How Many Victims Were There?

[Fisherman]

Your missing my point, no preconceived notions at all Fisherman,.. just noting what is there.

Much like me, then: I note that there are missing hearts, uteri and colon sections in both series, and that victims from both series have had their abdominal walls taken away, and I conclude that such a thing will not happen in a million years unless we have one killer only.

If acts remained unfinished its very probable they were not of any great importance to the killer, like the "partial" stripping of Marys left inside thigh, or the lack of any interaction with the deceased after the throat was cut, or the "partial" uterus...the absence of completion signals a waning interest, certainly not something we would use as a primary motivator for killing anyone. Annies killer killed her so he could take her uterus. That's what the physical and contemporary medical evidence says, just noting what is there.

No, you are stretching two separate matters into a certified fact. Annies killer may well have killed her without any intention of taking out her uterus. We know that he DID do it, but we cannot vibe certain that there was any initial decision to do just that.

Kates kidney and a colon section were taken out, together with the uterus. Was there any conscious decision on the killers behalf beforehand that he would extract these three parts? Was that the reason that he killed her? Do we actually KNOW that?

Based on the significant similarities in almost every pertinent category we can safely presume that Annies killer also killed Polly around 10 days earlier. Her abdominal mutilation may have been "partial", there is evidence she may have been breathing when found. He may have just missed being caught. The backyard next round is something he utilized to his own satisfaction, he worked quickly but had the time to make extractions.

We can safely presume that he also killed Kate Eddowes, Mary Kelly, the 1873 victim, the Rainham victim, The Whitehall victim, Liz Jackson and the Pinchin Street victim and a few more victims. For completely logical reasons AS WELL as on behalf of how we KNOW that eviscerators are extremely rare creatures - it is very unlikely that they should surface in spades in victorian London at the end of the 19:th century. But this I have said a million times, and it seems your ears are lined with teflon...?


Now, what can we say about the motivators present with Liz Strides murder? He wanted her dead. And Kate? Perhaps the same as Polly and Annie, perhaps not. Its not as clear, as a marriage of Mary Anns and Annies murders is. And Mary Kelly...if that was her actual name? What do we learn about that event? That her killer was angry with her...facial slashing, defensive wounds on Mary...that he intended to render her almost unrecognizable, and that he had no interest in taking any abdominal organs with him.

Not all facial cuts are on account of a relationship coupled with aggression. To my mind, there was another reason altogether for the facial cuts.

You want a Canon like that? No...you even want to add more victims with evidence that suggests what he did, how long he takes, and what he did with the victim afterwards is completely different from the preceding killings. Yet very reminiscent of other crimes of that same ilk.

The tiger has stripes.

"Completely different"? Yes, I have heard it described like that before, the cutting from ribcage to pelvis, the taking out of hearts, the taking out of colon sections, the taking out of uteri, the cutting away of the abdominal wall, the stealing of rings, the targeting of prostitutes, the silent murders, the pointing out by medicos of a large cutting skill rivaling that of a surgeon.
Its just that I don't think it is a correct description at all. It is a knee-jerk description, inherits from generations of not very insightful research. The dismemberment and dumping is the SOLE difference there is, and as I keep feeding those teflon-lined ears of yours: may serialists have occasionally dabbled in dismemberment without making it a rule.

[Fisherman]

He didn't even cut her RIGHT one away. It was merely "abducted" - that is, it wasn't parallel to her side, but lying at a slight angle with respect to the body.

Yes, Gareth, I am perfectly aware of that. Michael made the point that if the killer of Mary was the torso man, he should have cut her right arm completely off, which is why I pointed out that he could also be called upon to cut both arms away. Any protruding parts, even. But he did not. He let the arms on the body just as the Pinchin Street killer did.

So it really HAS to be the same guy, right?

Alternatively, we must accept that kilers, regardless if they are dismembers or not, may well leave the odd limb or nose or ear or whatnot on the bodies of their victims, and we can therefore not tell them apart - or together - in this way. The one thing that CAN connect them is odd and rare inclusions occurring in separate murders. That is a surefire technique, improving with the level of rarity of the measures taken.

[Harry D]

IMHO, a drunken rage results in three to five blows, with the knife, max. By then Tabram would have been hurt enough to satisfy his rage. 39 blows, is more than rage, it is a mental illness. I have tried to visualize the act, and I can't see him making it through that many blows without having to take several breaths. Even a prize fighter can't throw 40 blows consecutively; he had to have stopped and started again several times; just can't see it as a single act of rage.

I am not saying it wasn't a pissed off punter that night, but whoever he was his act was beyond rage.

That's a good point, APerno. Definitely a psychotic rage. Not something we really see in the later murders which were more calculated and methodical. Of course, if these crimes were ever solved, I think there would be a few surprises, but there's too much room for doubt in Tabram's murder for me to rule her in.

[Michael W Richards]

He didn't even cut her RIGHT one away. It was merely "abducted" - that is, it wasn't parallel to her side, but lying at a slight angle with respect to the body.

There are reports it was almost severed Sam, I don't have one at my disposal at the moment but Im sure you've seen them too.

[Sam Flynn]

Why did he not cut Marys LEFT arm away?

He didn't even cut her RIGHT one away. It was merely "abducted" - that is, it wasn't parallel to her side, but lying at a slight angle with respect to the body.

[Michael W Richards]

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?

Your missing my point, no preconceived notions at all Fisherman,.. just noting what is there. If acts remained unfinished its very probable they were not of any great importance to the killer, like the "partial" stripping of Marys left inside thigh, or the lack of any interaction with the deceased after the throat was cut, or the "partial" uterus...the absence of completion signals a waning interest, certainly not something we would use as a primary motivator for killing anyone. Annies killer killed her so he could take her uterus. That's what the physical and contemporary medical evidence says, just noting what is there. Based on the significant similarities in almost every pertinent category we can safely presume that Annies killer also killed Polly around 10 days earlier. Her abdominal mutilation may have been "partial", there is evidence she may have been breathing when found. He may have just missed being caught. The backyard next round is something he utilized to his own satisfaction, he worked quickly but had the time to make extractions.

Now, what can we say about the motivators present with Liz Strides murder? He wanted her dead. And Kate? Perhaps the same as Polly and Annie, perhaps not. Its not as clear, as a marriage of Mary Anns and Annies murders is. And Mary Kelly...if that was her actual name? What do we learn about that event? That her killer was angry with her...facial slashing, defensive wounds on Mary...that he intended to render her almost unrecognizable, and that he had no interest in taking any abdominal organs with him.

You want a Canon like that? No...you even want to add more victims with evidence that suggests what he did, how long he takes, and what he did with the victim afterwards is completely different from the preceding killings. Yet very reminiscent of other crimes of that same ilk.

The tiger has stripes.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Maybe he took the other books away with himself when delivering his own..?

I’m not usually a conspiracy theorist but you might be on to something there Fish

[Fisherman]

I took the cheaper option of my local library. Believe it or not Gray’s was the only ripper book in the true crime section.

Maybe he took the other books away with himself when delivering his own..?

[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.

I took the cheaper option of my local library. Believe it or not Gray’s was the only ripper book in the true crime section.

[Fisherman]

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

Then again, you seem willing to pounce on just about anything to promote your view. Factually speaking, regardless if Grays book is good or bad (and let´s face it, it is not very good), the suggestion of a shared identity is not qualitatively affected by that. If it was, then Richard Whittington-Egan must by way of reasoning be a bad author too. And I must be wrong, neither of which is likely to occur.

[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?

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.