The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[Trevor Marriott]

Now that the Torso killer has been brought up, what does that do to your former thoughts?
Do you stand by them, saying that two evisceration killers at the same time in the same place is not to be expected?

If JTR did not remove the organs from the victims at the crime scene, at best all you have is one evisceration killer, and that theory is suspect because as you have been told repeatedly you cannot prove that all of the torsos were as a
direct result of murder.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[etenguy]

Are we to believe that there were 2 'disembowellers' in operation at the time. If the police were investigating this case today with 5 prostitutes, all with their throats cut (apart from Stride), all with mutilations to the abdomen and genitals (apart from....) and all in a relatively small area, they would surely face ridicule if they tried to tell the public that there wasn't a serial killer at large?

Hi Herlock

Like you, and for the same reasons, I believe the five canonical victims were all murdered by the same man. However, we should not discount the possibility of a copycat murderer nor dismiss the possibility of another murderer who similarly disemboweled his victims. Unlikely, yes, but perhaps someone was inspired or emboldened by Jack's crimes.

[Sam Flynn]

But it wasn't described as a whole apron it was described as simply two pieces, and those two pieces could have come from any old apron.

No they couldn't. Dr Brown confirmed that the two pieces exactly matched.

He should have been asked what was identifiable about the apron he saw her wearing for him to positively identify what was put before him at the inquest.

Why should that have been necessary, when both Brown AND Collard provided evidence that the pieces brought before the inquest not only matched, but were found among the deceased's possessions?

[etenguy]

If JTR did not remove the organs from the victims at the crime scene, at best all you have is one evisceration killer, and that theory is suspect because as you have been told repeatedly you cannot prove that all of the torsos were as a
direct result of murder.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor

I believe you are correct in this. It was found that Elizabeth Jackson had been murdered, but with the others, the cause of death could not be established. While murder cannot therefore be proven in most of the torso cases, it is hard to imagine a more plausible explanation.

[etenguy]

Elemana,
If you believe Long's testimony to be fact,then yes I have used facts.I have used them and commented on them.
Long's testimony is quite clear.He found a piece of cloth in Wentworth building.It had excrement and blood on it.Long believed a victim of crime but not the criminal could be in the building.He searched but found no evidence of a victim of crime.Another officer arrived at the scene.Long removed the soiled material and took it to a police station.In addition he had noticed and recorded words written in chalk on a wall of the building.
Now you or anyone tell me where I have not used that testimony as a basis for my comments.
At no time did he state he associated the writing or the cloth,with the Mitre Square killing.

Hi Harry

Your summary as posted here sounds plausible to me. However, before he took the piece of apron to the police station, he was told of a murder in Mitre Square - though he doesn't appear to jump to conclusions that the apron piece and the murder are definitely linked, it is reasonable to assume he considered it possible.

Having searched the staircases he at once proceeded to the police-station. Before proceeding to the station he had heard that a murder had been committed in Mitre-square. When he started for the police-station he left Police-constable 190 H in charge of the building.

[Trevor Marriott]

No they couldn't. Dr Brown confirmed that the two pieces exactly matched. Why should that have been necessary, when both Brown AND Collard provided evidence that the pieces brought before the inquest not only matched, but were found among the deceased's possessions?

Its called continuity, and I dont dispute that the two pieces matched, what i am questioning is the evidence, or lack of it that shows the two pieces when matched made up a whole apron.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Harry

Your summary as posted here sounds plausible to me. However, before he took the piece of apron to the police station, he was told of a murder in Mitre Square - though he doesn't appear to jump to conclusions that the apron piece and the murder are definitely linked, it is reasonable to assume he considered it possible.

Having searched the staircases he at once proceeded to the police-station. Before proceeding to the station he had heard that a murder had been committed in Mitre-square. When he started for the police-station he left Police-constable 190 H in charge of the building.

What puzzles me is why the officer decided to pick up and examine a screwed up piece of material in the first place because at that point I believe he was not aware of any murder anywhere. Its not normal for police to go around picking up pieces of screwed up material, and I have no doubt there was other litter in and around that area, where a market was normally held.

Could Dc Halse have placed it there having taken it from Mitre Sq. ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[etenguy]

What puzzles me is why the officer decided to pick up and examine a screwed up piece of material in the first place because at that point I believe he was not aware of any murder anywhere. Its not normal for police to go around picking up pieces of screwed up material, and I have no doubt there was other litter in and around that area, where a market was normally held.

Could Dc Halse have placed it there having taken it from Mitre Sq. ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor

I have wondered this myself. PC Long does not explain what it was about a soiled piece of rag that caught his attention. I assume, but don't know, that it was a sizeable portion of the apron and the corner 'wet with blood' was sufficiently visible and suspicious. In the context of a part of the city griped by a series of murders, he may have taken more notice than he might have done in less sensitive times.

We do not know for sure how the apron portion arrived at Goulston street and we could speculate a number of possibilities. Given the circumstances, the most plausible explanation would be that the murderer discarded it there. I think if we were to suggest a different route (ignoring your suggestion that Catherine dropped it there for the moment - to avoid raising that conversation again) - we would need to provide a compelling argument or evidence of a motive for doing so, for instance in the case of a policeman doing it.

[Fisherman]

Hi Herlock

Like you, and for the same reasons, I believe the five canonical victims were all murdered by the same man. However, we should not discount the possibility of a copycat murderer nor dismiss the possibility of another murderer who similarly disemboweled his victims. Unlikely, yes, but perhaps someone was inspired or emboldened by Jack's crimes.

We are never going to reach full certainty on these matters unless some totally unexpected evidence suddenly surfaces. We are therefore left to judge things the way you wisely do - they are more or less likely.

And just like you say, it would be unlikely with two serialists in the same town.
It would be even more unlikely if they were both eviscerators.
It would be even MORE unlikely if neither of them were sadists, but instead killed swiftly to gain access to a body.

Once we reach this stage, we may need to reason the way you do - it could have been a copycat. But it could not have been somebody emulating Jacks deeds - for the torso killer started out BEFORE Jack. So if anything, Jack would be the one emulating the torso killers deeds!

The thing is, though, it seems the torso killer was first to cut from ribcage to pubes, like he did in the Rainham case of 1887, well before Jack made his entrance. Then Jack copied him in august of 1888, by ripping Nichols from ribcage to pubes.

So Jack is the imitator, right?

But then Jack cuts away the abdomen in large flaps from Chapman and Kelly in September and November of 1888 - and suddenly the Torso killer imitates Jack by doing the same thing to Liz Jackson in 1889. The copycatted killer copycats the copycat, right?

As you may realize, by this stage I think we have reached the stage "utterly, ridiculously and extremely unlikely" that we are dealing with two killers. The only reasonable deduction - at least in my book - is that we have one killer only. I hope you can see the ground for my total misgivings about any other solutions.

Does anybody know if there is any recorded instance of two eviscerating serial killers in the same town at the same time? Has that ever happened in the annals of history?

Apart from in London 1888, I mean?

[Sam Flynn]

The thing is, though, it seems the torso killer was first to cut from ribcage to pubes, like he did in the Rainham case of 1887, well before Jack made his entrance. Then Jack copied him in august of 1888, by ripping Nichols from ribcage to pubes.

So Jack is the imitator, right?

Not in the least. Millions of butchers/slaughtermen throughout history, to say nothing of a handful of murderers - serial or otherwise - perform similar cuts, albeit most of them do it far more neatly than we see in the case of Nichols, Chapman, Kelly or even Kate "zig-zag" Eddowes. There are only so many ways to cut open an abdomen.

Pizzas are often sliced in eight segments, but it would be sheer folly to suggest that every eight-slice pizza in town had been processed by the same person.


... and there goes the thread.

[etenguy]

We are never going to reach full certainty on these matters unless some totally unexpected evidence suddenly surfaces. We are therefore left to judge things the way you wisely do - they are more or less likely.

And just like you say, it would be unlikely with two serialists in the same town.
It would be even more unlikely if they were both eviscerators.
It would be even MORE unlikely if neither of them were sadists, but instead killed swiftly to gain access to a body.

Once we reach this stage, we may need to reason the way you do - it could have been a copycat. But it could not have been somebody emulating Jacks deeds - for the torso killer started out BEFORE Jack. So if anything, Jack would be the one emulating the torso killers deeds!

The thing is, though, it seems the torso killer was first to cut from ribcage to pubes, like he did in the Rainham case of 1887, well before Jack made his entrance. Then Jack copied him in august of 1888, by ripping Nichols from ribcage to pubes.

So Jack is the imitator, right?

But then Jack cuts away the abdomen in large flaps from Chapman and Kelly in September and November of 1888 - and suddenly the Torso killer imitates Jack by doing the same thing to Liz Jackson in 1889. The copycatted killer copycats the copycat, right?

As you may realize, by this stage I think we have reached the stage "utterly, ridiculously and extremely unlikely" that we are dealing with two killers. The only reasonable deduction - at least in my book - is that we have one killer only. I hope you can see the ground for my total misgivings about any other solutions.

Does anybody know if there is any recorded instance of two eviscerating serial killers in the same town at the same time? Has that ever happened in the annals of history?

Apart from in London 1888, I mean?

Hi Fisherman

I was referring to the 5 canonical victims when referring to the possibility that one or more may have been the work of a copycat - though I think it unlikely.

With regards to the torso victims, they started before and ended after the jack the ripper murders. For it to have been the same person, they would have to be working with two different methods at the same time, albeit you might find some cross-over in method. Not impossible, but we would need a compelling argument to explain why this might be the case.

Unfortunately, there are a number of instances where two or more serial killers were active at the same time in the same city and where you find some coincidental cross-over in method - although none of the examples of multiple serial killers operating at the same time that I am aware of included eviscerating victims.

That is not say that one murderer was not influenced by the other in 1888 (if two separate murderers are at play). I remember an article about two serial killers in Phoenix who appeared to be feeding off each other:
Police believe there is no link between the two murderers, who have been branded the "Baseline Killer" and the "Serial Shooter", though some criminal profilers claim that they might be feeding off each other's notoriety.
(full article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1524...notoriety.html )

[Fisherman]

Not in the least. Millions of butchers/slaughtermen throughout history, to say nothing of a handful of murderers - serial or otherwise - perform similar cuts, albeit most of them do it far more neatly than we see in the case of Nichols, Chapman, Kelly or even Kate "zig-zag" Eddowes. There are only so many ways to cut open an abdomen.

Pizzas are often sliced in eight segments, but it would be sheer folly to suggest that every eight-slice pizza in town had been processed by the same person.


... and there goes the thread.

If you wish to move the thread, by all means do so.

Yes, scores of butchers cut (and have cut) from ribcage to genitalia.

How many killers have done it to women?

The discussion should revolve around that. The simple reason is that while butchering animals is an everyday business that is very common, it is extremely uncommon for a person to kill another person and cut that persons abdomen from ribcage to pubes.

When researching this case, it is an assett that is invaluable - we know that we are dealing with a very odd behaviour, something that does not surface often in the annals of crime.

Very few people murder other people. Very, very, very few people cut open the abdomen of other people in combination with murder. Even fewer cut all the way from ribcage to pubes - we are talking about a behavior rarer than hen´s teeth.

I cannot see why we would speak about butchers when addressing this case. Hunters shoot their prey and then they use shackles and chains to hoist the prey up in a hanging position so that they can empty the abdominal cavitity of viscera. It is not strange in any way.

But when Ed Gein did the same thing to Beatrice Warden, hoisting her up with chains and shackles and emptied her abdominal cavity, I would reason that this is something distinctly different to a hunters handling his prey. The reason being that Gein killed and eviscerated a woman.

Oddly, the legal system seems to have taken up on my objections - the fewest hunters are handed down a life sentence for cleaning out a deer, whereas Gein seems to have been looked upon differently.

Exactly what are yu hoping to achieve by dragging in butchers and hunters into the discussion of serial murder and eviscerations? Do you regard butchers as murderers? Would you have hunters sent to the electric chair? If not, what is your point?

[John G]

If you wish to move the thread, by all means do so.

Yes, scores of butchers cut (and have cut) from ribcage to genitalia.

How many killers have done it to women?

The discussion should revolve around that. The simple reason is that while butchering animals is an everyday business that is very common, it is extremely uncommon for a person to kill another person and cut that persons abdomen from ribcage to pubes.

When researching this case, it is an assett that is invaluable - we know that we are dealing with a very odd behaviour, something that does not surface often in the annals of crime.

Very few people murder other people. Very, very, very few people cut open the abdomen of other people in combination with murder. Even fewer cut all the way from ribcage to pubes - we are talking about a behavior rarer than hen´s teeth.

I cannot see why we would speak about butchers when addressing this case. Hunters shoot their prey and then they use shackles and chains to hoist the prey up in a hanging position so that they can empty the abdominal cavitity of viscera. It is not strange in any way.

But when Ed Gein did the same thing to Beatrice Warden, hoisting her up with chains and shackles and emptied her abdominal cavity, I would reason that this is something distinctly different to a hunters handling his prey. The reason being that Gein killed and eviscerated a woman.

Oddly, the legal system seems to have taken up on my objections - the fewest hunters are handed down a life sentence for cleaning out a deer, whereas Gein seems to have been looked upon differently.

Exactly what are yu hoping to achieve by dragging in butchers and hunters into the discussion of serial murder and eviscerations? Do you regard butchers as murderers? Would you have hunters sent to the electric chair? If not, what is your point?

Well, quite apart from vastly different signatures and MOs there were substantial differences in the injuries suffered by the C5 victims in contrast to the Torso victims. And if you think that dismemberment murderers don't inflict abdominal injuries then think again.

But methinks this argument needs to be transferred to a more suitable thread.

By the way, I still have no idea why you continue to include the earlier dismemberment cases-apart from Old Lechmere, of course!

[Sam Flynn]

If you wish to move the thread, by all means do so.

Regardless of the thread, you just can't resist bringing up one or more aspect of your theories, no matter how off-topic. I knew this would happen as soon as Lechmere got a name-check.

Exactly what are yu hoping to achieve by dragging in butchers and hunters into the discussion of serial murder and eviscerations? Do you regard butchers as murderers? Would you have hunters sent to the electric chair? If not, what is your point?

The point, which I've already made, is that there is only a limited number of ways one can cut open an abdomen. To read any significance into the Torso murderer's victim having had her abdomen cut open from breastbone to pubis is about as valid as it is to suggest that every pizza triangle in town was probably cut by the same person.

[John G]

Regardless of the thread, you just can't resist bringing up one or more aspect of your theories, no matter how off-topic. I knew this would happen as soon as Lechmere got a name-check.The point, which I've already made, is that there is only a limited number of ways one can cut open an abdomen. To read any significance into the Torso murderer's victim having had her abdomen cut open from breastbone to pubis is about as valid as it is to suggest that every pizza triangle in town was probably cut by the same person.

Which Torso victim(s) had there abdomen cut open in this way?