The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[Fisherman]

Thanks for that Fish.

Is there a better book on the subject?

Not really, no. Michael Gordons book "The Thames Torso Murders of Victorian London" is about the same, qualitywise. He makes - as I believe - the whopper of a mistake to cast George Chapman as the combined Torso man/Ripper (whereas Trow tells us that if there is one certainty, that is that the Ripper and the Torso man were different killers...), and so he needs to dump the 1873-74 torsos and he brings on the Salamanca torso of 1902 instead. That torso was nothng at all like the Thames Torso killers work, it was crude and simple.

To get a good understanding, search the boards here and on JTR for material. Rob Clacks article on the Whitehall torso in Ripperologist has also won much acclaim.

This discussion has been moved by the way, to a thread of it´s own under Motive method and madness: Same motive=same killer

[Fisherman]

good post fish

also both the torso man and ripper apparently stopped at roughly the same time-fall1889.

chew on that a little bit.

And it can be argued that both men wound down a bit, with the less intense murders of MacKenzie and the Pinchin Street victim. Anyways, the discussion has been moved to Motive, method and madness: Same motive=same killer (which is a bit of a rash title...)

[John G]

wrong, wrong wrong..oh no here we go

No I'm not wrong. Where's the proof that any if the victims were murdered? Do you still believe that the Torso perpetrator were the same killer because they used the same knife?

[John G]

The Rainham torso and Liz Jackson both had their abdomens opened up all the way down and the Pinchin Street torso had a wound stretching from two inches below the sternum down into the vagina. It was fifteen inches.

I'll answer this in more detail when I have the time. However, The cut inflicted on the Pinchin Torso was relatively minor in character and there is was no suggestion that any injuries inflicted on the Rainham Torso was for anything other than disposal of the body. It certainly wasn't for the purpose of removing organs as all the pelvic organs, as well as liver and kidney, were discovered with the other remains.

[John G]

Thanks for that Fish.

Is there a better book on the subject?

Trow's book is excellent and it is not full of errors.

[Fisherman]

I'll answer this in more detail when I have the time. However, The cut inflicted on the Pinchin Torso was relatively minor on character and there is was no suggestion that any injuries inflicted on the Rainham Torso was for anything other than disposal of the body. It certainly wasn't for the purpose of removing organs as all the pelvic organs, as well as liver and kidney, were discovered with the other remains.

Could I please ask you to jump over to "Motives, method and madness: Same motive=same killer". The discussion has been moved there.

In short: The Pinchins Street torso´s wound to the abdomen was not inferior in the context we are discussing. It stretched from two inches below the ribcage into the vagina.

There is absolutely no reason to cut the abdomen open to dispose of a body, John, speaking about the Rainham case. And either way, that was not the question here - it was whether there were wounds from ribcage to pubes in the torso series. Plus, of course most of the colon was "removed" in that case, so you are wrong in saying that the pelvic organs were all present. And the heart and lungs were gone too.

See you on the other thread!

[John G]

There are no vastly different signatures. They are the same in both cases.

There are differences inbetween ALL victims. Kelly differes from Stride, who differs from Nichols, who differs from Jackson, who differs from Eddowes, who differs from... It´s the amount of likenesses that cannot be a sheer coincidence. Like I said, which other town has had two serialist eviscerators simulataneously? Ever?

When did I ever say that dismemberment killers cannot inflict abdominal injuries, John? Or even hint at it? Why would yo suggest such a thing, when it has no basis in reality? I know quite well that they can - I effectively argue that the Torso killer was just such a man!!

You have no idea why I include the 1873 victim? Okey, here goes:

Victim killed in direct or nearly direct connection with the body being cut up - as in all the other torso cases.

Victim not subjected to sadism - abductors are very often sadists who want time and a victim on their hands in a secluded surrounding. This killer was not of that type. No torture can be discerned on any of the torso victims.

The cutting work on the 1873 torso was neat and clean.

The limbs had been neatly cut open and disarticulated - just like in the other cases.

FInally, there is another factor that I have hinted at many times. It ties the cases very closely together, revealing the common inspiration ground. This factor I will not give up, and so you have to trust me about it.

Where the evidence that dismemberers are prone to sadism? I have no idea what you mean by the direct connection argument.

[Fisherman]

Trow's book is excellent and it is not full of errors.

For starters, he missed out on one part of the Rainham victim, John. I am not saying that the book is "full of errors" - I am saying that these kinds of bad errors are there, and they lower the quality of the book.

[John G]

Could I please ask you to jump over to "Motives, method and madness: Same motive=same killer". The discussion has been moved there.

In short: The Pinchins Street torso´s wound to the abdomen was not inferior in the context we are discussing. It stretched from two inches below the ribcage into the vagina.

There is absolutely no reason to cut the abdomen open to dispose of a body, John, speaking about the Rainham case. And either way, that was not the question here - it was whether there were wounds from ribcage to pubes in the torso series. Plus, of course most of the colon was "removed" in that case, so you are wrong in saying that the pelvic organs were all present. And the heart and lungs were gone too.

See you on the other thread!

Okay, see you on the other thread.

[Fisherman]

Where the evidence that dismemberers are prone to sadism? I have no idea what you mean by the direct connection argument.

Discussion moved.

[c.d.]

"I am convinced that Lechmere was Jack."

Hello Fish,

I see you as a strong contender for understatement of the year.

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Not really, no. Michael Gordons book "The Thames Torso Murders of Victorian London" is about the same, qualitywise. He makes - as I believe - the whopper of a mistake to cast George Chapman as the combined Torso man/Ripper (whereas Trow tells us that if there is one certainty, that is that the Ripper and the Torso man were different killers...), and so he needs to dump the 1873-74 torsos and he brings on the Salamanca torso of 1902 instead. That torso was nothng at all like the Thames Torso killers work, it was crude and simple.

To get a good understanding, search the boards here and on JTR for material. Rob Clacks article on the Whitehall torso in Ripperologist has also won much acclaim.

This discussion has been moved by the way, to a thread of it´s own under Motive method and madness: Same motive=same killer

Thanks for that Fish

[Fisherman]

"I am convinced that Lechmere was Jack."

Hello Fish,

I see you as a strong contender for understatement of the year.

c.d.

Of course - but I could not think of a better word than "convinced".

Suggestions?

[Trevor Marriott]

PC Long does say to the coroner that there were rumors of a murder, but he only heard of a second murder (the City), just before he left for the station.
So, hearing rumors of a murder, he finds a bloodstained rag that had not been there when he passed 30 mins previous.
Those are two viable reason's for him to investigate.

Where would he have heard the rumours from. He doesn't say he met anyone who told him does he?

Also given that the Gs piece was a relatively small piece I still find it difficult to understand that a discarded piece of screwed up material would warrant him picking it up and examining it resulting in his actions thereafter.

After all he would not have been able to form any opinion until he picked it up and examined it, so what made him pick it up in the first instance?

If it genuinely wasnt there when he passed by 30 mins previous, could Dc Halse have planted it there? Certainly the killer was not coming and going as you suggest?

I refer to this official extract which shows there was at least some official concern about how the apron piece got to GS

October 3rd 1888 from Sir Charles Warren to Sir James Fraser head of The City of London Police:
My Dear Fraser,
I have seen Mr. Matthews today and he is anxious to know whether it can be known that the torn bib of the woman murdered in Mitre Square cannot have been taken to Goulston Street by any person except the murderer.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

Also given that the Gs piece was a relatively small piece

We don't know how big it was.