A present for Scotland Yard

[Pierre]

A question for you, John!

It is a proven thing that serialists who stay uncaught often develop a sense of being invincible as they go along. They become more and more bold, and take larger and larger risks.
The Nichols murder is often quoted as the first Ripper deed. Many are baffld by how the killer seems to have developed a rather elaborate method of killing at such an early stage in a murder series. It is therefore often speculated that he must have killed before.

Recklessness is often taken for a disorganized trait. It could equally be a trait of arrogance, showing itself as the killers sense of superority grows.

Hereīs the question:
Would you agree that the Ripper could have had former killing experience as he took the life of Polly Nichols, and does the suggestion that he could have arrived at a stage of selfconfidence in August of 1888 owing to such an earlier killing experience sound reasonable to your ears?

Hi Fisherman,

I would like to answer this too. I have no sources indicating that he committed any murder before 1888. But the question concerning your question is not only if he was at some peak of self confidence in August 1888.

I think the question is why he murdered and mutilated a prostitute on an open street with very few possibilities for escape and after this he changed his MO since he only murdered and mutilated prostitutes in courtyards and in a room (discussing the C5 now). Why did he do this? I am sure you and I have the exact same answer to that question but for quite different reasons.

Could both be right?

Regards Pierre

[Pierre]

And I knew it! You DID take your medical exam at last!

[John G]

Regards Pierre

I am confused by this reply. In all of the Torso cases the victims were dumped after being killed elsewhere, with the perpetrator acting to disguise the identity of the victims. None of the 1888 murders involved these factors. Nor can you say that this was an evolution of MO/signature because the Whitehall Torso, who you claim your "suspect" was responsible for, pre-dates some of the C5 murders, whereas the Pinchin Street Torso post dated them: what you therefore bizarrely end up with is a killer alternating between different signatures. If you think this was the case, please cite precedent.

As for discussions on the Whitehall Torso, I have stated many times that I believe the perpetrators intention was to taunt the police: see for example http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8862&page=7 , post 63.

[Fisherman]

As I have noted before there is conflicting evidence as to how much skill was demonstrated in both the Whitechapel and Torso "series" of crimes. I mean, if we just consider Catherine Eddowes, Dr Brown seemed to think that the perpetrator could have been a medical student, whereas Dr Sequeira thought that "he was not possessed of any great anatomical skill". He also concluded that "I think the murderer had no design on any particular organ of the body."

Moreover, in the Torso cases we cannot know that any organs were "taken." They may simply have been lost in transit.

There were organs in the torso series that were described as "removed", and we know that Jacksons uterus was not lost in transit. It was parcelled up and floated down the Thames. We also know that there were three torso victims (at least) who were opened up from the coastal arch down to the pubes. Moreover, we know that this long cut preceded the division in parts in the Rainham case, and most likely in the other cases too - otherwise the killer divided the torsos in three parts first, and then he cut along the midline afterwards. Very unlikely, and the Rainham case points in the other direction.

As for the skill involved in the torso murders, it cannot be discussed. We are dealing with a person who cut very cleanly and who was able to cut perfectly straight, and who produced no jagged wounds. And he was the neatest of disarticulators. So that is a given.
Compare, if you will, dr Biggs, who you quote. He said that the dismembering cases he had seen were all alike. They were sloppy, rugged affairs, with no obvious cutting plan and lots of very jagged cuts, flaps, tears and crevaces.
That is worlds apart from the Thames killer and his achievements. So farewell, dr Biggs - he comments on other types of crimes.

In the Ripper cases, we have a mixture of skill and rough work. That may well be the result of the different circumstances under which they were performed. But they DO involve elements that did impress a number of medicos, Phillips not least.

The more interesting matter is what I listed earlier. Should we rule out that two killers in the same town, at the same time, choosing unfortunates as victims, opening them up from coastal arch to pubes, procuring organs with and without a sexual connotation, could be the same man? I won' t do that, and I think I will be in the majority in days to come.

[Pierre]

There were organs in the torso series that were described as "removed", and we know that Jacksons uterus was not lost in transit. It was parcelled up and floated down the Thames. We also know that there were three torso victims (at least) who were opened up from the coastal arch down to the pubes. Moreover, we know that this long cut preceded the division in parts in the Rainham case, and most likely in the other cases too - otherwise the killer divided the torsos in three parts first, and then he cut along the midline afterwards. Very unlikely, and the Rainham case points in the other direction.

As for the skill involved in the torso murders, it cannot be discussed. We are dealing with a person who cut very cleanly and who was able to cut perfectly straight, and who produced no jagged wounds. And he was the neatest of disarticulators. So that is a given.
Compare, if you will, dr Biggs, who you quote. He said that the dismembering cases he had seen were all alike. They were sloppy, rugged affairs, with no obvious cutting plan and lots of very jagged cuts, flaps, tears and crevaces.
That is worlds apart from the Thames killer and his achievements. So farewell, dr Biggs - he comments on other types of crimes.

In the Ripper cases, we have a mixture of skill and rough work. That may well be the result of the different circumstances under which they were performed. But they DO involve elements that did impress a number of medicos, Phillips not least.

The more interesting matter is what I listed earlier. Should we rule out that two killers in the same town, at the same time, choosing unfortunates as victims, opening them up from coastal arch to pubes, procuring organs with and without a sexual connotation could be the same man? I won' t do that, and I think I will be in the majority in days to come.

Hi Fisherman.

I didnīt know this was your opinion. You have often emphasized Lechmere could have done the Whitechapel murders since he worked and lived in the area.

But the killer of the dismemberment murders distributed the pieces around Battersea Park and in the West End. How does this connect to Lechmere?

Regards Pierre

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,

I would like to answer this too. I have no sources indicating that he committed any murder before 1888. But the question concerning your question is not only if he was at some peak of self confidence in August 1888.

I think the question is why he murdered and mutilated a prostitute on an open street with very few possibilities for escape and after this he changed his MO since he only murdered and mutilated prostitutes in courtyards and in a room (discussing the C5 now). Why did he do this? I am sure you and I have the exact same answer to that question but for quite different reasons.

Could both be right?

Regards Pierre

There were actually more routes of escape from Bucks Row than from most of the other venues, excepting Mitre Square.
My guess is that the killer wanted to maximize his chances of getting time enough to work on his victims.

[John G]

There were organs in the torso series that were described as "removed", and we know that Jacksons uterus was not lost in transit. It was parcelled up and floated down the Thames. We also know that there were three torso victims (at least) who were opened up from the coastal arch down to the pubes. Moreover, we know that this long cut preceded the division in parts in the Rainham case, and most likely in the other cases too - otherwise the killer divided the torsos in three parts first, and then he cut along the midline afterwards. Very unlikely, and the Rainham case points in the other direction.

As for the skill involved in the torso murders, it cannot be discussed. We are dealing with a person who cut very cleanly and perfectly straight, and who produced no jagged wounds. And he was the neatest of disartuculators. So that is a given.
Compare, if you will, dr Biggs, who you quote. He said that the dismembering cases he had seen were all alike. They were sloppy, rugged affairs, with no obvious cutting plan and lots of very jagged cuts, flaps, tears and crevaces.
That is worlds apart from the Thames killer and his achievements. So farewell, dr Biggs - he comments on other types of crimes.

In the Ripper cases, we have a mixture of skill and rough work. That may well be the result of the different circumstances under which they were performed. But they DO involve elements that did impress a number of medicos, Phillips not least.

The more interesting matter is what I listed earlier. Should we rule out that two killers in the same town, at the same time, choosing unfortunates as victims, opening them up from coastal arch to pubes, procuring organs with and without a sexual connotationcould be the same man? I won' t do that, and I think I will be in the majority in days to come.

With respect, I believe you are placing far too much faith in the opinions of 19th GPs. They were not forensic experts and, anyway, medical science has moved on somewhat since the Victorian age!

As for the achievements of the Torso perpetrator, I'll cite Dr Biggs again: " I think it's worth noting that comments relating to "anatomical knowledge" or "surgical skill" should be taken with a pinch of salt in these sort of cases." (Marriott, 2015).

You say that the Torso perpetrator "produced no jagged wounds". Well, looks like we can rule Nichols and Eddowes out of the series then, as they both had jagged incisions inflicted upon them!

And what is your proof that any of the Torso victims were murdered? Or that he "procured" organs for that matter.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman.

I didnīt know this was your opinion. You have often emphasized Lechmere could have done the Whitechapel murders since he worked and lived in the area.

But the killer of the dismemberment murders distributed the pieces around Battersea Park and in the West End. How does this connect to Lechmere?

Regards Pierre

He was a carman, Pierre. He had access to a horse and cart. If he doubled as the torso killer, he started out killing in seclusion and eventually got confident and arrogant enough to kill out in the open streets.

[Pierre]

I am confused by this reply. In all of the Torso cases the victims were dumped after being killed elsewhere, with the perpetrator acting to disguise the identity of the victims.

What evidence is there that he would have wanted to disguise their identities? I think we just assume that, given that this is one of the usual features of such crimes. But if the killer is one and the same, one must expect another reason. This would have to be explained with his motive and it also has to match the motive(s) of the Whitechapel murderer. It is clear that the Whitechapel murderer chose high risk locations for his crimes. Walking around in London with body parts, or going by horse carriage, also implied taking a high risk. He could easily have been stopped and questioned by the police. So trying to disguise the victims identity by cutting the body into pieces and afterwards going out on the streets with the parcels would be counterproductive.

And going to Whitehall, very near the police headquarters, with the body parts would imply an extremely high risk. Where would anyone hide bodyparts after killing and mutilating the victim? Here? The area must have been swarming with police both day and night. Would it not be the last place one would choose if one wanted to hide a dead body?

None of the 1888 murders involved these factors. Nor can you say that this was an evolution of MO/signature because the Whitehall Torso, who you claim your "suspect" was responsible for, pre-dates some of the C5 murders, whereas the Pinchin Street Torso post dated them: what you therefore bizarrely end up with is a killer alternating between different signatures. If you think this was the case, please cite precedent.

If I am right about the killers identity he knew well how the police was thinking. Taunting the police by using more than one method would have been easy for him.

As for discussions on the Whitehall Torso, I have stated many times that I believe the perpetrators intention was to taunt the police: see for example http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8862&page=7 , post 63.

Thanks for the link! And since you say you also think that taunting the police was his intention, I agree.

Regards Pierre

[Pierre]

He was a carman, Pierre. He had access to a horse and cart. If he doubled as the torso killer, he started out killing in seclusion and eventually got confident and arrogant enough to kill out in the open streets.

I see. Well, in the 1880s people in general had access to horse and cart transports.

Oh, I see. So it is for the hypothesis that he became bolder that you think so.

I donīt think you need that hypothesis. Distributing parcels with body parts in them all over London was bold enough, or what do you think?

Regards Pierre

[Fisherman]

John G: With respect, I believe you are placing far too much faith in the opinions of 19th GPs. They were not forensic experts and, anyway, medical science has moved on somewhat since the Victorian age!

They had seen a LOT of cuts produced in criminal cases, and they recognized when the blade was held by a skilled cutter. They knew what was hard to achieve and what was easy to achieve. I find it far too convenient to rule their professionalism out when it goes against our beliefs.

As for the achievements of the Torso perpetrator, I'll cite Dr Biggs again: " I think it's worth noting that comments relating to "anatomical knowledge" or "surgical skill" should be taken with a pinch of salt in these sort of cases." (Marriott, 2015).

Once again, Biggs comments not on the specific torso cases, but instead om cases he has seen himself; sloppy affairs with no cutting skills involved. The torso killer was on another ilk. Dr Kempster, on the Jackson case:
"The arm had been severed from the body in a very skilled manner and the person who cut it off must have had a very considerable knowledge of anatomy."
You see, the Victorian doctors had also seen typical dismemberment cases (and reports of them), and they would normally have been just like the cases Biggs has seen: sloppy, rough, unplanned, messy, flappy...all the things the Thames Torso cases were not.


You say that the Torso perpetrator "produced no jagged wounds". Well, looks like we can rule Nichols and Eddowes out of the series then, as they both had jagged incisions inflicted upon them!

The torso cases and the Ripper cases are very different in many respects, nobody is contesting that. And the Ripper cases are sloppier. But they were carried out under time pressure on public streets and in squares and yards with no lighting available. The torso man had all the time he wanted in all probability, he could probably place his victims on a table, he had a sharp, accurate saw at hand, and he could probably use as much light as he wanted to. The Ripper had none of that.

And what is your proof that any of the Torso victims were murdered? Or that he "procured" organs for that matter.

Both the Pinchin Street case and the Jackson case, ended in verdicts of "wilful murder", and the police were in little doubt that this was the real verdict applying to the other cases too.
In the 1873 Battersea case, there were blows to the temple that would have been sufficient to kill, according to the medicos. This was further strengthened by how there were no blood clots in the vessels; the blood had been drained away before any clots could form.

As for "procuring" organs, I think we need to reformulate that somewhat: the killer took out organs from the bodies. I donīt think he necessarily felt an urge to do it for keeping.
Jacksons uterus was cut out and parcelled up and floated down the Thames. Similarly, the medicos reported that the lungs and heart had been "removed" - that is to say, purposefully taken out. In the part found in Battersea park, there remained intestines and kidneys (if memory serves me), whereas the chest cavity ABOVE had been emptied. It should also be said that this was to be expected in many a way, since Jackson did not have her abdomen opened only as far as up to the coastal arch - the sternum had also been sawed through, opening her up totally in the front.

[Fisherman]

I see. Well, in the 1880s people in general had access to horse and cart transports.

Oh, I see. So it is for the hypothesis that he became bolder that you think so.

I donīt think you need that hypothesis. Distributing parcels with body parts in them all over London was bold enough, or what do you think?

Regards Pierre

Distributing parcels is bold, absolutely. then again, if you carry the part you aim to dump in a bag, you can make sure that you are alone before you take action.

Killing and eviscerating in the open streets surpasses that by a country mile. There can be little doubt about that.

So bold - and then even bolder. A development that suits a serial killers development very well in many a case.

And no, people in general did not have access to a horse and cart. Many did, but not people in general, not even nearly. Go through the actors in the Ripper drama and see how many of them had that access.

[jerryd]

I am confused by this reply. In all of the Torso cases the victims were dumped after being killed elsewhere, with the perpetrator acting to disguise the identity of the victims. None of the 1888 murders involved these factors. Nor can you say that this was an evolution of MO/signature because the Whitehall Torso, who you claim your "suspect" was responsible for, pre-dates some of the C5 murders, whereas the Pinchin Street Torso post dated them: what you therefore bizarrely end up with is a killer alternating between different signatures. If you think this was the case, please cite precedent.

As for discussions on the Whitehall Torso, I have stated many times that I believe the perpetrators intention was to taunt the police: see for example http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8862&page=7 , post 63.

Hi JohnG,

The Whitehall torso most likely pre-dates all of the C5 victims as her estimated death was suggested to have been 6 to 8 weeks prior to the discovery of her body on October 2nd.

It's interesting to note that her torso was deposited in the vault sometime after September 29th. The double event was the early morning hours of September 30th.

[Pierre]

Distributing parcels is bold, absolutely. then again, if you carry the part you aim to dump in a bag, you can make sure that you are alone before you take action.

Surely. But the police would look for men carrying big bags. So there was clearly a risk of being stopped and questioned. So therefore this must therefore have been what he wanted.


Killing and eviscerating in the open streets surpasses that by a country mile. There can be little doubt about that.

Not by a whole country mile, if you knew the beats of the PC:s.

So bold - and then even bolder. A development that suits a serial killers development very well in many a case.

Here I would like to write something and I canīt . It is frustrating to say the least. But I can tell you he had a very clear reason for what he did in Whitechapel.

And no, people in general did not have access to a horse and cart. Many did, but not people in general, not even nearly. Go through the actors in the Ripper drama and see how many of them had that access.

OK. No problem. The person I think was the killer could afford going by horse and cart.

Regards Pierre

[Pierre]

Hi JohnG,

The Whitehall torso most likely pre-dates all of the C5 victims as her estimated death was suggested to have been 6 to 8 weeks prior to the discovery of her body on October 2nd.

It's interesting to note that her torso was deposited in the vault sometime after September 29th. The double event was the early morning hours of September 30th.

Hi Jerry,

I know. It is interesting that it was deposited just after the double event. The person I think was the killer had a clear motive for doing this.

Regards Pierre