Same motive = same killer

[RockySullivan]

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!
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 don´t go putting torsos in Scotland Yard if you are trying to hide what you have done!

Fishmere, sounds like you are forgetting that the uterus was also removed from the Whitehall torso, and that is the clincher.

[RockySullivan]

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.

Welcome? I've been saying this for years

[Sam Flynn]

And we are to believe that 2 separate guys in 1888 in London were going around stealing uteri?

That's assuming that the removal of the uterus was driven by the same motive, but that's not necessarily the case. Dennis Nilsen disembowelled his victims for "practical" reasons, in order to dispose of the viscera separately from their bodies.

[RockySullivan]

That's assuming that the removal of the uterus was driven by the same motive, but that's not necessarily the case. Dennis Nilsen disembowelled his victims for "practical" reasons, in order to dispose of the viscera separately from their bodies.

Without any motive, it's still two murderers, similar victimology, same town and same time eviscerating and removing the uterus.

[Fisherman]

Welcome? I've been saying this for years

Okay. Enjoy your membership, then!

[Sam Flynn]

Without any motive, it's still two murderers, similar victimology, same town and same time eviscerating and removing the uterus.

It may have been the same town but, in Elizabeth Jackson's case at least, the body parts were scattered over a wide area. As to similar victimology, we can only be sure of that in Jackson's case, and even then we know that she was from a different, and comparatively distant, part of London than the Whitechapel victims. Besides, prostitutes were, and are, an easy target for all kinds of killers.

[Fisherman]

That's assuming that the removal of the uterus was driven by the same motive, but that's not necessarily the case. Dennis Nilsen disembowelled his victims for "practical" reasons, in order to dispose of the viscera separately from their bodies.

The uteri were all plucked out from victims who had had their abdomens ripped from ribcage to pubes. The only case where the uterus can have been taken out à la Nilsen would be the Jackson case, since that is the only case where one can speak about a disposal of the parts. And in that case, the unborn foetus was cut out from the uterus before the uterus. Does that sound like a killer going about the details as practicalities aimed for disposal? Could he not have disposed of the uterus with the foetus inside, Gareth? And why leave almost all of the abdominal viscera and pluck out the uterus only, if he wanted to dispose of the inner parts separately for some unfathomable reason?
It also applies that this very uterus was wrapped inside two large flaps of the abdominal wall, cut from the victim. Oddly enough, two of the Ripper victims ALSO had their abdominal walls removed in large flaps.
That raises two questions:

1. Any chance that the killer may have been one and the same? Or?

2. Did Jacksons killer cut away the adominal wall in flaps in order to facilitate disposal?

I really don´t understand what you are up to, Gareth. Much as we can only be 99,9 per cent sure that it was the same killer, one would at least expect you to wave farewell to the idea that it is more probable with two killers. That notion is not a sound one, given the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: It may have been the same town but, in Elizabeth Jackson's case at least, the body parts were scattered over a wide area.

And the Ripper could not have done this because...?

As to similar victimology, we can only be sure of that in Jackson's case,

Yes, we can only be sure that the victimology is the same in her case, since we don´t know about the others. But being sure that the victimology is in line where it can be checked is not half bad, is it?

and even then we know that she was from a different, and comparatively distant, part of London than the Whitechapel victims.

It can be walked in the fewest of hours, that distance. Plus we cannot tell where she was plucked up. All the Ripper victims originated from other places than where they were killed. And apparently the killer had access to transport. Like, say, a carman.

Besides, prostitutes were, and are, an easy target for all kinds of killers.

But eviscerating killers preying on them are totally rare creatures. So rare, in fact, that there seems to be no example of two such killers working the same area or town simultaneously.
I think what you can hope for at best is an acknowledgement that it MAY have been two killers - but that such a likelihood is an extremely small one, so small as to being almost impossible. The tables are finally turning, and that´s about time!

I´ll leave you to ponder this for some time, since I´m off on a number of errands.

[John G]

John G: I disagree. It was defensive dismemberment in the sense that the purpose of the mutilations were the disposal of the body parts-in the case of Jackson several body parts were found wrapped up in a parcel. However, concerning the fact that Jackson was pregnant, and the foetus was never recovered, I don't discount Debra's Gray's Anatomy theory.

I´m afraid that you cannot disagree. Eviscerations equal offensive dismemberment, and there were eviscerations, quite possibly so in many of the cases and definitely in some. That puts things beyond dispute.

In JtR' s case the main purpose of the eviscerations seems to be the targeting of body organs to be retained as trophies, especially the uterus. I would note that Jackson's uterus was disposed of by the perpetrator.

Kellys uterus was left by Jack. If he targetted the uteri for trophies, why leave it behind, John? What the Ripper did with the organs he took away we cannot know. There is nothing at all that tells us it was trophies. Instead, there is a letter with half a kidney inmplicating he ate what he took away - which equals ritual.
You seem to be missing out on a large number of essential points, John? And still you tell me that I include the earlier torsos only to implicate Lechmere. That´s not nice of you. A face cut away from the skull with even the eyelashes intact sounds a lot like ritualistic behaviour in my world.

The fact remains that JtR took two uteri from the crime scene, whereas the Torso perpetrator simply disposed of them. In Jackson's case the main focus appears to have been the foetus -something that wasn't relevant in the C5 murders. In the Whitehall case we have a victim who was stored for several weeks, suggesting a radically different personality to JtR, who had no interest in spending time with his victims' corpses.

Kelly may not have been a Ripper victim, especially considering the complete lack of skill that was apparent, coupled with the frenzied nature of the attack.

Trow included the earlier Torso, and I accept there's a possibility, however, the huge time gap is relevant, and I don't believe they were eviscerated.

Moreover, it actually weakens your argument because then we workd have two serial killers operating over a 16 year period, not two years.

[John G]

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.

What do you mean by abdominal flaps?

[John G]

If those are your initial observations, John, I look forward to reading more. At a high level, you've pretty much nailed it as far as I can see.

Thanks Sam.

[John G]

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.

Yes, and as I've argued before, her perpetrator was extremely unlucky in this case. Unless you think it would have been prudent for him to search her underwear for signs of identification!

[RockySullivan]

Yes, and as I've argued before, her perpetrator was extremely unlucky in this case. Unless you think it would have been prudent for him to search her underwear for signs of identification!

You go through all the trouble of dismembering, spreading her parts all over and you are very focused on her private parts but you don't notice the underwear has L.E. Fisher written in it?

[RockySullivan]

The fact remains that JtR took two uteri from the crime scene, whereas the Torso perpetrator simply disposed of them.

They both removed the uteri and we know where it ended up in only one case correct? Jackson's which was removed and then disposed of. We have no idea what happen with the rest. They could have all been disposed or the rest eaten. The Ripper and the Torso Killer are the same because in my opinion they have the same signature. The motive is they like the act of cutting women's innards. Two madmen who are specifically focused on killing women and cutting their uterus out. That's one killer. Ripper might have killed them on the street, cut it out right there and brought it home to play with it, eat some of it and then disposed of it.

[Sam Flynn]

Two madmen who are specifically focused on killing women and cutting their uterus out.

But what happened to the torso victims before they were dismembered and dumped? They might have been repeatedly raped or otherwise abused for a considerable time before their killers' purposes were served - that's what often happens in these cases. That would be a vastly different motive to those of the Whitechapel murderers. (Notice that I'm using plurals.)