Location of Annie Millwood's attack

[JeffHamm]

Letīs take it from the start.
Yes, the approach to the face thing is different in the Jackson, Kelly and Eddowes cases.
But keep in mind that we nevertheless have the face cut in all three cases! Personally, I think that the Kelly case and the Jackson case are parallels, since I think the face was cut for the exact same reason and with the exact same intentions and basically the same type of outcome too - a face where the surface has been removed.

Once we look into these things, I think we should be careful not to fall into the trap of interpreting differences in HOW things were done as pointing to two perpetrators - the ore important thing is that they WERE done. If the surface of a face is obliterated, then that is the primary matter. If it is done by way of cutting the face away in itīs entirety or if it is hacked away more crudely, the fact remains that in b ot cases, the facial surface has been removed. And that is not something that is all that common, meaning that it must invite speculation about a single killer.

The same goes for the whole matter of the two series. We can either say: "Look at the similarities, it must have been the same killer" or "Look at the dissimilarities, it cannot have been the same killer", and that is something that should be settled by looking at the character of the similarities/dissimilarities. I have spent a lot of time trying to show people out here that dissimilarities can never be as decisive as similarities when it comes to the character of these matters. It is another thing if we speak of dissimilarities in geography combined with timings, because we can be sure that if one murder occurs in Bombay and another in Baton Rouge at the exact same time, then the perp cannot be the same. However, if there are inclusions in these two murders that are of a very specific character, they can still be connected. Imagine, for example, that both victims had the words "Shazam, cowboy!" burnt into their foreheads. That would be impossible to deny as being proof of a link.

When in comes to the character of the similarities/dissimilarities, the more specific such matters there are spanning across two murders, the more certain we can be of a link. Imagine that we have two murders, one in London, one in Ipswich, four days apart. In one case, we have a gunshot murder of a man, in the other we have a woman bludgeoned to death with a stone. We can pile on as many and as large differences in character as we like, we can have a situation where there is not a single similarity inbetween these murders - and those huge dissimilarities will nevertheless evaporate once we have that "Shazam, cowboy!" text burnt into the foreheads of the victims.

So itīs all about how many similarities of a specific and odd character we have that tells the story, not whatever differences we have. The latter can ALWAYS find an explanation, and indeed they MUST do so once we have very odd and specific similarities involved.

If we do not accept this, and if we accept that these odd and specific inclusions did not come about as the result of copycatting, then we have only one option to explain the similarities: Coincidence.

This means that if we want different perpetrators for the two series in Victorian London, we must:

- accept that it was coincidental that two serial killers were active in London at the same general time.

- accept that coincidentally, these serial killers were both mutilators and eviscerators.

- accept that their targetting of prostitutes in some or all cases was just a coincidence.

- accept that it was coincidental that they both cut numerous victims from sternum to pelvis.

- accept that it was sheer coincidence that they both cut out hearts - that went missing.

- accept that it was sheer coincidence that they both cut out uteri - that were discarded in examples from both series.

- accept that it was coincidental that police surgeons in both series said that the perpetrator was quite possibly a surgeon, basing that take on the quality of the cutting.

- accept that coincidence made both killers cut away the abdominal wall in large flaps in cases from both series.

- accept that both killers coincidentally came up with the idea of cutting the surface of the face away from victims in both series.

- accept that both killers coincidentally abstained from inflicting physical torture on their victims prior to killing them.

- accept as a coincidence that both killers took rings from the fingers of their victims.

Given that evisceration murders are extremely rare, that eviscerating serial killers are even rarer and that it is practically unheard of to remove the abdominal wall from murder victims, Iīd say we are on terra firma saying that there were very specific and odd inclusions present in these series. Consequentially, the suggestion that we have a common killer must be the only logic and reasonable conclusion.

But you differ - you think that the dissimilarities are what we should look at. Surely, a killer either dismembers or not, he would not change inbetween victims?
But what if the Torso victims were killed in his home? Would that not explain the necessity to dismember them, while there was no such necessity for the so called Ripper victims?

Hi Fisherman,

I wouldn't say "We must look for the differences", as if that's all that matters, rather I think it is important to "weigh all the evidence, with similarities tending to point towards linkage and differences tending to point away from that". Some differences are situational, reflecting that whenever a single person repeats any action, they will not perform it exactly the same way both times. They learn, they adapt, and events beyond their control also influence things. For example, with respect to the JtR canonical 5 and the severity of the mutilations and postmortem activity, this is often talked about as showing a trend to increasing severity (Nichols throat cut, abdominal cut -> Chapman's throat cut, abdominal cut, removal of internal organs -> Eddowes throat cut, abdominal cut, removal of internal organs and some facial mutilations -> Kelly's throat cut, abdominal cut, removal of internal organs, increased facial mutilations, and removal of breasts, flesh from the legs). If one only focused on differences, one would argue "they are different, not the same", if one focuses only on similarities then all that links them is the throat cutting and abdominal cutting, or one might view these as a progression, because each successive event appears similar to the previous but taken further. But there are other differences to be considered, and if one ignores differences, the picture can be incomplete, and one of the differences between the specific cases is that with Nichols someone walked down the street and found her at a time that corresponds to the time the murder took place (she was still warm to the touch; not highly accurate but it at least tells us she hadn't been there an hour or two type thing), and Kelly, being indoors, is in a location where disturbance is less likely. This means, the situational events differ in terms of "amount of time available", and so we may not be seeing a progression of severity in terms of JtR's "desires, thoughts, or intentions", but rather that JtR simply had the least amount of time with Nichols, the most with Kelly, and intermediate amounts with Chapman and Eddowes.

Also, when considering Tabram, for example, it is the similarities of "risk level of location, attack focused on the breast and abdominal region, use of a knife, and the time/location, meaning Whitechapel, of the event" and so forth that tend to draw her murder into the series, while the differences tend to push them part.

Now if we look at Stride's murder, we see some of those similarities, and the standard "interruption theory" makes her fit that pattern in terms of time available reflecting the fact she had the least severe pattern of injuries. There are, as I mentioned in an earlier post, other similarities that point towards inclusion, however, the weight of the similarities we have really boil down to the fact her throat was cut and while I've argued the reports of her throat injuries appear similar to the injuries on Eddowes, how important those similarities are (what weight we should give them) is a function of how common they are. Meaning, the fact that the injury is about 2.5 inches below the jaw in both Stride and Eddowes case, with a deeper injury on the left side than the right, might be very common in throat cutting murders. If something is similar between related and unrelated cases quite often, then that similarity is of little value linkage wise. If, however, something is extremely rare between unrelated cases, that similarity is highly informative. I would say your "Shazam cowboy" example is of the latter, and the extreme unlikelihood of finding that between two unrelated events would over ride the differences between the events (knife murder vs shooting).

Differences, however, are also important to consider. Tabram murder shows some similarities but her attack is also different (stabbing, no throat cutting), and those cannot be overlooked entirely because different people will do different things.

My issue with the torso cases is that the behaviours of dismembering a corpse and scattering the pieces during disposal, while certainly not common, is something that occurs between unrelated crimes more often than something like "Shazam cowboy". And when it does occur, it generally serves to aid the disposal stage of the body. Some have cut up the body in order to flush the body down the toilet, others transport the body in bags, etc, and discard the body by dispersing those bags in dumpsters, or scattering the remains over a wider area. This kind of activity during the disposal phase of a murder, can, and does, happen between murders that are committed by different people. With cars now available, allowing someone to travel many miles quickly while concealing an entire body, it may be less common now than it was in 1888, where disposal would require a far more riskier behaviour (I'm speculating here, I don't know if that's the case, just pondering the differences between then and now in order to evaluate the similarities with regards to dismemberment). What I'm getting at, is that the torso murders all occurred in a similar time period, and so there are a common set of problems to overcome for each one when it comes to disposing of a body and the "options available" would also be common (in that there's no "car" available for rapid transport while concealing an intact body). Dismemberment, and cutting up of a body, and then scattering the bits around while having to carry those bits (not transport them in plastic bags in a car, etc), is a pragmatic solution that independent murderers could very easily come to. And if you're going to do that, then the removal of the internal organs during that procedure would be pragmatic as well as it enables the cutting of the lower torso into smaller sections as well. Scattering of the body parts is about getting the body away from the location of the murder, the murderer may not care if the parts are found or not, they simply want to get rid of the evidence from their immediate location. Throwing it in the river serves that purpose because even if it is found, it will be somewhere else unrelated to the murderer's location and harder to track. Having to take a stone, or weight, to sink it means carrying all that extra weight as well, and that goes against "ease of disposal" because one has to now carry extra weight, making one look more suspicious.

Also, the skinning of a face is nothing like the hacking and violent attack upon the face that was performed on Eddowes and Kelly. It does, however, aid in the prevention of identification of the victim. And if the murderer is someone known to the victim, preventing the identification of the victim aids in preventing the link back to the murderer.

I'm not saying that I'm sure the torso murders were committed by separate people, what I'm saying is that if all that links them are the fact they were dismembered and scattered, that similarity is not like your "Shazam cowboy" example because it's not as rare an event - it's rare, but it something that multiple different murderers have resorted to. In the Brighton Trunk murders (all unrelated cases; one in 1831, and two in 1934), for example, bodies were put in trunks. In the two that were solved (1831 and one of the 1934 cases), the body was identified which led to the identification of the killer because of the link between killer and murderer. In the one that was not solved, the body was dismembered, disposed of in two separate trunks, left at two different train stations, and the head was never found. Concealing bodies in trunks, sometimes dismembering them and using more than one trunk, isn't rare enough to link crimes, even if they occurred in the same frame time and location.

On the other hand, I do agree with you that dismemberment and such is still a rare enough event that it warrants a great deal of consideration of linking some, or all, of those crimes. I don't know enough about them to draw any sort of conclusion on that, and I'm only discussing the above pro's and con's because of how I try to consider both similarities and differences and the weight one should place on either. Similarities becomes more important as the event becomes more rare (and as I'm saying, I agree with you that dismemberment is rare, I think, however, our primary difference is about how possible it is for two different murderers to both come to that "solution" to their disposal problem). But that's ok, it's the nature of discussions after all.

And there are many examples of killers who have floated between dismembering and not dismembering.

So whatīs left? That the Ripperīs deeds seemed more hurried and uncontrolled? Does that not come with the territory of killing out in the open streets?

Above all, do these perceives dissimilarities take away the similarities? Do they turn the similarities into must-be coincidences? No, they do not.

Except Kelly was killed indoors, and she was neither dismembered, nor were the attacks careful and neatly performed. Her injuries are of the same "quality of frenzy" if you will as the outdoor victims. This is nothing like a careful skinning, or the neat dis-articulation, that is described in the torso cases. This is a difference that points towards different motivations and different abilities. Focusing only on the similarities, as you advocate, overlooks the important information that is found when also considering the differences, in my view anyway. They don't "take away" the similarities, but they add information that leads in the other direction, and in the end, one has to consider both the information that leads towards linking two crimes and the information that leads away. If you only look at one or the other, you predetermine your outcome.

Last but not least: Does a killer who repeatedly sees that his bundles of flesh floats in the Thames really want to obscure his deeds? Does a killer who can read in the papers where his parcels have floated ashore want to hide what he is doing? If so, why not say "Well, that did not work, letīs put it all in a sack with a large stone, and sink it ti the bottom".

Along with my previous comments about the problem of carrying weights as well as the parts for disposal, this could be taken as an argument against the conclusion that the same killer is involved. As you say, there is no signs of learning from the previous event, so maybe it's not the same person.

Does a killer who places a torso in the cellar vaults of the New Scotland Yard and who tosses a thigh in to the garden of Percy Shelley try to hide his work?

Or does he take pride in showing it to the world?

By hide, if you mean, hide the location where the crime was committed, and so by doing hide their identity (because by only leaving the torso they've made it hard to identify the victim as well, reducing the link back to himself, then yes, that's very well what they could be doing.

As for the taking pride, who knows, there's nothing that obligates that conclusion though it is not outside the realm of possibilities.

The Torso victims floated ashore along the absolute centre of power of the world back in those days. What better way to make headlines?

I hope you read up extensively on these cases, because the the whole picture cannot be seen without them.

I donīt believe in coincidences, did I say that?

Some torso victims floated ashore, some were left in the city (Pinchin Street torso, for example). If the goal is to make headlines, or to absolutely ensure discovery, why put the bodies in the river at all where one might be hoping they will get washed out to sea, or might erroneously conclude they will sink and never be found? Why not just leave them in places where they are definitely going to be discovered? Putting them in the river, while it didn't work, points to someone trying to dispose of of the bodies so they are never discovered. Someone leaving a torso in Pinchin Street, or Whitehall, might be wanting to ensure the bodies are discovered while someone putting the parts in the river might not, again, pointing to different goals and, presumably, different murderers. Or, the same murderer acting situationally different. Both work, so I'm open to both possibilities at the moment (I'm not pushing one or the other as a "solution", I'm considering a number of possibilities and not closing doors that appear to be open).

Again, and to make sure that I'm being clear, I am fully in agreement with you that the torso murders are sufficiently rare behaviours that they have a strong chance of being linked. We differ in that I want to know more about each of the cases before I start to weigh my own evaluation of that linkage because dismemberment of a body for the purpose of easing disposal also serves a very practical purpose in that it enables someone to more easily hide the body until they have the opportunity to dispose of it to remove the evidence from a location that incriminates them. It's been done by enough different murderers that it is not in and of itself sufficient to draw the conclusion they are linked crimes. It is rare enough, though, that because of the temporal proximity (as you've noted), that it does suggest linkage is well worth looking into.

The doctor's reports seem to indicate they believe some skill, but not necessarily medical/surgical skills, were required; skils of the sort a butcher might have, for example. Some debate surrounds the level of skill and knowledge required in the JtR cases, but clearly there are grounds for considering "necessary skill set" when trying to decide if these are a similarity or a difference. Then one has to decide "how unlikely would such a similarity be? (Given we're dealing with two crimes involving cutting up of a body, perhaps it's not that informative) and given the fact that the JtR set of murders were outdoors (bar Kelly) while the torso cases were probably indoors, differences are not hugely informative either due to situational considerations unless they were explainable by situational considerations.

From our discussions, and from quick searches (suck as Wikipedia's brief entry on the "Thames Torso Murders of 1887-1889", which lists the Rainham Mystery, Whitehall Mystery, Elizabeth Jackson, and the Pinchin Street torso case), I tend to agree with you on the possibility of linking those cases is absolutely worth doing. Whether or not they can be linked to the JtR series is a different matter, and I think is probably a question that can only be done after establishing whether or not the torso cases themselves are linked and working out what inferences one can make based upon them. If the JtR series, and the proposed torso series, independently start to point to a similar sort of suspect, then linking of the two series makes sense. But just because it seems implausible that two serial murders were operating at the same time seems unlikely, the fact that serial killing was not recognized at the time doesn't mean it wasn't something that has been going on for far longer. Given that police as detectives of crime was a relatively new thing, detection of serial murders would be pretty much impossible not too many years earlier.

Anyway, I don't think we're really all that different to be honest. You're more knowledgable about the torso cases, and so are further along in your thinking and conclusions. I'm not dismissing your views, and I hope it's not coming across that way (text loses a lot of "tone" through which intention is conveyed after all), I'm just not one to adopt another's conclusion before I know enough about a case to feel that I'm capable of evaluating it as well. If I can find some good sources on the various torso cases, I'll certainly be looking into them and trying to up my knowledge of them.

- Jeff

[Fisherman]

That's an interesting take, but if, when he had the time, he could carefully remove the scalp and face, that sounds very different from the hacking of Eddowes and Kelly's faces. Also, removing the face as you describe, while yes, had it not been found would certainly look like trophy taking, it also looks like trying to avoid victim identification. Today, with modern techniques for identification, when victims are missing all their fingers or hands, or teeth (particularly when the body too was hidden), or heads, etc, it can be a functional behaviour, hinder identification of the victim and you hinder the investigation. DNA doesn't require those, of course, so cremation is resorted to quite often (but is not always successful).

Someone who has hung a victim to drain them of blood, then has cut the body up into 13 pieces, and has removed the skin, etc, sounds very much like someone who works with slaughtering animals. And in that process the removal of the organs would be part of that. It also sounds very different from the JtR attacks, and more similar to the Jackson case you mentioned (where the throat appeared to be cut right at the shoulders, though with the head missing, we don't know if there were cuts further up the neck as was the location of the throat wounds in the JtR cannonical cases). The dis-articulation at the shoulders and hips (in the Jackson case), were described as clean, and sound like they were performed by someone who knew what they were doing, whereas the doctor's mentioned specifically the failed attempt to remove Chapman's head, and given the time available with Kelly, no attempt to remove limbs was attempted based upon any of the reports. Also, the removal of large bits of flesh from Kelly's legs doesn't look like the more organized sectioning of a body into 13 chunks, which again, sounds very much like functional (one can transport smaller chunks for disposal.

The torso cases (and I've now read a bit on Jackson, but just material contained here on Casebook) are not as familiar to me as the JtR canonicals and common possible "additionals", so it appears you are drawing inferences from a different source.

My initial reaction would be that what little I do know has not jumped out at me as linking them. But, I also recognize what little I do know is insufficient to present that as a conclusion (and, also, I recognize that it often comes from sources who have drawn their conclusions as well, which always colours the presentation).

Based upon the C5, in particular Chapman, Eddowes, and Kelly, those crime scenes do not look like someone concerned about getting their hands bloody, or someone who is removing organs as one would from an animal carcass (he's cutting individual bits out, one at a time, not removing, for example, the entire set of intestines as one whole package), and the cuts to the face on both Eddowes and Kelly are hacking and slashing, not a careful process of skinning, etc.

I could see JtR being delusional in his thinking, and he's looking for "snakes in the body" type thing, but I don't think that's the only inference one could draw, and I don't mean to imply that he's a drooling lunatic either.

Anyway, I think now I get the difference. I do tend to lean towards thinking that the removal of the face you describe above, and then tossing it in the Thames, combined with the cutting up of the body into smaller "parcels" (and then scattering those) sounds very much like trying to prevent identification and discovery. I can't see the taking of uteri, kidneys, and hearts as serving any other purpose (note, cannibalism of them would still make them trophies) then to serve as an item through which to relive the experience (so trophy), while the behaviours involved in the torso murders sound much more practical at first blush. I want to say again, though, I'm not open to changing my mind on that, just indicating my initial reaction.

Thanks for giving me something to think about. I'll have to put some time into researching the various torso cases.

- Jeff

Letīs take it from the start.
Yes, the approach to the face thing is different in the Jackson, Kelly and Eddowes cases.
But keep in mind that we nevertheless have the face cut in all three cases! Personally, I think that the Kelly case and the Jackson case are parallels, since I think the face was cut for the exact same reason and with the exact same intentions and basically the same type of outcome too - a face where the surface has been removed.

Once we look into these things, I think we should be careful not to fall into the trap of interpreting differences in HOW things were done as pointing to two perpetrators - the ore important thing is that they WERE done. If the surface of a face is obliterated, then that is the primary matter. If it is done by way of cutting the face away in itīs entirety or if it is hacked away more crudely, the fact remains that in b ot cases, the facial surface has been removed. And that is not something that is all that common, meaning that it must invite speculation about a single killer.

The same goes for the whole matter of the two series. We can either say: "Look at the similarities, it must have been the same killer" or "Look at the dissimilarities, it cannot have been the same killer", and that is something that should be settled by looking at the character of the similarities/dissimilarities. I have spent a lot of time trying to show people out here that dissimilarities can never be as decisive as similarities when it comes to the character of these matters. It is another thing if we speak of dissimilarities in geography combined with timings, because we can be sure that if one murder occurs in Bombay and another in Baton Rouge at the exact same time, then the perp cannot be the same. However, if there are inclusions in these two murders that are of a very specific character, they can still be connected. Imagine, for example, that both victims had the words "Shazam, cowboy!" burnt into their foreheads. That would be impossible to deny as being proof of a link.

When in comes to the character of the similarities/dissimilarities, the more specific such matters there are spanning across two murders, the more certain we can be of a link. Imagine that we have two murders, one in London, one in Ipswich, four days apart. In one case, we have a gunshot murder of a man, in the other we have a woman bludgeoned to death with a stone. We can pile on as many and as large differences in character as we like, we can have a situation where there is not a single similarity inbetween these murders - and those huge dissimilarities will nevertheless evaporate once we have that "Shazam, cowboy!" text burnt into the foreheads of the victims.

So itīs all about how many similarities of a specific and odd character we have that tells the story, not whatever differences we have. The latter can ALWAYS find an explanation, and indeed they MUST do so once we have very odd and specific similarities involved.

If we do not accept this, and if we accept that these odd and specific inclusions did not come about as the result of copycatting, then we have only one option to explain the similarities: Coincidence.

This means that if we want different perpetrators for the two series in Victorian London, we must:

- accept that it was coincidental that two serial killers were active in London at the same general time.

- accept that coincidentally, these serial killers were both mutilators and eviscerators.

- accept that their targetting of prostitutes in some or all cases was just a coincidence.

- accept that it was coincidental that they both cut numerous victims from sternum to pelvis.

- accept that it was sheer coincidence that they both cut out hearts - that went missing.

- accept that it was sheer coincidence that they both cut out uteri - that were discarded in examples from both series.

- accept that it was coincidental that police surgeons in both series said that the perpetrator was quite possibly a surgeon, basing that take on the quality of the cutting.

- accept that coincidence made both killers cut away the abdominal wall in large flaps in cases from both series.

- accept that both killers coincidentally came up with the idea of cutting the surface of the face away from victims in both series.

- accept that both killers coincidentally abstained from inflicting physical torture on their victims prior to killing them.

- accept as a coincidence that both killers took rings from the fingers of their victims.

Given that evisceration murders are extremely rare, that eviscerating serial killers are even rarer and that it is practically unheard of to remove the abdominal wall from murder victims, Iīd say we are on terra firma saying that there were very specific and odd inclusions present in these series. Consequentially, the suggestion that we have a common killer must be the only logic and reasonable conclusion.

But you differ - you think that the dissimilarities are what we should look at. Surely, a killer either dismembers or not, he would not change inbetween victims?
But what if the Torso victims were killed in his home? Would that not explain the necessity to dismember them, while there was no such necessity for the so called Ripper victims?
And there are many examples of killers who have floated between dismembering and not dismembering.

So whatīs left? That the Ripperīs deeds seemed more hurried and uncontrolled? Does that not come with the territory of killing out in the open streets?

Above all, do these perceives dissimilarities take away the similarities? Do they turn the similarities into must-be coincidences? No, they do not.

Last but not least: Does a killer who repeatedly sees that his bundles of flesh floats in the Thames really want to obscure his deeds? Does a killer who can read in the papers where his parcels have floated ashore want to hide what he is doing? If so, why not say "Well, that did not work, letīs put it all in a sack with a large stone, and sink it ti the bottom".

Does a killer who places a torso in the cellar vaults of the New Scotland Yard and who tosses a thigh in to the garden of Percy Shelley try to hide his work?

Or does he take pride in showing it to the world?

The Torso victims floated ashore along the absolute centre of power of the world back in those days. What better way to make headlines?

I hope you read up extensively on these cases, because the the whole picture cannot be seen without them.

I donīt believe in coincidences, did I say that?

[Sam Flynn]

Yah, I mentioned in the post that Klowoski is questionable and there is debate abut whether he was there at the right time. Debate because other's in this thread believe he was

Well, they're wrong

[JeffHamm]

Good stuff, but again, Klosowski wasn't living at the White Hart in 1888.

Yah, I mentioned in the post that Klowoski is questionable and there is debate abut whether he was there at the right time. Debate because other's in this thread believe he was - I've not seen the details one way or the other, so have no opinion myself.

EDIT: hmm, I think I've misinterpreted that section; I've marked White Hart, and the debate was between two other locations, but there's probably consensus on the location I've marked that he wasn't there. Ok, people can ignore that. I'm sure I'll have occasion to update this again.

But, given I think there's lots of doubt for Druitt's location, and some were cleared, and there's been mention of concern about Tumblety, etc, what I've decided to do for the map is just mark the locations, and let people investigate or debate the suitability of those locations. At least this provides a reference for what location is being talked about. The geographical stuff doesn't care about where the suspects are marked (meaning, those locations don't influence the analysis, I just extract the value for those locations), and if something more substantial comes up (like, he wasn't there at that time), then that suspect can be ignored with regards to the geo-profile side of things (but the location/area still might be interesting, which could be useful to someone else). The map is just a resource that might be useful to have the various locations that come up all on the same map (hence, I include Emma Smith's murder location despite the fact I'm convinced she's not a victim of JtR and I don't enter that in any of the analyses).

- Jeff

[Sam Flynn]

Good stuff, but again, Klosowski wasn't living at the White Hart in 1888.

[JeffHamm]

Hi all,

Ok, after a bit more searching about, and posting here, I have corrected an error I made. I had located Hutchinson at the Peabody House (up near Annie Chapman's murder site), but apparently the Victoria House was not the Peabody House, and it was at the SW corner of Wentworth and Commercial Street. Since Hutchinson is a person of interest (he claims to have seen Kelly shortly before her murder) and is a favorite suspect of some, I thought I would update the output from the geographical profile (and the maps). I've put Klowoski (Chapman) back on, and makred the Peabody estate (just because I had located it, and it was built to provide cheap housing, so is it worth searching? etc).

I've re-run the analysis based upon the C5 only, and the C5 + Tabram and Millwood. I've ordered the suspects based upon the C5 "zone" output (lower zones numbers are more interesting POIs, but once real evidence rules them out, ignore the zone number).

So, using the settings I’ve chosen, in a test sample of 8 solved series of murders, the average zone for the offender’s residence is 7.75, with 4/8 in zone 1 or 2, then a 7, 12, 17 and 20. The 20 was Albert Desalvo (Boston Strangler) and his pattern is a bit unusual (he’s by definition a marauder, but once you know the solution, he looks like a “multi-directional commuter” – not making excuses, just describing the output – JtR could also be “unusual”, and if so, an analysis based upon prior series (particularly prior solved series) may not generalize to him if he is very unlike the group from which the analysis is based. Given the difference in time, that is entirely possible. Moreover, the routines I’m using are not tested anywhere near enough, and the above test cases, while they look promising, are no where near the number of test cases required to decide how accurate they are. This is just for your interest, use with caution.

And, think of zones this way. I work out an area (I won't go into how), that one would have to search randomly to find the offender’s location. Each zone is 5% of that area. If you followed the search pattern based upon the output, then how much of that random search space would you have to search? Well, zone 1 means 5% (well, to be pedantic, on average you would probably only have to search ― of the zone indicated, so really 2.5%). In zone 2, then 10% (or pedantically 7.5% - all of zone 1 plus half of zone 2). And so forth.

So, if we pretend the above is sufficient (and no, it isn’t, we’re playing pretendses here), then we would expect a 50% chance of JtR falling in zones 1-2, 25% chance between 3 and 15 inclusive, and 25% between 16 and 20, inclusive (well, we could give a 1% as well to "more than 20"). And this, of course, is provided he’s not a commuter, someone who travels a distance to the crime zone, about 20% of offender’s are, so 20%, we’re wrong right off the bat, but let’s ignore that.


Geographical profile outputs:
Suspect …………Zone (C5 / C5 + Tabram & Millwood)

Ok, these are the POIs that have a 50% chance of being in the zone that JtRis in (so these are good suspects, listed in order ):

PC Sagar’s Suspect ..( 1 / 4) - And the police were actually watching someone here!

These POIs are in the 75% range (which means, since we’re excluding zones 1-2 now as “already searched”, that’s 25% chance):
Levy ........................ ( 4 / 2) - I know nothing of this suspect other than I spotted a post on them
Donston/Hospital ... ( 6 / 15) – This also fits the “mad doctor/medical student” ideas
Druitt / Ludwig ....... ( 7 / 15) Druitt is suggested to have had access to Dr. Thyne's surgery, and
given his cricket schedule, seems almost ruled out; Ludwig
was ruled out as he was in custody on the double event
Bachert .................. ( 7 / 12) – Another suspect I know nothing about, other than he was on the
vigilant committees and was a bit of a nuisance to the police at the
time.
Gouston Str. Graffiti ( 8 / 1) – this isn’t a suspect, but we know JtR was here at some point – was he
near home?
Barnet .................... ( 9 / 5)
Tumblety ................ (15 / 31) There is some question as to whether he was here in 1888 or not

And if JtR doesn’t live in zones 1-15 (which is about 25% of the time), then we would figure he’s here:
David Cohen .......... (17 / 17)
Peabody House ……. (19/ 8) (there’s no suspect here; I mislocated Hutchinson here before)
Hutchinson ............. (19 / 8)

These POIs fall in zones that would be considered pretty much “excluded”:
Pizer ....................... (32 / 38) - Pizer was cleared (although officially identified as Leather Apron)
Klowoski ................. (34 / 21) – Chapman, some have questioned if he was here in Autumn of 1888
Kosminski ............... (35 / 44)
Kaminsky ................ (40 / 53)

And, here's the updated version of the map I have with crime locations, suspects, and "points of interest" marked on them. Please do let me know if I've got anything wrong. I'm including on the map suspects who were cleared, or locations that might be "not there a the time" until such time as it is proven they were not there. I can't evaluate suspects who live outside the map area, sorry.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

It would seem we are basically in agreement; I am not opposed to the idea that he took trophies, although I remain unconvinced that he actually did. If I am on the money, then what we are looking at is something that borders on a ritualistic behavior. And in that context, I don't think that the mutilations were the aim, but more of a means to an end. It is much like painting a house, if you like - what the person doing the job is looking for is not a chance to hold a brush, to feel the paint going up or anything like that - what he or she wants is the finished product. Accordingly, I donīt think the killer took out organs because he liked taking out organs, but instead because the finished product he aimed for was a woman with her organs taken out.
I think we are looking at a much less passionate act than most people imagine. I don't think he revelled in cutting, it was just the equivalent of the housepainting. I think the blood was a messy nuisance to him, and that was why he bled his victims - to facilitate the job he did. The 1873 torso victim was drained completely of blood - she had been hung up and emptied of all blood. There was not a milliliter of it, as per the medicos who really looked for it. And still, some medicos said that she could have been cut up while alive, basing their suggestion on how there was very far-reaching muscle contraction. The muscles in a dead body will contract if it is cut up close in time to death.

So! Imagine how this killer worked with great speed - he whacks her twice over the temple, quite probably killing her, he gets a length of rope and ties her up and hangs her upside down, opening up her arteries in the neck by the looks of things. He then allows the blood to drain out (it is a matter of few minutes only), and then he moves on to take her down again and lay her out in order to divide her body into thirteen parts. Thirteen! And one of those parts is the face and scalp, cut away with precision from the cranium. He cuts at the back of the skull, and proceeds to pull the flesh forward with his one hand, working the sticking parts free from the face with the other hand and the knife as he goes along. He ends up with a cut away face with even the eyelashes intact, that's how carefully and meticulously he did his work.
It makes you think that the face was some sort of trophy, going by how much work he put into removing it, doesn't it?
But he threw it in the Thames when he had cut it away.
Why?
Because it was, I would suggest, the paint and the brush.
The finished product was what was left behind, at least for some little time; what the killer really was after. And the head was, as usual, never found. That head would perhaps have had trophy quality to him...

That is how I see it. And I am totally convinced that whoever killed Mary Kelly was also the killer of the 1873 torso victim.

That's an interesting take, but if, when he had the time, he could carefully remove the scalp and face, that sounds very different from the hacking of Eddowes and Kelly's faces. Also, removing the face as you describe, while yes, had it not been found would certainly look like trophy taking, it also looks like trying to avoid victim identification. Today, with modern techniques for identification, when victims are missing all their fingers or hands, or teeth (particularly when the body too was hidden), or heads, etc, it can be a functional behaviour, hinder identification of the victim and you hinder the investigation. DNA doesn't require those, of course, so cremation is resorted to quite often (but is not always successful).

Someone who has hung a victim to drain them of blood, then has cut the body up into 13 pieces, and has removed the skin, etc, sounds very much like someone who works with slaughtering animals. And in that process the removal of the organs would be part of that. It also sounds very different from the JtR attacks, and more similar to the Jackson case you mentioned (where the throat appeared to be cut right at the shoulders, though with the head missing, we don't know if there were cuts further up the neck as was the location of the throat wounds in the JtR cannonical cases). The dis-articulation at the shoulders and hips (in the Jackson case), were described as clean, and sound like they were performed by someone who knew what they were doing, whereas the doctor's mentioned specifically the failed attempt to remove Chapman's head, and given the time available with Kelly, no attempt to remove limbs was attempted based upon any of the reports. Also, the removal of large bits of flesh from Kelly's legs doesn't look like the more organized sectioning of a body into 13 chunks, which again, sounds very much like functional (one can transport smaller chunks for disposal.

The torso cases (and I've now read a bit on Jackson, but just material contained here on Casebook) are not as familiar to me as the JtR canonicals and common possible "additionals", so it appears you are drawing inferences from a different source.

My initial reaction would be that what little I do know has not jumped out at me as linking them. But, I also recognize what little I do know is insufficient to present that as a conclusion (and, also, I recognize that it often comes from sources who have drawn their conclusions as well, which always colours the presentation).

Based upon the C5, in particular Chapman, Eddowes, and Kelly, those crime scenes do not look like someone concerned about getting their hands bloody, or someone who is removing organs as one would from an animal carcass (he's cutting individual bits out, one at a time, not removing, for example, the entire set of intestines as one whole package), and the cuts to the face on both Eddowes and Kelly are hacking and slashing, not a careful process of skinning, etc.

I could see JtR being delusional in his thinking, and he's looking for "snakes in the body" type thing, but I don't think that's the only inference one could draw, and I don't mean to imply that he's a drooling lunatic either.

Anyway, I think now I get the difference. I do tend to lean towards thinking that the removal of the face you describe above, and then tossing it in the Thames, combined with the cutting up of the body into smaller "parcels" (and then scattering those) sounds very much like trying to prevent identification and discovery. I can't see the taking of uteri, kidneys, and hearts as serving any other purpose (note, cannibalism of them would still make them trophies) then to serve as an item through which to relive the experience (so trophy), while the behaviours involved in the torso murders sound much more practical at first blush. I want to say again, though, I'm not open to changing my mind on that, just indicating my initial reaction.

Thanks for giving me something to think about. I'll have to put some time into researching the various torso cases.

- Jeff

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,

Yes, I fully agree that the primary object / goal was the mutilations, which I've said a few times as well so I think we agree on that. I have tried to emphasize that I'm not saying that trophy taking was JtR's primary motive (my previous post was just clarifying that there are some cases where trophy taking is very much part of the motive, but that is in contrast to JtR in my view). Again, and perhaps I'm just not conveying this very well, but trophy taking is often done sort of as an afterthought, a "celebration" might be one way to describe it - where the offender takes something to remember their accomplishment by because they will re-live the experience again. Photos are common now, but wouldn't have been available to JtR. Taking of jewelry, or ID, or clothing (usually underwear when there is a sexual aspect to the crimes - meaning the offender finds the activities, however horrendous to us, sexually gratifying in some way, either directly or through the sense of power it gives them). Body parts are not that uncommon, heads are often taken. Internal organs are, I believe, far more rare (which is why the taking of organs from Chapman, Eddowes, and Kelly is, in my opinion, such a strong pointer to the same offender). I don't see any evidence, though, that the particular organ taken was very important to JtR, by which I mean I don't see anything to suggest he was "harvesting uteri" in particular. If he were (which I don't think), then yes, I would agree that just cutting out the uterus and leaving the rest is what would be expected. He's not doing that, which is why I don't think the specific bits he takes is all that important, but the fact he takes something is - and the fact that he takes part of the internal organs and not, say, bits of their clothes, points to the internal organs in general (rather than a specific one) being somehow important to JtR.

And yes, I think the placement of the internal organs in Chapman, Eddowes, and Kelly's is not just a tossing of them about, and fully agree with you that there's some deliberate placement going on. I also agree that's an important point to consider, which I have overlooked, so thanks for that. The careful placement of the organs, as you mention, also points to JtR having some sort of fixation on the internals themselves. He's exploring the insides and not just hacking them to pieces. And I think that again makes his taking of an organ as a trophy entirely consistent with what he might want to relive - the experience of rummaging about the insides of the victim. What I have not been saying is that his primary focus was to "take all of them", anymore than an offender who takes a victim's driver's licence isn't doing anything unusual by not taking the entire wallet, or all of the ID found it in - why not take the student card as well? Because they got "something" that, for whatever reason, they found to be sufficient. They don't need all of it to have an item to relive through - that's what taken as a trophy means, a representative token to act as a reminder of the event itself.

But, as I've been trying to say, and which you seem to agree with, is that the primary motivation is the mutilations. Trophy taking is just a behaviour that is not all that uncommon, although I agree with you, specifically taking internal organs as trophies is rare as far as I can tell, but taking of body parts in general has been done by more than a few.

Other than heads (Kemper & Bundy), and the foot I mentioned above, there are cases where a breast has been removed and taken (why not take both you might ask? I don't know, I guess one was enough. Why didn't JtR take Kelly's breast? I don't know, I guess the heart was enough. I think that "it was probably enough" because he only ever took one or two bits and there is no evidence that he wanted or needed to take more. I see absolutely nothing problematic with the idea that he's removed as much of the internals as he could, while only taking one or two bits with him because, again, the primary goal of JtR was the mutilations, the bits he takes are just reminders for him and he doesn't need all of it to have that token, or trophy, as his reminder - one or two bits is enough for JtR. The careful arrangement of the internal organs points to some sort of fascination with internal organs as well, so it's not inconsistent that he might take something from them to use as a reminder, to enhance his reliving of the entire experience.

- Jeff

It would seem we are basically in agreement; I am not opposed to the idea that he took trophies, although I remain unconvinced that he actually did. If I am on the money, then what we are looking at is something that borders on a ritualistic behavior. And in that context, I don't think that the mutilations were the aim, but more of a means to an end. It is much like painting a house, if you like - what the person doing the job is looking for is not a chance to hold a brush, to feel the paint going up or anything like that - what he or she wants is the finished product. Accordingly, I donīt think the killer took out organs because he liked taking out organs, but instead because the finished product he aimed for was a woman with her organs taken out.
I think we are looking at a much less passionate act than most people imagine. I don't think he revelled in cutting, it was just the equivalent of the housepainting. I think the blood was a messy nuisance to him, and that was why he bled his victims - to facilitate the job he did. The 1873 torso victim was drained completely of blood - she had been hung up and emptied of all blood. There was not a milliliter of it, as per the medicos who really looked for it. And still, some medicos said that she could have been cut up while alive, basing their suggestion on how there was very far-reaching muscle contraction. The muscles in a dead body will contract if it is cut up close in time to death.

So! Imagine how this killer worked with great speed - he whacks her twice over the temple, quite probably killing her, he gets a length of rope and ties her up and hangs her upside down, opening up her arteries in the neck by the looks of things. He then allows the blood to drain out (it is a matter of few minutes only), and then he moves on to take her down again and lay her out in order to divide her body into thirteen parts. Thirteen! And one of those parts is the face and scalp, cut away with precision from the cranium. He cuts at the back of the skull, and proceeds to pull the flesh forward with his one hand, working the sticking parts free from the face with the other hand and the knife as he goes along. He ends up with a cut away face with even the eyelashes intact, that's how carefully and meticulously he did his work.
It makes you think that the face was some sort of trophy, going by how much work he put into removing it, doesn't it?
But he threw it in the Thames when he had cut it away.
Why?
Because it was, I would suggest, the paint and the brush.
The finished product was what was left behind, at least for some little time; what the killer really was after. And the head was, as usual, never found. That head would perhaps have had trophy quality to him...

That is how I see it. And I am totally convinced that whoever killed Mary Kelly was also the killer of the 1873 torso victim.

[JeffHamm]

I would still want to know what other examples there are of killers who carefully cut out a large number of organs from a vctims body, and then decides for one of them as a trophy. I find that either you take out the innards and leave them at the spot (ā la Ed Gingrich), or you cut out the part you decided for as a trophy (and that could be anything) leaving the rest inside the body.

It must be acknowledged that the primary object of this killer was to cut into bodies, not to take trophies. And that means that we need an explanation for what he did to the victims where he was afforded time, the way he was in the Kelly case. It very clearly was not about destroying and annihilation, since that would have included the hacking and destruction of the innards. Instead, we have them cut out and distributed on the bed, even tucked under her head, just as we have the abdominal flesh and flesh from the buttocks on the bedside table.

Why is it not all in a messy heap around her? Or on the floor? Why is it placed neatly on the bed or on the table, just as Eddowesī colon section was neatly placed parallel to her body?

To me, this is infinitely more interesting than the question whether he brought along parts as trophies or not.

Hi Fisherman,

Yes, I fully agree that the primary object / goal was the mutilations, which I've said a few times as well so I think we agree on that. I have tried to emphasize that I'm not saying that trophy taking was JtR's primary motive (my previous post was just clarifying that there are some cases where trophy taking is very much part of the motive, but that is in contrast to JtR in my view). Again, and perhaps I'm just not conveying this very well, but trophy taking is often done sort of as an afterthought, a "celebration" might be one way to describe it - where the offender takes something to remember their accomplishment by because they will re-live the experience again. Photos are common now, but wouldn't have been available to JtR. Taking of jewelry, or ID, or clothing (usually underwear when there is a sexual aspect to the crimes - meaning the offender finds the activities, however horrendous to us, sexually gratifying in some way, either directly or through the sense of power it gives them). Body parts are not that uncommon, heads are often taken. Internal organs are, I believe, far more rare (which is why the taking of organs from Chapman, Eddowes, and Kelly is, in my opinion, such a strong pointer to the same offender). I don't see any evidence, though, that the particular organ taken was very important to JtR, by which I mean I don't see anything to suggest he was "harvesting uteri" in particular. If he were (which I don't think), then yes, I would agree that just cutting out the uterus and leaving the rest is what would be expected. He's not doing that, which is why I don't think the specific bits he takes is all that important, but the fact he takes something is - and the fact that he takes part of the internal organs and not, say, bits of their clothes, points to the internal organs in general (rather than a specific one) being somehow important to JtR.

And yes, I think the placement of the internal organs in Chapman, Eddowes, and Kelly's is not just a tossing of them about, and fully agree with you that there's some deliberate placement going on. I also agree that's an important point to consider, which I have overlooked, so thanks for that. The careful placement of the organs, as you mention, also points to JtR having some sort of fixation on the internals themselves. He's exploring the insides and not just hacking them to pieces. And I think that again makes his taking of an organ as a trophy entirely consistent with what he might want to relive - the experience of rummaging about the insides of the victim. What I have not been saying is that his primary focus was to "take all of them", anymore than an offender who takes a victim's driver's licence isn't doing anything unusual by not taking the entire wallet, or all of the ID found it in - why not take the student card as well? Because they got "something" that, for whatever reason, they found to be sufficient. They don't need all of it to have an item to relive through - that's what taken as a trophy means, a representative token to act as a reminder of the event itself.

But, as I've been trying to say, and which you seem to agree with, is that the primary motivation is the mutilations. Trophy taking is just a behaviour that is not all that uncommon, although I agree with you, specifically taking internal organs as trophies is rare as far as I can tell, but taking of body parts in general has been done by more than a few.

Other than heads (Kemper & Bundy), and the foot I mentioned above, there are cases where a breast has been removed and taken (why not take both you might ask? I don't know, I guess one was enough. Why didn't JtR take Kelly's breast? I don't know, I guess the heart was enough. I think that "it was probably enough" because he only ever took one or two bits and there is no evidence that he wanted or needed to take more. I see absolutely nothing problematic with the idea that he's removed as much of the internals as he could, while only taking one or two bits with him because, again, the primary goal of JtR was the mutilations, the bits he takes are just reminders for him and he doesn't need all of it to have that token, or trophy, as his reminder - one or two bits is enough for JtR. The careful arrangement of the internal organs points to some sort of fascination with internal organs as well, so it's not inconsistent that he might take something from them to use as a reminder, to enhance his reliving of the entire experience.

- Jeff

[Fisherman]

Oh, I should say, there are, of course, some serial killers who took particular clothing items as trophies, and their fetish for that item was very much tied into the murders as well (I forget his name at the moment, but there's one fellow who had a shoe fettish, and kept at least one woman's foot in his freezer, so he could put shoes from his victims on it, etc). In that case, the object trophy and the murders were very much inter-twined. In one of my previous posts, I think I uncautiously implied that serial killer's always just take something, and that the particular trophy item never enters into it. Rather, I should have said, usually the particular object taken isn't a primary aspect of the motive behind the murder, though exceptions do occur.

So, had JtR taken Kelly's uterus, which he had access to, even if he also took her heart, then I think there could be a strong reason to consider the possibility that JtR had a particular interest in the uterus, probably as a feitsh item (however, I find Baxter's more pragmatic suggestion, that he was going to sell them, less tenable because of all the other things JtR did over and above what was necessary to obtain the uterus in both Eddowes and, in particular, Kelly's case). However, because JtR left Kelly's uterus despite having removed it, I think that line of reasoning falls down, which gets me back to the idea that he just wanted a bit of the victim to take as a reminder of the event, so he could re-live it later.

Also, on a different note, I should have mentioned for Stride a the third point against including her in the series is that the doctor's looked for, and found no signs of, strangulation in her case. That does make the assault appear to follow a different sequence than the assault on Nichol's, Chapman, and Eddowes. Kelly, however, apparently had defensive wounds, and so doesn't appear to have been strangled either, so the lack of strangulation isn't unique to Stride (effectively reducing the impact of that point of difference; strangulation may have been a situationally determined thing, while the mutilations are the primary (necessary) aspect in JtRs view. Still, it provides reason to be cautious about Stride's inclusion, but it isn't definitive in and of itself, and so needs to be added in and weighed with the similarities, which I still think tip the balance to warrant Stride's inclusion at the moment, but I'm entirely open to arguments for her exclusion as well).

- Jeff

I would still want to know what other examples there are of killers who carefully cut out a large number of organs from a vctims body, and then decides for one of them as a trophy. I find that either you take out the innards and leave them at the spot (ā la Ed Gingrich), or you cut out the part you decided for as a trophy (and that could be anything) leaving the rest inside the body.

It must be acknowledged that the primary object of this killer was to cut into bodies, not to take trophies. And that means that we need an explanation for what he did to the victims where he was afforded time, the way he was in the Kelly case. It very clearly was not about destroying and annihilation, since that would have included the hacking and destruction of the innards. Instead, we have them cut out and distributed on the bed, even tucked under her head, just as we have the abdominal flesh and flesh from the buttocks on the bedside table.

Why is it not all in a messy heap around her? Or on the floor? Why is it placed neatly on the bed or on the table, just as Eddowesī colon section was neatly placed parallel to her body?

To me, this is infinitely more interesting than the question whether he brought along parts as trophies or not.

[JeffHamm]

Oh, I should say, there are, of course, some serial killers who took particular clothing items as trophies, and their fetish for that item was very much tied into the murders as well (I forget his name at the moment, but there's one fellow who had a shoe fettish, and kept at least one woman's foot in his freezer, so he could put shoes from his victims on it, etc). In that case, the object trophy and the murders were very much inter-twined. In one of my previous posts, I think I uncautiously implied that serial killer's always just take something, and that the particular trophy item never enters into it. Rather, I should have said, usually the particular object taken isn't a primary aspect of the motive behind the murder, though exceptions do occur.

So, had JtR taken Kelly's uterus, which he had access to, even if he also took her heart, then I think there could be a strong reason to consider the possibility that JtR had a particular interest in the uterus, probably as a feitsh item (however, I find Baxter's more pragmatic suggestion, that he was going to sell them, less tenable because of all the other things JtR did over and above what was necessary to obtain the uterus in both Eddowes and, in particular, Kelly's case). However, because JtR left Kelly's uterus despite having removed it, I think that line of reasoning falls down, which gets me back to the idea that he just wanted a bit of the victim to take as a reminder of the event, so he could re-live it later.

Also, on a different note, I should have mentioned for Stride a the third point against including her in the series is that the doctor's looked for, and found no signs of, strangulation in her case. That does make the assault appear to follow a different sequence than the assault on Nichol's, Chapman, and Eddowes. Kelly, however, apparently had defensive wounds, and so doesn't appear to have been strangled either, so the lack of strangulation isn't unique to Stride (effectively reducing the impact of that point of difference; strangulation may have been a situationally determined thing, while the mutilations are the primary (necessary) aspect in JtRs view. Still, it provides reason to be cautious about Stride's inclusion, but it isn't definitive in and of itself, and so needs to be added in and weighed with the similarities, which I still think tip the balance to warrant Stride's inclusion at the moment, but I'm entirely open to arguments for her exclusion as well).

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

I have no problems with the suggestion of our killer picking different kinds of innards as souvenirs - I just pointed out that since you spoke of how he would perhaps choose parts that were easy to conceal, a heart does not top that list. Otherwise, the fact that he did not only go for reproduction arts is something that could well be of massive importance. It was not only about the sexuality of the victim, apparently - but it could well be that all the innards (or parts of them, at least) represented something that touched on the killers sexuality.

In the overall scheme, Iīd say that when we look at Millwood, the object of the thread, once we open up for the killer being responsible for both the Ripper and the Torso series, things will follow. For me, Millwood becomes less likely to belong - she has always been regarded as a test run of the Ripper, but if he killed the Torso victims too, as I believe, then he would not have needed any test run at the time of the Millwood attack. She could perhaps be a test run for attacks in the open, if you like, but otherwise not.

And of course, the geographical discussion must also be reevaluated. The problem is that we only know where parts were dumped in the torso series, not where the victims were picked up nor where they were killed. And when it comes to the parts found in the Thames, we canīt even tell where they were dumped with any certainty at all. Geographically, the Torso murders are an enigma.

Yes, if the torso murders are included, their locations would be "dump sites" not the primary crime locations. Those seem (I have very little data on these) to result in a different set of equations, and the offenders anchor point (usually their residence) tends to be much more centrally located. At the moment, I've not worked in the ability to enter both primary locations and dump sites (which could be useful in this case if we wanted to add in the torso cases; I will eventually try and do that as I think it could be useful in general anyway.

Also, I think it's a fair point that if the torso murders are in, then Millwood's inclusion becomes much less likely. Tabram's attack could still be the first "on location" attack, with the idea that his first attack was inexperienced in that situation, but I think even that inclusion starts to become more difficult to defend.

As for concealing a heart, it's about the size of a large fist, and is smaller in women then men (on average). It wouldn't be particularly difficult to conceal in my opinion. But yes, I think it's possible that what he chose to take, even if not decided upon a priori, could be worth exploring. While we will probably never know if our musings are correct or not, these kind of thought explorations can lead to other insights that may be more testable. I'm certainly not convinced by suggestions are the only ones that could be valid, quite the contrary.

Anyway, I'll have to read up on the Jackson case. Thanks for that.

- Jeff

Oh, found an article on collecting with a bit on serial killers in it. A bit of a summary type piece, rather than a research article, but given the discussions it might be of interest to some here.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...-and-addiction

[Fisherman]

I will be looking into the Jackson case. Your description of it does make it sound very worth examining (for the reasons you outline). As to why take the heart and not a kidney, or a spleen, etc? I don't know, perhaps it was the one he placed closest at hand? Wouldn't take much to conceal it, wrapped in something, under his jacket, etc. Again, I think our difference of view as to the importance of the specific organ taken drives things. I think JtR could just have easily taken a spleen from Kelly, but he didn't. Given the variety of organs he took, it looks to me (and your opinion may differ) that he just took something. Now, I could see him deciding to take the heart in particular simply because I would think that must have been difficult to get, etc so I shouldn't really just say "randomly grabbed something", but I don't see anything to indicate that his primary motivation was to "get a particular item for his collection" type thing. For object trophies, like women's underwear, there are offenders where that is the primary goal, but these offenders usually break and enter and steal underwear - or take it off clothes lines, they don't murder people if their primary objective is to get a particular trophy item. While someone who murders people and takes an article of clothing is taking a souvenir of the crime itself, but again, your thoughts may differ.

- Jeff

I have no problems with the suggestion of our killer picking different kinds of innards as souvenirs - I just pointed out that since you spoke of how he would perhaps choose parts that were easy to conceal, a heart does not top that list. Otherwise, the fact that he did not only go for reproduction arts is something that could well be of massive importance. It was not only about the sexuality of the victim, apparently - but it could well be that all the innards (or parts of them, at least) represented something that touched on the killers sexuality.

In the overall scheme, Iīd say that when we look at Millwood, the object of the thread, once we open up for the killer being responsible for both the Ripper and the Torso series, things will follow. For me, Millwood becomes less likely to belong - she has always been regarded as a test run of the Ripper, but if he killed the Torso victims too, as I believe, then he would not have needed any test run at the time of the Millwood attack. She could perhaps be a test run for attacks in the open, if you like, but otherwise not.

And of course, the geographical discussion must also be reevaluated. The problem is that we only know where parts were dumped in the torso series, not where the victims were picked up nor where they were killed. And when it comes to the parts found in the Thames, we canīt even tell where they were dumped with any certainty at all. Geographically, the Torso murders are an enigma.

[JeffHamm]

My advice would be to think practical - if the killer did take out all organs from Kelly fon whatever reason NOT tied to trophy taking, only thereafter deciding to choose one item that he "could conceal", as you put it - why take the rather bulky heart? Surely the uterus, a kidney, even the spleen would be easier to conceal?
The Kelly scene is normally described as utter mayhem. Why is it then, that we do not read about half kidneys, a liver hacked to pieces and so on? Or about half organs left inside the body? Instead it seems the organs were neatly taken out intact and placed on the bed, some of them even tucked away under her head. Is that utter mayhem? Is cutting the eyebrows away mayhem or examples of dexterious, neat knife work? Iīll leave you to ponder those questions.

And yes, do look into the Jackson case - as well as the other torso cases, and begin in 1873. In the Jackson case, you will find that she resembles Kelly very closely on many points. A London prostitute killed half a year after Kelly, who had her abdomen cut open from ribcage to pubes just like Kelly, who had her heart cut out from her body, a heart that went lost just like Kellys heart did, who had her uterus cut out and discarded and found, just as in the Kelly case, who had her abdominal wall cut away in large flaps, just like Kelly had. Given how rare these creatures are, Iīd say that the possibilities of two killers is miniscule.
I agree with what you said about the same kind of damage sometimes having different underlying reasons, but I strongly believe that it all hinges on the parameters involved. If we have two women killed by knife in the same city, then it may have had different reasons - it can be one robbery and one sexual assault that led it on, and that can be hard to tell after the events, depending on what happened. Of course, the larger the city is, the larger the chance of two perps.
But once the parameters involved become A/ more and more specific and B/ more and more odd and C/ more and more rare, the odds that we have two killers start to rise dramatically. As has been said before, there are no other examples of two simultaneously (more or less) acting eviscerator serialists in the same city, and that is not something that should surprise us - these people do not surface often. When they do, we can read about them in the papers and ask ourselves if ten or twenty years have passed since we last heard about these kinds of atrocities. Dahmer. Fish. Haarmann. Sort of. They come from differing times and differing venues, and they did things to their respective victims (of differing gender) that allows us to realize who killed which victim by looking at the damages inflicted.
But in THIS case we have the same time, the same city and the same damage to a very large extent. And we have extremely rare inclusions. We have the same organs targetted.

There is - the way I see it - virtually no chance at all of two killers. So of course I must encourage you to read about the Torso murders if you are interested in the Rippers deeds.

I will be looking into the Jackson case. Your description of it does make it sound very worth examining (for the reasons you outline). As to why take the heart and not a kidney, or a spleen, etc? I don't know, perhaps it was the one he placed closest at hand? Wouldn't take much to conceal it, wrapped in something, under his jacket, etc. Again, I think our difference of view as to the importance of the specific organ taken drives things. I think JtR could just have easily taken a spleen from Kelly, but he didn't. Given the variety of organs he took, it looks to me (and your opinion may differ) that he just took something. Now, I could see him deciding to take the heart in particular simply because I would think that must have been difficult to get, etc so I shouldn't really just say "randomly grabbed something", but I don't see anything to indicate that his primary motivation was to "get a particular item for his collection" type thing. For object trophies, like women's underwear, there are offenders where that is the primary goal, but these offenders usually break and enter and steal underwear - or take it off clothes lines, they don't murder people if their primary objective is to get a particular trophy item. While someone who murders people and takes an article of clothing is taking a souvenir of the crime itself, but again, your thoughts may differ.

- Jeff

[Darryl Kenyon]

I am sure Jack would have looked silly carrying a load of organs down the street. If he did take the heart, and I think he did, that would probably suffice.