Could Jack have killed some of the torso victims?

[Fisherman]

[B]S

...nor did the Torso man mutilate.

Mr Beaver!

Liz Jackson had her abdomen cut open from sternum to groin. After that, the killer cut her heart and lungs out from her body. He also cut her uterus out of her abdomen, together with cord and placenta. He then proceeded to cut her torso in three parts, and to cut off her arms and legs. And her head.

Call me a nitpicker, but in my world that goes a country mile above and beyond the requirements for speaking about mutilation.

I am all for people suggesting ideas and scenarios of their own. But when obvious and proven facts do not only go lost in the process, but are actually actively and denied, the time has come to call a halt to the delusional ramblings.

The Torso man mutilated, and not only one victim. The extent of his mutilations has not been established, since we for example don't know if the Rainham victim - who also lost heart and lungs and who also had her torso cut in three parts - had the organs excised or lost them for any other reason. The same goes for the Whitehall victim, where many parts were missing.

We cannot say for certain that the killer took these parts out - but since we KNOW that he took heart, lungs and uterus out from Jackson, the guess that the same applied to other victims must be a better one than just accepting that Jackson must have been his only exercise in that particular discipline.

Either way, the Torso man is a proven mutilator and eviscerator. Basta! Its in all probability misconceptions like this one that has led the whole discipline down a rabbit hole for more than a century. There is fresh air and light to be had above it!

[Fisherman]

I´m still wondering what makes Uncle Jack want to rule out some of the Torso murders as possible Ripper deeds, while he accept others...?

[Abby Normal]

So here we have somebody who actually knows how the torso victims were killed - that's about time!

Tell us all about it!

The Ripper cut and the torso man cut. It is normally said that Kelly was "hacked to pieces", so you may wish to avoid your distinction criteria in that respect.


Fisherman, The Ripper used a knife and "ripped" open and or mutilated his victims as shown by the rather nifty illustrations of the Catherine Eddowes murder, where as the Torso man cut of or amputated body pieces- which the Ripper did not do and nor did the Torso man mutilate. That's what I am trying to say. JTR is not the Torso man. I will stick by my gut instinct until a professional or new information proves me wrong.

hi Busy
all of the torso victims had post mortem mutilation to the stomach/abdomen area above and beyond what was needed for dismemberment.

[Sam Flynn]

all of the torso victims had post mortem mutilation to the stomach/abdomen area above and beyond what was needed for dismemberment.

...but falling rather short of what was required for disembowelment, which would only have required the knife to be pushed in a fraction further. Almost certainly not our Jack, then.

Incidentally, did all the torso victims sustain abdominal wounds and, if so, what was their nature?

[Trevor Marriott]

If you look closely you will see that I am not debating with you, Trevor. So you are wasting your time.

Because you know there is nothing to debate. The facts are there for all to see, thats of course for those that want to see, but you are not one of those are you? You are totally obsessed with your misguided belief about these torsos, and the worrying thing is that there are others who seem to concur with you.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[APerno]

To my mind the problem with "Jack' being the torso killer doesn't lay in the style or extent of the mutilations but in the locations. If both sets of murders were by the same hand why then did 'Jack' risk open assaults on the street when he had an (obviously) secure place to practice his 'trade'? And if he was cunning enough to lure women to his 'chop-shop' (to steal a phrase) why not apply that skill and avoid all high risk kills?

IMO I can put the torso killer in Mary Kelly's room quicker than I can the killer of Martha, Polly, Anne, and Kate. These attacks show no cunning or planning, only the behavior of a high risk marauder.

Also there is the absence of personality in the Whitechapel fiend; the torso killer had a very dark sense of humor (the Whitehall and Pinchin Street dumps speak to that) while 'Jack' seems to have no personality he wished to share with the public.

Which obviously takes me to the opinion that none of the 'Ripper letters' came from the Whitchapel fiend.

I would though consider that the 'From Hell' letter, kidney and all, may have come from same guy (the torso killer) who dumped a body in the New Scotland Yard building; the two behaviors complement each other.

The torso killer seems to have a problem with authority; the Whitechapel fellow only seems to seek anonymity.

[APerno]

Has anyone else stumbled across this character?

Cleveland Torso Murderer aka Mad Butcher of Kingsbury Run

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Torso_Murderer

An interesting extraction:

"At one point in time, the killer even taunted [Eliot] Ness by placing the remains of two victims in full view of his office in city hall."

That need to taunt authority is never satisfied; I guess if one wants to publicly display victims moving a 'torso' about is an expediency.

[Fisherman]

To my mind the problem with "Jack' being the torso killer doesn't lay in the style or extent of the mutilations but in the locations. If both sets of murders were by the same hand why then did 'Jack' risk open assaults on the street when he had an (obviously) secure place to practice his 'trade'? And if he was cunning enough to lure women to his 'chop-shop' (to steal a phrase) why not apply that skill and avoid all high risk kills?

IMO I can put the torso killer in Mary Kelly's room quicker than I can the killer of Martha, Polly, Anne, and Kate. These attacks show no cunning or planning, only the behavior of a high risk marauder.

Also there is the absence of personality in the Whitechapel fiend; the torso killer had a very dark sense of humor (the Whitehall and Pinchin Street dumps speak to that) while 'Jack' seems to have no personality he wished to share with the public.

Which obviously takes me to the opinion that none of the 'Ripper letters' came from the Whitchapel fiend.

I would though consider that the 'From Hell' letter, kidney and all, may have come from same guy (the torso killer) who dumped a body in the New Scotland Yard building; the two behaviors complement each other.

The torso killer seems to have a problem with authority; the Whitechapel fellow only seems to seek anonymity.

Let's begin from the end: Does the Ripper seek anonymity? And does the Torso man not?

Given the fact that the Ripper deeds was a worldwide sensation, we may perhaps need to accept that anonymity can be reached in more efficient ways than by killing and ripping and eviscerating unfortunates in the East End of victorian London?
Or are you saying that the Ripper wanted to stay undisclosed? If so, how does that tell him apart from the Torso man?

It is all about how we interpret things, is it not?

You claim that the Torso killer had a very dark sense of humor and that the Ripper lacked that sense, and that would somehow tell us that they cannot be the same man.
I disagree totally. To begin with, the dark sense of humor you identify (and which is in no way a proven thing) all builds on how the Torso killer was able to transport body parts to different spots. How would the Ripper compete with that? By throwing Chapman over his shoulder and carrying her to Leman Street police station?

Let's change the perspective and skip the dark humor part. What if the killer simply was sending another message: "This is what I can did to you, and there is nothing you can do about it!"

How does that sit with the actual evidence? Not at all bad, I´d say. He shows us that we are not safe in the streets, that the police cannot shield their citizens or even their own headquarters, that the famed, like Percy Bysshe Shelley, is at risk as well as anyone of us.
If we look at it from that angle, there is no difference, is there?

It is not a question of whether it was one or two killers. Logic and an abundance of evidence tell us that it was just the one. That is why we must make sense of the surrounding factors. If we begin by claiming that one killer had a sense of humor that the other lacked, we are doing ourselves a disservice and we lock ourselves to a position we really don't need to accept. Why not just say that both killers seemed to shun society in a spiteful way, trying to install maximum fear into the citizens of London? It is just as viable, and it is in line with the evidence.

[Fisherman]

Because you know there is nothing to debate. The facts are there for all to see, thats of course for those that want to see, but you are not one of those are you? You are totally obsessed with your misguided belief about these torsos, and the worrying thing is that there are others who seem to concur with you.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yes, I really cannot say which is the best part of it: that others agree with me or that you disagree.
By the way, it seems you are totally obsessed with claiming that I am totally obsessed. Maybe you should give it a rest?

[Fisherman]

...but falling rather short of what was required for disembowelment, which would only have required the knife to be pushed in a fraction further. Almost certainly not our Jack, then.

Incidentally, did all the torso victims sustain abdominal wounds and, if so, what was their nature?

If you want to claim that it is a proven thing that Jack always wanted to disembowel on account of how we know that he did so in three out of five C5 cases, then you are accepting that once one or more victims in a series are disembowelled, then disembowelling must have been the overall agenda. Considering this, why is it that you won't accept that the Torso killer was of the same ilk, considering that we know that he too disembowelled in at least one of the cases, and quite probably in at least two or three of them?

The fact of the matter is that we cannot tell whether the Ripper would always disembowel, given the opportunity. Plus we also know that given all the time in the world, he would do much more than disembowel, as per Kelly. So we can easily free ourselves from the faulty notion that disembowelling was the sole agenda of the Ripper, once we look at the evidence at hand. Accordingly, we should also stop to speculate about how the two series must be materially different when it comes to these matters.

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes, I really cannot say which is the best part of it: that others agree with me or that you disagree.
By the way, it seems you are totally obsessed with claiming that I am totally obsessed. Maybe you should give it a rest?

I will compromise, you go public and say that you are mistaken, and that there was no Torso Killer, and I will stop challenging your misguided theory sugesting there was.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Busy Beaver]

that there was no Torso Killer

Trevor, what do you mean by that?

The Doctors and Police at the time were unable to give a cause of death, but murder was mentioned, hence someone or some persons had to have been responsible for contributing to loss of life - yes?

[Fisherman]

I will compromise, you go public and say that you are mistaken, and that there was no Torso Killer, and I will stop challenging your misguided theory sugesting there was.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

How about I meet you halfways, and we will simply settle for you shutting down your business out here? Its a win-win, promise!

[Kattrup]

that there was no Torso Killer

Trevor, what do you mean by that?

The Doctors and Police at the time were unable to give a cause of death, but murder was mentioned, hence someone or some persons had to have been responsible for contributing to loss of life - yes?

As you said, perhaps some persons - plural and maybe not connected. Since we don’t know how the women died, it’s an assumption that they were all murdered, and yet another assumption that they were all murdered by the same man.

E.g. Elizabeth Jackson, Debra Arif has posted sources showing EJ talked about getting rid of her foetus. So perhaps her death was an abortion gone wrong and her dismemberment an attempt to hide that crime. Meaning she was not killed by a “torso killer”.
Similarly for the other women, we don’t know how they died so it’s possible their deaths are not related.

In fairness Hebbert, who examined all of them, and the police believed they were murdered by the same man.

[Fisherman]

As you said, perhaps some persons - plural and maybe not connected. Since we don’t know how the women died, it’s an assumption that they were all murdered, and yet another assumption that they were all murdered by the same man.

E.g. Elizabeth Jackson, Debra Arif has posted sources showing EJ talked about getting rid of her foetus. So perhaps her death was an abortion gone wrong and her dismemberment an attempt to hide that crime. Meaning she was not killed by a “torso killer”.
Similarly for the other women, we don’t know how they died so it’s possible their deaths are not related.

In fairness Hebbert, who examined all of them, and the police believed they were murdered by the same man.

Hebbert saw the same perp behind the deeds on account of what he identified as cutting performed by a very skilled cutter. It was the same type of cutting in each of the four cases he reported on. Either four separate killers decided to dismember these women and just happened to be very skilled with the knife and could disjoint neatly and flawlessly, or it was just the one killer. I can see where the evidence points.