The case evidence and its implications

[New Ford Shunt]

The problem is that it would make Hebbert wrong. And Hebbert saw the wounds on his slab, as opposed to the journalists. He bases his whole argument on the quality of the cuts and their inherent similarities, and to throw his professional insights and judgment overboard in favour of a measure of journalists would not be wise.

It wouldn't make Hebbert wrong, Hebbert is not the be all and end all of the cases. If the observation was not made by whomever then why would separate journalists comment on it from more than one inquest? It wouldn't make sense to randomly mention something like this.

[Fisherman]

HI John
what if torsoripper lived in WC but his chop shop was in the west?
or vice versus?

Nah. Too easy.

[Fisherman]

Yes, but the point I was trying to make is: the pelvic viscera had been removed from the rest of the torso, and that is not how a defensive dismemberer would be expected to cut up a body (I did quote Rutty on this point in an earlier post, the most relevant bit being, "leaving the torso and pelvis as a single piece). It, of course, means that internal organs are now exposed, which would be a very bad idea, as Sue Black's comments, which I quoted earlier, perfectly illustrate.

Not only that, as a "defensive" dismemberer he then apparently repeats the mistake with Jackson, suggesting he must have been a bit of a simpleton if he was, indeed, a defensive dismemberer!

Just to clarify the point about Whitehall Torso:

"The date of death was from six weeks to months previously.", per Dr Hebbert.

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.

[Abby Normal]

Yes, but the point I was trying to make is: the pelvic viscera had been removed from the rest of the torso, and that is not how a defensive dismemberer would be expected to cut up a body (I did quote Rutty on this point in an earlier post, the most relevant bit being, "leaving the torso and pelvis as a single piece). It, of course, means that internal organs are now exposed, which would be a very bad idea, as Sue Black's comments, which I quoted earlier, perfectly illustrate.

Not only that, as a "defensive" dismemberer he then apparently repeats the mistake with Jackson, suggesting he must have been a bit of a simpleton if he was, indeed, a defensive dismemberer!

Just to clarify the point about Whitehall Torso:

"The date of death was from six weeks to months previously.", per Dr Hebbert.

john
Its not known whether the pelvic viscera was removed from the body cavity because the lower part of the torso(the pelvic area) was never found. the upper part is what was found in the vault. so we dont whether the killer specifically removed any pelvic viscera from the body/torso.

now that being said, why cut the torso section in two? not the work of a defensive dismemberer. so agree with you there. did the killer remove the uterus/pelvic viscera from the lower part of the torso? we dont know for sure, but seeing is he took the trouble to separate the torso into two sections, the lower part containing the pelvic viscera never found, that torso man did remove the uterus from at least one victim and maybe another, than IMHO it seems he probably did remove the uterus and pelvic viscera from that lower half of the torso.

[Debra A]

John, you have misunderstood the pelvic viscera part, I'm afraid. It was never established that any of the pelvic organs/viscera were taken out. The lower part of the torso was never found, and so we cannot tell whether the killer plucked anything out of it.

I agree overall with the rest of your post - we are dealing with an offensive dismemberer who made it his business to shout out from the rooftops the he was around.

Yes. This caused a big part of my confusion on what was being said on the thread the other day! However many times I said the pelvis and its contents were missing there continued to be discussion of removal of the viscera from the whole torso. I gave up trying to understand if new evidence was found or what.

[Fisherman]

It certainty doesn't suggest a Whitchapel local. It does, however, indicate a commuter killer, which JtR most definitely was not.

That would depend. Maybe he killed en route to work? That would be a sort of commuter killer, would it not? he could have come into Whitechapel from, say, Doveton Street and passed through it on his way to, say, Broad Street.

[Fisherman]

Indeed, but local to the West of London, judging by the overwhelming majority of the torso cases.
... or men, as the case may be.

Untrue. It was thought that he (yes, he, not them) used a carriage when dumping parts but for in one case - the Pinchin Street case. In THAT case, he was believed to have carried the parts manually in a sack from his lair.

Now, help me out here, where would that put his lair, in the East or in the West...? Hmmm... tough call....

[Fisherman]

Or, if they did, we don't know if the viscera weren't buried in a shallow grave, thrown down a drain, fed to pets, incinerated or immediately disposed of by some other means. Dennis Nilsen left the entrails and internal organs of some of his victims on scrubby wasteland to rot and/or be eaten by scavenging animals, whilst he burned the victims' dismembered corpses on a bonfire.

We don´t know if the Rippers stolen entrails weren't buried in a shallow grave, thrown down a drain, incinerated ot immediately disposed of by some other means either, Gareth. We have no knowledge of this in either case. But we DO have a long series of rare similarities effectively linking the series, so whatever happened to the Ripper entrails is likely to have happened to the Torso entrails too.

[Abby Normal]

It certainty doesn't suggest a Whitchapel local. It does, however, indicate a commuter killer, which JtR most definitely was not.

HI John
what if torsoripper lived in WC but his chop shop was in the west?
or vice versus?

[Fisherman]

Maybe people are unlikely to answer if they disagree with the premise?

but worded as you have done now I would say yes, it is true.

but it’s not what you asked at first, and we don’t know that any of the torso victims were eviscerated, in the sense you use it. Yes, Jackson had inner organs removed but this may have been a byproduct of cutting her up.

just saying. Evisceration is a theory, not a fact. We can discuss whether it can be proven or disproven but it’s not certain either way with the current evidence.

Just because the murderer dismembered differently to what CSI used as the norm does not mean anything in itself. Just because it does not conform to some late 20th century model of common dismemberment does not mean anything in itself. The dismemberer(s) lived in another time.
just as the fact that body parts were found does not mean that the dismemberer wanted them to be found.

So yeah. If a killer takes organs in one case, and another victim of the same killer lacks organs, it’s probably reasonable to surmise the killer took them.
But we still don’t know that anyone deliberately took organs from the torso victims.

Hello there, Kattrup!

Many thanks for answering "yes" to my question. Most people have not gotten round to doing that, and I really don't think it is because they disagree - I think it is because they agree but don't want to say that.

At any rate, you are of course completely correct. The answer is sort of statistical/logical and unavoidable; whatever a killer does to a body goes down with the police as being likely/logical to appear with the next body too. It belongs to how the police did their work - whenever a series of murders appear in a geographically defined area, they will look for similarities, the reason being that it is less likely with one killer per murder than with a series of murder perpetrated by the same killer.

Now, moving on, you say that we don't know that any of the torso victims were eviscerated, "in the sense you (being me) use it".

The sense I use it is the one suggested by the dictionaries, f ex the Oxford dictionary:
Definition of eviscerate in English:

eviscerate

VERB

[WITH OBJECT]formal

• 1Disembowel (a person or animal)
  ‘the goat had been skinned and neatly eviscerated’
  More example sentences
  Synonyms
  1. 1.1 Deprive (something) of its essential content.
     ‘myriad little concessions that would eviscerate the project’
     More example sentences
  2. 1.2Surgery Remove the contents of (the eyeball).

Origin

Late 16th century: from Latin eviscerat- ‘disembowelled’, from the verb eviscerare, from e- (variant of ex-) ‘out’ + viscera ‘internal organs’. Pronunciation

eviscerate

/ɪˈvɪsəreɪt/

If you ask Gareth, he will conform that this is how I define evisceration: it is about the removal of inner organs from a body. Nota bene that there is no underlying reason as such added, just as there should not be. And here is where there's good news for you: evisceration can be led on by a large number of reasons! It can be about an urge to take organs out, about sadism, about necrosadism, about cannibalism, about curiosity, about a psychosis, telling somebody that it is vital that organs are taken out and in all probability about a few more reasons too.

So this is good for somebody who is arguing that the eviscerations performed on Jackson could/would have had other reasons than those performed on the Ripper victims - we can suggest innumerable reasons. There is a candy box full of them.

But here's the problem.

You agree that when there are organs missing from a person who has been killed by somebody who we know has eviscerations on his CV, those missing organs are likely to have been removed by the killer. And that is on account of how statistics and logic rules these matters. They support your take, in other words.

But on the "why did they eviscerate?" issue, it is the other way around.

Whenever two series of murders contain striking and odd similarities, just as I said at the outset, the police will work from the assumption of a single killer. If there are dissimilarities in the case that makes it impossible, they will work from an assumption of two or more killers, perhaps with internal knowledge about what the other/s killer/s are doing. For example, if two people are killed manually and simultaneously in Oslo and Rio de Janeiro, they cannot have the same killer. It is impossible. But if they both have "Kilroy did it" engraved on their butts, there WILL be a link nevertheless. More than one killer, thus, but a certainty about a link.

In our cases, there is no such difference involved. We have the same city and the same time period, and we have the murders and dumpings close to each other (regardless of how some will have it that they were worlds apart). If we measure the walking distance from Durward Street (formerly Bucks Row) down to Dymock Street, right by where the river Wandle enters the Thames, the place where the police believed the parts from the torsos were thrown in the river, we get less than eight miles, a stretch that can be walked in under two and a half hour!

So no geographical or chronological obstacle is in place, whatsoever. Meaning that all we have is the fact that some bodies were dismembered, and there are many examples of killers who dismembers only occasionally, removing that obstacle too. The rest lies in personal interpretations of the mindsets of the killers and perceived dissimilarities inbetween the damage done to the bodies.

In short, logic dictates that we must do what the victorians could not on account of a lacking insight into these matters - we must accept what all police forces accept: if two series of murders involve a shitload of similarities, one rarer than the other, there can be no doubt that the originator of these crimes are one and the same.

And here is where you are deprived of the usefulness of knowing that there can be many reasons behind eviscerations. Because with the insight of how a common originator is the inevitable conclusion that must be drawn, follows - of course - a likelihood bordering on a certainty that the reasons for the eviscerations was the same in all cases. It generally is, with just the one killer.

We don´t know what reason the Torso killer had for eviscerating, that is correct. It is just as correct to say that we don't know what reason the Ripper had for eviscerating. They are both unknown factors. But we DO know, that the killer was in all likelihood one and the same, and we therefore also know that whatever reason there was for eviscerating, it will logically have been the same in all cases.

[John G]

John, you have misunderstood the pelvic viscera part, I'm afraid. It was never established that any of the pelvic organs/viscera were taken out. The lower part of the torso was never found, and so we cannot tell whether the killer plucked anything out of it.

I agree overall with the rest of your post - we are dealing with an offensive dismemberer who made it his business to shout out from the rooftops the he was around.

Yes, but the point I was trying to make is: the pelvic viscera had been removed from the rest of the torso, and that is not how a defensive dismemberer would be expected to cut up a body (I did quote Rutty on this point in an earlier post, the most relevant bit being, "leaving the torso and pelvis as a single piece). It, of course, means that internal organs are now exposed, which would be a very bad idea, as Sue Black's comments, which I quoted earlier, perfectly illustrate.

Not only that, as a "defensive" dismemberer he then apparently repeats the mistake with Jackson, suggesting he must have been a bit of a simpleton if he was, indeed, a defensive dismemberer!

Just to clarify the point about Whitehall Torso:

"The date of death was from six weeks to months previously.", per Dr Hebbert.

[John G]

I think we can perhaps establish one thing about the Torso man that does match up with Jack, I think the fact that the parts were dispersed in town, where they would be discovered, rather than taken out of town and buried somewhere likely indicates a local man. Which I believe also goes well with the notion that the body parts were probably just collateral issues, not real objectives per se. The fact that he may have spent some time with the deceased could be indicative of a lot of things, but I cant help but think that dismemberment was the ultimate goal. That created parts that have to be tossed away. I cant immediately recall....were the heads ever found in any of these cases?

It certainty doesn't suggest a Whitchapel local. It does, however, indicate a commuter killer, which JtR most definitely was not.

[Sam Flynn]

I think the fact that the parts were dispersed in town, where they would be discovered, rather than taken out of town and buried somewhere likely indicates a local

Indeed, but local to the West of London, judging by the overwhelming majority of the torso cases.

man

... or men, as the case may be.

[Michael W Richards]

I think we can perhaps establish one thing about the Torso man that does match up with Jack, I think the fact that the parts were dispersed in town, where they would be discovered, rather than taken out of town and buried somewhere likely indicates a local man. Which I believe also goes well with the notion that the body parts were probably just collateral issues, not real objectives per se. The fact that he may have spent some time with the deceased could be indicative of a lot of things, but I cant help but think that dismemberment was the ultimate goal. That created parts that have to be tossed away. I cant immediately recall....were the heads ever found in any of these cases?

[Sam Flynn]

But we still don’t know that anyone deliberately took organs from the torso victims.

Or, if they did, we don't know if the viscera weren't buried in a shallow grave, thrown down a drain, fed to pets, incinerated or immediately disposed of by some other means. Dennis Nilsen left the entrails and internal organs of some of his victims on scrubby wasteland to rot and/or be eaten by scavenging animals, whilst he burned the victims' dismembered corpses on a bonfire.