Lipski

[Abby Normal]

I did. It lead me to read a book from a very small selection belonging to a popular suspect and in that book are illustrations of torsos, sectioned, biological/surgical illustrations, very primitive, but also involving women, wombs and viscera. It was a banned book at the time.

francis Thompson? sickert?

[Fisherman]

I did. It lead me to read a book from a very small selection belonging to a popular suspect and in that book are illustrations of torsos, sectioned, biological/surgical illustrations, very primitive, but also involving women, wombs and viscera. It was a banned book at the time.

Now youīre talking! But not nailing.

[Michael W Richards]

I am very mainstream here, Michael - to me, there is no doubt that we are dealing with the same killer. To me, it is not so much that he cut the abdomen away in flaps, as a question of WHY he did it, what it symbolizes. Once we get a hang of that, we can see a common trait that binds the Ripper deeds and the torso deeds very clearly together.

I can answer why the abdomen flaps were taken from Annie, ...so he could excise the abdominal organs he wanted to take. Can you say the same about Mary...considering her uterus was left under her head?

The WHY things are done is, I agree, critical,.. those who espouse that all these murders were linked because the likely motives, or the WHY, was the same, obviously have not studied the crimes in depth.

Polly was killed so she could have her abdomen/pelvis mutilated. Annie was killed so she could have her abdomen/pelvis mutilated and her uterus taken away. Why was Liz killed? Why was Kate killed? Why was Mary killed? Clearly the objectives of the killer(s) of those women, wasn't specifically to mutilate the abdomen/pelvis area and excise abdominal organs to take away. Nothing was taken from Liz, nothing was attempted to be taken,...Kate kidney and partial bladder left the crime scene, and Marys heart left hers. The many superfluous wounds that Kate and Mary endured after death show us that their killer(s) took extra time to cut faces, arms, legs and colons without clear objectives, the first "abdominal flap" thief targeted the uterus.

[Batman]

Batman: There is obviously hatred in the complete defeminization of Kelly including hacking her face to shreds.

I can see how your logic works, but I beg to disagree. I donīt think there was any hatred at all involved in what he did. He may not have valued Kelly as a person, but that may well have been secondary.

So why is stuff placed neatly about the place?

With Kelly he had more time... and it's nothing new.

He placed Eddowes intestine strip neatly beside her with other items. A few items seemed to be placed about neatly with Chapman. This is part of his behavior and maybe resembles something of his work in life.

But is it hatred? To my mind, that is not how hatred looks at all. It is a ritualistic behavour more than anything else, and rituals are not matters of hate.

I think one needs not go deeper than he was harvesting sexual organs from these encounters and what else he did to them blood lust. Why wasn't it surgically precise? It was dark and he was a ripper.

Yes, we should go deeper. It is NOT "only" about harvesting sexual organs.

Having said that I see some evidence on Mary Kelly that there may been amputation attempts on her right leg, or else it's a stocking part, but it looks like a circular incision too. This isn't in any autopsy. Having said that, Bond said she was naked. She clearly is not.

That dark line around the lower leg? It is fascinating. I have never been able to make sense of it, but I feel it may tell a story worth listening to. She was not naked, no. She wore what looks like a thin nightgown, the same kind of garment found with the Pinchin Street torso.
And no, it is not an autopsy. Not at all.

Anyhow that aside I think the sexual organ harvesting explanation as a subset of the torso murders for replacement parts gives reason to the whole thing and that's what I like about it. It makes sense and puts a lot of stuff together in one go.

Then pursue the idea! Me, Iīve got a better one...

I did. It lead me to read a book from a very small selection belonging to a popular suspect and in that book are illustrations of torsos, sectioned, biological/surgical illustrations, very primitive, but also involving women, wombs and viscera. It was a banned book at the time.

[Fisherman]

point taken, fisherman. What-gets-me is how capable each killer would have been performing the other's type of crimes. The Torso Killer should have been able to perform Jack the Ripper's crimes, and vice versa... which, along with dane's post, makes me wonder the statistical probability of having two serial murderers in the same locale who know how to dissect and eviscerate a woman. It's NOT as though we're comparing one man who shot his victims to death, and another killer who assaults and eviscerates.

Very true - we are comparing two eviscerators who were both very skilled with the knife, who both preyed on prostitutes and who both came up with the idea to lay the abdomen of victims open by cutting away the abdominal wall in large flaps, who both took rings from the fingers of their victims, who both took out the colon or sections of it from victims, who cut out the uterus from victims, who cut their victims from sternum to pubes...

It just doesnīt happen. It is the same man, and that should have been recognized ages ago.

[Fisherman]

Had that action not been reported in detail in newspapers since early September, I might agree. Clearly, that feature was well publicized, therefore, potentially mimicked or duplicated.

I am very mainstream here, Michael - to me, there is no doubt that we are dealing with the same killer. To me, it is not so much that he cut the abdomen away in flaps, as a question of WHY he did it, what it symbolizes. Once we get a hang of that, we can see a common trait that binds the Ripper deeds and the torso deeds very clearly together.

[Fisherman]

Batman: There is obviously hatred in the complete defeminization of Kelly including hacking her face to shreds.

I can see how your logic works, but I beg to disagree. I donīt think there was any hatred at all involved in what he did. He may not have valued Kelly as a person, but that may well have been secondary.

So why is stuff placed neatly about the place?

With Kelly he had more time... and it's nothing new.

He placed Eddowes intestine strip neatly beside her with other items. A few items seemed to be placed about neatly with Chapman. This is part of his behavior and maybe resembles something of his work in life.

But is it hatred? To my mind, that is not how hatred looks at all. It is a ritualistic behavour more than anything else, and rituals are not matters of hate.

I think one needs not go deeper than he was harvesting sexual organs from these encounters and what else he did to them blood lust. Why wasn't it surgically precise? It was dark and he was a ripper.

Yes, we should go deeper. It is NOT "only" about harvesting sexual organs.

Having said that I see some evidence on Mary Kelly that there may been amputation attempts on her right leg, or else it's a stocking part, but it looks like a circular incision too. This isn't in any autopsy. Having said that, Bond said she was naked. She clearly is not.

That dark line around the lower leg? It is fascinating. I have never been able to make sense of it, but I feel it may tell a story worth listening to. She was not naked, no. She wore what looks like a thin nightgown, the same kind of garment found with the Pinchin Street torso.
And no, it is not an autopsy. Not at all.

Anyhow that aside I think the sexual organ harvesting explanation as a subset of the torso murders for replacement parts gives reason to the whole thing and that's what I like about it. It makes sense and puts a lot of stuff together in one go.

Then pursue the idea! Me, Iīve got a better one...

[Fisherman]

Pure conjecture. Nothing to see here, folks.



Ah, so you're warning against inductive reasoning. In that case, just because two similar(ish) serial killers have never overlapped (and I don't even know that to be true), doesn't mean it can't happen, correct?

The Victorian era was a macabre old time. It wouldn't surprise me in the least that it managed to spawn two serial killers with a penchant for butchering women.



Is that why only one of them was ever identified?



It's not that the Ripper should've copied the Torso killer's MO, it's that the Torso killer resorted to this kind of disorganized murder in the first place that is the bone of contention.



The composure and skill that had served the Ripper in the previous murders appeared to elude him with Mary Kelly. The 'kid in a sweet shop' analogy seems apt here. However, the Torso killer was already used to spending quality time with his victims but they were neatly dismembered, not destroyed in a disorganized frenzy like Mary Kelly.

And why didn't the experienced medicos link the two series if it was that obvious they were done by the same killer?



Careful, I'm getting echoes of Pierre here.



De-escalation, superficial injuries, throat stabbed twice instead of cut, there's certainly good reason to doubt McKenzie as a Ripper victim.

You defined your own post in the first sentence: Nothing to see here!

[Robert St Devil]

point taken, fisherman. What-gets-me is how capable each killer would have been performing the other's type of crimes. The Torso Killer should have been able to perform Jack the Ripper's crimes, and vice versa... which, along with dane's post, makes me wonder the statistical probability of having two serial murderers in the same locale who know how to dissect and eviscerate a woman. It's NOT as though we're comparing one man who shot his victims to death, and another killer who assaults and eviscerates.

[Michael W Richards]

There is, Iīm afraid - both Chapman and Kelly had their abdominal walls cut away and removed in a small number of flaps. That is as clear a link as we can ever hope for.

Off to bed now, goodnight!

Had that action not been reported in detail in newspapers since early September, I might agree. Clearly, that feature was well publicized, therefore, potentially mimicked or duplicated.

[Batman]

Okay. But why not just hack Kelly into little pieces? Why take out the organs and neatly place them around her in the bed, using some of them for a makeshift pillow? That does not seem like hatred to me.
The same goes for the part of colon he took out of Eddowes.
And if he needed one new kidney, then surely he needed two? They would have decomposed simultaneously.

There is obviously hatred in the complete defeminization of Kelly including hacking her face to shreds.

So why is stuff placed neatly about the place?

With Kelly he had more time... and it's nothing new.

He placed Eddowes intestine strip neatly beside her with other items. A few items seemed to be placed about neatly with Chapman. This is part of his behavior and maybe resembles something of his work in life.

I think one needs not go deeper than he was harvesting sexual organs from these encounters and what else he did to them blood lust. Why wasn't it surgically precise? It was dark and he was a ripper.

Having said that I see some evidence on Mary Kelly that there may been amputation attempts on her right leg, or else it's a stocking part, but it looks like a circular incision too. This isn't in any autopsy. Having said that, Bond said she was naked. She clearly is not.

Anyhow that aside I think the sexual organ harvesting explanation as a subset of the torso murders for replacement parts gives reason to the whole thing and that's what I like about it. It makes sense and puts a lot of stuff together in one go.

[Harry D]

Because that was how he started out, when feeling less convinced that he could never get caught, perhaps. That may have played an initial role.
There is also another matter, that I cannot go into in detail. But basically, what he did would sometimes need tools that he could not take into the street, and some of the work he did was taken to a level of precision that he could not reach in a dark street.
The dark streets, though, were good enough for other elements on his agenda.
This is all presuming that I am correct when it comes to his object of inspiration, of course.

Pure conjecture. Nothing to see here, folks.

I can name a number of killers who did things no other killer has done, Harry. We do not need another eyeball killer to prove that Charles albright existed, do we?

Ah, so you're warning against inductive reasoning. In that case, just because two similar(ish) serial killers have never overlapped (and I don't even know that to be true), doesn't mean it can't happen, correct?

The Victorian era was a macabre old time. It wouldn't surprise me in the least that it managed to spawn two serial killers with a penchant for butchering women.

And not the legs of the Pinchins Street torso. And not the upper thorax of the Rainham torso.
Parts were lost. Much of the torso parts were thrown into the water. The same may have happened to the heads. At any rate, he left other indicators and clues to the identities.

Is that why only one of them was ever identified?

So I am correct, then - you do not know where the Torso man killed. The fact that he dumped body parts all over town was something the Ripper could not copy unless he threw the corpses of his victims over his shoulder and walked away with them, Harry. So you have no point.

It's not that the Ripper should've copied the Torso killer's MO, it's that the Torso killer resorted to this kind of disorganized murder in the first place that is the bone of contention.

She had her kidneys extracted from the front, just like Eddowes. And it was called skill in that case, so why not here? He also scored her face to mince-meat without damaging the eyes, so this was a man who could be very careful with the knife. And still, he cut off the eyelids, if memory serves me. Donīt underestimate him, Harry.

The composure and skill that had served the Ripper in the previous murders appeared to elude him with Mary Kelly. The 'kid in a sweet shop' analogy seems apt here. However, the Torso killer was already used to spending quality time with his victims but they were neatly dismembered, not destroyed in a disorganized frenzy like Mary Kelly.

And why didn't the experienced medicos link the two series if it was that obvious they were done by the same killer?

Yes, I do have such an idea, and I have the forensic evidence to go with it.

Careful, I'm getting echoes of Pierre here.

We donīt know when and how the Ripper struck. We speculate that he did so between August and November, but he may have killed other victims too, like MacKenzie. Both men peak around late 1888-1889, seemingly, something that should not be overlooked.

De-escalation, superficial injuries, throat stabbed twice instead of cut, there's certainly good reason to doubt McKenzie as a Ripper victim.

[Fisherman]

True enough, Fish, the chest contents were missing in the Rainham case, but it should be borne in mind that the upper part of the thorax was never recovered. So it is possible that the lungs and heart were still attached to that section. It is also possible that the cut through the thorax disconnected the organs, so that they were more easily lost during the several months before the remains were dredged out of the water. Likewise the entrails, which would have to be separated at some point during the abdominal division. So yes, it is entirely possible, but I personally don't feel there is enough evidence to say the missing parts were deliberately excised by torso-man.
In the Whitehall case, the torso had been divided in two at the waist, and the pelvis was never recovered. The fact that this torso was found at the height of the Ripper scare prompted the question about the presence of the uterus, so although it is technically correct to say the uterus was missing, there's no evidence that it was specifically removed.

Yes, I am quite aware that this has been said before. The shoulders and clavicle and upper part of chest to the top of the sternum from the 5th dorsal vertebra upwards were divided in the Rainham case, and I donīt find it very likely that heart and lungs were attached to that part. And to be fair, what you postulated was . "The other three torsos did not have any organs missing from the parts recovered". And since the heart is hidden behind the sternum, I think we can say that it WAS missing from a retrieved part, as were the lungs. They are not attached to the shoulders.
However, one cannot exclude that they went missing by accident and left the body through the shoulder section, of course - very little CAN be excluded.
What we have, though, is a body where the abdomen had been cut open from ribs to pubes, and where the sternum had been sawn through to an extent. It may be that this was just a whim on behalf of the killer, but to me, the apparent inference is that the cavity was opened up to offer access to the inner organs.
And thatīs as far as the evidence takes us when it comes to this detail.

However, as the large intestine was also missing, one must admit that no matter if the hole in the abdomen was never about evisceration at all, there WERE parts missing.

[Joshua Rogan]

Hi Rogan
I think you may be mistaken. All of them had internal body parts missing.

and why open up the bodies from rib to crotch?? It certainly cant help in dismemberment and or getting rid of the bodies.

I'm happy to be corrected, Abby, but see my last post to Fish for why I can't definitely conclude the missing parts were removed deliberately.

In the case of the Pinchin Street torso, the autopsy report says;

"Skin and muscles of the abdomen cut by a vertical incision, from 2 inches below the enciform cartilage downward and ending on the left of the external genitals, just opening the vagina, but not opening the peritoneal cavity"

I've no real idea why the cut was made, but the fact that the peritoneum wasn't opened shows that no internal organs were removed. This is kind of the way a hunter would butcher a kill in the field, removing the peritoneum and contents intact in order to avoid spoiling the meat. Except that the killer evidently had time and privacy to do this but appears to have not even attempted it.

[Joshua Rogan]

The lungs, heart and thoracic viscera were absent in the Rainham case, as was the large intestine. The same applied to Jackson, who also lost her uterus.
There was also a uterus that had gone missing from the Whitehall torso.

Whether these parts were "removed" as such, they were certainly missing.

It bears interest that the parts missing in the Rainham case are similar to those missing in the Jackson case, adding that Jackson also lost her uterus.

True enough, Fish, the chest contents were missing in the Rainham case, but it should be borne in mind that the upper part of the thorax was never recovered. So it is possible that the lungs and heart were still attached to that section. It is also possible that the cut through the thorax disconnected the organs, so that they were more easily lost during the several months before the remains were dredged out of the water. Likewise the entrails, which would have to be separated at some point during the abdominal division. So yes, it is entirely possible, but I personally don't feel there is enough evidence to say the missing parts were deliberately excised by torso-man.
In the Whitehall case, the torso had been divided in two at the waist, and the pelvis was never recovered. The fact that this torso was found at the height of the Ripper scare prompted the question about the presence of the uterus, so although it is technically correct to say the uterus was missing, there's no evidence that it was specifically removed.