Patterns formed by murder locations

[Fisherman]

Rivkah:

"Correct me if I'm wrong, but we don't actually know where any of the torso victims died."

Then I wonīt correct you.

"The places where the bodies were found were just "dump sites"; nothing that was even suspected as a kill site was ever discovered, associated with a suspect or not. At least, not that I've heard or read, and I think that would be pretty big news."

The police made a house-to-house in the Cable Street area it seems, since it was surmised that the killer had come from that direction in the Pinchin Street case. Otherwise, you are correct.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Rivkah:

"Am I letting my imagination get away with me?"

No Rivkah - but you are at a disadvantage statistically. Also, the Hillside murders and the Toole/Lucas ditto did not give away any interest in anything else than sadism and maliciousness. The Ripper deeds and the torso murders go beyond that by displaying very clear traits of potential necrosadism. These killers seemingly took pleasure in inflicting damage to dead bodies, and that is a rare feature indeed. To imagine two killers and potential necrosadists joining forces is a stretch.

The best,
Fisherman

[RivkahChaya]

MJK ... was killed indoors.

Thatīs your take, David, and unproven. ... She WAS killed indoors, yes - but you can cut breasts away outdoors to. And buttocks. If you want to.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but we don't actually know where any of the torso victims died. They could have been killed outdoors, immediately, they taken indoors for dismemberment. They could have been lured indoors, or disabled in some way, by being chloroformed, or tied up, and taken indoors, or coerced or threatened, and both killed and dismembered indoors. Or, the entire thing could have taken place out-of-doors.

The places where the bodies were found were just "dump sites"; nothing that was even suspected as a kill site was ever discovered, associated with a suspect or not. At least, not that I've heard or read, and I think that would be pretty big news.

[RivkahChaya]

Here's an idea that's improbable, but there is at least one famous example of it, and a couple of other cases that were similar, so it's not impossible.

Could there have been two killers operating in Whitechapel/Spitalfields, who somehow discovered each other, and participated in some murders together?

This is what happened with Henry Lee Lucas and Ottis Toole.

For the record, it is probable that neither man, and Lucas in particular, was as prolific as is given credit for, because police, desperate to close very cold (and old) cases in days before DNA, advanced microscopy, VICAP, and CODIS, accepted Lucas' many confessions, and he gave them, Scheherazade-like, because it kept him off death row. Toole had brain damage from years of alcoholism, and would confess and recant, and was considered unreliable.

However, it is certain that they had both committed murders before they met, and after they met, and were on the road together as buddies (and maybe lovers, but I'm not sure that's even been substantiated, and they had many adult women victims), during which time, they killed people as a team, solely for the thrill, which was something they enjoyed doing together. After they parted for a time, Toole, at least, committed other murders.

Considering the newspaper coverage, it seems impossible that two killers in the area were unaware of each other. Whether they would have sought each other out, met coincidentally, been in jail together at some point, I have no idea. I don't know how Lucas and Toole met. The Hillside Stranglers, another notorious pair, were cousins, so no mystery there.

Am I letting my imagination get away with me?

[Fisherman]

Worse, David - they need no sharpening. They speak for themselves in this case.

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

How can I take a nap with Fish sharpening his arguments nearby ?

[Fisherman]

David:

"As you know, Fish, what he did with the dead bodies varied, and that, by the way, is only an aspect/part of the MO."

If it varied, David - and it did - we may need to be careful before ruling out a connection with the torso murders. Thatīs what variation means.

"Choosing an unfortunate, at night, in or around Whitechapel, following her to a secluded spot, cutting her throat (savagely), etc, that's JtR."

U-huh. Letīs compare that to the torso killer!

"Choosing an unfortunate."

Elizabeth Jackson was a prostitute. And the Tottenham torso had a tatto of a rose, implicating that she too may well have been. And we are not sure that the five canonicals WERE prostituting themselves on the murder nights. No difference, thus.

"At night."

Could work for both.

"In or near Whitechapel."

Could actually work for both too. Nobody knows where the torso victims were picked up, although we DO know that Jackson prostituted herself near Battersea park. But that does of course not mean that the torso killer must have found her there!

"Following her to a secluded spot"

We donīt know that this held true for the Ripper, do we? Maybe HE led THEM to the spot. And maybe the torso killer led HIS victims.

"Cutting her throat savagely"

The torso victims were supposedly killed by having their necks severed, David.

So, all in all, you are not on thin ice here. You are on the open sea.

"Certainly this murder stands apart"

It does. And it displays a wish to take a body apart in pieces, just like ... you get my drift!

"... because MJK wasn't a random victim and was killed indoors."

Thatīs your take, David, and unproven. She may or may not have been a random victim, and the jury is out on the issue. She WAS killed indoors, yes - but you can cut breasts away outdoors to. And buttocks. If you want to.

Back on the open sea, are we not?

"Do you know where and when that uterus was cut ? Had the killer (if it was the killer, btw) have to "walk away" with it ? We don't know."

Of course we donīt know. But we donīt know that Jack did either, do we? We SURMISE this, but thatīs because the organs were missing from the abdominal cavity. And the organ was equally missing from the abdominal cavity of one of the torso victims. If you want to believe that it - but no other organs - went missing at some stage after the killer was handling the body, feel free. But claiming that the torso killer differed from Jack in this respect would be rather a careless thing to do, donīt you think?

Ohoy, captain! Sea what I mean?

Fisherman

[DVV]

Once again, thus:
Do you regard cutting away the buttocks, cutting the flesh from the thighs and removing the breasts as something that belongs to the Ripperīs MO?

As you know, Fish, what he did with the dead bodies varied, and that, by the way, is only an aspect/part of the MO. Choosing an unfortunate, at night, in or around Whitechapel, following her to a secluded spot, cutting her throat (savagely), etc, that's JtR.

Or did Jack deviate from his MO with Kelly?

Certainly this murder stands apart, because MJK wasn't a random victim and was killed indoors.

Or was it not Jack at all?

Oh, that was Jack. I can even give you his name and address. Even his height (5'7).

I am also slightly uneasy when it comes to the uterus bit

Don't ! - after all, you're a grown man.

You claimed that the torso killer did not use to walk away with this organ pocketed, but the uterus WAS missing in one torso case. Did you not know this?

Do you know where and when that uterus was cut ? Had the killer (if it was the killer, btw) have to "walk away" with it ? We don't know.

[Fisherman]

David!

You forgot to answer the question I posed to you. If you are going to speak of a defined MO of Jack, then you need to come clear about that definition. And you clearly state that you disagree with me on the MO, without, though, telling me how and why.
Once again, thus:
Do you regard cutting away the buttocks, cutting the flesh from the thighs and removing the breasts as something that belongs to the Ripperīs MO?

Or did Jack deviate from his MO with Kelly?

Or was it not Jack at all?

I am also slightly uneasy when it comes to the uterus bit. You claimed that the torso killer did not use to walk away with this organ pocketed, but the uterus WAS missing in one torso case. Did you not know this?

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

I don't misunderstand you Fish, and I can agree with some of your points (but not for the MO). Anyway, at the end of the day I'll safely assume that we're dealing with two different cases and can't understand the multiplication of Jacks (sort of miracle of the loaves and fishes), which seems the current tendency.
I'm an awful reactionary, I suppose.

[Fisherman]

David:

"What JtR did in the Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly cases isn't to be compared with the Torso affair. Of course it's about cutting dead bodies, but JtR has his distinct MO, and nothing tells us that the Torso killer used to walk back home (ie : Victoria Home - sorry couldn't resist) with an uterus in the pocket."

Nothing? Not even the fact that a uterus WAS missing from one of the torso victims?

Jack has his distinct MO, you tell me. Does that involve cutting flesh from the thighs? Carving the breasts away? Removing the buttocks?

Or do these matters NOT belong to his MO? If so, why did he do it to Kelly? Or was that not Jack?

The torso murders are different from what Jack did, yes. But we know that the torso killer cut off the nose in one case - and Jack did so in two. We know that Jack cut off breasts in one case - and a removed breast was found floating in the Thames in one torso case. Such things are similarities, not dissimilarities. A wish to cut into a dead womanīs body is also a similarity, not a dissimilarity. Killing in 1887-89, mainly, was of course ALSO a similarity, and dumping a torso in Pinchin Street also creates a similarity, not a dissimilarity. And I know what people tell me about how proximity in time and space speaks for Jack being responsible for Stride!

So, David, what Jack did IS to be compared to the torso killer on many a level. Serial killers who seemingly derive satisfaction from killing first and cutting up afterwards are very, very rare creatures, and that applied even more back in those days.

Now, donīt misunderstand me - I am not saying that the two must have been one and the same. Not at all. They produce different results when they kill. But ruling out a connection would be very unwise - and saying that two killers with similar intents cannot co-exist the way the torso killer and Jack did, is simply wrong.

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

one of them was still a virgin, something that talliies rather poorly with prostitution.

Fisherman

Here I agree... and enjoy !

[DVV]

Eh ! oh ! mettez-vous d'accord....

Combining Phil and Fish posts, I came to realize that the Torso killer could be JtR...but whose one ?
The one who murdered Chapman ? Or the other, who took care of Kelly ?
Wait...

[DVV]

Hi Fish, here (for once !) I have to disagree.
What JtR did in the Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly cases isn't to be compared with the Torso affair. Of course it's about cutting dead bodies, but JtR has his distinct MO, and nothing tells us that the Torso killer used to walk back home (ie : Victoria Home - sorry couldn't resist) with an uterus in the pocket.

[Fisherman]

Phil H:

" to consider just the Torso killer shows there was at least one other murderer around at the time focusing on unfortunates."

Possibly focusing on unfortunates, Phil - Jackson was a prostitute, but of the others we donīt know whether they shared her profession or not, but I do believe it was said that one of them was still a virgin, something that talliies rather poorly with prostitution.

On the other hand I very much agree that both the Torso killer and Jack were men with an at least partly similar obsession - that of cutting into dead bodies. So if these killers were not one and the same (different schools argue different things here - big surprise! ), you will be correct on this score, I think.

The best,
Fisherman