Reward for Ghastly Murders in the East End.

[Sam Flynn]

Perhaps the Ripper and Torso Man were rivals and were trying to see how many unfortunates they could kill and not be caught. I do not think JTR was Torso Man, nor Torso Man JTR. They were two distinct separate killers.

Fully agree about JTR, but I'd go so far as to bet that "the" Torso Man was at least two unrelated killers.

[Abby Normal]

... at precisely the opposite side of the city, and on the streets of only one small area of the whole of London? I'm never going to buy that, sorry.

I know Sam
I just cant get over that there would be two such creatures-post mortem mutilators- lurking around the same city at the same time targeting the same type of victim and gashing abdomans removing internal organs.
with both series ending around the same time. but thats just me.


happy New Year!

[Busy Beaver]

Don't forget Abby, London's population around the 1880's had soared to probably 3-4 million people and most of them lived in the East End. So it would not be impossible for one or two random serial killers to be on the stage at the same time. I'm not a statistician but I'm sure the odds would stack up

[Sam Flynn]

Don't forget Abby, London's population around the 1880's had soared to probably 3-4 million people and most of them lived in the East End. So it would not be impossible for one or two random serial killers to be on the stage at the same time.

Especially if one murderer killed infrequently in a period spanning more than a decade, and the other struck in a blitz lasting just over 2 months in the middle.

[Abby Normal]

Don't forget Abby, London's population around the 1880's had soared to probably 3-4 million people and most of them lived in the East End. So it would not be impossible for one or two random serial killers to be on the stage at the same time. I'm not a statistician but I'm sure the odds would stack up

Hi busy
I would agree on two random serial killers but two that have so may similarities? Too much for me.

What often gets overlooked IMHO is that both series end within a couple of months in 89 with mckenzie and pinchin. Thats a bigee for me.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi busy
I would agree on two random serial killers but two that have so may similarities? Too much for me.

How many torso victims were disembowelled and had their wombs removed? How many Ripper victims had their limbs cut off? How many women were "ripped" on the streets of West London? There are far too few similarities for me.

What often gets overlooked IMHO is that both series end within a couple of months in 89 with mckenzie and pinchin.

When did they start, though? As far as I'm concerned, the Ripper murders started in August 1888, the torso crimes several years previously.

That's leaving aside the fact that I've never seen Kenzie as a Ripper victim, and I doubt that Pinchin Street was the work of the same person(s) responsible for the West London torsos.

[Fisherman]

How many torso victims were disembowelled and had their wombs removed? How many Ripper victims had their limbs cut off? How many women were "ripped" on the streets of West London? There are far too few similarities for me.
When did they start, though? As far as I'm concerned, the Ripper murders started in August 1888, the torso crimes several years previously.

That's leaving aside the fact that I've never seen Kenzie as a Ripper victim, and I doubt that Pinchin Street was the work of the same person(s) responsible for the West London torsos.

Several years previously? That would mean that you accept that the 1873 Torso murder belongs to the series, I suspect. Correct me if I am wrong, please!

So why is it that you propose that the Pinchin Street murder does not belong, and what causes you to think the 1873 murder does? Surely, the distance in time makes the earlier strike much more difficult to tie in? But not to you, apparently.

It should be interesting to hear you argue your case.

[APerno]

It seems to me that the disorganized/opportunist/marauder that ripped-up Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes, and Kelly was a different cat than the well organized and methodical like torso killer.

The torso killer possessed a perverse sense of humor that the Whitechapel killer never (actually) displayed. The second and third torsos were obviously dumped for maximum media and popular affect; the Whitechapel ‘unfortunates’ were left where they lay.

Once the Whitechapel killer’s frenzy subsided he walked away from his victims; they were no longer of interest to him, but the torso killer carried his victims about and they became his ‘taunting letters’ to the police.

Sometimes I wonder if the torso killer wasn’t a fan of the Whitechapel killer; his appearance (torso dump) at the New Scotland Yard building was a “hey look at me too” act and the Pinchin Street dump was some kind of strange homage.

Also the torso killer had to be working out of some type of a lair, so why would he also kill on the (risked filled) streets? To me the MOs involved seem too different for a single killer.

I have this ugly feeling that the torso killer's victims suffered a greater terror than was visited on the Whitechapel unfortunates; that he taunted and tortured his victims before he dispatched them.

[Sam Flynn]

I have this ugly feeling that the torso killer's victims suffered a greater terror than was visited on the Whitechapel unfortunates; that he taunted and tortured his victims before he dispatched them.

Agreed. I doubt very much that the torso killer/s was/were simply abducting young women and chopping them up... and nothing else.

[Abby Normal]

It seems to me that the disorganized/opportunist/marauder that ripped-up Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes, and Kelly was a different cat than the well organized and methodical like torso killer.

The torso killer possessed a perverse sense of humor that the Whitechapel killer never (actually) displayed. The second and third torsos were obviously dumped for maximum media and popular affect; the Whitechapel ‘unfortunates’ were left where they lay.

Once the Whitechapel killer’s frenzy subsided he walked away from his victims; they were no longer of interest to him, but the torso killer carried his victims about and they became his ‘taunting letters’ to the police.

Sometimes I wonder if the torso killer wasn’t a fan of the Whitechapel killer; his appearance (torso dump) at the New Scotland Yard building was a “hey look at me too” act and the Pinchin Street dump was some kind of strange homage.

Also the torso killer had to be working out of some type of a lair, so why would he also kill on the (risked filled) streets? To me the MOs involved seem too different for a single killer.

I have this ugly feeling that the torso killer's victims suffered a greater terror than was visited on the Whitechapel unfortunates; that he taunted and tortured his victims before he dispatched them.

Hi AP

It seems to me that the disorganized/opportunist/marauder that ripped-up Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes, and Kelly was a different cat than the well organized and methodical like torso killer.

not to me. they were both organized and planned. both used ruses to get there victims where they wanted them.

anyone who could pull off the double event was anything but disorganized. nor leave any clues by accident nor get away always in the nick of time.

The torso killer possessed a perverse sense of humor that the Whitechapel killer never (actually) displayed. The second and third torsos were obviously dumped for maximum media and popular affect; the Whitechapel ‘unfortunates’ were left where they lay.

Once the Whitechapel killer’s frenzy subsided he walked away from his victims; they were no longer of interest to him, but the torso killer carried his victims about and they became his ‘taunting letters’ to the police.

It could be argued the ripper also left the victims "displayed"-with no attempt to hide-similar to torso man. and I beleive the ripper also used taunting "letters"-more than likely the dear boss or from hell, but certainly the GSG.

Sometimes I wonder if the torso killer wasn’t a fan of the Whitechapel killer; his appearance (torso dump) at the New Scotland Yard building was a “hey look at me too” act and the Pinchin Street dump was some kind of strange homage.

since I lean toward them being the same man I think that where and how all the victims were left did have a special meaning to the torsoripper-I just haven't quite put my finger on it-something like marking his territory or polluting London perhaps.

Also the torso killer had to be working out of some type of a lair, so why would he also kill on the (risked filled) streets? To me the MOs involved seem too different for a single killer.

ive often said the torso victims were when he had his chop shop available and the ripper victims were when he didn't, and had to kill on the streets.

MOs both involved rusing unfortunates to get them to a place where he could do his thing.

I have this ugly feeling that the torso killer's victims suffered a greater terror than was visited on the Whitechapel unfortunates; that he taunted and tortured his victims before he dispatched them

im not sure-there is no sign of torture on the torso victims and they were apparently cut up soon after they were killed. seems like in both series sadism was not involved-both just wanted bodies to work on. all interest apparently post mortem.

[APerno]

Hi AB, thanks for the reply.

not to me. they were both organized and planned. both used ruses to get there victims where they wanted them.

Only Mary Kelly necessitated a ruse, (and I have some doubt about putting him in that room for several reasons) with all the others he stepped unsuspectingly out of the dark and throttled. (I believe he was lying in wait for Dark Annie who entered the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street with the intent of relieving herself.)

anyone who could pull off the double event was anything but disorganized. nor leave any clues by accident nor get away always in the nick of time.

I don't buy into the double event; the double event is a legend created by Coroner Baxter who couldn't bear the thought of being left out. IMO thanks to Baxter, Stride's pimp (the murderer) got a 'get out of jail free' card.

It could be argued the ripper also left the victims "displayed"-with no attempt to hide-similar to torso man. and I beleive the ripper also used taunting "letters"-more than likely the dear boss or from hell, but certainly the GSG.

Yes! Here I agree, the Whitechapel murderer was intentionally terrorizing the local populace by leaving the bodies in plain sight. At night Buck's Row, with little to no street lighting amidst a coal soot fog, became a secluded haven for murder, but come the morning sun it must have seemed like he was killing on society's doorstep. I suspect he psychologically terrorized the city more than he did his actual victims (who were likely unconscious moments after encountering him.)

I believe the Dear Boss letter was written by Harry Dam (and would love to have that discussion sometime) and that the 'from hell' letter was a medical students' prank.

The GSG was irrelevant; PC Long had to embellish his apron find to distract from the fact that he never made his 2:20 round. I suspect he left his patrol (without permission) and went over to Miter Square. (Ever watch today how many cops will appear (back-up) for a lousy traffic stop?)

ive often said the torso victims were when he had his chop shop available and the ripper victims were when he didn't, and had to kill on the streets.

I am of the mind that over the 15 week period, Tabram to Kelly, he was out every weekend night (and Sunday's before holidays of course) stalking. He was an opportunist who would have killed every night if the opportunity presented itself. He was likely so poor that he could never afford the space necessary to create a 'chop shop.' I believe the Whitechapel murderer was a real bottom feeder, I suspect the torso killer was a man of means.

MOs both involved rusing unfortunates to get them to a place where he could do his thing.

We are not really sure if the torsos belonged to prostitutes. (Are we?) Also I was under the impression that they were younger women. But no doubt the torso killer had to move these women to a secluded place so he was indeed versed in deception. I don't see that in the Whitechapel fiend.

im not sure-there is no sign of torture on the torso victims and they were apparently cut up soon after they were killed. seems like in both series sadism was not involved-both just wanted bodies to work on. all interest apparently post mortem.

True!

Anthony

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=APerno;467606]Hi AB, thanks for the reply.

not to me. they were both organized and planned. both used ruses to get there victims where they wanted them.

Only Mary Kelly necessitated a ruse, (and I have some doubt about putting him in that room for several reasons) with all the others he stepped unsuspectingly out of the dark and throttled. (I believe he was lying in wait for Dark Annie who entered the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street with the intent of relieving herself.)

If the killer chatted up prostitutes feigning that he wanted to buy sex from them, then that is of course also a ruse.

anyone who could pull off the double event was anything but disorganized. nor leave any clues by accident nor get away always in the nick of time.

I don't buy into the double event; the double event is a legend created by Coroner Baxter who couldn't bear the thought of being left out. IMO thanks to Baxter, Stride's pimp (the murderer) got a 'get out of jail free' card.

Baxter was not the one driving the matter, the examining medicos were. But since there were no eviscerations and abdominal ripping, Stride will always be contentious.

It could be argued the ripper also left the victims "displayed"-with no attempt to hide-similar to torso man. and I beleive the ripper also used taunting "letters"-more than likely the dear boss or from hell, but certainly the GSG.

Yes! Here I agree, the Whitechapel murderer was intentionally terrorizing the local populace by leaving the bodies in plain sight. At night Buck's Row, with little to no street lighting amidst a coal soot fog, became a secluded haven for murder, but come the morning sun it must have seemed like he was killing on society's doorstep. I suspect he psychologically terrorized the city more than he did his actual victims (who were likely unconscious moments after encountering him.)

Bucks Row is interesting on account of how the victim was NOT displayed the way the others were. Otherwise we are in agreement: it seems there was a measure of communication involved, and that this communication was one of terror. And that goes for both series.

I believe the Dear Boss letter was written by Harry Dam (and would love to have that discussion sometime) and that the 'from hell' letter was a medical students' prank.

Maybe, maybe not.

The GSG was irrelevant; PC Long had to embellish his apron find to distract from the fact that he never made his 2:20 round. I suspect he left his patrol (without permission) and went over to Miter Square. (Ever watch today how many cops will appear (back-up) for a lousy traffic stop?)

Speculation, I'm afraid. Interesting speculation, but speculation nevertheless.

ive often said the torso victims were when he had his chop shop available and the ripper victims were when he didn't, and had to kill on the streets.

I am of the mind that over the 15 week period, Tabram to Kelly, he was out every weekend night (and Sunday's before holidays of course) stalking. He was an opportunist who would have killed every night if the opportunity presented itself. He was likely so poor that he could never afford the space necessary to create a 'chop shop.' I believe the Whitechapel murderer was a real bottom feeder, I suspect the torso killer was a man of means.

"Believe" and "suspect" being the main markers. Have you asked yourself why two so fundamentally different people - different mindsets, different self-control, different means - ended up doing the same things? Why did they both rip abdomens from sternum to groin? Why is it that they apparently both took cheap rings from their victims if one was affluent and the other poor? What's this about a wish to carve a heart out, why did they both arrive at that station? And the uteri they took out and discarded (Jackson/Kelly), what was that about? And, of course, why did they both come up with the idea that they wanted to take the abdominal walls away from victims?
Isn´t all of this some pretty formidable coincidences? And note how these things are not always in the order killer X first, then killer Y follows. The abdominal walls was Ripper first, the ripping from sternum to groin was Torso man first, so we are not looking at copycatting (which was always primarily the stuff of fiction anyway).
How should we explain this? Two VERY different creatures doing the same things. Similarly. In the same town. If it had happened twenty years apart in London and Glasgow, it would suggest a connection of some sort. But here? Under these circumstances?

MOs both involved rusing unfortunates to get them to a place where he could do his thing.

We are not really sure if the torsos belonged to prostitutes. (Are we?) Also I was under the impression that they were younger women. But no doubt the torso killer had to move these women to a secluded place so he was indeed versed in deception. I don't see that in the Whitechapel fiend.

The only identified Torso victim was a prostitute. And the Whitechapel fiend may well have deceived his victims, just as the Torso killer may have done (as a matter of fact, we don't know - for all we know, he could have simply grabbed and abducted them, right?)
This is not as easy and clear-cut as some will have it. The options are many, regardless of whether we like it or not. The Ripper may have been the MORE subtle con man and the Torso killer a rougher and brute man. The Ripper may have been affluent and the Torso man poor. The Ripper may have been more of a planner than the Torso man.
That is if they were two killers. My take on it is that they were one and the same, which is why they did the same things in the same town at the same time.

im not sure-there is no sign of torture on the torso victims and they were apparently cut up soon after they were killed. seems like in both series sadism was not involved-both just wanted bodies to work on. all interest apparently post mortem.

True!

Yes, true. And how expected is this, given how serial killers very often inflict physical damage and torture on their prey? Not least abductors, luring their victims to secluded places where they cannot be seen or heard, will almost always do so because they have an agenda that involves torture and agony. But in our two series, we have no physical torture inflicted.
Same, same. Again. Why? Even the man who secures a possibility to torture and harm in private shuns that opportunity.
Both men seems to have had one aim only - to find themselves bodies to cut up. They seemingly both kill with no inclusions of physical torture, they seemingly both bleed victims making the carving less messy, they both instigate terror, they both work in the same town, they both are active in the late victorian period with a focus on the late 80:s, they both take out organs from their victims, both sexually oriented organs and non sexually oriented organs, they both discard these organs on occasion, they both cut away the abdominal walls from victims, they both kill prostitutes - but they were very different men.

Really?

[SuspectZero]

I agree with Fisherman on this. I'm convinced these were both done by the same perpetrator. I also believe they were done by a local man with medical experience and his reasons for doing so and the organs removed were related to his profession. This is why there is no evidence of torture. That was not the goal.

[Sam Flynn]

I agree with Fisherman on this. I'm convinced these were both done by the same perpetrator. I also believe they were done by a local man

Local to both Whitechapel and Chelsea?

The physical separation of the murder/dump-sites alone (torsos in the West, Ripper murders in the East) is enough in itself to indicate different killers, and that's without taking into account the nature of the wounds and the disposition of the bodies.

[Busy Beaver]

They should have made it "Reward for Ghastly murders in the West End" and there may have been a better reception.