Torso Murders

[Abby Normal]

Pierre,

I note you discount the 87 torso, while I do not agree that the killer of the Torso victims was the same hand as that in Whitechapel, I am somewhat at a loss for this exclusion.
The similarities between the 87 and 89 torso’s are striking, Debra who knows far more about these cases than most, certainly sees the link, can you please explain the reason for the exclusion?

regards

steve

or tabram for that matter. or the 70's torso victims.

[Pierre]

can I just clarify,

you are not excluding the possibility, just you are not in a position to say one way or the other?

or am I misunderstanding you?

steve

You are correct. And I looked in the archive now, and the source needed is not available. I had searched for it earlier but forgot. So it wasn´t even my own laziness, which I would have preferred.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

or tabram for that matter. or the 70's torso victims.

Concerning Tabram, I don´t think it is his signature. And if there are no good sources pointing to a victim having been killed by Jack the Ripper, one can not know.

[Pcdunn]

Hi Pcdunn,

Could be a number of things, I guess. At one time I formed the opinion she was beaten unconscious by kicks and blows, and then was dragged by the arms to an area to be cut up. Then her throat cut and body mutilated. This would allow for all bruises to form before death.

That sounds like gang violence, and quite horrific. I suppose an abusive husband might have done all of that by himself, if he was strong enough. But your reasoning about the bruising makes sense.

[Pcdunn]

This is why I'm wondering if there were signs of any of these victims being bound before death. Because a client killing a whore would certainly create the kind of trouble the owner might want to avoid at any cost. At which point dismemberment and disposal might seem like a good option.

Hi, Errata, that was my line of thought, too. They'd want to conceal the woman's identity at all costs, to keep anyone from saying "she's over at Big John's place" or something of the sort.

[jerryd]

Pierre,

I note you discount the 87 torso, while I do not agree that the killer of the Torso victims was the same hand as that in Whitechapel, I am somewhat at a loss for this exclusion.
The similarities between the 87 and 89 torso’s are striking, Debra who knows far more about these cases than most, certainly sees the link, can you please explain the reason for the exclusion?

regards

steve

Hi Steve,

Yes. Due to my own laziness when it comes to analysing data in the archive for that year, I can not include the case in the hypothetical series. Sometimes archives can be tedious. But I will do it.

Kind regards, Pierre

You are correct. And I looked in the archive now, and the source needed is not available. I had searched for it earlier but forgot. So it wasn´t even my own laziness, which I would have preferred.

Regards, Pierre

See post #604 here. http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=9077&page=61

Why the change in theory?

[Rosella]

Hi, Errata, that was my line of thought, too. They'd want to conceal the woman's identity at all costs, to keep anyone from saying "she's over at Big John's place" or something of the sort.

Who would be desperately searching for the whereabouts of Elizabeth Jackson, though? Heavily pregnant, separated from her defacto, sleeping rough among dozens of others on the Embankment? She would certainly have been vulnerable to a pick-up, to a man who seemed kind, who said "Come on love, I'll buy you a fish supper and a drink," but she doesn't seem to have had a 'bully/pimp or anyone who saw her daily and would miss her at all.

[Elamarna]

See post #604 here. http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=9077&page=61

Why the change in theory?

Jerry

I would hazard a guess that this is because he is unable to find evidence that the killer he suspects was in London in 1888.

Therefore discard the bits of the theory which may cause a problem!



Steve

[Pcdunn]

Who would be desperately searching for the whereabouts of Elizabeth Jackson, though? Heavily pregnant, separated from her defacto, sleeping rough among dozens of others on the Embankment? She would certainly have been vulnerable to a pick-up, to a man who seemed kind, who said "Come on love, I'll buy you a fish supper and a drink," but she doesn't seem to have had a 'bully/pimp or anyone who saw her daily and would miss her at all.

Agreed.
I think we were talking the Pinchin body, not Jackson, weren't we, Errata? Some of the torso victims might have died by other hands than others.

[Errata]

Hi, Errata, that was my line of thought, too. They'd want to conceal the woman's identity at all costs, to keep anyone from saying "she's over at Big John's place" or something of the sort.

One of the realities of this kind of thing is that the rough trade can be deadly, even without intent. Aneurysm, heart attack, stroke, I mean these things happen between consenting adults who nowhere near approach what we would consider to be potentially deadly play. And it happens to prostitutes who work in that specialty. So if a brothel has two women who were clearly murdered and one who simply died, theres no reason for them to treat the bodies differently. So we might get one victim who was not murdered and yet was cut apart like the others.

[RockySullivan]

That's true but if the torso killer's were dismembering women from a brothel who died accidentally what about Jackson who wasn't working in a brothel?

[Pcdunn]

That's true but if the torso killer's were dismembering women from a brothel who died accidentally what about Jackson who wasn't working in a brothel?

Perhaps Jackson was the one torso victim who really was murdered by the Ripper... Or perhaps she was the one victim of abortion, or domestic abuse, or a stray ripper-copycat, etc.

As I said, it's possible different persons killed the Torso Murder victims. To say nothing of medical schools possibly disposing of anatomical "waste" in the river.

I understand the desire to lump them all together as the victims of one killer, presumably even the Ripper, but we don't actually have to do this. We can keep an open mind and consider each case separately.

[Errata]

That's true but if the torso killer's were dismembering women from a brothel who died accidentally what about Jackson who wasn't working in a brothel?

Rough trade is not traditionally a longevity game. Women would work it for a few weeks until they couldn't take it anymore, or they were so marked up they became unattractive to customers. Subs at least. Doms had staying power. But it was a desperation game to show up at a rough trade brothel and work for a few weeks. And of course these brothels were carefully hidden, as were the workers. So it's possible Jackson was working despite her pregnancy, and no one knew about it.

[jerryd]

Jerry

I would hazard a guess that this is because he is unable to find evidence that the killer he suspects was in London in 1888.

Therefore discard the bits of the theory which may cause a problem!



Steve

Is that Pierre's answer? He hasn't cared to reply, so I'm assuming he agrees with you, Steve?

[Pcdunn]

Rough trade is not traditionally a longevity game. Women would work it for a few weeks until they couldn't take it anymore, or they were so marked up they became unattractive to customers. Subs at least. Doms had staying power. But it was a desperation game to show up at a rough trade brothel and work for a few weeks. And of course these brothels were carefully hidden, as were the workers. So it's possible Jackson was working despite her pregnancy, and no one knew about it.

Right, and when she couldn't conceal it any longer, she was disposed of permanently, instead of being turned out on the street, as they wouldn't have wanted any witnesses. If the police can't identify a body, there won't be questions asked...