Practicality or madness?

[John G]

How about the desire Fisherman? You say need...did Torso man need to cut his victims into pieces so he could drop them here or there, or did he desire to avoid detection and therefore did things that way, or did he just need and or desire to cut women into pieces? In all 3 of those cases, there is no evidence that the murder in room 13 created any of those questions. The murderer killed her, cut her up, and left up to chance who found her. Limbs attached.

Why does a killer change? Evolution...sure....to meet a new threat of discovery or to mislead investigators,...ok,...so why does one change from making Torsos that he works on in private accommodations then discreetly gets rid of the pieces here and there, to a man who brazenly kills in public with all the heightened risks and leaves his victims out in the open, to one that makes Torsos, then to someone who now needs a private space to kill women, without dismemberment, and then just leave them where he worked on them? I know you are not a slow learner, but these characteristics, in the most basic profile parameters, don't match. I know youd like to include even more victims with injuries and actions that don't match a Ripper or a Torso killer too...again, they don't match.

Instead of creating a Dr Moriarty, why not just work with real humans and the physical evidence.

Mary was not dismembered because her killer didn't want to do that, even with the opportunity. That's not Torso man.

I broadly agree with your arguments, Michael. As I understand it at the heart of Fisherman's argument is the fact that there has never been two eviscerators opererating in the same town over the same period. Now, evisverstion is certainly highly unusual-just one dismemberment victim listed as being eviscerated on the UK between 1985-2017- however, to my mind that means the thesis essentially hangs on a thread, i.e. the Elizabeth Jackson case.

Moreover, we could argue that whilst crime signatures do evolve there's never been a case of a serial killer alternating between dismemberment and JtR style street murders. You could also argue that there's never been a case of a perpetrator cutting two irregular strips ftom an abdominal wall so, if we were simply to invoke precedent, Elizabeth Jackson becomes a stand alone victim.

In virtually all other respects the two "series" of cases are very different. For instance, I believe the Torso cases suggest defensive offensive dismemberer, where at least elememtary steps were taken to prevent the victims being identified. JtR, of course, wasn't interested in this issue.

Then there's a matter of transport. I think Fisherman agrees that a Torso perpetrator would require transport, whereas the evidence strongly suggests to me that JtR didn't have transport, i.e. remained committed to the same incredibly small geographical area, despite the fact that an increased police presence in Whitechapel, and a local population on high alert, should have encouraged him to venture out further afield, such as a neighbouring district (this might also suggest that JtR was psychologically committed to the Whitechapel area.)

[Sam Flynn]

Carbolic is only a weak acid

Even at moderate dilution, carbolic acid (phenol) is corrosive and can quickly cause severe burns and tissue degradation. Weaker solutions would have similar effects if left in contact with the skin for a longer time.

[Michael W Richards]

I broadly agree with your arguments, Michael. As I understand it at the heart of Fisherman's argument is the fact that there has never been two eviscerators opererating in the same town over the same period. Now, evisverstion is certainly highly unusual-just one dismemberment victim listed as being eviscerated on the UK between 1985-2017- however, to my mind that means the thesis essentially hangs on a thread, i.e. the Elizabeth Jackson case.

Moreover, we could argue that whilst crime signatures do evolve there's never been a case of a serial killer alternating between dismemberment and JtR style street murders. You could also argue that there's never been a case of a perpetrator cutting two irregular strips ftom an abdominal wall so, if we were simply to invoke precedent, Elizabeth Jackson becomes a stand alone victim.

In virtually all other respects the two "series" of cases are very different. For instance, I believe the Torso cases suggest defensive offensive dismemberer, where at least elememtary steps were taken to prevent the victims being identified. JtR, of course, wasn't interested in this issue.

Then there's a matter of transport. I think Fisherman agrees that a Torso perpetrator would require transport, whereas the evidence strongly suggests to me that JtR didn't have transport, i.e. remained committed to the same incredibly small geographical area, despite the fact that an increased police presence in Whitechapel, and a local population on high alert, should have encouraged him to venture out further afield, such as a neighbouring district (this might also suggest that JtR was psychologically committed to the Whitechapel area.)

Its the obvious presence of multiple manias in the cumulative cases that is the root of my argument against too much presumptive grouping. I was vehement and rude to Fisherman yesterday, you have my apologies Fisherman, but that was because of my convictions in this regard, not because I outright reject any contrary positions.

The best data we have here doesn't automatically link five victims by killer, but in smaller doses a very specific individual emerges. One who not only wants to prowl the streets at night looking for an opportunity to kill a woman then cut into her abdomen based on what he perceives is an opportunity to do so..including an undetected escape, but one who also has no qualms about doing this in a public access venue and having his activities displayed for all to see. Pretty damn specific, and repeated, back to back, within 2 weeks. For my money that man is Jack. WHY the victims were killed can help explain HOW they were killed if we could figure one of these out, and maybe the most probable WHO. But grouping a large number of victims under 1 killer, women killed in various circumstances, with varied levels of outrage committed upon them, with individual lives and storylines leading up to the time they are killed, in what is a economically depressed, socially unstable, overcrowded slum area. I think that,.excuse the expression, "he shits where he eats". Within that square mile, or slightly less than, is probably where he was. He knew the neighborhood, the patterns of the night women, the alleys and lanes. And I think he lived alone myself.

Torso man could have been based anywhere in London for arguments sake, and he had obviously different compulsions and the means to keep his activities secret. He hid. Jack was part showman.

[Abby Normal]

so we have one report saying it was carbolic acid on Tottenham another say it was lime. which is correct?
Also, would anyone use lime like an acid to try to dissolve flesh and to hinder ID, or was it mainly used as a preservative and or deodorizer?

[Fisherman]

hi jerry
thanks! rereading the newspaper clip you provided to see that seanr did make that mistake (cmon seanr!?!?)about the head being in acid, i noticed the medicos say that the mutliations took place soon after death. another similarity to the other torso cases and the ripper.
fish, take note

Consider it done, Abby.

[Fisherman]

Thank you for the invitation to insult you.

Well, I am British, and given the standard of public debate in the UK recently, you could be forgiven for believing I would relish making personal attacks rather than debate the arguments you make, but that's not my thing.

I didn´t think it was, etenguy. I think you are generally a very measured poster, with good insights and a good temper. Normally, I read your moniker with a sense of hope and relief, anticipating a sound and useful post.
Which is why I feared that you might take offense to how I wrote that I find it ridiculous that you do not think that the similarities carry enough weight to tell us that there was just the one killer. I am glad if you did not.
There is really no way I am willing to haggle about it; to me, there can be absolutely no doubt that the similarities are much more than enough to make the call of a single killer, and so I am not at liberty to say that a suggestion to the contrary is a good one.
I guess I will have to settle for how you at the least do not fail entirely to see any similarities at all.

[Fisherman]

I broadly agree with your arguments, Michael. As I understand it at the heart of Fisherman's argument is the fact that there has never been two eviscerators opererating in the same town over the same period. Now, evisverstion is certainly highly unusual-just one dismemberment victim listed as being eviscerated on the UK between 1985-2017- however, to my mind that means the thesis essentially hangs on a thread, i.e. the Elizabeth Jackson case.

Moreover, we could argue that whilst crime signatures do evolve there's never been a case of a serial killer alternating between dismemberment and JtR style street murders. You could also argue that there's never been a case of a perpetrator cutting two irregular strips ftom an abdominal wall so, if we were simply to invoke precedent, Elizabeth Jackson becomes a stand alone victim.

In the Jackson case, the torso was divided into three parts, and the uterus and heart had been removed. There was also a part of the colon missing.

In the Rainham case, the torso was divided into the same three parts as was the Jackson torso. The uterus and heart was missing, together wioth part of the colon.

In the Rainham case, the medicos could not tell whether the missing parts had been intentionally removed or whether they had gone lost for other causes. But is it not a very logical suggestionb to say that since the exact same things were missing and since the exact same partition of the body had been made, the Rainham parts were most likely cut out by the killer too?

It is not as if Jackson is likely the only evisceration victim. She is the only PROVEN one, but the signs are very much in favour of the Rainham victim having been eviscerated too, John. And the Whitehall victim ALSO lost organs - for a not determined reason. So it´s three out of four victims who A/ WAS eviscerated, B/ Was very likely eviscerated and C/ May well have been eviscerated. Absense of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[Fisherman]

Its the obvious presence of multiple manias in the cumulative cases that is the root of my argument against too much presumptive grouping. I was vehement and rude to Fisherman yesterday, you have my apologies Fisherman, but that was because of my convictions in this regard, not because I outright reject any contrary positions.

Apology accepted. I got frustrated too, so I may bounce the ball back to you. We must, however, take care not to allow our respective tempers to tamper with the facts - regardless if we like it or not, there are many similarities inbetween the victims of the two series. As indeed there are dissimilarities!

[Michael W Richards]

so we have one report saying it was carbolic acid on Tottenham another say it was lime. which is correct?
Also, would anyone use lime like an acid to try to dissolve flesh and to hinder ID, or was it mainly used as a preservative and or deodorizer?

I was curious about that too..."

Recent casework in Belgium involving the search for human remains buried with lime, demonstrated the need for more detailed understanding of the effect of different types of lime on cadaver decomposition and its micro-environment. Six pigs (Sus scrofa) were used as body analogues in field experiments. They were buried without lime, with hydrated lime (Ca(OH)(2)) and with quicklime (CaO) in shallow graves in sandy loam soil in Belgium and recovered after 6 months of burial. Observations from these field recoveries informed additional laboratory experiments that were undertaken at the University of Bradford, UK. The combined results of these studies demonstrate that despite conflicting evidence in the literature, hydrated lime and quicklime both delay the decay of the carcass during the first 6 months."

US National Library of Medicine, April 2012

Seems if it was Lime in some form, it wouldn't speed decomposition, though the user might believe it would.

[Michael W Richards]

Apology accepted. I got frustrated too, so I may bounce the ball back to you. We must, however, take care not to allow our respective tempers to tamper with the facts - regardless if we like it or not, there are many similarities inbetween the victims of the two series. As indeed there are dissimilarities!

Agree to disagree old friend.

[John G]

In the Jackson case, the torso was divided into three parts, and the uterus and heart had been removed. There was also a part of the colon missing.

In the Rainham case, the torso was divided into the same three parts as was the Jackson torso. The uterus and heart was missing, together wioth part of the colon.

In the Rainham case, the medicos could not tell whether the missing parts had been intentionally removed or whether they had gone lost for other causes. But is it not a very logical suggestionb to say that since the exact same things were missing and since the exact same partition of the body had been made, the Rainham parts were most likely cut out by the killer too?

It is not as if Jackson is likely the only evisceration victim. She is the only PROVEN one, but the signs are very much in favour of the Rainham victim having been eviscerated too, John. And the Whitehall victim ALSO lost organs - for a not determined reason. So it´s three out of four victims who A/ WAS eviscerated, B/ Was very likely eviscerated and C/ May well have been eviscerated. Absense of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Hi Christer,

Thanks for the information. However, regarding Rainham: "In the pelvis were the uterus, vagina, ovaries and appendages and the bladder. " (Per Dr Hebbert, An Exercise in Forensic Medicine.) The heart was described as absent, as were the lungs and other thoracic viscera, although interestingly a press report on the Rainham case refers to a piece of canvas tied with string, found on the foreshore of Battersea Pier, containing the thorax, lungs and most of the dorsal vertebrae. (Lloyds Weekly, 12th June, 1887.) I am unsure as to the reasons for this discrepancy. As I've noted previously, there was an unusual incision from the ensiform cartilage to the pubes.

Jackson was, of course, eviscerated, which is extremely rare. Whitehall may have been and, in any event, the pelvis had been separated from the torso, which is messy and unusual; it would certainly have created problems for the perpetrator, i.e. due to the exposure of internal organs: see https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle...-a3830216.html

[FrankO]

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?

We at least know that the area in which Torso Man moved with regards to his victims was much bigger than the Ripper's. Because I like to see what we're talking about and perhaps others do too, I've indicated the approximate area's on the map below.

[Abby Normal]

We at least know that the area in which Torso Man moved with regards to his victims was much bigger than the Ripper's. Because I like to see what we're talking about and perhaps others do too, I've indicated the approximate area's on the map below.

thanks FrankO for this.

is the long purple boundry leg extending to bottom left of the map show the limit where parts were found, or where authorities believe parts may have dumped-like off a bridge (and then possibly carried further off your purple boundry by the river)?

also, perhaps someone could add red dots where the actual torso parts were found. calling Mr hamm!

[Fisherman]

Yes, very obviously the torso killer moved over a larger area in connection with his dumpings than the Ripper did in connection with his killings. But that is totalt secondary to the similarities since both series played out in the same city and in overlapping times. It is only if we predispose that the Ripper could or would not access other areas that this becomes of interest. The inference of the collected evidence and knowledge is in favour of a single killer who chose to do the Ripper killings in a more confined area and time than what was the case for the torso killings.
That is not in any shape or form as big a deal as the fact that there are heaps of similarities inbetween the series, some of which are extremely rare. That does not go away because one series involves dumpings over a larger area than the Ripper killing area. To suggest such a thing would be ludicrous.

Maps are interesting things, by the way. Enlarge Frank O:s map to involve all of Britain - or all of the world! - and THEN look at how close the marked out territories are.

[Fisherman]

Lets look at Joel Rifkin in this context. He picked up prostitutes, took them to his home and killed them there. Whereafter he typically dismembered them.

Then he drove them to far away places and dumped them. The places were so far apart that the police never connected them, and therefore they missed out on Rifkins presence.

So here we have a murder area that is living-room large, MUCH, MUCH SMALLER than the Ripper killing area. And we have dumping sites that are very far removed from the killing area.

Maybe that means that Rifkin was not the killer? Surely, he would dump the bodies in the same area where he lived, so that we could map him? Or?

What is suggested here is that we should make the exact same mistake as the police did about Rifkin. I for one am not willing to go along with that proposal. We have very clear indications of a common killer, and we have Rifkin to show us what happens if we choose to disregard those similarities in favour of believing that a killer cannot choose dumping grounds that are far wider than and removed from his killing grounds.

Having pointed this out, it is time for me to bid you goodnight - and wish you some fresh new insights for the upcoming day.