How Many Victims?

[John Wheat]

I strongly disagree.

The Ripper left his victims' posed bodies where they were sure to be found in short order. The Torso Killer did not. Remains were pitched into rivers and canals where they only surfaced once decomposition was far enough along and were found by pure chance. Other parts were buried. Parts were hidden in shrubbery. The most visible but was the Pinchin Street Torso which was found by pure chance shortly after it was deposited, when it could have lain there unnoticed for days.

And either he was very luck, or the Torso Killer made an extra effort to make sure the heads were not found. He didn't want his victims to be indentified - the Ripper didn't care if his victims were identified.

Absolutely Fiver. The Ripper and The Torso Killer were two separate killers.

[The Baron]

I disagree.


There's a difference between M.O and Signature.


The Ripper and the Torso killer shared a key signature; they both desired for their respective victims to be found.

The Pinchin St torso wasn't placed under the arch to be hidden...it was placed deliberately in the knowledge it would be found.

The same applied to the Whitehall Torso; the evidence suggesting that the Torso had been previously buried and then deliberately dug up and placed...to be found

The Ripper always left his victims displayed in a manner that would cause the most possible shock value to the first person who found the body.

The killers choice to display and present a victim, is suggestive of an individual who wants acknowledgement of his work and recognition of his efforts.

When we consider that the Rippers signature was in the displaying of his victim, and the Torso killer deliberately intending for his victims to be found....we can see that there are clear similarities in the psychology of both men.

It is important to distinguish the difference between a killer needing to conceal a body with the intention of hiding a victims identity; with a killer choosing to place a victim in an area that would guarantee the victim would be found.

It's not about the identity of the victim, its about deliberately placing a victim with the knowledge that someone would eventually find it; and thus the killer's end game is the thrill of someone finding his work... the exact same signature as the Ripper.

The Torso killer wasn't trying to hide the victims permanently, otherwise he would have just dumped all the body parts in the Thames with heavy weights.

The reason why the M.O is different between the Ripper and the Torso killer, may just be that the killer wanted to make the world believe that there was more than one killer.

Nobody would suspect the Ripper being the notorious Torso killer.

That despite many newspapers at the time listing the Pinchin Street torso as a Ripper victim.

Then along came the shallow-minded concept of the Canonical 5 to ruin the parade.

Never say never

I completely agree with the point made about the difference between M.O. and signature. The notion of signature transcends mere method, it reflects the psychological essence of the killer.

The Ripper’s display of victims wasn’t just a crime, it was a deliberate act of self expression, an invitation for recognition. The body wasn’t simply discarded, it was presented, demanding the world’s acknowledgment.

The killer, in this case, was asserting his existence in the world. He sought validation, not through the victim’s suffering alone, but by the shock, fear, and awe his actions inspired in those who found the body.

It was a testament to his ego, the need to assert that he was there, that his crime left a mark not only on the victim but on society itself, to leave a lingering, unsettling uncertainty.

Their actions were less about the victims than they were about themselves, using murder not as an end, but as a means to project their identity into the world by making it ask questions only they could answer, and becoming symbols of something much larger than themselves.

The methods may differ, but the signature remains, it is not about hiding, it’s about being found, not about the identity of the victim, but the identity of the killer, through the act of murder as a form of existential performance.

In a world obsessed with identity and recognition, perhaps that’s all these killers were seeking, an acknowledgment of their existence in a society that otherwise would have ignored them.



The Baron

[FrankO]

The Ripper and the Torso killer shared a key signature; they both desired for their respective victims to be found.

Hi Rookie,

As far as I can see, we can’t know that. Where it indeed seems to be part of the Torso killer’s signature, it certainly doesn’t have to be for the Ripper.

For the Ripper it may very well just have been a matter of practicality. He chose to kill in the streets, because he was more interested in getting his fix than in bothering to find someone he could kill indoors and, as a result, he did what he could in the time he thought he had with his victims and then got out of there before anyone walked into the scene.

The Ripper always left his victims displayed in a manner that would cause the most possible shock value to the first person who found the body.

The killers choice to display and present a victim, is suggestive of an individual who wants acknowledgement of his work and recognition of his efforts.

Nobody would suspect the Ripper being the notorious Torso killer.

When we consider that the Rippers signature was in the displaying of his victim, and the Torso killer deliberately intending for his victims to be found....we can see that there are clear similarities in the psychology of both men.

Again, I don’t think we can be sure that the Ripper got off on knowing his victims would be found and what a shock it would cause amongst the public. The most we can say is that the shock he knew he caused was a welcome by-product.

The thing that, to me, doesn’t add up in what you say about acknowledgement, recognition and notoriety is that the Torso killer wasn’t as much recognized as the man behind all the torsos found between 1873, or even 1887, and 1889. He wasn’t dubbed “Torso killer” or anything like that, although, of course, some of the places where he ditched parts of his victims seem to be some sort of message, like the garden of the Shelley estate, Whitehall and even Pinchin Street close to Ripper territory.

If anything, it’s clear that the Ripper was far more notorious than Torso killer ever was.

It is important to distinguish the difference between a killer needing to conceal a body with the intention of hiding a victims identity; with a killer choosing to place a victim in an area that would guarantee the victim would be found.

It's not about the identity of the victim, its about deliberately placing a victim with the knowledge that someone would eventually find it; and thus the killer's end game is the thrill of someone finding his work... the exact same signature as the Ripper.

The Torso killer wasn't trying to hide the victims permanently, otherwise he would have just dumped all the body parts in the Thames with heavy weights.

I think you’re forgetting something, Rookie. If the police of the day couldn’t find a witness who’d seen the killer and victim together very shortly before the victim was last seen alive, and no one would come forward to confess, then they’d have a very difficult task of finding the culprit. So, if there was no link between killer and victim, trying to hide a victims identity wasn't necessary - as we see in the Ripper's case - and the killer had little to worry about. That would certainly go for the Torso killer, who spread his risk by not doing the accosting/meeting, killing & cutting and dumping in one go or more or less one place.

Cheers,
Frank

[Herlock Sholmes]

One met his victims, killed and mutilated his victims there and then and left them ‘on display.’ The torso killer (if there was one) killed the women and stored the body somewhere, dismembered them, wrapped the parts, and dumped them in various locations including the river.

Clearly no connection. At least two different killers, possibly more.

[Patrick Differ]

Inspector Reid believed All 11 whitechapel murders were the same hand but that was likely not the case.

When did it start and who was the first victim? And why did it happen in 1888? Serial killers start somewhere and continue until they are caught or incapacitated.

My own view is that this killer had not killed humans yet but had experience with animals. That puts Wilson and Millwood on the radar. Neither were successes and poorly executed.
What happened between April and August if this were the case? It could be anything from the failed attempts, family crisis and the fact that the weather drove many indoors. The summer of malaise it was being called.

Martha Tabrum was possibly the probing victim. Strangled and stabbed in the heart and then mutilated ( probed) in the abdomen. Why was she not gutted? Perhaps because the killer had never killed a human before? Tabrums abdominal wounds point to more of a probe than anything else.

Nichols and Chapman were the next step for this killer. He was strong enough ( stout) to strangle his victims with his left hand over the mouth and his right hand around the neck. This method would render a person weakened by near starvation unconcious in about 10 seconds. Using the nearest wall as leverage. Wilson, Millwood, Tabrum, Nichols and Chapman by the end of August.

Stride and Eddowes are likely by the same killer as the MO of throat cutting was similar and Stride was in Metro jurisdiction. She was also the southern most victim whereas Chapman was the northern most. Coincidence or planned?

Eddowes was in the wrong place at the wrong time. She also threw the London Police into the murder series and forced the killer underground. But not before he left evidence on Goulston Street back in Metro. ( I live in Metro not in London City?).

Mary Kelly was in my view the perfect victim and number 9. She entertained indoors which gave the killer as much time as he needed to satisfy his need.

Was Alice Mckenzie #10? Could this killer not stop or did he no longer get the same satisfaction? Did he know he was being watched at this point and was he too ill both mentally and physically to continue? Or did he move on?

10 victims is close to Reids assessment at 11. Emma Smith perhaps by a gang.

JtR knew the streets. He knew how to negotiate with unfortunates, he was non threatening, he was strong, he was cunning, he was methodical working in complete silence, he was a risk taker, he was deadly with a knife he kept sharp, and he was insane but could control it.

My guess is 10 victims. He failed and learned like just about every other serial killer.

[The Rookie Detective]

Inspector Reid believed All 11 whitechapel murders were the same hand but that was likely not the case.

When did it start and who was the first victim? And why did it happen in 1888? Serial killers start somewhere and continue until they are caught or incapacitated.

My own view is that this killer had not killed humans yet but had experience with animals. That puts Wilson and Millwood on the radar. Neither were successes and poorly executed.
What happened between April and August if this were the case? It could be anything from the failed attempts, family crisis and the fact that the weather drove many indoors. The summer of malaise it was being called.

Martha Tabrum was possibly the probing victim. Strangled and stabbed in the heart and then mutilated ( probed) in the abdomen. Why was she not gutted? Perhaps because the killer had never killed a human before? Tabrums abdominal wounds point to more of a probe than anything else.

Nichols and Chapman were the next step for this killer. He was strong enough ( stout) to strangle his victims with his left hand over the mouth and his right hand around the neck. This method would render a person weakened by near starvation unconcious in about 10 seconds. Using the nearest wall as leverage. Wilson, Millwood, Tabrum, Nichols and Chapman by the end of August.

Stride and Eddowes are likely by the same killer as the MO of throat cutting was similar and Stride was in Metro jurisdiction. She was also the southern most victim whereas Chapman was the northern most. Coincidence or planned?

Eddowes was in the wrong place at the wrong time. She also threw the London Police into the murder series and forced the killer underground. But not before he left evidence on Goulston Street back in Metro. ( I live in Metro not in London City?).

Mary Kelly was in my view the perfect victim and number 9. She entertained indoors which gave the killer as much time as he needed to satisfy his need.

Was Alice Mckenzie #10? Could this killer not stop or did he no longer get the same satisfaction? Did he know he was being watched at this point and was he too ill both mentally and physically to continue? Or did he move on?

10 victims is close to Reids assessment at 11. Emma Smith perhaps by a gang.

JtR knew the streets. He knew how to negotiate with unfortunates, he was non threatening, he was strong, he was cunning, he was methodical working in complete silence, he was a risk taker, he was deadly with a knife he kept sharp, and he was insane but could control it.

My guess is 10 victims. He failed and learned like just about every other serial killer.

Fantastic post.


I like the point you state "...methodical working in complete silence."

There's potentially more relevance to that particular statement.

I have mentioned before my belief that the killer knew how do precisely that; to work in relative silence.

But how?


Well, many convicted criminals at the time were sent to Coldbath Fields prison (Middlesex House of Correction)

The prison was located in Mount Pleasant in Clerkenwell. Today the site is occupied by the huge post office HQ (Unless that has closed recently?)

The prison closed in 1885.

However, the prison was one of only a handful that operated the controversial "Silent system."

This was a system whereby prisoners were ordered to repeat mundane working tasks...and all in complete silence.

Failure to work under the strict regime meant further punishment.

The Silent System was eventually abolished but my point is thus... If the Ripper was convicted of a previous offense and then was sent to Cold Bath Fields prison, then he would have essentially been 'trained to do things in silence.

My idea is that he learnt his skills while being incarcerated in Cold Bath Fields prison for a previous misdemeanor that was unrelated, but the prison time then taught him the skills he needed to move around and cut throats in silence.

I am convinced that the Ripper served time as a younger man in Cold Bath fields prison and then applied the skills he had learned through mundane repetition, to use to his advantage for escaping murder sites and cutting his victims up without making a sound to draw attention.

He was clearly strong because he managed to almost decapitate Stride with ONE cut.

That takes practice and repetition and the hours and hours spent working in the prison, would have grown his muscle strength over time.

There's a reason why nobody heard the killer; because he knew how to do things quietly.

His name appears on that prison registry somewhere, I am sure of it.

[Patrick Differ]

Hi RD- I wonder how far back the Police actually checked into these asylums and prisons? Most used Tread Wheels and cranks and suicide was relatively high. Jacob Levy was 1886 but Kelly was recent and an escapee. Did both Metro and London City check into these Prisons and Asylums considering they were understaffed and had to pull resources?
It would also surprise me if 76 butchers were interviewed to any extent and how many had police records and alibis. You are talking a population East of London of over 500,000 people. Inspectors did daily summaries so you wonder if any of that exists somewhere??