Same motive = same killer

[Fisherman]

The invasion of other people's homes. I suspect very strongly that the Torso killer(s) had their own premises, so why resort - ever - to killing on the streets?

Why cut the abdominal wall away in large flaps?

That´s what I mean when I say signature trumps MO.

Of course, it was never a signature used on all occasions, probably only on three of them, but it nevertheless shatters any suggestion that he could not kill in- and outdoors. Very apparently, he did.

[Sam Flynn]

Sam Flynn: Not necessarily, Fish; a chemise was basically an undergarment. It's perhaps only fairly recently that it has become primarily associated with nighttime activities, whether sleep or ooh-la-la.

Not really, no - the victorians used long chemises as nightgowns. The activity involved beeing sleeping. It will depend on the character of the chemise, I guess.

Not really. Eddowes, for example, was wearing a white calico chemise when she was killed on the street, and Liz Stride was wearing a white chemise also. With that in mind, it's quite possible that Mary Kelly hadn't just put on her chemise for sleep or "entertainment" purposes either, but that she had been wearing it under other layers of clothing all day.

Sam Flynn: Quite probably because that was all she was wearing when killed.

Yes, and that calls for the question why she was wearing a chemise when she was killed - a chemise the killer then cut up in an intricate manner, quite probably to expose the naked body.

Because she was in bed, preparing to go to bed, or lounging around in the killer's (and possibly her own) home? I still don't see any reason to read a "ritualistic" element into this.

PS. Was it actually said that the chemise was cut in an "intricate" manner?

[Michael W Richards]

We shouldn’t get hung up on MO, or the time periods, they can change drastically. Focus on sig.

I wouldn't hesitate to say that signature traits we should expect to see in Ripper murders are double throat cuts, and equally important, post mortem mutilation of most probably the abdomen. That's what the killer of Polly and Annie did, and its what suggests Kate as a possible Ripper victim. Liz and Marys inclusion is based on speculation....in the first case interruption, and in the second, his finally being indoors to work. Despite the fact that there is no indication of any incomplete act in Berners Street or witness statement that shows intervention, nor is there any indication the killer desired or intended to use indoor venues. In fact the room was left locked, not open, which makes it the first and only site that the murderer restricted access to.

[Sam Flynn]

In fact the room was left locked, not open, which makes it the first and only site that the murderer restricted access to.

The door was probably of the self-locking type, evidenced by the fact that Kelly/Barnett had to resort to sticking their arms through the broken window pane to unlatch the door.

[Michael W Richards]

The door was probably of the self-locking type, evidenced by the fact that Kelly/Barnett had to resort to sticking their arms through the broken window pane to unlatch the door.

The spring latch did engage when set accordingly Sam, but its entirely possible that the latch was not set to engage....we do not hear that Mary had to resort to the window access when she arrived home at 11:45pm, and apparently there was no key. She may have fallen asleep with an unlocked door. In which case the killer may have set it.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: Not really. Eddowes, for example, was wearing a white calico chemise when she was killed on the street, and Liz Stride was wearing a white chemise also. With that in mind, it's quite possible that Mary Kelly hadn't just put on her chemise for sleep or "entertainment" purposes either, but that she had been wearing it under other layers of clothing all day.

I think we can bank om certain types of chemises being used as nightgowns, while others were mainly used as underwear. That is not to say that somebody could not sleep in a chemise mainly shaped for underwear purposes, but overall, I am certain that there will have been varying types of chemises with varying purposes.

Because she was in bed, preparing to go to bed, or lounging around in the killer's (and possibly her own) home? I still don't see any reason to read a "ritualistic" element into this.

I can well understand that - too see the value of my point, you need to have access to certain information.

PS. Was it actually said that the chemise was cut in an "intricate" manner?

Yes, absolutely - in my former post. Not in the source material, though. But cutting the chemise down the front, and then from the neck lining out to the sleeve linings amounts to a fairly intricate cutting in my view.

[Fisherman]

Let´s look a bit further into this, and find out a bit more, First we have Parcy Clark speaking:

Mr. Percy John Clark, assistant to the divisional surgeon, said: A little before six a.m. on the morning of Sept. 10 I was called by the police to Pinchin-street. Under the railway arch there, about eight feet from the road and about a foot from the right wall of the arch, I saw the trunk of a woman minus the head and legs. It was lying on its chest, with the right arm doubled under the abdomen, the left arm lying at the side. The arms were not severed from the body. There was no pool of blood, and no sign of any struggle having taken place there. Covering the cut surface of the neck and right shoulder were the remnants of what had been a chemise, of common make, and of such a size as would be worn by a woman of similar build to the trunk found. It had been torn down the front, and had been cut out from the front of the armholes on each side. The cuts appeared to have been made with a knife. The chemise was blood-stained nearly all over, I think from being wrapped over the cut surface of the neck. There was no clotted blood on it, and no sign of arterial spurting. I could find no distinguishing mark on the chemise. Rigor mortis was not present, and decomposition had set in. The body was taken to the mortuary, and an examination there showed that the body was that of a woman of stoutish build, dark complexion, about 5ft. 3in. in height, and between 30 and 40 years old. I should think the woman had been dead about 24 hours. Besides the wounds caused by the severance of the head and legs there was a wound 15in. long through the external coats of the abdomen. The body was not blood-stained, except where the chemise had rested. The body seemed to have been recently washed. On the back were four bruises, caused before death. None of the bruises were of old standing. Round the waist was a pale mark and an indentation such as would be caused by clothing during life. On the right arm there were eight distinct bruises, and seven on the left, all caused before death and of recent date. The backs of both forearms and hands were much bruised. On the outer side of the left forearm, about three inches above the wrist, was a cut about two inches in length, and half an inch lower down was another cut, both caused after death. The bruises on the right arm were such as would have been caused by the arm having been tightly grasped. There was an old injury on the index-finger of the right hand over the last joint. The arms were well formed. Both elbows were hardened and discoloured, as if they had been leant upon. The hands and nails were pallid, and the former were not indicative of any particular kind of work. The breasts were well formed, and there were no signs of maternity about them.


[I]Dr. Phillips, divisional surgeon, corroborated the evidence of his colleague, who was present with him when he first examined the body. He added: The marks upon the fingers had fairly healed, and had evidently been in the process of healing from some time previous to death. I think the pallor of the hands and the nails is an important element in enabling me to draw a conclusion as to the cause of death. There was throughout the body an absence of blood in the vessels. The heart was empty; it was fatty, and the vessels coated with fat, but the bowels were healthy. The right lung was adherent, except at the base, the left lung free, and, taking them both together, fairly competent, and especially considering the decomposition of the remains. The stomach was the seat of considerable post-mortem change, and contained only a small quantity of fruit, like a plum. In my opinion the woman had never been pregnant. I believe her to have been under 40 years old. There was an absence of any particular disease or poison. I believe that death arose from loss of blood. I am of opinion that all the mutilations were subsequent to death; that the mutilations were effected by someone accustomed to cut up animals or to see them cut up; and that the incisions were effected by a strong knife, eight inches or more long. The supposition - and it is only a supposition - which presents itself to my mind is that there had been a former incision of the neck, the signs of which had disappeared on the subsequent separation of the head. The loss of blood could not have come from the stomach, and I could not trace it coming from the lungs. I have a strong opinion that it did not.[/I]
By a Juryman: I cannot say whether the person who severed the head from the body was a butcher or not. I merely wish to say it was someone accustomed to use either a knife or some sharp instrument in cutting up animals. I have no reason for believing that he had human anatomical knowledge. In fact, it probably is known to you, and to most people, that the spine is not the part which would be disarticulated by a medical man.

To mull over:

The chemise was apparently torn down the middle, not cut, but there were cuts from the neck lining to the sleeve linings.

So the killer seems to have leant down over her and torn the chemise open, after which he cut from the sleve linings up to the neck lining, laying the boy completely bare.

He could then easily have cut the abdomen open, but he apparently did not dismember the body in the same position - if he had done so, the chemise would have resonably have been cut in pieces, and it was not.

The best guess must therefore be that he moved the body before dismembering it - and that he first emptied the body of blood (which is quite reminiscent of the 1873 torso, that was also completely drained of blood), then dismembered it, and finally, he washed the parts, or at least the torso with the arms.

And Phillips thought that the killer would have cut the neck of his victim first, leaving her to die of the bloodloss, only thereafter moving on to decapitating her. And the knife used would have had a long blade, of at least eight inches.

So it ties in, not only with the Ripper, but also with the 1873 torso deed.

It comes together nicely.

[Sam Flynn]

Sam Flynn: Not really. Eddowes, for example, was wearing a white calico chemise when she was killed on the street, and Liz Stride was wearing a white chemise also. With that in mind, it's quite possible that Mary Kelly hadn't just put on her chemise for sleep or "entertainment" purposes either, but that she had been wearing it under other layers of clothing all day.

overall, I am certain that there will have been varying types of chemises with varying purposes.

Among certain classes, no doubt chemises were dual purpose for economic reasons.

Sam Flynn: Was it actually said that the chemise was cut in an "intricate" manner?

Yes, absolutely - in my former post. Not in the source material, though. But cutting the chemise down the front, and then from the neck lining out to the sleeve linings amounts to a fairly intricate cutting in my view.

So, very much a matter of opinion.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: Among certain classes, no doubt chemises were dual purpose for economic reasons.

That´s undoubtedly true.

So, very much a matter of opinion.

Indeed - my own, even. If you was thinking that I introduced it as an unshakable fact, I actually never did. But I still think it is rather an elaborate way of taking a chemise off.

[Fisherman]

I wouldn't hesitate to say that signature traits we should expect to see in Ripper murders are double throat cuts, and equally important, post mortem mutilation of most probably the abdomen.

I would suggest that signature traits we should expect to see in Rippertorso murders are cuts to the female body. My guess is that the cut/s to the neck were basically practical and not something the killer necessarily felt an urge to do, and that the post mortem mutilation - when it occurred - was not in any way more important to the killer than the dismemberment, or at least part of it. Procuring organs could be swapped for cutting away a face, which could be swapped for cutting the abdomen open, which could be swapped for taking out the colon, which could be swapped for...
It´s all different colours on the same palette, the way I see it. And the interchangeability is the key.

[Joshua Rogan]

But I still think it is rather an elaborate way of taking a chemise off.[/B]

Seems like the simplest way to remove it from a body, if you have a knife. Much easier than trying to wrestle it off a dead or otherwise uncooperative wearer.

[Fisherman]

Seems like the simplest way to remove it from a body, if you have a knife. Much easier than trying to wrestle it off a dead or otherwise uncooperative wearer.

Well, the quickest and simplest way with a living person is to threaten them with the knife, of course, and have themselves take it off.

If they are dead, then yes, it is a rather simple way to get the chemise off. But he could presumably get at the abdomen by pulling it up, and he could dismember the body with the chemise on.

I tend to think he enjoyed doing it the way he did. But the main thing for me is that she was actually probably wearing a chemise.

[Fisherman]

Just how common is exsanguination of a victim in this kind of context? I seem to remember that the Black Dahlia was exsanguinated and washed, but are there other examples that anybody out here knows of?

[Sam Flynn]

But the main thing for me is that she was actually probably wearing a chemise.

So was Kelly, Stride, Eddowes, and probably most of the women in town during that era.

[Sam Flynn]

Just how common is exsanguination of a victim in this kind of context?

To what extent would exsanguination happen normally if, say, a decapitated (and dismembered) body had been hanging around for "N" hours, or even days?