Same motive = same killer

[RockySullivan]

[Fisherman]

As the only person we have access to, who closely examined both Torso and jtr victims, when he concluded they were "very clearly" the work of different people, I bow to his knowledge in the absence of any compelling data to the contary.

We may need the whole passage here, published in 1903:

During the years 1887-1889, a series of murders was committed in London, by an unknown and unidentified assassins. The victims were thirteen women of the class of prostitutes. These outrages were done by more than one man, the post-mortem examination showing very clearly that in one series the motive was the destruction of the identity of the person, and concealment of the crime. In the second, savage and singularly purposeless mutilation.
The examination also proved the difference in the skill and intention of the operator. In the first series, as I may put it, the women's bodies were skillfully divided into sections such as might be done by a butcher or a hunter, evidently for the purpose of easy carriage and distribution, as the different parts were found in various districts, some in Regent's Park, Chelsea, Battersea, Isle of Dogs, even, in one case, the vaults of New Scotland Yard. In the other series, the women were horribly and unmercifully mutilated. Even the internal organs had been removed and taken away. It was in the last series that the theory of satyriasia was strengthened by the post-mortem examinations.

So let´s begin by recognizing that what Hebbert described as being "very clear" was that the motives were different in these two series of murders.
That means that we either accept that Hebbert knew what the motives were, or we can leave the wording "very clearly" behind.

Did Hebbert know what the motives were? No, he did not. He reasoned - as so many did at the time - that concealment of the identity and the crime lay behind the torso murders (and we all know that people who want to conceal crimes should not put torsos in the cellar vaults of the New Scotland Yard, jst as they should not leave the victims own clothes with a dumped body if they want to conceal the identities) and that savage and singularly purposeless mutilations lay behind the Ripper murders.

This was a typical victorian stance, and it will not find support in our more enlightened time.

Hebbert then goes on to say that there were differences in skill and intention. He says that the torso victims were skilfully dismembered - but he does not know how the Ripper would have dismembered. There is no knowing, since he never did.
Plus we know full well that Dr Phillips ascribed a very high level of skill to the Ripper in the Chapman case - and if we want to listen to what people with a genuine insight into the murders and a medico status thought (which is very clearly what you say we should do), then we must of course listen to Phillips.
The problem is that we get two distinctly different views, but there you are.

Finally, Hebbert also speaks of "intention", and says that the Ripper seemingly came for the organs, since he took a number of these out. How that differs in intention from the torso man, who took out the uterus from Jackson and removed her heart and lungs, is something that is hard to understand.

Hebbert was a prisoner of the victorian era with it´s thinking, just as we are prisoners of our era. We all think that we are at the forefront of things, but ensuing generations will disclose that we are not. We, in our time, can see where Hebbert got it wrong, and we can see how he got it wrong in the precise manner he was likely to.

Luckily, we can also see that he is factually wrong - both men took out organs, for example.

So there goes that cane of yours, Dusty. You must learn to walk without it. Hebbert is THE authority of the time on the torso murders, and we owe a lot to him. But we are doing him a disservice if we treat him like a guru who even knew the motives behind the series!

Better then to recognize things like the flaps, like the midsection cuts from ribs to pubes, like the stolen rings, like the missing colon sections etcera. If you want compelling evidence, then there you are.

[Sam Flynn]

Did Hebbert know what the motives were? No, he did not. He reasoned - as so many did at the time - that concealment of the identity and the crime lay behind the torso murders

That's usually the case, so it's a very reasonable proposition.

and we all know that people who want to conceal crimes should not put torsos in the cellar vaults of the New Scotland Yard, jst as they should not leave the victims own clothes with a dumped body if they want to conceal the identities

I'd say that the absence of the head in the case of the Scotland Yard torso - and the others - seems to have been deliberately conceived to slow down, if not entirely prevent, identification. As to the clothing, how was the killer to know that it would be traced back to an individual? The victims seem mostly to have been of a poorer class, and the clothing they wore should, on balance, have been fairly commonplace and generic. It bears reminding that only in one case was the clothing actually useful in identifying the victim, anyway.

This was a typical victorian stance, and it will not find support in our more enlightened time.

Was it "typically Victorian"? His analysis seems pretty sensible, and no doubt many modern investigators would arrive at the same conclusions.

Hebbert then goes on to say that there were differences in skill and intention. He says that the torso victims were skilfully dismembered - but he does not know how the Ripper would have dismembered. There is no knowing, since he never did.

Go figure.

Plus we know full well that Dr Phillips ascribed a very high level of skill to the Ripper in the Chapman case - and if we want to listen to what people with a genuine insight into the murders and a medico status thought (which is very clearly what you say we should do), then we must of course listen to Phillips.

Must we? Phillips' own description of Annie Chapman's wounds points to a very messy, clumsy and improvised evisceration.

Finally, Hebbert also speaks of "intention", and says that the Ripper seemingly came for the organs, since he took a number of these out. How that differs in intention from the torso man, who took out the uterus from Jackson and removed her heart and lungs, is something that is hard to understand.

What's even harder to understand, from your POV, is why the majority of Jackson's abdominal organs were left in place.

Hebbert was a prisoner of the victorian era with it´s thinking, just as we are prisoners of our era.

Hebbert's opinions seem to be just as well-grounded as many a modern-day "profiler" and, indeed, his expertise in medical matters - amply demonstrated in his writings - give him a distinct advantage over modern-day, CSI-inspired amateur sleuths. Or even some professional ones, for that matter.

Luckily, we can also see that he is factually wrong - both men took out organs, for example.

Took, or simply "got organs out of the way"? And, in respect of the torso crimes, not consistently so, either.

Better then to recognize things like the flaps, like the midsection cuts from ribs to pubes, like the stolen rings, like the missing colon sections etc. If you want compelling evidence, then there you are.

Flaps are only relevant in 3 out of 10 or 11 murders; stolen rings and excised colons are in an even smaller minority. These are not consistent features of either series, even when combined.

What is consistent - the locations; the dismemberments - differs markedly between the two series.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: That's usually the case, so it's a very reasonable proposition.

Yes, before the case details are looked into, it will always be a very good suggestion that concealment of the facts could lie behind a dismemberment murder - no qualms. But once the case details speak against it, one must accept that the murder differs in this respect.

I'd say that the absence of the head in the case of the Scotland Yard torso - and the others - seems to have been deliberately conceived to slow down, if not entirely prevent, identification. As to the clothing, how was the killer to know that it would be traced back to an individual? The victims seem mostly to have been of a poorer class, and the clothing they wore should, on balance, have been fairly commonplace and generic. It bears reminding that only in one case was the clothing actually useful in identifying the victim, anyway.

The killer could easily have avoided any risk tied to the clothing by removing it, Gareth. Surely we both realize that?
As for the missing head, yes, it may have been done to prevent identification. But in 1873, the face was dumped and found, and in 1884, the Tottenham torsos head was left with the rest of the dumped parts that were found. And that was a murder where the dumping seemed to have been done on dry land, all of it. There is every possibility that the killer threw the heads into the Thames in the other cases, and that the heads sank, whereas the rest did not. Whether the killer know that this would happen is undisclosed to us.
In the 1873 case, there were a number of marks on the body that could have helped identify the woman.
Last, but not least, weighing the parts down or burying them would have gotten them away from the police. Instead, over and over again, the killer used a method that more or less ensured that the body parts were found.
If you want to conceal things, that is not the way to go about it. We have discussed this before, and that stands.

Was it "typically Victorian"? His analysis seems pretty sensible, and no doubt many modern investigators would arrive at the same conclusions.

The victorians apparently believed that all dismemberment murders were murders aiming at concealing the deeds. And Hebbert apparently thought that a dismemberment murder must by nature be less governed by "satyriasis" than the Ripper murders were.

Go figure.

We can´t. Neither of us. That´s the whole point. Saying that the torso killer was skilled as shown by the dismemberments can never tell him apart in that respect from the Ripper, since the Ripper never dismembered.

Must we? Phillips' own description of Annie Chapman's wounds points to a very messy, clumsy and improvised evisceration.

If we say that we should take the words of the specialists who saw the bodies as the best information - and that is what Dusty said he did when it came to Hebbert and his comparison between the Ripper and the torso man - then Phillips words should get that status too. It is the consequence that follows from Dustys reasoning.

Phillips own description of Chapmans evisceration involves him saying that it was undoubtedly the work of an expert, or something like that. I am much less impressed about how you make your own interpretation and disagree with it. No matter what, you should not try and wring his statement into something he never said or believed.
Of course an expert would not carve the bladder in half, and of course an expert would not extract the uterus the way the Ripper did. But this is not what Phillips says he did either! Phillips doubtlessly knew quite well what a correct hysterectomy looked like, and he would also know how the Rippers effort compared in that respect. The important thing to realize that he STILL said that it was the obvious work of an expert, and that would have boiled down to how the Ripper cut. There was something in that cutting that spoke to Phillips of great skill, otherwise he would not have said so.

What's even harder to understand, from your POV, is why the majority of Jackson's abdominal organs were left in place.

I am having no trouble with that at all, actually. If my thoughts are on the money, and the inspiration ground is what I think it is, then what I would expect from a murder of this man would involve the full range. I know that you will probably go "Well, THAT´S convenient!", but the fact of the matter is that once the abdomen was opened up, my scenario is just as fine with no organ removal as it is with partial organ removal and full organ removal. And of course, that is the exact span we have, looking at the two series!

Hebbert's opinions seem to be just as well-grounded as many a modern-day "profiler" and, indeed, his expertise in medical matters - amply demonstrated in his writings - give him a distinct advantage over modern-day, CSI-inspired amateur sleuths. Or even some professional ones, for that matter.

No, Hebberts opinion is not all that well-grounded. He said that there were differences on account of how the Ripper took out organs, for example. That means that he "forgot" that the torso man did that too! And Hebbert was apparently a prisoner of the "dismembering-must-be-concealing thinking" - we know today that dismemberment can be a specific paraphilia, and I doubt that the victorians knew this. Hebbert had great knowledge about what had happened to the victims but a lot less knowledge of the possible implications. That is where we have an advantage.

Took, or simply "got organs out of the way"? And, in respect of the torso crimes, not consistently so, either.

It is not consistent in EITHER series. But anyone who is willing to dismember is a rare creature. The musings about getting organs "out of the way" must remain only that; musings. There seems to be very little support for the idea in the other torso deeds. Are you reasoning that the killer took out the heart from Jackson so that he could take aim with the saw? And where is the evidence in the other cases that this was something he did?

Flaps are only relevant in 3 out of 10 or 11 murders; stolen rings and excised colons are in an even smaller minority. These are not consistent features of either series, even when combined.

They are there in BOTH series, and that is what counts.

What is consistent - the locations; the dismemberments - differs markedly between the two series.

So tell us all why the Ripper would have dismembered his victims out in the street if he was also the torso man. Is it not true that such a thing was never going to happen? So that argument is moot. Plus there are a fair few examples of killers who dismember sometimes and not on other occasions. The locations are unknown to us in the torso case, there is no consistency to speak of there unless we say that the parts may all have been dumped in the western parts of London.
These matters, as I have said before, are EASILY bridged. The flaps, the missing colon sections, the cutting from ribs to pubes, the stolen rings cannot be bridged at all. They cannot be coincidental, that is violating the laws of nature.

Let´s assume that we have five cases of men who are shot in the head and dumped on a mountainside.
Then we have five cases of women who are strangled and thrown into a river fifty miles from the other series, in another town.

Will the police link these cases? No way. There is absolutely no reason to do that.

Now assume that one of the men and two of the women have had a thumb taken away with a pair of pliers.

Will the police reason "Nah, that is only three out of ten cases, so we can leave that aside"?

Or will they say that the series are linked by this very weird thing, and seemingly related against all odds unless a copycat is involved?

As you so aptly put it yourself, Gareth: Go figure.

[Sam Flynn]

So tell us all why the Ripper would have dismembered his victims out in the street if he was also the torso man.

Which streets? The streets of Whitechapel or the streets of Southwest London? Oh, yes, I nearly forgot - there were no Ripper murders in Southwest London.

Leaving that aside, it's noteworthy that the one Ripper murder that took place indoors involved no dismemberment at all.

By the same token, the only torso victim found in Whitechapel was not eviscerated.

[Sam Flynn]

Phillips own description of Chapmans evisceration involves him saying that it was undoubtedly the work of an expert, or something like that.

Those were the words of a journalist writing for The Lancet.

[Sam Flynn]

The killer could easily have avoided any risk [of identification] tied to the clothing by removing it, Gareth. Surely we both realize that?

I'm suggesting that the killer didn't particularly care about such a risk, if he/they were even aware of it. Like I said, most of the victims were likely of the poorer classes, and their clothing would have been fairly impersonal and generic, with a consequent low likelihood of identification. The fact that only ONE victim was traced by her clothing would seem to support this view. The fact that she was possibly the last victim of the "Southwest London torso killer" might also be significant in that regard; identifying by clothing hadn't happened in the previous Southwest London murders, so why should the killer(s) have bothered removing the clothing in Jackson's case?

[Sam Flynn]

In the 1873 case, there were a number of marks on the body that could have helped identify the woman.

Would the killer(s) have known this? Would they have noticed a few scars or moles? Possibly not.

[Sam Flynn]

The victorians apparently believed that all dismemberment murders were murders aiming at concealing the deeds.

Concealing the identity, you mean. That's probably the case in most such murders, even to this day.

[Sam Flynn]

If we say that we should take the words of the specialists who saw the bodies as the best information

I'm pleased to see that you've learned from your premature championing of the opinions of Lawson Tait.

[Fisherman]

Would the killer(s) have known this? Would they have noticed a few scars or moles? Possibly not.

Would taking away whatever physical deviations from the normal be what a killer intent on hiding the identity of his victim would do? Yes.

There were a number of such marks on the 1873 victim and it remains odd that thy were left - IF the killer aimed at hiding.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: Which streets? The streets of Whitechapel or the streets of Southwest London? Oh, yes, I nearly forgot - there were no Ripper murders in Southwest London.

So we are back to mocking now? Okay. Be prepared to Aaaaaaaaarrrrrrrgggghhhhh...

On the streets where they were killed, of course.

Leaving that aside, it's noteworthy that the one Ripper murder that took place indoors involved no dismemberment at all.

And it is noteworthy that a saw is rather a bulky implement to carry around.

By the same token, the only torso victim found in Whitechapel was not eviscerated.

By what token, Gareth?

[Harry D]

Sam Flynn: Which streets? The streets of Whitechapel or the streets of Southwest London? Oh, yes, I nearly forgot - there were no Ripper murders in Southwest London.

So we are back to mocking now? Okay. Be prepared to Aaaaaaaaarrrrrrrgggghhhhh...

On the streets where they were killed, of course.

Leaving that aside, it's noteworthy that the one Ripper murder that took place indoors involved no dismemberment at all.

And it is noteworthy that a saw is rather a bulky implement to carry around.

By the same token, the only torso victim found in Whitechapel was not eviscerated.

By what token, Gareth?

Sent you a PM, Fish.

[Sam Flynn]

There were a number of such marks on the 1873 victim and it remains odd that thy were left - IF the killer aimed at hiding.

You're assuming that the killer (a) noticed them and (b) IF he did, deemed them to be significant. Suffice it to say that, upon medical examination of the body, they were found but, even so, it didn't help in identifying the victim anyway.

[Fisherman]

Those were the words of a journalist writing for The Lancet.

And why in the world would anybody think that he was not relaying what Phillips said and thought? That is entirely your proposition of how you would like to have history rewritten, and you have no evidence to make it work.

The Morning Advertiser:

"The removal of the abdominal wall indicated certain anatomical knowledge, as did the cutting in three portions of the abdominal wall, and the non cutting of the intestine. Also the way in which the womb was removed showed this in a more marked degree."

So there was anatomical knowledge displayed, and mostly so when it came to the removal of the womb.

Can you see how this dovetails quite well with the Lancete:

"Obviously the work was that of an expert--of one, at least, who had such knowledge of anatomical or pathological examinations as to be enabled to secure the pelvic organs with one sweep of a knife,..."

Anatomical knowledge. The womb being the real clincher.

There is living with the recorded material, and then there´s living in denial.