Same motive = same killer

[Fisherman]

John, you clearly are in total denial of the truth. The torso victims WERE eviscerated, and the plucking out of the uterus from Jackson is absolute proof of that. He-opened-up-Jackson-AND-CUT-HER-UTERUS-AWAY! That is a very aggresive type of dismemberment. Many other parts were missing from the victims, and they were sometimes said to have been "removed" by Hebbert, like the Rainham victims lungs and heart. So claiming that there was no evisceration is a total violation of the facts.

This is from "Forensic anthropology: Case studies from Europe", Brickley and Ferllini, Charles C Thomas Publishers, 2007:

"There are two kinds of dismemberment. Most of them are performed with a view to disguise the identification of the deceased, and facilitate the dispersion of the remains (defensive dismemberment). Occasionally, dismembement is part of a very aggressive behaviour on the part of the perpetrator, targetting the face, breasts and the sexual organs. Severing the penis and testicles, tearing away the nipples and evisceration are possibly seen in this context (offensive dismemberment). The contrast between the two kinds of dismemberment is quite convenient because the perpetrators usually exhibit no mental disease in the former (this behaviour being only "utilitarian"), whereas the latter strongly suggests mental health problems with a strong psychiatric disorder, and a tendency to repeat this aggressive killing and dismemberment behaviour."

So, basically, those who dismember defensively are SANE people who have commited a murder, whereas those who dismember offensively suffer from psychiatric disorders that make them repeat their behaviour. Putting it differently, the offensive dismemberers are the serial killers.

The torso killer cut out sexual organs (Jacksons uterus) and cut away the face of the 1873 victim. Plus he removed heart and lungs from Jackson (eviscerations) and similarly from the Rainham victim. He is PRECISELY the type of offensive dismberment killer described here, and effectively NOT a one-off offender who tries to hide his deeds. You donīt go putting torsos in Scotland Yard if you are trying to hide what you have done!

[Fisherman]

Hi John,

Elizabeth Jackson was identified even after being cut up in pieces. It was the lack of "extreme precautions" that led to her identification. The killer left clothing attached that aided in her identification. Clothing was also used to try to identify the Whitehall victim. Material from her clothing was traced to a manufacturer in Bradford, IIRC.

Glad to see you on the thread, Jerry - itīs always a joy when people know their way around a subject!

[Sam Flynn]

The torso killer cut out sexual organs (Jacksons uterus) and cut away the face of the 1873 victim. Plus he removed heart and lungs from Jackson (eviscerations) and similarly from the Rainham victim.

It's by no means certain that the same person committed all these crimes.

[Fisherman]

It's by no means certain that the same person committed all these crimes.

So you keep saying. And I keep saying that there can never be any absolute certainties unless there is absolute proof - and there is not.

All we can say is that it seems totally apparent that the Ripper and the torso killer was one and the same, and that there is a wealth of forensic evidence pointing in that direction.

And we can add that it seems nobody can present a case where two eviscerating serial killers were active simultaneously in the same town or district. Apparently, London in 1888 would be the one and only exception to the rule - and with two killers who worked to the exact same agenda in contact with their victims.

I donīt buy that for one second. Blinders off, everybody, please.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I've just begun re-reading Trow's book on the subject as I'm very hazy on 'Torso' facts. I'm approaching this with an open mind Fish but I have to be honest in my initial opinion (which may change.) It appears that the 'differences' between TK and Jack are more pronounced than any similarities that I can see at this point in time.
A killer that took his victim to some kind of bolt-hole, dismembered her with surgical precision (according to the doctor on the Rainham case at least) packed her up then dumped the parts separately. How does this resemble the ripper?

[Michael W Richards]

Its scary how often this needs repeating here...but absence of an identified motive does not mean motiveless. Anyone of these murders could have a very simple motive attached, beyond simply the killers madness.

I think the most probable murders that fall under that category are Polly and Annie...the ONLY 2 Canonicals that we can say with any conviction were soliciting when they met their killer(s), which suggests a stranger pick up.

That being said there is nothing that prohibits them having known their killer either.

[Abby Normal]

I've just begun re-reading Trow's book on the subject as I'm very hazy on 'Torso' facts. I'm approaching this with an open mind Fish but I have to be honest in my initial opinion (which may change.) It appears that the 'differences' between TK and Jack are more pronounced than any similarities that I can see at this point in time.
A killer that took his victim to some kind of bolt-hole, dismembered her with surgical precision (according to the doctor on the Rainham case at least) packed her up then dumped the parts separately. How does this resemble the ripper?

Hi hs
Please see my previous post on similarities

[jerryd]

Not 20 minutes ago I found a biography on several doctors of the era. Thomas Bond, George Danford Thomas and Lawson Tait. In searching for more information on Lawson Tait I found a post by Chris Scott from 2004 which is very interesting. I will post a portion of it here and a link to the thread for those interested. I highlighted the portion most relevant to this thread. Incidentally Dr. Tait was an expert in abdominal surgery and has performed abdominal sections.

Ogden Standard Examiner
16 October 1889

WHO IS THE RIPPER?
A Curious Theory about the Famous London Murderer

Lawson Tait, the eminent women's surgeon, having read the suggestion published in our columns that Jack the Ripper might be a woman, said the Pall Mall Gazette, had yesterday a chat with one of our representatives. He said:
"No serious suggestion in connection with this matter that one can make may be wisely discarded or made light of. The police have discovered nothing, and are evidently at their wits' end. They must begin afresh.
"I have taken a great interest in these tragedies from the very commencement. Now, looking at the subject as a surgeon, the first conclusion is that the whole of the murders, not only in Whitechapel but in Battersea and Chelsea, are the work of one and the same individual. They must be grouped together. Secondly, the crimes are the work of a lunatic. The absolute motivelessness of the whole business shows this.
"Again, the operator must have been a person accustomed to use a sharp knife upon meat. The work was done by no surgeon. A surgeon cuts in a niggling kind of way. The murderer in these cases has worked in a free, slashing manner. The criminal must have been a butcher, and a London butcher. The cuts are made in a manner peculiar to the London butcher. They would have been made quite differently if the operator had hailed from Dublin or Edinburgh.
"I have said the criminal was mad. He or she is a undoubtedly a person suffering from epileptic furor. The fits last for only a short time. May not police be floored at the outset by the important question of sex? The male epileptic has his fits irregularly. In the case of a woman this is not so. This is something to go upon. Granted that an epileptic be the criminal, on coming out of his or her fit the offender would have no recollection of the murder and cutting up, and would resume his or her everyday life in no way perturbed by what had happened. Nothing is more likely than that Jack the Ripper is some big, strong woman engaged at a slaughter house in cleaning up, now and then actually cutting up the meat.
"Again, in a number of instances, the woman when found were hardly dead. The bodies were warm. The murderers could not be far away. That fact that the police were so close upon the criminal goes to prove to a wonderful degree that the operator was a woman. On the discovery of one of the murders the police promptly made a circuit around the neighbourhood. Nobody was arrested, or rather, no man was arrested. They did not look for a woman."


Here is the link to the full post by Chris.

http://www.casebook.org/forum/messages/4922/12096.html

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi hs
Please see my previous post on similarities

Hi Abby,

I have and I agree that there are similarities but I still can't help thinking: why the major difference? The dismemberment, wrapping up of parts, then the 'distribution.' The Ripper killed in the street (obviously apart from MJK) and left the victims on display. The TK would, I assume, have persuaded his victims to come back to a bolt-hole (his own) and killed them there and then dismembered and wrapped them. To me it's like he was robbing them of their identity. Whether that was some kind of fetish (to dehumanise) or to make identification and therefore possibly capture less likely I don't know. There just seems to be a different 'feel' about these crimes?
I'm only on page 37 though and further reading combined with posts on here might alter my opinion.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

I have and I agree that there are similarities but I still can't help thinking: why the major difference? The dismemberment, wrapping up of parts, then the 'distribution.' The Ripper killed in the street (obviously apart from MJK) and left the victims on display. The TK would, I assume, have persuaded his victims to come back to a bolt-hole (his own) and killed them there and then dismembered and wrapped them. To me it's like he was robbing them of their identity. Whether that was some kind of fetish (to dehumanise) or to make identification and therefore possibly capture less likely I don't know. There just seems to be a different 'feel' about these crimes?
I'm only on page 37 though and further reading combined with posts on here might alter my opinion.

Hi HS
No I get what your saying. They do have a different feel. Which is why I never even considered them connected before.

But the more I learned about them, the more I saw the similarities. I think today’s detectives, with all the knowledge we have of serial killers now would probably conclude they were the same killer, or at least seriously consider it.

And they would base it on the similarities of the SIG. Which is post Mortem mutilation and removal of body parts.

[Fisherman]

Not 20 minutes ago I found a biography on several doctors of the era. Thomas Bond, George Danford Thomas and Lawson Tait. In searching for more information on Lawson Tait I found a post by Chris Scott from 2004 which is very interesting. I will post a portion of it here and a link to the thread for those interested. I highlighted the portion most relevant to this thread. Incidentally Dr. Tait was an expert in abdominal surgery and has performed abdominal sections.

Ogden Standard Examiner
16 October 1889

WHO IS THE RIPPER?
A Curious Theory about the Famous London Murderer

Lawson Tait, the eminent women's surgeon, having read the suggestion published in our columns that Jack the Ripper might be a woman, said the Pall Mall Gazette, had yesterday a chat with one of our representatives. He said:
"No serious suggestion in connection with this matter that one can make may be wisely discarded or made light of. The police have discovered nothing, and are evidently at their wits' end. They must begin afresh.
"I have taken a great interest in these tragedies from the very commencement. Now, looking at the subject as a surgeon, the first conclusion is that the whole of the murders, not only in Whitechapel but in Battersea and Chelsea, are the work of one and the same individual. They must be grouped together. Secondly, the crimes are the work of a lunatic. The absolute motivelessness of the whole business shows this.
"Again, the operator must have been a person accustomed to use a sharp knife upon meat. The work was done by no surgeon. A surgeon cuts in a niggling kind of way. The murderer in these cases has worked in a free, slashing manner. The criminal must have been a butcher, and a London butcher. The cuts are made in a manner peculiar to the London butcher. They would have been made quite differently if the operator had hailed from Dublin or Edinburgh.
"I have said the criminal was mad. He or she is a undoubtedly a person suffering from epileptic furor. The fits last for only a short time. May not police be floored at the outset by the important question of sex? The male epileptic has his fits irregularly. In the case of a woman this is not so. This is something to go upon. Granted that an epileptic be the criminal, on coming out of his or her fit the offender would have no recollection of the murder and cutting up, and would resume his or her everyday life in no way perturbed by what had happened. Nothing is more likely than that Jack the Ripper is some big, strong woman engaged at a slaughter house in cleaning up, now and then actually cutting up the meat.
"Again, in a number of instances, the woman when found were hardly dead. The bodies were warm. The murderers could not be far away. That fact that the police were so close upon the criminal goes to prove to a wonderful degree that the operator was a woman. On the discovery of one of the murders the police promptly made a circuit around the neighbourhood. Nobody was arrested, or rather, no man was arrested. They did not look for a woman."


Here is the link to the full post by Chris.

http://www.casebook.org/forum/messages/4922/12096.html

Well, I DID say that I was happy to have you on the thread...! So here we have a renowned surgeon, who has reached the conclusion that the killer in both series must be the same. That is a great find, Jerry, and once again we have evidence telling us that the knifework is a very telling part in the business - just as I have been saying for the longest time.

Thank you for this!

[Fisherman]

I've just begun re-reading Trow's book on the subject as I'm very hazy on 'Torso' facts. I'm approaching this with an open mind Fish but I have to be honest in my initial opinion (which may change.) It appears that the 'differences' between TK and Jack are more pronounced than any similarities that I can see at this point in time.
A killer that took his victim to some kind of bolt-hole, dismembered her with surgical precision (according to the doctor on the Rainham case at least) packed her up then dumped the parts separately. How does this resemble the ripper?

Ask Lawson Tait, Herlock! Have a look at Jerrys post.

There are and must be - differences, since one series involes dismemberment murders. I am not going to argue that the dismemberment is a point of likeness.

I am arguing that the skilled knifework is such a thing, however. As is Lawson Tait. Furthermore, I am arguing that the retrieval of organs is a likeness. I am arguing that cutting the abdominal wall away in panes is a likeness. I am arguing that taking rings from the victims is a likeness. I am arguing that opening up the belly from ribcage to pubes is a likeness. I am arguing that removing part of the colon is a likeness.

I am saying that the likenesses are much more important than the differences, because the latter can be easily explained. The abdominal flaps, for instance, can NOT be explained as a funny coincidence, lest we have lost our wits totally. And Lawson Tait sees the exact same handling of the knife in both series, making him speculate that the killer has learnt to cut in the London meat business.

So a London surgeon, in October of 1889, says that the series MUST be grouped together, being aware of all the circumstances involved, dismemberment, street attacks and all. Even if you will not let yourself be persuaded by what I argue, you may need to listen to him. In recent years, I know that Richard Whittington-Egan argued the exact same: we are dealing with one killer only. And, as I have pointed out, I am of the meaning that this realization is by far the most important breakthrough in the Ripper research ever.

I am absolutely astounded about how this has been a forbidden thing to say in days gone by, and I am truly grateful to researchers like Debra Arif who has been able to supply so much knowledge and sense to the issue.

[RockySullivan]

It's not just the eviscerating, it's that they both took the uterus from their victims. Have you ever even hear of this before? And we are to believe that 2 separate guys in 1888 in London were going around stealing uteri?

[RockySullivan]

hey jerry, so Lawson Tait says it's the same killer in 1889. Then what happened for the next century? It's so obvious the murders are related I'm flabbergasted that this hasn't been the general consensus since they occurred. How could people not put two and two together? But I am one of those people who thinks that everything everyone thinks about anything is backwards.

[Fisherman]

It's so obvious the murders are related I'm flabbergasted that this hasn't been the general consensus since they occurred.

Welcome to the club, Rocky. The truly amazing thing is that it has not only gone unrecognized - the idea has been fought with great heat whenever the suggestion has surfaced.
I am at my wits end to understand how that has even been possible.