Let me just say from the outset that there never was any Ruth Jenkins - she is a figment of my over-excited fantasy, designed to enable us to discuss the perceived differences between the Ripper and the Torso killer.
So here goes!
Ruth Jenkins was a typical East End woman, 36 years old, married and living in a small flat with her husband and two young boys in Mile End Road. On the night of October 14, 1888, she quarelled with her husband, and he threw her out at 1.30 AM. Mrs Jenkins then set off for a friends lodgings in Edward Street (having said this to her husband as she left), but she never made it there. She was instead found at around 2 AM in a doorway in nearby Ducket Street, horribly murdered and disfigured.
She had had her abdomen ripped open from ribcage to pubes, and the intestines had been cut loose and thrown to the side. The abdominal wall had been cut largely away in three panes, flung beside the body in a pool of blood. After this, the assailant had cut out her uterus, which was found under her neck. The liver had also been cut out and was nowhere to be seen - apparently, the killer had run off with it. The immediate cause of death was a fierce cut to the neck, leaving a gaping wound - in effect, all of the major vessels had been severed by the cut, that had nearly taken the poor woman´s head off. The face had suffered damage too, the nosetip, the ears and the flesh on the forehead having been cut away and left by the poor creatures side.
Not a sound had been heard of the deed by the people living in Ducket Street, although there were those who professed to having slept with their windows open. There were no marks of any kind of the body apart from the cuts and a few bruises around the chin of the victim. The mystery is therefore a total one.
When you bait the hook as you did Fisherman, by using details from individual murders and culling them under one mans work, its difficult to play along. You've cited details from individual murders, not just the details from a murder we can safely say was committed by the character who was known as The Ripper, Annie Chapmans. Yes the flaps are there, and the intestines over the shoulder, and the missing organs...but in that murder there was no facial marking...only in Kate and Marys murders, no organs placed under the head...as in Mary's murder, and no mention of items placed about the body or the fact that this Ripper fellow cuts throats deeply twice.
So the above example wouldn't lead a true investigator to anyone, let alone 2 characters who engaged in very different activities.
If Ruth Jenkins murder had the attributes of Annie Chapmans murder, then you have a storyline. Throwing acts into the mix that we cannot say with any certainty represent what we had learned about the killer to that point in time doesn't help.
On this point Ill say that for anyone to compare The Torso Acts with the Rippers act the samples should be from any Torso murder and Annie Chapmans murder, the ONLY one of the Five that is certainly a murder that virtually everyone attributes to this Ripper fellow.
Never the Torso Killer. Either the Ripper, or a copycat. The Torso Killer had some private place where he cut his victims up. The Ripper was comfortable doing that in a doorway, or an ill-lit corner of a yard.