The FBI Profile of Jack the Ripper & it's usefulness

[Mabuse]

Thatīs not half bad, Mabuse! So let me ask you - if he really was into a sort of communicating his perceived superiority instead of trying to satisfy an inner urge to procure organs; why would we not allow for him having been the Torso killer too?
That was a man who enjoyed sending a message about what he could do!

The suggestion as such is a bit tabooish to many people, but letīs let the cat out of the bag for a while and see what happens.

The best,
Fisherman

I thank you!

I vacillate about the Thames Torso Killer being the Whitechapel Murderer. At times I have thought it is too much of a stretch to have two serial killers in the same general period and locality. At others I think the crimes are too different in pattern, and Torso Killer is operating in a bit of a wider area, while Whitechapel Murderer looks very limited in range.

Then again, the mystery of how Jack gets his relative understanding of internal anatomy may be explained by him also doing the torso crimes. And, since we don't know where Jack really started or how he progressed, we can't rule out a more varied development.

Thames Torso Murderer is pretty good at disarticulating joints. Jack appears to make no attempt at this when he has the chance with Kelly, however.

Torso guy also appears to be hiding his bodies, or disposing of them in a way that distances himself from the crimes. Jack is not doing this, he's an exhibitionist. (I can't imagine the adrenaline buzz this guy gets after the Dutfield's Yard near-miss. And he goes on to do it again that night. Unbelievable.)

The Torso Killer does dump at least one parcel under the figurative noses of witnesses, however, on (if I count correctly) October 29 1884 in Fitzroy Square. That's within a fifteen minute window of police patrols, very reminiscent of Jack and the patrols around Mitre Square. One might be tempted to think he is timing police patrols, a suggestion which provokes howls of derision from those who think Jack is a disordered thinker and driven by delusional compulsion.

June 1889 Torso Killer inquest:

At the inquest on June 17, it was stated that, "the division of the parts showed skill and design: not, however, the anatomical skill of a surgeon, but the practical knowledge of a butcher or a knacker. There was a great similarity between the condition, as regarded cutting up, of the remains and that of those found at Rainham, and at the new police building on the Thames Embankment." The London Times of June 5, reported that "in the opinion of the doctors the women had been dead only 48 hours, and the body had been dissected somewhat roughly by a person who must have had some knowledge of the joints of the human body."

Two separate killers with slightly more than basic understanding of the human body, in the same locale and time period? Stretches credulity a bit.

However, Whitechapel guy is clearly making a display. Torso guy is seemingly trying to get rid of his body parts. Seems to be a significant difference in approach.

This whole issue of the anatomical knowledge appears to be a factor of some importance. I get the impression it may have been overstressed by contemporaries, but on the other hand, finding organs under membranes and layers of fat in the near pitch dark would be difficult without experience.

A knacker or a butcher. I get a hunch this is more what we are looking for.

It's a real poser, that one. Very tempting to think that Torso Guy is also Jack. If he is, he's capable of changing his M.O. dramatically. If that's the case, all bets are off, and we should be looking at a whole bunch of other murders in the general time frame and locality for linked patterns. That would mean a quite extraordinary killer to rival H.H. Holmes or Albert Fish.

My conservative view at this time is that these are different guys.

[Fisherman]

Is it just me, or does it seem somehow different to leave a butchered corpse uncovered than sending a fetus down the Thames in a jar A la Moses in the basket?

Like it's two completely different sick senses of humor.

It IS different, Errata, no doubt about that. But remember how you said yourself that it is odd how the Ripper seems to have no true focus - how he chooses different innards to go for, how he seems to have a changed taste from day to day.

Thatīs what makes me think that he may be trying to satisfy somebody else than himself. And it involves sort of a communication with the surrounding world: Look, I took a uterus. Lok now, I took a kidney! Hey, I can carve up a face.
Whatever does the trick.

In that sense, if you are not fully focused yourself on what YOU want to do, but instead on what has the wow factor, if you like, then maybe we can reconcile the two types...?

Weird? You bet. Far-fetched? Yep. But I also wonder why the focus seemingly alters, why there is seemingly a wish to display etcetera.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Mabuse:

I vacillate about the Thames Torso Killer being the Whitechapel Murderer. At times I have thought it is too much of a stretch to have two serial killers in the same general period and locality. At others I think the crimes are too different in pattern, and Torso Killer is operating in a bit of a wider area, while Whitechapel Murderer looks very limited in range.

That is a good point. Much hinges on whether the Ripper had the means to cover that wider area. If so, we have an accessibility to both crime types.

Then again, the mystery of how Jack gets his relative understanding of internal anatomy may be explained by him also doing the torso crimes. And, since we don't know where Jack really started or how he progressed, we can't rule out a more varied development.

True - and something I have given some thought too. Many have been baffled by the sudden evolution of a throat-cutting eviscerator with a set agenda and an ability to pull it all off from day one. Previous experience could lie behind that, including the knowledge about where to find different organs.

Thames Torso Murderer is pretty good at disarticulating joints. Jack appears to make no attempt at this when he has the chance with Kelly, however.

If the focus was not his own private one but instead part of an ongoing communication attempt, then we may not have to worry about that.

Torso guy also appears to be hiding his bodies, or disposing of them in a way that distances himself from the crimes. Jack is not doing this, he's an exhibitionist. (I can't imagine the adrenaline buzz this guy gets after the Dutfield's Yard near-miss. And he goes on to do it again that night. Unbelievable.)

Well, I think all that jibber-jabber about how the Torso killer dismembers for practical reasons is a bit ridiculous. If he was all about practicalities, then why take the trouble to distribute bits and pieces in the New Scotland Yard and at the home of Mary Shelleys son (I think he was a son, but I am not sure I am remembering correctly). There was a lot of morbid humour and a lot of risktaking on his behalf that evinces a lot more of showboating than of a practical man to me. It would seem that he was governed by a wish/need to brag and show himself off.

The Torso Killer does dump at least one parcel under the figurative noses of witnesses, however, on (if I count correctly) October 29 1884 in Fitzroy Square. That's within a fifteen minute window of police patrols, very reminiscent of Jack and the patrols around Mitre Square. One might be tempted to think he is timing police patrols, a suggestion which provokes howls of derision from those who think Jack is a disordered thinker and driven by delusional compulsion.

Yes, that was a hugely risky undertaking. And yes, it IS eerily reminiscent of Mitre Square. And of Buckīs Row too, if you ask me.

Two separate killers with slightly more than basic understanding of the human body, in the same locale and time period? Stretches credulity a bit.

It does.

However, Whitechapel guy is clearly making a display. Torso guy is seemingly trying to get rid of his body parts. Seems to be a significant difference in approach.

Once again, Mr Torso put a torso in the basement of the New Scotland Yard building! How is that trying to get rid of things? It was a show-off. He hurled one body part into the garden of a man whose mother had written about the monster of Frankenstein - a creature put together of dead body parts.
It is proven that although he could have dumped the body parts from the same spot at the same remove in time, he actively chose to instead distribute them all over London, in parks, floating on the Thames, in private gardens, in police buildings.
Isnīt that a display too? I think it is.

This whole issue of the anatomical knowledge appears to be a factor of some importance. I get the impression it may have been overstressed by contemporaries, but on the other hand, finding organs under membranes and layers of fat in the near pitch dark would be difficult without experience.

Once we accept that he went for the kidney, for example, then yes. Could he have gone for that membrane without knowing what he would find behind it? Thatīs the question!

A knacker or a butcher. I get a hunch this is more what we are looking for.

I am not gainsaying you on that score - it could well be right.

It's a real poser, that one. Very tempting to think that Torso Guy is also Jack. If he is, he's capable of changing his M.O. dramatically. If that's the case, all bets are off, and we should be looking at a whole bunch of other murders in the general time frame and locality for linked patterns. That would mean a quite extraordinary killer to rival H.H. Holmes or Albert Fish.

It would be extraordinary, yes. But common denominators are there.

My conservative view at this time is that these are different guys.

There are arguments to serve both takes. What I think is that we must at least be open to the possibility to a larger extent than we used to be.

Thanks for your well argued and thougthful reply!

All the best,
Fisherman

[Mabuse]

Well, I think all that jibber-jabber about how the Torso killer dismembers for practical reasons is a bit ridiculous. If he was all about practicalities, then why take the trouble to distribute bits and pieces in the New Scotland Yard and at the home of Mary Shelleys son (I think he was a son, but I am not sure I am remembering correctly). There was a lot of morbid humour and a lot of risktaking on his behalf that evinces a lot more of showboating than of a practical man to me. It would seem that he was governed by a wish/need to brag and show himself off.

Huh. You know, that is a pretty good point. Now that you mention it, I had basically assumed that that was all coincidence. That he'd chosen the New Scotland Yard site merely because it was a rough old building site, that the Shelley connection was modern researchers seeing connections where they weren't warranted ... hmmm.

But if so, we're talking about a much more cerebral kind of killer, and getting into that whole pattern thing, like Stephenson making an inverted cross on the map or whatever it was, and so on. I'm wary of that, because the human mind sees patterns in random data.

Yeah, that would be a similar kind of showing off or display.

Ugh. If only we had better records from the era.

Either way, if that was what was really going on, forget poor dupes like Kosminski. This is coming up the scale of intellect and ability quite a bit, and we're in ... a weird area.

Once again, Mr Torso put a torso in the basement of the New Scotland Yard building! How is that trying to get rid of things? It was a show-off. He hurled one body part into the garden of a man whose mother had written about the monster of Frankenstein - a creature put together of dead body parts.
It is proven that although he could have dumped the body parts from the same spot at the same remove in time, he actively chose to instead distribute them all over London, in parks, floating on the Thames, in private gardens, in police buildings.
Isnīt that a display too? I think it is.

Yes, that is a very strong line of reasoning. One I hadn't fully considered.

The only reasonable motivation I can think of for the different dispersal locations is that he thinks dumping it all in one place is too risky. He needs to get rid of the corpse, perhaps because he's dismembered it at home, but cannot haul it all away in one large piece. This methodology is seen in other murder cases.

But some of those drop points do seem rather provocative.

If his choice of dumping locations is deliberate, well, that takes it into a totally different area, I agree.

There are arguments to serve both takes. What I think is that we must at least be open to the possibility to a larger extent than we used to be.

Yeah, this has given me quite a bit to think about, for which I am grateful.

Of course, this scenario takes the Ripper into the "criminal mastermind" area, which many find unacceptable. I was chewed out by someone on another thread for suggesting that the Ripper chose his sites carefully, by a poster who castigated me for buying into the 'cloaked and top-hatted doctor' image, which was quite the strawman. I was merely stating that I didn't think the Ripper was some completely deranged gargoyle of a human, but a normal-seeming, hidden psychopath serial killer of the 20th Century type. A Dennis Nilsen or a Ted Bundy type.

However, if what you're suggesting is on the money, he's another category of creature.

Peace.

M.

[Fisherman]

Mabuse:

Huh. You know, that is a pretty good point. Now that you mention it, I had basically assumed that that was all coincidence. That he'd chosen the New Scotland Yard site merely because it was a rough old building site, that the Shelley connection was modern researchers seeing connections where they weren't warranted ... hmmm.

But if so, we're talking about a much more cerebral kind of killer, and getting into that whole pattern thing, like Stephenson making an inverted cross on the map or whatever it was, and so on. I'm wary of that, because the human mind sees patterns in random data.

Yeah, that would be a similar kind of showing off or display.

Ugh. If only we had better records from the era.

Either way, if that was what was really going on, forget poor dupes like Kosminski. This is coming up the scale of intellect and ability quite a bit, and we're in ... a weird area.

Kosm ... Who?

Iīve spent thirty years plus chasing this guy. Never once have Aaron Kosminski seemed a fair bid. If I had had Anderson here, heīd be in a whole lot of trouble!


Yes, that is a very strong line of reasoning. One I hadn't fully considered.

The only reasonable motivation I can think of for the different dispersal locations is that he thinks dumping it all in one place is too risky. He needs to get rid of the corpse, perhaps because he's dismembered it at home, but cannot haul it all away in one large piece. This methodology is seen in other murder cases.

But some of those drop points do seem rather provocative.

If his choice of dumping locations is deliberate, well, that takes it into a totally different area, I agree.

They were deliberate alright - otherwise he took a whole lot of trouble totally unneccesarily. He would have to scale a fence at the New Scotland Yard building to get in - or he knew how to open the gate. Either way, it was risky and demanding work. He dug down a piece or two in the basement, but left the torso to be found.

Yeah, this has given me quite a bit to think about, for which I am grateful.

Of course, this scenario takes the Ripper into the "criminal mastermind" area, which many find unacceptable. I was chewed out by someone on another thread for suggesting that the Ripper chose his sites carefully, by a poster who castigated me for buying into the 'cloaked and top-hatted doctor' image, which was quite the strawman. I was merely stating that I didn't think the Ripper was some completely deranged gargoyle of a human, but a normal-seeming, hidden psychopath serial killer of the 20th Century type. A Dennis Nilsen or a Ted Bundy type.

However, if what you're suggesting is on the money, he's another category of creature.

Peace.


Iīm much more pondering it than suggesting it. It may happen in days to come, though, who knows?

The best,
Fisherman

[RockySullivan]

I am of the opinion that Torso & Jack could very well be one and the same. I'm far from being knowledgable but that's my lowly opinion from the little research i've done. It's interesting to me how at least one of Torso unidentified victims where described as possibly not being "street walkers" or very poor due to the condition of the hands. I find it interesting the quote posted from the inquest where Torso was described as being possibly a butcher. I've wondered if the ripper gained his knowledge of human anatomy from his torso victims but then again no torso victims show signs of evisceration that I know of. And a butcher would already have knowledge of the organs to commit the rippings. So a butcher Torso Killer is an interesting thought.

[RockySullivan]

One thing I find interesting is that i believe the anus was plugged with a cloth on one torso victims? Is this correct? I wonder if this victims was before or after Kate Eddowes. The Ripper seemed to show no fear of fecal matter. I believe the cleveland torso killer also plugged the anus with a cloth on one victim. This details seems to be hard to come by so i'm not sure its accurate for the London Torso killer...perhaps an expert will know for sure. Is there any profession where the anus is plugged with cloth to prevent mess? Medical or butcher perhaps?

One interesting off topic note about the Cleveland Torso killer. On his last victim from the 50's i believe...there was a sunbather who layed out on some pieces of scrap metal everyday for weeks seen by workers in the area daily. soon after he stopped sunbathing....the workers noticed the smell coming from the pile of scrap metal and found the torso victims body under the pile.

[RockySullivan]

One strong point for the Ripper & Torso being the same is that Lipski was apparently written in chalk above the spot where the pinchin street torso was found. Given where pinchin st is, the kind of dump spot it was...and the slur in chalk it really makes you wonder.

[Errata]

It IS different, Errata, no doubt about that. But remember how you said yourself that it is odd how the Ripper seems to have no true focus - how he chooses different innards to go for, how he seems to have a changed taste from day to day.

Thatīs what makes me think that he may be trying to satisfy somebody else than himself. And it involves sort of a communication with the surrounding world: Look, I took a uterus. Lok now, I took a kidney! Hey, I can carve up a face.
Whatever does the trick.

In that sense, if you are not fully focused yourself on what YOU want to do, but instead on what has the wow factor, if you like, then maybe we can reconcile the two types...?

Weird? You bet. Far-fetched? Yep. But I also wonder why the focus seemingly alters, why there is seemingly a wish to display etcetera.

The best,
Fisherman

Yeah maybe...

But I have this theory. No matter how stressed you get, no matter how scattered, no matter how dominated, funny is funny. And the very few true amnesiacs in the world demonstrate this. Sense of humor doesn't change. How you get your digs in doesn't change.

If you laugh at outrageously inappropriate jokes, you always will. And knock knock jokes don't cut it. If observation humor is your thing (Like Seinfeld or Dennis Miller) then shock humor (Andrew Dice Clay, Howard Stern) is not your thing. Humor is all about worldview, which cannot be unfocused. If you see yourself as an outsider, your humor reflects that. If you see yourself as an intellectual, a frat boy, a sophisticate.. your humor shows this. It's High School psychology. The way we think when we are 15 is locked in. We may add modifiers, but nothing scrubs the initial reaction to use humor to include, exclude, punish or enlighten.

And in a creepy way, the fetus in a jar I get as funny. It's not funny, clearly, but the randomness and dichotomy of images is my sense of humor. I'm the girl who drove around town putting clown noses on every single public statue at three in the morning. And I thought that was hilarious. Statues are creepy. Clown noses are creepy. A town wakes up to statue clowns is random. It's my thing. I get the naked corpses, but I see it as a clumsy example of shock humor and therefor not funny. With a slightly darker worldview, I would think the fetus in a jar was hysterical.

If leaving a naked body exposed is a message, it's a dig. It's a joke on a fundamental level. It's all about societal norms and poking fun at people who get all undone at nakedness. There is no other message to be had. Now he could do it purposefully without it being a message, but we are talking about communication here. If it's a message, he is mocking Victorian sensibilities.

Fetus in a jar bobbing down the river is a whole different sense of humor. Frankly it's ******* crazy. The Moses parallel is pretty easy to draw, and making fun of everyone's moral sense is certainly a part of it. But this guy not only was trying to hurt anyone who saw that, he genuinely thought it was funny. This was not respectful, it was not significant, and there is no irony or parallel to draw. There was no other reason for him to do other than that he thought it was hysterical. Not because of the anticipated reaction, though that was a bonus. But because just doing it, even if nobody ever saw it (which was very possible) made him laugh really hard. I don't know why really, but it did. It was a little clever, but not a lot. It doesn't reflect his politics, his state of mind, or even his views on society. It reflects his aesthetics. Aesthetics that are not reflected in any of the Ripper murders.

Two different comedians.

[RockySullivan]

I read Debra a's account of the Elizabeth Jackson murder on casebook. I can't find anything on the fetus in the jar? Can you point me in the right direction? I believe it was mentioned Jackson might have been "plugged". She also seemed to have her insides literally ripped apart! I could see that being the work of the ripper the way her organs where separated from her body. One thing of interest was that part of her was wrapper in a costermongers apron! She was on the street late night and there was a sighting of her with a man 24 hours before her murder. It seems this man was identified?

http://www.casebook.org/victims/jackson.html

[Fisherman]

Yeah maybe...

But I have this theory. No matter how stressed you get, no matter how scattered, no matter how dominated, funny is funny. And the very few true amnesiacs in the world demonstrate this. Sense of humor doesn't change. How you get your digs in doesn't change.

If you laugh at outrageously inappropriate jokes, you always will. And knock knock jokes don't cut it. If observation humor is your thing (Like Seinfeld or Dennis Miller) then shock humor (Andrew Dice Clay, Howard Stern) is not your thing. Humor is all about worldview, which cannot be unfocused. If you see yourself as an outsider, your humor reflects that. If you see yourself as an intellectual, a frat boy, a sophisticate.. your humor shows this. It's High School psychology. The way we think when we are 15 is locked in. We may add modifiers, but nothing scrubs the initial reaction to use humor to include, exclude, punish or enlighten.

And in a creepy way, the fetus in a jar I get as funny. It's not funny, clearly, but the randomness and dichotomy of images is my sense of humor. I'm the girl who drove around town putting clown noses on every single public statue at three in the morning. And I thought that was hilarious. Statues are creepy. Clown noses are creepy. A town wakes up to statue clowns is random. It's my thing. I get the naked corpses, but I see it as a clumsy example of shock humor and therefor not funny. With a slightly darker worldview, I would think the fetus in a jar was hysterical.

If leaving a naked body exposed is a message, it's a dig. It's a joke on a fundamental level. It's all about societal norms and poking fun at people who get all undone at nakedness. There is no other message to be had. Now he could do it purposefully without it being a message, but we are talking about communication here. If it's a message, he is mocking Victorian sensibilities.

Fetus in a jar bobbing down the river is a whole different sense of humor. Frankly it's ******* crazy. The Moses parallel is pretty easy to draw, and making fun of everyone's moral sense is certainly a part of it. But this guy not only was trying to hurt anyone who saw that, he genuinely thought it was funny. This was not respectful, it was not significant, and there is no irony or parallel to draw. There was no other reason for him to do other than that he thought it was hysterical. Not because of the anticipated reaction, though that was a bonus. But because just doing it, even if nobody ever saw it (which was very possible) made him laugh really hard. I don't know why really, but it did. It was a little clever, but not a lot. It doesn't reflect his politics, his state of mind, or even his views on society. It reflects his aesthetics. Aesthetics that are not reflected in any of the Ripper murders.

Two different comedians.

Dr Kempster (who examined the body parts and fit them together) did not believe that the fetus in the jar belonged to Elizabeth Jackson, Errata. So it may be irrelevant to whatever sort of humour the torso killer posessed.

No fetus is needed, however, to allow for me to agree with your main point. I also think there are two different mental approaches on display here. Whether they are reconcilable or not hinge on whether the murders were committed to satisfy inner drives or to search ways to communicate things. In the case of the Torso killer, at least, it seems there was an obvious wish to impress messages upon the surrounding world.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

I read Debra a's account of the Elizabeth Jackson murder on casebook. I can't find anything on the fetus in the jar? Can you point me in the right direction? I believe it was mentioned Jackson might have been "plugged". She also seemed to have her insides literally ripped apart! I could see that being the work of the ripper the way her organs where separated from her body. One thing of interest was that part of her was wrapper in a costermongers apron! She was on the street late night and there was a sighting of her with a man 24 hours before her murder. It seems this man was identified?
http://www.casebook.org/victims/jackson.html

A fetus in a sealed pickle jar was found by a Thames police boat officer on, I believe, the 12 of June 1889. Itīs mentioned in Michael Gordons' Torso killer book.

The best,
Fisherman

[RockySullivan]

Thanks fisherman...I guess a baby in a pickle jar didnt warrant more than one line in a newspaper article?

[Fisherman]

Thanks fisherman...I guess a baby in a pickle jar didnt warrant more than one line in a newspaper article?

That was about it, I think. It was added on to a not very large Times article of the 13:th, mainly focusing on the ongoing Jackson investigation. Whether it was mentioned in any more papers, I donīt know.

The best,
Fisherman

[Jon Guy]

With respect, no, itīs not a good comparison at all. Neither of those things is something the IRA bomber feels an uncontrollable urge to do, due to deep-lying mental causes.

With respect, Christer, it is a good comparison, but obviously, we once again disagree.