Practicality or madness?

[Fisherman]

Why can I say that? Because if you had read my succinct and beyond rebuttal explanation in a post a while ago.....

Beyond rebuttal?????

c.d.

Yeah, it´s a bummer. If disagreeing had been allowed, I would have had a fair few points to make. Next time I will make sure to add that finesse to my own posts, so I can stay scot-free of criticism.

[John G]

Why would the 1887-89 cases NOT be by a single killer? Hebbert said that the cutting performed was in just about every aspect similar, so that is a given in my world, not least since these were rare, skilled and precise examples of cutting. And yes, the killer certainly was highy unusual. As was the Ripper.

I'm of the opinion that they are by a single killer but we cannot be certain of that. Evidence in favour of a link includes the following: body parts disposed of within a small geographical area; all victims disartriculated through the joints, the most unusual method; unusual disposal sites (something that most definitely does not indicate a defensive dismemberer); abdominal injuries which were unnecessary for the disposal process, indicating a much rarer form of dismemberers, such as an offensive dismembere: 82% of UK dismemberment cases from 1985-2016 were most likely defensive (Rutty, et al. 2017)

A note on the abdominal injuries:

Rainham: An incision had evidently been made from the ensiform cartlidge to the pubes"( per Dr Hebbert).

Whitehall: may have been eviscerated (incredibly rare). In any event, the pelvis had been separated from the trunk which is unusual (Rutty, 2017). Also, " Separation of the trunk is a messy and unpleasant experience and is often avoided. (Rutty, 2017.)

Liz Jackson: victim eviscerated. Whatever the reason for this it's incredibly rare- just one out of 85 UK dismemberment victims, 1985-2016, is categorised as being eviscerated (Rutty, 2017).

Pinchin Street: significant abdominal wound: " Tge skin and muscles of the abdomen had been cut by a vertical incision, running from 2 inches below the ensiform cartlidge downwards, and ending on the left side of the external genitals, just opening the vagina..." (per Dr Hebbert.) This is a wound that shouldn't be there in a defensive dismemberment case, as the perpetrator is only interested in disposing of the body as expediently as possible, snd such a wound clearly adds nothing to the dismemberment process (also see Rainham above.)

[Fisherman]

I'm of the opinion that they are by a single killer but we cannot be certain of that.

I disagree. I think we can be fairly certain. The medicos witnessed about a killer who cut extremely cleanly, and Hebbert said that the cuts were in just about every respect similar inbetween the victims. So a very unusual way of cutting, coupled with a medical experts verdict - that seals the deal.

Evidence in favour of a link includes the following: body parts disposed of within a small geographical area; all victims disartriculated through the joints, the most unusual method; unusual disposal sites (something that most definitely does not indicate a defensive dismemberer); abdominal injuries which were unnecessary for the disposal process, indicating a much rarer form of dismemberers, such as an offensive dismembere: 82% of UK dismemberment cases from 1985-2016 were most likely defensive (Rutty, et al. 2017)

But you miss out on very important factors, John! They were all skilfully cut up, their limbs having been expertly disjointed, and none of them had any clear signs of any pre-mortem torture.

A note on the abdominal injuries:

Rainham: An incision had evidently been made from the ensiform cartlidge to the pubes"( per Dr Hebbert).

And who else do we know of, that cut in that way...? Jackson had the exact same kind of cut to her abdomen, by the way.

Whitehall: may have been eviscerated (incredibly rare). In any event, the pelvis had been separated from the trunk which is unusual (Rutty, 2017). Also, " Separation of the trunk is a messy and unpleasant experience and is often avoided. (Rutty, 2017.)

Exactly. The ones who do it are either people who are too ignorant to realize this and who wants to cut the body up in small pieces - and those who open up the abdominal cavity on account of a wish to get at the inside!

Liz Jackson: victim eviscerated. Whatever the reason for this it's incredibly rare- just one out of 85 UK dismemberment victims, 1985-2016, is categorised as being eviscerated (Rutty, 2017).

And out of the total tally of murders, extremely few are dismemberment murders, making eviscerations even rarer. So when we have TWO murder series involving dismemberment in the same general area and time, we either have two killers who represent that incredibly rare cadre of perpetrators - and who in this particular question both resorted to inclusions like cutting the abdominal wall away, which makes the pool of possible killers so small as to nearly not exist - or we have what should be expected: a single killer.

Pinchin Street: significant abdominal wound: " Tge skin and muscles of the abdomen had been cut by a vertical incision, running from 2 inches below the ensiform cartlidge downwards, and ending on the left side of the external genitals, just opening the vagina..." (per Dr Hebbert.) This is a wound that shouldn't be there in a defensive dismemberment case, as the perpetrator is only interested in disposing of the body as expediently as possible, snd such a wound clearly adds nothing to the dismemberment process (also see Rainham above.)

Wise words, John. And she represented a progression in the killers knowledge in how he decapitated her by way of knife, a logical progression accompanied by cutting work that in all particulars was otherwise the exact same type of cutting the other three were served with, as per Charles Hebbert.

As I have said before: If somebody wants to believe that these murders were not by the same hand as the Ripper murders, then that is fine by me. But the overall stance must be one that regards such a view as a very marginal one, whereas the single killer theory should be regarded as being close to proven by the circumstantial evidence. How this has been disregarded for more than a hundred years is beyond me. Way beyond.

[seanr]

I tend to disagree with the assertion the bodies from the murders collected together as the Thames Torso murders occur across a relative small geographical space.

Taking a couple of the important sites and comparing the distances.

Pinchin Street (as it's just outside of Ripper territory) to Rainham is about 13 miles or 20 kilometres.

Battersea Park to Rainham is some 17 - 18 miles or about 28 - 29 kilometres.

Even in the modern era where killers have motor cars to conceal bodies over long distances, a distance of some 30 kilometres between dump sites would be quite large. I haven't even checked which areas of interet were furthest from each other, just memorable sites connected with the case.

This surely contrasts with the localism Ripper murders, all of the canonical five took place with about a single mile or 1.5 kilometre area.

It would also give another motive for dissecting the bodies, beyond disguising the identity or dismemberment for it's own sake. To aid with transporting the bodies over distances without raising suspicion.

[Fisherman]

I tend to disagree with the assertion the bodies from the murders collected together as the Thames Torso murders occur across a relative small geographical space.

Taking a couple of the important sites and comparing the distances.

Pinchin Street (as it's just outside of Ripper territory) to Rainham is about 13 miles or 20 kilometres.

Battersea Park to Rainham is some 17 - 18 miles or about 28 - 29 kilometres.

Even in the modern era where killers have motor cars to conceal bodies over long distances, a distance of some 30 kilometres between dump sites would be quite large. I haven't even checked which areas of interet were furthest from each other, just memorable sites connected with the case.

This surely contrasts with the localism Ripper murders, all of the canonical five took place with about a single mile or 1.5 kilometre area.

It would also give another motive for dissecting the bodies, beyond disguising the identity or dismemberment for it's own sake. To aid with transporting the bodies over distances without raising suspicion.

Rainham? There were no parts dumped in Rainham, Sean. The part found there was found floating in the river during ebb tide. It was widely accepted that it had been thrown in the river water long before it reached Rainham. Therefore, no comparisons about which grounds the killer moved over can be used using Rainham, of course.

That said, it is nevertheless very obvious that the torso murders involve a larger area in which the killer has moved than the Ripper deeds. Then again, that is on account of the dumpings only. The area in which the torso victims were actually procured and/or killed may be smaller, as big as or bigger than the area in which the Ripper victims died. It can be an area far removed from Whitechapel - and it can be IN WHitechapel.

You also write that a motive for dissecting the bodies could be to help transport them over distances without raising suspicion. Of course, defensive dismemberment IS about getting rid of bodies without raising suspicion. But once we have evisceration on the agenda, we have every reason to believe that we are instead dealing with cases of offensive dismemberment. That said, it of course applies that an offensive dismembered may also have a need to get rid of body parts without raising suspicion. But that need does not normally involve any urge to transport the parts over long stretches, since the longer you transport the parts, the larger the risk of being spotted and revealed becomes.

One must also weigh in how, when long stretches of transport are involved, this is motivated by how these ling stretches allow for taking the parts out of an environment where they are likely to be found, into an environment where they are likely never to be found. Meaning that somebody living in Picadilly Circus may take the parts to a forest and bury them there, or to a lake and sink them there, so as not to have to leave them in Picadilly Circus where they will inevitably be found.

However, what happens when our man transports HIS parts? Well, he takes the trouble to go to the center of power of London, to Westminster, to dump a torso in the new Scotland Yard building! And he goes to a house owned by the relative of an author who wrote Frankenstein, and that is inhabited by a judge, and throws a leg into the garden there!
Very clearly, he displays no will at all to have his parcels stay undetected. And although he dumps a body in Pinchin Street, demonstrating that he can access the eastern parts of London, he chooses to dump the parts he throws in the Thames in the WESTERN parts of the city, and he does not weigh them down. Which ensures that they will float all the way through the largest metropolis on earth. When he seemingly could have thrown them in the River in the east of London, prohibiting them passing past five million Londoners!

Trying to pass this killer off as a f´defensive dismembered with the one aim to hide what he did does not sit well with me - or the facts.

[John G]

Wise words, John. And she represented a progression in the killers knowledge in how he decapitated her by way of knife, a logical progression accompanied by cutting work that in all particulars was otherwise the exact same type of cutting the other three were served with, as per Charles Hebbert.

As I have said before: If somebody wants to believe that these murders were not by the same hand as the Ripper murders, then that is fine by me. But the overall stance must be one that regards such a view as a very marginal one, whereas the single killer theory should be regarded as being close to proven by the circumstantial evidence. How this has been disregarded for more than a hundred years is beyond me. Way beyond.

Thanks Fisherman. In answer to the other poster's querry on distances:

The London Rivet police conjected that the upper portion of the Rainham victim had been dumped into the rover off one of the near by bridges, such as Albert or Battersea. Albert Bridge is just 3.4 miles from Whitehall, the site of tbe next victim, Battersea Bridge 3.7 miles (a thigh was also buried at Temple Pier, 1.2 miles from Whitehall.)

Body parts relating to Liz Jackson were also found at Albert Bridge, where the victim had told Ginger Nell she was in the habit of walking at night. The upper part of the body was found around Battersea Park, 3.3 miles from Whitehall.

Pinchin Street is just 3.7 miles from Whitehall and 5.8 miles from Battersea Park (6 miles from Tite Street, where a body part belonging to Liz Jackson was thrown over Sir Percy Shelley's wall.

[Fisherman]

Thanks Fisherman. In answer to the other poster's querry on distances:

The London Rivet police conjected that the upper portion of the Rainham victim had been dumped into the rover off one of the near by bridges, such as Albert or Battersea. Albert Bridge is just 3.4 miles from Whitehall, the site of tbe next victim, Battersea Bridge 3.7 miles (a thigh was also buried at Temple Pier, 1.2 miles from Whitehall.)

Body parts relating to Liz Jackson were also found at Albert Bridge, where the victim had told Ginger Nell she was in the habit of walking at night. The upper part of the body was found around Battersea Park, 3.3 miles from Whitehall.

Pinchin Street is just 3.7 miles from Whitehall and 5.8 miles from Battersea Park (6 miles from Tite Street, where a body part belonging to Liz Jackson was thrown over Sir Percy Shelley's wall.

That´s a much more useful mapping of the four 87-89 torso deeds, John. Thanks!

[Michael W Richards]

I tend to disagree with the assertion the bodies from the murders collected together as the Thames Torso murders occur across a relative small geographical space.

Taking a couple of the important sites and comparing the distances.

Pinchin Street (as it's just outside of Ripper territory) to Rainham is about 13 miles or 20 kilometres.

Battersea Park to Rainham is some 17 - 18 miles or about 28 - 29 kilometres.

Even in the modern era where killers have motor cars to conceal bodies over long distances, a distance of some 30 kilometres between dump sites would be quite large. I haven't even checked which areas of interet were furthest from each other, just memorable sites connected with the case.

This surely contrasts with the localism Ripper murders, all of the canonical five took place with about a single mile or 1.5 kilometre area.

It would also give another motive for dissecting the bodies, beyond disguising the identity or dismemberment for it's own sake. To aid with transporting the bodies over distances without raising suspicion.

Something for the most part just accepted or overlooked...the overall range. I believe the evidence supports a very local man in the Ripper cases, or someone with restrictions as to how far into the city he could access. Like someone in town on a cattle boat, as an example.

To cd...the quote you took offense at was specifically about the profile that can be gleaned by using the first 2 victims, the only successive Ripper murders with virtual matches in every relevant profiling characteristic. He sought strangers, and opportunity, and he went out with the intent of killing someone. There is no credible evidence he would have known either women, there is evidence that suggests they were soliciting strangers for doss money on the nights they were killed, and it would appear that his motive for seeking out such women was not related to obtaining sex, but rather to kill and then mutilate them. I don't believe that the evidence suggests otherwise, hence the "beyond rebuttal". I would think anyone would admit that it gets murky from that point on, in terms of what the same person then did. So Im just using the established evidence, the most probable pairing and some logical extrapolation.

Unlike some comrades here, Id like to see just one solved and explained before I entertain a dozen or more using just one fell swoop of a very creative pen, and what would have to be the most dynamic and unique killer of all time. He Chops, He Cuts, He slices and dices, peels and sections....the guy is a regular Ronco product*( North American reference to Ronco Products, formed by Ron Popeil in the sixties, who introduced kitchen aids like a Slicer and Dicer, etc..)

[Abby Normal]

Thanks Fisherman. In answer to the other poster's querry on distances:

The London Rivet police conjected that the upper portion of the Rainham victim had been dumped into the rover off one of the near by bridges, such as Albert or Battersea. Albert Bridge is just 3.4 miles from Whitehall, the site of tbe next victim, Battersea Bridge 3.7 miles (a thigh was also buried at Temple Pier, 1.2 miles from Whitehall.)

Body parts relating to Liz Jackson were also found at Albert Bridge, where the victim had told Ginger Nell she was in the habit of walking at night. The upper part of the body was found around Battersea Park, 3.3 miles from Whitehall.

Pinchin Street is just 3.7 miles from Whitehall and 5.8 miles from Battersea Park (6 miles from Tite Street, where a body part belonging to Liz Jackson was thrown over Sir Percy Shelley's wall.

Hi John
thanks for posting this-very helpful!

I think this helps show that the killer must have had access to a cart. and re Pinchin-wasn't there evidence that led the police to believe she was carried there manually? if so, perhaps his chop shop was very very near Pinchin?

question-how far is pinchin street from berner street wich I believe is the closest murder site of the ripper series to pinchin?

[jerryd]

question-how far is pinchin street from berner street wich I believe is the closest murder site of the ripper series to pinchin?

[Joshua Rogan]

Does anyone know if the various pieces into which the torsos were divided corresond to cuts of meat from animals?

[Abby Normal]

thanks Jerry-very close! whats your take on pinchin torso being carried and dumped manually? (no cart-carried while walking).

[Fisherman]

Does anyone know if the various pieces into which the torsos were divided corresond to cuts of meat from animals?

I do not have the expertise to tell - but I doubt it. The three-part division of the torso suffered by the Rainham victim and Jackson would have cut the "back fillets" in parts, would it not? The 1873 victim was cut up in many parts, but not symmetrically, which seems to be in conflict with meat cutting.
But I would welcome anybody with meat cutting experience to give their view. Jon Smythe, Gareth Williams perhaps? Or somebody else?

[Fisherman]

Something for the most part just accepted or overlooked...the overall range. I believe the evidence supports a very local man in the Ripper cases, or someone with restrictions as to how far into the city he could access. Like someone in town on a cattle boat, as an example.

What is a "very local man"? Werent all the male inhabitants "very local" in the respect that they all had a place where they lived? Locally?

Or are you perhaps saying that you believe that the killer lived, worked, ate, slept and killed, all in the same small area? If so, what makes you think the Torso killer did not do so?

Once again, the dumping sites are NOT the murder sites, and we know zilch about the rest of the parameters involved, unless we can rely on how the Pinchin Street torso was carried manually to where it was left. If so, we have a strong case for the killer being an Eastender, who normally chose - for one or more of many possible reasons - yo dump most of his parts further to the west.

[Fisherman]

question-how far is pinchin street from berner street wich I believe is the closest murder site of the ripper series to pinchin?

When Stride was killed, Maria Louisa Lechmere, née Roulston, was living in Mary Ann Street, right between the two sites. When the Pinchin Street torso was cut up and subsequently dumped, she was living in Cable Street, some two or threehundred yards east of the railway arch.

In my confined world, such things are food for thought.