The case evidence and its implications

[Sam Flynn]

unsolved serial murders?

It makes any difference in this context. If someone kills someone without being caught, then he's no different to Jack the Ripper in that regard.

[Abby Normal]

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.

Hi JR

Bond:

The substance of the heart was healthy, and there were indications that the woman had not died either of suffocation or of drowning. The liver and stomach, kidneys and spleen were normal. The uterus was absent.

in this context, isnt it apparent that hes including the uterus here because he would expect it to be there with the rest of the organs hes describing?

[bolo]

Hi Michael, Fisherman, all,

[...] theoretical observations won't negate the obvious differences. Some of which may be critical to the killers MO.

my thoughts as well. The differences outweigh the similarities for me at the moment but I'm always open for new evidence or a conclusive interpretation of existing evidence.

As we have settled in the other recent Torso thread, dismembering a victim may have had ritualistic importance for the killer but, as a by-product, also made it easier for someone without a cart to get rid of the parts by dumping them at various places so there also is a practical side to it. This is what makes it difficult for me to compare the Ripper and Torso cases because most of what happened to the bodies of the Torso victims could have been the result of practical considerations. I can't see a practical approach in the Ripper cases with the exception of the intestines that had been thrown over the shoulder of Annie and Kate, most probably to get them out of the way for the organ removal, but that's it.

The fact that some organs were missing in some Torso cases may point to a killer who wanted to get in their possession. However, they also may have fallen out of the body parts when they were lying in water/on land or were transported, taken out and dumped separately to save weight (and make things less messy), etc. Lots of variables here, not so in the Ripper cases. Here, everything was literally laid out for all to see and the absence of the organs only meant one thing: The the killer took them away for whatever reason. Can't say the same about the Torso cases, can you.

This points to different MOs, different mindsets and different goals, and maybe to different killers.

Regards,

Boris

[John G]

First: We should not claim to know that there were major differences in the way the mutilations of the abdominal walls was inflicted on the three Ripper/Torso victims. We don't, do we? Overall, there were differences, we all know that, but when it comes to the taking away of the abdominal walls, we simply do not know how much alike these mutilations were inbetween the cases. The only difference we are aware of is that Jackson had two flaps removed, that Kelly had three and that Chapman had four, with one gone missing in the latter case.
That in itself must be regarded as being of very much less importance than the sheer fact that the abdominal walls WERE taken away.

I have not said that the taking away of abdominal walls in flaps is unique to the Ripper/Torso cases - I have said that it is rarer than henīs teeth, and it is. If Napper did it, then he belongs to a very exclusive club with precious few members. It seems that Jeffrey Dahmer could be another one, and we have one cannibal listed as doing it too (for reasons of eating the abdominal wall - he was curious about how the different parts of a body tasted...), so there ARE examples. They are, though, rare in the extreme.

Couple that with the other similarities - the fewest serial killers cut up an abdomen at all, let alone from sternum to pubes, very few serial killers cut out uteri, even fewer cut out lungs and hearts. BOTH men did this in BOTH series, and so I am personally of the view that the suggestion of two such creatures roaming the London streets - supposedly with totally different agendas and mindsets and temperaments to boot! - is ridiculous.

Now, don't take that as an offense - I don't regard you as ridiculous, far from it - but the suggestion is so much over the top that it makes me wonder why anybody would latch onto it. It owes, I am sure, to a large degree to how history has been written. Which brings me to the question I want answered out here: Is it not logical to make the assumption that all organs that went lost in these murders were taken out by the killer, on account of how we KNOW that he took out lungs, heart and uterus from Jackson? Surely, that must be the logical assumption to make?

Any answers to that one? Or are people avoiding the question?

I would actually agree with a significant part of your argument here. For instance, there can be no doubt that evisceration murders are exceedingly rare, and murders involving the removal of the abdominal wall even rarer!

However, as you know, I have ultimately come to a different conclusion, although I'm now much less certain about this than I used to be, i.e. because I see the force in much of what you have argued.

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. For example, in respect of Kelly we appear to have a killer hacking away in an absolute frenzy, slashing and cutting the body in all directions: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...0monro&f=false In other words, an act of aggressive mutilation in which the abdominal flaps were presumably just hacked out. In contrast, with Jackson we have two long irregular strips removed from the abdomen, without any sign of frenzy. Moreover, rather than retaining these pieces of skin as a trophy, or simply discarding them, he uses them to wrap up the organs of the reproductive system, I.e. uterus and ovaries, possibly for shock value. This is not what happens with Kelly. It therefore appears to me that any similarities are largely superficial.

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.

In sharp contrast, the Torso murderer decapitates all of his victims without exception, presumably to prevent identification and/or ritualistic purposes: none of the heads were discovered, so may have been retained by the perpetrator as trophies. All of the Torso victims must have been abducted or somehow inveigled to the murder/dismemberment site; none of JtR's victims were. All of the Torso victims were dismembered, either as an act of defensive dismemberment, or defensive/offensive. None of JtR's victims were. The bodies of all of the Torso victims were stored, in my opinion because the killer liked to spend time with the bodies. In the case of JtR, this signature element is completely absent. In respect of the Torso victims we have the scattering of body parts, "like pieces of a puzzle." This didn't happen with any of the C5. And, of course, all of the Torso victims were dismembered, none of the C5 were.

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.

[Abby Normal]

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.

unsolved serial murders?

[Abby Normal]

Another similarity between the Ripper and the Torso Killer I believe gets discussed less than it should is that neither were ever caught. Its hard enough to believe that there was 1 infamous serial killer who committed so many crimes and had the skill, luck, and circumstances to never get caught for them, let alone 2 infamous serial killers.

Hi Stacker
bingo. I have often brought up that point-that both were unsolved. whats the chances? and also, another thing that dosnt discussed enough IMHO-is both series ended roughly the same time in 89 with McKenzie and pinchin.

[Sam Flynn]

Another similarity between the Ripper and the Torso Killer I believe gets discussed less than it should is that neither were ever caught. Its hard enough to believe that there was 1 infamous serial killer who committed so many crimes....

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.

[Joshua Rogan]

I couldn't list them in detail, Joshua, but apart from the uterus it was said that a number of pelvic organs were lost. Maybe Debra can fill in the details.

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.

[Stacker]

Another similarity between the Ripper and the Torso Killer I believe gets discussed less than it should is that neither were ever caught. Its hard enough to believe that there was 1 infamous serial killer who committed so many crimes and had the skill, luck, and circumstances to never get caught for them, let alone 2 infamous serial killers.

[Takod]

Is it not logical to make the assumption that all organs that went lost in these murders were taken out by the killer, on account of how we KNOW that he took out lungs, heart and uterus from Jackson?

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;

[Abby Normal]

The torso killer(s) killed for whatever reason(s) they may have had, but the taking apart of the bodies seems to have been purely a practical way to facilitate disposal. Whoever he/they were, they probably didn't have a "crawlspace" in which to hide the bodies, or a garden in which to bury them. He/they certainly had access to a private enough place in which to kill and take his victims apart, which is a luxury that Jack the Ripper almost certainly did not possess.

Hi Sam (and MR)
keep in mind that there was no evidence of torture (or rape) and the bodies were cut up soon after death. and along with that no evidence of domestic type or botched abortion killings. add to that the arms/ leg left on a couple of the victims and missing internal organs. That would lead me to believe that the dismemberments were NOT just practical matters.

[Abby Normal]

First: We should not claim to know that there were major differences in the way the mutilations of the abdominal walls was inflicted on the three Ripper/Torso victims. We don't, do we? Overall, there were differences, we all know that, but when it comes to the taking away of the abdominal walls, we simply do not know how much alike these mutilations were inbetween the cases. The only difference we are aware of is that Jackson had two flaps removed, that Kelly had three and that Chapman had four, with one gone missing in the latter case.
That in itself must be regarded as being of very much less importance than the sheer fact that the abdominal walls WERE taken away.

I have not said that the taking away of abdominal walls in flaps is unique to the Ripper/Torso cases - I have said that it is rarer than henīs teeth, and it is. If Napper did it, then he belongs to a very exclusive club with precious few members. It seems that Jeffrey Dahmer could be another one, and we have one cannibal listed as doing it too (for reasons of eating the abdominal wall - he was curious about how the different parts of a body tasted...), so there ARE examples. They are, though, rare in the extreme.

Couple that with the other similarities - the fewest serial killers cut up an abdomen at all, let alone from sternum to pubes, very few serial killers cut out uteri, even fewer cut out lungs and hearts. BOTH men did this in BOTH series, and so I am personally of the view that the suggestion of two such creatures roaming the London streets - supposedly with totally different agendas and mindsets and temperaments to boot! - is ridiculous.

Now, don't take that as an offense - I don't regard you as ridiculous, far from it - but the suggestion is so much over the top that it makes me wonder why anybody would latch onto it. It owes, I am sure, to a large degree to how history has been written. Which brings me to the question I want answered out here: Is it not logical to make the assumption that all organs that went lost in these murders were taken out by the killer, on account of how we KNOW that he took out lungs, heart and uterus from Jackson? Surely, that must be the logical assumption to make?

Any answers to that one? Or are people avoiding the question?

hi fish
yes its an entirely logical assumption to make, and not only that-but the most probable one IMHO.

[Fisherman]

I know I've been away from these threads for sometime but I still retain an interest in the Torso/JtR hypothesis. And let me say, in the spirit of objectivity, that whilst I don't agree with Christer's argument, nor would I dismiss it out of hand. Put simply, it's at least possible he might be correct, and it's certainly a difficult argument to break down!

This may be going somewhat off topic, and for that I apologize, but one of Christer's main arguments is that Jackson, Chapman and Kelly are linked by virtue of pieces of their abdominal walls being removed and that, furthermore, this pathology is unique.

Well, it's certainly rare although, of course, there are major differences in the way these respective mutilations were inflicted, and possibly different purposes: Kelly seems to have been simply hacked to pieces, whilst Jackson, contrastingly, had two irregular pieces removed from the abdomen, in which were attached the uterus etc.

But is it unique? I would say not. Thus, Robert Napper, in what was described by the prosecutor as a case of which had "chilling similarities" to the murders of JtR, cut open the body of one of his victims, from chest to genitals, and removed and took away a piece of her abdomen, presumably as a trophy. See:
http://courtnewsuk.co.uk/robert-napper/.

Of course, it's just one piece, not two, as in the case of Jackson. But if the lesser is to be excluded from the criteria than, logically, so should the greater!

First: We should not claim to know that there were major differences in the way the mutilations of the abdominal walls was inflicted on the three Ripper/Torso victims. We don't, do we? Overall, there were differences, we all know that, but when it comes to the taking away of the abdominal walls, we simply do not know how much alike these mutilations were inbetween the cases. The only difference we are aware of is that Jackson had two flaps removed, that Kelly had three and that Chapman had four, with one gone missing in the latter case.
That in itself must be regarded as being of very much less importance than the sheer fact that the abdominal walls WERE taken away.

I have not said that the taking away of abdominal walls in flaps is unique to the Ripper/Torso cases - I have said that it is rarer than henīs teeth, and it is. If Napper did it, then he belongs to a very exclusive club with precious few members. It seems that Jeffrey Dahmer could be another one, and we have one cannibal listed as doing it too (for reasons of eating the abdominal wall - he was curious about how the different parts of a body tasted...), so there ARE examples. They are, though, rare in the extreme.

Couple that with the other similarities - the fewest serial killers cut up an abdomen at all, let alone from sternum to pubes, very few serial killers cut out uteri, even fewer cut out lungs and hearts. BOTH men did this in BOTH series, and so I am personally of the view that the suggestion of two such creatures roaming the London streets - supposedly with totally different agendas and mindsets and temperaments to boot! - is ridiculous.

Now, don't take that as an offense - I don't regard you as ridiculous, far from it - but the suggestion is so much over the top that it makes me wonder why anybody would latch onto it. It owes, I am sure, to a large degree to how history has been written. Which brings me to the question I want answered out here: Is it not logical to make the assumption that all organs that went lost in these murders were taken out by the killer, on account of how we KNOW that he took out lungs, heart and uterus from Jackson? Surely, that must be the logical assumption to make?

Any answers to that one? Or are people avoiding the question?

[Fisherman]

Remind me....which parts were missing from the Whitehall torso?

I couldn't list them in detail, Joshua, but apart from the uterus it was said that a number of pelvic organs were lost. Maybe Debra can fill in the details.

[John G]

I know I've been away from these threads for sometime but I still retain an interest in the Torso/JtR hypothesis. And let me say, in the spirit of objectivity, that whilst I don't agree with Christer's argument, nor would I dismiss it out of hand. Put simply, it's at least possible he might be correct, and it's certainly a difficult argument to break down!

This may be going somewhat off topic, and for that I apologize, but one of Christer's main arguments is that Jackson, Chapman and Kelly are linked by virtue of pieces of their abdominal walls being removed and that, furthermore, this pathology is unique.

Well, it's certainly rare although, of course, there are major differences in the way these respective mutilations were inflicted, and possibly different purposes: Kelly seems to have been simply hacked to pieces, whilst Jackson, contrastingly, had two irregular pieces removed from the abdomen, in which were attached the uterus etc.

But is it unique? I would say not. Thus, Robert Napper, in what was described by the prosecutor as a case of which had "chilling similarities" to the murders of JtR, cut open the body of one of his victims, from chest to genitals, and removed and took away a piece of her abdomen, presumably as a trophy. See:
http://courtnewsuk.co.uk/robert-napper/.

Of course, it's just one piece, not two, as in the case of Jackson. But if the lesser is to be excluded from the criteria than, logically, so should the greater!