Is Jack someone we have never heard of?

[RivkahChaya]

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?

As long as the answer is "Not so far apart and so close in time as to make it physically impossible for one person to commit both," I don't think it really matters.

I don't think the answer to whether JTR committed both crimes can be found in statistics, because the sample is too small. It may be very, very unlikely for two women in one city to be killed close together in space and time by two different people, but as long as it is a non-zero number, we have to allow that it is possible.

It is not as though there were double events (two murders within a few minutes, close together geographically) six weekends in a row, and we were being asked to believe that in each case, one murder was a JTR murder, and the other was by another person, yet not the same other person in each case, just a coincidental domestic situation.

The only way, I think, to determine whether they were killed by the same person, is by examination, and for that, we have just the two coroners' reports, which isn't much to go on.

I do want to add that I have known some people who think that proving the "Saucy Jack" postcard authentic would prove the double event to be real, but I don't know that this is true. Isn't it possible for JTR to have heard about the Stride murder, assuming for the moment he did not commit it, and decide that since the police already suspected him of it, he would take credit for it? If he was the sort to write postcards taunting the police, he might be inclined to up his body count that way.

[lynn cates]

damage control

Hello Rivkah. Thanks. Quite an intelligent post.

Yes, if you look closely at "Saucy Jacky" you may find someone who was taken aback by Stride's death and who now is engaged in damage control.

Cheers.
LC

[Phil H]

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.

If I may say so, that is entirely an assumption.

The evidence suggests that Liz took a great deal of trouble with her appearance that night - the clothes brush. She had money in her pocket (6d) from cleaning work, and appears to have been with one man all night.

There has been some discussion in the literature that he may have been a married Jewish man - but that too is speculation.

It is entirely possible that the "man" was in the Club and Liz was waiting for him; alternatively that Schwartz's pipe-smoking man was Liz's beau, asked to step aside while she dealt with Kidney. We don't know that pipe-smoking man existed, but either explanation is as fitting as yours.

Testimony suggests that Liz preferred to earn money by cleaning when she could, and while known to get drunk, does not appear to have been so when she died.

Of course, those who cannot shake the old orthodoxy that "she MUST" have been a victim of the Ripper, need the fig-leaf of insisting she was on the game that night. But respecting the evidence is surely little to ask.

Apart from the generalised branding as "whores" of all the women concerned (though I'll admit most were).

Sorry to quibble,
Phil H

[Bridewell]

"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

Hi Lynn,

Good questions!

Two murders in the same area but separated by weeks, months or years are not significant in terms of the assumption of a common killer.

Two murders within an hour of each other, but many miles apart likewise.

But combine the two? I understand your point but, in the context of Stride and Eddowes, I think the two have to be taken together. I would argue that it becomes insignificant to the point of irrelevance if a killer could not realistically cover the distance between the crime scenes, within the distance between the times - bot not otherwise.

There were three murders in the East End in one night. It's not an unreasonable supposition that two of them may have been perpetrated by the same man - the view of the investigators at the time.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Jon Guy]

Hi Colin

But combine the two? I understand your point but, in the context of Stride and Eddowes, I think the two have to be taken together. I would argue that it becomes insignificant to the point of irrelevance if a killer could not realistically cover the distance between the crime scenes, within the distance between the times - bot not otherwise.

It becomes even more significant if we note that:

victim 1 = 45 yrs old resident of a common lodging house in Flower and Dean St
victim 2 = 46 yrs old resident of a common lodging house in Flower and Dean St

[lynn cates]

how much; how many?

Hello Colin. Thanks.

OK, weeks and months are right out. How about days? Hours? How many?

Distance? There was a serial killing in which another body was found nearby--same alley. But no connection. (I think Norma Buddle found this titbit.)

Sorry if I seem to nitpick.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

statistics--if you wish

Hello Jon. Interesting point.

Would you have figures for how many ladies of roughly that same age were living in CLH's in Autumn 1888?

Cheers.
LC

[Jon Guy]

I don`t, Lynn. Colin Roberts posts are worth checking out if you want stats.

[lynn cates]

statistically speaking

Hello Jon. Thanks.

Splendid. At least we can agree on THAT.

Cheers.
LC

[Abby Normal]

what do you think of the idea that if JtR and Torso Murderer are the same person it may be due to the fact that the torso murders were done when the killer could kill in his home and the JtR murderes were ones where he could not?

I know the question was addressed to Debra, and i am no criminologist...

but has any known killer ever operated in such a way - having two MOs for different situations?

It doesn't ring true to me.

Phil H

Hi Phil
Sorry for the late response on this-i missed it first time around.

Absolutely serial killers change there MOs based on the situation. Just off the top of my head-the Boston Strangler, Zodiac, Bundy and BTK all changed their MOs drastically depending on the circumstances.

I think alot of people place WAY too much empahasis on the tenets of behaviour psychology and MO IMHO. People are complex creatures, let alone serial killers, and they change, grow, evolve, experiment etc.-They are not robots.

[Debra A]

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.

Hi Trevor,
You talk of 'these body parts' as if the odd arm or leg were found declared to be a murder victim! Enough of the remains was found in each individual case to legally open an inquest.
Yes, it is true that only one woman, Elizabeth Jackson, 26 years old and heavily pregnant, was identified, but a verdict of willful murder by person or persons unknown was returned in that case. Elizabeth was last seen alive only 24 hours before the first of her remains was washed up, wrapped in the clothing she was last seen wearing.

Despite calculations and descriptions of height, weight, skin colouring and hair colour in life none of the other women was positively identified although it did highlight the massive numbers of women who went missing from home without a trace in the amount of inquiries lodged with police. Clothing was also found with the Whitehall torso case (which wasn't just a torso, an arm and a leg were also found and matched to the torso)
In the Rainham case all the body parts except the head were found and it was agreed that the dismemberment occured within 24 hours of death in that case too.

In none of the cases was a natural cause of death detected, and all the remains showed no signs of being taken from anatomical specimens. Anatomist and doctors in general used practiced and recognised, learned techniques for limb removal etc.and these specific techniques were not demonstrated in the finds, as was noted by the doctors carefully examining the remains.

There was no signs of disease present and no diseased organs (of those found). Signs of syncope and sudden blood loss were mentioned, bruising was also present. All the remains were of females and all of an age between 18 and 40, two of the cases were wrapped in female clothing.

You of all people know that murder and dismemberment for disposal was and still is not an uncommon crime. Why between 87 and 89 would it suddenly become so that anatomists were chopping up and dumping females bodies of a certain age in the Thames!! The anatomy act was in place before and after that period.

[Abby Normal]

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?

Hi Debra
Thanks so much for this info!!!! All I can say is wow-just wow. I had thought previously that one, maybe two of the torsos had some kind of abdomin/pelvic mutilations but it appears that all of them did to some extent.
Very Interesting.

[Errata]

This is a vast oversimplification, but there are essentially three kinds of serial killers, in terms of outward appearance. The rare totally crazy ones, like Richard Chase, the rare totally sane ones, like John Wayne Gacy, and then there's the odd ones. Ed Gein was odd. He clearly had few screws loose, but no one ever thought he was dangerous. Jeffrey Dahmer was odd. The whole "quiet, shy, kept to himself" neighbor thing is a little odd. It makes you wonder if the police who were looking for some snarling maniac should have been looking for the guy all his neighbors sort of made fun of for, I don't know, hoarding stuffed birds.

[Abby Normal]

Wolf is rarely ever mistaken but with so many professional profilers giving their opinions, there are bound to be differences somewhere.
I'm not sure how we can determine a "why", the "why" is generally the motive which is not always obvious.

I had read that the M.O. (essentially 'by what method') would be the knife, as opposed to a gun, or a rope, or poison.
Tabram & Kelly were killed with the same M.O., the knife. However, the signature is how the knife is used.
Therefore, Tabram and Kelly bore different signatures.

Regards, Jon S.

Hi Wicker
My understanding is that signature is the "why" insomuch as how the "why" manifests itself on the victims body and/or other crime evidence.

And MO, or "how" pertains not only to the weapon used but also things like how the killer gained control of the victim and body disposal.

So, for example, with Dennis Rader BTK, The MO was usually targeting a victim, planning the crime, entering there place of residence, using a gun and a ruse to gain control and using strangulation and suffocation to kill the victim and then leaving the body in the residence.

The signature was using ropes, ligatures, clothing to strangle, bringing the victim in and out of consciousness untill ultimately killing them and masturbating on or near the victim.

Since he was caught confessed and described himself we have the benefit of confirming his signature-His "Why" (as manisfested on the victim and crime scene) was that he derived sexual pleasure from the act of binding and strangling a victim with rope. He would even take pictures of HIMSELF in various poses of bondage and with ropes around his neck. In his own words "It was all about the rope".

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,
You talk of 'these body parts' as if the odd arm or leg were found declared to be a murder victim! Enough of the remains was found in each individual case to legally open an inquest.
Yes, it is true that only one woman, Elizabeth Jackson, 26 years old and heavily pregnant, was identified, but a verdict of willful murder by person or persons unknown was returned in that case. Elizabeth was last seen alive only 24 hours before the first of her remains was washed up, wrapped in the clothing she was last seen wearing.

Despite calculations and descriptions of height, weight, skin colouring and hair colour in life none of the other women was positively identified although it did highlight the massive numbers of women who went missing from home without a trace in the amount of inquiries lodged with police. Clothing was also found with the Whitehall torso case (which wasn't just a torso, an arm and a leg were also found and matched to the torso)
In the Rainham case all the body parts except the head were found and it was agreed that the dismemberment occured within 24 hours of death in that case too.

In none of the cases was a natural cause of death detected, and all the remains showed no signs of being taken from anatomical specimens. Anatomist and doctors in general used practiced and recognised, learned techniques for limb removal etc.and these specific techniques were not demonstrated in the finds, as was noted by the doctors carefully examining the remains.

There was no signs of disease present and no diseased organs (of those found). Signs of syncope and sudden blood loss were mentioned, bruising was also present. All the remains were of females and all of an age between 18 and 40, two of the cases were wrapped in female clothing.

You of all people know that murder and dismemberment for disposal was and still is not an uncommon crime. Why between 87 and 89 would it suddenly become so that anatomists were chopping up and dumping females bodies of a certain age in the Thames!! The anatomy act was in place before and after that period.

Hi Debs
Just trying to look at these from a differnet perspective, I beleive that in some of the cases doctors decsribed antamoical knowledge in the way the body parts had been cut up or off as the case may be.

When body parts or in the some cases the full bodies were taken as medical specimens etc. It was the responsibilty of those taking them to dispose of them in a proper way. Perhaps that wasnt always the case and dumping them in the thames was a much easier option.

I quote from The Pall Mall Gazette

"One corpse" - £3.5shilling
"One thorax" - 5 Shillings
" One arm,one leg,one head,one neck,and one abdomen" - 15 shillings

No matter how much you doctor it up it cannot be proven that the owners of the body parts were actually murdered although I have to agree with you that an inference may be drawn.