Same motive = same killer

[Abby Normal]

In post 3172, I say that "Hebbert said that the four murders were VERY similar "in almost every aspect", and that he was in little doubt that they had the same originator."

That should be amended - he did not use the word "aspect" but instead "respect", and he said this in a comparison of the two later murders in the series to the two first.

He also never worded himself with a phrase containing the words that he was in little doubt that it was the same originator in each case. What he said was that:

"In the last volume of Reports I was able to give a description of two cases of mutilation which occurred duering 1887 and 1888. I now take the opportunity of recounting two more instances of mutilation which have happened during the present year. In almost every respect they are similar to the first two cases, and appear to belong to a series of murders and dismemberment by the same hand ..."

and

"...The mode of dismemberment and mutilation was in all similar, and showed considerable skill in execution, and it is a fair presumption from the facts that the same man committed all the four murders."

So instead of saying that he had little doubt that the same man committed all four murders, he said that it is a fair presumption from the facts that the same man committed all the four murders.

Wich adds up to more or less the same - Hebbert believed that there was just the one killer - but fair is fair!

Hi fish
Thanks for providing this. It’s as clear as the nose on your face that he thought they were the same man.

Us arm chair detectives can bang on it all we like, but I’ll go with the dr who was there at the time!

[Sam Flynn]

Us arm chair detectives can bang on it all we like, but I’ll go with the dr who was there at the time!

I'd prefer to have heard from a criminologist, not from a doctor who was naturally focusing on the method of dismemberment rather than the bigger picture.

[Joshua Rogan]

What about the words of Bond, who was also there, and said of the Ripper series;

"In each case the mutilation was inflicted by a person who had no scientific nor anatomical knowledge. In my opinion he does not even posess the technical knowledge of a butcher or horse slaughterer or any person accustomed to cut up dead animals"

That doesn't sound like someone who thought the two series were perpetrated by the same man.

[Sam Flynn]

What about the words of Bond, who was also there, and said of the Ripper series;

"In each case the mutilation was inflicted by a person who had no scientific nor anatomical knowledge. In my opinion he does not even posess the technical knowledge of a butcher or horse slaughterer or any person accustomed to cut up dead animals"

That doesn't sound like someone who thought the two series were perpetrated by the same man.

Good point, well made. Of those that were accustomed to cutting up dead animals, here's some food for thought:

Swanson reported having had the police visit 76 butchers and slaughterers in Whitechapel/Aldgate, interviewing proprietors and enquiring into the character of the "servants" (presumably employees/apprentices) who'd worked with them over the past 6 months. Even assuming that each butcher/knacker employed only one other person, that makes a total of 152 active or recently-employed professionals in the area, at least, not including those businesses with two or more other employees, nor those who fell outside Swanson's 6-month cutoff.

With that in mind, I shouldn't be surprised if there were easily more than 300 men with current/recent experience of butchery/knackering in this part of East London alone. Not to mention retired professionals, those who'd moved on to other jobs, or cooks and private individuals who knew how to prepare a pig, sheep or lamb.

[Abby Normal]

What about the words of Bond, who was also there, and said of the Ripper series;

"In each case the mutilation was inflicted by a person who had no scientific nor anatomical knowledge. In my opinion he does not even posess the technical knowledge of a butcher or horse slaughterer or any person accustomed to cut up dead animals"

That doesn't sound like someone who thought the two series were perpetrated by the same man.

Hi jr
Yes, It’s clear that Pretty much no one thought the two series were linked at the time.

[Harry D]

Not to interrupt the current topic, but the argument goes that just because something is unprecedented or infinitesimally unlikely, doesn't mean it couldn't happen. In this case, two gruesome murderers operating in the same patch of London.

However, doesn't that slice both ways (no pun intended) when it comes to the deviation in MO/signature? Just because it's rare/unheard of for serial killers to switch back and forth, doesn't mean it didn't happen in this instance.

[Debra A]

Hi jr
Yes, It’s clear that Pretty much no one thought the two series were linked at the time.

Hi Abby
Including Hebbert who is probably one of the only people actually involved to have made a direct comparison:

"During the years 1887-1889, a series of murders was committed in London, by unknown and unidentified assassin. 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 desctruction 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 satyriasis was strengthened by the post-mortem examinations."

Alfred Hebbert 1908

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby
Including Hebbert who is probably one of the only people actually involved to have made a direct comparison:

"During the years 1887-1889, a series of murders was committed in London, by unknown and unidentified assassin. 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 desctruction 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 satyriasis was strengthened by the post-mortem examinations."

Alfred Hebbert 1908

Hi Debs!
Yup and thanks for posting!!!

and thats the cunundrum isnt it? clearly the torsos were linked at the time by the same man, but not the torsos and the ripper murders.

yet there are obvious similarities (and of course differences) between the series that make many knowledgable folks on here think that they could be the same man.

would love to see a book on it! (or at least the torsos) hint hint ; )

[Abby Normal]

I'd prefer to have heard from a criminologist, not from a doctor who was naturally focusing on the method of dismemberment rather than the bigger picture.

HI Sam
Not sure if the police at the time qualify as a criminologist in your book, but they clearly also thought the torsos were the work of one man.

But actually it would be great to have a modern forensic pathologist, criminologist, etc. do a thorough examination and analysis comparing the Ripper and torso cases to see what they would think of the possibility (or not) of the one man theory!

[Abby Normal]

Not to interrupt the current topic, but the argument goes that just because something is unprecedented or infinitesimally unlikely, doesn't mean it couldn't happen. In this case, two gruesome murderers operating in the same patch of London.

However, doesn't that slice both ways (no pun intended) when it comes to the deviation in MO/signature? Just because it's rare/unheard of for serial killers to switch back and forth, doesn't mean it didn't happen in this instance.

it does in my book.

and if you look at the history of serial killers the latter seems the more common.

[Sam Flynn]

Not to interrupt the current topic, but the argument goes that just because something is unprecedented or infinitesimally unlikely, doesn't mean it couldn't happen. In this case, two gruesome murderers operating in the same patch of London.

However, doesn't that slice both ways (no pun intended) when it comes to the deviation in MO/signature? Just because it's rare/unheard of for serial killers to switch back and forth, doesn't mean it didn't happen in this instance.

They're rather different propositions, Harry. The first is a statistical matter, the latter psychological one.

[Fisherman]

But a "fair presumption" is not the same as saying that it was "beyond reasonable doubt" - Hebbert made no such claim.

Indeed he didn´t! And I find it odd that the idea that he would somehow have done so is floating around, since nobody has claimed it. So why point something out that we all know, Gareth?

Besides, he is only going on the mode of dismemberment and doesn't seem to be taking into account other factors like geography (West vs East London) and demographics. In the latter respect, I reiterate the fact that there were plenty of people with butchery and related skills distributed throughout London, and that there are only a limited number of (practical) ways to joint a leg.

He was aware of the geographical differences involved. And as I have told you three times now, the distance from Pinchin Street to St PAncras lock is about the same as between St Pancras lock and Whitehall. It is NOT many miles - Buckingham palace is situated about three miles from Whitechapel, as the crow flies. Meaning that it is immaterial that a torso was found in Whitechapel, since all of the torso finds on land were within comfortable walking distance of each other. As I say, if you want to rule out the Pinchin Street torso on account of beiong too far removed from Whitehall, then you must rule out the legs of the Rainham torso too.
He had means to travel and transport. He could place a torso everywhere he wanted in central London and probably far beyond.

I would not say that Hebbert was going on the dismemberment part "only" - he also said it was the same type of MUTILATION in all cases. He looked at every cut with a keen eye, and that is why he says in his chapter about the torsos that "the golden rule, as quoted by Taylor, is that a medical man, when he sees a dead body, should notice everything".

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,
In post 3039 you used the term,"In every respect they are similar"
You now use the term,Very similar.Slip of the keyboard maybe. MOOO.
Again 3039.In almost every respect,has now become,in every respect.What happened to the ,Almost. Another slip of the keyboard.MOOO.
Yes,I know it was you that used the term,beyond reasonable doubt,have I written otherwise.?Strange that no one else seems to have gone that far.
I know what Hebbert claimed,what I would like is the proofs of his claims.
Yours too.In every case of murder there has to be proofs.Similarites are hardly
proofs beyond reasonable doubt.
Today I passed two persons wearing similar clothing.Must have been made by the same tailor.How do I know,because they were similar.Go figure!!!

Up the quality somewhat, and I may just answer Harry.

[Fisherman]

I'd prefer to have heard from a criminologist, not from a doctor who was naturally focusing on the method of dismemberment rather than the bigger picture.

Then ASK a criminologist!

[Fisherman]

What about the words of Bond, who was also there, and said of the Ripper series;

"In each case the mutilation was inflicted by a person who had no scientific nor anatomical knowledge. In my opinion he does not even posess the technical knowledge of a butcher or horse slaughterer or any person accustomed to cut up dead animals"

That doesn't sound like someone who thought the two series were perpetrated by the same man.

I don´t think Bond ever expressed an opinion about the similarities between the Ripper series and the Torso series.

The problem is, and has always been, that it seems that the victorians were not aware of how a dismemberment could be an offensive and aggresive act, led on by an urge.

Phillips says something about how the Kelly murder was "most wanton" in comparison with the Pinchin Street deed. He probably had neved seen or heard about dismemberment as a goal in itself.

This was reasonably why the connection was never taken very seriously 130 years ago. If we move another 130 years back, we end up at the time of witch processes.

In many respects, the victorians were at a loss to understand what they were looking at. Even Queen Victoria entered the view that the Ripper could not be a Brit. Nationalism was a branch of the racism tree in those days, and criminal anthropology followed suit.