The Whitehall Mystery

[RockySullivan]

Liz Jackson did not suffer genital mutilation? Debra A seems to think so, and I believe she is correct in this assumption.

This is what Debra said

"The external organs of generation were mutilated in the case of Elizabeth Jackson, Rocky. Removed with flaps of skin from the abdomen and part of the right buttock in the same way Mary Kelly's were"

Why do you suppose the external organs of generation were removed with part of the right buttock?

Iv'e stated on many occasions that I consider the C5 plus Tabram to have fallen foul of the same killer. I don't believe all of the torso victims to have been the result of murder. None showed any real signs of foul play. Liz Jackson was possibly murdered, possibly, but not, in my opinion, by the Whitechapel murderer, although as Debra Pointed out there are similarities between Jacksons mutilations and Mary Kelly's.

You wrote

"Considered together, from 1873 until 1889, the torso murders make some sense"

I don't believe they do. I don't think they are linked in any way. London was and is a huge city, body parts turning up was a rare occurance, it happened. My point being numerous little dramas played out every day, fatal abortion accidental death, hence the need to dipose of the bodies minus head, which would of course identify the deceased.

Its a huge leap of faith don't you think, to suggest that the Pinchin Street torso was murdered to order, on the anniversary of Chapmans murder, and dumped near to the Liz Stride murder site, the chalked Lipski message close by adding to the drama.

Regarding the Ripper murders, you can google to your hearts content, quote Keppel, Schlesinger, et al, and you'll still be no nearer to understanding what motivated the Whitechapel murderer. It's gone, he's gone, it's lost to us now.

Just my opinion of course.

Hi observer, but how common is it for murderers to remove the uterus? This is the strongest indicator that the ripper and torso murders are related. In light of all the other similarities I just don't buy that more than one guy was running around killing people and taking out their uterus.

[John G]

Liz Jackson did not suffer genital mutilation? Debra A seems to think so, and I believe she is correct in this assumption.

This is what Debra said

"The external organs of generation were mutilated in the case of Elizabeth Jackson, Rocky. Removed with flaps of skin from the abdomen and part of the right buttock in the same way Mary Kelly's were"

Why do you suppose the external organs of generation were removed with part of the right buttock?

Iv'e stated on many occasions that I consider the C5 plus Tabram to have fallen foul of the same killer. I don't believe all of the torso victims to have been the result of murder. None showed any real signs of foul play. Liz Jackson was possibly murdered, possibly, but not, in my opinion, by the Whitechapel murderer, although as Debra Pointed out there are similarities between Jacksons mutilations and Mary Kelly's.

You wrote

"Considered together, from 1873 until 1889, the torso murders make some sense"

I don't believe they do. I don't think they are linked in any way. London was and is a huge city, body parts turning up was a rare occurance, it happened. My point being numerous little dramas played out every day, fatal abortion accidental death, hence the need to dipose of the bodies minus head, which would of course identify the deceased.

Its a huge leap of faith don't you think, to suggest that the Pinchin Street torso was murdered to order, on the anniversary of Chapmans murder, and dumped near to the Liz Stride murder site, the chalked Lipski message close by adding to the drama.

Regarding the Ripper murders, you can google to your hearts content, quote Keppel, Schlesinger, et al, and you'll still be no nearer to understanding what motivated the Whitechapel murderer. It's gone, he's gone, it's lost to us now.

Just my opinion of course.

I really think that we need to analyse these crimes objectively, otherwise there is a danger that we will head off into the realms of fantasy.

Firstly, Liz Jackson. Could you please explain what "external organ of regeneration" you believe to have been mutilated? The uterus was cut, but I can assure you that that is not an external organ!

Let us also consider the view of a medical expert, and someone who actually had the opportunity to examine the bodies. Referring to the 1887-1889 Torso Murders Dr Hebbert stated: "In the last volume of Reports I was able to give a description of two cases of mutilation that occurred during 1887 and 1888. I now take the opportunity of recounting two more instances of mutilation which happened during the present year [1889]. In almost every respect they are similar to the first two cases, and appear to belong to a series of murders and dismemberment by the same hand."

So, there you have it! Dr Hebbert believed the cases were linked, and that the victims were murdered. So much for the theory that "none showed any real signs of foul play." Or that they were common crimes, or "little dramas played out ever day", as you somewhat whimsically put it. You also referred to "fatal abortion, accidental death." Perhaps you'd care to share with us which victims you think were victims of "fatal abortion" or "accidental death"? Maybe you'd like to explain why you think that a back street abortionist would have a need to mutilate the abdomen! Or why a person, who was responsible for causing an accidental death, would feel the need to store the body for several weeks! Especially when you consider the risks that are implied by such a strategy.

Speaking of which. The Rainham victim was killed several months before the body parts were discovered; it was estimated that the Whitehall victim was killed several weeks before the body parts were deposited; and the Pinchin Street Torso was concealed for several days. Of course, the retention of body parts is a signature characteristic of some serial killers, such as Kempster.

And what about the disposal sites? The Whitehall Torso, deposited deep in to the bowels of the New Scotland Yard building, which may have involved scaling a 9ft fence to gain access; the Tottenham Torso, placed in an area almost constantly observed by the police and near to a military drill hall; the Pinchin Street Torso, deposited between two sleeping drunks; Liz Jackson's torso, thrown into the garden of Sir Percy Shelley's house, an ancestor of Mary Shelley, who wrote Frankenstein.

Why the need for such unusual disposal sites? Why the need to take such extreme risks, if disposal of the body was the only objective?

And what of the Pinchin Street Torso. Not only were the abdominal mutilations reminiscent of the Whitechapel murders, but she was probably killed on the anniversary of Chapman's death, the torso probably deposited by the same railway arches that Schwartz claimed he ran to after being confronted by BS man. Coincidence? I think not. More likely a parody of the Whitechapel murders. And that was clearly the sensible conclusion of the police: Commissioner James Monro suggested that wound leading to the vagina had been made to simulate the Whitechapel crimes.

However, having then rejected the argument that the Torso victims were murdered, and the victims of the same killer, you then argued that "the C5 plus Tabram" had fallen foul of the same killer. You're really more certain about this?

Okay, Tabram, no throat or abdominal mutilations. Moreover, as Tom Westcott's excellent research has pointed out, she was also a neighbour of Horsnell, Smith and Hames. And guess what. The aforementioned were all subjected to vicious gang attacks- Horsnell and Smith died of their injuries-and, considering the number of stab wounds she suffered, so might Tabram: indicating that she may have been the victim of a separate series of gang assaults.

Stride, not mutilated. Nichols and Chapman, the only victims to have parallel neck cuts inflicted...Kelly, mutilated in a far less skilful fashion... I could go on, of course.

To summarize, in my opinion there is no need to conjure up extreme theories of back street Dr Ripperstein's who mutilate abdomens; ordinary murderers who store corpses; and abortionist/accidental killers, who feel the need to climb nine foot fences, with a torso, before descending into the pitch black catacombs of the police headquarters!

That, in my opinion, is just entering the realms of fantasy. Something there is clearly no need to do when Dr Hebbert presents us with a far more sensible explanation: the Torso victims were murdered, and were killed by a single serial killer.

[John G]

Hi observer, but how common is it for murderers to remove the uterus? This is the strongest indicator that the ripper and torso murders are related. In light of all the other similarities I just don't buy that more than one guy was running around killing people and taking out their uterus.

If your referring to Liz Jackson, the uterus wasn't taken away by the killer: unlike in the cases of Chapman and Eddowes. In fact, in Jackson's case the uterus was almost certainly taken out to facilitate removal of the foetus. In other words, a completely different objective to JtR.

[Debra A]

John

Elizabeth Jackson-The flaps of skin and subcutaneous tissue consisted of two long, irregular slips taken from the abdominal walls. The left piece included the umbilicus, the greater part of the mons veneris the left labium majus, and labium minus The right piece included the rest of the mons veneris, the right labium majus and minus[in other word the external organs of generation], and part of the skin of the right buttock.
These mutilations, whether intentional or incidental to the dividing of the body are almost identical to the mutilations inflicted on Mary Jane Kelly in the same area and nothing like this was done in the case of the Pinchin St torso.

[John G]

John

Elizabeth Jackson-The flaps of skin and subcutaneous tissue consisted of two long, irregular slips taken from the abdominal walls. The left piece included the umbilicus, the greater part of the mons veneris the left labium majus, and labium minus The right piece included the rest of the mons veneris, the right labium majus and minus[in other word the external organs of generation], and part of the skin of the right buttock.
These mutilations, whether intentional or incidental to the dividing of the body are almost identical to the mutilations inflicted on Mary Jane Kelly in the same area and nothing like this was done in the case of the Pinchin St torso.

Hello Debra,

Thanks for this. Of course, in the case of Jackson any "mutilations" could presumably be incidental, i.e. as a consequence of the dismemberment process. Thus Dr Hebbert opined: "...but the system of division of the parts gave evidence of design and skill, -the design probably being for the purpose of concealment of the crime and easy carriage of the parts..." In respect of Kelly, no attempt was made to dismember the body, and the victim wasn't decapitated; despite the fact that she was killed indoors and, presumably, the killer wasn't under any time pressures.

There also appears to be a vast differences regarding the degree of skill exhibited by the respective killers. Thus, the doctors believed that, with Jackson, the mutilations that were carried out post mortem were effected by a person with "considerable technical knowledge of the speediest mode of cutting up animals" (Marriott, 2015). Contrastingly, Kelly's murderer appears to have exhibited no skill whatsoever, despite not being under serious time constraints: in fact, there seems to have been considerably less skill exhibited than in the case of Nicholls, Chapman and Eddowes, where the killer(s) was operating under severe time restraints.

[Fisherman]

There ... appears to be a vast differences regarding the degree of skill exhibited by the respective killers. Thus, the doctors believed that, with Jackson, the mutilations that were carried out post mortem were effected by a person with "considerable technical knowledge of the speediest mode of cutting up animals" (Marriott, 2015). Contrastingly, Kelly's murderer appears to have exhibited no skill whatsoever...

I think you need to read what Debra posted again, John. The cuts to the genital areas of Kelly and Jackson were very, very similar.
In my universe, that does not translate to one very skilled cutter with considerable knowledge and one with no skill whatsoever.

You cannot compare the things that were done to Kelly with things that were NOT done to Jackson, and vice versa. The one thing you CAN compare is where both bodies were subjected to acts that seemingly had the same objective.

Maintaining the stance that there were no real similarities between Ripper victims and torso victims is untenable once you realize this. When we have two serialists in the same town, at the same approximate time, both of them seemingly active in the exact same smallish area at times, both with prostitutes on their hit lists and with very similar cutting techniques displayed - as is the case with Jackson/Kelly - then it would be irresponsible to argue that there could be no connection.

[RockySullivan]

I think it would be worthwhile to get a hold of the august 24 echo and try to pinpoint what article could have been with the torso. Could there be a connection with the animal blood on the newspaper and the bear bones found?

[John G]

Objectivity

I think you need to read what Debra posted again, John. The cuts to the genital areas of Kelly and Jackson were very, very similar.
In my universe, that does not translate to one very skilled cutter with considerable knowledge and one with no skill whatsoever.

You cannot compare the things that were done to Kelly with things that were NOT done to Jackson, and vice versa. The one thing you CAN compare is where both bodies were subjected to acts that seemingly had the same objective.

Maintaining the stance that there were no real similarities between Ripper victims and torso victims is untenable once you realize this. When we have two serialists in the same town, at the same approximate time, both of them seemingly active in the exact same smallish area at times, both with prostitutes on their hit lists and with very similar cutting techniques displayed - as is the case with Jackson/Kelly - then it would be irresponsible to argue that there could be no connection.

Hello Fisherman,

I'm afraid I must strongly disagree. For instance, it clearly is important to focus on differences as well as similarities, otherwise you end up being selective with the evidence in order to support your own personal theory.

For instance, you refer to "two serialists in the same town...seemingly active in the same smallish area at times..." Well, with respect, I don't think that can be right. Yes, the Torso killer and JtR were both active in London, but London was hardly a town! In 1888 it was the largest city in the world, in fact in history, with a population of around 5.6 million, and covered a large geographical area of several hundred square miles. As for being active at the same time, well this is again being rather selective with the evidence: the Whitechapel murderer was probably only active in 1888, whereas the Torso murderer may have been active from 1873-1889. Moreover, JtR simply focussed on Whitechapel and the surrounding area, whereas the Torso killer operated over a far larger area.

More specifically, Mary Kelly was murdered in Whitechapel; Liz Jackson had no known connection to Whitechapel and had been living rough on the embankment.

Regarding similarities between Jackson and Kelly's murder. Firstly, degree of skill demonstrated. According to Dr Hebbert, Liz Jackson's killer exhibited a significant level of skill: "..but the system of division of the parts gave evidence of design and skill...the skill not showing the anatomical knowledge of a surgeon, but rather the aptitude learnt by a butcher, horse-knacker, or other person used to deal with dead animals and to readily separate limbs at the joints." However, in stark contrast, Dr Bond didn't believe that Kelly's murderer possessed any skill at all: "in my opinion he does not even possess the technical knowledge of a horse slaughterer or any person accustomed to cutting up dead animals." So, no similarities there then. Quite the reverse in fact.

Secondly, type of injuries. Kelly's injuries were, of course, far more extensive. Thus, several of her organs were removed from the body; in the case of Jackson only the uterus was removed. The surface area of Kelly's abdomen was completely removed; not so with Jackson. Kelly's arms had been mutilated; not so with Jackson. I could of course continue, but suffice to say, no similarities there then. Quite the reverse in fact.

Thirdly, the killer's objective in carrying out the mutilations. In the case of Jackson Dr Hebbert opined: "...the system of division of the parts gave evidence of design and skill-the design probably being for the purpose of concealment of the crime and easy carriage of the parts." Of course, the mutilations inflicted on Kelly suggested a radically different motive; as Dr Phillips acutely observed, when contrasting the Pinchin Street Torso with Kelly's murder:"The savagery shown by the mutilated remains in the Dorset Street case far exceed 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." Of course, organs were removed from both bodies. However, several organs were removed from Kelly- and displayed, probably for shock value-and the heart retained by the killer. In the case of Jackson, only the uterus was removed, but this seems to have been for a very different purpose, i.e. the removal of the foetus. And, of course, no body parts were retained by the killer, unlike Chapman, Eddowes, Kelly... I think we can therefore conclude that, in respect of design, no similarities between Kelly and Jackson. Quite the reverse in fact.

Fourthly, MO and signature. Jackson's killer abducted the victim, murdered her, dismembered the body- disguising her identity- and removed the head, which he retained. Of course, he also used dump sites. On the other hand, Kelly was murdered in her own home. Her identity was not disguised, nor was there an attempt to skillfully dismember the body which, in stark contrast to Jackson, was destroyed in a most wanton and frenzied fashion. Neither was Kelly decapitated, or any attempt made to remove the body parts; despite the fact that her killer appeared to be under little time pressure. So, in respect of MO and signature, no similarity. Quite the reverse in fact.

Fifthly, equipment used by the killer. In respect of Kelly, only a knife was used, as was the case with all C5 victims. In Jackson's case, both a knife and saw were used, according to Dr Hebbert, as was the case with all of the Torso murders. So, no similarity there...

In conclusion, I think it safe to conclude that it is highly unlikely that Jackson and Kelly were killed by the same perpetrator, or that the Torso Killer was responsible for any of the Whitechapel murders.

[Debra A]

Secondly, type of injuries. Kelly's injuries were, of course, far more extensive. Thus, several of her organs were removed from the body; in the case of Jackson only the uterus was removed. The surface area of Kelly's abdomen was completely removed; not so with Jackson.

This statement is not correct, John.
Re Elizabeth's organ removal-Hebbert's exact wording in quotes.

The trunk had been divided into 3 sections
In the first section:

"The chest had been opened in front by the mid-line. The upper part of the sternum cut through and the contents of the chest had been removed."

In the second section:

The second portion of the trunk included both breats and the upper part of the abdomen.It had also been opened down the centre of
the sternum.
The ribs from 4th downwards were present.
"The intestines had been removed but the duodenum and a piece of the stomach remained."
Both kidneys, spleen , pancreas and liver present.

In the third section:

This portion of trunk consisted of pelvis from below the 3rd lumbar vertebra.The pelvis contained the lower part of the vagina,
and the lower part of the rectum, the front part of the bladder including the urethra.

The parts found were (1) two large flaps of skin, the uterus and placenta; (2) both arms and hands
(3) both thighs (4) both legs and feet; (5) the trunk divided into 3 parts


The flaps of skin and subcutaenous tissue consisted of two long irregular slips taken from the abdominal walls....*

The upper part of the vagina was attached to the uterus both ovaries and broad ligaments were present, and the posterior wall of the bladder.

*plus the external organs of generation and part of the right buttock as I wrote earlier.

A little earlier in the thread I posted some comments made by Hebbert that were published in a Boston newspaper.
Hebbert was comparing the mutilations done by a child murderer on his victim to the mutilations done in other cases:

"It did not appear to me to be a case of sexual mania [with the child murderer]. The body was mutilated in an entirely different way from murders of that kind. I saw six of the Whitchapel victims of Jack the Ripper. I am somewhat acquainted with crimes of that sort in countries other than England and I can say that those cases, without exception, were totally different from this case. "

Several people have agreed with my idea that Hebbert is including the torso cases he was personally involved with examining 1887-89 and the two Whitechapel cases he was involved with, Mary Kelly and Alice McKenzie when he says "Whitechapel victims". In the medical jurisprudence text he provided the torso material for they are also referred to as the Whitechapel cases.
He is clearly saying in the newspaper article that he saw some recognisable similarity in the cases of mutilation where he believed 'sexual mania' was involved.

P.S.
Not to be a nitpicker but just for accuracy-It was Elizabeth's thigh that was discovered in the gardens of Shelley House and not her 'torso' as you keep saying.

The thigh had evidently been thrown from the embankment and police thought the rest of Elizabeth's remains had been thrown from the Albert Bridge, into Battersea Park frame ground close to the Thames and Albert Bridge and the rest into the tidal Thames early in the morning before high tide.

[John G]

This statement is not correct, John.
Re Elizabeth's organ removal-Hebbert's exact wording in quotes.

The trunk had been divided into 3 sections
In the first section:

"The chest had been opened in front by the mid-line. The upper part of the sternum cut through and the contents of the chest had been removed."

In the second section:

The second portion of the trunk included both breats and the upper part of the abdomen.It had also been opened down the centre of
the sternum.
The ribs from 4th downwards were present.
"The intestines had been removed but the duodenum and a piece of the stomach remained."
Both kidneys, spleen , pancreas and liver present.

In the third section:

This portion of trunk consisted of pelvis from below the 3rd lumbar vertebra.The pelvis contained the lower part of the vagina,
and the lower part of the rectum, the front part of the bladder including the urethra.

The parts found were (1) two large flaps of skin, the uterus and placenta; (2) both arms and hands
(3) both thighs (4) both legs and feet; (5) the trunk divided into 3 parts


The flaps of skin and subcutaenous tissue consisted of two long irregular slips taken from the abdominal walls....*

The upper part of the vagina was attached to the uterus both ovaries and broad ligaments were present, and the posterior wall of the bladder.

*plus the external organs of generation and part of the right buttock as I wrote earlier.

A little earlier in the thread I posted some comments made by Hebbert that were published in a Boston newspaper.
Hebbert was comparing the mutilations done by a child murderer on his victim to the mutilations done in other cases:

"It did not appear to me to be a case of sexual mania [with the child murderer]. The body was mutilated in an entirely different way from murders of that kind. I saw six of the Whitchapel victims of Jack the Ripper. I am somewhat acquainted with crimes of that sort in countries other than England and I can say that those cases, without exception, were totally different from this case. "

Several people have agreed with my idea that Hebbert is including the torso cases he was personally involved with examining 1887-89 and the two Whitechapel cases he was involved with, Mary Kelly and Alice McKenzie when he says "Whitechapel victims". In the medical jurisprudence text he provided the torso material for they are also referred to as the Whitechapel cases.
He is clearly saying in the newspaper article that he saw some recognisable similarity in the cases of mutilation where he believed 'sexual mania' was involved.

P.S.
Not to be a nitpicker but just for accuracy-It was Elizabeth's thigh that was discovered in the gardens of Shelley House and not her 'torso' as you keep saying.

The thigh had evidently been thrown from the embankment and police thought the rest of Elizabeth's remains had been thrown from the Albert Bridge, into Battersea Park frame ground close to the Thames and Albert Bridge and the rest into the tidal Thames early in the morning before high tide.

Hi Debra,

I'm a little confused. Apart from the uterus, what organs is Dr Hebbert stating were removed from Jackson? In any event, he doesn't seem to be suggesting they were deliberately removed, except possibly for purposes of dismemberment. Very unlike Kelly, where the organs seem to have been plucked out, as a consequence of a completely frenzied assault, and clearly not for dismemberment purposes. And, of course, Hebbert isn't remotely suggesting that Jackson's body was subjected to any kind of frenzied assault. I also take it that the surface of Jackson's abdomen wasn't completely removed, unlike Kelly?

I would be surprised if he [Hebbert] was inferring that McKenzie's murder was linked to Kelly's, as the two crimes were clearly radically different. In fact, if we include McKenzie in the canon, we may as well add Ellen Bury and conclude that William Bury killed just about everyone. Case closed!

Mind you, what about Austin, who died after being attacked with a knife, with the anus and vagina being targeted, just like some of the earlier Whitechapel murders. And where was she attacked? Well, 35 Dorset Street, of course! Very confusing. Mind you, rules out William Bury as he'd already been hanged by then (1901).

Thank you for correcting me over the thigh issue, I must take the time to re-read Trow!

[Debra A]

Hi Debra,

I'm a little confused. Apart from the uterus, what organs is Dr Hebbert stating were removed from Jackson? In any event, he doesn't seem to be suggesting they were deliberately removed, except possibly for purposes of dismemberment. Very unlike Kelly, where the organs seem to have been plucked out, as a consequence of a completely frenzied assault, and clearly not for dismemberment purposes. And, of course, Hebbert isn't remotely suggesting that Jackson's body was subjected to any kind of frenzied assault. I also take it that the surface of Jackson's abdomen wasn't completely removed, unlike Kelly?

I would be surprised if he was inferring that McKenzie's murder was linked to Kelly's, as the two crimes were clearly radically different. In fact, if we include McKenzie in the canon, we may as well add Ellen Bury and conclude that William Bury killed just about everyone. Case closed!

Mind you, what about Austin, who died after being attacked with a knife, with the anus and vagina being targeted, just like some of the earlier Whitechapel murders. And where was she attacked? Well, 35 Dorset Street, of course! Very confusing. Mind you, rules out William Bury as he'd already been hanged by then (1901).

Thank you for correcting me over the thigh issue, I must take the time to re-read Trow!

Hi John

With respect, I feel you are continually moving the goalposts concerning aspects like organ removal and genital mutilation, with the Jackson case!

I was posting in reponse to your statement that only Elizabeth's uterus was removed. Clearly this was not the case. Hebbert uses the specific word 'removed' when writing on Elizabeth's case, not the words absent or missing as he does in the Rainham case when describing her missing organs. Why the distinction?

Hebbert says the organs in the chest had been removed. Several newspapers reported that Elizabeth's heart was never recovered. He also says the intestines were removed.The organs may have been removed during the cutting up of the body but we cannot know that for certain. You are certain because you are viewing the torso cases from your own personal standpoint, that they are a series of murders stretching back to 1873, and a series of murders separate to the Whitechapel murders and don't form a neat little profile showing escalation if they are mixed and matched!

I would also question whether the idea of a this 'taunting' torso killer has any basis in real fact? I don't believe the dumping was done with certain locations in mind, the Shelley House dump could have been purely accidental if the thigh was just thrown over the nearest set of bushes.
Trow doesn't state which body part it was btw.

Keith, there really is no evidence that Emily Horsenell was knifed in her vagina as Tom suggests. Nor Emma Smith.

[Fisherman]

John G: Hello Fisherman,

I'm afraid I must strongly disagree. For instance, it clearly is important to focus on differences as well as similarities, otherwise you end up being selective with the evidence in order to support your own personal theory.

That is a fair enough point - generally speaking. However, I was pointing to the fact that you posted that there was one unskilled and one skilled killer around, and that distinction rested on a comparison between quite different matters - the annihilation of Kellyīs body as opposed to the seemingly meticulous division of Jacksonīs body.
I find it very hard to produce any sort of comparison between these things. It would much resemble comparing a Dodge Viper to a lorry -they are very, very different. However, once we look inside the Viper and the lorry, we can see that they use the exact same engine! So they DO come from the same line of production, regardless of the external differences! And it is the engine that enables us to make the match.

Similarly, there are great differences between Jacksons body and Kellys ditto. But as Debra has pointed out to you, there is a very striking similarity in the manner in which the genital area was attacked and taken apart in BOTH cases.

Same engine? Quite probably, yes.

That exact detail is potentially all-important. It cannot be skipped over, least of all by comparing the cuts to Nichols face to the way in which Jacksons legs were severed. Just like the Viper and the lorry, it must be acknowledged that they differ - but letīs not throw the baby out with the bathwater, John!

For instance, you refer to "two serialists in the same town...seemingly active in the same smallish area at times..." Well, with respect, I don't think that can be right.

The "smallish area referred to is the Pinchin Street/Berner Street area, John. So not only CAN it be right. It IS factually indisputably correct.

... the Torso killer operated over a far larger area.

Yes, the area was larger than the Ripper enclosure - but how do we know that the Ripper could not use a larger area when not under pressure of time and location? And, for that matter, how do we know that the torso victims were not all picked up in Whitechapel? I am not saying they were, or even that I think they were - I am simply saying that you cannot prove that they were not.

More specifically, Mary Kelly was murdered in Whitechapel; Liz Jackson had no known connection to Whitechapel and had been living rough on the embankment.

Same answer.


Secondly, type of injuries. Kelly's injuries were, of course, far more extensive. Thus, several of her organs were removed from the body; in the case of Jackson only the uterus was removed.

That is not true, as Debra has pointed out to you.

Thirdly, the killer's objective in carrying out the mutilations. In the case of Jackson Dr Hebbert opined: "...the system of division of the parts gave evidence of design and skill-the design probably being for the purpose of concealment of the crime and easy carriage of the parts." Of course, the mutilations inflicted on Kelly suggested a radically different motive...

But we all know that this is not true. The torso killer was NOT one to conceal his crimes, was he? So why do you bring this up as if it was true? NORMALLY, a killer who severs the limbs are trying to conceal his deeds, but - likewise normally - such a killer will not scatter the remains in gardens and police house basements, will he? So letīs drop that suggestion before it gets too ridiculous! The torso killer took great care to have his deeds REVEALED, and NOT to have them hidden.

Fourthly, MO and signature. Jackson's killer abducted the victim...

Ooops - how do we know that? A fair enough guess, but how do we know that she did not come voluntarily?

... murdered her, dismembered the body- disguising her identity-...

So how come we know she was Elizabeth Jackson...??

...and removed the head, which he retained.

He did? We know this how?

Of course, he also used dump sites.

In a sense, so did the Ripper. He dumped his victims where he killed them.

On the other hand, Kelly was murdered in her own home. Her identity was not disguised...

Well, 127 years on, we still discuss who the woman on the bed was. It can be argued that the facial mutilation was an effort to conceal the identity. Not that I think that it was not Kelly on the bed, but I do recognize that it can be argued with some credibility.

... nor was there an attempt to skillfully dismember the body which, in stark contrast to Jackson, was destroyed in a most wanton and frenzied fashion.

SEEMINGLY wanton. It can and has been faked, you know. And the frenzy is no more than a viable suggestion. Those who argue that Kelly was an effort to copy the Ripper deeds cannot be proven wrong.

Neither was Kelly decapitated, or any attempt made to remove the body parts; despite the fact that her killer appeared to be under little time pressure. So, in respect of MO and signature, no similarity. Quite the reverse in fact.

Until we look at how the genital areas were treated - more or less exactly similarly. You seem to forget this. Why, John? Is it because it is in conflict with your thoughts?

Fifthly, equipment used by the killer. In respect of Kelly, only a knife was used, as was the case with all C5 victims. In Jackson's case, both a knife and saw were used, according to Dr Hebbert, as was the case with all of the Torso murders. So, no similarity there...

No? A knife is used in both cases, and you amazingly conclude that there is "no similarity"? Would it not be more true to say that the exact same type of tool was used in both cases - but that another tool was added in the Jackson case?

In conclusion, I think it safe to conclude that it is highly unlikely that Jackson and Kelly were killed by the same perpetrator, or that the Torso Killer was responsible for any of the Whitechapel murders.

My verdict would be that we should acknowledge that there were great dissimilarities between the two series - if that was what they were - and that we should therefore not assume that the killer would have been the same one in both cases. However, the built in similarities are too big for us NOT to acknowledge that we MAY have a case of two types of murder series perpetrated by the same killer.

Like how Kürten killed in different fashions, Like how Sutcliffe killed in different fashions, sometimes choosing victims from very different societal spheres. Like how Heirens knifed one victim to death, shot the next and strangled the third one.

It would be nice if we could always bank on every serialist sticking to the same MO throughout. But we canīt. What we CAN bank on, however, is that whenever people get murdered in a restricted area at the same approximate time, some of the victims showing similar traits (like Jackson and Kelly did), then we would be asinine not to accept that the killer could be one and the same.

I think that pretty much sums up how I am thinking. Like it or not.

[RockySullivan]

Hi Debra,

I'm a little confused. Apart from the uterus, what organs is Dr Hebbert stating were removed from Jackson? In any event, he doesn't seem to be suggesting they were deliberately removed, except possibly for purposes of dismemberment. Very unlike Kelly, where the organs seem to have been plucked out, as a consequence of a completely frenzied assault, and clearly not for dismemberment purposes. And, of course, Hebbert isn't remotely suggesting that Jackson's body was subjected to any kind of frenzied assault. I also take it that the surface of Jackson's abdomen wasn't completely removed, unlike Kelly?

I would be surprised if he [Hebbert] was inferring that McKenzie's murder was linked to Kelly's, as the two crimes were clearly radically different. In fact, if we include McKenzie in the canon, we may as well add Ellen Bury and conclude that William Bury killed just about everyone. Case closed!

Mind you, what about Austin, who died after being attacked with a knife, with the anus and vagina being targeted, just like some of the earlier Whitechapel murders. And where was she attacked? Well, 35 Dorset Street, of course! Very confusing. Mind you, rules out William Bury as he'd already been hanged by then (1901).

Thank you for correcting me over the thigh issue, I must take the time to re-read Trow!

Hi John, what do you hear what do you say!

What are you confused about. Debra posted ""The chest had been opened in front by the mid-line. The upper part of the sternum cut through and the contents of the chest had been removed.""

Opening the chest has no relation to dismemberment I can think of. And it seems the chest was opened so the organs could be removed. You seem to want to disagree with the foremost expert on the torso cases in the world abut the facts which leaves me puzzled. You go on about differences...and yet in order to reconcile the coincidences involving the pinchin case you argue the torso killer was "parodying" the ripper. Now that you are aware of the similarities between Jackson and Kelly do you think the torso killer was also "doing a parody" of the killer murder with jackson?

[John Wheat]

I believe as many others do that Jack and The Torso Killer were separate killers and it should be up to those that believe they were one and the same to prove they were one and the same or atleast put up a half decent argument that goes beyond the the alleged similarities between Kelly's murder and certain Torso murders.

[Fisherman]

I believe as many others do that Jack and The Torso Killer were separate killers and it should be up to those that believe they were one and the same to prove they were one and the same or atleast put up a half decent argument that goes beyond the the alleged similarities between Kelly's murder and certain Torso murders.

So the ones who suggest that the killers may have been one and the same should prove their point?

And those who confidently state that they cannot have been are deliberated from this task?

Is that it? Aha.

Am I right in thinking that you have appointed yourself the best judge of which arguments are "half decent" and which are not? And that the "alleged" similarities that have been cited - word for word - here on this thread do not belong to the material that is admissible?

Anybody who claims that the two series are very different and therefore more likely the work of different killers has a great point.

Those who say that there are no similarities and who state that it MUST be two different killers are instead misusing the space out here.

With respect, John, you are dissing the work and thoughts of Debra Arif, suggesting that she is making a mountain out of a molehill, more or less. Or worse, an "alleged" molehill. And you do so by claiming things that are demonstrably wrong, like when it comes to what was removed from Jacksons body.
If you had been out here long enough, you would avoid such things. If there is anything that describes Debras take on things, then it is that she never draws too much on things, and never loses touch with reality - and she is ALWAYS extremely well read up.

With respect, it is a complete mismatch. And that is not dissing you, because you can be one heck of a Ripperologist anyway. Most of us take comfort in that thought every once in a while.