reason there). Kelly's neck cut all round. I'm not trying to prove anything here, to me, cutting the neck all round down to the bone makes the killing more individual--- more terrifying. Why didn't he do it every time?.If it suggests anything, and it might, I don't think it suggests he was trying to behead the victims, he'd tried it with Chapman and it didn't work, why should he try it again with Kelly-- and fail, when supposedly he had an axe at his disposal?. I think it may have been some kind of signature. It doesn't look (to me) like the Ripper had anything to do with the Torso murders otherwise, he would have taken the heads off all the canonical victims. And if an axe was used on Kelly's body, that doesn't sound like a killer with any knowledge of anatomy at all. what do you think? My regards to you, Rick |
Author: Jon
Friday, 20 October 2000 - 09:02 pm | | Hello Rick
I have just re-read Dr Llewellyn's inquest testimony and this is what he say's,
A second cut commencing an inch below the first (below the left ear) was a circular incision terminating at a point about 3 inches below the right jaw. This incision completely severs all the tissues down to the vertebrae. The large vessels of the neck on both sides were severed. The incision is about 8 inch long. These cuts must have been caused with a long bladed knife, moderatly sharp, and used with great violence
Dr Phillips testimony from the Chapman inquest:
The throat was dissevered deeply. I noticed that the incision of the skin was jagged, and reached right round the neck......there were two distinct cuts on the body of the vertebrae, on the left side of the spine
Dr F. G. Brown’s testimony from the Eddowes inquest:
The throat was cut across to the extent of about 6 or 7 inches............and extended across the throat to about 3 inches below the lobe of the right ear. The big muscle across the throat was divided through on the left side, the large vessels on the left side of the neck were severed, the larynx was severed below the vocal chord, all the deep structures were severed to the bone. The knife marking the invertebral cartliges...
The above decriptions are all pretty severe, I dont think anything can be said to show a marked difference, with exception of cuts around the back of the neck, as in the case of Chapman. Otherwise I would say they are all very similar......you can judge any one of these against the apparent slashing to the throat of Stride.
In the case of Stride there certainly was a marked difference, enough I would say that leads me to speculate that Stride was murdered by someone else.
Regards, Jon |
Author: stephen stanley
Saturday, 21 October 2000 - 12:18 am | | Chandler,
It was the site of Millers ct.,where my Dad used to work....and please call me Steve.....
Steve S. |
Author: Chandler
Saturday, 21 October 2000 - 01:51 am | | Hello Jon,
I think we have a body count of 5 if we include Salamanca Place.
I'm not convinced either way on whether or not there was more than one torso killer at work.
Though I admit your reasoning is good. But here's what I've been basing my doubts on. According to Cullen after the Whitehall torso was originally discovered a journalist took a dog back to the building site and discovered another body part buried in the foundation. Why would he, the journalist, come up with this idea (granted I may just be being thick here)? It
makes me wonder if we couldn't be seeing another
press hoax or some of those wacky med students at work.
As to Elizabeth Jackson I'd have to ask after the father of the child; was her pregnancy a motive for her murder and dismemberment. I do admit
Dr. Taylor's remarks on the 1902 Salamanca torso: "The murder being on all fours as the murder of Jackson in 1889"(quite alike) does makes me question my stand.
But again there is that 13 year gap between killings. Where is he and what's he doing for his "jollies"?
If I understand you correctly you're saying don't just lock on to the notion of Jack being a
sexual serial killer? I do have trouble with the idea that he is anything else. What bothers me with any, for want of a better word, alternative, motive is this: regaurdless of what he thought he was doing (obeying the voice of god, practicing some form of social reform, ect) he was still killing and mutilating women in a manner that certainly had strong sexual overtones.
But I hope I'm willing to listen to any well reasoned arguement.
I personally wonder if that "lack of anatomical/medical skill" judgement might not have meant a lack of Craft. In that a "trained" surgeon or butcher wouldn't be so ragged in their "cutting".
I appreciate your posting above on the torsos, I'll take anything I can get on them. I'd do an article if I had access to more source material. I'm trying a piece for Ripper Notes on something I noticed about one of the secondary sources.
Thanks
regaurds,
chandler |
Author: Diana
Saturday, 21 October 2000 - 08:22 am | | | When I was married over 30 years ago I had to learn to cook. I bought whole chickens and then when the recipe told me to use the wing or the leg or whatever I had to learn how to remove it. I had no instructor and no training manual and no background. I just went at it until I gradually realized that the joint was the easiest place to sever a limb. I was self taught. |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 21 October 2000 - 11:27 am | | Diana
Are you suggesting that the 'Torso' killer must have left a trail of sadly mutillated chicken human corpses around, that were never found?
Or that because there were no sadly practiced versions, that 'Torso' must have known what he was doing? |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 21 October 2000 - 11:51 am | | Chandler
I understand that several of those closely connected with the investigation, like police officials labeled Jack as a sexual deviate of various descriptions.
The trouble is, that label has such a wide application. You can almost label any crime of man against woman as having sexual implications.
We have no evidence that Jack tried to have sex with them. Jack did not stab at their breasts. He occupied himself with slicing the throat, a quick kill. Then slicing his way into their abdomen. Not randomly stabbing her sex organs in some kind of sexual frenzy.
Dr Phillips (Chapman) had the opinion that the killer's purpose was purely to get at that organ.
I agree with him, in other words how else would you get an abdominal organ without cutting through the abdomen?.
Jack, in my opinion, did not show any intent towards sexual perversion in these crimes.
Whether, as proposed by some, he got his 'jollies' from the mutilation or not, is pure speculation, with no basis in fact.
He may have strangled all of his victims, he sliced their throat, a quick kill, then sliced their abdomen, a quick extraction, then was off & running.
Where is the sexual perversion?
In my opinion these were cold, calm, clinical murder's. He was in, swift slash of the knife and out and gone.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Chandler
Saturday, 21 October 2000 - 03:44 pm | | Hello Jon,
I'm listening, hopefully.
I'll preface this with a large IMHO.
But what besides the sexual is a strong enough motive for the attacks? Tabram was the victim of a frenzied attack to breast and genitalia, granted though most of the wounds were to the thorax. I'll also mention the removal of MJK's breasts and leave it at that.
The strangulation
of later victims seems, to me, the most convient
way to subdue the victims. Thus allowing him the freedom to pursue the "intimacies of the knife".
I tend to think that Jack might have been something of a necrophilliac in that it his goal appears to be some sort of "interaction" with a corpse.
While there was no direct evidence of Jack experiencing any sort of sexual release (seman present) at the crime scences the initial examinations were not conducted in the most optimal conditions. We also do hear repeatedly the police surgeons taking to task the handlers of the corpses after they were delivered to the various "mortuaries" stripping and cleaning the bodies before further examinations could have taken place. Thus leading to a possible destruction of evidence. I'll also say that Jack's "jollies", if you will grant me here that we are dealing with a fairly twisted psyche, may not have manifested themselves in a manner that we could lable as in way physically conventional.
So I won't lable him as a stereotypical lust murderer.
I will say that Jack's motives may have been cannibalistic; and that he was after something to dine on but still there would have to be a seriously distrubed psyche underlying this unknown villain. Unless (and I say this not sarcasticaly) we have an individual from a society where cannibalism is an excepted form of social behavior running around the East End.
I do admit that I am stumped at what other motives might be compelling JtR.
Jon I do not dispute your summation of Jack as "cold, calm, clinical muderer" nor do I wholeheartedly endorse the FBI's descritption of Jack as a "disorganized" sk. His ability to escape detection and arrest for these murders, to me, indicates there is an intelligence which can deal with the realities of committing crimes in a densely populated and (during his reign of terror) highly policed area. So he does not seem
to be some ranting pyscotic wandering the streets of Whitechapel.
I'll also note that I do not rule out Dr Tumblety ,reguardless of his apparent sexual orientation, for I believe no human motives can be so adequetly reduced to fit a "profile" to the letter.
I've been speculating lately that "The Foreign Paper Writing Doctor" could be Dr.T since it would
appear he could afford the offered 20 Pounds per specimen. Just a thought.
regaurds,
chandler
Stephen Stanley I will now open my mouth and now place right foot in it. Did though really enjoy hearing that story! |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 21 October 2000 - 06:59 pm | | Maybe what is needed is for us all to play Devils Advocate from time to time.
For instance, lets say Jack simply hated prostitutes, maybe some religous bent.
Then, out he goes skulking through the dark ally's and backstreets looking for a specimen of womanhood with loose morals.
Then when he approaches one, or is approached by one, he takes the opportunity, looks around, and swiftly, out with his knife and stabs the life out of her. Something similar to Tabram.
But, if it is this simple then why mutilate, why strangle, why remove an organ.
If he simply hates prostitutes why are there not more bodies, wouldn't he be out killing more often?. Surely the point of someone like this is to rid the streets of this malignancy. And that requires more killings more frequent and not to hang about with strangling (which takes time) and mutilating (which also takes time).
Also, when you go out with intent to kill with a knife, why strangle at all?
Surely you would stab them in the back for a quick kill, not waste time holding them into suffocation, kicking, flailing, coughing scratching and risking all kinds of bruises & injury to yourself. Just get it over with quick & stab them silently.
So, if they were all strangled then the very act of strangling was necessary for him, it was a need to experiance power over a woman. Simple stabbing was unproductive, emotionally for the killer. It was the very act of strangling that the killer felt important. The knife was needed to remove the body part that he came for.
And then why slice her throat?, why not simply plunge the knife into her heart?.
Why was the slicing of the throat important to him? What did the slicing represent to the killer, from a mental point of view?
If Jack was a soldier then killing with a bayonet is symbolic to him as the correct method to kill with a blade. So maybe a soldier would have stabbed his victim.
To who, does the act of throat cutting represent the correct way to kill cleanly?
To my mind the description of the throat cutting appears to suggest that this killer has done this before, he was not unaccustomed to cutting throats.
And so on, and so on....we could analyse every simple detail of these murders and probably end up going off in all directions, like the strands of a spiders web.
Any suggestions?
Regards, Jon |
Author: Diana
Saturday, 21 October 2000 - 10:12 pm | | | Ho Ho Ho and Hee Hee Hee, Jon. You misspelled 'mutilated' and you began a sentence with the conjunction, 'or'. You get a C- for the mechanics of composition. As to your argument it is largely based on ridicule rather than reason. If I could teach myself how to dismember a dead chicken, Jack or Torso or any other SK could teach themselves how to mutilate a corpse. J |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 21 October 2000 - 11:41 pm | | Soree Diana iph ewe wont mee 2 uze spelchquer eye'm afraid ewe'll half to wait a whil longer.
English & Math were my worst subjects at school, while art & history were by best. Nothings changed, though how I've managed to swing-it as an Engineer for the past 20 yrs, heaven only knows.
Diana, I was not aware there was any argument in the chicken exchange. I was sort of tongue-in-cheek asking you if you thought there were any undiscovered practice victims......obviously you are suggesting Jack or Torso practiced on someone that was already dead?.
I mean it only stands to reason if a killer practiced at all, then there has to be hacked up remains somewhere, doesnt there?
Your not suggesting he practiced on Chicken's, are you?
Anyone can jump to the conclusion that Jack practiced first....but, can you provide a satisfactory explanation of exactly how one would practice, and what would you do with the remains?.
Regards, Jon
Sorry if you felt ridiculed, or is that ridiculled, rideculed...oh, never mind. |
Author: Lisa Muir
Sunday, 22 October 2000 - 02:14 am | | "To who(sic), does the act of throat cutting represent the correct way to kill cleanly?"...So, Jack is Jewish again?
My head hurts. |
Author: Chandler
Sunday, 22 October 2000 - 01:47 pm | | There were several chicken torsos found floating in the Thames recently....
regaurds,
chandler |
Author: stephen stanley
Sunday, 22 October 2000 - 04:53 pm | | | Obviously Fowl play..... |
Author: stephen borsbey
Sunday, 22 October 2000 - 05:47 pm | | one thing is for sure, the east end of london was a lovely place to live in the 1880s wasnt it ??????bodies and bits of them all over the place.did you know incidentaly that quite a few babies bodies were hauled from the river in those days.
usually drowned by so called baby farmers or just mothers who could not afford to keep them. |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Sunday, 22 October 2000 - 07:42 pm | | | I suppose you could say JtR practised, he improved as he went along. His first murder wasn't that good-- it wasn't even noticed as a disembowelment by the police surgeon until the body was undressed for postmortem, but how his technique had improved by the end of his glut in Miller's Court!. Regarding the Torso murders, its all according to what type of person committed the killing, not particularly that he'd had anatomical teaching. If he happened to be a naturaly tidy man, a handyman, he would make a good job of dismemberment. He would wait for the body to go stone cold, maybe days. He could have used even an ordinary wood saw for the dismembering, and done it tidily with a minimum of mess Rick |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 23 October 2000 - 04:34 am | | Hi Lisa and All,
Sutcliffe had a tendency to whack 'em on the back of their skulls with a hammer (don't know if he got off sexually on his crimes, but he did have a thing against prostitutes, and he certainly didn't have a motive like organ experimentation). Nilsen, I believe, had a penchant for boiling up heads (rather than chickens) in his pressure cooker, and keeping the bodies with him as long as possible for 'company'.
Yep, my head is starting to feel a wee bit sensitive too.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Monday, 23 October 2000 - 12:23 pm | | It's been said again and again that Jack had a "thing" about prostitutes and now it's that Sutcliffe also had such a "thing." Now in Sutcliffe's case some victims self-evidently were not prostitutes but just happened to be in an area where he could assault them with a fair degree of impunity. Granted that he said in his defence that he had heard the voice of God telling him to kill prostitutes but that was part of a defence strategy aimed at getting himself sentenced to a much lighter regime in prison hospital and is similar to the strategy of the unpleasant and mercenary Haigh who (apparently) asked the police about the chances of getting released from Broadmoor and then based his defence on an "irresistable influence" to drink blood.
Surely the situation with both Jack and Sutcliffe is that the victims were targets of impulse: women on their own, walking the streets and whether they were prostitutes or not was immaterial. |
Author: Chandler
Monday, 23 October 2000 - 03:42 pm | | Hello Jon,
Sorry not to post sooner. My thinking on the attacks on the throat is this: IMHO, they
were a efficent means to an end. The strangulation subdes the victim allowing the throat cuts to be made, ensuring a speedy death. Thus no victim regaining consciousness during the mutilations and all that might entail.
Due to the savagery with which the cuts were made, I'd speculate, they were a somewhat controlled form of frenzy or rage. They seem an intergral part of the mutilations. They're the starting point of what is to follow. While I still tend to see them as a means to an end; I'll go on to say they might be the symbolic "silencing"
of a "demon" from JtR's past.
You will excuse the "Psycho-babble" we all bring our own "baggage" to the board and mine is, probally, too many "Psych" courses in college.
I'll leave that "symbolic" bayonet for another day, since this is starting to look like a "War and Peace" leangth post.
Hello Warwick,
One of those things that does seem amazing is JtR's "learning curve" and how quickly he "accelerates" into the monstrosities in Miller's Court. I wonder about the time between Mitre Square and Miller's Court. Was he afraid of an increased
police presence in the streets, or was he fantasizing/plotting what he wanted out of the next attack? Was he compelled, by his fantasies,or his sense of self-preservation, to look for a situation which would allow him the
time and privacy to carry out the "obscenity"
of what was done to Mary Kelly. My first reaction was that JtR; by the situation in Miller's Court had "stumbled" onto something that was to good to pass up; a glutton, a "kid in a candy store". Now I'm not so sure.
Hello Caz,
Good to meet you. My head's always sensitive around this board and I plan to don helmut, kevlar and shoulder pads before making any future posts.
Hello Peter,
Again it's good to meet you also. I've tended consider the victims as what would be considered "easy pickings" for a predator: Women older and not in the best of health(disregaurding MJK if I can without being verbally mauled). But then why not childern and the elderly?
If they were impulse targets wasn't the B*****d lucky.
regaurds,
chandler
Diana, please don't take off for spelling or I'm surely doomed:-}. |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Monday, 23 October 2000 - 09:45 pm | | A couple of points.
About a year ago, here in Toronto, a woman was walking her dog along a lake front park when she came across a middle aged couple seemingly burying something between some rocks and acting in a suspicious manner. When the couple hurried off the woman's dog dragged her over to the spot where the couple had been standing. In a garbage bag the woman was horrified to find the torso of a small female child, roughly 5 to 7 years old. The woman was able to give the police an excellent description of the couple and the important observation that the couple had been speaking Spanish, a language that the woman, although not fluent, could speak a few words of. The autopsy also revealed an important clue when it was noted that the cuts to the body were of surgical precision or at least made by someone who was skilled with the use of a knife, such as a butcher. The Toronto Police began making inquires along these lines and in time, the couple was apprehended. They turned out to be the father and step mother of the little girl, originally from Pakistan, they spoke not a word of Spanish nor did they have any medical or butchering skills. None what so ever.
Jon,
"So long as 'Jack' is regarded as a sexual serial killer, there will likely never be any sound resolution to either of these series of murders.
But, if you take another perspective, that of organ retrieval, for a purpose, then you open up a whole new line of questioning. And that can only have a positive effect on the case."
This seems to me to be along the lines of trying to debate the exact cause of the sinking of the Titanic, whether a deep gash to her side or that the rivets popped on impact, and having someone claim that in his opinion the ship never hit an iceberg and that we should be looking at other causes. One of the fundamental truths of the Whitechapel murders is that they are the work of a sexual serial killer and if you do not start with, or even understand this point, then everything you say must be taken with a grain of salt.
Modern study of psycho pathology has made the opinions of the medical men and police of the day, regarded the murders as the work of a "sexual maniac", all the more impressive by proving an understanding of what was, then, a little known or understood mental disease.
In his opus, Psychopathia Sexualis, Von Krafft-Ebing describes "lust murder"this way:
"The presumption of murder out of lust is always given when injuries to the genitals are found, the character and extent of which are such as can not be explained by merely brutal attempt at coitus; and, still more, when the body has been opened, or parts (intestines, genitals) torn, out and are wanting."
Von Krafft-Ebing gives several examples of lust murderers who mutilated their victims and carried away body parts thus proving a recognizable behavior among certain sex murderers. About the Ripper himself, Von Krafft-Ebing writes:
"He does not seem to have had sexual intercourse with his victims, but very likely the murderous act and subsequent mutilation of the corpse were equivalents for the sexual act."
For another example, in their work, Sex Crimes in History, Masters and Lea have this to say about The Ripper:
"It seems likely that whatever other motivations may have underlined his crimes, Jack the Ripper was a sexual pervert, deriving erotic gratification from the murder and/or mutilation and dismemberment of his victims....his murders were sexual assaults."
This rather bizarre notion that the murders were simply an attempt at "organ retrieval", simply does not hold any water when looked at with even the smallest scrutiny. Rather than "have a positive effect on the case", it is in fact a distraction from the facts of the case.
Wolf. |
Author: Jon
Monday, 23 October 2000 - 09:57 pm | | Chandler
I know this is a small point, or appears to be one. But if you were to go out at night with a knife with the sole intent of murdering some poor wretch. Why waste time struggling, with your victim kicking and scratching and trying to scream. These were not frail petite women. They had given as good as they got in barroom's, kitchens & street fights. The attacker risked raising someones attention by the uncertainty of attempting to strangle his victim first.
I would think it should be quicker and less risky to approach them from behind, clasp one hand round their mouth and stab them repeatedly. They will be dead in seconds. Or, even slice their throat from behind while still standing.
Carrying a knife to a murder, then strangling them first seems to be awfully risky.
I wonder if it was the strangling that gave him a rise. The challenge and feeling of power over his victim. The slicing of the throat was just a means towards an end. The thrill was in the strangling.
Like I said its a small point, but are there any other examples of a serial killer strangling first then using a weapon to kill his victims?
Isnt strangling more of an indoor method, where you are not likely to be disturbed?
Not that this has any bearing on the above, but I read of Adelaide Bartlett in 1886 who was suspected of murdering her husband with chloroform. At the autopsy the contents of the stomach gave off the strong smell of chloroform.
It was stated that this liquid would sear the skin when administered. I had been advised here by someone (Karoline?) that if the Ripper had chloroformed his victims that the nose & mouth area would show evidence of burning. But was this only liquid chloroform?, if a drop is poured on a rag and held to the victims face, would this cause burning?
I know we would expect a Doctor to be able to smell the traces of chloroform around the mouth area. But, maybe not, especially if they were not expecting to be looking for such traces.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Diana
Monday, 23 October 2000 - 10:29 pm | | | Jon, I was not offended in the least. I thought your post was hilarious. I was hoping mine would be at least half as funny. Having said that, I do see a progressive growth in skill starting with Tabram and ending, of course, with MJK. Tabram had random abdominal stabs and cuts. Nichols actually had her abdomen opened enough for the intestines to bulge out. Chapman had her uterus removed (sloppily) and if Stride was a ripper victim he was interrupted. He got Eddowes uterus and one kidney and of course completely cleaned Kelly out. He accomplished a little more each time because he was learning as he went along. I admit I have not studied 'torso' enough to make a similar analysis. As to chickens, I simply meant that if I could teach myself to cut up a chicken, he could teach himself to cut up a human. The idea of animal corpses is not so far fetched as SK's have been known to start on animals (Dahmer). Also, in 1888, if I understand various postings I have seen on this board correctly people did a lot more of their own butchering and dressing out than we do today. |
Author: Jon
Monday, 23 October 2000 - 11:04 pm | | Wolf
What organs were removed from the little girl?
If you are going to imply a comparison, then dont 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.
The modern studies you quote are carefull to include healthy offerings of "It seems likely", "very likely" and "our presumption".
In other words they are going with the flow, guessing, with a little caution incase they are wrong. Psychiatry is not a science, my good man.
Many of us are aware of the 'modern concensus', we've tasted it for 112 yrs, it gets us nowhere.
We also know what the contemporary thoughts were.
Medical students, ritualistic murders, and a Doctors opinion that the organs were the focus of the attack.
Its a matter of opening your eyes to other possibilities, not sticking your head in the sand.
And if you read my poste more carefully, it says that opening up a whole new line of questioning can only be good for the case.
Organ retreival is but one, and only one.
Regards, Jon
(Diana, I hoped you hadn't felt insulted)
:-) |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 24 October 2000 - 07:03 am | | Peter,
You seem to have assumed that my comment about Sutcliffe's "thing" against prostitutes came from his own words about God telling him to kill them. It didn't. I am well aware that not all his victims were prostitutes. But it was Guy Hatton who I believe confirmed the story of how Sutcliffe was cheated by a prostitute he had gone with after seeing his wife Sonia with another man. It's a more likely trigger IMHO, to get him in the mood for his revenge against all women he saw as 'fallen', than the old voices from above routine. That's what I meant by his "thing".
Love,
Caz |
Author: Guy Hatton
Tuesday, 24 October 2000 - 08:36 am | | ...but even so, it was still only one facet of his "thing"! The difference between Sutcliffe and "Jack" is that, apparently, the Ripper of 1888 was targeting prostitutes specifically (whether for reasons of convenience or ideology we do not know), whereas the Ripper of 1975-80 was happy to "kill any woman" by his own admission. Assessing Sutcliffe's true motive is difficult; his own statements are contradictory, claiming on the one hand that God was giving him proof that all his victims were prostitutes, whilst admitting on the other that he knew many of them weren't, so although the humiliating incident in 1969 may have encouraged him to seek revenge against prostitutes, it cannot explain the killings of known non-prostitutes.
All the Best
Guy
PS - Anyone interested in learning in more detail about Sutcliffe's "mission" will find an admirably detailed account of his confession and trial depositions (along with the most thorough and responsible account of the whole case to be found online to date) at Keith Brannen's "Yorkshire Ripper Website" at www.execulink.com/~kbrannen |
|
|
|
|
