The Whitehall Mystery

[Dane_F]

Also for those who haven't read it yet I'd like to resurface this article linked previously in this thread. http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=185

It goes into detail describing the close vicinity a good number of JTR murders and some of the torsos were to railway stations and how that might have been the means of his disappearance.

I certainly am not saying we should take his account of the events as "the" way things actually happen. But he does raise interesting points and I think it could lead to more interesting discussion.

One thing I do feel an argument could be made for is the use of the underground passage to enter the Scottland Yard Building site to dispose of the body. This eliminates the need for scaling 9ft fences or for needing to have an intimate knowledge of the area since the entrance puts him "near" where the body was found.

[Fisherman]

P

Hello Fisherman,

Regarding, the mutilation of the torso victims, Dr Phillips and Dr Hebbert seemed to be of the opinion that they were made for the purpose of disposing of the body , I.e "the easy carriage of the parts". Of course, JtR mutilated for a very different purpose.

Some posts back, you (at least I think it was you) quoted one of the FBI profilers, who said that Jack the Ripper aimed to produce shock value. Some lines further down you wrote that the Torso killer also aimed to produce shock value.

So maybe they both (or a single killer...) had the self same purpose when killing, albeit it is not easy to tell to what extent this (alleged) wish governed the deeds.

Let me take you a bit further down the same road: you have claimed that the Pinchin Street torso would have been a result of the Torso killer parodying Jack the Ripper.
In a sense, that would be very much related to a wish to shock the public. It would both be prime examples of how these men (or this man) try really hard to kill along lines that were meant to satisfy not himself (or themselves), but instead a perceived audience.

To my mind, this is a factor that needs to be weighed into the whole reasoning: if a killer (or two killers) are prepared to deviate from their normal manners and methodologies - as you yourself propose or seem to believe - then where is the line in the sand drawn? How much of the killings will be shaped by the inner urges and desires of the killer(s), and how much will be the result of a wish to please a perceived audience?

Once we realize the full impact of this question, we will see the hitherto very fixed borders start to dissolve, wonīt we?

Either these men (this man) were programmed to kill along lines and patterns that were beyond their own powers of ruling, or they (he) were able to "design" his (their) deeds in order to make them look more or less alike.

Which is it?

[RockySullivan]

Hi JohnG,

The shoeblack (Michael Keating) I have always found interesting. He was said to have lived at 1 Osborne Street, Brick lane. Also, at one time living at that address in 1888 was the pensioner, Stanley, in the Chapman case. Stanley was informed by a shoeblack of the murder of Annie Chapman.

Just another of the many coincidences in all these cases.

Didn't stanley repeatedly deny he was the pensioner chapman knew during the inquest? This is a very good observation about the same address

[Trevor Marriott]

Simply because Trevor asked him whether it was a possibility I suspect, John.
Trevor simply passed on Hebbert and Bond's notes that i sent to him, plus he culled a certain snippet of information about the 'plugging' in Elizabeth's case that I'd discovered a few years back because it possibly supports an abortion scenario as suggested by me at the time but Dr Biggs can't possibly have been going by any evidence missed by Hebbert and Bond, he was reading their notes! Sent by me.

What seems to be difficult for some to understand is that until the moment of her death, however it occured, Elizabeth was still pregnant and no violence or instruments had been used to effect abortion, as the doctors carefully noted by the condition of the cervix, vagina etc. They were all as they should be, so there was no reason for anyone to dismember and dump Elizabeth's body to hide the evidence of abortion...because there was none.

BUT -One possibility is that Elizabeth was poisoned in the course of trying to bring on a miscarriage, I proposed this a long time ago and several times in the thread and Trevor has taken it up too now. In that case her body may have been dismembered and organs removed to hide that fact but she certainly wouldn't have been butchered during the course of an abortion involving abdominal surgery in the way Trevor tried to suggest.

Hebbert and Bond knew what an abortion was and how it was performed. Bond himself helped to put away several criminal abortionists in his career.
I take exception to the idea that Dr Biggs would know any better than them.

You take exception that's a ridiculous statement it has already been pointed out that many of the opinions given by Victorian doctors were nothing more than guesswork

Of course a modern day forensic pathologist has more knowledge and expertise than doctors 126 years ago.

Dr Biggs has left us in limbo for those who believe in a torso serial killer what he says has clearly not gone down to well as there are those who still keep trying to prop this theory up despite the fact there is no clear evidence to support this.

For the rest like me we are left with simply "The Thames Torso Mysteries"
With absolutely no connection to the WM.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Abby Normal]

Hello Abby,

JtR's signature, according to Keppel: picquerism; overkill; completely and immediately incapacitating the victim, i.e. via multiple stab wounds, mutilations, near severing of the head; leaving the victims in open display, to degrade them and for shock value; posing; gradual escalation of violence, i.e. post mortem mutilations-focusing on the breasts, genetelia, abdomen and neck.

Torso killer: dismemberment and decapitation. Leaves body parts in unusual or public places, arguably for shock value. There is some evidence that, in the case of Liz Jackson, he progressed to harvesting organs, however as I believe Dr Bond pointed out, they were not the same body parts that JtR harvested: in Jackson's case both the uterus and kidneys were found, although I believe the heart and lungs were missing. Moreover, it's possible body parts were lost during the disposal process, or disposed of elsewhere and not found. There were mutilations in the torso cases, however Drs Hebbert and Phillips seemed to believe this occurred as a consequence of disposing of or dismembering the body.

Of course, signatures can evolve or become more elaborate, but I am not aware of a single example of where a serial killer has alternated between two different signatures. It is also worth noting that "signature characteristics remain stable and reflect the nature of offender." (Keppel, 2005). It is therefore unlikely that there would be evidence of a change in signature characteristics simply because the killer had temporarily lost access to his dismemberment site.

A perfect example of the very different signatures and MOs of JtR and the Torso killer, is the last Torso case, the Pinchin Street Torso. Thus, firstly, unlike the C5 victims, the Pinchin Street Torso was dismembered and decapitated.

Secondly, in the Pinchin Street case a dump site was used: the victim was not killed close to where the body was found. Unlike JtR's murders, where the body of the victim was simply left where the murder took place.

Thirdly, as Donald Swanson pointed out there was no mutilation of the genitals, unlike the Whitechapel murders, which is significant because, as Keppel pointed out, this seemed to form part of JtR's signature.

Fourthly, all of the C5 victims without exception were murdered by having their throat cut. However, that doesn't appear to be the case with the Pinchin Torso: thus Keppel (2005), citing Evans and Skinner (2000), "The trunk was full of blood indicating that a hemorrhage had not occurred. This also indicated the throat could not have been cut." Interestingly, the earlier Battersea Torso victim (1873) was possibly killed by being struck on the head with a blunt instrument: in that case the jury returned a verdict of wilful murder by person or persons unknown.

There was evidence of mutilation in the Pinchin Street case, however Dr Phillips' believed "they were made for the purpose of disposing of the body." There was also a gash on the abdomen, "but this appeared to have been inflicted when the dismemberment had taken place." (Evans and Rumbellow, 2006)

There has been some talk of "experts" on this thread recently. However, I am not aware of a single respected Ripperology author who has ever attempted to connect any of the torso crimes to those of JtR. In fact, the only author who has attempted to do so is Michael Gordon, who attributed all of the murders to George Chapman! Mind you, not sure if he qualifies as an expert!

Perhaps I should finish by quoting the wise words of two undoubted experts, Stewart Evans and Donald Rumbellow: "On Tuesday 10 September 1889 unidentified female remains were found under a railway arch. This case bore no resemblance to a Ripper killing. On the contrary, it appeared that the murderer had cut up a body to prevent its identification and then dumped it away from the scene of his crime." (Evans and Rumbellow, 2006)

Thanks for the detailed response JohnG!

However, your responses to what was the rippers and Torsoman's specific sig is somewhat convoluted, involving MO's, similarities, others opinions etc. etc.

lets try to simplify and break it down to its most basic points.

Ripper-post mortem mutilation involving removal/taking away body parts, abdominal mutilations.

Torso man-Post mortem mutilation involving "possible" removal/taking away body parts, abdominal mutilations.

To me the lowest common denominator is post mortem mutilation-found in both. Now what exactly was done, what areas were targeted, what organs removed is secondary when balanced with the fact that ANY kind of post mortem mutilation in a serial killer is so extremely rare. AND in both cases body parts were removed and never recovered-ie.-Body parts as "trophys".

If the torsomans sig(or the main reason for killing) is dismemberment, why the other mutilations?

I wrote "possible" removal/taking away organs for Torsoman because as you rightly pointed out these may have been accidently lost/removed and not the real sig. However, we don't know for sure if they are missing by accident or design but I lean towards on purpose, because of the other evidence of mutilations on the bodies.

And then we have a possible secondary motivation (of sig), which is leaving/ displaying victims bodies in an ways to taunt and shock the police/public. So we agree on that similarity.

IF, however, if the torsomans dismemberment is a signature then I would tend to concede it points to two different killers. However, IMHO, it seems the dismemberment of the victims of torsoman is part of MO-in ease of disposal without getting caught.

So, I think we have the same basic signature for both the ripper and torsoman and if they are two separate killers (Which believe it or not-gun to my head-I still think we do) then it is almost as unlikely that we have two post mortem mutilating serial killers operating at the same time and place than if they were the same Killer! its nuts either way!

[Debra A]

You take exception that's a ridiculous statement it has already been pointed out that many of the opinions given by Victorian doctors were nothing more than guesswork

Of course a modern day forensic pathologist has more knowledge and expertise than doctors 126 years ago.

Dr Biggs has left us in limbo for those who believe in a torso serial killer what he says has clearly not gone down to well as there are those who still keep trying to prop this theory up despite the fact there is no clear evidence to support this.

For the rest like me we are left with simply "The Thames Torso Mysteries"
With absolutely no connection to the WM.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor, you need to read what I wrote and why specifically and be sensible about this rather than have a knee jerk reaction all the time.
How can a modern day pathologist working only on the notes made by Victorian doctors who examined the body contradict their conclusions when they describe in detail the evidence (appearance and measurments of the vagina and cervix) they used to come to the conclusion that Elizabeth had not delivered a child vaginally (abortion involved delivery of a child through the exact same route as ordinary childbirth) any mother alive can detail the detectable effects child birth immediately has on the body.
This is the specific thing I am talking about.

[RockySullivan]

Thanks for the detailed response JohnG!

However, your responses to what was the rippers and Torsoman's specific sig is somewhat convoluted, involving MO's, similarities, others opinions etc. etc.

lets try to simplify and break it down to its most basic points.

Ripper-post mortem mutilation involving removal/taking away body parts, abdominal mutilations.

Torso man-Post mortem mutilation involving "possible" removal/taking away body parts, abdominal mutilations.

To me the lowest common denominator is post mortem mutilation-found in both. Now what exactly was done, what areas were targeted, what organs removed is secondary when balanced with the fact that ANY kind of post mortem mutilation in a serial killer is so extremely rare. AND in both cases body parts were removed and never recovered-ie.-Body parts as "trophys".

If the torsomans sig(or the main reason for killing) is dismemberment, why the other mutilations?

I wrote "possible" removal/taking away organs for Torsoman because as you rightly pointed out these may have been accidently lost/removed and not the real sig. However, we don't know for sure if they are missing by accident or design but I lean towards on purpose, because of the other evidence of mutilations on the bodies.

And then we have a possible secondary motivation (of sig), which is leaving/ displaying victims bodies in an ways to taunt and shock the police/public. So we agree on that similarity.

IF, however, if the torsomans dismemberment is a signature then I would tend to concede it points to two different killers. However, IMHO, it seems the dismemberment of the victims of torsoman is part of MO-in ease of disposal without getting caught.

So, I think we have the same basic signature for both the ripper and torsoman and if they are two separate killers (Which believe it or not-gun to my head-I still think we do) then it is almost as unlikely that we have two post mortem mutilating serial killers operating at the same time and place than if they were the same Killer! its nuts either way!

Abby I agree with the nearly identical signatures. Knowing what we do about the whitechapel murders I don't consider the theory that the organs were lost during the process realistic. Jackson's uterus was packaged up and dumped..I think age of Jackson and Kelly has something to do with their heart being removed and never found. I'm interested in this man last seen talking with Jackson.
John G u seem to be stuck thinking within the lines of technical classifications. I have tried to give an example of an active SK who dismembers and leaves whole bodies in the same dump job

[Dane_F]

Jerry D,

If you wouldn't mind, would you please copy over your post from "the other forum" about the torso pieces being found along certain underground lines. I know there was a post saying most of the underground lines weren't completed until later, and while that is true, I did see that there was an extensive railway line that WAS active during that time. Great Northern Railway. By 1872 they had lines running from Finsbury Park to Edgware via Highgate. I haven't had a ton of time to location the railway lines active at the time of the torso cases, having just discovered your post a mere hour or so ago, however if the railway line from Highway to Edgware followed the general direction of the underground line then I think your overall point of the person responsible dumping the pieces near certain lines would definitely still be possible.

The only thing I was able to find was a legend from the 1860s about the stops that the GNR had along its railway system in the 1860s. You can find it here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grea...(Great_Britain)

However, my familiarity with these areas are very limited and unfortunately I can't be of much use in knowing the vicinity of them to torso piece locations.

If nothing else as I'm sure someone has already mentioned the Pinchin St torso matches with this idea already since it was found, literally under the railway arches.

I regret I haven't been able to be of much help yet however I am hoping if you repost your idea here others might be able to help as well in locating the railway lines so we can possibly see if there is any connection with them. Thanks.

[Dane_F]

Please forgive me posting again so shortly after my other post however when reading old newspaper reports I stumbled across something I handn't seen mentioned, or a better word might be discussed, in this thread. If I somehow missed the post I'm sorry. Having read through all these pages in a few days has things kind of in a blur. Anyway, my point:

We have discussed mutilations (especially of genitals) as a MO for the Ripper. I remember Debra talking at length in this thread about Liz Jackson's mutilations (which is very compeling information), however, I do not remember anyone mentioning that the Pinchin St Torso had been mutilated as well.

The Roscommon Constitutionalist
Boyle, Roscommon, Ireland
September 14, 1889

The article stated that the torso had a long cut along the entire length of the torso starting just under the neck and ending on the left inner thigh. It also stated that some of the intestines could easily be seen through a 4 in opening in the abdomen. (Article can be read here: http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=23683)

Now at first I chalked up the information to just being a newspaper inaccuracy so I checked Debra's notes from the autopsy (I wasn't able to find the full autopsy myself yet so I could only base my info off of her summary -- found here: http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=250) and I found these interesting lines:

The skin of the abdomen had been cut by a vertical incision, running from two inches below the ensiform cartilage downwards and ending on the left side of the external genitals, just opening the vagina but not opening the peritoneal cavity.

This seems to not only confirm that the torso has been mutilated but also that the genitals had been cut as well, though not to a severe nature.

Debra please correct me if I have anything wrong or to add extra insight into this (a link to where the autopsy can be found if one exists would be awesome) but to me this now makes two torsos that were cut wide open from near the neck to the genitals, the genitals being removed completely or at least cut into, and organs either visible from just looking at the body or completely missing. The newspaper article also makes a mention that the neck of the Pinchin St Torso had been cut in one clean cut and then a saw was used for the bone. So if that is to be believed we have a clean neck cut. (Why not just saw the entire head off? Knife cut the throat? Just A thought.)

Another interesting point from Debra's notes was this: Rigor mortis had passed off, the cut surfaces of the hips were black and dry but the surfaces at the neck moist and red.

This makes it sound as if the head was not removed until right before dumping while the legs were removed sometime before. Just an off the wall question but, was this person still alive for the removal of the legs? Or did this person just take a very long time between removing the legs and the head?

I don't see why an abortionist would need to cut yet another victim wide open and into the genitals to then in this case not even remove any organs This all is starting to seem like an actual killer and possibly (dare I say) a Serial Killer. I won't go so far as to say JTR and this killer were the same but once you add the mutilations to the Pinchin St Torso along with Liz Jackson you can start having some interesting conversations.

[Debra A]

Hi Dane

The forensic articles written by Hebbert on the torso cases are available in full now in the 'Internet Archive'
The full articles were published (with very slight differences) in the 1894 textbook, 'A System of Legal Medicine' (along with a brief summary of the Mary Kelly murder) and 'The Westminster Hospital Reports' Vol 4 and 5 and which written by Hebbert as lectures to illustrate to his students the forensic techniques used to help determine identity when human remains were found.

The Rainham torso was also believed to have been opened up in the mid line with an incision from ensiform cartilage to the pubes, although the genitals do not appear to have been touched in that case, organs were absent though.

https://archive.org/stream/asystemlegalmed00godkgoog#page/n82/mode/2up

https://archive.org/stream/westminsterhosp04hospgoog#page/n66/mode/2up/search/forensic

https://archive.org/stream/westminsterhosp00unkngoog#page/n170/mode/2up

[RockySullivan]

Please forgive me posting again so shortly after my other post however when reading old newspaper reports I stumbled across something I handn't seen mentioned, or a better word might be discussed, in this thread. If I somehow missed the post I'm sorry. Having read through all these pages in a few days has things kind of in a blur. Anyway, my point:

We have discussed mutilations (especially of genitals) as a MO for the Ripper. I remember Debra talking at length in this thread about Liz Jackson's mutilations (which is very compeling information), however, I do not remember anyone mentioning that the Pinchin St Torso had been mutilated as well.

The Roscommon Constitutionalist
Boyle, Roscommon, Ireland
September 14, 1889

The article stated that the torso had a long cut along the entire length of the torso starting just under the neck and ending on the left inner thigh. It also stated that some of the intestines could easily be seen through a 4 in opening in the abdomen. (Article can be read here: http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=23683)

Now at first I chalked up the information to just being a newspaper inaccuracy so I checked Debra's notes from the autopsy (I wasn't able to find the full autopsy myself yet so I could only base my info off of her summary -- found here: http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=250) and I found these interesting lines:

The skin of the abdomen had been cut by a vertical incision, running from two inches below the ensiform cartilage downwards and ending on the left side of the external genitals, just opening the vagina but not opening the peritoneal cavity.

This seems to not only confirm that the torso has been mutilated but also that the genitals had been cut as well, though not to a severe nature.

Debra please correct me if I have anything wrong or to add extra insight into this (a link to where the autopsy can be found if one exists would be awesome) but to me this now makes two torsos that were cut wide open from near the neck to the genitals, the genitals being removed completely or at least cut into, and organs either visible from just looking at the body or completely missing. The newspaper article also makes a mention that the neck of the Pinchin St Torso had been cut in one clean cut and then a saw was used for the bone. So if that is to be believed we have a clean neck cut. (Why not just saw the entire head off? Knife cut the throat? Just A thought.)

Another interesting point from Debra's notes was this: Rigor mortis had passed off, the cut surfaces of the hips were black and dry but the surfaces at the neck moist and red.

This makes it sound as if the head was not removed until right before dumping while the legs were removed sometime before. Just an off the wall question but, was this person still alive for the removal of the legs? Or did this person just take a very long time between removing the legs and the head?

I don't see why an abortionist would need to cut yet another victim wide open and into the genitals to then in this case not even remove any organs This all is starting to seem like an actual killer and possibly (dare I say) a Serial Killer. I won't go so far as to say JTR and this killer were the same but once you add the mutilations to the Pinchin St Torso along with Liz Jackson you can start having some interesting conversations.

Don't forget whitehall torso had the uterus removed as well

[John G]

Please forgive me posting again so shortly after my other post however when reading old newspaper reports I stumbled across something I handn't seen mentioned, or a better word might be discussed, in this thread. If I somehow missed the post I'm sorry. Having read through all these pages in a few days has things kind of in a blur. Anyway, my point:

We have discussed mutilations (especially of genitals) as a MO for the Ripper. I remember Debra talking at length in this thread about Liz Jackson's mutilations (which is very compeling information), however, I do not remember anyone mentioning that the Pinchin St Torso had been mutilated as well.

The Roscommon Constitutionalist
Boyle, Roscommon, Ireland
September 14, 1889

The article stated that the torso had a long cut along the entire length of the torso starting just under the neck and ending on the left inner thigh. It also stated that some of the intestines could easily be seen through a 4 in opening in the abdomen. (Article can be read here: http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=23683)

Now at first I chalked up the information to just being a newspaper inaccuracy so I checked Debra's notes from the autopsy (I wasn't able to find the full autopsy myself yet so I could only base my info off of her summary -- found here: http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=250) and I found these interesting lines:

The skin of the abdomen had been cut by a vertical incision, running from two inches below the ensiform cartilage downwards and ending on the left side of the external genitals, just opening the vagina but not opening the peritoneal cavity.

This seems to not only confirm that the torso has been mutilated but also that the genitals had been cut as well, though not to a severe nature.

Debra please correct me if I have anything wrong or to add extra insight into this (a link to where the autopsy can be found if one exists would be awesome) but to me this now makes two torsos that were cut wide open from near the neck to the genitals, the genitals being removed completely or at least cut into, and organs either visible from just looking at the body or completely missing. The newspaper article also makes a mention that the neck of the Pinchin St Torso had been cut in one clean cut and then a saw was used for the bone. So if that is to be believed we have a clean neck cut. (Why not just saw the entire head off? Knife cut the throat? Just A thought.)

Another interesting point from Debra's notes was this: Rigor mortis had passed off, the cut surfaces of the hips were black and dry but the surfaces at the neck moist and red.

This makes it sound as if the head was not removed until right before dumping while the legs were removed sometime before. Just an off the wall question but, was this person still alive for the removal of the legs? Or did this person just take a very long time between removing the legs and the head?

I don't see why an abortionist would need to cut yet another victim wide open and into the genitals to then in this case not even remove any organs This all is starting to seem like an actual killer and possibly (dare I say) a Serial Killer. I won't go so far as to say JTR and this killer were the same but once you add the mutilations to the Pinchin St Torso along with Liz Jackson you can start having some interesting conversations.

Hello Dane,

As far as I'm aware none of the torso victims suffered mutilations to the genitals, unlike JtR's victims, which is the very point Donald Swanson made. Dr Phillips didn't believe the Pinchin Street Torso was a Ripper victim: he pointed out that any mutilations were probably carried out for purposes of disposing of the body. Why are his opinions important? Firstly, he was a medical professional and, secondly, he was heavily involved in the Whitechapel cases.

The uterus of Chapman and Eddowes were retained by the serial killer, presumably as a trophy. In respect of Jackson, the uterus was not retained-in fact, I would argue that he wasn't interested in the uterus at all, but the foetus.

The mutilations inflicted on Kelly and Jackson are, in my opinion, radically different. Thus, in Kelly's case there is no evidence of design: the killer just seems to have hacked away at the body for no discernable purpose. In the case of Jackson, the body was cut up for purposes of dismemberment. And a great deal of skill was demonstrated, I.e a very different scenario to a killer hacking away in a frenzy. In fact, Dr Hebbert stated that even more skill was apparent than in the Whitehall and Rainham cases.

The uterus of the Whitehall victim was not missing.

[John G]

John,

I know you addressed Fisherman but I wanted to clear something up. You ask "Could a single killer have progressed from genital mutilations to dismemberment? " Isn't it the other way around? Most of the torso's came before the Whitechapel murders.

Yes, and this is the problem. I can envisage a situation where a serial killer's signature evolves, but not where it alternates between two different signatures. This makes no sense.

[John G]

John G!

Just two snippets from your lengthy post nr 841:

1. "...all of the C5 victims without exception were murdered by having their throat cut."

You sometimes have an unhealthy habit of firing first and asking afterwards. It is well known that there were signs of strangulation in more than one case, and Llewellyn opted for the abdominal wounds having been inflicted before the cut neck in the Nichols case.

Simplification in all honour, but letīs not forget about the facts!

2. "Perhaps I should finish by quoting the wise words of two undoubted experts, Stewart Evans and Donald Rumbellow: "On Tuesday 10 September 1889 unidentified female remains were found under a railway arch. This case bore no resemblance to a Ripper killing."

A word of advice: do not rely too heavily on authorities. They differ inbetween themselves, and you can always find authorities that do not support bits that other authorities do.
In this case, we have the almighty resemblance of the torso having had itīs abdomen cut open - a VERY common Ripper trait.
So which is it? Were there resemblances or were there not?
We should decide matters for ourselves, I think.

Hello Fisherman,

According to Dr Phillips the mutilations inflicted on the Pinchin Street victim were inflicted for purposes of disposing of the body. Therefore, it appears that any similarities are superficial at best.

[John G]

But there was overlap, John. Two serial killers butchering women at the same time, in the same location (London), is, in itself, quite extraordinary, and leaves open the possibility of them being the same man. Is not possible that the signatures would vary depending on mood and circumstance? We've seen that the Ripper was capricious within his own series, e.g. the facial injuries on Eddowes being quite unlike anything else he did.

Hello Harry,

London was a large city of 5.6 million people, so it wouldn't be unrealistic for there to be two serial killers at large at the same time. Serial killers don't alternate between different signatures. Eddowes represents an escalation, i.e facial injuries, kidney removed.