The case evidence and its implications

[Fisherman]

Exactly, to which I'd add "practically constrained", which suggests that the Ripper had to live within a similar small radius to his crimes in order to (a) find a suitable victim and (b) get back to safety in as short a time as possible. Another practical constraint is perhaps revealed in that the Ripper seems to have been compelled to kill off-base, either on the street or in a victim's room. If he'd had his own premises, he could have lured his victims inside and performed his elaborate "dissections" at zero or very little risk, but he didn't.
Alternatively, and more likely in my view, she was local to the East End and killed by a different person(s) entirely. It beats me why a practised torso killer should have left the arms attached when in all other cases the arms were removed.

What about the leg left on the 1874 victim, then? Does that rule HER out?

Whys does not the separation of the torsos in three pieces separate Jackson and Rainham out from the other?

Why does not the slant cut on the 1873 torso separate her from the others?

Why does not the foot left on the Whitehall victims leg separate her from the others?

Why does not the sawed off limbs in the 1873 case separate her from the others?

What is it with the arms that immediately tell us that the killer of the Pinchin Street victim was probably another one than in the other cases? Wherein lies the magic? And why was not Hebbert told about it, so that he didn't get things so wrong?

Come to think of it, this may well be the one and only time your thinking has been hands-on for some while...

[Fisherman]

Hi Abby,

There are some similarities, although I would say they were largely superficial. However, we must all take a position on this-whether there was, say, one or two perpetrators-and I really don't see how anyone can be 100% certain either way.

This is my view. Post mortem mutilation: organs removed in the case of some C5 victims. Torso crimes: pelvic viscera removed from Whitehall victim, which may have resulted in organ removal, we really don't know for sure. Jackson: the cutting of the irregular strips and removal of organs could have been gor ease of disposal-she was 7 months pregnant and would have had a large bump in her stomach, which presumably he cut round. However, in exposing internal organs he was taking a big risk, i.e. they would give off an awful stench!

The taunting of police/shock value I would agree with, particularly as regards Kelly, Whitehall, Jackson and Pinchin Street.

MO: we dont know how the Torso victims were killed. Either way there's a major difference: C5, street slayings, no attempt to prevent identification or to abduct victims. Torso victims: probably abducted or lured to disposal site, all victims decapitated (suggesting a possible differences in sig, but could have been done to hide identification or ease of disposal.

Type of victim: one Torso victim was a prostitute, we dont know who the others were. JtR may jave targeted prostitutes but, of course, some dispute this.

Dumped or left in public areas. I think this relates to creating shock value, or a sense of theatre, as discussed above so, yes, similarities there.

Geographical profile. Big difference in my opinion. JtR targeting victims over an incredibly small area, around one square mile. And this doesn't change even when hundreds of extra officers are drafted in, and with a local community on high alert. Strongly suggests that he doesn't have transport, and is psychologically restrained by narrow boundaries.

Torso, operating over a much wider area, only obe victim left in Whitechapel, and she may have been abducted elsewhere. Jackson, the only victim identified, had been living rough on the embankment, no association to Whitechapel/Spitalfields. Psychologically no where near as restrained as to range, almost certainly had transport.

To me, once we don't know where the torso victims were found by the killer, I reason like this:

If there are no similarities inbetween the two series in terms of damage done to the victims, victimology, etcetera, then the two series are - strange as it may sound since serial murder is uncommon - likely to unconnected.

If there ARE similarities in terms of damage done to the victim, victimology etcetera, then the chances of a common. originator raises. What will thereafter be the deciding point is to what degree there are similarities and to what degree these similarities in themselves are uncommon. A stab to the stomach is not uncommon, but taken out organs and cut away abdominal flaps are very, very rare occurrences.

After that, there really is no case any longer in my world, John. I fail to see how the investigative work can be done in any other way, just as I fail to see how it can be reasoned that so many and so peculiar illusions can be brushed aside in favour of thinking that the murders may have been perpetrated in different parts of the city. Its a "may" against a certainty, and a "may" that is in itself not even decisive. There was always the possibility of a killer having two separate areas where he is active, be that his home, his working place, his old haunts, his favorite prostitution grounds or anything else.

I cannot get my head around how you prioritize, quite simply.

[Sam Flynn]

Geographical profile. Big difference in my opinion. JtR targeting victims over an incredibly small area, around one square mile. And this doesn't change even when hundreds of extra officers are drafted in, and with a local community on high alert. Strongly suggests that he doesn't have transport, and is psychologically restrained by narrow boundaries.

Exactly, to which I'd add "practically constrained", which suggests that the Ripper had to live within a similar small radius to his crimes in order to (a) find a suitable victim and (b) get back to safety in as short a time as possible. Another practical constraint is perhaps revealed in that the Ripper seems to have been compelled to kill off-base, either on the street or in a victim's room. If he'd had his own premises, he could have lured his victims inside and performed his elaborate "dissections" at zero or very little risk, but he didn't.

Torso, operating over a much wider area, only one victim left in Whitechapel, and she may have been abducted elsewhere.

Alternatively, and more likely in my view, she was local to the East End and killed by a different person(s) entirely. It beats me why a practised torso killer should have left the arms attached when in all other cases the arms were removed.

[John G]

Hi JohnG
are they really radically different sigs, MOs and geographical profiles?

Sig-the sig for me is basically the same for both-post mortem mutilation and cutting up and into a female body, removing both internal and external body parts. secondary motivation/sig is how they were left (shock value, liked hearing about himself, taunting police). no torture, sexual abuse/rape apparent

MO-prostitutes targeted with probable ruse (money for sex and or some kind of work)used in both to get victims were he wanted them so he could murder and mutilate. blows to head and or strangulation to knock out, cut throats to finish off and or bleed out. knife, cutting instruments used. Dumped, or left in public areas, displayed-special meaning to killer in how they were ultimately left.

geographic-same city, within easy walking distance. Pinchin in ripper location. Whitehall in between.

radically different? no I would say the same, or at least very similar.

Hi Abby,

There are some similarities, although I would say they were largely superficial. However, we must all take a position on this-whether there was, say, one or two perpetrators-and I really don't see how anyone can be 100% certain either way.

This is my view. Post mortem mutilation: organs removed in the case of some C5 victims. Torso crimes: pelvic viscera removed from Whitehall victim, which may have resulted in organ removal, we really don't know for sure. Jackson: the cutting of the irregular strips and removal of organs could have been gor ease of disposal-she was 7 months pregnant and would have had a large bump in her stomach, which presumably he cut round. However, in exposing internal organs he was taking a big risk, i.e. they would give off an awful stench!

The taunting of police/shock value I would agree with, particularly as regards Kelly, Whitehall, Jackson and Pinchin Street.

MO: we dont know how the Torso victims were killed. Either way there's a major difference: C5, street slayings, no attempt to prevent identification or to abduct victims. Torso victims: probably abducted or lured to disposal site, all victims decapitated (suggesting a possible differences in sig, but could have been done to hide identification or ease of disposal.

Type of victim: one Torso victim was a prostitute, we dont know who the others were. JtR may jave targeted prostitutes but, of course, some dispute this.

Dumped or left in public areas. I think this relates to creating shock value, or a sense of theatre, as discussed above so, yes, similarities there.

Geographical profile. Big difference in my opinion. JtR targeting victims over an incredibly small area, around one square mile. And this doesn't change even when hundreds of extra officers are drafted in, and with a local community on high alert. Strongly suggests that he doesn't have transport, and is psychologically restrained by narrow boundaries.

Torso, operating over a much wider area, only obe victim left in Whitechapel, and she may have been abducted elsewhere. Jackson, the only victim identified, had been living rough on the embankment, no association to Whitechapel/Spitalfields. Psychologically no where near as restrained as to range, almost certainly had transport.

[Fisherman]

Speaking for myself, yes - they're totally different crimes in totally distinct parts of London.

What is "distinct" about the River Wandle, Albert Bridge, Bedford Square, Tottenham Court Road, Regents Canal, Battersea Park and Pinchin Street, Gareth? Does that "distinct" part of town have a name?
And since when are knife murders of prostitutes, involving eviscerations and far-reaching mutilation together with the taking away of abdominal walls in flaps "totally different crimes"?

Isn't the word "totally" something that points to a TOTAL lack of similarities? It is in my world. How about in yours?

D-e-s-p-e-r-a-t-i-o-n. Not a pretty sight.

[Fisherman]

This could be a strong indicator that we're looking at different perpetrators, with different methods and motivations.

... who cut in the exact same way and who - in the case of the Pinchin Street killer - added the final touch to the neck severing school starting with the Rainham victim.

Maybe your post is instead a strong indicator that you dislike having the Pinchin Street case providing a cross-over murder between the series? I seems a better underbuilt case.

[Fisherman]

Except Dr Hebbert doesn't say what he based the date of death on. He simply says, "The date of death was from. 6 weeks to two months previously."

Decomposition, John. There was no other indication to use.

[Joshua Rogan]

Except Dr Hebbert doesn't say what he based the date of death on. He simply says, "The date of death was from. 6 weeks to two months previously."

Luckily, Bond did say;

"The date of death, so far as we can judge from the state of decomposition, would have been six weeks to two months"

[Sam Flynn]

are they really radically different sigs, MOs and geographical profiles?.

Speaking for myself, yes - they're totally different crimes in totally distinct parts of London.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Gareth,

I certainly don't think the C5 murders are linked to the Torso crimes, I.e. radically different signatures, MOs and geographical profiles. It's possible, of course, that the Torso murders involved more than one perpetrator, although personally, I believe Rainham, Whitehall, Jackson and Pinchin Street are most likely linked.

Hi JohnG
are they really radically different sigs, MOs and geographical profiles?

Sig-the sig for me is basically the same for both-post mortem mutilation and cutting up and into a female body, removing both internal and external body parts. secondary motivation/sig is how they were left (shock value, liked hearing about himself, taunting police). no torture, sexual abuse/rape apparent

MO-prostitutes targeted with probable ruse (money for sex and or some kind of work)used in both to get victims were he wanted them so he could murder and mutilate. blows to head and or strangulation to knock out, cut throats to finish off and or bleed out. knife, cutting instruments used. Dumped, or left in public areas, displayed-special meaning to killer in how they were ultimately left.

geographic-same city, within easy walking distance. Pinchin in ripper location. Whitehall in between.

radically different? no I would say the same, or at least very similar.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

Yes, I realize that it could be argued that the body organs were not removed. However, why detach the pelvic viscera from the rest of the torso? It's not something a defensive dismemberer would tend to do, and as I've noted, by exposing internal organs he was making life extremely difficult for himself. Again, not what a defensive dismemberer would be motivated to do.

well I agree with you there

[John G]

This could be a strong indicator that we're looking at different perpetrators, with different methods and motivations.

Hi Gareth,

I certainly don't think the C5 murders are linked to the Torso crimes, I.e. radically different signatures, MOs and geographical profiles. It's possible, of course, that the Torso murders involved more than one perpetrator, although personally, I believe Rainham, Whitehall, Jackson and Pinchin Street are most likely linked.

[Sam Flynn]

Yes, I would tend to agree with most of this. However, it seems to me very unlikely that, say, a defensive dismemberer, would make things so ridiculously complicated for himself by placing the torso in the Whitehall building foundations. Or place the Pinchin Street Torso next to two drunks, in an area frequented by homeless people, when he could have simply buried it or thrown it in the Thames.

This could be a strong indicator that we're looking at different perpetrators, with different methods and motivations.

[John G]

I agree that sawing the pelvic section from the torso is not what one would expect from a defensive dismemberer.

As for the date of death, we know that the doctors spoke of the end of August or the beginning of September. Hebberts comment was in relation to the leg found, and that leg was only found on October 17. That means that if we move back six weeks, we end up at September 5, perfectly consistent with the given medical verdict.

Except Dr Hebbert doesn't say what he based the date of death on. He simply says, "The date of death was from. 6 weeks to two months previously."

[John G]

Hi Fisherman, all,

we don't know for sure if organs had been taken from the Torso victims, the state of facts simply does not allow to tell whether the organs were missing as a consequence of the dismemberment or actually had been taken out of the body by the killer and were significant to him.

Same with the dismemberment. It could have been part of the "fun" for the killer but also a simple way to hinder ID and make getting rid of the bodies easier. We cannot tell for sure.

Was the placement of body parts in a dark vault in NSY a message, a makeshift solution or fluke? We cannot tell for sure.

Was the body part found on the Shelley estate a emergency drop, a message from the Even Newer Prometheus or coincidence? We cannot tell for sure.

Were all Torso victims prostitutes? We cannot tell for sure.

Was there any significance in the dumping of the body parts in the Thames and various places on land? We cannot tell for sure.

What was the cause of death of the Torso victims? At least Hebbert was unable to tell in all cases but one.

And so it goes on and on. There may be similarities between Torsoman and the Ripper but they're only striking on the first look IMHO. If one keeps in mind that most of them are open to interpretation due to lack of evidence, the list sort of falls apart. It certainly is not wrong to assume that certain injuries that are present in both the Torso and Ripper cases may point to a common killer but at the same time it's definitely is not wrong to say that the injuries could have been the result of the dismemberment and were not intentional or part of an important ritual.

Of course you could say that two serial killers at work at the same time in London might be unlikely but that does not change the scope of the available facts one bit (see above). If anything, it opens up another valid alley of interpretation but in the end, it's all speculation and should be taken as such to avoid going in circles.

I go with what we have and remain on my not very comfortable seat on the fence until further notice.

Grüße,

Boris

Yes, I would tend to agree with most of this. However, it seems to me very unlikely that, say, a defensive dismemberer, would make things so ridiculously complicated for himself by placing the torso in the Whitehall building foundations. Or place the Pinchin Street Torso next to two drunks, in an area frequented by homeless people, when he could have simply buried it or thrown it in the Thames.

And consider what happened with Liz Jackson, with body parts being scattered all over the place: A bundle of body parts found near the Albert Bridge; a thigh wrapped in clothing, which could have helped identification, found floating in the Thames; a leg found on the foreshore in Fulham; a piece of flesh found in mud at Palace Wharf; a bundle tied up with string, containing a leg and foot, found at Limehouse; a floating brown paper package found at Bankside, containing the left arm; more body parts found in the garden of Sir Percy Shelley's house. None of these body parts were weighed down or buried.

Now it seems to me that this is not the most expedient way to dispose orca corpse, and therefore it is much more likely that the perpetrator was trying to create a sense of shock value.