Practicality or madness?

[Fisherman]

The geography is not useless based on the dumping sites for it illustrates the person disposing of the body was either local to those locations or was able to travel to them whilst concealing a body.

The problem is that they were very widely spread over London, and that basically makes any speculation based on them as to where the killer resided useless. There were parts dumped in the Thames, various parts of it, in Regents Canal, in Battersea, in Pinchin Street, in Tottenham Court Road etcetera. It tells us that it is likely in the extreme that th killer had access to transport - but it tells us nothing at all about where he accessed that transport or where he came from. Ergo, there is nothing at all in these matters that in any way prohibits a shared identity between the originators of the two murder series. If anything, it would seem that the police worked from the idea that the Pinchin Street torso had been manually carried to itīs dumpoing spot, in which case it seems that a locality close to Pinchin Street is what we should be looking for.

In the case of the Whitehall torso, it was found in a vault hidden well enough inside of a building site that the employees were hidden their tools there to prevent them being stolen.

Yes, it was.

If we were to reason the Whitehall victim had been murdered in Whitechapel and then dumped in said vault, we have the person who dumped the body carrying it across London perhaps on foot, in the public transport such as tram or train or in their own cart, perhaps walking on the building the site and then bumbling around in the dark until they find a vault which suits their purpose.

Either bumbling or consciously seeking out a vault close to the roots of the building. The killer could have had previous knowledge of the site by, for example, delivering goods to the building site or by knowing somebody who did work there - or he could have chosen the site on account of wishing to taunt the police, and improvising as he went along. The vault was not locked, it was accessible as were the other vaults.

On the face of it, seems far more likely whoever placed the torso there knew exactly where to find the vault.

Using that logic, it is equally likely that he knew exactly where to find that flower bed in Battersea Park, exactly where the pinchin Street Railway arch was situated, where Mary Kellys son lived and where you could throw a leg over the fence there, where those railings in Bedford Square were - and exactly when the police passed outside 33 Fitzroy Square.
You are trying to lead on that the killer could not possibly have found and used the vaut in the police buildings least he had far-reaching insights into the arcghitecture of the site - but this is not true, simple as that.

Of course, the dates do not prohibit a common killer but they are far from proving the case either. If it is all attributable to one man we may have an astonishing map of his movements over the weekend of the 28th - 30th September, 1888.

These murders are actually astonishing from beginning to end. If I were you, and dead set on not accepting the obvious, what I would point to is that there seems to have been no cooling off period between the three murders involved. It would make a better point, but not one that cannot be overcome nevertheless. To my mind, it WILL have itīs explanation. But no explanations telling the series apart have anything much going for them - it is virtually impossible to believe in two killers. There are actual fairytales that are easier to accept if you ask me.

[Fisherman]

I'm pretty sure if the murderer of Julia Martha Thomas had not been found in 1879, the case would be considered among the victims of the 'Thames Torso Murderer' in modern times.

Does that mean that you have evidence that the cutting was very skilfully performed? That the limbs were predominantly taken from the body by disjointing them cleanly , with exact cuts? Were in fact ANY of the joints disarticulated at all? Or were they sawn off?

You see, that is the predominant mark of the Torso killer - his cutting skills, the masterfully disjointed limbs, the exactitude of what he did. Most other dismemberments are sloppy. What evidence is there to tell us that this one was not?

In which of the Torso cases were the parts boiled, the way Webster did, by the way? And in how may Torso cases were the innards burned?

[etenguy]

Iīll pick this point out, Etenguy. You lead on here that any eviscerator of the abdominal cavity must take away the abdominal flesh in order to gain access to the innards. There has been a fair number of eviscerators of the abdominal cavity over the years - these people are of course rare in the extreme, but they DO exist every now and then. What they never seem to do, however, is to remove the abdominal flesh before getting at the innards. The reason is simple - they donīt have to. Cutting the abdomen open is all it takes. Ed Gingrich made a seven inch cut to his wifes abdomen and extracted all of her organs through that hole - ALL of them!
So the two questions I want answered here are these:

1. Accepting that eviscerators are extremely rare - how likely it is that two such persons would surface in the same city and at the same time in late victorian London? I can provide the answer myself: It is incredibly unlikely. In fact, so far, nobody has supplied any example of two eviscerators in the same area and time at all, and so it would be a singuarly rare thing.

2. Accepting people taking away the abdominal wall are extremely rare within the trade of eviscerators, just how likely is it, if we were to for the first time in history have two eviscerators working alongside each other in the same time and city, that this unique occurrence would involve two takers away of abdominal walls?

You see, Etenguy, it is not in any way likely at all. It would arguably be the largest fluke in criminal history.

And that is BEFORE we add that

- BOTH men, it just so happens, were deemed skilled in anatomy by medicos
- BOTH men, it just so happens, took away colon sections
- BOTH men, it just so happens, took out uteri and hearts
- BOTH men, it just so happens, cut from pubes to ribs
- BOTH men, it just so happens, targetted prostitutes
- BOTH men, it just so happens, employed a knife in a very skilled manner
- BOTH men, it just so happens, took rings from their victims fingers

So before we arrive at these incredible similarities, you must first clear the abdominal flesh hurdle.

And you canīt, can you? It is actually very clear evidence of a common killer, and I have no doubt at all that it would be used to convict in any court of law.

Hi Fisherman and Happy New Year.

With regard to your two questions:

1. Accepting that eviscerators are extremely rare - how likely it is that two such persons would surface in the same city and at the same time in late victorian London? I can provide the answer myself: It is incredibly unlikely. In fact, so far, nobody has supplied any example of two eviscerators in the same area and time at all, and so it would be a singuarly rare thing.

Given that some consider the 1873 Torso murder part of the torso murder series, I would not describe the two murderers (if there were two) as surfacing at the same time. Rather one had been around for some 15 years or more and one a few months. Nevertheless, two were active during a common period (if there were two murderers). In terms of rarity - in December 1888 John Gill was murdered and mutilated in a similar fashion to the ripper victims (so similar that the police checked for any links to the ripper murder) - admittedly this was near Bradford and not in London, but even so. So given over about a 15 year period there is one period of a few months where potentially two murderers also eviscerated, I am not sure I would describe that as a singularly rare thing. Unlikely perhaps, but not a remarkable coincidence.

2. Accepting people taking away the abdominal wall are extremely rare within the trade of eviscerators, just how likely is it, if we were to for the first time in history have two eviscerators working alongside each other in the same time and city, that this unique occurrence would involve two takers away of abdominal walls?

I think I would need to undertake some research to determine whether your assertion that people taking away the abdominal wall are extremely rare (within an already rare group of people). For the moment I will accept that is the case. It could, in that case, mean it was the same person (your conclusion) or possibly that one learnt/copied the other having read about the other, or that both simply found that the easiest way to facilitate access was that approach independently. In the John Gill case the autopsy described the following 'a deep vertical slash began at the top of the throat, continuing down to the lower abdomen.' This would support your suggestion of a different method of access.

The other similarities you refer to:

- BOTH men, it just so happens, were deemed skilled in anatomy by medicos (by some medicos and not by others, my understanding is the general consensus is that the ripper was not skilled in anatomy).
- BOTH men, it just so happens, took away colon sections (I do not remember any colon sections being taken away by the ripper - would you kindly remind me of which victim(s) you mean)
- BOTH men, it just so happens, took out uteri and hearts (if this was consistently what both murderers (assuming 2) did and they did not also take different organs which were not the same in both cases, it would probably be more significant.
- BOTH men, it just so happens, cut from pubes to ribs (well yes, they both cut open the abdomen - not especially indicative of the same person of itself.)
- BOTH men, it just so happens, targetted prostitutes (this is (not unreasonable) supposition with regard to most of the torso victims, but it is not a known fact).
- BOTH men, it just so happens, employed a knife in a very skilled manner (Not especially uncommonly skilled for a number of professions at that time)
- BOTH men, it just so happens, took rings from their victims fingers (Again, this is not something I particularly associate with ripper murders).

So although some similarities between the two series of murders, I do not (yet) find any compelling evidence that they were both committed by the same person, actually the many differences suggest separate killers are far more likely (at least to me).

[Fisherman]

WARNING GRAPHIC IMAGES



They say one pic is worth a thousand words.

I have attached two post mortem pictures I had taken as part of negating the killer removing the organs issue, and to show the degree of difficulty in locating and removing the organs in the dark, but they are both relevant to your abdominal flaps issue.

In the first photo it shows a standard post mortem midline incision used to open up the abdomen, and clearly one can see the degree of difficulty in any procedure thereafter, and therefore the none medical way to gain entry to rest of the abdomen the organs would be to cut away flaps of the abdominal wall from either side of the first incision.

The medical way would be to use retractors to hold back the abdomen for the doctors to be able to work on or remove organs. But of course if a person had died under unusual circumstances, and the organs were required for medical research the quick and easy way to access them would be to cut away the flaps from the abdomen.

With regards to some of the torsos we know that in some cases internal organs were missing !

Moving on and staying with pic 1 the ruler shows exactly where the kidney would be located.

picture 2 which shows the degree of difficulty in trying to access the kidney through a midline incision without using retractors to hold back the abdomen, remember Eddowes only had one wound which opened the abdomen, which penetrated the abdominal wall deep enough fr the intestines tp either be taken out, or they recoiled.

I hope this helps you and others understand the same problem you clearly have not fully identified both with the torsos and the WM.



www.trevormarriott.co.uk

As I said, Ed Gingrich took out his wifes innards, each and every one of them, through a seven inch hole. Many eviscerators have done the same, more or less. Cut a hole, open it wide by grabbing one side of it and dig away.

You see, Trevor, what you need to do is to find a single case (one, uno, un, ein, ett) where the killer is known to have removed the abdominal wall of his victim to get at the innards. It is a wild goose chase, I can tell you that much.

Eddowes killer did not take away any abdominal wall - and had no problems taking out the uterus and a kidny nevertheless. Do you want me to list other killers who took out innards through a hole in the abdomen of their victims, and without cutting the abdominal wall away?

I can do that easily. What I - or yu can NOT do is to find such creatures that did remove the abdominal walls. Oh right, I forgot - we DO have two such killers. In the same city. At the same time. Howīs that for a coincidence...?

[Fisherman]

I am quite clear but it seems you are still in cloud cuckoo land !

I dont know why I or anybody else continues to challenge you because it is clear that whatever is said is not going to change what you wrongly believe

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

If you were quite clear about what I was saying and to whom I said it, then why would you post the kind of dung you posted? Very clearly, you had no clue what you were talking about. And now, you are not even willing to admit the obvious! I SAID THAT THERE ARE EXAMPLES OF POSSIBLE VIOLENCE BY WAY OF HITTING THE HEAD OF RIPPER VICTIMS, JUST AS THERE IS THE EXAMPLE OF THE BLOWS TO THE TEMPLE OF THE 1873 VICTIM IN THE TORSO SERIES, AND HENCE THIS MATTER IS NO PROVEN DIFFERENCE AT ALL.

What is it about that you fail to understand?

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman and Happy New Year.

The same to you, Etenguy - may wisdom and prosperity tag along with you throughout the year!

With regard to your two questions:

1. Accepting that eviscerators are extremely rare - how likely it is that two such persons would surface in the same city and at the same time in late victorian London? I can provide the answer myself: It is incredibly unlikely. In fact, so far, nobody has supplied any example of two eviscerators in the same area and time at all, and so it would be a singuarly rare thing.

Given that some consider the 1873 Torso murder part of the torso murder series, I would not describe the two murderers (if there were two) as surfacing at the same time. Rather one had been around for some 15 years or more and one a few months. Nevertheless, two were active during a common period (if there were two murderers). In terms of rarity - in December 1888 John Gill was murdered and mutilated in a similar fashion to the ripper victims (so similar that the police checked for any links to the ripper murder) - admittedly this was near Bradford and not in London, but even so. So given over about a 15 year period there is one period of a few months where potentially two murderers also eviscerated, I am not sure I would describe that as a singularly rare thing. Unlikely perhaps, but not a remarkable coincidence.

The series overlap, but the generally accepted Ripper series is one of ten weeks and the Torso series one of sixteen years. That is interesting, but no obstacle to a common originator, Iīm afraid. Dahmer - along with many other serial killers - had a hiatus of MANY years between vicrtims one and two. Nine years, I believe. Also, the main part of the killings in both series is concentrated around the same time, more or less.
No matter how we look at evisceration murders, they are and remain very, very rare. As has been pointed out before, there are no two examples that overlap the way these series do in geography and chronology.
Did you check whether Gill lost his abdominal wall, by the way?

2. Accepting people taking away the abdominal wall are extremely rare within the trade of eviscerators, just how likely is it, if we were to for the first time in history have two eviscerators working alongside each other in the same time and city, that this unique occurrence would involve two takers away of abdominal walls?

I think I would need to undertake some research to determine whether your assertion that people taking away the abdominal wall are extremely rare (within an already rare group of people). For the moment I will accept that is the case. It could, in that case, mean it was the same person (your conclusion) or possibly that one learnt/copied the other having read about the other, or that both simply found that the easiest way to facilitate access was that approach independently. In the John Gill case the autopsy described the following 'a deep vertical slash began at the top of the throat, continuing down to the lower abdomen.' This would support your suggestion of a different method of access.

The copycat idea is the stuff of cheap pulp fiction, Iīm afraid. And as I keep saying, if there was copycatting involved, then the Torso killer learnt the cutting away of the abdominal wall from the Ripper, whereas the Ripper learnt the cutting from pubes to ribs from the Torso killer. The Torso killer learnt the taking of rings from the Ripper whereas the Ripper learnt the removal of colon sections from the Torso killer.
Can you see how this makes for a very poor suggestion?
Very obviously, they were one and the same man. There will not be similarities in heaps otherwise. This is what all credible police work is built on. It is the very corner stone of identifying the same killer for two deeds - similarities; the rarer, the more telling.

The other similarities you refer to:

- BOTH men, it just so happens, were deemed skilled in anatomy by medicos (by some medicos and not by others, my understanding is the general consensus is that the ripper was not skilled in anatomy).

Nevertheless, both killers WERE regarded by contemporary medicos as being very skilled. And it was about the knife work in both cases. How often do medicos speak of that kind of skill on behalf of a knife killer?

- BOTH men, it just so happens, took away colon sections (I do not remember any colon sections being taken away by the ripper - would you kindly remind me of which victim(s) you mean)

Eddowes. The section was taken away from her body and placed beside her in Mitre Square in a fashion that made Brown conclude it was neatly PLACED there.

- BOTH men, it just so happens, took out uteri and hearts (if this was consistently what both murderers (assuming 2) did and they did not also take different organs which were not the same in both cases, it would probably be more significant.

How many annual cases are there in Europe where killers take out hearts and/or uteri? Today? How many were there back then? Enough, would you say, to necessitate the assumption that the killer may be one and the same if it occurred in subsequent years and in the same city?

- BOTH men, it just so happens, cut from pubes to ribs (well yes, they both cut open the abdomen - not especially indicative of the same person of itself.)

How many cases are there annually in Europe where this happens? Today? How many were there back then? Enough, would you say, to necessitate the assumption that the killer may be one and the same if it occurred in subsequent years and in the same city?

- BOTH men, it just so happens, targetted prostitutes (this is (not unreasonable) supposition with regard to most of the torso victims, but it is not a known fact).

It IS a known fact that the killer dispatched prostitutes, and there is no reason to surmise the victims were not all prostitutes. It is the likely thing, even.

- BOTH men, it just so happens, employed a knife in a very skilled manner (Not especially uncommonly skilled for a number of professions at that time)

Sorry, but Galloway, not least, tells us that it goes far beyond ordinary butchering skills. And what you need to do is to look at how many cases of dismemberment will involve this inclusion. By far and away, a sloppy dismemberment is the normal outcome.

- BOTH men, it just so happens, took rings from their victims fingers (Again, this is not something I particularly associate with ripper murders).

It is a common feature, represented in both series, and so it would attract the attention of any serious policeman. It adds to the tally. Which is what happens throughout. Taking the item one by one leaves the almighty sum of similarities unconsidered. In itself, it goes a very long way to prove the case.

So although some similarities between the two series of murders, I do not (yet) find any compelling evidence that they were both committed by the same person, actually the many differences suggest separate killers are far more likely (at least to me).

And which are these "many differences?" As I keep saying, there can be ten thousand differences, but once two victims have "From the East End with love" tattoooed into their foreheads, the differences become obsolete in a jiffy. The same happens here.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Fisherman and Happy New Year.

With regard to your two questions:

1. Accepting that eviscerators are extremely rare - how likely it is that two such persons would surface in the same city and at the same time in late victorian London? I can provide the answer myself: It is incredibly unlikely. In fact, so far, nobody has supplied any example of two eviscerators in the same area and time at all, and so it would be a singuarly rare thing.

Given that some consider the 1873 Torso murder part of the torso murder series, I would not describe the two murderers (if there were two) as surfacing at the same time. Rather one had been around for some 15 years or more and one a few months. Nevertheless, two were active during a common period (if there were two murderers). In terms of rarity - in December 1888 John Gill was murdered and mutilated in a similar fashion to the ripper victims (so similar that the police checked for any links to the ripper murder) - admittedly this was near Bradford and not in London, but even so. So given over about a 15 year period there is one period of a few months where potentially two murderers also eviscerated, I am not sure I would describe that as a singularly rare thing. Unlikely perhaps, but not a remarkable coincidence.

2. Accepting people taking away the abdominal wall are extremely rare within the trade of eviscerators, just how likely is it, if we were to for the first time in history have two eviscerators working alongside each other in the same time and city, that this unique occurrence would involve two takers away of abdominal walls?

I think I would need to undertake some research to determine whether your assertion that people taking away the abdominal wall are extremely rare (within an already rare group of people). For the moment I will accept that is the case. It could, in that case, mean it was the same person (your conclusion) or possibly that one learnt/copied the other having read about the other, or that both simply found that the easiest way to facilitate access was that approach independently. In the John Gill case the autopsy described the following 'a deep vertical slash began at the top of the throat, continuing down to the lower abdomen.' This would support your suggestion of a different method of access.

The other similarities you refer to:

- BOTH men, it just so happens, were deemed skilled in anatomy by medicos (by some medicos and not by others, my understanding is the general consensus is that the ripper was not skilled in anatomy).
- BOTH men, it just so happens, took away colon sections (I do not remember any colon sections being taken away by the ripper - would you kindly remind me of which victim(s) you mean)
- BOTH men, it just so happens, took out uteri and hearts (if this was consistently what both murderers (assuming 2) did and they did not also take different organs which were not the same in both cases, it would probably be more significant.
- BOTH men, it just so happens, cut from pubes to ribs (well yes, they both cut open the abdomen - not especially indicative of the same person of itself.)
- BOTH men, it just so happens, targetted prostitutes (this is (not unreasonable) supposition with regard to most of the torso victims, but it is not a known fact).
- BOTH men, it just so happens, employed a knife in a very skilled manner (Not especially uncommonly skilled for a number of professions at that time)
- BOTH men, it just so happens, took rings from their victims fingers (Again, this is not something I particularly associate with ripper murders).

So although some similarities between the two series of murders, I do not (yet) find any compelling evidence that they were both committed by the same person, actually the many differences suggest separate killers are far more likely (at least to me).

hi eten!
ill just comment on your time period remark. if ted bundy had never been caught his sorority house murders would never have been atributed to his series of murders by your reasoning. the mo was different, and it was a cluster of attacks, no cooling off period. serial killers can vary on the their time scales and mo depending on their circs.
IMHO the similarities far outweigh the differences here.

i really find it hard to beleive there were two such cretins lurking around at the same time in london murdering prostitutes so they could perform "operations" on them.

[etenguy]

hi eten!
ill just comment on your time period remark. if ted bundy had never been caught his sorority house murders would never have been atributed to his series of murders by your reasoning. the mo was different, and it was a cluster of attacks, no cooling off period. serial killers can vary on the their time scales and mo depending on their circs.
IMHO the similarities far outweigh the differences here.

Hi Abby

I do not dispute the points you make (that serial killers can change their MO or there may or may not be cooling off periods between murders). I have thought about the serial killers I know about though, and struggle to find any examples of a serial killer using different MOs simultaneously. Other than potentially the torso/ripper you suggest, are there any other examples you can think of (not that that disqualifies the possibility that in this respect we may have a unique situation).

The problem I have with considering these two sets of murders as being committed by the same person is the massive differences between the murders compared with what I think are some relatively insignificant similarities:

Feature	Ripper	Torso
Location	All Whitechapel	Across London
Victimology	Prostitutes	Unknown
Defining features (treatment)	Throat cut and mutilated	Beheaded, dismembered and mutilated
Defining features (post murder)	Posed in street, no care in hiding victim's identity	Parts scattered, heads disposed of and care to hide victim's identity
Timeframe	late 1888	1873 - 1889 (or 1890?)
Murder committed	On street	Somewhere private
Time with corpse	Very limited (possibly hours with Kelly)	Possibly days, but unknown.

[etenguy]

And which are these "many differences?" As I keep saying, there can be ten thousand differences, but once two victims have "From the East End with love" tattoooed into their foreheads, the differences become obsolete in a jiffy. The same happens here.

I agree with the premise you colourfully make about 'tattooed into their foreheads' but I struggle with identifying such a tattoo in these two cases. Some core differences are high-lighted in my response to Abby above.

[Fisherman]

I agree with the premise you colourfully make about 'tattooed into their foreheads' but I struggle with identifying such a tattoo in these two cases. Some core differences are high-lighted in my response to Abby above.

There will be many more tatooed foreheads in this universe than there will be removed abdominal walls, Etenguy. That feature is as rare as henīs teeth. And when you combine it with the other similarities, some of which are quite, quite rare too (removed uteri and hearts, taken away colon sections, cutting from ribs to pubes, eviscerating), it takes a great deal of naivety not to make the call of a common killer. Or maybe I should say "colourful fantasy", so as not to inflame things too badly.

As for your post to Abby, I have formerly presented killers who go in and out of dismembering their victims. On the whole, these matters all belong to the category of dissimilarities that are effectively dissolved by those tatooed foreheads.

I would like to point out that you cannot treat it as a fact that the Torso murder were carried out in private spaces. When we donīt know, we donīt know. RThe same goes for the time spent with victims. And it is NOT unknown if the Torso killer dispatched prostitutes. Instead, it is a fact that he did so in the only case where an ID was made! Please do not make up differences from thin air, Etenguy.

I would also add that I believe there are serial killers out there who have stayed uncaught BECAUSE of their ability to move between MO:s, between geographical venues, etcetera. If I was a serial killer, that is certainly a tactic I would employ.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby

I do not dispute the points you make (that serial killers can change their MO or there may or may not be cooling off periods between murders). I have thought about the serial killers I know about though, and struggle to find any examples of a serial killer using different MOs simultaneously. Other than potentially the torso/ripper you suggest, are there any other examples you can think of (not that that disqualifies the possibility that in this respect we may have a unique situation).

The problem I have with considering these two sets of murders as being committed by the same person is the massive differences between the murders compared with what I think are some relatively insignificant similarities:

Feature	Ripper	Torso
Location	All Whitechapel	Across London
Victimology	Prostitutes	Unknown
Defining features (treatment)	Throat cut and mutilated	Beheaded, dismembered and mutilated
Defining features (post murder)	Posed in street, no care in hiding victim's identity	Parts scattered, heads disposed of and care to hide victim's identity
Timeframe	late 1888	1873 - 1889 (or 1890?)
Murder committed	On street	Somewhere private
Time with corpse	Very limited (possibly hours with Kelly)	Possibly days, but unknown.

hi eten
thats easy. just off the top of my head:
zodiac shooting, stabbing back to shooting
gsk bludgeon shooting bludgeon
btk smother/strangle then shoot, then back to smothering
nilsen cut then bludgeon/hammer

all within months sometimes days inbetween. same as torsoripper.

these changes are based on the serial killers personal circs, and the apparent differences of torso and ripper victims can easily be explained by one simple personal circ of the serial killer. his chop shop not available.

[Fisherman]

hi eten
thats easy. just off the top of my head:
zodiac shooting, stabbing back to shooting
gsk bludgeon shooting bludgeon
btk smother/strangle then shoot, then back to smothering
nilsen cut then bludgeon/hammer

all within months sometimes days inbetween. same as torsoripper.

these changes are based on the serial killers personal circs, and the apparent differences of torso and ripper victims can easily be explained by one simple personal circ of the serial killer. his chop shop not available.

Since we have been discussing Sean Vincent Gillis, why not add another of the five (!) Baton Rouge serial killers who worked simultaneously in the city: Derrick Todd Lee, of whom it is said that "Lee's methods varied with nearly each murder. Similarities between the crimes included the removal of cell phones from the victim's belongings, and a lack of any visible signs of forced entry into the location where the victim was attacked." Lee claimed at least seven victims.

If anybody is interested in whether any of the other four killers, apart from Gillis, had an interest in post-mortem mutilation, the answer is no. Mutilators are rare, eviscerators are even rarer, and eviscerators who take away abdominal walls are Obi-Wan-Kenobi rare.

[seanr]

These murders are actually astonishing from beginning to end. If I were you, and dead set on not accepting the obvious, what I would point to is that there seems to have been no cooling off period between the three murders involved. It would make a better point, but not one that cannot be overcome nevertheless. To my mind, it WILL have itīs explanation. But no explanations telling the series apart have anything much going for them - it is virtually impossible to believe in two killers. There are actual fairytales that are easier to accept if you ask me.

I am disappointed by the silliness of an impassioned attack on being 'dead set on not accepting the obvious'. There would have been a cooling off period, the first arm of the Whitehall victim was found on the 11th of September so at that point she was most likely already dead with the rest of the corpse stowed away somewhere.

The argument that dump sites are irrelevant to geographic location seems like a non-starter. Of course, they're relevant! - how could they not be?

Then there is the argument around the anatomical skill shown by both perpetrators, conveniently ignoring that the skills in question are quite different on the one hand, the ability to remove organs in what must have been a matter or minutes versus the ability to cleanly divide limbs at the joint. In comparing these skills we seem to ignore the distinction between the two series, with the torso in the Whitehall series being found weeks after the arm, the torso killer had the luxury of time to complete the evisceration.

We seem to assume in all this that the Torso murderer (or murderers!) motivation in mutilation was the evisceration itself, when an equally reasonable explanation could be to prevent identification and aid with disposing of the body.

I find any reasoning which considers an 1873 murder in Battersea with the pieces of the body scattered as linked to the Ripper series, but the notion of the 1888 murders of Emma Smith or Martha Tabram being connected as beyond the pale, to be somewhat selective to say the least.

[Fisherman]

I am disappointed by the silliness of an impassioned attack on being 'dead set on not accepting the obvious'. There would have been a cooling off period, the first arm of the Whitehall victim was found on the 11th of September so at that point she was most likely already dead with the rest of the corpse stowed away somewhere.

Iīm dreadfully sorry to have been silly - itīs just that I have a long history of debating with people dead set on not accepting obvious matters out here, and you seemed to be more of the same ilk. Iīm glad to understand that you can be swayed by rational arguments - so much the better! And I agree that there would have been a cooling off period, so why is it that you cannot fathom that the killer dould have coped with disposing of the torso and killing Eddowes and Stride on adjacent or near adjacent days...?

The argument that dump sites are irrelevant to geographic location seems like a non-starter. Of course, they're relevant! - how could they not be?

They can be useless to establish any site of residence of the killer if they are too widespread - which was what I said and meant. Can you make heads or tails of it, geographywise? I know I canīt. Unless, of course, we let the fact that the police thought that the killer carried the torso manually to Pinchin Street govern things. In which case we have an Eastender killer.

Then there is the argument around the anatomical skill shown by both perpetrators, conveniently ignoring that the skills in question are quite different on the one hand, the ability to remove organs in what must have been a matter or minutes versus the ability to cleanly divide limbs at the joint.

You seem to be "conveniently ignoring" the fact that both sets of skills demand a safe and exact handling of the knife. BOTH killers were deemed skilled with the knife, and that is what I am pointing to. A guy who can paint a Volkswagen is likely to be able to paint a Volvo too.

In comparing these skills we seem to ignore the distinction between the two series, with the torso in the Whitehall series being found weeks after the arm, the torso killer had the luxury of time to complete the evisceration.

Yes, and if he had killed Nichols in Bucks Row, he would NOT have had that luxury. Does that certify that he would only commit murder once he knew he had time on his hands? No, it does not. We may also see that once the torso killer kills, he seems not to drag out on things at all, as per the 1873 victim. The killing, the bleeding off the victim and the dismemberment is proven to have come in quick succession. What counts are the similarities involved in the murders, since they erase the potential value of the perceived dissimilarities.

We seem to assume in all this that the Torso murderer (or murderers!) motivation in mutilation was the evisceration itself, when an equally reasonable explanation could be to prevent identification and aid with disposing of the body.

I donīt find that an equally reasonable explanation at all, Iīm afraid. I find it a much, much weaker suggestion.

I find any reasoning which considers an 1873 murder in Battersea with the pieces of the body scattered as linked to the Ripper series, but the notion of the 1888 murders of Emma Smith or Martha Tabram being connected as beyond the pale, to be somewhat selective to say the least.

I am not sure what you are saying here - there is ample reason to believe the 1873 torso murder belongs to the same man as the Kelly murder, but I am not willing to give away the reasons as yet. They are neverthless there. As for Smith and Tabram, I think that Smith probably not belonged and that Tabram probably did, but in each case I am less certain than I am that the 1873 murder was a deed by the combined Ripper/Torso killer.

Now, how about that Julia Martha Thomas murder that you assured us would have been regarded a Thames Torso murder had the killer not been caught - was the dismemberment skilfully carried out, were the limbs neatly disjointed? Or was it a clumsy job?
I take it you DO know the answers to those basic questions?

[Trevor Marriott]

As I said, Ed Gingrich took out his wifes innards, each and every one of them, through a seven inch hole. Many eviscerators have done the same, more or less. Cut a hole, open it wide by grabbing one side of it and dig away.

But none of then did it in almost complete darkness, on a rain sodden pavement in 1888. in a time which beat a doctor who in 1888 specialized in the female anatomy.

And there was no evidence of digging away was there, Eddowes kidney was carefully removed, as was Chapmans uterus with the fallopian tubes still attached.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk