Same motive = same killer

[Debra A]

Here are the descriptions from the inquest reporting:

Wapping inquest:

Oxford Times 08 June 1889
The Press Association, in a telegram on Tuesday says the remains found at Horsleydown consisted of part of the abdomen of a woman, including the uterus..

This is obviously not directly from inquest testimony but has an interesting description of staining on the white flesh of the portions found at Horsleydown.

Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper 09 June 1889
...and Dr Bond, chief surgeon to the Metropolitan police, together with several experienced detective officers proceeded to Wapping. Dr Bond saw at once that the mass of flesh before him had belonged to a young woman upon whom had been performed an unlawful operation. The remains consisted of the lower part of a female body. The flesh was white, though here and there slightly stained and it had been part of a living body probably 24 hrs previously.for there was still a slight ooze of blood from the ragged edges where the knife or hatchet had been used. The fact that an unlawful operation had not only been attempted, but actually carried out was incontestably proved by Dr Bond...


Battersea inquest 15th June:

Boston Guardian 22 June 1889
The remains found at Wapping consisted of the abdominal organs and two portions of skin from the lower part of the abdomen and on these bright sandy hair was found.The appearance showed the woman had not had a child. He [Bond]believed that the woman had not been dead more than twenty four hours when he saw the remains. In his opinion they belonged to a young woman who at the time of her death was enceinte, probably in the eighth month. She had not been delivered and he believed the child had been removed from her after death..

Kirkintilloch Herald 19 June 1889
He [Bond] also examined four portions of the abdomen. The remains were those of a woman very recently delivered, but after death.

Illustrated Police News 22 June 1889
On the same day he [Bond] examined four portions of the abdomen at Wapping police court, and gave a minute description of what he noticed.The remains were of those of a woman recently delivered, but after death..

The descriptions of 'four portions' of the abdomen refer to the uterus, placenta and two portions of flesh that Hebbert described.

Here also is Bond answering the coroners questions on determining the cause of death :

The Coroner: And in neither of those cases [refering to Rainham and Whitehall], I think, was the head found. There is no evidence of any instrument having been used, Dr Bond?
Dr Bond: No. An instrument had not been used. We could not say whether she had drugs administered to her as the intestines were missing, nor could we tell whether death had been caused by suffocation, since the heart and lungs were missing. She might have had her throat cut, but as the head is missing there is nothing to show.
The coroner asked whether it was possible that the parts were missing by design, in order to conceal the cause of death. For instance, might an abortionist have adopted the course?
Dr Bond did not think so, though the coroner remarked that he was afraid such people had a great deal more skill and knowledge than they were given credit for. Mr Bond further pointed out that the woman was in the habit of biting her nails. The following parts of the body were still missing: The head and upper part of the neck the lungs and intestines. and the foetus which had been removed after death.
.

[Trevor Marriott]

The coroner asked whether it was possible that the parts were missing by design, in order to conceal the cause of death. For instance, might an abortionist have adopted the course?
Dr Bond did not think so, though the coroner remarked that he was afraid such people had a great deal more skill and knowledge than they were given credit for. Mr Bond further pointed out that the woman was in the habit of biting her nails. The following parts of the body were still missing: The head and upper part of the neck the lungs and intestines. and the foetus which had been removed after death.
.

Interesting comment from the coroner on the medical ability of back st abortionists

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

Hi Again El
I just wanted to add that there is a lot of interpretation, subjectivity and pure speculation on my part in the long post, which is what I intended and what I look forward to seeing in any responses.

I should have said that in the post and would have gone back and edited/added but the time ran out for editing.

That's good, because a lot of this is speculation, the raw data either does not exist or is not of the standard we would have today, none of which helps.
Editing time? Yes always a problem.

Steve

[Elamarna]

Here are the descriptions from the inquest reporting:

Wapping inquest:

Oxford Times 08 June 1889
The Press Association, in a telegram on Tuesday says the remains found at Horsleydown consisted of part of the abdomen of a woman, including the uterus..

This is obviously not directly from inquest testimony but has an interesting description of staining on the white flesh of the portions found at Horsleydown.

Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper 09 June 1889
...and Dr Bond, chief surgeon to the Metropolitan police, together with several experienced detective officers proceeded to Wapping. Dr Bond saw at once that the mass of flesh before him had belonged to a young woman upon whom had been performed an unlawful operation. The remains consisted of the lower part of a female body. The flesh was white, though here and there slightly stained and it had been part of a living body probably 24 hrs previously.for there was still a slight ooze of blood from the ragged edges where the knife or hatchet had been used. The fact that an unlawful operation had not only been attempted, but actually carried out was incontestably proved by Dr Bond...


Battersea inquest 15th June:

Boston Guardian 22 June 1889
The remains found at Wapping consisted of the abdominal organs and two portions of skin from the lower part of the abdomen and on these bright sandy hair was found.The appearance showed the woman had not had a child. He [Bond]believed that the woman had not been dead more than twenty four hours when he saw the remains. In his opinion they belonged to a young woman who at the time of her death was enceinte, probably in the eighth month. She had not been delivered and he believed the child had been removed from her after death..

Kirkintilloch Herald 19 June 1889
He [Bond] also examined four portions of the abdomen. The remains were those of a woman very recently delivered, but after death.

Illustrated Police News 22 June 1889
On the same day he [Bond] examined four portions of the abdomen at Wapping police court, and gave a minute description of what he noticed.The remains were of those of a woman recently delivered, but after death..

The descriptions of 'four portions' of the abdomen refer to the uterus, placenta and two portions of flesh that Hebbert described.

Here also is Bond answering the coroners questions on determining the cause of death :

The Coroner: And in neither of those cases [refering to Rainham and Whitehall], I think, was the head found. There is no evidence of any instrument having been used, Dr Bond?
Dr Bond: No. An instrument had not been used. We could not say whether she had drugs administered to her as the intestines were missing, nor could we tell whether death had been caused by suffocation, since the heart and lungs were missing. She might have had her throat cut, but as the head is missing there is nothing to show.
The coroner asked whether it was possible that the parts were missing by design, in order to conceal the cause of death. For instance, might an abortionist have adopted the course?
Dr Bond did not think so, though the coroner remarked that he was afraid such people had a great deal more skill and knowledge than they were given credit for. Mr Bond further pointed out that the woman was in the habit of biting her nails. The following parts of the body were still missing: The head and upper part of the neck the lungs and intestines. and the foetus which had been removed after death.
.

Now that's what I love,
All togeather in one place. Thank you so much Debra


Steve

[Kattrup]

Ill go more in depth here with the similarities I listed, and possible significance:

Hi Abby, thanks for this post which outlines your arguments much better.

Before going into each of the similarities you present, I'd like to first comment that the argument that Torso Killer and JtR were the same is premature.
You keep referring to the torso cases as a series, and then attempt to link that series with the Ripper crimes.

However, it has not yet been shown that the Torso Murders were, in fact, murders. And even if they were murders, it has not been shown that they were by the same hand(s).

Therefore, there is not necessarily a series to liken to JtR.

In both series women were victims.

when comparing cases, I think victimology is significant. as is the history of serial killers re the victimology.

I disagree. The history of serial killers is 20th century story. Basing deductions about JtR on experiences from the post-WWII society is unacceptable - the cultural divide is immense and serial killers are not unchangeable forces of nature.

The victimology is the same, if not very similar. The victims were all adult women, of a certain class(lower class-for lack of better word).

No, for the torso victims this was mainly unknown but one was considered probably not lowclass ("the neat appearance of the nails and the absence of any deformity by occupation, were against a lowclass person"), another had no sign of manual labour and a mark on the finger such as comes from constant writing ("there are no marks indicating any occupation, except that on the right little finger is a small circular hardening but no corn. This mark is such as might by made by writing"). A third was thought maybe lower class because of she wore her garters below the knee "a custom, I believe, more common among the lower than the upper classes".

I would also venture to go so far as to say that they were all probably prostitutes.

Unknown.

The ripper victims certainly were. and a case has been made that Jackson was.

I agree.

I think that part of the reason that most of the torso victims were not identified is because they were probably poor, homeless unfortunates. I have to bring up MO here in how the victims were lured to a place where the murders and dismemberment took place. since medical procedures, like abortions, have been conclusively ruled out

Erm, no they haven't? Could you provide some more info on how that has been conclusively ruled out?

IMHO, one can infer they were lured to the killers abode through a ruse of some sort. work, money prostitution act? Either way, a ruse was used, as in the ripper cases, and probably through an act of prostitution.

Very possible but of course conjecture, as you state.

History of serial killers show that the majority of serial killers stick to same victimology. in both cases, its a adult women of a certain class. Neither varied by having male victims, or children or even women of a young age. even serial killers who target women in general in the past have strayed significantly in the age of there victims. many, including bundy, the Goldenstate killer, the nighstalker, have varied their attacks to include young women, teenage girls, very young girls, pre pubescent and even old women. Yet both torso and ripper series, in regards to age, targeted women in a definite range.

How do we know the Torso Killer did not kill others? The aforementioned Gill-murder, for instance, of a small boy dismembered. In 1888!
Your victimology-argument becomes selffulfilling: because the Torso Killer only killed women, he would not have killed a boy. So we don't need to consider that particular dismemberment/post-mortem mutilation murder.

In both series a knife was the primary weapon.

I find this highly significant. all victims of both series the primary tool of destruction is the knife. Not a club, blunt force trauma, not only strangulation (bare hands), or ligatures used, nor an object found at the scene. a knife. Same Serial killers in history use different methods of killing, mutilation etc. something found at the scene. or by variation stabbing, shooting, beating, strangling-same serial killer different weapons. That both used primarily the knife to me is very important.

Cause of death was mainly unknown for the torso victims, not necessarily by knife. So how you can say the knife was so important?
Although a knife was used to dismember them, a saw was also used.

also, Dennis Rader, BTK, whos primary paraphilia/MO was binding, strangulation with rope, stated- it was all about the rope. To me in both series, it was all about the knife. and what it could do to the female body.

Ok.

In both series there was extensive post mortem mutilation.

Both series involved post mortem mutilation. Highly significant IMHO. No torture was evident in either series. no overt sexual assault. All the focus on the victim seems to be after death. The post mortem serial killer is very rare. the post mortem serial killer who engages in no sexual activity with the body is rarer still. In neither series is there any indication that either killer fell in any other of the many serial killer types. They were both post mortem serial killers only seemingly interested in post mortem mutilation.

How extensive was the post-mortem mutilation in the torso cases? I mean, it seems you're considering the act of cutting the body up as "post-mortem mutilation". But that's an entirely different activity. Perhaps a definition of what constitutes post-mortem mutilation would be in order. And again, inferences from modern-day serial killers have no value in Victorian times.

In both series the neck was cut.

all the victims had there neck cut. to various degrees yes, but necks cut nonethe less. In the ripper victims it seems to be to insure swift and silent death. In the torso case we don't know since they were all eventually decapitated, but at the very least that there necks weren't cut first to cause death isnt ruled out.

That's just entirely irrelevant, and misleading, since it implies the torso victims were murdered by having their necks cut. Since they were decapitated, it's obvious their necks were cut, but it should be equally obvious that a woman being murdered by having her throat cut (Ripper) is entirely different from a woman dying or being strangled, then being decapitated for reasons of disposal/concealment.

There also could be a practical reason though. That's to help bleed the victim out. and since both series there was extensive cutting, perhaps this was done to help lesson the amount of blood the killer got on himself and or to make easier the cutting up/into of bodies.

That's possible, one cause of death for a Torso Victim was possible blood loss.

In both series the abdomen was targeted.

In both series the abdomen, and what lay directly beneath was targeted. IMHO there seems to be a focus on this area. Its a least common denominator of both the series that we are sure of. In all the victims of both the torso series and the ripper series there is extensive damage to the abdomen and the internal organs directly beneath. was there a sexual curiosity? Curiosity of reproductive organs? uterus removed in both series, Jackson had her foetus removed. I think this area has special significance for the killer in both series.

Targeted....again, cutting a body into pieces will necessitate damage. It does not necessarily mean that the dismemberer had any particular interest in the abdomen.
Uterus removed? not consistently and in Jackson's case could easily be a byproduct of cutting her up.

In both series body parts were separated and removed.

In both series the killer cut away,removed and separated and or took away both external and internal body parts. In both series these parts seem to have special significance for the killer. What did he want them for? that's up for further debate, for sure, but in both series there seems to be parts he wanted to keep, and parts he didn't. Any way, both internal and external parts and their removal/seperation were important for the killer in both series.

Complete conjecture - why not say the heads held a special significance for the Torso Killer? After all, he probably kept them, since they were never found. There does not seem to be any parts he particularly wanted to keep in the Torso cases, besides the heads, since everything else was found, although not everything was found from the same victim.

In both series internal organs were removed.

Very similar to above admittedly, but that specifically internal organs were removed is historically significant in this case. I have mentioned in the past that I have seen an FBI statistical report that listed serial killers by paraphilia or what was done to the victims. The last and most rarest was removal of internal organs. That there were two serial killers that were cutting into and removing internal organs IMHO seems too much of a coincidence. Post mortem serial killers who remove internal organs is the rarest type of serial killer and both did.

Rarity scales such as this are completely irrelevant. What happened, happened regardless of how rare or common it might be considered.

In both series the stomach flesh was removed with a knife in large sections.

I think this is probably the most specific of the similarities between the series and one of the main reasons that should link them. A lot of ongoing debate is being said on this already here and I don't really need to go into it. Ill let the more knowledgeable posters continue to do so. On the face of it though for me that both involved the cutting away of the sections of flesh of the stomach to gain access to the inside of the body is very significant.

flaps, slips, large, small - you see it as very significant, I see it as coincidental in cutting up a body containing a foetus - were there other flaps or slips cut off in the other torso cases? if not, then why attach such significance to them?

In both series they overlapped in the same city.

Both series occurred in the same city. Indeed even more detailed than that, both series were in an area of only several miles circumference. Easy walking distance and even easier by cart. or boat. Add to that the pinchin torso was found in the immediate area of the ripper murders. Granted the torsos were mainly focused to the west of the ripper murders, but could easily be explained by the possibility that the torso victims were when the killer had access to a murder house in the west but he lived in the east near the ripper murders. The proximity of both series in location should be significant.

could be, but other factors should be considered: you yourself considered the victims to be lowerclass, so proximity to lowerclass neighbourhoods could be a factor.
The explanation for the different geography is of course complete conjecture.

In both series they overlapped in time.

This is important. one didn't start after the other was finished. the ripper series started while the torso series was going on. this can be easily ascribed to a change in MO do to circumstances or even an escalation by the killer. The history of serial killers show that the same killer can change MO drastically, depending on their personal circumstances and desire.

Yes the torso series started much earlier than the ripper series but if even if you allow for the 70s torsos to be included, two decades of activity for serial killers is not rare at all.

I think most significantly in terms of time frames, and I think is often overlooked is that both series end at roughly the same time. Both series end in latter half of 89 with McKenzie and Pinchon. Indicative of one killer who had something change drastically in their life that caused the stoppage of the murders.

I agree that the overlap in time 1887-89 is the main argument for considering a common origin for these crimes.

Throughout this post I've used Torso Killer and Torso Victims etc. but really, at present the evidence does not justify a killer. I believe the term Torso Mysteries to be much better.


To recap: All your similarities above are not significant and do not show a link between the series, nor do they show that the Torso murders actually constitute a series of murders.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby, thanks for this post which outlines your arguments much better.

Before going into each of the similarities you present, I'd like to first comment that the argument that Torso Killer and JtR were the same is premature.
You keep referring to the torso cases as a series, and then attempt to link that series with the Ripper crimes.

However, it has not yet been shown that the Torso Murders were, in fact, murders. And even if they were murders, it has not been shown that they were by the same hand(s).

Therefore, there is not necessarily a series to liken to JtR.


I disagree. The history of serial killers is 20th century story. Basing deductions about JtR on experiences from the post-WWII society is unacceptable - the cultural divide is immense and serial killers are not unchangeable forces of nature.

No, for the torso victims this was mainly unknown but one was considered probably not lowclass ("the neat appearance of the nails and the absence of any deformity by occupation, were against a lowclass person"), another had no sign of manual labour and a mark on the finger such as comes from constant writing ("there are no marks indicating any occupation, except that on the right little finger is a small circular hardening but no corn. This mark is such as might by made by writing"). A third was thought maybe lower class because of she wore her garters below the knee "a custom, I believe, more common among the lower than the upper classes".
Unknown.
I agree.

Erm, no they haven't? Could you provide some more info on how that has been conclusively ruled out?
Very possible but of course conjecture, as you state.
How do we know the Torso Killer did not kill others? The aforementioned Gill-murder, for instance, of a small boy dismembered. In 1888!
Your victimology-argument becomes selffulfilling: because the Torso Killer only killed women, he would not have killed a boy. So we don't need to consider that particular dismemberment/post-mortem mutilation murder.

Cause of death was mainly unknown for the torso victims, not necessarily by knife. So how you can say the knife was so important?
Although a knife was used to dismember them, a saw was also used.

Ok.
How extensive was the post-mortem mutilation in the torso cases? I mean, it seems you're considering the act of cutting the body up as "post-mortem mutilation". But that's an entirely different activity. Perhaps a definition of what constitutes post-mortem mutilation would be in order. And again, inferences from modern-day serial killers have no value in Victorian times.
That's just entirely irrelevant, and misleading, since it implies the torso victims were murdered by having their necks cut. Since they were decapitated, it's obvious their necks were cut, but it should be equally obvious that a woman being murdered by having her throat cut (Ripper) is entirely different from a woman dying or being strangled, then being decapitated for reasons of disposal/concealment.
That's possible, one cause of death for a Torso Victim was possible blood loss.
Targeted....again, cutting a body into pieces will necessitate damage. It does not necessarily mean that the dismemberer had any particular interest in the abdomen.
Uterus removed? not consistently and in Jackson's case could easily be a byproduct of cutting her up.


Complete conjecture - why not say the heads held a special significance for the Torso Killer? After all, he probably kept them, since they were never found. There does not seem to be any parts he particularly wanted to keep in the Torso cases, besides the heads, since everything else was found, although not everything was found from the same victim.

Rarity scales such as this are completely irrelevant. What happened, happened regardless of how rare or common it might be considered.flaps, slips, large, small - you see it as very significant, I see it as coincidental in cutting up a body containing a foetus - were there other flaps or slips cut off in the other torso cases? if not, then why attach such significance to them?
could be, but other factors should be considered: you yourself considered the victims to be lowerclass, so proximity to lowerclass neighbourhoods could be a factor.
The explanation for the different geography is of course complete conjecture.


I agree that the overlap in time 1887-89 is the main argument for considering a common origin for these crimes.

Throughout this post I've used Torso Killer and Torso Victims etc. but really, at present the evidence does not justify a killer. I believe the term Torso Mysteries to be much better.


To recap: All your similarities above are not significant and do not show a link between the series, nor do they show that the Torso murders actually constitute a series of murders.

Thanks kattrup
You make a lot of good points. However, since you don’t think the torsos were all by the same hand or even murdered, perhaps we don’t even have a basis to debate? I’ll take a more in depth look when I have more time and try to answer later.

[Kattrup]

Thanks kattrup
You make a lot of good points. However, since you don’t think the torsos were all by the same hand or even murdered, perhaps we don’t even have a basis to debate?

Well, that is a main point. The main reason why these threads never go anywhere except descend into ridicule and personal attacks. The two sides aren’t discussing the same thing.

[Sam Flynn]

The main reason why these threads never go anywhere except descend into ridicule and personal attacks. The two sides aren’t discussing the same thing.

Perhaps because one side is over-egging the evidence, and the other is sticking to the facts. For example: "large flaps"... eh? The only victim to have been thus mutilated was Mary Kelly.

[Abby Normal]

Well, that is a main point. The main reason why these threads never go anywhere except descend into ridicule and personal attacks. The two sides aren’t discussing the same thing.

I disagree. I think they go somewhere. There’s a lot to learn and a lot of knowledgeable posters on the subject. And ridicule and personal attacks unfortunately happen everywhere.

And if you think they’re not discussing the same thing, then perhaps it’s because your take is off topic. This is a thread is about comparing and contrasting the similarities or not of the torso killer series and the ripper series.

If you want to start a new thread about whether or not the torso victims were murdered or if they were by the same man than be my guest.

[Abby Normal]

Perhaps because one side is over-egging the evidence, and the other is sticking to the facts. For example: "large flaps"... eh? The only victim to have been thus mutilated was Mary Kelly.

Or because the other side is ignoring simple facts and misrepresenting the evidence, to the point of continually posting known falsehoods.and playing silly semantic games. It’s a documented fact that Jackson, Chapman and KELLY all had there stomach flesh removed in large flaps. Or sections, or slips. Whatever you want to call it. Yeeesh.

[harry]

Was the same knife used in all the killings? What type of knife was it?

[Fisherman]

Perhaps because one side is over-egging the evidence, and the other is sticking to the facts. For example: "large flaps"... eh? The only victim to have been thus mutilated was Mary Kelly.

In all the three cases I am referring to (Chapman, Kelly and Jackson) the sections taken from the abdominal walls were referred to as "large flaps".

If there is any evidence at all to prove that those who described these sections (Phillips, Hebbert, possibly Bond) were wrong in two cases out of three, then please post that evidence.

Otherwise, I am having a prettuy rough time understanding how quoting the medical experts of the day as "over-egging the evidence". To me, it seems a lot more like a case of you tampering with or flaty denying it.

[Fisherman]

Well, that is a main point. The main reason why these threads never go anywhere except descend into ridicule and personal attacks. The two sides aren’t discussing the same thing.

Ths is interesting per se, since you are now adding another layer of personal interpretation to this matter.

I have said before that my reasoning is one that stays away from interpretations. It is a factually based argument that concerns itself with what we know only.

I will explain this to you once more.

The cutting of the necks of the three victims I speak of can have been led on by differnt urges or practical considerations or even accidents in each of the three cases. We donīt know. All we can say is that the women all did have their necks cut.

The opening up of the abdomens of the three women could have been grounded in paraphilia, in anger, in practical considerations or in accidents. We donīt know. All we can say is that they all did have their abdomens opened up.

The taking of the uteri could have been grounded in a wish to have a uterus, a paraphilia, a slip of the knife, a rage or a mistake. We donīt know. All we can be certain of is that the uterus was cut out in every case.

The flaps cut from the abdominal walls of these three women could have been taken away for various reasons. It could have been made by mistake, as a practicality, as something that answered to a paraphilia or urge within the killer/s or just out of boredom, having nothong else to do for the moment. We donīt know what applies.

If there were a thousand commonalities, some of them extremely odd and unheard of, we can always produce alternative explanations for how they came about, and so, on a theoretical level, we can always speak for a scenario with three different killers, none of the damages being proven connected and all of them possibly having different reasons.

It is on account of this that I say that MY reasoning is one built on the facts, and not on speculation. And the facts, freed from any interpretation efforts, say that as long as we donīt know and canīt tell the underlying reasons for how these four types of damages came about, it applies that the more damages of the same type there are, the more likely it becomes that it is the same killer. It also applies that the more unusual the damages are, the more likely it becomes that we have just the one killer.

And in this case, with "my" three chosen victims, we have a one instance of a damage that is very uncommon - cutting of the neck - if we look at the overall population. Most of us never suffer such a thing. Perhaps one out of a ten or hundred thousand Londoners was subjected to it.

In spite of this, cutting the neck is NOT extremely unusual as a murder method. In Victorian London, it was not unheard of and happened at times.

But having the abdomen opened up was and is extremely rare. Having the uterus taken away was practically unheard of in 1888-89. Krafft-Ebbing may have cited such a case, but basically, it was science fiction to the Victorian society.

And cutting away the abdominal wall? Well...!

Before we start interpreting away and/or adding the differences in the cases, taken on itīs own, these parameters can only lead in one direction - it would be an unheard of coincidence if all these matters just happened to strike murder victims in the same town and in the same time span - and have different originators.

It is not until we start producing scenarios of our own that we can even begin to speculate in any other solution than the obvious one.

Returning to my inital remark, that is why I say that you now add a new layer of personal interpretation. The medical experts tell us that the damage done to the torso victims was such as to point very clearly to the victims all being by the same hand. The cutting work was very similar.

But once again - we are not absolutely sure, since the killer was never apprehended. And what does that mean? It means that we are free to interpret away once more! Maybe there were FOUR torso killers? Maybe four persons cutting in a very similar fashion, were responsible? Maybe these four killers just happened to evolve in the same town and at the same time, disarticulating away and dumping the parts in the river and on land?

Yes, maybe. It cannot be stated as being theoretically impossible.But how possible is it on a practical level?

We all agree, more or less, that Polly Nichols and Annie Chapman were killed by the same man. But why? Chapman was an evisceration victim, Nichols was not. Chpman had much more far-reaching damage. Chapman had her abdominal wall taken away, Nichols had not. Nichols was drunk, Chapman was not. Nichols seems to have been dead when cut into, Chapman was alive.

It could have been thirteen killers, actually.

But the logically based assumption is that it was just the one.

And no matter if we leave the door ajar for speculation - a much loved discipline out here for obvious reasons - that speculation must stand very far back to what the facts tell us.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Abby, thanks for this post which outlines your arguments much better.

Before going into each of the similarities you present, I'd like to first comment that the argument that Torso Killer and JtR were the same is premature.
You keep referring to the torso cases as a series, and then attempt to link that series with the Ripper crimes.

However, it has not yet been shown that the Torso Murders were, in fact, murders. And even if they were murders, it has not been shown that they were by the same hand(s).

Therefore, there is not necessarily a series to liken to JtR.


I disagree. The history of serial killers is 20th century story. Basing deductions about JtR on experiences from the post-WWII society is unacceptable - the cultural divide is immense and serial killers are not unchangeable forces of nature.

No, for the torso victims this was mainly unknown but one was considered probably not lowclass ("the neat appearance of the nails and the absence of any deformity by occupation, were against a lowclass person"), another had no sign of manual labour and a mark on the finger such as comes from constant writing ("there are no marks indicating any occupation, except that on the right little finger is a small circular hardening but no corn. This mark is such as might by made by writing"). A third was thought maybe lower class because of she wore her garters below the knee "a custom, I believe, more common among the lower than the upper classes".
Unknown.
I agree.

Erm, no they haven't? Could you provide some more info on how that has been conclusively ruled out?
Very possible but of course conjecture, as you state.
How do we know the Torso Killer did not kill others? The aforementioned Gill-murder, for instance, of a small boy dismembered. In 1888!
Your victimology-argument becomes selffulfilling: because the Torso Killer only killed women, he would not have killed a boy. So we don't need to consider that particular dismemberment/post-mortem mutilation murder.

Cause of death was mainly unknown for the torso victims, not necessarily by knife. So how you can say the knife was so important?
Although a knife was used to dismember them, a saw was also used.

Ok.
How extensive was the post-mortem mutilation in the torso cases? I mean, it seems you're considering the act of cutting the body up as "post-mortem mutilation". But that's an entirely different activity. Perhaps a definition of what constitutes post-mortem mutilation would be in order. And again, inferences from modern-day serial killers have no value in Victorian times.
That's just entirely irrelevant, and misleading, since it implies the torso victims were murdered by having their necks cut. Since they were decapitated, it's obvious their necks were cut, but it should be equally obvious that a woman being murdered by having her throat cut (Ripper) is entirely different from a woman dying or being strangled, then being decapitated for reasons of disposal/concealment.
That's possible, one cause of death for a Torso Victim was possible blood loss.
Targeted....again, cutting a body into pieces will necessitate damage. It does not necessarily mean that the dismemberer had any particular interest in the abdomen.
Uterus removed? not consistently and in Jackson's case could easily be a byproduct of cutting her up.


Complete conjecture - why not say the heads held a special significance for the Torso Killer? After all, he probably kept them, since they were never found. There does not seem to be any parts he particularly wanted to keep in the Torso cases, besides the heads, since everything else was found, although not everything was found from the same victim.

Rarity scales such as this are completely irrelevant. What happened, happened regardless of how rare or common it might be considered.flaps, slips, large, small - you see it as very significant, I see it as coincidental in cutting up a body containing a foetus - were there other flaps or slips cut off in the other torso cases? if not, then why attach such significance to them?
could be, but other factors should be considered: you yourself considered the victims to be lowerclass, so proximity to lowerclass neighbourhoods could be a factor.
The explanation for the different geography is of course complete conjecture.


I agree that the overlap in time 1887-89 is the main argument for considering a common origin for these crimes.

Throughout this post I've used Torso Killer and Torso Victims etc. but really, at present the evidence does not justify a killer. I believe the term Torso Mysteries to be much better.


To recap: All your similarities above are not significant and do not show a link between the series, nor do they show that the Torso murders actually constitute a series of murders.

Excellent post if I may say so, and right in every way.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Debra A]

Just call them the torso cases like I do.

I think progress has been made in some respects in that now the debate has moved on from denying the taking of flesh from of Elizabeth's abdomen and removal of her uterus from her body, to discussing a motive for those actual occurrences.That is the interesting part for me.