Location of Annie Millwood's attack

[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]

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

[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

Let´s 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 it´s 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 it´s 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, I´d 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 what´s left? That the Ripper´s 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, let´s 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 don´t believe in coincidences, did I say that?

[JeffHamm]

Let´s 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 it´s 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 it´s 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, I´d 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 what´s left? That the Ripper´s 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, let´s 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 don´t 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

[Sam Flynn]

Let´s take it from the start.

...1,155 words cut...

There are other threads available to discuss the Torso murders. Stop trying to turn this into one.

[Fisherman]

I was not the one to bring up the torso murders here, as you would know if you checked. Furthermore, they have a massive bearing on the geographical mapping Jeff has suggested. You really should not get all agitaded and nervous when they are brought up. The same goes for Lechmere - who I did not introduce on the thread either.
I will discuss as I see fit to, and I may well move part of the discussion. If, that is, you stop commenting on the length of my posts - it is no concern of yours.
Deal?

[Sam Flynn]

I was not the one to bring up the torso murders here, as you would know if you checked

I knew without checking, thanks. However, as the others didn't wade in with 1000+ word posts, I didn't get the feeling that they were trying to steer the discussion into Torsoripper territory.

Furthermore, they have a massive bearing on the geographical mapping

Of course they do, because the overwhelming likelihood is that we're dealing with different killers committing different kinds of murder in two distinct parts of London. Given the wide East/West separation of the Ripper's killing field and the torso dump-sites, I shouldn't be surprised if a geographical profile pointed the finger of suspicion at a resident of Buckingham Palace! Whilst that might please some people, I'm sure that neither you nor I would be among them

[Fisherman]

I knew without checking, thanks. However, as the others didn't wade in with 1000+ word posts, I didn't get the feeling that they were trying to steer the discussion into Torsoripper territory.Of course they do, because the overwhelming likelihood is that we're dealing with different killers committing different kinds of murder in two distinct parts of London. Given the wide East/West separation of the Ripper's killing field and the torso dump-sites, I shouldn't be surprised if a geographical profile pointed the finger of suspicion at a resident of Buckingham Palace! Whilst that might please some people, I'm sure that neither you nor I would be among them

You are of course wrong on just about everything again. "The others", Jeff Hamm, namely, have made posts just as long as mine and a lot longer too - and you know what? He, just as I, are perfectly entitled to do so. Just as we are perfectly entitled to tell you that it is none of your business whatsoever, should we choose to do so.

Moreover, I do not have to "steer" any discussion into any territory at all. I have never had any problem at all to initiate discussions out here, be that a discussion about the Torso cases or about Charles Lechmere. The one problem I DO have is when people like you are trying your hand at policing, spiced up with a little bit of censorship aspirations. Not that it is much of a problem, but nevertheless ...

Lastly, your total and utter failure to grasp what it means when there is a round dozen similarities of odd and specific kinds inbetween two murder series has been on parade out here for the longest now, so it comes as no surprise that you are giving them another embarrassing walk through the circus. Just don't try and peddle the "overwhelming likelihood" rot to the more discerning posters out here. The odds for you being correct on it are much higher than the odds for the killer (singularis) having some sort of connection to Buckingham Palace. And that's saying something.

Now, did you get something - anything at all - right in this post of yours? That's a tough one. Maybe your suggestion that there would be those who would be pleased by a Buckingham connection? Yes, that must be it. That will be true to some extent.

Bravo.

Now, where do we go from here? More manure throwing or some case discussion? It´s your choice.

[Fisherman]

Jeff!

A few remarks relating to your latest post:

The torso cases of 1887-89 were linked by Charles Hebbert, the medico who examined the victims and who afterwards wrote "An exercise in Forensic Medicine" about them. He was adamant that these four victims all fell prey to the same hand, and he said that the cases were in all regards very similar. He recognized a progression throughout, but the cutting was the same type in all cases.
Of course, the Rainham case and the Jackson case are the real "twins", with the trunks being divided into the same three pieces and with then lacking heart and lungs in both cases and a section of the colon having gone lost too in both cases. There can be no realistic doubt that they fell prey to the same killer. The cutting in the Rainham case was commented upon by Dr Galloway, who was absolutely flabbergasted about the quality of the cutting (it was he who said that a surgeon would have been involved), and given that the cutting was of such a rare type, there can be little doubt that Hebbert was able to link all four cases by that parameter.

You say that the face taken away in the 1873 case seems to have been done to disenable identification. On the contrary, when the whole face is carefully peeled off, then identification is a clear possibility. The face was actually mounted onto a bust of some sort and exhibited by the police for that precise purpose. If the killer had REALLY wanted to make an identification impossible, he could have achieved that aim very much easier by using lime, by chopping the head up with an axe, by pouring acid on the head, by feeding the head to dogs etcetera - what he did was something that will have been very time-consuming and so we must realise that there was another reason than making identification impossible.

You make the point that stones are heavy, and so the killer would perhaps not weigh the parts down. I find that a bit strange - the whole river and its banks are full of stones, and it would be very easy to put one of them into a sack of body parts and sink it to the bottom.

You say that it should be expected that the parts would go lost forever, floating to the sea - but from the outset in 1873, almost ALL of the parts floated ashore along the London riverbanks, so the killer could not possibly have entertained much hope that they would disappear, could he? The talk of the town, highlighted in the press, was how part after part floated ashore and was found. I think the best suggestion we can make is that this was the killers aim - to install fear into the hearts of the Londoners by way of bombarding the city with parts of corpses. It is a methodology worthy of a Stephen King novel.

In the Rainham case, he did not even chuck all parts into the Thames, he took the time to go to Regents Canal and throw some bits and pieces there too, and yes, they were also found.

He did not bother to take away moles, scars and marks on the bodies, things that could all have the victims identified, and he floated Jacksons body parts down the river in parcels made up by her own clothing, clothing that was subsequently identified!

Yes, most dismemberment killers want to hide what they have done. But no, this was apparently not that kind of a killer.

Last, but not least: You see fury and frenzy in the cutting of Kelly. I would suggest that he worked to a specific agenda and that he took great care to make the final product, if you will, answer to that agenda in all respects. It is not a murder where the killer could not contain and steer himself if you ask me. It is instead a ritualistically governed murder where all the elements fit a pattern.

[Sam Flynn]

You are of course wrong on just about everything again.

What do you mean "of course"? I'm not an idiot, and I'm not wrong on anything in this context either.

"The others", Jeff Hamm, namely, have made posts just as long as mine and a lot longer too.

Yes, but most of those are Jeff explaining his analyses and maps, which are the best things to come out of this thread, so fair enough; but what Jeff and others haven't done is compose essay-long posts on a single pet theory. Now, Klosowski is one of my areas of interest, and I've chipped in with the odd post about him where relevant, but I've not done so at length because I recognise that this is not a Klosowski thread. There's a time and a place for everything.

[Fisherman]

”Of course” means ”as expected”. And the length of any post of mine is still none of your business, I’ m afraid.

[Sam Flynn]

”Of course” means ”as expected”.

Thought so, meaning that you "expect" me to get things wrong. Nice.

And the length of any post of mine is still none of your business, I’ m afraid.

I don't need your permission to suggest that your posts about your pet subject, i.e. the "Torsoripper", are are much too long for a thread that doesn't relate specifically to it. Come to think of it, they'd be of a fairly decent size if they were on a dedicated Torsoripper thread!

[Fisherman]

Thought so, meaning that you "expect" me to get things wrong. Nice.I don't need your permission to suggest that your posts about your pet subject, i.e. the "Torsoripper", are are much too long for a thread that doesn't relate specifically to it. Come to think of it, they'd be of a fairly decent size if they were on a dedicated Torsoripper thread!

And I don´t need your permission to expect you to be wrong. Come to think of it, when a poster (for example) claims that it is "almost certain" that the Torso killer lived in the West of London, that he did not eviscerate, that he was no mutilator, that Lechmere was not found by Paul in Bucks Row - and apparently even at some stage that the Torso killer didn't take out Jacksons uterus! - why would I NOT expect that poster to get it wrong?

Ask yourself which is better: to have a discussion about the torso murders and their viability to the case on a thread that tries to geographically map the killer, or to turn a useful discussion into... well, this? Spending band width on kindergarten crap?
Isn't it true to say that anybody who specifically wants to discuss the location of Annie Millwoods attack can do so on this thread, should they feel so inclined? And that those who see a relevance in how the inclusion of the torso murders would change the geographical mapping relating to Millwood entirely could delve into that topic?

If somebody at such a time should say "But the Torso murders cannot be related, can they?", should the answer to that question end up on another thread, where the information is already present? Should the one who asks be directed to that thread and told that he or she must look up the arguments him- or herself?

Maybe the problem is that you don't like to see the torsos discussed as belonging to the Ripper series at all, regardless of the thread? Could that be it? Surely, surely not ...?

[JeffHamm]

Jeff!

A few remarks relating to your latest post:

The torso cases of 1887-89 were linked by Charles Hebbert, the medico who examined the victims and who afterwards wrote "An exercise in Forensic Medicine" about them. He was adamant that these four victims all fell prey to the same hand, and he said that the cases were in all regards very similar. He recognized a progression throughout, but the cutting was the same type in all cases.
Of course, the Rainham case and the Jackson case are the real "twins", with the trunks being divided into the same three pieces and with then lacking heart and lungs in both cases and a section of the colon having gone lost too in both cases. There can be no realistic doubt that they fell prey to the same killer. The cutting in the Rainham case was commented upon by Dr Galloway, who was absolutely flabbergasted about the quality of the cutting (it was he who said that a surgeon would have been involved), and given that the cutting was of such a rare type, there can be little doubt that Hebbert was able to link all four cases by that parameter.

Again, having not read reports or comments on these, I can't comment meaningfully.

You say that the face taken away in the 1873 case seems to have been done to disenable identification. On the contrary, when the whole face is carefully peeled off, then identification is a clear possibility. The face was actually mounted onto a bust of some sort and exhibited by the police for that precise purpose. If the killer had REALLY wanted to make an identification impossible, he could have achieved that aim very much easier by using lime, by chopping the head up with an axe, by pouring acid on the head, by feeding the head to dogs etcetera - what he did was something that will have been very time-consuming and so we must realise that there was another reason than making identification impossible.

Perhaps I misunderstood, but I thought in a previous post you said the face and scalp were removed, then taken away and thrown in the river? But it was subsequently found? That sounds like someone attempting to hide the identity of the victim should the head be found. The fact that something that was thrown into the river was later found doesn't in any way imply that the killer's intention was for it to be found, quite the opposite. What it does indicate is that the killer is either unaware that the body parts have a good chance of washing up on shore, or that they don't care and their intention is just to use the river to further scatter them, again, to prevent their location of discovery from being informative as to their location. And given we do not have any information about where the parts were entered into the river (which could possibly be modeled as body dump sites), there's not much I could do in terms of adding them.

You make the point that stones are heavy, and so the killer would perhaps not weigh the parts down. I find that a bit strange - the whole river and its banks are full of stones, and it would be very easy to put one of them into a sack of body parts and sink it to the bottom.

Unless, which seems highly probable to me, he throws them off a bridge and never goes down to the banks.

You say that it should be expected that the parts would go lost forever, floating to the sea - but from the outset in 1873, almost ALL of the parts floated ashore along the London riverbanks, so the killer could not possibly have entertained much hope that they would disappear, could he? The talk of the town, highlighted in the press, was how part after part floated ashore and was found. I think the best suggestion we can make is that this was the killers aim - to install fear into the hearts of the Londoners by way of bombarding the city with parts of corpses. It is a methodology worthy of a Stephen King novel.

Again, there's no reason to think the killer's aim was for the parts to be found, at best they don't care if they are found and are disposing of body parts in the river to confound the investigation by either preventing or delaying their discovery, and more importantly, dispersing them in a way that their location of discovery cannot be tied to him.

In the Rainham case, he did not even chuck all parts into the Thames, he took the time to go to Regents Canal and throw some bits and pieces there too, and yes, they were also found.

Again, when killer's hide bodies and they are found, that doesn't mean the killer wanted them found. If they display, or leave bodies in the open, as JtR did, then one might consider if the killer's intention is for the body to be found and to shock, or if the killer just doesn't care and leaves the victim there because they're done with them.

He did not bother to take away moles, scars and marks on the bodies, things that could all have the victims identified, and he floated Jacksons body parts down the river in parcels made up by her own clothing, clothing that was subsequently identified!

Again, wrapping the parts into parcels aids concealment as he transports them. Disposing of them in the river separates the parts from his possession, removing him of the complications of having rather incriminating evidence around. After that, in his mind, he's "rid of the problem". Killer's make mistakes, that's how many of them are caught, their attempts to conceal were insufficient. Not removing identifying marks, like moles, or scars, is because he probably didn't realize those could be used to identify the victims. Clothing, same thing, as to him they would just be more stuff he had to get rid of.

Yes, most dismemberment killers want to hide what they have done. But no, this was apparently not that kind of a killer.

I see an attempt to dispose and scatter, and perhaps an indication of non-concern if the parts are found. I see very little in the form of wanting things to be found (though Whitehall and Pinchin street could be exceptions).

Last, but not least: You see fury and frenzy in the cutting of Kelly. I would suggest that he worked to a specific agenda and that he took great care to make the final product, if you will, answer to that agenda in all respects. It is not a murder where the killer could not contain and steer himself if you ask me. It is instead a ritualistically governed murder where all the elements fit a pattern.

We differ on our interpretation. I see a private sort of ritual I guess, but that's JtR unleashing his violence in a location where he has the luxury to do so uninterrupted. And I see nothing like surgical skill or even a butcher's. It's an all out assault against his victim, fulfilling some private anger and/or hatred. I do not think, or see, any grand plan beyond the unleashing of that anger, which will later fuel his own sense of power and control. The pattern is in the repeating of the same attack, on Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes, and Kelly in particular. The repeating of the same pattern of attacks, progressing each time, possibly simply because he had a bit more time. The torso murders appear very different, there's more pragmatic aspects to them. They were committed in a more secure location for one, there's more care taken to dispose of evidence, and by your account above, there's far more skill and less frenzy involved in my opinion.

- Jeff

[Kattrup]

Perhaps I misunderstood, but I thought in a previous post you said the face and scalp were removed, then taken away and thrown in the river? But it was subsequently found? That sounds like someone attempting to hide the identity of the victim should the head be found. The fact that something that was thrown into the river was later found doesn't in any way imply that the killer's intention was for it to be found, quite the opposite. What it does indicate is that the killer is either unaware that the body parts have a good chance of washing up on shore, or that they don't care and their intention is just to use the river to further scatter them, again, to prevent their location of discovery from being informative as to their location. And given we do not have any information about where the parts were entered into the river (which could possibly be modeled as body dump sites), there's not much I could do in terms of adding them [...]

Again, there's no reason to think the killer's aim was for the parts to be found, at best they don't care if they are found and are disposing of body parts in the river to confound the investigation by either preventing or delaying their discovery, and more importantly, dispersing them in a way that their location of discovery cannot be tied to him.


Again, when killer's hide bodies and they are found, that doesn't mean the killer wanted them found. If they display, or leave bodies in the open, as JtR did, then one might consider if the killer's intention is for the body to be found and to shock, or if the killer just doesn't care and leaves the victim there because they're done with them.

Again, wrapping the parts into parcels aids concealment as he transports them. Disposing of them in the river separates the parts from his possession, removing him of the complications of having rather incriminating evidence around. After that, in his mind, he's "rid of the problem". Killer's make mistakes, that's how many of them are caught, their attempts to conceal were insufficient. Not removing identifying marks, like moles, or scars, is because he probably didn't realize those could be used to identify the victims. Clothing, same thing, as to him they would just be more stuff he had to get rid of.


I see an attempt to dispose and scatter, and perhaps an indication of non-concern if the parts are found. I see very little in the form of wanting things to be found (though Whitehall and Pinchin street could be exceptions).

excellently put and argued. The idea that the killer wanted body parts found by throwing them in the river, or burying them, is not very sensible.

Also in the Whitehall case, the torso was hidden in a labyrinthine building site and went unnoticed for days - yet some people still claim the killer did it to send a message or somesuch.