The Whitehall Mystery

[Abby Normal]

Hi Debra,

Thanks for the reply. Of course, Dr Biggs also expressed a view that the Torso mysteries and the Whitechapel murders were probably not connected because of the "vastly different MO."

It also seems to me that these type of crimes were much less common in the Victorian period than today, i.e. there seems to be no similar cases between 1874 and 1884 , or 1884 and 1887. Moreover, it may be possible to link the victims by MO or signature, i.e by considering the unnecessary risks taken by the perpetrator when disposing of the body parts.

HI JohnG and Debra
Fascinating thread. Especially since we are talking about a probable serial killer operating in the same time frame as the Ripper.

Just a few comments/questions and I admittedly only know the broad outlines of the torso cases.


I think we can safely say that a better type of definition of what type of serial killer that both the Torso killer and the ripper is would be a post-mortem mutilator. Lust murderer implies a sexual conotation to the motive and while I certainly think there is some evidence of that with the ripper, we cant be sure of that with the Torso man (although there probably some sexual aspect-curiosity perhaps).

One thing we can be sure of is that both the ripper and torso man display a motivation to mutilate the body, remove internal organs and I would add to that fascination of what their instruments can do to the female body. So I think that motivation for the murders are similar in both cases.

We can rule out botched abortions.
we can rule out burke and hare scenarios.
We can rule out murder to hide previous crime-robbery, rape etc.

I see the following similarities between the ripper and torso man:
same victimology
same general area
same general time frame
Evidence of trying to hide identity of victims
Displaying of body/body parts
and of course most importantly-Abdominal mutilations
So same Motivation.


However, one aspect (the main one-which apparently causes many people including the police at the time to think the cases are unrelated) is the apparent difference in MO. torso man-dismemebered and strewn the remains about. The ripper left bodies as they lay.

However, a pretty simple explanation, wipes away the apparent difference in their MO.

If they were the same man, then the torso murders were when the killer could bring them to a private place of residence or business and the ripper murders where when he could not, and had to murder and leave the body on the streets. perhaps during the ripper murder time frame the killers situation suddenly changed-someone moved in with him, he had to move, work was being done on his place etc.

The apparent difference in MO is that the torso murders where done when he could bring the victims to a private residence and the dismemberment was done mainly for ease in removing the victim from his place.

Now I think more than likely Torso man and the ripper were different men, but the more I think about it, the more I lean towards the possibility they were the same.

And JohnG
To answer your concern about the higher class of victim (indeed if there is any). If you cant murder and mutilate a victim in your home, wouldn't a killer then target the type of woman who would at least accompany him to a secluded area on the streets to do her business? a low end unfortunate?

A high end prostitute wont do that right? wouldn't a high end prostitute be the kind that would do her business in a brothel or the punters place, like a call girl? Heck it wouldn't even need to be a prostitute, it could be a woman he met a pub or somewhere-he would just need to get her back to his place.

Anyway, I would like to hear both your comments on my ideas and also Debs would love to know your thoughts on the possibility that Torso man and the ripper were the same man.

[Debra A]

HI JohnG and Debra
Fascinating thread. Especially since we are talking about a probable serial killer operating in the same time frame as the Ripper.

Just a few comments/questions and I admittedly only know the broad outlines of the torso cases.


I think we can safely say that a better type of definition of what type of serial killer that both the Torso killer and the ripper is would be a post-mortem mutilator. Lust murderer implies a sexual conotation to the motive and while I certainly think there is some evidence of that with the ripper, we cant be sure of that with the Torso man (although there probably some sexual aspect-curiosity perhaps).

One thing we can be sure of is that both the ripper and torso man display a motivation to mutilate the body, remove internal organs and I would add to that fascination of what their instruments can do to the female body. So I think that motivation for the murders are similar in both cases.

We can rule out botched abortions.
we can rule out burke and hare scenarios.
We can rule out murder to hide previous crime-robbery, rape etc.

I see the following similarities between the ripper and torso man:
same victimology
same general area
same general time frame
Evidence of trying to hide identity of victims
Displaying of body/body parts
and of course most importantly-Abdominal mutilations
So same Motivation.


However, one aspect (the main one-which apparently causes many people including the police at the time to think the cases are unrelated) is the apparent difference in MO. torso man-dismemebered and strewn the remains about. The ripper left bodies as they lay.

However, a pretty simple explanation, wipes away the apparent difference in their MO.

If they were the same man, then the torso murders were when the killer could bring them to a private place of residence or business and the ripper murders where when he could not, and had to murder and leave the body on the streets. perhaps during the ripper murder time frame the killers situation suddenly changed-someone moved in with him, he had to move, work was being done on his place etc.

The apparent difference in MO is that the torso murders where done when he could bring the victims to a private residence and the dismemberment was done mainly for ease in removing the victim from his place.

Now I think more than likely Torso man and the ripper were different men, but the more I think about it, the more I lean towards the possibility they were the same.

And JohnG
To answer your concern about the higher class of victim (indeed if there is any). If you cant murder and mutilate a victim in your home, wouldn't a killer then target the type of woman who would at least accompany him to a secluded area on the streets to do her business? a low end unfortunate?

A high end prostitute wont do that right? wouldn't a high end prostitute be the kind that would do her business in a brothel or the punters place, like a call girl? Heck it wouldn't even need to be a prostitute, it could be a woman he met a pub or somewhere-he would just need to get her back to his place.

Anyway, I would like to hear both your comments on my ideas and also Debs would love to know your thoughts on the possibility that Torso man and the ripper were the same man.

Hi Abby,

Some good observations in your post. I agree with a lot of what you say.
To answer your question to me, I would say that if I had to pick a torso case that fitted in with JtR's crimes, I would say Elizabeth Jackson. Elizabeth was an unfortunate and was homeless at the time of her disappearance. She did live in Chelsea but her family were living in the workhouse most of the time and Elizabeth herself was in service. She quit that life for the streets, similar to some of the Whitechapel victims. She was last seen by witnesses going off with a man who looked like a 'navvy'.

Two flaps of skin were removed from Elizabeth's abdomen, very similar to the way the abdomen was accessed in some of the Whitechapel victims and her uterus was opened (targeted?) by an incision after her death and the foetus removed. Elizabeth's heart was missing too. I've also posted many times for comparison the descriptions of the injuries to MJK's lower body and genitals and Elizabeth's -and they are very very similar.
All of this could be coincidence of course, organs missing because they were lost in disposal rather than targeted etc. but one thing I've mentioned before, there has been past discussion over the years where the removal of flaps of skin from the abdomen were suggested as being unique to JTR's victims-something that linked some of them for certain. I'm not sure what the feeling is now about that.

[John G]

Hi Abby,

I think that most of the Torso cases suggest the signature of a serial killer. Thus, the perpetrator appeared to have a macabre sense of humour and was clearly taunting the police. He also took enormous risks, which would be completely unnecessary if the motive was simply one of body part disposal, i.e. as a consequence of an abortion gone wrong.

Thus, in the case of the Tottenham Torso, the Girl with the Rose Tattoo, body parts were disposed of in an area almost constantly observed by police, during a shift change, and close to a military drill hall.

The Whitehall Mystery involved body parts left in pitch black dark catacombs in the under-construction Scotland Yard building. the perpetrator may also have scaled a 9ft fence, whilst carrying a human trunk.

The Pinchin Street Torso was placed between two sleeping drunks, possibly by the exact same arches that Schwartz ran to after the incident with with BS man. The victim may also have been killed on the anniversary of Annie Chapman's death. And written in large chalk letters on a black railing opposite the arch was the word "Lipski", an obvious reference to BS man and possibly a pastiche of the GSG.

Elizabeth Jackson's Thigh was found in the garden of Sir Percy Shelley's home, the son of Mary Shelley, the author of Frankenstein, after being thrown over the wall. This, of course, also suggests a macabre joke.

I don't, however, believe that the crimes are linked to the JtR murders because, as Dr Biggs pointed out, the MO is vastly different. For instance, JtR didn't use dump sites and made no effort to disguise the identity of his victims. He also operated exclusively in Whitechapel and the surrounding area, which strongly indicates that he was not a commuter killer, unlike Torso.

I also think it possible that the perpetrator could have dismembered his victims on a boat, which would be an ideal place to operate in seclusion-away from the preying eyes, and ears, of neighbours. This would also explain why some body parts were discarded in the Thames and how the killer gained access to the Scotland Yard building, which was on the embankment. It may also explain the choice of Elizabeth Jackson as a victim, a she had been sleeping rough on the embankment.

[Fisherman]

Iīll tell you what:

Serial killers are rare creatures - luckily. In the Victorian times, they were rarer than hensī teeth.

So when we seemingly have two serialists operating in the same town and at the same remove in time, we need to be cautious to rule out the distinct possibility that these men were one and the same.

If the two had been radically different, it would have been a different matter. But the fact is that they are not. Instead, they have many common denominators.

They both prey on women of a lower class, and we know that prostitution enters the picture for both men.

They both cut up their victims - but only after death.

Their victims are found with cuts to the abdominal region and organs missing in many instances.

There are strong theatralic elements involved in the killings and how the victims are found. Shock value and macabre details are present in both series.

It can be argued that both killers taunted the police, by committing murders on the police beats and by placing a victim in the vaults of the Scotland Yard building during itīs construction.

So there really are - as has been pointed out here by others too - many common elements.

But there are differences too. It is, for example, argued that one killer dismembered his victims while the other did not. And that is true.

But it is not as if there were never killers who dismembered some victims but not all of them. Jeffrey Dahmer and John Bunting spring to mind. With Bunting, there is even an in-between case, if you like, where he put a victim in a barrel and had to cut a foot off to make it fit.

As for changing mo:s, we have people like Peter Kürten who used a hammer sometimes, strangled on other occasions and who also killed with a hammer.

It deviates from the normal picture, yes - but the important thing to remember is that these deviations do exist.

Plus - and this may well be the all-important factor - when a theatralic element is added, combined with a wish to taunt the police, then the urges of the killer are NOT the one and only thing that will govern the outcome! Once the thought "I wonder what will cause more outrage?" surfaces, we enter the realm of murders that are designed not only to suit the killers own tastes.

John G wisely points out that men like Chapman are ruled out if we are to look for one and the same perpetrator. Chapman was a mere boy of around 8 in 1873 and -74, when the first torso series murders occurred.

But Charles Lechmere, being born in 1849, was around 24-25 at the time.

There are a number of things that point to him as having been the Ripper. And there is a torso case that very much draws the interest to him - the Pinchin Street torso. This torso was found in a street where Lechmere had lived as a child, and in the immediate area where he grew up and spent many years.

His mother lived very nearby, in Cable Street, perhaps 150 yards or so from the dumping spot. And she was a catīs meats woman in 1891, going by the census listings. If that business was run from her dwellings in Cable Street, then there will have been sharp knives and fine-toothed saws in place - the exact tools used to dismember the Pinchin Street torso. Plus Charles Lechmere was surrounded by family in the catīs meat trade - his own children took it up in Broadway Market, where Lechmere himself had a stall.

He had reasons to be out in the East End streets in the small hours. He had access to horse and cart, being a carman - and the torso killer must have had such access too, to be able to transport the parts he scattered all over London.

And Lechmere worked for a company that had depots all over London - and beyond. In Romford, for example - three miles or so from Rainham.

So all the necessary connections and all the bits and pieces are in place for this man to have been both the ripper and the torso killer.

And actually, no other suspect can be put forward for the two series. Not even remotely so.

If we are to discuss a possible shared identity of the Ripper and the Torso killer, then this is where the discussion will end up. There is a very good contender for the combined title - and there is no competition.

[John G]

Hi Fisherman,

But doesn't evidence suggest that the Torso Murderer selected victims from a significantly higher social class than JtR? For instance, the liver, spleen and kidneys of the Whitehall victim were all normal, unlike many working class women of the period who suffered from alcoholism. In respect of the Pinchin Street victim, the hands were delicate, suggesting that she had not been involved in manual work. In fact, there was a small circular hardening on the right little finger, which might indicate that she was a writer. The Tottenham Court victim had a smooth face, delicate arms, hands and well-manicured nails, suggesting the appearance of a gentlewoman, according to Dr Lloyd. She also had a tattoo: According to Trow (2011) the only women of the period that would have themselves tattooed were th a avant-garde, i.e. society women such as Jenny Jerome, or higher class prostitutes.

Moreover, several of the victims, I.e Pinchin Street, Rainham, had never giver birth, unlike many working class women of the period, who tended to have large families.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,

But doesn't evidence suggest that the Torso Murderer selected victims from a significantly higher social class than JtR? For instance, the liver, spleen and kidneys of the Whitehall victim were all normal, unlike many working class women of the period who suffered from alcoholism. In respect of the Pinchin Street victim, the hands were delicate, suggesting that she had not been involved in manual work. In fact, there was a small circular hardening on the right little finger, which might indicate that she was a writer. The Tottenham Court victim had a smooth face, delicate arms, hands and well-manicured nails, suggesting the appearance of a gentlewoman, according to Dr Lloyd. She also had a tattoo: According to Trow (2011) the only women of the period that would have themselves tattooed were th a avant-garde, i.e. society women such as Jenny Jerome, or higher class prostitutes.

Moreover, several of the victims, I.e Pinchin Street, Rainham, had never giver birth, unlike many working class women of the period, who tended to have large families.

From the top.

Were the torso victims higher class women than the Ripper victims?

Not necessarily, no.

Prostitution is not hard labour and will not give you rough skin and firm muscles. Liz Jackson was a proven prostitute. Liz Stride was a clever woman with language skills and Swedish schooling - she would have been an accomplished writer. Tabram was commented on as being well nourished and with very healthy organs. Nichols looked a number of years younger than she was. Kelly had been a high-end prostitute, going by what was said.

We can draw no line in the sand here.

By the way, Killeen who examined Tabram, stated that she had not given birth. But she had. Twice.

To me, these objections are interesting and worth looking at - but no safe indicators either way. The torso victims may all have been prostitutes. And they may not.

Sutcliffe killed prostitutes. But made the odd exception, killing a family girl.

There you are, Iīm afraid.

[Debra A]

And Lechmere worked for a company that had depots all over London - and beyond. In Romford, for example - three miles or so from Rainham.

No need for a depot near Rainham, Fisherman. The Rainham remains washed up at Rainham Ferry (near the artillery practice shooting grounds) were shown to have been sent by the tide and had been dumped in the Thames in London (near Regent's canal IIRC)

I agree about the class of the victims and I have mentioned
many times that one doctor commented that Elizabeth had 'genteel' hands despite her nails being bitten to the quick and we know she was a homeless destitute prostitute. The Pinchin St victim was also described as having rough skin on her elbows which seems to suggest someone of a lower, working class. The Rainham torso had garter marks below her knee which the doctors used to determine she was probably of lower class as women of a higher class generally wore their garters above the knee.

[Debra A]

Before I discovered that the police believed the Rainham victim's remains had been washed there by the tide from London, I found that there was a mill in the Rainham Ferry area that had trade links (to do with cotton) with James Maybrick in Liverpool.

[John G]

From the top.

Were the torso victims higher class women than the Ripper victims?

Not necessarily, no.

Prostitution is not hard labour and will not give you rough skin and firm muscles. Liz Jackson was a proven prostitute. Liz Stride was a clever woman with language skills and Swedish schooling - she would have been an accomplished writer. Tabram was commented on as being well nourished and with very healthy organs. Nichols looked a number of years younger than she was. Kelly had been a high-end prostitute, going by what was said.

We can draw no line in the sand here.

By the way, Killeen who examined Tabram, stated that she had not given birth. But she had. Twice.

To me, these objections are interesting and worth looking at - but no safe indicators either way. The torso victims may all have been prostitutes. And they may not.

Sutcliffe killed prostitutes. But made the odd exception, killing a family girl.

There you are, Iīm afraid.

Hi Fisherman,

Yes, I agree that victimology is not a decisive issue here. However, I think there are much more serious problems when attempting to link the Torso and Whitechapel murders. For instance, the Torso killer probably selected victims over a wide area, and was therefore a commuter killer; on the other hand, JtR targetted victims within an extremely small geographical area.

And, as I've noted, the Torso killer used dump sites, and took precautions to prevent his victims being identified; whilst JtR's victims were quickly identified and left where they were killed.

I accept that a serial killer's signature can evolve: Schlesinger et al (2010) referred to a killer who progressed from postmortem genital mutilation to dismemberment, whilst another cut his earlier victims, then progressed to decapitation and, finally, evisceration. However, if JtR and the Torso Murderer are to be linked, it wouldn't be a case of signature evolution, but a murderer who seems to act in a highly inconsistent and capricious manner, I.e during the same time period his MO and signature would be wildly variable, and I'm not sure we have any precedent for such highly unpredictable behaviour.

[Fisherman]

No need for a depot near Rainham, Fisherman. The Rainham remains washed up at Rainham Ferry (near the artillery practice shooting grounds) were shown to have been sent by the tide and had been dumped in the Thames in London (near Regent's canal IIRC)

I agree about the class of the victims and I have mentioned
many times that one doctor commented that Elizabeth had 'genteel' hands despite her nails being bitten to the quick and we know she was a homeless destitute prostitute. The Pinchin St victim was also described as having rough skin on her elbows which seems to suggest someone of a lower, working class. The Rainham torso had garter marks below her knee which the doctors used to determine she was probably of lower class as women of a higher class generally wore their garters above the knee.

Yes, thatīs correct - I remember now that Trow wrote that the dumping site could be anywhere in London, even the western parts - but that the torso was dumped upstream at any rate.

Thanks for pointing that out. In my defense, I could of course say that there were other depots spread all over London, so in the logistics department, Lechmere will always be a good bid.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,

Yes, I agree that victimology is not a decisive issue here. However, I think there are much more serious problems when attempting to link the Torso and Whitechapel murders. For instance, the Torso killer probably selected victims over a wide area, and was therefore a commuter killer; on the other hand JtR targetted victims within an extremely small geographical area.

And, as I've noted, the Torso killer used dump sites, and took precautions to prevent his victims being identified,; whilst JtR's victims were quickly identified and left where they were killed.

I accept that a serial killer's signature can evolve: Schlesinger et al (2010) referred to a killer who progressed from postmortem genital mutilation to dismemberment, whilst another cut his earlier victims, then progressed to decapitation and, finally, evisceration. However, if JtR and the Torso Murderer are to be linked, it wouldn't be a case of signature evolution, but a murderer wh seems to act in a highly inconsistent and capricious manner, I.e during the same time period his MO and signature would be wildly variable, and I'm not sure we have any president for such highly unpredictable behaviour.

There will never be any precedent for any behaviour, when going into detail. That is something that anybody who suggests a suspect will be endlessly reminded of.
Lechmere, for example, would not be the killer, since we have no precedent of somebody killing while walking to his work.

Brilliant stuff.

Of course, there are major differences. To me, however, the theatralic element is a possible solution to these things. What was the aim for the killer? Was it something he did to satisfy himself only, or was there an element of communication involved? Because if there was, then you involve another target group, be that the police, the press or community as a whole. And then you look at how a message is best delivered.

Maybe the killer did not think that he got enough press coverage for the torso murders. Maybe he sought out something different, that would attract more interest? And then he returned to his old ways when he had had that interest.

Just an outlining of how we may understand things like these.

I would also like to point out that I have often said that the Pinchin Street torso could have been an imitation effort on behalf of the Ripper, sort of "Look, I can do this too!". That murder differs from the others since there was no apparent effort to scatter body parts all over town - none of the remaining bits and pieces were found.
It was also a murder where the body was apparently carried manually to the dumping site, whereas the other murders took a horse and cart for the scattering.

All in all, though, what I am saying is that we have great similarities, we have a geographical correlation and we have a time schedule that moulds the two series together.

And we have a candidate who is perfect for both. And there are no other candidates.

So when it comes to the Ripper/Torso murders combination, Lechmere is the best candidate, the prime suspect. Thatīs what happens when there is nobody else.

[Trevor Marriott]

There will never be any precedent for any behaviour, when going into detail. That is something that anybody who suggests a suspect will be endlessly reminded of.
Lechmere, for example, would not be the killer, since we have no precedent of somebody killing while walking to his work.

Brilliant stuff.

Of course, there are major differences. To me, however, the theatralic element is a possible solution to these things. What was the aim for the killer? Was it something he did to satisfy himself only, or was there an element of communication involved? Because if there was, then you involve another target group, be that the police, the press or community as a whole. And then you look at how a message is best delivered.

Maybe the killer did not think that he got enough press coverage for the torso murders. Maybe he sought out something different, that would attract more interest? And then he returned to his old ways when he had had that interest.

Just an outlining of how we may understand things like these.

I would also like to point out that I have often said that the Pinchin Street torso could have been an imitation effort on behalf of the Ripper, sort of "Look, I can do this too!". That murder differs from the others since there was no apparent effort to scatter body parts all over town - none of the remaining bits and pieces were found.
It was also a murder where the body was apparently carried manually to the dumping site, whereas the other murders took a horse and cart for the scattering.

All in all, though, what I am saying is that we have great similarities, we have a geographical correlation and we have a time schedule that moulds the two series together.

And we have a candidate who is perfect for both. And there are no other candidates.

So when it comes to the Ripper/Torso murders combination, Lechmere is the best candidate, the prime suspect. Thatīs what happens when there is nobody else.

There is no evidence to suggest a torso serial killer ! Simply because there is no direct evidence to suggest all the torsos were the subject of murders.

[Fisherman]

There is no evidence to suggest a torso serial killer ! Simply because there is no direct evidence to suggest all the torsos were the subject of murders.

There is abundant evidence to suggest a torso serial killer, Trevor. But no absolute proof. The general consensus - then and now - is that there was indeed such a killer.

The exact same goes for Jack - abundant evidence, but no absolute proof. It could have been multiple killers, right?

Not exactly earthshattering.

[Abby Normal]

Iīll tell you what:

Serial killers are rare creatures - luckily. In the Victorian times, they were rarer than hensī teeth.

So when we seemingly have two serialists operating in the same town and at the same remove in time, we need to be cautious to rule out the distinct possibility that these men were one and the same.

If the two had been radically different, it would have been a different matter. But the fact is that they are not. Instead, they have many common denominators.

They both prey on women of a lower class, and we know that prostitution enters the picture for both men.

They both cut up their victims - but only after death.

Their victims are found with cuts to the abdominal region and organs missing in many instances.

There are strong theatralic elements involved in the killings and how the victims are found. Shock value and macabre details are present in both series.

It can be argued that both killers taunted the police, by committing murders on the police beats and by placing a victim in the vaults of the Scotland Yard building during itīs construction.

So there really are - as has been pointed out here by others too - many common elements.

But there are differences too. It is, for example, argued that one killer dismembered his victims while the other did not. And that is true.

But it is not as if there were never killers who dismembered some victims but not all of them. Jeffrey Dahmer and John Bunting spring to mind. With Bunting, there is even an in-between case, if you like, where he put a victim in a barrel and had to cut a foot off to make it fit.

As for changing mo:s, we have people like Peter Kürten who used a hammer sometimes, strangled on other occasions and who also killed with a hammer.

It deviates from the normal picture, yes - but the important thing to remember is that these deviations do exist.

Plus - and this may well be the all-important factor - when a theatralic element is added, combined with a wish to taunt the police, then the urges of the killer are NOT the one and only thing that will govern the outcome! Once the thought "I wonder what will cause more outrage?" surfaces, we enter the realm of murders that are designed not only to suit the killers own tastes.

John G wisely points out that men like Chapman are ruled out if we are to look for one and the same perpetrator. Chapman was a mere boy of around 8 in 1873 and -74, when the first torso series murders occurred.

But Charles Lechmere, being born in 1849, was around 24-25 at the time.

There are a number of things that point to him as having been the Ripper. And there is a torso case that very much draws the interest to him - the Pinchin Street torso. This torso was found in a street where Lechmere had lived as a child, and in the immediate area where he grew up and spent many years.

His mother lived very nearby, in Cable Street, perhaps 150 yards or so from the dumping spot. And she was a catīs meats woman in 1891, going by the census listings. If that business was run from her dwellings in Cable Street, then there will have been sharp knives and fine-toothed saws in place - the exact tools used to dismember the Pinchin Street torso. Plus Charles Lechmere was surrounded by family in the catīs meat trade - his own children took it up in Broadway Market, where Lechmere himself had a stall.

He had reasons to be out in the East End streets in the small hours. He had access to horse and cart, being a carman - and the torso killer must have had such access too, to be able to transport the parts he scattered all over London.

And Lechmere worked for a company that had depots all over London - and beyond. In Romford, for example - three miles or so from Rainham.

So all the necessary connections and all the bits and pieces are in place for this man to have been both the ripper and the torso killer.

And actually, no other suspect can be put forward for the two series. Not even remotely so.

If we are to discuss a possible shared identity of the Ripper and the Torso killer, then this is where the discussion will end up. There is a very good contender for the combined title - and there is no competition.

Hi Fish
Great post. I know that you have brought up the pinchin st victim in the past and heres another interesting connection.

Debra, in a previous post has shown the distinct similarities between the wounds to Elizabeth Jackson and to Mary Kelly (and other C5s).

Not only that, but the doctors at the time saw similarities between the pinchin victim and Jackson. So here we have a direct thread connecting the ripper victims to the torso victims.

I think it would be interesting for you to continue the research into torso man and to see if any other links can be made to lech!

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

Some good observations in your post. I agree with a lot of what you say.
To answer your question to me, I would say that if I had to pick a torso case that fitted in with JtR's crimes, I would say Elizabeth Jackson. Elizabeth was an unfortunate and was homeless at the time of her disappearance. She did live in Chelsea but her family were living in the workhouse most of the time and Elizabeth herself was in service. She quit that life for the streets, similar to some of the Whitechapel victims. She was last seen by witnesses going off with a man who looked like a 'navvy'.

Two flaps of skin were removed from Elizabeth's abdomen, very similar to the way the abdomen was accessed in some of the Whitechapel victims and her uterus was opened (targeted?) by an incision after her death and the foetus removed. Elizabeth's heart was missing too. I've also posted many times for comparison the descriptions of the injuries to MJK's lower body and genitals and Elizabeth's -and they are very very similar.
All of this could be coincidence of course, organs missing because they were lost in disposal rather than targeted etc. but one thing I've mentioned before, there has been past discussion over the years where the removal of flaps of skin from the abdomen were suggested as being unique to JTR's victims-something that linked some of them for certain. I'm not sure what the feeling is now about that.

Thank you Debra
very interesting. Can you point me in the right direction where I can read up more on the torso case/s?