The strange and horrible case of Ruth Jenkins

[Pcdunn]

Fisherman,
She is last seen at I.30am.Firstly a small point.Nothing in your explanation d enies the the possibility she reached a friends place.So the friend comes under suspicion?
Now if she made it to the friend's,and it wasn't him/her she must have left that friend's premises.When was that?So the time factor is important.Everything has to be done before the body is found in the Thames the next day.What time was that?
W hat I am getting at,is, that at the time of meeting this woman the killer had to decide.Kill her there,on the streets, which one w ould expect of the Ripper,or lure her away to some unknown location,to carry out the same mutilations.He chose the second option.Why?

Interesting points, Harry.
Perhaps TK lived near her friend's lodging, and abducted her before she got all the way there, or perhaps TK encountered her after she had found her friend was not in, and managed to lure her into his own place "to wait" for the friend. (We do need to know more about the outcome of her errand that night, but it seems logical that she did not arrive safely at the friend's lodging.)

Re the original question for each scenario, I vote Ripper for the first one and Torso Killer (if he existed, and the torsos weren't medical-school disposals) for the second one.

[harry]

Fisherman,
She is last seen at I.30am.Firstly a small point.Nothing in your explanation d enies the the possibility she reached a friends place.So the friend comes under suspicion?
Now if she made it to the friend's,and it wasn't him/her she must have left that friend's premises.When was that?So the time factor is important.Everything has to be done before the body is found in the Thames the next day.What time was that?
W hat I am getting at,is, that at the time of meeting this woman the killer had to decide.Kill her there,on the streets, which one w ould expect of the Ripper,or lure her away to some unknown location,to carry out the same mutilations.He chose the second option.Why?

[Fisherman]

Firstly, I have difficulty imagining how it could be determined that her abdomen was opened before her legs (let alone head and arms) were cut off.

Leaving that aside, my money is on it being the Torso Killer or a copycat. The remains were found in a different place from that in which she was killed and/or dismembered. The Ripper killed and dismembered in the same spot. Moreover, as someone else has already pointed out, the Ripper liked posing his victims, and that's a much different behaviour than leaving parts scattered about the landscape. Both seem intended to shock and horrify, but in much different ways.

Now, all that being said, it still seems remotely possible to me that if it is indeed a copycat murder, that copycat might be the Ripper. I can see the Ripper imitating the Torso Killer's work, but not the other way around. The Ripper's method of killing and mutilating in public sets a daunting hurdle to any would-be imitator, and seems to me to rule out one who was known to kill and mutilate in private.

Hm. I have already said that the place I chose for Mrs Jenkins is exactly as far removed from Bucks Row as Mitre Square was, but in the other direction. So it should be a plausible hunting ground for the Riper. But fair enough, Ginger!

As for copycatting, it seems that if it happened between the (ehrm) two killers, it was reciprocal.

The torso killer was the first to take out a colon part, and the Ripper copied that with Eddowes - and put the effort on display.

But the Ripper was first to take away the abdominal wall in flaps, so on that score, the copycat would have been the torso killer.

Which - to my mind - makes it kind of hard to believe in any copycat-ship...

[Ginger]

Firstly, I have difficulty imagining how it could be determined that her abdomen was opened before her legs (let alone head and arms) were cut off.

Leaving that aside, my money is on it being the Torso Killer or a copycat. The remains were found in a different place from that in which she was killed and/or dismembered. The Ripper killed and dismembered in the same spot. Moreover, as someone else has already pointed out, the Ripper liked posing his victims, and that's a much different behaviour than leaving parts scattered about the landscape. Both seem intended to shock and horrify, but in much different ways.

Now, all that being said, it still seems remotely possible to me that if it is indeed a copycat murder, that copycat might be the Ripper. I can see the Ripper imitating the Torso Killer's work, but not the other way around. The Ripper's method of killing and mutilating in public sets a daunting hurdle to any would-be imitator, and seems to me to rule out one who was known to kill and mutilate in private.

[Zena]

Now, lets change the story:

Ruth Jenkins was a typical East End woman, 36 years old, married and living in a small flat with her husband and two young boys in Mile End Road. On the night of October 14, 1888, she quarelled with her husband, and he threw her out at 1.30 AM. Mrs Jenkins then set off for a friends lodgings in Edward Street (having said this to her husband as she left), but she never made it there.

The day after she disappeared, her full torso was found floating in the Thames, head, arms and legs missing, and wrapped in cloth that had been tied around the torso with some string. Over the next few days, her mutilated remains were found one by one, but for the head, all of them between Canary Wharf and Woolwich. Following the post-mortem, it was disclosed that the woman had had had her abdomen ripped open from ribcage to pubes before the division of the body was made, and the intestines had apparently been cut loose from their attachments. The abdominal wall had been cut largely away in three panes, two of which were found in a parcel together with the uterus. All of the internal organs were in place except the beforementioned uterus and the liver. The latter had been removed, apparently by the killer. The cause of death was believed to be bleeding from the arteries in the neck.
A particularly disturbing find was a nosetip, two ears and what is believed to be cut away skin from the forehead, wrapped up in a parcel formed by the third flap of the abdominal flesh cut away from Jenkins, rolled into cloth and tied up.

A search and interviews along the stretch from Mrs Jenkins Mile End Road home and Edward Street has turned up nothing. Nobody professes to have seen the poor woman, and the mystery is total.

So - who killed her?

The Ripper?

The Torso killer?

The combined Ripper and Torso killer?

Or somebody else?

I'll go with the Ripper/TK combo.

I'm not as knowledgeable about the Torso killings, so won't go into detail about any differences. The cutting is Ripper-like, but her head and limbs removed and all packaged and floated down the Thames (except her head) sounds like TK.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: Two narrow flaps that only appear to have extended up as far as her umbilicus, evidently because her killer wanted to remove the foetus from her otherwise intact womb. I don't recall that she also had a single abdominal wound from breastbone to pubis - maybe I'm wrong - but her abdomen had been cut in half horizontally anyway, with the upper portion of her abdomen still attached to the bottom half of her chest on the second of the three sections into which she'd been cut.

Okay, Gareth, here goes!

First, the flaps were not described as narrow at any point. They were described as both "large" and "long and irregular". So letīs not reshape them in retrospect, please.

Furthermore, it was said that "these flaps accurately fitted together in the midline, and laterally corresponded to the incisions in the two lower pieces of the trunk."

The two lower pieces of the trunk stretched from between the seventh and eighth dorsal vertebrae down.

The first (top) section was made up of the shoulder part and the upper part of the back. It was said that "the chest had been opened in front, by the mid-line. The upper part of the sternum cut through and the contents of the chest had been removed."

Here we have the beginning of the cut, and it looks exactly like the cut to the Rainham victim, who also was opened down the middle and all the way up into the sternum.

The second (mid) section, reaching from that same spot down to the space between the third and fourth lumbar vertebra, was commented on like this: "It had also been opened down the centre of the sternum".

So from the top we have a long mid-line cut, passing from one part into the other. And from below, we have two LARGE and LONG irregular slips, fitting in the mid-line, and spanning over the two lower sections. Are you suggesting that there was half an inch of uncut mid-line somewhere in the mid section...?

Even if you do, the relevance is not there, since we do have the Rainham victim that is cut all the way down, and Jackson would still have an almighty cut, ripping her abdomen open, plus she would still have had her abdominal wall taken away, not two narrow slips of it, but two LARGE, LONG ones.

For the sake of clarity, can we agree that "single abdominal wound" only applies only if the killer didn't then go on to remove the flesh from the abdomen? We can't have it both ways.

Obviously! But it applies that a killer can FIRST cut all the way from ribs to pubes and THEN sever the trunk in three parts - which was exactly what happened to the Rainham victim and Jackson. Surely that is where the relevance lies, Gareth?

We don't know precisely how the flaps were cut in either Chapman's or Kelly's case. What we do know on that score is that Annie Chapman's flaps of flesh were cut primarily from the right hand side of her abdomen, and it wasn't even said that these wounds extended as far as her ribs, never mind her sternum.

Nor do they have to, to make the case. A large part of the abdominal wall was cut away in a few flaps, just as was the case with Jackson and Kelly. It is inconsequential what shape and size the flaps had - they were large, and they opened up the abdomen to a significant extent in all three cases. Thatīs all we need to know to make the call that we here have a man who is into the VERY peculiar habit of cutting away the abdominal wall in large flaps. Such creatures make hens teeth look like haute couture. End of story.

It was, however, noted that the area around the navel had been cut (indeed, the navel was missing), so it's reasonable to infer that the flaps of flesh extended not much further than that. If they had gone as far as the breastbone, I daresay we'd have heard about it.

" ..he said the abdominal wall had been removed in three parts - two from the anterior part. There was a greater portion of skin removed on the right side than on the left. On adjusting these three flaps it was evident that a portion surrounding and constituting the navel was wanting. The womb itself and two thirds of the bladder were absent from the body and could nowhere be traced. It was apparent that these absent portions, together with the division of the large of the large intestine, were the result of the same incising cut, and hence his opinion that the length of the weapon was at least five or six inches, and probably more. The wounds generally confirmed him in his opinion that the instrument must have been of a very sharp character. The removal of the abdominal wall indicated certain anatomical knowledge, as did the cutting in three portions of the abdominal wall, and the non cutting of the intestine. Also the way in which the womb was removed showed this in a more marked degree."

The abdominal wall was missing. Not a small part of it. Why on earth would it be "reasonable to infer" that the flaps did not extend past the umbilicus??? It was noted when the parts were fitted together that the part with the umbilicus was missing. Would you like for me to draw ten different versions where that is consistent with the abdominal wall having been taken away as far as the ribs? Or twenty?
There is absolutely no way that we can say that the umbilicus was some sort of borderline. It is in no way inferred anywhere at all.

And once more, even if it WAS like this, it would STILL apply that the killer-took-away-the-abdominal-wall-in-large-flaps! Once more - and forever if it takes that - it is THE PRACTICE of this that is the clincher. The rest is blaha-blaha. If the cuts were round or straight: blaha-blaha. If the whole of the abdomen or the half went away: blaha-blaha. If the flaps were long or short: blaha-blaha. If the flaps were two or four: blaha-blaha. The practice is ALL that counts to any serious thinking. The rest is not only blaha-blaha but also a bagful of fog. You need to realize that. There was absolutely no way that the flaps were ever going to be exact copies of each other. Nor will the cuts down the mid-line have been exactly alike. But to try and use that inevitable fact in an effort to disprove the downright obvious is completely disingenuous.

Sorry, back to Mrs Jenkins. Based on the above criteria, I'd place her in the "abdominal flaps" category, along with Annie Chapman, Mary Kelly and Elizabeth Jackson.

Okay, thanks. But does that mean that you count her as a Riper or a Torso victim? They both cut away the abdomen in flaps, you know.

[Sam Flynn]

Jackson had a single abdominal wound from breastbone to pubis and had her abdominal wall removed in two flaps.

Two narrow flaps that only appear to have extended up as far as her umbilicus, evidently because her killer wanted to remove the foetus from her otherwise intact womb. I don't recall that she also had a single abdominal wound from breastbone to pubis - maybe I'm wrong - but her abdomen had been cut in half horizontally anyway, with the upper portion of her abdomen still attached to the bottom half of her chest on the second of the three sections into which she'd been cut.

For the sake of clarity, can we agree that "single abdominal wound" only applies only if the killer didn't then go on to remove the flesh from the abdomen? We can't have it both ways.

Since we do not know how the flaps from, say, Chapman looked, surely it applies that she may have had her abdomen opened up with a single abdominal cut from breastbone to pubis

We don't know precisely how the flaps were cut in either Chapman's or Kelly's case. What we do know on that score is that Annie Chapman's flaps of flesh were cut primarily from the right hand side of her abdomen, and it wasn't even said that these wounds extended as far as her ribs, never mind her sternum. It was, however, noted that the area around the navel had been cut (indeed, the navel was missing), so it's reasonable to infer that the flaps of flesh extended not much further than that. If they had gone as far as the breastbone, I daresay we'd have heard about it.

Sorry, back to Mrs Jenkins. Based on the above criteria, I'd place her in the "abdominal flaps" category, along with Annie Chapman, Mary Kelly and Elizabeth Jackson.

[Fisherman]

Yes, but the vast majority of the torso cases weren't; indeed, only one was purely found in the East End.

I'd also point out that none of the victims, whether in the Ripper or the torso cases, had a single abdominal wound from breastbone to pubis AND had their abdominal flesh removed in three flaps. It has to be a case of either/or.

Jackson had a single abdominal wound from breastbone to pubis and had her abdominal wall removed in two flaps.
Since we do not know how the flaps from, say, Chapman looked, surely it applies that she may have had her abdomen opened up with a single abdominal cut from breastbone to pubis, whereupon the flaps were produced later? And equally so for Kelly?

However, as I keep saying, the vital thing is that victims in both series had the abdominal wall cut away. It is a trait that is unique in the world of serial killing, as far as I can tell - at any rate, it will be extremely rare.

But letīs have this part of the discussion on the other thread and reserve this one for the poor Mrs Jenkins!

[Sam Flynn]

I hope you have all noticed that the body parts are found much further to the east than was normally the case in the Torso killings!

Yes, but the vast majority of the torso cases weren't; indeed, only one was purely found in the East End.

I'd also point out that none of the victims, whether in the Ripper or the torso cases, had a single abdominal wound from breastbone to pubis AND had their abdominal flesh removed in three flaps. It has to be a case of either/or.

[Elamarna]

I hope you have all noticed that the body parts are found much further to the east than was normally the case in the Torso killings!

Yes I had noticed that, I assumed there was a deliberate reason for this, so waited to see if you had any comments to make.
And although you have not said anything of substance I will make a few observations.

While further to the East, the locations are not unique in the Torso cases.
Several issue can be the cause of this:

1. Actual location of disposal is further to the East than others.

2. Position on the River of disposal, that is on the bank, or in middle stream,( from a bridge or even boat ) this will give different flow rates.

3. Time of disposal, this will the tidal movements and thus the flow of the river.

Too many variables I suggest, to be sure of any one suggestion in your hypothetical scernero.


Steve

[Fisherman]

I hope you have all noticed that the body parts are found much further to the east than was normally the case in the Torso killings!

[Fisherman]

That may well be, I am just questioning how reliable such a call is?.
Not to debate here, no desire to go off topic.


Steve

Not reliable at all, I should think. It probably occurred to the medico as the one and only safe bid for a quick enough kill. But this is just a theoretical construction, and there are factors that are adjusted to make for a clear and useful discussion.

[Elamarna]

Many thanks, Steve! There was actually at least one Torso case, I believe, where the medico amde the call that opening up the vessels of the neck would have been the reason of death. Canīt remember which one, though.

That may well be, I am just questioning how reliable such a call is?.
Not to debate here, no desire to go off topic.


Steve

[Sam Flynn]

Al...right? Do you mean that you see a combination of both, or? Some little elaboration could do the trick!

Actually, no. I'll get back to you later as to why. I'm on the road right now, so can't write much.

[Fisherman]

Tripper!

Or perhaps "Tosser"

Al...right? Do you mean that you see a combination of both, or? Some little elaboration could do the trick!