The Whitehall Mystery

[Abby Normal]

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.

I like it, fish.

I would just add that John G keeps making the point that torsoman was operating over a wider area of London. well as I keep saying, if the apparent difference in MO (not sig-I think the sig is the same-post mortem mutilation and removal of organs) is because the torso victims can be brought to his private place, and ripper victims cant and have to be killed in "public" then I think the wider area is again is explained or made moot.

if he can bring them home, or they go their voluntarily, and he kills, mutilates and dismembers them their, and then can dump parts wherever he wants, then it obviously going to appear to be a wider area, then when he has to kill, mutilate and remove organs "in public" and not in his private residence.

the dump sites can be wherever torso man wants them-the ripper victims its obviously going to be more confined area-where he kills them.

[Abby Normal]

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.

actually its up to either side to make their best argument-nobodies going to be able to "prove" anything at this point anyway.

[John G]

Lol

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.

Hello John,

You know, is it just me or is this thread starting to take on a surreal quality? I mean, considering some of the recent posts I'm beginning to wonder if we might not be blessed with contributions from a plethora of world class surgeons, biologists, forensic pathologists....People no doubt renowned and highly respected in their particular field of medical expertise!

Okay, perhaps I am being just a little mischievous here. For the record, I do greatly respect Debra's opinions, and I freely acknowledge that she has a far more extensive knowledge of the Torso cases than my own. Similarly, Fisherman, another highly knowledgeable poster, whose opinions I also greatly respect, and who I usually agree with. Nonetheless, I don't think that we should set aside opinions of medical experts like Dr Hebbert, who at least had the opportunity to examine the bodies.

Thus, considering Liz Jackson. According to Dr Hebbert, a medical expert who examined the body, "It was clear from the direction and manner of the cuts that no ordinary surgical or dissecting room operation had been carried out, but the system of division of the parts gave evidence of design and skill,-the design probably for the purpose of concealment of the crime and easy carriage of the parts..." In fact, in relation to all of the 1887-1889 torso cases Dr Hebbert remarked: "The mode of dismemberment and mutilation was in all similar, and showed very considerable skill in execution, and it is a fair presumption from the facts, that the same man committed all four murders."

In summary, according to Dr Hebbert, Jackson's killer demonstrated both skill and was acting towards a clear purpose: the "concealment of the crime and easy carriage of the parts..."

And what of Kelly's murderer. I surely do not have to cite Dr Bond or Dr Philips for people to realize that this killer was engaged in an absolute frenzy of orgiastic violence, in which he seemed intent in completely destroying Kelly's body. Frankly you only need to look at the photographs, as disturbing as they are. Even the surface of her abdomen was removed, so frenzied was the attack. Not so with Jackson, of course.

Conclusion: there was clearly no evidence of skill in Kelly's case, and I have no idea what the killer's objective was- in fact I'm not sure he had- but it clearly was not "concealment of the crime and easy carriage of the parts..." Neither, of course, was she decapitated, unlike all of the torso victims, or her body dumped, unlike all of the torso victims.

Perhaps it might be salutary to consider the opinion of Dr Biggs, a forensic pathologist engaged by Trevor Marriott. After analyzing Liz Jackson's murder, he opined: "The fact that one of the bodies had been pregnant [Jackson] certainly raises the possibility of complications of attempted abortion or other "back street" obstetric procedure." (Marriott, 2015)

Interestingly, in relation to Liz Jackson Dr Hebbert concluded: "There was no evidence as to the cause of death."

And what of the suggestion that JtR and the torso killer were the same? Well, if that were the case we would be considering something completely unique in the annals of criminology. Thus, we start off with a killer I shall refer to as Torsoman. He is reasonably consistent in respect of both MO and signature (in fact, according to Dr Hebbert, extremely consistent from 1887-1889). He may have committed his first murder in Battersea (1873), before striking again in Putney (1874) and Tottenham (1884).

The first murder to be referred to by Dr Hebbert is Rainham (1887) and, as with the first two murders, body parts are discovered in the Thames. Thus, to summarize, in all but one of the torso cases there is a connection with the Thames. Moreover, in every case the victim had been killed, dismembered, decapitated, and the body parts dumped in various locations. The killer also successfully prevented identification, and the heads of the victims were never found.

However, for some inexplicable reason in August 1888 he enters the proverbial telephone box, does a quick costume change, and hey presto he's transformed into Ripperman. In this guise/alter ego he decides to focus his activities exclusively in the Whitechapel area, abandoning the connection with the Thames. Moreover, his first murder is very different from the earlier torso crimes: the victim, Martha Tabram, is killed on the street in a frenzied knife attack. No skill is demonstrated, she is not abducted or lured away; she is not decapitated, dismembered, or her identity disguised. Of course, her killer does not use a dump site.

Then in August 1888, whist still in the Ripperman persona, he kills Polly Nichols. This time he eviscerates the victim and mutilates the neck. However, she is also killed in Whitechapel, and no attempt is made to disguise her identity. She is not decapitated/abducted/dismembered. Her body isn't dumped.

Then the following month, whilst still in the same guise, he murders Annie Chapman. This murder is remarkably similar to Nichols, right down to parallel neck cuts, although there is some escalation in that her uterus is removed. And again the murder takes place in Whitechapel. However, no dump site use, no decapitation, no attempt to disguise identity...

Nonetheless, somewhere around this time he tires of being Ripperman, does another costume change, and is transformed back into Torsoman. In this guise he commits the Whitehall Torso murder. According to Dr Hebbert this murder is remarkably like Rainham, and we also have the association with the Thames-the police headquarters, where the body was found, was on the embankment. The victim is decapitated (head never found), dismembered (skillfully), and body dumped.

However, for some strange reason he quickly tires of Torsoman again, so once more he transforms into Ripperman. This time he commits three more murders, all committed in and around Whitechapel. Two of the victims eviscerated, with neck mutilations. And there is a clear indication of further escalation; he removes Eddowes kidney as well as her uterus; and several body parts are extracted from Kelly, who is also far more extensively mutilated.

But in 1889 he tires of the Ripperman persona, transforming himself once more into Torsoman. His next victim, Liz Jackson had been living rough on the embankment, so another connection to the Thames-but not Whitechapel! As Dr Hebbert points out this crime is very similar to Rainham and Whitehall. Once again, the victim is decapitated, and the head is never discovered. She is dismembered and the killer uses dump sites. Her identity is discovered, but that clearly was not the killer's intention.

Finally, in 1889 we have Pinchin Street. No association with The Thames this time, but the victim is dismembered, and the head retained. And once again, he successfully prevents her from being identified. A dump site is used, as with all of the torso murders, but none of the Ripper murders.

Now, from the perspective of a single killer does any off this make sense? I would say, it's more like something out of a Marvel Comic!

Taken together the Whitechapel murders make some sort of sense. Keppel (2005) argues that the killer was progressing "across a continuum of escalating violence."

Taken together the Torso murders make sense. Dr Hebbert stated: "In the first two cases the vertebrae had been sawn through, in the third the sixth cervical vertebrae was sawn through, but the dorsal and lumber vertebrae were separated by cutting through the intervertebral substance, and in the fourth the intervertebral substance in the neck was cut, showing that the man was aware of the projecting anterior lip on the surface of the vertebrae, and suggesting that he was becoming more expert in his work..." And, of course, the Torso murders are nearly all connected to the Thames, and the Whitechapel murders to Whitechapel.

Combine the two and you enter the world of cartoon-land! In fact, can anyone provide a single example of where a serial killer as progressed with two very distinct, but in their own way consistent, MO's and signature? And I don't mean Peter Kurten, whose MO was all over the place.

I bet you can't.

[John G]

Lo

I like it, fish.

I would just add that John G keeps making the point that torsoman was operating over a wider area of London. well as I keep saying, if the apparent difference in MO (not sig-I think the sig is the same-post mortem mutilation and removal of organs) is because the torso victims can be brought to his private place, and ripper victims cant and have to be killed in "public" then I think the wider area is again is explained or made moot.

if he can bring them home, or they go their voluntarily, and he kills, mutilates and dismembers them their, and then can dump parts wherever he wants, then it obviously going to appear to be a wider area, then when he has to kill, mutilate and remove organs "in public" and not in his private residence.

the dump sites can be wherever torso man wants them-the ripper victims its obviously going to be more confined area-where he kills them.

Hello Abby,

Yes, I've been giving this some thought. Perhaps we should include Rose Mylett? Okay I know she was strangled, but maybe his knife was being re-bladed due to overuse! And what about Horsnell, Smith and Hames? Okay, I know they were all attacked by a gang, but of course these assaults pre-dated Tabram. Maybe, due to inexperience, he recruited a gang to assist him, until he could fully build up his confidence. Yes, that must be it!

[John G]

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?

Not sure Dr Hebbert would agree with your assessment about the reasons for the chest being opened up. Mind you, perhaps you are more highly qualified, although to be fair Dr Hebbert did have the advantage of examining the body! Don't think Debra, would necessarily agree with you, either: ' The organs may have been removed during the cutting up of the body but we cannot know for certain " (post, 791).


As for the Pinchin Torso being intended to parody or simulate the Whitechapel crimes: that was also the view of James Monro. Mind you, what did he know: he was only the police commissioner at the time!

By the way, I would be very surprised if Debra would agree that all of the Torso murders, and also of the Ripper murders, had the same perpetrator. That's just your opinion.

By the way, Liz Jackson may have been the victim of a botched abortion or other medical procedure: see Dr Biggs opinion. Cause of death couldn't be determined.

[Abby Normal]

Lo

Hello Abby,

Yes, I've been giving this some thought. Perhaps we should include Rose Mylett? Okay I know she was strangled, but maybe his knife was being re-bladed due to overuse! And what about Horsnell, Smith and Hames? Okay, I know they were all attacked by a gang, but of course these assaults pre-dated Tabram. Maybe, due to inexperience, he recruited a gang to assist him, until he could fully build up his confidence. Yes, that must be it!

Hi JohnG
First of all take a deep breath-relax. your starting to hyperventilate!

Second-your response has nothing to do with my post. If it does somehow please clarify-im all ears.

Third-have you had a chance to read and absorb Debra's last post to you? All your responses so far seem oblivious to her valid points.

Finally-can you wrap your head around the idea that maybe, Just maybe, that the torso victims and ripper victims are by the same person, but that MO has to change because of the killers different circumstances concerning victims?

[John G]

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.

Hello Debra,

I appreciate your argument about there being certain similarities between Kelly's murder and Jackson's but, as I'm sure you'd agree, there are also major dissimilarities as well. In fact, as Dr Biggs reminds us, we cannot even be certain that Jackson was not the victim of a botched medical procedure.

You suggest that I am certain in my convictions. Well, actually I'm not. For instance, if we start to compare the victims forensically all sorts of possibilities present themselves. I have argued that Kelly's murder is not much like a Torso murder but, in all honesty, from a forensic perspective at least, it's not much like a Whitechapel murder either.

In fact, returning to the issue of forensic comparisons, Lynn Cates, another experienced poster whom I respect, has argued that, forensically, Kate Eddowes' murder is least like Polly and Annie's and Alice Mackenzie's murder is the most similar. And who is to say that he is wrong.

Regarding the idea of the Torso murder taunting the police. I think that this is a theory that stands up reasonably well. For instance, why else deposit the Whitehall Torso in the pitch-black under ground labyrinth of the New Scotland Yard building? Even if the perpetrator worked there, why take a dismembered corpse to work with him? And wouldn't he be risking that he would be considered a major suspect, i.e. as he worked there? And why take the trouble to bury some of the remains, while leaving other remains where they could easily be discovered? The fact is, if he simply wanted to dispose of the remains he could have thrown them into the Thames or, better still, buried them. No, unless someone comes up with a remotely sensible alternative solution I think I'll stick with my theory.

Similarly with Pinchin Street, there are just too many coincidences: victim probably killed on the anniversary of Annie's death, the graffiti, the jagged wound that was similar to some of the Whitechapel victims, the fact that the body may have been deposited by the railway arches that Schwartz ran to....

And then there's the fact that the body was placed near to too drunks, which is consistent with a killer who I believe had a macabre sense of humour.

Obviously, there's less evidence with Tottenham, Rainham and Jackson. However, Tottenham Torso, deposited in an area almost constantly monitored by the police, and near to a military drill hall; Rainham, parts thrown into the Thames (shock value?); Some of Jackson's remains thrown into the garden of Sir Percy Shelley's house (macabre sense of humour?); all indicates behavioural and thematic consistency.

[Abby Normal]

Lol

Hello John,

You know, is it just me or is this thread starting to take on a surreal quality? I mean, considering some of the recent posts I'm beginning to wonder if we might not be blessed with contributions from a plethora of world class surgeons, biologists, forensic pathologists....People no doubt renowned and highly respected in their particular field of medical expertise!

Okay, perhaps I am being just a little mischievous here. For the record, I do greatly respect Debra's opinions, and I freely acknowledge that she has a far more extensive knowledge of the Torso cases than my own. Similarly, Fisherman, another highly knowledgeable poster, whose opinions I also greatly respect, and who I usually agree with. Nonetheless, I don't think that we should set aside opinions of medical experts like Dr Hebbert, who at least had the opportunity to examine the bodies.

Thus, considering Liz Jackson. According to Dr Hebbert, a medical expert who examined the body, "It was clear from the direction and manner of the cuts that no ordinary surgical or dissecting room operation had been carried out, but the system of division of the parts gave evidence of design and skill,-the design probably for the purpose of concealment of the crime and easy carriage of the parts..." In fact, in relation to all of the 1887-1889 torso cases Dr Hebbert remarked: "The mode of dismemberment and mutilation was in all similar, and showed very considerable skill in execution, and it is a fair presumption from the facts, that the same man committed all four murders."

In summary, according to Dr Hebbert, Jackson's killer demonstrated both skill and was acting towards a clear purpose: the "concealment of the crime and easy carriage of the parts..."

And what of Kelly's murderer. I surely do not have to cite Dr Bond or Dr Philips for people to realize that this killer was engaged in an absolute frenzy of orgiastic violence, in which he seemed intent in completely destroying Kelly's body. Frankly you only need to look at the photographs, as disturbing as they are. Even the surface of her abdomen was removed, so frenzied was the attack. Not so with Jackson, of course.

Conclusion: there was clearly no evidence of skill in Kelly's case, and I have no idea what the killer's objective was- in fact I'm not sure he had- but it clearly was not "concealment of the crime and easy carriage of the parts..." Neither, of course, was she decapitated, unlike all of the torso victims, or her body dumped, unlike all of the torso victims.

Perhaps it might be salutary to consider the opinion of Dr Biggs, a forensic pathologist engaged by Trevor Marriott. After analyzing Liz Jackson's murder, he opined: "The fact that one of the bodies had been pregnant [Jackson] certainly raises the possibility of complications of attempted abortion or other "back street" obstetric procedure." (Marriott, 2015)

Interestingly, in relation to Liz Jackson Dr Hebbert concluded: "There was no evidence as to the cause of death."

And what of the suggestion that JtR and the torso killer were the same? Well, if that were the case we would be considering something completely unique in the annals of criminology. Thus, we start off with a killer I shall refer to as Torsoman. He is reasonably consistent in respect of both MO and signature (in fact, according to Dr Hebbert, extremely consistent from 1887-1889). He may have committed his first murder in Battersea (1873), before striking again in Putney (1874) and Tottenham (1884).

The first murder to be referred to by Dr Hebbert is Rainham (1887) and, as with the first two murders, body parts are discovered in the Thames. Thus, to summarize, in all but one of the torso cases there is a connection with the Thames. Moreover, in every case the victim had been killed, dismembered, decapitated, and the body parts dumped in various locations. The killer also successfully prevented identification, and the heads of the victims were never found.

However, for some inexplicable reason in August 1888 he enters the proverbial telephone box, does a quick costume change, and hey presto he's transformed into Ripperman. In this guise/alter ego he decides to focus his activities exclusively in the Whitechapel area, abandoning the connection with the Thames. Moreover, his first murder is very different from the earlier torso crimes: the victim, Martha Tabram, is killed on the street in a frenzied knife attack. No skill is demonstrated, she is not abducted or lured away; she is not decapitated, dismembered, or her identity disguised. Of course, her killer does not use a dump site.

Then in August 1888, whist still in the Ripperman persona, he kills Polly Nichols. This time he eviscerates the victim and mutilates the neck. However, she is also killed in Whitechapel, and no attempt is made to disguise her identity. She is not decapitated/abducted/dismembered. Her body isn't dumped.

Then the following month, whilst still in the same guise, he murders Annie Chapman. This murder is remarkably similar to Nichols, right down to parallel neck cuts, although there is some escalation in that her uterus is removed. And again the murder takes place in Whitechapel. However, no dump site use, no decapitation, no attempt to disguise identity...

Nonetheless, somewhere around this time he tires of being Ripperman, does another costume change, and is transformed back into Torsoman. In this guise he commits the Whitehall Torso murder. According to Dr Hebbert this murder is remarkably like Rainham, and we also have the association with the Thames-the police headquarters, where the body was found, was on the embankment. The victim is decapitated (head never found), dismembered (skillfully), and body dumped.

However, for some strange reason he quickly tires of Torsoman again, so once more he transforms into Ripperman. This time he commits three more murders, all committed in and around Whitechapel. Two of the victims eviscerated, with neck mutilations. And there is a clear indication of further escalation; he removes Eddowes kidney as well as her uterus; and several body parts are extracted from Kelly, who is also far more extensively mutilated.

But in 1889 he tires of the Ripperman persona, transforming himself once more into Torsoman. His next victim, Liz Jackson had been living rough on the embankment, so another connection to the Thames-but not Whitechapel! As Dr Hebbert points out this crime is very similar to Rainham and Whitehall. Once again, the victim is decapitated, and the head is never discovered. She is dismembered and the killer uses dump sites. Her identity is discovered, but that clearly was not the killer's intention.

Finally, in 1889 we have Pinchin Street. No association with The Thames this time, but the victim is dismembered, and the head retained. And once again, he successfully prevents her from being identified. A dump site is used, as with all of the torso murders, but none of the Ripper murders.

Now, from the perspective of a single killer does any off this make sense? I would say, it's more like something out of a Marvel Comic!

Taken together the Whitechapel murders make some sort of sense. Keppel (2005) argues that the killer was progressing "across a continuum of escalating violence."

Taken together the Torso murders make sense. Dr Hebbert stated: "In the first two cases the vertebrae had been sawn through, in the third the sixth cervical vertebrae was sawn through, but the dorsal and lumber vertebrae were separated by cutting through the intervertebral substance, and in the fourth the intervertebral substance in the neck was cut, showing that the man was aware of the projecting anterior lip on the surface of the vertebrae, and suggesting that he was becoming more expert in his work..." And, of course, the Torso murders are nearly all connected to the Thames, and the Whitechapel murders to Whitechapel.

Combine the two and you enter the world of cartoon-land! In fact, can anyone provide a single example of where a serial killer as progressed with two very distinct, but in their own way consistent, MO's and signature? And I don't mean Peter Kurten, whose MO was all over the place.

I bet you can't.

progressed with two very distinct, but in their own way consistent, MO's and signature?

Whats the sig of the ripper?
whats the sig of torsoman?


whats the distinct progression in sig of the ripper?
Whats the distinct progression in sig of torsoman?

[Abby Normal]

Hello Debra,

I appreciate your argument about there being certain similarities between Kelly's murder and Jackson's but, as I'm sure you'd agree, there are also major dissimilarities as well. In fact, as Dr Biggs reminds us, we cannot even be certain that Jackson was not the victim of a botched medical procedure.

You suggest that I am certain in my convictions. Well, actually I'm not. For instance, if we start to compare the victims forensically all sorts of possibilities present themselves. I have argued that Kelly's murder is not much like a Torso murder but, in all honesty, from a forensic perspective at least, it's not much like a Whitechapel murder either.

In fact, returning to the issue of forensic comparisons, Lynn Cates, another experienced poster whom I respect, has argued that, forensically, Kate Eddowes' murder is least like Polly and Annie's and Alice Mackenzie's murder is the most similar. And who is to say that he is wrong.

Regarding the idea of the Torso murder taunting the police. I think that this is a theory that stands up reasonably well. For instance, why else deposit the Whitehall Torso in the pitch-black under ground labyrinth of the New Scotland Yard building? Even if the perpetrator worked there, why take a dismembered corpse to work with him? And wouldn't he be risking that he would be considered a major suspect, i.e. as he worked there? And why take the trouble to bury some of the remains, while leaving other remains where they could easily be discovered? The fact is, if he simply wanted to dispose of the remains he could have thrown them into the Thames or, better still, buried them. No, unless someone comes up with a remotely sensible alternative solution I think I'll stick with my theory.

Similarly with Pinchin Street, there are just too many coincidences: victim probably killed on the anniversary of Annie's death, the graffiti, the jagged wound that was similar to some of the Whitechapel victims, the fact that the body may have been deposited by the railway arches that Schwartz ran to....

And then there's the fact that the body was placed near to too drunks, which is consistent with a killer who I believe had a macabre sense of humour.

Obviously, there's less evidence with Tottenham, Rainham and Jackson. However, Tottenham Torso, deposited in an area almost constantly monitored by the police, and near to a military drill hall; Rainham, parts thrown into the Thames (shock value?); Some of Jackson's remains thrown into the garden of Sir Percy Shelley's house (macabre sense of humour?); all indicates behavioural and thematic consistency.

Hi JohnG

Similarly with Pinchin Street, there are just too many coincidences: victim probably killed on the anniversary of Annie's death, the graffiti, the jagged wound that was similar to some of the Whitechapel victims, the fact that the body may have been deposited by the railway arches that Schwartz ran to....

OK-but these coincidences are now due to torsoman wanting it to be a "parody" of the ripper victims?(but of course cant be due to it being the same killer) somekind of copycat?

Talk about fantasy comic book stuff. I believe in the annals of crime-no killer has tried to copycat another killer, either to throw off police or as some kind of game. Never-I see people talk of copycat killers on here all the time-one of the biggest myths in criminology There is no such thing. Nor has there ever been.

However, one thing I do tend to agree with you on, is that both the ripper and torso man, regardless whether they were the same person or not, did both like the shock value and intentionally did things with th victims to taunt and shock, police press and public.

[Fisherman]

...with Pinchin Street, there are just too many coincidences...

...for it not to have been another killer?

Sigh.

The French always say "Vive la Difference!", but Iīm not so sure any longer.

So, a serialist who decides to "parody" another serialists work? For what reason?

So as to avoid having suspicion thrown his own way? Hardly.

So that the police would understand that it was him? Gimme a break!

So that .. what, really?

Are there any precedents? Not that I would demand such a thing, but out of interest: how many serialists with well defined MO:s have done perodies of other serialists work?

If there are very clear hints to a well-known murder series in a new murder case, the reasonable thing to suspect is that the perpetrator of the series is trying to call attention to his new deed, claiming it as his own. Itīs not the other way around, John!

[John Wheat]

Hi John G, Fisherman, Abby, Debra etc

The prevailing opinion at the time was that Jack and The Torso Killer were different killers taking that into account and however much an expert Debra is on The Torso Killer surely it is up to those who disagree with this view to make there argument rather than the other way round. Maybe even suggest a suspect or two? What about Wentworth Bellsmith for instance. Moved into London in 1873 and suspected of being both Jack and The Torso Killer.

Cheers John

[Fisherman]

I would be very surprised if Debra would agree that all of the Torso murders, and also of the Ripper murders, had the same perpetrator.

Bravo, John - there is hope!

[Debra A]

Hello Debra,

I appreciate your argument about there being certain similarities between Kelly's murder and Jackson's but, as I'm sure you'd agree, there are also major dissimilarities as well. In fact, as Dr Biggs reminds us, we cannot even be certain that Jackson was not the victim of a botched medical procedure.

As the 1884 girl with the exotic phantom rose tattoo, Tottenham torso case was- as found by the inquest jury who heard all the evidence.

You suggest that I am certain in my convictions. Well, actually I'm not. For instance, if we start to compare the victims forensically all sorts of possibilities present themselves. I have argued that Kelly's murder is not much like a Torso murder but, in all honesty, from a forensic perspective at least, it's not much like a Whitechapel murder either.

But first the basic facts must be right before comparisons can be made.

And why take the trouble to bury some of the remains, while leaving other remains where they could easily be discovered?

Police thought the leg was probably buried accidentally when drainage was dug in another area of the vault and the earth piled on top of where it lay.

Similarly with Pinchin Street, there are just too many coincidences: victim probably killed on the anniversary of Annie's death, the graffiti, the jagged wound that was similar to some of the Whitechapel victims, the fact that the body may have been deposited by the railway arches that Schwartz ran to....

Similar enough to be only a parody though, eh? LOL

And then there's the fact that the body was placed near to too drunks, which is consistent with a killer who I believe had a macabre sense of humour.

Are we sure the two drunks weren't in different arches to each other and the Pinchin St torso placed in the middle arch? Not literally between the two drunks. I believe Trevor mentioned that as a possibility. I haven't checked on that.

Rainham, parts thrown into the Thames (shock value?);

Or the person who threw them into the Regent's canal sewn up in sacking was hoping they'd sink and disappear?

Some of Jackson's remains thrown into the garden of Sir Percy Shelley's house (macabre sense of humour?); all indicates behavioural and thematic consistency.

Or randomly thrown over the nearest bushes it was safe to do so?

I was asked at the beginning of the thread which one of the torso murders I thought was the most like a 'JTR' murder and I have answered that question.
I think there is more similarity in the mutilations inflicted upon Mary Kelly and Elizabeth Jackson than between the Pinchin St torso and Elizabeth Jackson.

I just hate inaccuracies being repeatedly posted as fact.

[John G]

Hi JohnG
First of all take a deep breath-relax. your starting to hyperventilate!

Second-your response has nothing to do with my post. If it does somehow please clarify-im all ears.

Third-have you had a chance to read and absorb Debra's last post to you? All your responses so far seem oblivious to her valid points.

Finally-can you wrap your head around the idea that maybe, Just maybe, that the torso victims and ripper victims are by the same person, but that MO has to change because of the killers different circumstances concerning victims?

Hi Abby,

Great to hear from you again by the way! Actually, I'm quite calm, and I haven't even taken up yoga!

Okay, your theory that the Torso killer had lost is dismemberment site. I agree that it's clever, but the point I was trying to make is that it's also contrived. In fact, I was only partially joking about Rose Mylett. Applying your logic, her body was found only a couple of miles from the centre of the Whitechapel murders and she was strangled, as Polly and Annie were. And, of course, we can't assume that JtR would always have his knife with him: perhaps the impulse to kill once again overwhelmed him and he was forced to improvize. But then again, perhaps not!

Okay, returning to the specifics of your theory. If he'd lost his accommodation/dismemberment site, why not just take a break from serial killing? After all, there are considerable time gaps between some of the torso murders so he was probably able to restrain himself for significant periods.

And what had happened to his transport? I mean, presumably he had some sort of transport, i.e. to move the torsos to the dump sites. And the fact that the dump sites were scattered all over London, also suggests that he used transport.

And if he didn't have transport, why just focus on Whitechapel? particularly when the police presence was greatly increased and the locals were put on high alert.

And why were none of the Whitechapel murders decapitated. Why wasn't Kelly dismembered or decapitated, considering she was killed indoors?

I would also point out that Debra has never said that she believes that all the Torso murders and all of the Whitechapel murders were committed by the same person, as Rocky, for instance, seems to think. The specific comparison that she was making was between Kelly and Jackson. Now, I concede that there are some similarities between these two murders, however, as I noted, there are many dissimilarities. Kelly was not dismembered or decapitated. And the destruction of the body greatly exceeded what happened with Jackson. Moreover, Dr Hebbert seemed to conclude that any mutilations occurred incidentally, i.e. to facilitate the dismemberment process: that was certainly not the case with Kelly! And, of course, Dr Hebbert believed that Jackson's killer demonstrated a great deal of skill: obviously not the case with Kelly's murder. Incidentally, Dr Phillips came to the same conclusion about the Pinchin Street Torso: " 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" However, I must also concede that there are major dissimilarities between Kelly and the earlier Whitechapel victims, as Lynn and Trevor frequently point out!

And, as I've also noted, we don't even know that Jackson was murdered. As Dr Biggs opined, she may have been the victim of a back street procedure gone wrong. Mind you, Francis Thompson was probably living a few yards away from Kelly when she was murdered. And, of course, he trained as a surgeon so he could have conceivably set himself up as a back street abortionist/practitioner...maybe I should give further thought to a link between Kelly and Jackson!

[Debra A]

Hi John G, Fisherman, Abby, Debra etc

The prevailing opinion at the time was that Jack and The Torso Killer were different killers taking that into account and however much an expert Debra is on The Torso Killer surely it is up to those who disagree with this view to make there argument rather than the other way round. Maybe even suggest a suspect or two? What about Wentworth Bellsmith for instance. Moved into London in 1873 and suspected of being both Jack and The Torso Killer.

Cheers John

I have never called myself an expert on anything.