Practicality or madness?

[John G]

John,

I feel September 8th had some significance for the torso killer. Whether it was a competition of sorts with the east end killer or they were the same man I have yet to determine in my mind. I also feel the Whitehall victim was killed and dismembered in the vault or somewhere in the basement of Scotland Yard.

Hi Jerry,

But considering the considerable risk that was taken with the disposotion site, wouldn't taking a corpse that had not been dismembered increase that risk to an even greater degree?

[John G]

Once again, and forever if I have to: No difference that is not conclusive, be it one or a thousand such differences, dissolves the fact that these two series involve similarities that are extremely rare and very odd. Once there are such inclusions, the game is up.

Christer,

As you know we fundamentally disagree on this point. In fact, Liz Jackson aside, I don't see many similarities at all.

Thus, for an offensive dismemberer the actual process of dismemberment is important to him; he's not simply dismembering to make the body easier to dispose of, but because the act excites him. This clearly doesn't apply to JtR.

There strategy was very different. JtR was a classic disorganised killer-attacked victims on the street, taking enormous risks, not concerned about witnesses. In fact, he was so horribly disorganised hevl didn't even change tactics with a public on high alert and greatly increased police presence. The Torso perpetrator much more organised, i e. Taking steps from preventing the victims being identified, not identified by any witnesses, not murdering his victims in outdoor locations.

You have previously referred to body parts removed from the victims. However, the only victim that we know the Torso perpetrator removed body parts from was Elizabeth Jackson. And From memory, even in this case the uterus wasn't retained, unlike Eddowes and Chspman.

[Michael W Richards]

Yes Harry. As soon as I get time I can post a few. Gotta run for now. One letter comes to mind saying something along the lines of, I will continue in the east end and my pal in the west end. There were also letters not taking responsibility for a torso saying he would not make such a botch of it. Referring to Pinchin torso, IIRC.

Hey jerry,

Seems that first letter you mentioned indicates 2 people, not one person claiming both sets of murders.

[John G]

I don't discount the findings of Dr. Neville who examined the first piece of the body (the Pimilico arm). He stated death was 3 to four days prior to his examination of the arm on September 12th. The other parts were subject to decay for much longer and to me would have been more difficult to determine a date of death. So if the victim in which the arm belonged to died around September 8th or 9th, so be it for the rest of the matching body parts.

I dont think time of death estimates can be remotely relied upon. Even today, estimating time of death is extremely difficult-the Forensic Science Regulator advises it shouldn't even be attempted. And asseseing time of death from a single body part must be even more daunting. Dr Neville, who wasn't a forensic scientist may therefore have been way out.

[Michael W Richards]

The boy that is discovered in Bradford, cut in half, stuffed in a barrel....is that an indication of other bad people existed in the UK, or is Londons Torso-Ripper-Poisoner man just on a vaca that week?

[FrankO]

Yes, in the Torso series the murder scenes and the dumping scenes were separated. But it is only if we make the assumption that the Ripper could not have dumped his bodies elsewhere if he had had the need that this becomes of interest.

This is clearly wrong, because I don’t assume the Ripper couldn’t have dumped his bodies elsewhere if he had the need and still think it’s interesting.

It is a VERY easy equation that entirely allows us to see how a perceived difference in mindset may in fact be something totally different - a purely practical measure.

It may, but then again, it may not.

This is where so much goes wrong when people reason that there were two killers: they insert different mindsets into their thought-up killers, they divide them into categories that are not compatible with each other.

I don’t insert anything. I see the facts of both series and they suggest different mindsets. End of story. Whether that means they were 2 different men with roughly similar cravings is another matter.

But it is pure invention.

Don't let the knowledgeable Mr. Geberth hear you.

Plus, we of course do NOT know that the Ripper struck where he found his prey, the way disorganized killers will normally do. Instead, it seems that he may have used a ruse, feigning to be a punter and following his victims to secluded places, chosen by them. Alternatively directing them to such places. And that is anything but disorganized behavior.

Where did I say the Ripper was purely disorganized? As far as I’m concerned, he wasn't, but he wasn’t much of a planner either with regards to the murders we ascribe to him and in that respect he was clearly different than Torso Man. Anyway, that he left clustered crime scenes (regardless of whether he covered 10 or 100 yards from the point of encounter to where he killed & mutilated) and that Torso Man didn’t remains a fact. That you don’t see any significance in it is not something new.

[FrankO]

I don't discount the findings of Dr. Neville who examined the first piece of the body (the Pimilico arm). He stated death was 3 to four days prior to his examination of the arm on September 12th. The other parts were subject to decay for much longer and to me would have been more difficult to determine a date of death. So if the victim in which the arm belonged to died around September 8th or 9th, so be it for the rest of the matching body parts.

In "An Exercise in Forensic Medicine Dr. Hebbert writes about the right arm: "The appearance of the hand would suggest maceration in water from three to our weeks..." About the trunk he wrote that death probably occurred about two months earlier. And regarding the left leg he thought death had occurred from 6 weeks to 2 months previously.

[John G]

The boy that is discovered in Bradford, cut in half, stuffed in a barrel....is that an indication of other bad people existed in the UK, or is Londons Torso-Ripper-Poisoner man just on a vaca that week?

When I first came onto this site I thought that posters like yourself, who were arguing that the C5 were probably not by the same hand, were seriously misguided. Now I've come to realize I was wrong. For instance, I no longer think it likely that Stride was a Ripper victim.

The problem, I feel, at the heart of the single killer theory (if I may put it that way) is that it relies essentially on the issue of rare types of murder. However, that reasoning runs into difficulty because there was a huge number of rare murders and violent assaults during this period: Tabram, the C5, Mackenzie, Coles, Austin, the 1887-1889 Torso cases, the earlier 1873-1874 Torso cases, Tottenham Torso, Emma Smith, Ellen Bury etc, all of which have at least something in common with one or more of the other victims and therefore can be thetorically "linked" . Therefore, for a proponent of the theory, once a single victim is conceded the entire theory is undermined, i.e. because by implication you've accepted that there must have been an least one other rare murderer at large. As a result, in order to avoid this undesirable situation more and more victims get roped in an attributed to a single killer.

Of course, this logic could be applied in a different context: serial killers are very rare. Whitechapel was a very small geographical area and it's therefore statically very unlikely that two serial killers would be active in the same area. George Chapman was a serial killer who lived in this area. Ergo George Chapman must be JtR!

[Michael W Richards]

When I first came onto this site I thought that posters like yourself, who were arguing that the C5 were probably not by the same hand, were seriously misguided. Now I've come to realize I was wrong. For instance, I no longer think it likely that Stride was a Ripper victim.

The problem, I feel, at the heart of the single killer theory (if I may put it that way) is that it relies essentially on the issue of rare types of murder. However, that reasoning runs into difficulty because there was a huge number of rare murders and violent assaults during this period: Tabram, the C5, Mackenzie, Coles, Austin, the 1887-1889 Torso cases, the earlier 1873-1874 Torso cases, Tottenham Torso, Emma Smith, Ellen Bury etc, all of which have at least something in common with one or more of the other victims and therefore can be thetorically "linked" . Therefore, for a proponent of the theory, once a single victim is conceded the entire theory is undermined, i.e. because by implication you've accepted that there must have been an least one other rare murderer at large. As a result, in order to avoid this undesirable situation more and more victims get roped in an attributed to a single killer.

Thank you for that John. Ive fought consistently here about some of these points because I wanted some people to reconsider what their belief systems told them, and Im really pleased at least 1 person did that as a result. You are correct...there are an unusual amount of unusual cases during this period.

Why the accepted C5 theory bothers me so much is that it must have at its core a killer who is not consistent, and for me the evidence in the cases of Polly to Annie speak to the exact opposite conclusion. With the shortest interval between any other of the murders. He had found his way to get what he wanted. That's fodder for a killer profile...until the waters are muddied with unconnected crimes.

[c.d.]

Why the accepted C5 theory bothers me so much is that it must have at its core a killer who is not consistent....

This is true. But it seems to me the best course of action is to ask what might account for that and do we see instances of inconsistency in other murders in which it turns out they were actually committed by the same hand.

A non-C5 theory must have at its core the belief that in the Fall of 1888 tiny Whitechapel was home to numerous serial killers some of whom targeted uteri, others were kidney men and others went looking for hearts.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Belief in the Canonical 5 never has been on the same level as religious doctrine. There is no requirement to believe it with every ounce of your being with the souls of your most beloved at stake. It is simply possible to accept it as being more likely than not.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Ive fought consistently here about some of these points because I wanted some people to reconsider what their belief systems told them...


Good advice that should be followed by everybody. Cough. Cough.

c.d.

[etenguy]

I know whats coming next...Ted Bundy killed different ways, the Golden State killer did too, and the Freeway killer, ..what youll omit is that Dahmer did the same things with the same kinds of men, Gacy did it repeatedly the same way.

Since you mention Dahmer - wasn't Larry Eyler committing similar murders at the same time - or at least they overlapped. I don't think Eyler operated in the same town, but he murdered across a range of locations, including Chicago which is south of Milwaukee. They both killed, dismembered and mutilated (disembowelled and organs removed) their victims. Is this another example of two murderers with similar victimology and similarities in method operating in relatively close proximity at the same time (if the torso and ripper murderers was the other).

[Abby Normal]

When I first came onto this site I thought that posters like yourself, who were arguing that the C5 were probably not by the same hand, were seriously misguided. Now I've come to realize I was wrong. For instance, I no longer think it likely that Stride was a Ripper victim.

The problem, I feel, at the heart of the single killer theory (if I may put it that way) is that it relies essentially on the issue of rare types of murder. However, that reasoning runs into difficulty because there was a huge number of rare murders and violent assaults during this period: Tabram, the C5, Mackenzie, Coles, Austin, the 1887-1889 Torso cases, the earlier 1873-1874 Torso cases, Tottenham Torso, Emma Smith, Ellen Bury etc, all of which have at least something in common with one or more of the other victims and therefore can be thetorically "linked" . Therefore, for a proponent of the theory, once a single victim is conceded the entire theory is undermined, i.e. because by implication you've accepted that there must have been an least one other rare murderer at large. As a result, in order to avoid this undesirable situation more and more victims get roped in an attributed to a single killer.

Of course, this logic could be applied in a different context: serial killers are very rare. Whitechapel was a very small geographical area and it's therefore statically very unlikely that two serial killers would be active in the same area. George Chapman was a serial killer who lived in this area. Ergo George Chapman must be JtR!

and you were doing so well!

unfortunately your going backwards. the ripper is not a disorganized killer. see my previous post. total reliance on fbi profiling and opinions like its gospel is wrong. when they profiled the ripper, they had very little knowledge of the case (the average casebooker knows more) and didnt even seem to take into account, no automobile was available to the ripper. ive noticed some arrogance to their way of thinking and cant help note that they over egg the pudding on how effective all their profiling/ labeling stuff is. john douglas thinks hes solved everthing from the mad bomber to the golden state killer. like i said you need to take the fbi stuff with a grain of salt. id go with your garden variety experienced detective any day.

re the number of victims. the average serial killer has about 15 kills. how many did you list? now i think theres not enough eveidence or linkage for all of them- smith seems like a gang rape attack, coles was probably killed by sadler etc. but alot does link them and its not even controversial at all to consider most were by a single hand... and the main thing that would link them IMHO would be which ones had post mortem mutilation first and foremost. how many that you listed have post mortem mutilation? probably wise to start there when seeing if possible link.
re george chapman- george chapman has been and is a valid suspect for the ripper murders from the start by abberline no less and many others for many reasons. not sure what your trying to get at here.

[Abby Normal]

Since you mention Dahmer - wasn't Larry Eyler committing similar murders at the same time - or at least they overlapped. I don't think Eyler operated in the same town, but he murdered across a range of locations, including Chicago which is south of Milwaukee. They both killed, dismembered and mutilated (disembowelled and organs removed) their victims. Is this another example of two murderers with similar victimology and similarities in method operating in relatively close proximity at the same time (if the torso and ripper murderers was the other).

sorry eten. not even close.
they didnt operate in the same state, let alone the same city.
torsoman and the rippers territory actually overlapped (pinchin) and were within easy walking distance.

i think the torsorippers chop shop was somewhere close to pinchin as theres evidence that torso was carried there.
so his place would be easy walking distance to the ripper sites and easy cart distance to torso dumping areas. heck he may have even picked up the torso victims in WC brought them back to his chop shop near pinchin, cut them up and dumped them with use of a cart further west, probably becuase those locations had special meaning to him.