JTR a Pranzini Copycat?

[Abby Normal]

I'm not going to play that silly game, Fish. I don't have the data, and I'm not going to go looking for it. Suffice to say that Jack the Ripper can't have been the only man in history to hit upon that method for removing abdominal flesh with a knife. There are only so many ways it can be done.

Still not convinced about Jackson, mainly because she ended up being thrown in kit-form into the Thames, whereas Chapman and Kelly (etc) were left where they lay, with their limbs still very much attached.

Hi Sam
I've said this many times before but I'll point out again that if the ripper and torso man were the same then the apparent difference on MO could simply be that the torso victims were when he could bring the victims to his private place and the dismemberment was simply for ease in disposal and the ripper victims were when he couldn't bring to his place and had to kill in the street.

Debra Arif has shown that all the torso victims had some additional post mortem mutilation above and beyond what was needed for dismemberment including abdominal mutilations.

And fish is correct the chances that two different serial killers interested in post mortem mutilation and removed the flaps of skin the same way working in the same time frame and location is practically zilch IMHO.


I think it's high time ripperology start taking the idea that they were one in the same man seriously.

[Sam Flynn]

Myself, I have not been able to find one single such case apart from the ones we are discussing, and since you (understandably) say that you are not going to go looking for them (but instead you predispose that they are there - how very convenient!)

No need to be sarcastic. I made a legitimate point.

The two flaps fit perfectly into what was left of Jackson, just as they fit perfectly together. So what exactly is there to not be convinced about? How could the flaps NOT have been removed from the abdomen? Who would have done it, other than the killer?

I'm not denying that two flaps of abdominal flesh had been removed from Elizabeth Jackson. I'm just saying that this is nowhere near enough of a reason to tie her killer into the Ripper murders. The victimology, MO and signatures are completely different.

Or would you rather stick with the notion that Chapman and Kelly could have been killed by different men, and that the torso man and the ripper were not one and the same, and that these three ladies actually ALL had their abdominal walls removed in large flaps with the outer genitalia attaching to them - BY THREE DIFFERENT MEN?

For crying out loud! I said that I didn't subscribe to those doubts about Kelly, didn't I? Good, so we can forget the "three men" bit for starters. What I am saying is that there were likely two different men involved - one who killed Kelly/Chapman, and another who did for Jackson.

This is suggested even by the nature of the wounds themselves. Jackson's wounds comprised two long, narrow strips of flesh, unlike the three large flaps of flesh (Kelly) and the three flaps of indeterminate size in the case of Chapman. Furthermore, Jackson's uterus had been cut into, but - unlike Kelly, Chapman or Eddowes - it was left inside Jackson's body. There's a case for believing that this was an abortion gone wrong, or a murder of a pregnant young woman with subsequent removal (and disposal?) of her baby.

The circumstances of Elizabeth Jackson's death, the manner of her mutilation, and what happened to her body afterwards, are distinctly different to what happened to the "canonical" victims of Jack the Ripper.

I am done for the evening - I can stomach only so much one-dimensional nay-saying

Indeed, it must take a lot out of you

[Abby Normal]

I really don't understand the apparent knee jerk reaction so many people seem to have against the idea that torso man and the ripper were one in the same?

It shouldn't be that controversial an idea should it?
The annals of serial crime are littered with cases where it is later discovered that the extent of the killers victims was much more than previously thought. And alot of times because the apparent MO and or sig look different.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: No need to be sarcastic. I made a legitimate point.

Well, you made the point that some serial killer, somewhere, will have done to some victim the same thing that was done to Jackson, Chapman and Kelly. I would have thought that the legitimacy of that kind of point hinged on expamples that would go to prove such a thing, but apparently this is not so. The point is "legitimate" anyway. Go figure, sort of.
Okay.

I'm not denying that two flaps of abdominal flesh had been removed from Elizabeth Jackson. I'm just saying that this is nowhere near enough of a reason to tie her killer into the Ripper murders. The victimology, MO and signatures are completely different.

If a trait in a murder case is completely exclusive, then that overrides the matters you bring up. If a killer gets into the habit of, say, gouging out the eyes of his victims, then it matters little if one victim is shot and another one strangled - the gouging out of the eyes MUST rule that the investigation accepts that it is either the same killer, a copycat or a monumental coincidence.
The exact same applies here.

For crying out loud! I said that I didn't subscribe to those doubts about Kelly, didn't I?

For crying out silently - you pointed to how that must remain a possibility. I can agree with that without letting it impact on the fact that Kellys cutaway abdominal flaps are a perfect parallel to what happened to Chapman and Jackson.
Clearly, when you pointed out the Kelly-may-have-been-killed-by-another-man, it was to take away from the notion that the flaps pointe to the same killer. So I don´t see what is buggering you when I listen to your suggestion.
If you think Kelly had the same killer as the rest of the canonical five, then you will realize that the abdominal flaps represent very clear evidence that this was so.
But for some reason, you choose to go with what others have suggested, since that is the best way to detract from the suggestion that the Ripper and the Tors killer were one and the same. It´s tactical, but is it clever tactics?

Good, so we can forget the "three men" bit for starters. What I am saying is that there were likely two different men involved - one who killed Kelly/Chapman, and another who did for Jackson.

...and they both came up with the idea to cut away the adominal walls in large flaps with the outer genitalia attaching, seven months only telling their respective whims apart?
Look, Gareth, you say that the Ripper was an eviscerator, and the torso man was someone who quartered his victims like pigs. But what do týou think it amounts to when somebody opens up a belly by cutting away the abdominal wall, carves out the uterus and placenta, packs it up in a parcel and floats it down the Thames. Is that not evisceration? Then what is it?


This is suggested even by the nature of the wounds themselves. Jackson's wounds comprised two long, narrow strips of flesh, unlike the three large flaps of flesh (Kelly) and the three flaps of indeterminate size in the case of Chapman.

The Chapman flaps were large flaps too. They were described, and I have quoted the description - I think it was Jon Guy who found it. I can look it up if you want to.
Did you notice that you just said that long and narrow could not be described as large? That is an odd thing to say. I would propose that there is nothing in the two descriptions "long and narrow" and "large" that tells us that they could not have been exactly the same.
Not that it matters very much, since the description of the Jackson flaps was never "long and narrow" - it was "long and irregular".
And I think that we must accept that the flaps from Kelly must have been long too, since they were described:
"The skin and tissues of the abdomen from the costal arch to the pubes were removed in three large flaps."

Maybe they were less irregular than Jacksons flaps? Maybe THAT is what tells us that it could not have been the same killer?

Furthermore, Jackson's uterus had been cut into, but - unlike Kelly, Chapman or Eddowes - it was left inside Jackson's body.

Was it? I thought it was packed together with the placenta and the abdominal flaps and floated down the Thames.

There's a case for believing that this was an abortion gone wrong, or a murder of a pregnant young woman with subsequent removal (and disposal?) of her baby.

Yes, that sounds very probable, since abortionists often cut away the abdominal walls of their patients. And yes, that was sarcasm. And yes, it was called for.

The circumstances of Elizabeth Jackson's death, the manner of her mutilation, and what happened to her body afterwards, are distinctly different to what happened to the "canonical" victims of Jack the Ripper.
Indeed, it must take a lot out of you

Take a lot out of me? Something takes a lot out of me - but it´s not your "facts". They dissolve like trolls in the morning sun.

[Debra A]

Was it? I thought it was packed together with the placenta and the abdominal flaps and floated down the Thames.

That's correct. Elizabeth's uterus including ovaries, broad ligaments, plus attached top section of her vagina and part wall of her bladder was removed from her body and parcelled up together with the flaps of skin and placenta and was one of the two parcels found first. The irregular flaps from the abdomen included the external organs of generation and part of the right buttock.

Her pelvis containing the lower part of the vagina and remaining part of the bladder was found separately.

Her chest cavity was also emptied and her heart never recovered.

[Abby Normal]

No need to be sarcastic. I made a legitimate point.I'm not denying that two flaps of abdominal flesh had been removed from Elizabeth Jackson. I'm just saying that this is nowhere near enough of a reason to tie her killer into the Ripper murders. The victimology, MO and signatures are completely different.For crying out loud! I said that I didn't subscribe to those doubts about Kelly, didn't I? Good, so we can forget the "three men" bit for starters. What I am saying is that there were likely two different men involved - one who killed Kelly/Chapman, and another who did for Jackson.

This is suggested even by the nature of the wounds themselves. Jackson's wounds comprised two long, narrow strips of flesh, unlike the three large flaps of flesh (Kelly) and the three flaps of indeterminate size in the case of Chapman. Furthermore, Jackson's uterus had been cut into, but - unlike Kelly, Chapman or Eddowes - it was left inside Jackson's body. There's a case for believing that this was an abortion gone wrong, or a murder of a pregnant young woman with subsequent removal (and disposal?) of her baby.

The circumstances of Elizabeth Jackson's death, the manner of her mutilation, and what happened to her body afterwards, are distinctly different to what happened to the "canonical" victims of Jack the Ripper.
Indeed, it must take a lot out of you

hi Sam

The victimology, MO and signatures are completely different.

I disagree.

Victimology is the same-prostitutes/unfortunates-Jackson was a prostitute living "rough". and even if the torso victims weren't active prostitutes Im sure they were women, probably poor, with no fixed address down on their luck. Vulnerable and easy to manipulate.

MO-we don't know what the torso's full MO is. we know MO in terms of disposal but not how he first came in contact and how he killed them. It seems to me though that considering the type of women he targeted it was more than likely the same as the ripper-rusing them to go with him somewhere under a false pretext to a secluded (in this case private) location where he could kill them. And-none of the torsos victims can be proven that they were botched abortions.

sig-seems to be about the same-post mortem mutilation with removal of internal organs. The killer(s) in both show a fascination with what the knife can do to the female body.
I also see that no real attempts were made to totally hide the victims bodies/parts. on the contrary-I see more display interest.Both seem to enjoy the shock that the discovery will make.
There may be attempts to hide identity in both series however.

[Abby Normal]

That's correct. Elizabeth's uterus including ovaries, broad ligaments, plus attached top section of her vagina and part wall of her bladder was removed from her body and parcelled up together with the flaps of skin and placenta and was one of the two parcels found first. The irregular flaps from the abdomen included the external organs of generation and part of the right buttock.

Her pelvis containing the lower part of the vagina and remaining part of the bladder was found separately.

Her chest cavity was also emptied and her heart never recovered.

Thanks Debra!
she was also pregnant and the baby removed? correct?
But I believe you have provided evidence in the past that lead you to believe that it wasn't a botched abortion?

[Debra A]

Thanks Debra!
she was also pregnant and the baby removed? correct?
But I believe you have provided evidence in the past that lead you to believe that it wasn't a botched abortion?

That's right, Abby. She was about 6 or 7 months advanced in pregnancy and Drs Bond and Hebbert concluded that the foetus was removed from the womb after death through an incision. and that no abortion had been performed. Elizabeth's vagina, cervix etc. were all intact and had not endured a labour.
That doesn't rule out the fact that Elizabeth's death could have been linked to abortion in some other way though-perhaps she was poisoned and died instantly in the course of someone attemting to bring on a miscarriage using a noxious substance.

I agree with you on the victimology and MO part. We don't know how Elizabeth met her killer but she was a destitute homeless prostitute the same as the Whitechapel victims.

[Fisherman]

So we are, when it comes to the Torso man, dealing with an eviscerator, a man who cut the stomach of Jackson open and carved out the uterus together with the cord and placenta.
It has been stated out here that eviscerators and dismembering killers are too unalike to engage in each others respective practices.

That point is for obvious reasons unapplicable here.

We also have a victimology that is the same, targetting destitute prostitutes. So no quibble can be realistically entertained on that point.

We know that the two killers both did something totally extraordinary - they cut away the abdominal walls of their victims in long, large flaps, opening the abdomen all the way from the coastal arch down to the pubes. Thus creating free insight into the abdominal cavity.

The operated in the same town and their series of crimes overlapped.

What both men did, speaking in a general manner, was to disassemble their victims, by cutting away the scalp and face, by taking out the innards, by dividing the bodies into smaller bits, by disarticulating the arms and legs at their joints.

In both the Ripper and the Torso cases, this disassembling can be pointed out as paralleling the contemporary exhibitions of wax figures - the plucking out of innards in the Kelly case, leaving the parts behind on the surface she lay on, the loosening of the face and scalp from the skull on the 1873 torso victim. Other damages, like the carved up faces of Kelly and Eddowes and the extensive cutting away of the muscular structures on legs and arms in Millers court also had wax figure predecessors that show a likeness. Another pointer is how Kellys "intercostals between the 4th, 5th & 6th ribs were cut through & the contents of the thorax visible through the openings". Somebody seemingly wanted to create as much of a visibility into the female body as possible.

How anybody can look at these factors and conclude that we would/could not be dealing with just the one killer is totally amazing to me. I think that the misconceptions in that department are largely due to a lack of knowledge about the torso cases, being so much less studied than the Ripper cases.

What remains is a picture of a man who reigned in the terror department in London for at least around two decades - and an amazement that the identification of this has taken such a long time.

[Debra A]

Just to also mention- Hebbert and Bond describe the 'contents of the chest' interms of having been 'removed' and also say the intestines were 'removed'.
One thing which might give an idea of size is that the flaps of skin and subcutaneous tissue were long and irregular and the left piece included the umbilicus as well as the greater part of the mons veneris and external organs of generation on the left side ( left labium majus and labium minus)-the other piece containing the right labium majus and minus and part of the right buttock, meaning the knife was used to cut through the genitalia.

I've seen it claimed that the torso cases showed no genital mutilation as in the Whitechapel cases but I don't understand this idea , clearly in Elizabeth's case the genitals suffered mutilation and division with a knife, but on the other hand -Mary Jane Kelly's genital mutilation could possibly be viewed to have been as collateral damage; the result of the mutilator removing a flap of skin from her thigh that included the external organs of generation but yet some are adamant there is a difference between the two-which I really can't see myself..

[Abby Normal]

Just to also mention- Hebbert and Bond describe the 'contents of the chest' interms of having been 'removed' and also say the intestines were 'removed'.
One thing which might give an idea of size is that the flaps of skin and subcutaneous tissue were long and irregular and the left piece included the umbilicus as well as the greater part of the mons veneris and external organs of generation on the left side ( left labium majus and labium minus)-the other piece containing the right labium majus and minus and part of the right buttock, meaning the knife was used to cut through the genitalia.

I've seen it claimed that the torso cases showed no genital mutilation as in the Whitechapel cases but I don't understand this idea , clearly in Elizabeth's case the genitals suffered mutilation and division with a knife, but on the other hand -Mary Jane Kelly's genital mutilation could possibly be viewed to have been as collateral damage; the result of the mutilator removing a flap of skin from her thigh that included the external organs of generation but yet some are adamant there is a difference between the two-which I really can't see myself..

Thanks Debra!

I don't get it either-especially since the torsos have post mortem mutilation above and beyond the dismemberment.

I think people are just put off by the disposal method/ dismemberment.

which could just be a difference in disposal MO-perhaps the torsos could just have been victims he was able to bring to his private residence and the ripper victims were ones he could not.

The dismemberment might have been simply for ease in getting them out without being detected.

I find the closing of the anatomical venus display in 1873 and the beginning of the torso cases that same year a rather interesting coincidence (?).

[Fisherman]

Thanks Debra!

I don't get it either-especially since the torsos have post mortem mutilation above and beyond the dismemberment.

I think people are just put off by the disposal method/ dismemberment.

which could just be a difference in disposal MO-perhaps the torsos could just have been victims he was able to bring to his private residence and the ripper victims were ones he could not.

The dismemberment might have been simply for ease in getting them out without being detected.

I find the closing of the anatomical venus display in 1873 and the beginning of the torso cases that same year a rather interesting coincidence (?).

It is ignorant to stare at the dismemberment and forget the mutilations. I have learnt from Debra that the Rainham torso, the Pinchin Street torso and the Jackson torso all had their abdomens cut open from sternum to pubes. Plus although the Rainham and Jackson torsos were cut up in three sections, chest, lower abdomen and pelvis, the cuts that opened up their abdomens were made before the division of the trunk - the cutting line fit perfectly after putting the parts together.

So before the torso man sawed and cut the torsos in sections, he opened up the abdomens - from which there are parts missing.

That´s game over for those who think the torso man was mainly about dividing bodys into smaller parts - he was instead an eviscerator. Just like you say, the reason behind the division of the bodys may have been a simple question of smoother disposal.

[Abby Normal]

It is ignorant to stare at the dismemberment and forget the mutilations. I have learnt from Debra that the Rainham torso, the Pinchin Street torso and the Jackson torso all had their abdomens cut open from sternum to pubes. Plus although the Rainham and Jackson torsos were cut up in three sections, chest, lower abdomen and pelvis, the cuts that opened up their abdomens were made before the division of the trunk - the cutting line fit perfectly after putting the parts together.

So before the torso man sawed and cut the torsos in sections, he opened up the abdomens - from which there are parts missing.

That´s game over for those who think the torso man was mainly about dividing bodys into smaller parts - he was instead an eviscerator. Just like you say, the reason behind the division of the bodys may have been a simple question of smoother disposal.

bingo Fish
and thanks for the additional info!!!

[Fisherman]

bingo Fish
and thanks for the additional info!!!

Anytime, Abby - although thanks are mostly due to Debra; her collected knowledge about the torso cases is invaluable.

[Shaggyrand]

Have long meant to read up on the Torsos. (Torsoes? Torsi? Autocorrect doesn't know or care).
Found this exchange riveting. Thanks folks.