Is Jack someone we have never heard of?

[Beowulf]

I just recently found out that the torso was found right near where Liz Stride was found. I find that very worthy of consideration as to it may be the same guy.

[Barnaby]

M.O. vs. Signature

I don't have a problem with the distinction between M.O. and signature in theory but in practice signature (the why question) can only be inferred or determined after the fact by interviewing the killer. I also somewhat disagree with the statement that signature cannot change. It is perfectly conceivable that some serial killers kill successive victims for different reasons. For example, one murder might be sexually/power related and the next might be financially motivated, the next a need to silence a witness, etc. Signature can also evolve. For example, I would argue that the signature of the Zodiac ultimately evolved into murders motivated by terrorizing the public at large - I highly doubt this was the motivation for his first kill. In any event, when you are dealing with persons who kill diverse victims seemingly randomly, sometimes signature has to be abandoned or described in such a general way that it is almost meaningless in terms of psychologically profiling.

[Phil H]

I just recently found out that the torso was found right near where Liz Stride was found. I find that very worthy of consideration as to it may be the same guy.

Are you referring to the Pinchin St torso?

If so it was a couple of streets away - close but not adjacent as it were.

It was, Lechmere argues, VERY close (same street) to the home of the mother of Charles Cross/Lechmere. You'll recall that he discovered the body of Nichols and is now thought by some of us to be a potential suspect. Lechmere (the poster) is arguing that the discovery of the remains so close to Cross/Lechmere's relations' house is significant.

If it was the work of the "torso killer" then I believe the latter could have been taunting his rival (someone known to him?) by leaving his work on Jack's "patch".

Phil H

[Debra A]

hi Debra
Along with Whitehall case, EJ also abdominal mutilations, correct? So that's two right there that could be linked. did any of the other torsos have abdominal mutilations?

Hi Abby,

This is the description of the abdominal wound on the Pinchin Street torso:

"The skin and muscles of
the abdomen had been cut by a vertical incision, running
from 2 inches below the ensiform cartilage downwards, and
ending on the left side of the external genitals, just opening
the vagina, but not opening the peritoneal cavity."

With Elizabeth Jackson, two large flaps of skin were removed from the abdomen,the uterus was opened by a six inch incision and the foetus removed. This had to be by design, but was the intention to make dismemberment easier? Elizabeth was 7months+ pregnant and the uterus would be prominent when cutting the abdomen open.

With Rainham- "An incision had evidently
been made from the ensiform cartilage to the pubes"

With Whitehall there wasn't any abdominal incision described. The torso was divided at the lower pelvis and this section was not found, nor were the pelvic organs, including uterus. The missing uterus along with other pelvic organs may have been as a consequence of the torso being divided to aid disposal and those portions dumped elsewhere?

[Sally]

Did you ever read Ann Rule's book The Stranger Beside Me, about her friendship with Ted Bundy, before he was arrested for murder for the first time? There doesn't seem to be a word for the degree to which she was astounded to find out that this person she knew had been accused of such a thing. Apparently, she didn't believe it at first, but once confronted with incontrovertible evidence, she ran to the bathroom to throw up.

So it seems that at least once in history, yes, someone did pull that off.

Thanks RivkahChaya - I wasn't unaware. I was interested in what Helena thought.

[HelenaWojtczak]

Hi Helena

I agree with you. To what extent can you envisage such a person living a 'normal' life? Do you think he had a job? A wife and family? Friends? I wonder if he was able to compartmentalise his life - perhaps he looked quite normal in many respects.

Well, we only have to look at Peter Sutcliffe for the answer to that.

Regards

Helena

[Fisherman]

RivkaChaya:

"I have thought that it is likely that MJK gave the Ripper his first opportunity to commit a murder indoors, because she had a room, as opposed to sleeping in doss houses, and that after that, he was "hooked" on the kind of thing he could do in private, and didn't go back to murdering women on the street."

Sound very straightforward and logical to me - unless, of course, the thrill of street killing belonged to the package...

"If he couldn't find women who had places to take him, maybe he made the decision to take them to his place, something he had been reluctant to do before, for fear of getting caught."

Equally, this sounds like good reasoning to my ears.

" ...if JTR went from killing women where he found them, to taking them home, the disarticulations, and resulting torsos, may just have been part of what he had to do to get rid of the bodies afterwards, and not part of what gave him pleasure."

Exactly - this is sound reasoning too. And it fits very well with sketching a connection inbetween the Ripper series and the Pinchin Street torso.

Then again, if the evidence was pretty conclusive that the four torso killings were carried out by the same man, then an inclusion of the Pinchin Street torso predisposes that we also accept the earlier cases as potentially being Jack´s. And that seems an awful long and hard leap with no security net underneath.

If I am not very much mistaken, I need to read up on the torso murders in days to come.

The best,
Fisherman

[Debra A]

Then again, if the evidence was pretty conclusive that the four torso killings were carried out by the same man, then an inclusion of the Pinchin Street torso predisposes that we also accept the earlier cases as potentially being Jack´s. And that seems an awful long and hard leap with no security net underneath.

Fisherman, the importance of the work done by Hebbert and Bond should not be overlooked or dismissed out of hand when looking at the torso murders. They examined all four sets of remains.
Hebbert sounds more convinced here that the four torso murders were committed by one man than Phillips was convinced that MJK and Pinchin Street were done by the same man; No?

"The mode of dismemberment and mutilation
was in all similar, and showed very considerable skill in execu-
tion, and it is a fair presumption from the facts, that the
same man committed all the four murders. "

Charles A. Hebbert- An Exercise in Forensic Medicine II, Westminster Hospital reports 1889

[martin wilson]

A very belated reply to Helen,yes it was in 'Jack the Rippers book of Mammoths',a collection of theories about various mammoths who may have committed the murders,including the very controversial 'Elephant in Disguise' theory.
That reminds me of a great Far Side cartoon.
There are some people,believe it or not,who don't have the slightest interest in Jack the Ripper, if you ask them who they think Jack the Ripper was they will probably have some vague idea about a mad doctor, through cultural osmosis.
For some reason such people include Gibbs from NCIS.
The mad doctor is hardly given any credibility on these boards, but it does make me wonder if to some extent 'Jack the Ripper' as a sole entity is too pervasive an idea.
All the best.

[Fisherman]

Debra:

"Fisherman, the importance of the work done by Hebbert and Bond should not be overlooked or dismissed out of hand when looking at the torso murders."

You would be correct on that score - and that is why I say that speculating on my part that the torso murders and the Ripper killings were in any way related, would be to work without any security net. Therefore, I don´t do it. Once again, I don´t know enough about these killings to make any educated guess at all, and so I refrain from it for the time being.

You post a clipping that you mean goes to show that Charles Hebbert was more certain that the torso killings were committed by the same man, than Phillips was that Kelly and the Pinchin Street torso were only one man´s work.

But I have never stated that this was what Phillips believed. It is quite clear that he was more of a contrary belief - that the Kelly case and the Pinchin Street ditto were probably NOT the work of just the one man. I just felt that we may need to keep in mind that this aside, Phillips DID see clear similarities in some of the knifework.

As for Hebberts words, as quoted by you, I´d say that he seems to be very much of the opinion that the torso murders were all connected. But I need to read up much more on this before I can contribute usefully in any discussion relating to the value of his judgement.
It would be useful, for example, to see a more detailed listing of exactly what it was that prompted him to make the call he did, just as it would be nice to hear other experts comment on it all.

But I will get there, Debra! Up til then, please don´t think that I am in any way presenting any case about the Pinchin Street torso. ALL I know is that it fits one hundred per cent geographically with Lechmere, and this must be recognized as a fact that is potentially of interest.

If we had had a situation in which the Victorian police had nailed Lechmere for the Ripper killings in, say, 1890, subsequently finding out where his mother and daughter lived, then the police would have taken a very active interest in the positioning of the Pinchin Street torso. They would have reasessed the case, and they would have asked Lechmere a good many questions about it, for the simple reason that when murdered people turn up on the doorstep of known serialists, chances are that there IS a connection. But you know this!

The best,
Fisherman

[Trevor Marriott]

Fisherman, the importance of the work done by Hebbert and Bond should not be overlooked or dismissed out of hand when looking at the torso murders. They examined all four sets of remains.
Hebbert sounds more convinced here that the four torso murders were committed by one man than Phillips was convinced that MJK and Pinchin Street were done by the same man; No?

"The mode of dismemberment and mutilation
was in all similar, and showed very considerable skill in execu-
tion, and it is a fair presumption from the facts, that the
same man committed all the four murders. "

Charles A. Hebbert- An Exercise in Forensic Medicine II, Westminster Hospital reports 1889

Hi Debs
I know you have done a lot of work on these body parts etc. But isnt it correct that only one person was ever identified from the body parts. and that in all the cases foul play could never be proved.

[Bridewell]

Hi Michael

1. People who attack with knives often attack the throat.

But not always.

Liz Strides was cut unlike any other Canonicals.

The left carotid artery was only partially severed.

Also, a third victim that night had her throat slit.

In a domestic argument? There has never been any suggestion that it was linked to either the Stride or the Eddowes murder. I don't see that it's germane to the issue of whether or not those two murders were linked by a common killer.

2. Its unclear why Liz was where she was, but prostituting herself seems by the physical evidence highly improbable.

I don't see it as 'highly improbable'. She'd left a pub with one man and appeared to be waiting for another. She may or may not have been loitering for prostitution, but loitering she was, and she was a known prostitute.

3. Liz Stride had not consumed alcohol by the coroners report.

"Was there any sign of liquor in the stomach?" - "There was no trace of it". Fair point.

4. That 2 women were killed on the same night is coincidental, that 2 women were killed on the same night during a supposed series of kills by a lone assassin is really the argument there.

That two women were killed on the same night may be coincidental - or it may not. I'm trying to think of any other example of two people being killed, in unrelated murders, within half a mile of each other and within an hour of each other. It's possible but, to my mind, far less likely than one murderer killing two women.

Regards, Bridewell.

[lynn cates]

tempus et locus

Hello Colin.

"Also, a third victim that night had her throat slit."

"In a domestic argument? There has never been any suggestion that it was linked to either the Stride or the Eddowes murder. I don't see that it's germane to the issue of whether or not those two murders were linked by a common killer."

It is germane ONLY if one resorts to statistics to prove some point. Else, it is no more noteworthy than Stride and Eddowes being killed on the same night.

"I'm trying to think of any other example of two people being killed, in unrelated murders, within half a mile of each other and within an hour of each other."

And this brings up two important points, and to which, I have yet to see a good answer.

1. How far apart must the crimes be before the distance becomes insignificant?

2. How separate in time must the crimes be before the time becomes insignificant?

Cheers.
LC

[RivkahChaya]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;235420]

I have thought that it is likely that MJK gave the Ripper his first opportunity to commit a murder indoors, because she had a room, as opposed to sleeping in doss houses, and that after that, he was "hooked" on the kind of thing he could do in private, and didn't go back to murdering women on the street.

Sound very straightforward and logical to me - unless, of course, the thrill of street killing belonged to the package...

That could be right as well. It could be that he found the MJK murder not as much fun as the earlier murders. Maybe he had a fantasy of completely denuding a skeleton, but once he was in the middle of it, it was just a lot of work, and not so much thrill.

I've never read any research on it, or heard a serial killer talk about it, but inasmuch as the killings usually start out as fantasies, there must be some things they enjoy more than others.

Ordinary people have things they imagine doing sexually, which turn out to be great, or disappointing, so they want to repeat the experience, or not, and I don't see why the same thing couldn't be true for a sexual perversion.

However, suggesting that killing MJK indoors led to a decision to continue "working" indoors would explain the lack of more victims found on the street, and that's the reason I have always favored it.

...if JTR went from killing women where he found them, to taking them home, the disarticulations, and resulting torsos, may just have been part of what he had to do to get rid of the bodies afterwards

...this is sound reasoning too. And it fits very well with sketching a connection inbetween the Ripper series and the Pinchin Street torso.

I don't personally think that JTR was responsible for the torso murders. But someone asked for the suggestion of a plausible scenario, so I offered one.

...evidence was pretty conclusive that the four torso killings were carried out by the same man ... an inclusion of the Pinchin Street torso predisposes that we also accept the earlier cases as potentially being Jack´s. And that seems an awful long and hard leap with no security net underneath.

Fair enough. It was just a suggestion, not a theory I'm married to.

There are some people,believe it or not,who don't have the slightest interest in Jack the Ripper, if you ask them who they think Jack the Ripper was they will probably have some vague idea about a mad doctor, through cultural osmosis.

Annoying to me, very much. People who don't know really anything about the case, other than pastiches they have seen, like the Star Trek episode, or Murder by Decree, believe that JTR practically had superpowers. They are often shocked to find out that the number of victims is very low (relative to other known serial killers), around five, possibly lower, and no higher than about nine. Given the fiction most people are aware of (and aware of nothing else), it's no wonder it is easy for a lot of them to believe JTR had to have education, money, and some kind of political influence.

[Fisherman]

Hi RivkaChaya!

Thanks for the response. But that last quote in your post - that wasn´t me, I´m afraid!

Just wanted to point that out...

The best,
Fisherman