Canonical or not.

[FrankO]

Have you seen my explanation model for it in Cutting Point? If so, what do you think about it? I´d be interested to know.

No, I haven't (yet), Christer. It's not because I'm not interested, but because I've had other priorities moving from Holland to Italy. But I'll let you know, once I get a chance to read it.

[Harry D]

I'd be interested to know why people consider Emma Smith a Ripper victim when she claimed that she was attacked by multiple men?

[Aethelwulf]

I'd be interested to know why people consider Emma Smith a Ripper victim when she claimed that she was attacked by multiple men?

Have you seen this:

http://williambury.org/blog6/2020/01/23/bury-and-the-smith-murder/

Wouldn't put it past him - unlike other suspects, he was defo a psychopath IMO

[Fisherman]

No, I haven't (yet), Christer. It's not because I'm not interested, but because I've had other priorities moving from Holland to Italy. But I'll let you know, once I get a chance to read it.

That would be great, Frank! So you are an Italian now? Whereabouts are you settling, if I may ask?

[Fisherman]

I'd be interested to know why people consider Emma Smith a Ripper victim when she claimed that she was attacked by multiple men?

Because some think she made her story up to hide that she had accosted somebody as a prostitute, that somebody being the Ripper. That is at least what I find is a common explanation for accepting Smith as a possible Ripper victim.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Because some think she made her story up to hide that she had accosted somebody as a prostitute, that somebody being the Ripper. That is at least what I find is a common explanation for accepting Smith as a possible Ripper victim.

I don’t know if the suggestion originated with him but I first heard of it in one of Tom Wescott’s books.

[Fisherman]

I don’t know if the suggestion originated with him but I first heard of it in one of Tom Wescott’s books.

That´ll be The Bank Holiday Murders, then. Maybe that was the first time it was suggested, Tom certainly has the ability to think out of the box.

[Abby Normal]

I'd be interested to know why people consider Emma Smith a Ripper victim when she claimed that she was attacked by multiple men?

Hi Harry
because the ripper could have been one of them. But i dont think so-most serial killers work alone, especially the post mortem type. And Ive never bought the idea it was one man and she lied to make up it being a group, to cover up that she was soliciting that night. If she was, she would have just covered up that fact and still said it was just one man. no need to lie about it in this case.
she wasnt a ripper victim.

[Michael W Richards]

I think the main issue for some on the inclusion/exclusion issue is that they put far too much credence in the geographical/historical timing and not enough on what can be learned about preferences from the murders themselves. There is a reason the killer we study was nicknamed Ripper by contemporary investigators. Because the murders that included PM mutilations were much different than the "run of the mill" murders seen daily in that neck of the woods. Like Liz Strides for example. Nothing too unusual about that murder, other than the geographical and historical timing.

One might say that Marthas murder was within the fanatical high end of the run of the mill types...obvious overkill. But the Ripper murders were different. Attention to noise being produced,... efficient, quick and apparently silent victim dispatches. High levels of competence in the cuts made in the knowledge of where to cut to access what he takes. In Annies case the lack of many superfluous cuts led the medical expert to suggest that in fact he made no "meaningless" cuts. In Marthas case almost all of the stabs were meaningless in terms of mortal wounding. Without that large breastbone wound she might even have survived.

[FrankO]

That would be great, Frank! So you are an Italian now? Whereabouts are you settling, if I may ask?

Sure you may ask, Christer! I'm settling under the Tuscan sun and close to the sea, halfway between Pisa to the north and Elba to the south, in a town called Cecina. My wife is Italian, but I'm still a Dutchman!

[Fisherman]

Sure you may ask, Christer! I'm settling under the Tuscan sun and close to the sea, halfway between Pisa to the north and Elba to the south, in a town called Cecina. My wife is Italian, but I'm still a Dutchman!

Sounds decidedly delicious (I am having a love affair with Italian food...), and I am (slightly) familar with the area. You will be living not far from the gem of San Gimignano, with it´s many towers, smack bang in the middle of the heart of Italian culture and art history.

Actually, I´m a Dutchman too - or so I was told when I visited Iceland last month. A Belgian tourist at a hotel chatted me up as I was walking my son´s dog (he lives in Iceland since five years or so back. My son, that is, the dog is only one and a half years old), and said "You are Dutch, right?"
Being the honest fellow that I am, I replied "I´m actually Swedish."
The Belgian guy then took a long hard look at me, and replied "Naahhh, you don´t fool me, you´re Dutch!"

I´ve no idea why but at least I got to be Dutch for a day, and that must count for something!

[Fiver]

As for what todays police would have included, I am certain that they would have ruled the torso series in. No doubt in my mind about that whatsoever.

There are plenty of examples of two or even three serial killers being active in the same city at the same time.

The Torso Killer and the Ripper had very different MOs.

The Ripper was active in a small area. The Torso Killer scattered body parts along twenty miles of the Thames.
The Ripper was active for a few months. The Torso Killer was active for over a decade.
The Ripper mutilated his victims by frenzied slashing. The Torso Killer carefully disarticulated his victims for easier transport.
The Ripper left his victims where he killed them. The Torso Killer transported them for miles.
The Ripper posed his victims with the skirts hiked up. The Torso Killer did not.
The Ripper took trophies from his victims. The Torso Killer did not.
The Ripper posed his victims with the skirts hiked up. The Torso Killer did not.
The Torso Killer tried to hide his victims' identities - most heads were never found. The ripper did not attempt to hide his victims' identities.

Dr George Baxter Philips believed they were different killers. At the Inquest for the Pinchin Street Torso he said:

"The CORONER. - I should like to ask Dr. Phillips whether there is any similarity in the cutting off of the legs in this case and the one that was severed from the woman in Dorset-street? Dr. Phillips. - I have not noticed any sufficient similarity to convince me it was the person who committed both mutilations, but the division of the neck and attempt to disarticulate the bones of the spine are very similar to that which was effected in this case. The savagery shown by the mutilated remains in the Dorset-street case far exceeded that shown in this case. The mutilations in the Dorset-street case were most wanton, whereas in this case it strikes me that they were made for the purpose of disposing of the body. I wish to say that these are mere points that strike me without any comparative study of the other case, except those afforded by partial notes that I have with me. I think in this case there has been greater knowledge shown in regard to the construction of the parts composing the spine, and on the whole there has been a greater knowledge shown of how to separate a joint."

[Columbo]

There are plenty of examples of two or even three serial killers being active in the same city at the same time.

The Torso Killer and the Ripper had very different MOs.

The Ripper was active in a small area. The Torso Killer scattered body parts along twenty miles of the Thames.
The Ripper was active for a few months. The Torso Killer was active for over a decade.
The Ripper mutilated his victims by frenzied slashing. The Torso Killer carefully disarticulated his victims for easier transport.
The Ripper left his victims where he killed them. The Torso Killer transported them for miles.
The Ripper posed his victims with the skirts hiked up. The Torso Killer did not.
The Ripper took trophies from his victims. The Torso Killer did not.
The Ripper posed his victims with the skirts hiked up. The Torso Killer did not.
The Torso Killer tried to hide his victims' identities - most heads were never found. The ripper did not attempt to hide his victims' identities.

Dr George Baxter Philips believed they were different killers. At the Inquest for the Pinchin Street Torso he said:

"The CORONER. - I should like to ask Dr. Phillips whether there is any similarity in the cutting off of the legs in this case and the one that was severed from the woman in Dorset-street? Dr. Phillips. - I have not noticed any sufficient similarity to convince me it was the person who committed both mutilations, but the division of the neck and attempt to disarticulate the bones of the spine are very similar to that which was effected in this case. The savagery shown by the mutilated remains in the Dorset-street case far exceeded that shown in this case. The mutilations in the Dorset-street case were most wanton, whereas in this case it strikes me that they were made for the purpose of disposing of the body. I wish to say that these are mere points that strike me without any comparative study of the other case, except those afforded by partial notes that I have with me. I think in this case there has been greater knowledge shown in regard to the construction of the parts composing the spine, and on the whole there has been a greater knowledge shown of how to separate a joint."

The ripper murders were not committed by the same perpetrator of the torso murders. There’s no proof or correlation between the two. Christer is slyly pushing his book into this thread, (Have you seen my model in Cutting Point?) I’ve read it and it just doesn’t work. I like the book and would recommend it, but let’s not hijack a thread to sell a book. Emma Smith most likely wasn’t lying, because her wounds were not repeated in the subsequent murders. That’s an assumption of course. I believe it started with Tabram and ended with Kelly. None of the victims after were as viciously mutilated as the previous ones.

[Fisherman]

There are plenty of examples of two or even three serial killers being active in the same city at the same time.

Yes, I know that quite well. But how many examples of eviscerating serial killers active in the same city and time can you show me?

The Torso Killer and the Ripper had very different MOs.

The "very different" MO we are certain of is that the Torso killer dismembered and dumped his victims, while the Rippe killed his victims where they were later found, normally in public places. And there are examples of killers who somethings dismember while they do not do so on other occasions, so that is not an unbridgeable difference.
The reason that I am sure they were the same man is the many similarities, some of them of an extremely rare character. When such rare similarities are at hand, they trump any differences, I´m afraid, unless they are differences that MUST point to two perpetrators. I have explained this lots of times; If a series involve female victims only, if they are all cut to death and if they are all prostitutes killed in the town X, and another series involve men only, all shot to death and all academics living in the town Y, then there is absolutely no reason to beleive that they are in any way connected. But once it is disclosed that they all had the nail on their left pinkie nails pulled out, it becomes another matter. Then all the dissimilarities become secondary, because we then KNOW that there is a link.
In our case, we have but one dissimilarity (that is not unheard of from other cases), whereas we have:
-abdomens cut open from ribs to pubes
-abdominal walls cut away
-hearts cut out
-uteri cut out
-rings stolen from fingers
-skilful cutting
-prostitute victims
represented in both series.
And, as I said, you cannot even find two eviscerating serial killers in the same town and time.
That seals the deal for me.

The Ripper was active in a small area. The Torso Killer scattered body parts along twenty miles of the Thames.
The Ripper was active for a few months. The Torso Killer was active for over a decade.
The Ripper mutilated his victims by frenzied slashing. The Torso Killer carefully disarticulated his victims for easier transport.
The Ripper left his victims where he killed them. The Torso Killer transported them for miles.
The Ripper posed his victims with the skirts hiked up. The Torso Killer did not.
The Ripper took trophies from his victims. The Torso Killer did not.
The Ripper posed his victims with the skirts hiked up. The Torso Killer did not.
The Torso Killer tried to hide his victims' identities - most heads were never found. The ripper did not attempt to hide his victims' identities.

The only reflection I will make here - although I could have made many of them - is that it is vey hard to pose disarticulated victims with their skirts hiked up.

Dr George Baxter Philips believed they were different killers. At the Inquest for the Pinchin Street Torso he said:

"The CORONER. - I should like to ask Dr. Phillips whether there is any similarity in the cutting off of the legs in this case and the one that was severed from the woman in Dorset-street? Dr. Phillips. - I have not noticed any sufficient similarity to convince me it was the person who committed both mutilations, but the division of the neck and attempt to disarticulate the bones of the spine are very similar to that which was effected in this case. The savagery shown by the mutilated remains in the Dorset-street case far exceeded that shown in this case. The mutilations in the Dorset-street case were most wanton, whereas in this case it strikes me that they were made for the purpose of disposing of the body. I wish to say that these are mere points that strike me without any comparative study of the other case, except those afforded by partial notes that I have with me. I think in this case there has been greater knowledge shown in regard to the construction of the parts composing the spine, and on the whole there has been a greater knowledge shown of how to separate a joint."

Phillips lived in a time when the concept of aggressive dismemberment was unheard of. He therefore made the call he was likely to call, grounding it on unsufficient knowledge. Nota bene that he says that the division of the neck in the Pinchin Street case was very similar to the effort to decapitate in Dorset Street. What should be pointed out here is that when Mary Kelly was killed, the division of the neck that was later made in the Pinchin Street case was something the perpetrator of that deed was not able to do.
The division of the neck was carried out by knife only in the Pinchin Street case, Beforehand, the killer had made efforts to cut the heads off by way of knofe in the Rainham case, in the Whitehall case and in the Jackson case, but he had failed to accomplish it. He had to go and get the saw to finish the work. It was only in September of 1889 that he finally managed to take ahead off by way of knife.
So in November of 1888, we have a killer named the Thames Torso killer who had a thing for taking heads off, but could not do it by knife. And in November of 1888, we have another killer named the Ripper who ALSO had a desire to cut a head off by way of knife, but wasn´t able to do so when he tried it in Dorset Street.

Funny how these two men are so very parallel in everything they do, don´t you think?

PS. Charles Hebbert also said that the two killers were not the same man, you may want to know that too. I have a reason for that too, of course, and we know that Hebbert muddled the cases very badly, but I thought that it would make you happy to hear. Anything helps, right?

[Fisherman]

The ripper murders were not committed by the same perpetrator of the torso murders. There’s no proof or correlation between the two. Christer is slyly pushing his book into this thread, (Have you seen my model in Cutting Point?) I’ve read it and it just doesn’t work. I like the book and would recommend it, but let’s not hijack a thread to sell a book. Emma Smith most likely wasn’t lying, because her wounds were not repeated in the subsequent murders. That’s an assumption of course. I believe it started with Tabram and ended with Kelly. None of the victims after were as viciously mutilated as the previous ones.

Whe I ask if people have read my book, I normally do so to get to know whether or not I need to lay out the text substantially about something. I do not do so to "slyly push" my book, as you so generously put it.

And no, you have not read my book if you came away with the impression that the two killers are not one and the same.

You "believe that it ended with Kelly"?

Then you also believe that it is a coincidence only that both men were described as skilled cutters.
And you believe that it was a coincidence only that both men cut out uteri.
It was another coincidence that they also cut out hearts.
And it was a fourth coincidence that they both cut from ribs to pubes.
The fifth coincidence is that they both - ooopla! - just happened to cut away abdominal walls from victims.
The sixth coincidence is that they both happened to kill prostitutes at one time or another.
The seventh coincidence is that they both stole rings from their victims fingers at some stage.
The eigth coincidence is that they were both active in London.
The ninth coincidence is that they both were active at overlapping times.
And you are willing to believe that although history offers no examples of two eviscerating serial killers being active in the same town (or small area) and time, it was what happened in late Victorian London - and that when it happened, the two killers just happened to copy each others extremely rare inclusions...?

Good luck with that one, Columbo. Maybe you can write a book about it and sell shitloads of copies?