Same motive = same killer

[Fisherman]

Hi sam
I’ve had a little more time to think about this. So the difference of pinchin torso having head removed with knife only and no saw could be as you said, a different killer than torso man, who used a saw also. It’s also different dump location as well, which also points to a different killer.

I’m wondering though if it is torsoman both could be explained that he killed her in a different location than the others, closer to ripper territory, and this not usual place he didn’t have a saw there.

However, both the differences are actually more in line with the ripper-same location and no saw used, plus it had the vertical cut to the abdomen,so could be a link between the too.

It’s definitely the odd one out though for sure, for both series.
Or could be viewed as a link.

Need to ruminate on it some more.

You may want to do that in company with Hebbert. He entertained no doubt about who the originator was, and he was eminently suited to know.

It could have been as easy as a wish to try to take the head off with a knife.

[Fisherman]

But sam, he also cut the neck and the arteries. But I see what your saying “cutting throats” is the more popular phrase. At least these days. I think that’s the hang up.

And WHAT a hang-up! If the general idea was to obscure that the necks in both series were cut all the way around and down to the bone with a sharp knife, I´d say it´s a job well done.

[Sam Flynn]

Going off Hebberts report it sounds like the head came off later than the legs

That wouldn't mean that the legs and head were cut off in different locations, though, only at different times - i.e. the body was broken down and the bits carried away in stages; an indicator, perhaps, that this particular killer didn't have access to private transport.

"The cut surfaces at the hips were black and dry, but the surface at the neck moist and red." -Hebbert

Which would be congruent with a "staged" dismemberment, taking place perhaps over a few days. Alternatively, the blackness/dryness at the hips might just have been because the torso had been stored standing on its stumps, on a dirty, dusty floor.

[Fisherman]

Hi Abby,

My thoughts, exactly. Going off Hebberts report it sounds like the head came off later than the legs.

"The cut surfaces at the hips were black and dry, but the surface at the neck moist and red." -Hebbert

"On moving the body I found that there was a little blood underneath where the neck had lain. It was small in quantity and not clotted. The blood had oozed from the cut surface of the neck."- Dr. Clarke


Maybe he didn't have the time to cut off the head in his normal location (he was interrupted) so the body was moved and head cut off at a later time and a different place?

My own personal guess is that he sometimes involved the head very much in what he did - the 1873 torso, Kate Eddowes, Mary Kelly - while on other occasions. he may have concentrated on other parts - Chapman - owing to how he had a very broad agenda. If he did what I think he did, there was (at least sometimes) good reason to leave the head in place until he was done.

But this is a guess only.

The thing is, if my guess is on the money, we should not expect him to strive for the same kind of result on every occasion.

[jerryd]

I'll repost this clip I found a couple of years ago. Any thoughts?

The Echo September 16, 1889

[Fisherman]

I'll repost this clip I found a couple of years ago. Any thoughts?

The Echo September 16, 1889

It reads as if they think it was Jack and a partner, does it not...?

[jerryd]

It reads as if they think it was Jack and a partner, does it not...?

Yes.

My point in posting this was to illustrate it was more than just the doctors that felt the two torsos were connected. Remember too, there were letters being sent referring to the "Dodger" (a ripper accomplice) and also letters during the Whitehall and Pinchin crimes where the writer (supposedly JTR) claimed he was not responsible for the two torso discoveries (Pinchin and Whitehall). He wouldn't have made such a "botch" of it was the phrase I believed was used.

[Abby Normal]

It reads as if they think it was Jack and a partner, does it not...?

Yeah like the ripper and a partner are responsible for both series???

Or are they saying two men for torso and then the ripper separately?

[Fisherman]

Yeah like the ripper and a partner are responsible for both series???

Or are they saying two men for torso and then the ripper separately?

It would seem so to me - meaning the latter suggestion.

[jerryd]

To me it is suggesting the Whitechapel monster had a couple of men depositing his dirty work for him.

It wasn't the work of him alone. He had help.

[jerryd]

If you recall the John Arnold story, it really was a botched up mess. Even so much as to lead someone to write, John Cleary is a fool on the deadwalls near the Pinchin Street arches.

[Fisherman]

Yes.

My point in posting this was to illustrate it was more than just the doctors that felt the two torsos were connected. Remember too, there were letters being sent referring to the "Dodger" (a ripper accomplice) and also letters during the Whitehall and Pinchin crimes where the writer (supposedly JTR) claimed he was not responsible for the two torso discoveries (Pinchin and Whitehall). He wouldn't have made such a "botch" of it was the phrase I believed was used.

What mainly interests me is that it seems as if it was a done deal for The Echo that the Pinchin Street deed was the work of the Ripper. But just as you say, it is interesting to see that the medicos and press alike ascribed the Whitehall torso and the Pinchin Street ditto to the same killer.

[jerryd]

What mainly interests me is that it seems as if it was a done deal for The Echo that the Pinchin Street deed was the work of the Ripper. But just as you say, it is interesting to see that the medicos and press alike ascribed the Whitehall torso and the Pinchin Street ditto to the same killer.

And the detectives. no? They place more reliance...... that the criminals responsible...

"They" referring to the detectives.

[Fisherman]

And the detectives. no? They place more reliance...... that the criminals responsible...

"They" referring to the detectives.

Sod it - I meant to write "the medicos and detectives".

[Sam Flynn]

I'll repost this clip I found a couple of years ago. Any thoughts?

The Echo September 16, 1889

I don't think that "Whitechapel monster" refers to Jack the Ripper. I think the paper is referring to the monster (with a lower-case "m", note) who was responsible for the Whitechapel (Pinchin St) torso. If they meant Jack the Ripper, why not use that well-established nickname, or the other well-known handle of Whitechapel Murderer (with upper-case "M")?