The case evidence and its implications

[bolo]

Hi Fisherman,

the similarities between some of the injuries the victims received in the Ripper and Torso cases may be striking but you seem to keep omitting the rather methodical approach of Torsoman vs. the daring outdoor killing of the Ripper. I think that is one of the main differences that should always be taken into consideration when trying to match the cases.

Regards,

Boris

[Fisherman]

Bingo Sam. This is something that must be accepted, and when you do, it makes for smaller numbers of victims we could easily associate with one another. To address Fisherman, if you are looking for a concession that organs missing from both sets of victims is similar, then yes, I would agree. But in the case of the Torso's, its highly likely that they were just displaced as a result of the sectioning, there are no indications that these were sought after in those cases. There are in some of the alleged JtR cases.

What Sam stated simply is the truth, the amount of unsolved murders during that period and the differences within those cases strongly indicates that more than one person committed them. That means that when you try to find similarities with Canonicals you may well find some, but that doesn't then translate to the same hand at work. Why? Why do these happen in the first place, once you look for motives rather than wound patterns youll see what I mean.

Eh - the Ripper not unique? The Torso killer not unique?

If so, which serial killer is...?

And no, Michael, the heart and lungs had no reason at all to accidentally plop out from the Rainham victim and Jackson. The thorax was eviscerated in both cases, whereas no other organs were lost - but for Jacksons uterus (that after having accidentally plopped out was packed together with the cord and placenta within two flaps of abdominal flesh and floated down the Thames).

Maybe bingo isn´t your game, Michael?

[Fisherman]

That's interesting in itself, and may point to different perpetrators for either or both those particular cases, compared to the other bodies which were, and/or had to be, disposed of more quickly.

No, no, no, no - Hebbert was adamant that the damage done in all four cases was "in almost every respect" similar. That stands, I´m afraid.

[Fisherman]

Carrying a dead corpse around town is risky no matter where you are. No?

For me it isn't really the risk of detection in the Whitehall case. It was how difficult it seems to have been to enter that particular vault of the basement. It required knowledge to get there. Especially in a dark environment and it was usually dark in that vault even in the day.

YES! This is the true problem for those who say that he just got nervous and decided to throw the torso and leg away as quickly as he could. There is a long, dark journey involved!

[Fisherman]

Hi Joshua,



thanks. This tells me that it would not have been extremly risky to hide a body part there, at least no more risky than some of the other dumpings.

And it tells me that to know this, the killer must have aquired that knowledge beforehand. Meaning that he would have aimed at this dumping site from the outset. Otherwise, it was a risky fluke.

[Fisherman]

No, it's because the doctors used the uterus to determine whether a woman had given birth or not, so it would have been an important clue to her identity.

As Joshua Rogan has pointed out, the whitehall torso had no body parts missing. I am therefore not sure what Fisherman's argument is.

My argument is that once we know that a killer has eviscerated one victim, is it not likely if another of his victims is missing organs, that these organs have been taken out by the killer?

Jacksons heart and lungs were taken out.

The Rainham victim, cut up in a similar fashion to Jackson, also had the heart and lungs missing.

Is not therefore the logical explanation to this fact that the killer had taken them out? Is it not a more probable thing, given what we know happened in the Jackson case, than a case of the organs having gone lost on their own account?

That is my argument. If you need it further explained, just say so.

[Fisherman]

Hello JG

Just on that point... how many torsos were eviscerated, and what purpose might those eviscerations have served?

One for sure, probably two, possibly three. And the purpose of eviscerations is normally to satisfy an inner urge.

Mutilation is a bit tricky, in that one can define just about any wounds to the flesh as a mutilation. I wouldn't, for example, classify the cutting off of a torso's limbs as "mutilation", nor would I say that Nichols, Chapman or Stride were "mutilated". Eddowes and Kelly - yes, in that they suffered multiple wounds to the flesh that had nothing to do with achieving their deaths or facilitating their evisceration.

With that preamble out of the way, and sticking to the Eddowes/Kelly sense, how many torsos were mutilated?

At least three of the 87-89; the ones who had their abdomens cut open from sternum to bow. Definitely the 1873 victim who had her face cut away.

Now, the torso killer(s) might have eviscerated on occasion, they might have mutilated on occasion but (assuming TK is one man for the sake of argument) I wouldn't say he was "an" eviscerator and mutilator.

Luckily, what you would say is not what applies here, but instead the fact that the torso murderer is a proven eviscerator and mutilator. Hebbert, by the way, used the term mutilation in combination with the torso victims of 87-89.

[Fisherman]

You argue that the only real difference between Jackson, Chapman and Kelly is the number of pieces of skin removed from the abdominal wall. I would respectfully disagree.

I was only arguing that the only difference we are aware of when it comes to the flaps of abdominal flesh is that they came off in different numbers in each case. I know full well that there are many other differences inbetween the cases, but I was speaking about the flaps only here.

And what of the differences between the C5 and Torso murders in respect of geographical profile, MO and signature. Well, in the former case we have a killer inflicting neck mutilations as part of his signature but, importantly, this does not extend to decapitation. Moreover, in the former case all but one of the murders were committed in the street, and none of the victims were abducted. Regarding geographical profile, the C5 were all killed within within an incredibly small area, around 1 square mile. The perpetrator didn't extent his range even when it would have benefited him to do so, i.e. because of a local population on high alert and a greatly increased police presence. "JtR" is an absolute classic example of a marauder; a perpetrator most likely lacking in transport and only prepared to target victims within a locality where he feels comfortable.

As I have shown recently, Hebbert was of the meaning that the torso killer only learnt how to decapitate by knife in September of 1889, so if there was a failed attempt to decapitate Chapman and Kelly, this would fit the picture quite well. In the first two torso cases, the killer employed a saw, in the third, he used a saw and a knife, and in the fourth, he had found out how to cut the head off by knife only.
The street versus bolthole difference may amount to nothing at all, we just don´t know. The victims could have been picked up anywhere in London, perhaps even in Whitechapel! And the bolthole could have lain on Flower & Dean Street for all we know. Or Heneage Street. We only now that the killer did not generally dump his victims in the East - although he DID do just that in one case!

Regarding geographical profile, Torso Man must have been a commuter and must surely have had access to transport. JtR, it appears, was none of those things.

The torso man must reasonably have had access to transport, yes. But how does that prove that the Ripper did not? It can just as well be a case of a killer who is willing to kill in two differing fashions. Like Kürten. Like Heirens. Like De Angelo. Like the Zodiac. Or those who kill for different reasons, like Todd Kohlhepp.
What will not go away is the fact that there are differences inbetween the two series. The one interesting question that arises from that fact is whether the differences can be bridged.
The question I ask is another one: Since we know from the many similarities that the series MUST have the same originator, what lay behind the differences? That´s how I see it. There is not a chance in that very warm place that there were two killers who acted like Siamese twins in so many significant and extremely rare instances.

[Fisherman]

Allow me to, then.

Description of the Whitehall torso from A System of Legal Medicine;

"It comprises the thorax and upper part of the abdomen, the head having been separated at the sixth cervical vertebrae, and the pelvis and lower part of the abdomen at the fourth lumbar vertebrae."

In other words, the remains consisted only of the trunk from neck to waist. The lower abdomen, ie the pelvis and all it may (or may not) have contained had been cut away and was never found. Therefore it's no surprise that "the lower parts [of the colon] were absent, as were the pelvic viscera" (which would include the uterus). However, the heart, lungs, liver, spleen, kidneys, stomach and small intestines were all present, as you'd expect

So, no organs appear to have been removed from the remains found. There's not even any mention of a vertical cut from ribs to pubis, present in other cases.

Actually, I would not expect all parts to be there, Joshua - I´d be more inclined to go the other way ...

But you are of course correct - the part that would have contained the pelvic viscera was never found, and so it is impossible to say whether the organs were intact in it or not.

I agree that the lack of a cut from sternum to pelvis seems to point away from the victim having been eviscerated, although no certainty can be had on that score.

[FrankO]

That's interesting in itself, and may point to different perpetrators for either or both those particular cases, compared to the other bodies which were, and/or had to be, disposed of more quickly.

Agreed, Gareth. I forgot to mention that also the 1884 seems to have been stored for several months before parts of her were dumped. What I find interesting is that the Whitehall victim was very likely murdered just before Nichols and that her body parts were only found after Chapman.

All the best,
Frank

[Fisherman]

It's logical when you ask the question like that. One of my chief concerns of focusing on the Torsos is the sheer lack of information. There are reasoned arguments for why they are not committed by the Jack, and there are reasoned arguments for why they were.

Because it's up in the air and convincingly so, it simply isn't convincing one way or another.

Naturally people have their biases, but what difference does including the Torso as one killer make, other than thinning down the amount of potential suspects, which may indeed be a mis-step.

You raise points for similarities, but the points for difference are also noteworthy, ie. Where, difference in sexual motivation, and if we are to include Kelly, then the waters get muddier and muddier.

What I'd like to see, perhaps, to be persuaded, if you were to steelman an argument that the Torsos were NOT done by the same hand as the crimes oft attributed to the Jack, and then rebuke it, rather than simply what is above for the void to clatter against, which is far less interesting and far less persuasive;

What most people fail to see is that differences cannot have the same level of persuasive power as similarities. No matter how dissimilar two murders are, one single similarity can overrule that in a second. One man and one woman can have been killed - dissimilarity. They can have been 20 and 90 years - dissimilarity. They can have lived in Glasgow and London - dissimilarity. They can have been killed by gun and strangulations, respectively - dissimilarity. They can have been killed ten years apart - dissimilarity.

Nobody in their right mind would say "same killer", here, right? But make the assumption that both victims had all fingers and tows except the pinkies cut away.

What happens? One similarity rules out all the large dissimilarities, that´s what happens. It´s all about how odd and peculiar and rare the similarity is.
And cutting away abdominal walls is ridiculously and extremely rare.

Same killer, no reasonable doubt, I´m afraid.

[Michael W Richards]

That's more a reflection on the police than the killer. It was much easier in the days before proper, organised policing, databases and forensic science.

Besides, there were many unsolved murders in different parts of London during the decade or so that the torso murders occurred - and the three months in which the Ripper murders happened - so neither the Ripper nor the Torso Murderer(s) was unique.

Bingo Sam. This is something that must be accepted, and when you do, it makes for smaller numbers of victims we could easily associate with one another. To address Fisherman, if you are looking for a concession that organs missing from both sets of victims is similar, then yes, I would agree. But in the case of the Torso's, its highly likely that they were just displaced as a result of the sectioning, there are no indications that these were sought after in those cases. There are in some of the alleged JtR cases.

What Sam stated simply is the truth, the amount of unsolved murders during that period and the differences within those cases strongly indicates that more than one person committed them. That means that when you try to find similarities with Canonicals you may well find some, but that doesn't then translate to the same hand at work. Why? Why do these happen in the first place, once you look for motives rather than wound patterns youll see what I mean.

[Sam Flynn]

I don't know what type of space he had to hide bodies, Gareth, but he seems to have had one, at least in the cases of the Rainham victim and the Whitehall victim. They had both been dead for some 2 months or more when parts of them were found.

That's interesting in itself, and may point to different perpetrators for either or both those particular cases, compared to the other bodies which were, and/or had to be, disposed of more quickly.

[FrankO]

Whoever he/they were, they probably didn't have a "crawlspace" in which to hide the bodies,...

I don't know what type of space he had to hide bodies, Gareth, but he seems to have had one, at least in the cases of the Rainham victim and the Whitehall victim. They had both been dead for some 2 months or more when parts of them were found.

[John G]

Burke and Hare vaults



I see the Scotland Yard basement consisting of vaults similar to these. Imagine wandering in the dark through this labyrinth, but they covered the external walls approx. 128 ft by 168 ft. The area was filled with construction debri and trenches.The vault you are looking for to dump the torso in just happens to be the very vault a few workmen stored their tools in for safety due to the fact it was hard to reach. Before reaching this spot from above, there were many other spots available to drop the body, including the Thames which was a few hundred feet away or the well which was more in the open and would conceal the body for a longer period of time, imo. Witnesses (workmen) claimed you needed to be familiar with the vault to know how to get there. I can see why.

Thanks for this, Jerry. Very informative. It's quite a while since I looked at the Whitehall case on any detail, but your post perfectly highlights just how risky a deposition site this was.

It also makes it difficult to accept the argument that the perpetrator was purely a defensive dismemberer. For instance, such individuals are usually known to the victim and their motive therefore is to dispose of the body to prevent discovery of the crime. However, in this case the perpetrator doesn't seem to have acted in that way: the corpse was presumably discovered within hours of being deposited.

To my mind, the location suggests that the perpetrator may have been taunting the police, i.e. by depositing the remains in their own headquarters, effectively saying, "look how clever I am, and look how stupid you are."

Of course, as the workmen suggest, it's perfectly possible that he was a fellow workman, with knowledge of the vault. However, if his sole motivation was simply to dispose of the Torso as quickly as possible, why make life so difficult for himself, considering that there must have been a myriad of alternative sites he could have chosen?