Torso Killer discussion from Millwood Thread

[bolo]

Hebbert's two-part essay "an exercise on forensic medicine" was helpfully posted in this old thread;

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...kson-whitehall

Thank you, Joshua!

[bolo]

hi Bolo
Ill let fish answer this in full. but just a couple of things:



the 80s torsos all exhibited post mortem mutilation above and beyond what was needed for dismemberment. all had abdominal mutlilations and even had a vertical gash down the front, just like the ripper. The medicos and police at the time were unfamiliar with serial murder in general and in non practical (psychological) dismemberment in particular so to me it is relevant in assessing there thoughts. They simply were thrown off by the dismemberment in the torsos but not the ripper series IMHO. But to me this difference can be explained simply by the perps circs-he had access to his chop shop with the torso victims, and did not with the ripper victims, hence had to kill on the streets.




Naughty boy! you slipped "parts" in there, and the dissertation only mentions corpses. While many bodies ended up in the river, it was actually quite rare to find parts and torsos-there has been research into this, I believe by Debs and others. And Of course the large numbers of bodies in the river, probably most, were accidental drownings and suicides.



great question-and admittedly my main stumbling block in connecting the two series. However, if the ripper murders were because he didn't have his chop shop available, yet the urge is still there, and had to kill in the streets, and or simply he was upping the thrill factor, then he couldn't very well bring a saw with him nor stuff a head or leg in his pocket could he? Yet he could still engage in post mortem mutilation and removal of smaller internal organs.

I still don't know how I should put the two series together in my mind. While I think that the Ripper wanted his victims to be found or at least did not care at all whether they were found or identified, Torsoman must have cared about identifiability enough to go the extra mile and chop up the bodies into easier-to-carry and harder-to-identify segments that got dumped in the river or hidden away. "Hidden" is the key word for me here, this just isn't Ripper-style for me.

About the word "parts" that you think I have slipped into the quote from Gerard's dissertation, this wasn't intentional, I just assumed that there were body parts involved as well. After re-reading the article and some others, I have to agree with you that it were mostly complete corpses that got washed ashore. I did not want to alter the facts to make a point.

[Joshua Rogan]

Thanks for the tip about Hebbert, will give his study a good read.

Hebbert's two-part essay "an exercise on forensic medicine" was helpfully posted in this old thread;

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/victims/non-canonical-victims/torso-killings/3806-torsos-1888-an-exercise-in-forensic-medicine-liz-jackson-whitehall

[Joshua Rogan]

If it is the Torso heads you are asking about, the answer has been provided a thousand times: If they were thrown in the river, they would sink. If they were not, then who knows? As given away by the 1873 victim and as implied by the Pinchin Street victim, the killer sometimes had a flair for doing things to the head. And I have a very good idea why that was. But guess what? I am not telling.

Hence he assumes a knowing air.

[Sam Flynn]

Kelly was not decapitated, so how could anyone, even Phillips, make a valid comparison between what happened to her and the headless Pinchin Street victim?

[bolo]

The doctors DID see similarities, actually - Phillips said, for example, that the cutting of the neck was very similar inbetween the Kelly and the Pinchin cases. But he then proceeded to step into the trap you have fallen into with him by saying that the Kelly murder was most wanton whereas the Pinchin Street case was about practicalities. That was the understanding back then; dismemberment was about practical matters, end of. Dismemberers were not lust killers.

They were wrong, and we know that now.

The source for the cuts preceding the disemboweling is Hebberts study of the four torso cases inbetween 1887-89,called An exercise in forensic medicine. Hebbert, by the way, also said that he did not think the Ripper and the Torso killer were one and the same. He offered that view in a work where he then proceeded to confess to be a believer in criminal anthropology.

One has to be aware of these matters when assessing the cases, Bolo!

If you cannot find the sections I am talking about, just say so and I will dig them out for you.

Where did I say that dismemberers cannot be Lustmörder? Of course they can but it still doesn't change the fact that bodies often get dismembered for practical reasons. The Medellin cartel did it, the Mafia does it, some LVP murderers did it, what's there to argue about. This is getting us nowhere.

Again I must ask: Why no dismemberment in Kelly's case? Why did the killer switch from dismembering (hindering ID) and back (not caring at all for ID or detection of the bodies)? I know that there are serial killers who used different weapons, chat-up lines, even different hunting grounds and methods of hiding/storing the bodies or parts thereof for each victim or a number of them within the series but in my opinion, there is a fundamental difference between disembowelling a body, cutting it in small(er) parts and dumping them in a river (or a dark cellar for that matter) and taking or following a woman to a more or less secluded spot, killing her with swift knife strikes against the throat, disembowelling her and just leaving the mess behind for everyone to see.

Thanks for the tip about Hebbert, will give his study a good read.

[Abby Normal]

It does not seem relevant to me whether or not the different types of dismemberers were already known back in the LVP as the doctors could not find the signature handiwork of the Ripper/C5 in the torso cases and reported accordingly. Even if Torsoman belonged to category 3, it would not have made a difference in the doctors' assessments because they did not comment on the psyche of the perpetrator(s) but their physical/medical/anatomical skills. The medicos actually examined the body parts and torsi in person and I'm not going doubt their first-hand experience and verdict, at least for now. There are not a lot of official or otherwise trustworthy statements and documents left we can rely on so I don't think it's a good idea to overrule the few we have.

According to the casebook.org dissertation The Thames Torso Murders of 1887-89 by Gerard Spicer, the Thames often was the final destination for many a body or body part; for example, in 1882, no less than 544 corpses (whole or in parts) were found, of which 277 resulted in open verdicts Was this also the work of the Ripper/one person?

I don't think so. We should finally come to terms with the fact that there were more than just one killer about in London and greater area at any given time in the late 1880s. This does not necessarily point to more than just one SERIAL killer but I think it's safe to say that killing, dismembering to hinder ID and dumping the parts in the river was an often-used option for criminals of all sorts to get away with their deeds.

And (as Rocky already mentioned): Why no dismembering in Mary Kelly's case? Did Jack forgot to bring his saw? Seriously tho, it's one of the questions I always come back to when I try to combine the torso and Ripper killings. There was ample time for any form of dismemberment in Miller's Court 13, yet the murderer kept it at grotesque disembowelling and bone stripping which according to one of the doctors showed no sign of medical skill. If we assume that Torsoman and the Ripper are one and the same person, why is dismembering a victim an important part of his ritual in one case but not in another?

About the similarities you've listed, it's impossible to tell at this point whether Torsoman kept the organs he removed as trophies like the Ripper did in some cases. That would be a similarity I could get behind but the sheer removal of organs alone is not enough to convince me. If you saw a body in smaller parts, you want to remove the organs first because they're difficult to saw through (I often helped my uncle on his farm on slaughtering days when I was a lad) and create an incredible mess, this specially goes for the intestines. The due removal of all that stuff before the bodies got broken down to smaller portions is what a butcher or knacker would have done, hence the corresponding verdict of the medicos.

The jewellery may have been removed as a trophy but also to (again) hinder ID. I have no info on the way the cuts pre-disembowelling were executed (sternum-down, pubes-down, etc.), could you please point me to a source for that?

hi Bolo
Ill let fish answer this in full. but just a couple of things:

It does not seem relevant to me whether or not the different types of dismemberers were already known back in the LVP as the doctors could not find the signature handiwork of the Ripper/C5 in the torso cases and reported accordingly. Even if Torsoman belonged to category 3, it would not have made a difference in the doctors' assessments because they did not comment on the psyche of the perpetrator(s) but their physical/medical/anatomical skills. The medicos actually examined the body parts and torsi in person and I'm not going doubt their first-hand experience and verdict, at least for now. There are not a lot of official or otherwise trustworthy statements and documents left we can rely on so I don't think it's a good idea to overrule the few we have.

the 80s torsos all exhibited post mortem mutilation above and beyond what was needed for dismemberment. all had abdominal mutlilations and even had a vertical gash down the front, just like the ripper. The medicos and police at the time were unfamiliar with serial murder in general and in non practical (psychological) dismemberment in particular so to me it is relevant in assessing there thoughts. They simply were thrown off by the dismemberment in the torsos but not the ripper series IMHO. But to me this difference can be explained simply by the perps circs-he had access to his chop shop with the torso victims, and did not with the ripper victims, hence had to kill on the streets.

According to the casebook.org dissertation The Thames Torso Murders of 1887-89 by Gerard Spicer, the Thames often was the final destination for many a body or body part; for example, in 1882, no less than 544 corpses (whole or

in parts)

were found, of which 277 resulted in open verdicts Was this also the work of the Ripper/one person?

I don't think so. We should finally come to terms with the fact that there were more than just one killer about in London and greater area at any given time in the late 1880s. This does not necessarily point to more than just one SERIAL killer but I think it's safe to say that killing, dismembering to hinder ID and dumping the parts in the river was an often-used option for criminals of all sorts to get away with their deeds.

Naughty boy! you slipped "parts" in there, and the dissertation only mentions corpses. While many bodies ended up in the river, it was actually quite rare to find parts and torsos-there has been research into this, I believe by Debs and others. And Of course the large numbers of bodies in the river, probably most, were accidental drownings and suicides.

And (as Rocky already mentioned): Why no dismembering in Mary Kelly's case? Did Jack forgot to bring his saw? Seriously tho, it's one of the questions I always come back to when I try to combine the torso and Ripper killings. There was ample time for any form of dismemberment in Miller's Court 13, yet the murderer kept it at grotesque disembowelling and bone stripping which according to one of the doctors showed no sign of medical skill. If we assume that Torsoman and the Ripper are one and the same person, why is dismembering a victim an important part of his ritual in one case but not in another?

great question-and admittedly my main stumbling block in connecting the two series. However, if the ripper murders were because he didn't have his chop shop available, yet the urge is still there, and had to kill in the streets, and or simply he was upping the thrill factor, then he couldn't very well bring a saw with him nor stuff a head or leg in his pocket could he? Yet he could still engage in post mortem mutilation and removal of smaller internal organs.

[Fisherman]

Why wasn't Mary Kelly dismembered and where are the heads? Dismemberment and evisceration are not the same thing.

There's another thing you didn't have to tell anybody out here. I think we all know quite well that dismemberment and eviscerations are not the same thing. Taking out the uterus, heart or lungs from a woman - which happened in both series - is eviscerations. Taking the limbs off - which only happened in one series - is dismemberment.

Dismemberment may well have been needed to enable the killer to get rid of corpses from his lair.

The Riopoer victims were not killed in the killers lair, they were killed out in the open streets.

And here, ta-daaa, comes the catchphrase: These victims therefore did not need to be dismembered! The killer did not have any need to get rid of them, m the way he did with the victims from the torso series.

And THAT is why Kellys head was still on the body, together with her arms and legs.

Where are the heads? Whereīs yours...? You really should have been able to work these things out by yourself, should you not?

If it is the Torso heads you are asking about, the answer has been provided a thousand times: If they were thrown in the river, they would sink. If they were not, then who knows? As given away by the 1873 victim and as implied by the Pinchin Street victim, the killer sometimes had a flair for doing things to the head. And I have a very good idea why that was. But guess what? I am not telling.

[Fisherman]

It does not seem relevant to me whether or not the different types of dismemberers were already known back in the LVP as the doctors could not find the signature handiwork of the Ripper/C5 in the torso cases and reported accordingly. Even if Torsoman belonged to category 3, it would not have made a difference in the doctors' assessments because they did not comment on the psyche of the perpetrator(s) but their physical/medical/anatomical skills. The medicos actually examined the body parts and torsi in person and I'm not going doubt their first-hand experience and verdict, at least for now. There are not a lot of official or otherwise trustworthy statements and documents left we can rely on so I don't think it's a good idea to overrule the few we have.

According to the casebook.org dissertation The Thames Torso Murders of 1887-89 by Gerard Spicer, the Thames often was the final destination for many a body or body part; for example, in 1882, no less than 544 corpses (whole or in parts) were found, of which 277 resulted in open verdicts Was this also the work of the Ripper/one person?

I don't think so. We should finally come to terms with the fact that there were more than just one killer about in London and greater area at any given time in the late 1880s. This does not necessarily point to more than just one SERIAL killer but I think it's safe to say that killing, dismembering to hinder ID and dumping the parts in the river was an often-used option for criminals of all sorts to get away with their deeds.

And (as Rocky already mentioned): Why no dismembering in Mary Kelly's case? Did Jack forgot to bring his saw? Seriously tho, it's one of the questions I always come back to when I try to combine the torso and Ripper killings. There was ample time for any form of dismemberment in Miller's Court 13, yet the murderer kept it at grotesque disembowelling and bone stripping which according to one of the doctors showed no sign of medical skill. If we assume that Torsoman and the Ripper are one and the same person, why is dismembering a victim an important part of his ritual in one case but not in another?

About the similarities you've listed, it's impossible to tell at this point whether Torsoman kept the organs he removed as trophies like the Ripper did in some cases. That would be a similarity I could get behind but the sheer removal of organs alone is not enough to convince me. If you saw a body in smaller parts, you want to remove the organs first because they're difficult to saw through (I often helped my uncle on his farm on slaughtering days when I was a lad) and create an incredible mess, this specially goes for the intestines. The due removal of all that stuff before the bodies got broken down to smaller portions is what a butcher or knacker would have done, hence the corresponding verdict of the medicos.

The jewellery may have been removed as a trophy but also to (again) hinder ID. I have no info on the way the cuts pre-disembowelling were executed (sternum-down, pubes-down, etc.), could you please point me to a source for that?

The doctors DID see similarities, actually - Phillips said, for example, that the cutting of the neck was very similar inbetween the Kelly and the Pinchin cases. But he then proceeded to step into the trap you have fallen into with him by saying that the Kelly murder was most wanton whereas the Pinchin Street case was about practicalities. That was the understanding back then; dismemberment was about practical matters, end of. Dismemberers were not lust killers.

They were wrong, and we know that now.

The source for the cuts preceding the disemboweling is Hebberts study of the four torso cases inbetween 1887-89,called An exercise in forensic medicine. Hebbert, by the way, also said that he did not think the Ripper and the Torso killer were one and the same. He offered that view in a work where he then proceeded to confess to be a believer in criminal anthropology.

One has to be aware of these matters when assessing the cases, Bolo!

If you cannot find the sections I am talking about, just say so and I will dig them out for you.

[bolo]

Yes, I know that Haarmann "just wanted to dispose of the body parts" once the victims were dead. But I am still flummoxed about why you would think that has a bearing on the Torso killer? Because that is how all dismemberment killers feel about it?

It is not, I'm afraid. I have written numerous times before that dismemberment murders are divided up in three categories:

1. The dismemberment is about disabling identification.
2. The dismemberment is about getting rid of the parts and hiding the crime.

Haarmann, just like most dismembers, belong in these categories, mainly number 2. He joins ranks here with the most common dismembers - those who whack their viwes over the head in their homes, only to find that they have killed their spouses. Then they are faced with the problem of getting rid of the corpse, and after having kept it the tub for a week, they realize that it begins to smell and that the time has come. They dismember, but only after long and hard deliberations, they hate it, they often vomit when doing it and they are marked for life afterwards.

Does that sound like the Torso killer to you? A man who set about cutting his victims up IMMEDIATELY after death? A man who sliced them open from sternum to bow? Who sawed up the sternum in the Rainham case? Who plucked out a uterus, a heart or two, lungs, sections of the colon ...? And does he really sound like somebody who wanted to hide the ID of a victim - leaving her own clothing on, leaving moles and scars untouched on the body? Cutting a whole face away, with the eyelashes intact, even? Is he somebody who seems to try and make the parts go away? Placing a torso in the vaults of the new Scotland Yard building?

This is where the third dismemberment killer type comes into the picture:

3. The dismemberment is about mental deviations within the killer, who WANTS to dismember and cut up.

It seems most people never read that long in the manual.

Back in 1888, this third type of perpetrator was not described in the literature. This is a large part of the explanation why the two series were not linked. We can see that the medicos commenting on it made the same mistake as many out here do today. They had better reason to do so, though. Phillips was one of the men who spoke about the torso killer as a man thinking practically. He was just as wrong then as may out here are today. And therefore, much as we should not ignore it per se, we should amend it.

Finally, as I keep saying - the dissimilarities go away when there are odd and rare similarities involved. It does not matter that one man dismembered and the other one didn't when we know that BOTH men cut abdominal walls away. All that means is that we must accept that there was a reason for that dissimilarity (and its easy enough to see why he didn't need to dismember the Ripper victims - they did not lead the police to his lair, whereas the others would if not taken care of. Problem solved.)

I listed around a dozen similarities. Do you really think they can ALL be coincidental, given the fact that there has never been two series involving eviscerators in the same geographical area anywhere on earth, anytime in history.

If it WAS to happen, why is it that when it does, both men take uteri out, both men take hearts out, both men cut abdominal walls away, both men are deemed very skilled with the knife, both men take rings from their victims, both men cut from sternum to pubes etcetera? Would it not be more expected if one eviscerator was careless and sloppy in his cutting and always only took out the uterus, did not take jewelry from his victims and only opened up the lower abdomen, whereas the other one was along "our" guidelines with the Ripper and the Torso man? How come they BOTH do it the same way?

Because they were doubtlessly the same man.

It does not seem relevant to me whether or not the different types of dismemberers were already known back in the LVP as the doctors could not find the signature handiwork of the Ripper/C5 in the torso cases and reported accordingly. Even if Torsoman belonged to category 3, it would not have made a difference in the doctors' assessments because they did not comment on the psyche of the perpetrator(s) but their physical/medical/anatomical skills. The medicos actually examined the body parts and torsi in person and I'm not going doubt their first-hand experience and verdict, at least for now. There are not a lot of official or otherwise trustworthy statements and documents left we can rely on so I don't think it's a good idea to overrule the few we have.

According to the casebook.org dissertation The Thames Torso Murders of 1887-89 by Gerard Spicer, the Thames often was the final destination for many a body or body part; for example, in 1882, no less than 544 corpses (whole or in parts) were found, of which 277 resulted in open verdicts Was this also the work of the Ripper/one person?

I don't think so. We should finally come to terms with the fact that there were more than just one killer about in London and greater area at any given time in the late 1880s. This does not necessarily point to more than just one SERIAL killer but I think it's safe to say that killing, dismembering to hinder ID and dumping the parts in the river was an often-used option for criminals of all sorts to get away with their deeds.

And (as Rocky already mentioned): Why no dismembering in Mary Kelly's case? Did Jack forgot to bring his saw? Seriously tho, it's one of the questions I always come back to when I try to combine the torso and Ripper killings. There was ample time for any form of dismemberment in Miller's Court 13, yet the murderer kept it at grotesque disembowelling and bone stripping which according to one of the doctors showed no sign of medical skill. If we assume that Torsoman and the Ripper are one and the same person, why is dismembering a victim an important part of his ritual in one case but not in another?

About the similarities you've listed, it's impossible to tell at this point whether Torsoman kept the organs he removed as trophies like the Ripper did in some cases. That would be a similarity I could get behind but the sheer removal of organs alone is not enough to convince me. If you saw a body in smaller parts, you want to remove the organs first because they're difficult to saw through (I often helped my uncle on his farm on slaughtering days when I was a lad) and create an incredible mess, this specially goes for the intestines. The due removal of all that stuff before the bodies got broken down to smaller portions is what a butcher or knacker would have done, hence the corresponding verdict of the medicos.

The jewellery may have been removed as a trophy but also to (again) hinder ID. I have no info on the way the cuts pre-disembowelling were executed (sternum-down, pubes-down, etc.), could you please point me to a source for that?

[Abby Normal]

still waiting for some reasonable explanation of why torsoman, after having dumped all the other parts in the river/off the bridge and the torso of Jackson in Battersea park (which may have also been tossed off the bridge but not into the river), holds onto the last part, the leg, for some half mile before finally getting rid of it?
and why when he does finally get rid of it he takes the trouble of tossing it over a high fence and hedge into someones yard, when again the river is very close on the other side of the road?

[Abby Normal]

Yes, you are very correct - the purpose of 1 & 2 is indeed to hinder an investigation. Exactly so.
However, one cannot predispose that perpetrators confessing to the number 3 option would not be interested in hindering an investigation too. Many dismemberment killers who enjoy cutting up people have also shown themselves capable of taking such measures.

But when you write that the victims were either dismembered because they were killed indoors and had to be brought outside in pieces or because the killer wanted the victims to stay unidentified, you are conveniently forgetting about the number 3 option. Like I said, most people seem not to reach that side in the manual. And if they remain ignorant of that option, they are unfit to assess matters like these. It is that simple.

The 1874 victim had her head taken off together with her arms and one of the legs. That means that she was about as long as a corps as she had been while alive. The explanation that she was cut up to enable the killer to get her out of the lair unseen does not fit the bill here.

So that takes care of your first suggestion.

Jackson was left with her moles and scar intact, just as she was left with her own clothing on her body, clothing that was subsequently ID:s by an aquaintance of her.

So that takes care of your other suggestion.

Clearly, the killer was not all that interested in these suggestions of yours.

That said, he WAS interested in killing and that carreer would have been cut short (excuse the pun) if he had been discovered and hauled in by the police. So one must predispose that he took at least some precautions to stay free. And circular reasoning or not, it worked.

So what we need to do is to try and think in more than one dimension here. The killer was an eviscerator who cut his victims bodies from sternum to pubes in most cases. He took out organs. Therefore, it seems he represents the third category of perpetrators, the ones suffering from a mental condition that urges them to cut and eviscerate women.

Once he had done just that, he would be left with a corpse and a satisfied urge. He then needed to get rid of the corpse, predisposing that it would otherwise potentially lead to his capture and arrest.

Once he got to this stage, he didnīt take optimal precautions not to have the corpse found. Instead, he voluntarily placed some parts in the New Scotland Yard building, in the Shelley estate garden, outside a house in Fitzroy Square that was heavily patrolled by the police, in Regentīs canal, where the parts would not be flushed out to sea, in Battersea Gardens, and he then - time after time - floated the rest of the parts down the Thames from a position that caused them to float ashore along the banks of the river in the epicenter of the mightiest metropolis on earth.

If he belonged to the 1:st or 2:nd category of dismemberers, his efforts were totally ridiculous and de facto 100 per cent counterproductive. Thatīs why I say that he did NOT belong to these categories.

If he belonged to category 3, everything he did makes perfect sense.

But we donīt WANT perfect sense out here, do we? We want him to be a basic dismemberment killer, who just happened to cut his victims open from sternum to pubes, who just accidentally - Oooopsie! - happened to cut out a number of organs, who really tried to hide what he had done - Really? They floated ashore? Bugger!! - and who made a serious effort to hide the ID:s of his victims - Here you go, officer, this is the complete face of my latest victim - surely it is hard to recognize her now?

That is what we want, but lo and behold, it shall all be taken away from us. Get your purse ready, Rocky, thereīs a book coming out this summer you need to buy. Itīs by a Northampton history professor who is apparently just as dumb as I am.

hi Fish
great posts and I couldn't agree more.

The 1874 victim had her head taken off together with her arms and one of the legs. That means that she was about as long as a corps as she had been while alive. The explanation that she was cut up to enable the killer to get her out of the lair unseen does not fit the bill here.

where was this torso left/discovered?

[RockySullivan]

He had all sorts of choices, actually. Nobody stopped him from burying parts, for example. Or, for that matter from putting the parts in a sack together with a large stone. Contrary to what you seem to think, that works eminently, at least for a long time. And the buoyancy of the parts will go lost after having been submerged for some time.
So letīs not try and turn what he did into his only choice, shall we?

Where do you bury the parts in London if you've killed the victim in an apartment building? How do you haul the torso and body parts down to the river with the weights heavy enough to weigh them down?

[RockySullivan]

Why wasn't Mary Kelly dismembered and where are the heads? Dismemberment and evisceration are not the same thing.

[Fisherman]

The purpose of 1 & 2 is to hinder the investigation. The victims were either dismembered because they were killed indoors and had to be brought outside in pieces (in a densely populated where you can't make a body disappear) and then dumped one piece at a time or because the killer did not want the victims identified. It very well could be both. The Ripper killed the girls out in the street, cut up the bodies as he liked for a few minutes and then left them. When he's alone with Kelly and he doesn't have to dismember her to get her outside he doesn't cut her up because the dismemberment, cutting the joints, is purely functional. Now why are the heads never found?

Yes, you are very correct - the purpose of 1 & 2 is indeed to hinder an investigation. Exactly so.
However, one cannot predispose that perpetrators confessing to the number 3 option would not be interested in hindering an investigation too. Many dismemberment killers who enjoy cutting up people have also shown themselves capable of taking such measures.

But when you write that the victims were either dismembered because they were killed indoors and had to be brought outside in pieces or because the killer wanted the victims to stay unidentified, you are conveniently forgetting about the number 3 option. Like I said, most people seem not to reach that side in the manual. And if they remain ignorant of that option, they are unfit to assess matters like these. It is that simple.

The 1874 victim had her head taken off together with her arms and one of the legs. That means that she was about as long as a corps as she had been while alive. The explanation that she was cut up to enable the killer to get her out of the lair unseen does not fit the bill here.

So that takes care of your first suggestion.

Jackson was left with her moles and scar intact, just as she was left with her own clothing on her body, clothing that was subsequently ID:s by an aquaintance of her.

So that takes care of your other suggestion.

Clearly, the killer was not all that interested in these suggestions of yours.

That said, he WAS interested in killing and that carreer would have been cut short (excuse the pun) if he had been discovered and hauled in by the police. So one must predispose that he took at least some precautions to stay free. And circular reasoning or not, it worked.

So what we need to do is to try and think in more than one dimension here. The killer was an eviscerator who cut his victims bodies from sternum to pubes in most cases. He took out organs. Therefore, it seems he represents the third category of perpetrators, the ones suffering from a mental condition that urges them to cut and eviscerate women.

Once he had done just that, he would be left with a corpse and a satisfied urge. He then needed to get rid of the corpse, predisposing that it would otherwise potentially lead to his capture and arrest.

Once he got to this stage, he didnīt take optimal precautions not to have the corpse found. Instead, he voluntarily placed some parts in the New Scotland Yard building, in the Shelley estate garden, outside a house in Fitzroy Square that was heavily patrolled by the police, in Regentīs canal, where the parts would not be flushed out to sea, in Battersea Gardens, and he then - time after time - floated the rest of the parts down the Thames from a position that caused them to float ashore along the banks of the river in the epicenter of the mightiest metropolis on earth.

If he belonged to the 1:st or 2:nd category of dismemberers, his efforts were totally ridiculous and de facto 100 per cent counterproductive. Thatīs why I say that he did NOT belong to these categories.

If he belonged to category 3, everything he did makes perfect sense.

But we donīt WANT perfect sense out here, do we? We want him to be a basic dismemberment killer, who just happened to cut his victims open from sternum to pubes, who just accidentally - Oooopsie! - happened to cut out a number of organs, who really tried to hide what he had done - Really? They floated ashore? Bugger!! - and who made a serious effort to hide the ID:s of his victims - Here you go, officer, this is the complete face of my latest victim - surely it is hard to recognize her now?

That is what we want, but lo and behold, it shall all be taken away from us. Get your purse ready, Rocky, thereīs a book coming out this summer you need to buy. Itīs by a Northampton history professor who is apparently just as dumb as I am.