A present for Scotland Yard

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[Pierre]

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

[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]

I do not believe that the Torso and Whitechapel murders are linked because of the vastly different MOs. For instance, the Torso killer used dump sites, suggesting a significantly more organized offender. This is even more problematic when you consider that some of the Torso murders pre-dated the Whitechapel murders, whilst others post-dated these crimes.

Not a problem in reality. Only a problem if you just accept the C5.

I agree that the Whitehall Torso was probably intended to taunt the police, something that I argued several months ago (mind you, it's nice to see that you might be taking inspiration from some of my earlier posts!)

I donīt think I have read that. Could you please give me a link to that discussion?

Overall, as you seem to be linking the Torso Murders (although technically cause of death wasn't established) with the Whitechapel murders I would have to conclude that your research is fundamentally flawed. Sorry, but there you have it.

By the way, Zodiac is a poor example to cite as a comparator because he was never caught,

Was Jack the Ripper caught?

therefore we cannot know which murders he may or may not have committed, or even whether such a serial killer existed at all: personally I think he was largely mythical.

Regards Pierre

[John G]

Moving on, we have two series of murders, where there was skill involved, as per the medicos - but not the skills of medical men. One sweep of the knife secured Chapmans uterus, and the dismembering cuts were clean and unjagged. To boot, in both series sexually connected as well as sexually unconnected organs were taken.

Still coincidental?

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.

[Fisherman]

The first point that I would make is that we cannot know that the Torso perpetrator(s) intended to specifically target organs, although the same could be said of the Whitechapel murderer(s): see, for example, the opinion of Dr Sequeira. Moreover, there is no proof that any of the Torso victims were actually murdered.

Secondly, I think we need to be extremely cautious in drawing comparisons between various victims. Thus, Kelly's murderer appeared to exhibit no skill whatsoever, and her organs may have simply have been plucked out; in contrast Dr Phillips appeared to conclude that Chapman's killer exhibited considerable skill; whereas with Eddowes medical opinion was divided.

I would also draw your attention to the opinion of Dr Biggs, in respect of the Torso victims: "If you look at a series of unrelated dismembered bodies you will see some startling similarities between them. This does not mean that you can conclude that they were carried out in the same way/ with the same tool(s)/by the same person. When disposing of a body people tend to adopt very similar strategies for dividing up the body to make it more manageable for concealment/transportation." (Marriott, 2015).

However, the Torso perpetrator(s) did seem to be proficient at decapitating his victims; in contrast, the same cannot be said of the Whitechapel murderer(s).

Moving on, we have two series of murders, where there was skill involved, as per the medicos - but not the skills of medical men. One sweep of the knife secured Chapmans uterus, and the dismembering cuts were clean and unjagged. To boot, in both series sexually connected as well as sexually unconnected organs were taken.

Still coincidental?

[John G]

Next: A number of the victims of the Torso killer had their abdomens cut open from the coastal arch down to the pubes. Does that remind you of any other killer...?

In the Rainham case, when piecing together the different parts, the doctors noticed that the cut the victim had, reaching from the coastal arch down to the pubes fit perfectly over all the three parts of the trunk that the killer had produced. Therefore, there can be no doubt that the cut was inflicted BEFORE the trunk was divided. Ergo, the main interest of the killer seemingly lay in cutting open the abdomen of his victim.

In the Elizabeth Jackson case, we know that the killer cut out the uterus. He was accordingly an eviscerator with a flair for opening up the bodies of his victims from the coastal arch down to the pubes. There are three examples of this in the torso tally - and we are poorly informed in some cases.

Jackson also had her heart removed.

Would you say that it is merely coincidental that victims in both series suffered these long cuts to their abdomens, loosing organs?

The first point that I would make is that we cannot know that the Torso perpetrator(s) intended to specifically target organs, although the same could be said of the Whitechapel murderer(s): see, for example, the opinion of Dr Sequeira. Moreover, there is no proof that any of the Torso victims were actually murdered.

Secondly, I think we need to be extremely cautious in drawing comparisons between various victims. Thus, Kelly's murderer appeared to exhibit no skill whatsoever, and her organs may have simply have been plucked out; in contrast Dr Phillips appeared to conclude that Chapman's killer exhibited considerable skill; whereas with Eddowes medical opinion was divided.

I would also draw your attention to the opinion of Dr Biggs, in respect of the Torso victims: "If you look at a series of unrelated dismembered bodies you will see some startling similarities between them. This does not mean that you can conclude that they were carried out in the same way/ with the same tool(s)/by the same person. When disposing of a body people tend to adopt very similar strategies for dividing up the body to make it more manageable for concealment/transportation." (Marriott, 2015).

However, the Torso perpetrator(s) did seem to be proficient at decapitating his victims; in contrast, the same cannot be said of the Whitechapel murderer(s).

[Mayerling]

Hi Pierre,

While it would seem like killing two birds with one stone to unite the Whitechapel Murderer and (at least in one case) the Thames Torso killer, I should point out that mutilation killings where body parts are deposited throughout a wide area are known prior to the 1870s - 1880s in Britain, and in London in particular. However, they were usually isolated single event murders.

1726 - Catherine Hayes, her lover, and confederates, strangle her husband, and then cut up his body. depositing portions around London to hide the crime. The head is found, set up by the authorities for public viewing, identified, and Hayes and her allies arrested and eventually hanged.

1836 - The torso, arms, and head of a middle aged woman are found in different parts of London, also so deposited to make identification hard (the head was found when instead of sinking into the Thames it got wedged into a canal lock). They are shown to the public, and the head is identified as that of one Hannah Brown by her brother. Brown had recently gotten married to a man named James Greenacre, who was a grocer. He was arrested with his mistress as they were on the verge of leaving the country. In his trial it turned out that Greenacre had taken the body sections himself around London, even carrying Hannah's head wrapped in a sheet onto an omnibus.
[Because he was a grocer, for years an average melon in London was termed a "Greenacre".] Greenacre was executed.

There were other cases involving body portions that were found. In 1880 a woman's torso was found in a pile of rubbish in a deserted house on Harley Street. The "Harley Street" Mystery was never solved, but years later Sir Bernard Spilsbury analyzed whatever evidence there was and concluded a doctor on the street must have committed an abortion that failed, and that killed the woman, and cut up the body and got rid of most of it but not the torso. But there was not sufficient evidence to show which doctor it was.

Jeff

[Fisherman]

Hello Fisherman,

Yes, I would absolutely agree and would be surprised if Nichols was his first victim. Personally, I consider Tabram as a good candidate, and wouldn't totally rule out Emma Smith.

I agree that he had a sense of superiority, and seemed largely unconcerned about the risks he was taking. However, the trait of recklessness seems to apply to all of the C5 murders, as well as Smith and Tabram, although the frenzied nature of the Tabram assault would surely have left the perpetrator covered in blood so, if his next victim was Nichols, this seems to be one mistake that he learned from.

Next: A number of the victims of the Torso killer had their abdomens cut open from the coastal arch down to the pubes. Does that remind you of any other killer...?

In the Rainham case, when piecing together the different parts, the doctors noticed that the cut the victim had, reaching from the coastal arch down to the pubes fit perfectly over all the three parts of the trunk that the killer had produced. Therefore, there can be no doubt that the cut was inflicted BEFORE the trunk was divided. Ergo, the main interest of the killer seemingly lay in cutting open the abdomen of his victim.

In the Elizabeth Jackson case, we know that the killer cut out the uterus. He was accordingly an eviscerator with a flair for opening up the bodies of his victims from the coastal arch down to the pubes. There are three examples of this in the torso tally - and we are poorly informed in some cases.

Jackson also had her heart removed.

Would you say that it is merely coincidental that victims in both series suffered these long cuts to their abdomens, loosing organs?

[John G]

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?

Hello Fisherman,

Yes, I would absolutely agree and would be surprised if Nichols was his first victim. Personally, I consider Tabram as a good candidate, and wouldn't totally rule out Emma Smith.

I agree that he had a sense of superiority, and seemed largely unconcerned about the risks he was taking. However, the trait of recklessness seems to apply to all of the C5 murders, as well as Smith and Tabram, although the frenzied nature of the Tabram assault would surely have left the perpetrator covered in blood so, if his next victim was Nichols, this seems to be one mistake that he learned from.

[Fisherman]

Hi,

Depending on how many victims he may be responsible for I would say that he exhibited both organised and disorganized characteristics, but mainly disorganized. Contrastingly, the Torso killer was clearly very organized. For example, he murdered his victims elsewhere and used dump sites, which suggests a significant degree of planning. Moreover, he successfully disguised the identity of his victims-only Liz Jackson was identified-unlike JtR who made no attempt to hide the identity of his victims. And, whereas, Torso was a commuter killer, JtR was a marauder, who targeted his victims within a very narrow geographical area, as "he was too disorganized to travel any great distance." See:Wilson, Yardley, Lines, 2015, p 81.

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?

[John G]

I can't help thinking that JTR was very organised in many respects.

Hi,

Depending on how many victims he may be responsible for I would say that he exhibited both organised and disorganized characteristics, but mainly disorganized. Contrastingly, the Torso killer was clearly very organized. For example, he murdered his victims elsewhere and used dump sites, which suggests a significant degree of planning. Moreover, he successfully disguised the identity of his victims-only Liz Jackson was identified-unlike JtR who made no attempt to hide the identity of his victims. And, whereas, Torso was a commuter killer, JtR was a marauder, who targeted his victims within a very narrow geographical area, as "he was too disorganized to travel any great distance." See:Wilson, Yardley, Lines, 2015, p 81.