Practicality or madness?

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman - I read some statistics about serial murderers who eviscerate (Based on American data but I can't remember which area - I think California) which identified that they are rare but appeared about every 20 years. I think it was on murderpaedia or a link from there. I would need to find the reference again, I didn't think to take a note at the time.

Is that one evert 20 years in California? Or in every major city? Or in the US? It would be valuable to know. There are 40 million people in California, so if we "translate" it to London we may be looking at one every 80 years.

That the torso murderer became active again around the time of the ripper murders may mean:
a) it was the same person - I don't discount that
b) the ripper murders excited the torso murderer to continue his spree (the torso murder before that was May 1887). So the overlap may not be coincidence but as a result of a causal relationship.

But the four torso murders that overlap the Ripper murders started in May of 1887, etenguy. So the Ripper murders cannot have led on the torso ditto. It took fifteen months after the Rainham murder before the Ripper murders started.

I do take your point - if my speculation is right (two murderers, same job) we would have two slaughtermen murdering women in London and there would be an overlap in time during which they are both cutting and eviscerating women with some striking similarities between some victims in each series - but also other victims in each series which are quite differently mutilated). It may be that the similarities (mid-line cut, flaps, removal of organs) arise from their job training with the torso murderer being more adept (older or just more experienced - see next paragraph). Then the coincidence becomes that the two men committing the murders (if there were two) had the same occupation. Of course it could be that men who have an obsession with cutting and evisceration were drawn to an occupation that allowed them full vent, at least on animals.

In 1990-91, three women were found in the Dallas area with their eyes gouged out. This will have meant either:
1. That we have a killer who is fixated on eyes, and who takes them out, or
2. That we have two or three killers, who all engage in eye removal in their occupations, like eye surgeons, and who have turned to murder in the same town or time

Both possibilities exist, but the message I am trying to hammer home is that option 1 is incredibly more likely than option 2!

If we have two murderous aninal slaughterers going on evisceration sprees in the same town and time in London, this too will be incredibly less likely than just the one killer being at work. It is simple logic. Of course, butchery has been found to desensitize those who engage in it, but eviscerating serial killers are neverthless rare in the extreme.
The one guy that immediately springs to mind on this score will be Fritz Haarmann. He certainly was a butcher, he certainly was a serial killer and he certainly eviscerated his victims - but he did not cut away the abdominal wall, because as an accomplished butcher he didnīt have to! He made two cuts to the abdomen and that was it.
Now, what are the odds of a butcher like Haarmann surfacing, killing and eviscerating? I know of no other eviscerating german serial killer. What, then, are the odds of TWO Haarmanns coming along at the same time and in Hannover? Truth be told, the mere fact that astronomical odds CAN be guessed tells us that it MAY happen. But the really crucial question is: Is it even remotely likely? Should we work from the assumption of one or two killers when we have serial murder involving eviscerations in the same time and town?
That questions answers itself, does it not?

I do not think we can automatically accept this is all the work of one man, but the possibility does exist and the idea should not dismissed out of hand. Other evidence should be examined (as you have been doing) to help us reach a conclusion about whether one killer or two is more likely.

You see, this is where you get it terribly wrong, in my mind. You speak of how it cannot be "dismissed out of hand" that there was only one killer, and you say that "the possibility exists". As if you were being generous!
But in reality, the possibility does not only exist, it is instead almost certainly the correct assumption. It is by far the best suggestion.
It is the two killer scenario that is - only just - possible, and that "cannot be dismissed out of hand". Itīs not the other way around.
Hang on to that feeble straw if you want to, but donīt try to turn it in to a tree trunk, etenguy!

You are right to caution against comparing dismemberment skills, since the ripper did not dismember (though he had an ideal opportunity with Kelly which he did not take). The torso murderer though, always dismembered his victims (this is a difference that needs explaining and I find the lack of availability of his 'chop shop' not compelling - we need a deeper explanation I think).

But what if it was that simple: that he had access to the chop shop only at times? Why would we need a "deeper explanation" if this was so? It is a very easy and straightforward explanation that covers the problem eminently.
There may of course be other explanations that you find more appealing, but that does not in any way detract from how the accessibility matter works quite well. Why would we deem the suggestion in any way not enough or unadmissible?

The difference in skills I was referring to is the organ removal - the ripper (from the doctors' description) was less adept, especially with Kelly, while the torso killer is more experienced - or at least appears to be.

So what organ removal in Kellys case is it you compare to the torso cases? Can you describe exactly how the two series were different in this respect? If it is about the heart, for example, how do the cases compare? In the Jackson case, for example, we know that the sternum was cut through, leaving the killer with a lot more wriggling room, so to speak. So what are you speaking of? I find that most people who mention cutting skill differences do so not on account of cold, hard facts but more on account of their own preconceptions. You are welcome to make a factually good case, based on the evidence. But can you?

An explanation may be the ripper necessarily worked fast in the dark and the torso murderer had more time and light. I could accept that explanation mostly, except for the Kelly murder. So does this point to different men or the same man working in different circumstances? I can't be sure but Kelly leads me to lean towards different men.

Liz Jackson was at one time lying on her back, with her abdomen opened up, the abdominal wall taken away and the uterus removed.

Annie Chapman was found lying on her back, with her abdomen opened up, the abdominal wall taken away and the uterus removed.

Mary Kelly was found on her back, her abdomen was opened up, the abdominal wall was taken away and the uterus removed.

To me, this leads me to lean against a common killer. Why we would even go near the idea of two (or three, as some will have it!) killers, is an enigma to me.
If these kinds of similarities, rare in the extreme, are not enough, then what is...?

[etenguy]

Whether or not it is to be expected to have an eviscerating serial killer every twenty years is something I do not have the knowledge to say. Personally, I think it sounds unexpected - but it does not detract from what you say: the longer the time span, the less odd it becomes with two serial eviscerating killers. But it should be noted that we would have two such men cutting abdominal flaps within a nine month span! And that comes pretty close to being simultaneous, although that word of course points to an exact correlation.

Hi Fisherman - I read some statistics about serial murderers who eviscerate (Based on American data but I can't remember which area - I think California) which identified that they are rare but appeared about every 20 years. I think it was on murderpaedia or a link from there. I would need to find the reference again, I didn't think to take a note at the time.

That the torso murderer became active again around the time of the ripper murders may mean:
a) it was the same person - I don't discount that
b) the ripper murders excited the torso murderer to continue his spree (the torso murder before that was May 1887). So the overlap may not be coincidence but as a result of a causal relationship.

It nevertheless requires two animal slaughterers turning to eviscerating prostitutes, taking out hearts and uteri, cutting away abdominal walls, stealing rings in a nine-month period. And both would remain uncaught. And none of them would engage in torture, they would instead BOTH peculiarly be interested in post-mortem cutting only.
What that proposal leads up to is the question: When these things happen in the same town and in overlapping times, what is more likely: One killer or two? And although the two killer scenario is not impossible, it is nowhere near as likely as the one killer ditto, Iīm afraid. Iīm sure you must realize this too.

I do take your point - if my speculation is right (two murderers, same job) we would have two slaughtermen murdering women in London and there would be an overlap in time during which they are both cutting and eviscerating women with some striking similarities between some victims in each series - but also other victims in each series which are quite differently mutilated). It may be that the similarities (mid-line cut, flaps, removal of organs) arise from their job training with the torso murderer being more adept (older or just more experienced - see next paragraph). Then the coincidence becomes that the two men committing the murders (if there were two) had the same occupation. Of course it could be that men who have an obsession with cutting and evisceration were drawn to an occupation that allowed them full vent, at least on animals.

I do not think we can automatically accept this is all the work of one man, but the possibility does exist and the idea should not dismissed out of hand. Other evidence should be examined (as you have been doing) to help us reach a conclusion about whether one killer or two is more likely.

Do elaborate on this, Etenguy! Exactly which skills is it that tell the two apart? And please donīt say that the Torso killer could dismember whereas the Ripper could not, because we cannot rule out that the Ripper CHOSE not to dismember. Otherwise, I much welcome a discussion on this theme!

You are right to caution against comparing dismemberment skills, since the ripper did not dismember (though he had an ideal opportunity with Kelly which he did not take). The torso murderer though, always dismembered his victims (this is a difference that needs explaining and I find the lack of availability of his 'chop shop' not compelling - we need a deeper explanation I think).

The difference in skills I was referring to is the organ removal - the ripper (from the doctors' description) was less adept, especially with Kelly, while the torso killer is more experienced - or at least appears to be. An explanation may be the ripper necessarily worked fast in the dark and the torso murderer had more time and light. I could accept that explanation mostly, except for the Kelly murder. So does this point to different men or the same man working in different circumstances? I can't be sure but Kelly leads me to lean towards different men.

[Abby Normal]

It’s apparently from dr. Biggs, by way of Trevor Marriott.

From this thread about EJ https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...570#post532570

thanks kattrup-much appreciated. point taken

[Kattrup]

yes absolutely and thanks for posting! who posted that snippet you quoted and is that from a poster here and or is it taken from a medical expert?

It’s apparently from dr. Biggs, by way of Trevor Marriott.

From this thread about EJ https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...570#post532570

[Fisherman]

I mostly agree with you Fisherman - but I would question the use of the word simultaneously - not because it is strictly speaking wrong, but because if there were two killers, one acted over a 20 year period and the other in fewer than 20 weeks. This would make it far less 'rare' than if the two series of murders occurred to the same time scales. If the question was 'it is rare or unexpected that one large city might spawn two eviscerator murderers over a twenty year period?' then the answer is no. Statistics would suggest that is to be expected.

Whether or not it is to be expected to have an eviscerating serial killer every twenty years is something I do not have the knowledge to say. Personally, I think it sounds unexpected - but it does not detract from what you say: the longer the time span, the less odd it becomes with two serial eviscerating killers. But it should be noted that we would have two such men cutting abdominal flaps within a nine month span! And that comes pretty close to being simultaneous, although that word of course points to an exact correlation.

Copycatting is not the only explanation, though it is not entirely implausible. However, like you, I think that is unlikely to be the explanation if there were two murderers. Your debate here prompted me to consider how this seemingly unlikely similarity might occur without relying on coincidence or the necessity for some link between the two murderers. I can only speculate, but one possible explanation (no evidence for this) is that they both were (or had been) animal slaughterers. This might explain why they both performed a mid-line cut and may also explain the 'flaps' and the evisceration, in so much as this is what they would be used to when preparing carcasses.

It nevertheless requires two animal slaughterers turning to eviscerating prostitutes, taking out hearts and uteri, cutting away abdominal walls, stealing rings in a nine-month period. And both would remain uncaught. And none of them would engage in torture, they would instead BOTH peculiarly be interested in post-mortem cutting only.
What that proposal leads up to is the question: When these things happen in the same town and in overlapping times, what is more likely: One killer or two? And although the two killer scenario is not impossible, it is nowhere near as likely as the one killer ditto, Iīm afraid. Iīm sure you must realize this too.

All good debate has the possibility of leading us closer to the killer(s)- this one included. You often challenge conventional thinking and maintain interesting and, shall we say passionate, debates.

The one thing which I think could be included more in this debate is the differences between the two series of murders which point to separate killers, such as the apparent different cutting skill levels of the two killers. They, to me, are more compelling, but someone may have a view which helps to explain them.

Do elaborate on this, Etenguy! Exactly which skills is it that tell the two apart? And please donīt say that the Torso killer could dismember whereas the Ripper could not, because we cannot rule out that the Ripper CHOSE not to dismember. Otherwise, I much welcome a discussion on this theme!

[etenguy]

Yes, Harry, I agree that it is not impossible (and therefore also entirely plausible, itīs just a matter of how we choose to word ourselves) that victorian London housed two serial killers who on occasion eviscerated their victims. It must once again be emphasized, however, that being possible does not in any way equate being likely; the scarcity of serial killers who eviscerate is the explanation behind why we cannot find two such creatures working simultaneously in the same town anywhere in history. It is a logical thing; I donīt think that a serial killer and eviscerator is something that surfaces every year, even if we look at it globally. Then again I may be wrong, so letīs say that three such serial killers appear on the world stage yearly. What are the chances that they will work simultaneously and in the same town? Extremely low, obviously. But that does not mean it cannot happen. I would even be willing to say that sooner or later, it is likely to happen. That is how chance works.

I mostly agree with you Fisherman - but I would question the use of the word simultaneously - not because it is strictly speaking wrong, but because if there were two killers, one acted over a 20 year period and the other in fewer than 20 weeks. This would make it far less 'rare' than if the two series of murders occurred to the same time scales. If the question was 'it is rare or unexpected that one large city might spawn two eviscerator murderers over a twenty year period?' then the answer is no. Statistics would suggest that is to be expected.

But what we are staring in the face is not jut a case of two series of murders involving eviscerations in the same town and time, is it? It is instead two series of murders involving eviscerations in the same town and time WHERE THERE IS AN OVERLAP IN EXTREMELY PECULIAR DAMAGE DONE TO THE VICTIMS.

It is my belief that the sentence in capital letters provides more thought provoking than the lower case argument.

And THAT is something that has a tremendeous impact on how we must look upon the question of one or two killers. To me, the only possible explanation for these similarities if we are dealing with two killers would be the very farfetched one about copycatting. But once I realized that it would require the Ripper copycatting the sternum to groin cut from the Torso killer and the Torso killer copycatting the abdominal flaps from the Ripper, I dumped the idea - that I was not very supportive of at any stage anyway. And so in practice, I rule out two killers.

Copycatting is not the only explanation, though it is not entirely implausible. However, like you, I think that is unlikely to be the explanation if there were two murderers. Your debate here prompted me to consider how this seemingly unlikely similarity might occur without relying on coincidence or the necessity for some link between the two murderers. I can only speculate, but one possible explanation (no evidence for this) is that they both were (or had been) animal slaughterers. This might explain why they both performed a mid-line cut and may also explain the 'flaps' and the evisceration, in so much as this is what they would be used to when preparing carcasses.

Just as you say, Pinchin Street seems to be the point where the paths merge. I only wish that people would consider the underlying factual base for this instead of arguing that leaving the arms on the torso would somehow point away from the victim belonging to the torso series!

I agree with the point you make about the arms, I would expect this murder was part of the torso series.

I also agree that the debate is a fascinating one. Moreover, I believe it will finally allow us to get a much better grip of the man we are looking for, quite possibly taking us very much further in the identification process.

All good debate has the possibility of leading us closer to the killer(s)- this one included. You often challenge conventional thinking and maintain interesting and, shall we say passionate, debates.

The one thing which I think could be included more in this debate is the differences between the two series of murders which point to separate killers, such as the apparent different cutting skill levels of the two killers. They, to me, are more compelling, but someone may have a view which helps to explain them.

[Abby Normal]

Abby includes Alice McKenzie as a ripper victim.

Also, the Lambeth torso was crudely chopped up and was never linked to the 1887-89 cases.

indeed I do re Mckenzie thanks Harry

[Harry D]

ahem...Torsos found in London in 1889 and 1903. Cant help but watch this from the peanut gallery. Like listening to Trump talk.

Abby includes Alice McKenzie as a ripper victim.

Also, the Lambeth torso was crudely chopped up and was never linked to the 1887-89 cases.

[Michael W Richards]

indeed harry
and then "both" series apparently coming to an inexplicable end at the same time! I still haven't seen a reasonable explanation for that one if theyre separate series.

ahem...Torsos found in London in 1889 and 1903. Cant help but watch this from the peanut gallery. Like listening to Trump talk.

[Abby Normal]

Whatever your stance, it's a fascinating debate! It's intriguing to think that the Ripper murders may have actually been only part of a larger crime series. There are reasonable arguments on both sides. I have to say that Fisherman has done a good job of emphasising the peculiar similarities in both series of murders. It's entirely plausible that Victorian London spawned two macabre killers from within its bowels, particularly as one potentially spanned two decades. However, the signature elements and overlap in time/place, culminating in the dumping of one torso in Ripper territory, are hard to ignore.

indeed harry
and then "both" series apparently coming to an inexplicable end at the same time! I still haven't seen a reasonable explanation for that one if theyre separate series.

[Fisherman]

Whatever your stance, it's a fascinating debate! It's intriguing to think that the Ripper murders may have actually been only part of a larger crime series. There are reasonable arguments on both sides. I have to say that Fisherman has done a good job of emphasising the peculiar similarities in both series of murders. It's entirely plausible that Victorian London spawned two macabre killers from within its bowels, particularly as one potentially spanned two decades. However, the signature elements and overlap in time/place, culminating in the dumping of one torso in Ripper territory, are hard to ignore.

Yes, Harry, I agree that it is not impossible (and therefore also entirely plausible, itīs just a matter of how we choose to word ourselves) that victorian London housed two serial killers who on occasion eviscerated their victims. It must once again be emphasized, however, that being possible does not in any way equate being likely; the scarcity of serial killers who eviscerate is the explanation behind why we cannot find two such creatures working simultaneously in the same town anywhere in history. It is a logical thing; I donīt think that a serial killer and eviscerator is something that surfaces every year, even if we look at it globally. Then again I may be wrong, so letīs say that three such serial killers appear on the world stage yearly. What are the chances that they will work simultaneously and in the same town? Extremely low, obviously. But that does not mean it cannot happen. I would even be willing to say that sooner or later, it is likely to happen. That is how chance works.

But what we are staring in the face is not jut a case of two series of murders involving eviscerations in the same town and time, is it? It is instead two series of murders involving eviscerations in the same town and time WHERE THERE IS AN OVERLAP IN EXTREMELY PECULIAR DAMAGE DONE TO THE VICTIMS.

And THAT is something that has a tremendeous impact on how we must look upon the question of one or two killers. To me, the only possible explanation for these similarities if we are dealing with two killers would be the very farfetched one about copycatting. But once I realized that it would require the Ripper copycatting the sternum to groin cut from the Torso killer and the Torso killer copycatting the abdominal flaps from the Ripper, I dumped the idea - that I was not very supportive of at any stage anyway. And so in practice, I rule out two killers.

Just as you say, Pinchin Street seems to be the point where the paths merge. I only wish that people would consider the underlying factual base for this instead of arguing that leaving the arms on the torso would somehow point away from the victim belonging to the torso series!

I also agree that the debate is a fascinating one. Moreover, I believe it will finally allow us to get a much better grip of the man we are looking for, quite possibly taking us very much further in the identification process.

[Harry D]

Whatever your stance, it's a fascinating debate! It's intriguing to think that the Ripper murders may have actually been only part of a larger crime series. There are reasonable arguments on both sides. I have to say that Fisherman has done a good job of emphasising the peculiar similarities in both series of murders. It's entirely plausible that Victorian London spawned two macabre killers from within its bowels, particularly as one potentially spanned two decades. However, the signature elements and overlap in time/place, culminating in the dumping of one torso in Ripper territory, are hard to ignore.

[Fisherman]

That, mr Baron, is where the flaps come in. It actually shines a whole lot. Now, if it had only been about the flaps, the case for a single killer would still be a very good one, but once we add all the rest...! It is not an absolutely proven case, but I don’ t hesitate for a split second to say that it IS a case beyond reasonable doubt.

[The Baron]

The fact that EJ was pregnant will set her forever apart from chapman's mureder.

That doesn't mean Jack couldn't have killed one or more of those torsos.. since we don't know who he was, we cannot say anything for sure, but we don't have a shining proof of any kind to build upon this hypothesis.


The Baron

[Abby Normal]

From an earlier thread:


It is very possible that an abortion procedure could lead to a rapid demise.

We do not know if that is what happened. But you challenged posters to present a reasonable abortion scenario.You don't have to disprove it, just concede that yes, it could have happened. Debra Arif has shown reports that EJ wanted to get rid of the pregnancy and the coroner in the case mentioned that it would have been possible for an abortionist to pull it off.
So it's not outlandish to suggest.

As said, others viewed EJ's death as related to three others, so obviously that invalidates the abortionist scenario. But you personally asked for a reasonable scenario. As shown, there is one.

yes absolutely and thanks for posting! who posted that snippet you quoted and is that from a poster here and or is it taken from a medical expert?