How Many Victims Were There?

[Fisherman]

You made me smile, I could hear the frustration in your voice as I read these words. I don't want to be the cause of any disbelief in a fellow poster and I appreciate you see this as an important and rare similarity between the two sets of murders. But if you are cutting up bodies, either ripper, torso or ripper/torso killer, going through the abdomen is a most likely route to the inside of the body and so I would expect this to be the case and do not think it necessarily suggests the murders are linked. Two such murderers who overlap in time (if not the same killer) is a coincidence, but if we accept the Torso killer started in 1873 and with gaps continued until at least 1889, the coincidence is less jarring simply because of the length of time involved.

Going through the abdomen is what all abdominal mutilators do. They open it up, quite simply. But they do NOT cut the walls of it away.

To be frank even if the "only" similarity was that both kilers cut the abdomen open and took out organs, that in itself would present a formidable case for choosing just the one killer.

Once you add the taking away of the abdominal wall in panes, we move onto terra firma. And that is before we speak of lost uteri and hearts, stolen rings etcetera. Or screwdrivers.

[Fisherman]

Good news: I'm not suggesting a serial killer, just another killer(s) who hit upon the not-uncommon idea of chopping up their victim.

And who - it just so happens - made cuts in a way that were in all respects perfectly similar to the cuts of the Rainham torso, The Whitehall ditto and Liz Jackson, according to the examining doctor Hebbert. And who managed to cut the neck in a manner that was very reminiscent of the cuts to Mary Kellys neck, according to Phillips.

But who did NOT cut the arms away - Heureka!

[Sam Flynn]

agree. but so are men, children, co eds, gays, young women etc. amd yet both series have the same victimolgy.. female prostitutes.

As I said, we don't know that was true for all the victims.

[Fisherman]

As I said, we don't know that was true for all the victims.

True. We only know it is correct for all the identified victims from both series, each and every one of them. Since some were not identified, it is impossible to be absolutely certain that they were prostitutes. Which means that all we have to go on is empiri.
And empiri tells us that serial killers who have prostituted victims on their score cards almost invariably have gone for that category of victims throughout. There are cases, like Peter Sutcliffe, where the odd non-prostitute victim have joined the prostituted victims, but overall, it seems to be a very good bet that the torso victims were prostitutes, all of them. In any case, clinging to the belief that they were probably not would be outright stupid.

There is one more powerful piece of evidence - there are common, extremely rare inclusions in both series, and so that points to a shared identity, a single killer. And we KNOW that killer killed prostitutes/parttime prostitutes only in the ripper series.

"Maybe it is not what it seems to be" is the best there is on sale for the idea of a non-prostitute torso killer - and for the idea of two killers.

[Michael W Richards]

And who - it just so happens - made cuts in a way that were in all respects perfectly similar to the cuts of the Rainham torso, The Whitehall ditto and Liz Jackson, according to the examining doctor Hebbert. And who managed to cut the neck in a manner that was very reminiscent of the cuts to Mary Kellys neck, according to Phillips.

But who did NOT cut the arms away - Heureka!

I wonder why you think the killer didn't completely remove Marys right arm...since it was very nearly there anyway. If this guy is Torso Man, why not finish the job.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Could I just ask for opinions on the Drew Grey book please? I don’t have this one. I don’t mean to sidetrack the thread but a comment or two would be welcome.

[Abby Normal]

As I said, we don't know that was true for all the victims.

and as Ive said, Jackson was a prostitute and thus the other torso victims were probably also. add to that the others were all unidentified, which was probably because no one even noticed they were missing and or didn't care enough about them to come forward. Now what type of class of female society would that most likely apply to?

[Abby Normal]

Could I just ask for opinions on the Drew Grey book please? I don’t have this one. I don’t mean to sidetrack the thread but a comment or two would be welcome.

another shoddy suspect book, but at least he thinks that torsoman and the ripper were the same. so he got that part right.

[PaulB]

Could I just ask for opinions on the Drew Grey book please? I don’t have this one. I don’t mean to sidetrack the thread but a comment or two would be welcome.

Reviewed in the next Ripperologist at some length. Sadly, there are some quite serious errors, the "new" suspect is the cats' meat man James Hardiman who isn't new, and the book is also expensive, especially as a softcover.

[Michael W Richards]

and as Ive said, Jackson was a prostitute and thus the other torso victims were probably also. add to that the others were all unidentified, which was probably because no one even noticed they were missing and or didn't care enough about them to come forward. Now what type of class of female society would that most likely apply to?

How many people, male and/or female, do you imagine had proper identification in London in 1888? How many were immigrants and would have little or no relatives in the UK? What differences can be found between Unfortunates...which most of these women were,.. and full time Prostitutes? Mary was one, even though she hadn't been working the streets much before her murder. So, that's 1 within the 5 member Canonical Group that can be fairly called a Prostitute.

You paint with too broad a stroke.

[Sam Flynn]

another shoddy suspect book, but at least he thinks that torsoman and the ripper were the same. so he got that part right.

That would be another strike against it, as far as I'm concerned.

[Abby Normal]

How many people, male and/or female, do you imagine had proper identification in London in 1888? How many were immigrants and would have little or no relatives in the UK? What differences can be found between Unfortunates...which most of these women were,.. and full time Prostitutes? Mary was one, even though she hadn't been working the streets much before her murder. So, that's 1 within the 5 member Canonical Group that can be fairly called a Prostitute.

You paint with too broad a stroke.

all the ripper victims were prostitutes(which is different from if they were actively soliciting when they were murdered-I lean toward Kelly and stride weren't, but the rest probably were.

The one torso victim ided was a prostitute.

Its a pretty reasonable conclusion that the rest of the torso victims probably were unfortunates, whether they were actively soliciting or not. Since the torso killer undoubtedly had a bolt hole where his murders and mutilations took place, its possible he could have lured them there(if not for paid sex) then with the ruse of some menial work or treatment (if he was some type of dr).

You paint with too broad a stroke.

and you cherry pick and twist to fit your preconceived convoluted conspiracy theory.

[Herlock Sholmes]

another shoddy suspect book, but at least he thinks that torsoman and the ripper were the same. so he got that part right.

Cheers Abby,

i guess we will have to disagree on the last part

[Herlock Sholmes]

Reviewed in the next Ripperologist at some length. Sadly, there are some quite serious errors, the "new" suspect is the cats' meat man James Hardiman who isn't new, and the book is also expensive, especially as a softcover.

Cheers Paul,

The cheapest that I can see it online is second hand £7.50 +£2.80p+p. I might wait until it shows up in The Works for £3 next to The Five.

[Fisherman]

I wonder why you think the killer didn't completely remove Marys right arm...since it was very nearly there anyway. If this guy is Torso Man, why not finish the job.

What makes you think a nearly severed arm is can NOT be a job finished? Do I sense preconceived notions about what the killer would or would not do, Michael? Why did the killer not cut the arms away from the Pinchin Street torso? Surely that must be an unfinished job? Why dd he not take off Chapmans nose? Unfinished! Why did he not cut Marys LEFT arm away? How slack!

Or could it be that cutting any protruding part away was never his sole aim?