The Paris Torso Mystery

[The Rookie Detective]

So do I.

There are murder cases in which the murderer spent a long time with the victim, such as the London Nudes Murders and, necessarily, the London Torso Murders, but it is quite obvious that the Whitechapel Murderer's mode of operation involved spending a limited amount of time with his victims and then taking trophies away with him.

That makes him an unlikely candidate for any of the Torso Murderers.

An excellent post I must admit.

I can understand your viewpoint, but I am in disagreement with you, John Wheat, and rjpalmer on this particular discussion.

I do agree that the M.O for the Ripper and the Torso killer are indeed different, and so I concur that this could be perceived as a decisive factor in ruling out them being the same killer.

However, I do feel there is more to this than just negating the idea of 1 killer based on their different M.O.

I say this for a couple of reasons.

Firstly, there is some evidence to suggest that the Ripper was acquainted with some of his victims before murdering them.

Now I also agree with you that the Ripper does at first glance appear to attack his victims with a degree of spontaneity and impulse, and this suggests that he spent very little time with them before killing them.
However, this may only apply to the actual kill time itself, and not be a true indication of whether the killer had any prior interactions with his respective victims.

In other words, just because the Ripper appears to murder his victims over a very brief meet and kill, it doesn't mean that the killer hadn't spent time with his victims on previous occasions/days.
This would be akin to a man killing a woman on a 3rd date instead of a first date.

I am not saying the killer dated any of his victims, I am saying that the killer may still have spent time with his victims on occasions other than the times he murdered them.

Eddowes claimed to have known who the killer was and spoke openly about this.
Kelly appears to have been acquainted with the man she was seen talking with by Hutchinson (if he is to be believed) shortly before her murder.
Stride was seen kissing and cuddling another man (other than Kidney) in a manner that suggests he may have been her new lover.

These may all be minor/insignificant points, but they are still worthy of consideration.

Another reason why I wouldn't base everything on the killer's M.O. is that killers do change their M.O at times for a multitude of reasons, sometimes because they need to adapt at the time, or because they are experimenting and discovering as they go.
Some killers also vary their choice of weapon to fit their needs and desires at the time.

A recent cold case springs to mind, as a prime example of a killer varying their M.O.
I won't clog this thread with the story; but in short, there was a relatively recent link discovered between the murders of 2 females in 1975.

Eve Stratford, model, aged 21, was murdered in her own home in East London in March 1975, was raped and tied up with her stockings, her throat slashed at least a dozen times and her head nearly severed. The killer posed her body before he left.

6 months later...

Lynne Weedon, 16-year-old schoolgirl, was savagely attacked, beaten and raped in an alleyway near her home in West London. Lifted over a hedge and dumped out of sight. Left for dead and didn't die until the following day after initially being found alive. NO Knife wounds were inflicted.

Now I would question anyone who would link these 2 cases; because the M.O. for these 2 murders is DIFFERENT.

However, these 2 females were murdered by the SAME MAN.

This is because there was a relatively recent confirmed DNA link between these 2 cold cases. The DNA evidence proves conclusive in this context and the odds against it not being the same man are approximately 4 billion to one.

This is just 1 example, but it does prove that a killer has the ability, capacity, and versatility to adapt and change their M.O. IF and when required OR desired.

Therefore, based on that fact, I would suggest that the link between the Ripper and the Torso killer is much closer than you some realize, or care to accept.

I am not suggesting that there is a right or wrong, but simply not to discount them being the same man because the M.O. doesn't appear to fit.

There are links there, we only have to open our minds to the possibility that the Ripper may have murdered scores of women over decades, and not just be contained to the often romanticized version of the Ripper that has been part of the fabric of this case for far too long.

In summary, I can understand your views; and can see it has credence...but I think you're missing the bigger picture by hanging a belief on the theoretical beliefs of "M.O." that doesn't support the practical reality of how a killer can and does change their M.O if and when needed or desired.

Fascinating views from all involved with this thread and it's good to see that great minds don't think alike.


RD

[Fleetwood Mac]

Once we can also see that we are likely looking at the same driving force behind the deeds, why one earth would we not conclude the obvious?

Looking at the data, the authorities believe that there have been somewhere approaching 70 serial killers since the 1590s (in Britain), identified or unidentified. Among those 70, are a selection of women, poisoners and others who targeted men and children. At the very most, you have 15 serial sexual murderers who may have at least some commonality with the WM and the TM, but with a good few of those it's stretching the boundaries of 'commonality'.

That data demonstrates just how rare these types of murders/serial killers are.

Supposedly, we have two men killing and mutilating women, and one or two more running 'round cutting women's throats and stabbing them in the abdominal and genital regions; in the same small part of London and at the same time. Statistically speaking, that would be extraordinary and improbable.

It's not impossible, fair enough.

But then we have research from qualified people who have studied 762 cases of sexual murder, and they conclude that 'carving on the body', evisceration and removal of limbs are all forms of dismemberment, all underpinned by the same psychology.

Putting two and two together, you're left with the most likely scenario: one man, no matter how the victims were dismembered and whether or not the WM attempted to decapitate Mary.

The only caveat I'd make is that the authors of the '762 cases' called for further research, and so I'd place it in that context.

I'd say that in the event you've been making this case for a good while and few people are listening, Christer, then you have a far better argument than what you've been given credit for.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Thanks, RD.

I have read previously about Eddowes' claiming to have met the murderer.

I did not mean that the murderer did not know any of his victims, although I doubt that he did, nor the length of time he took to murder them, but how long he intended to spend with them after murdering them.

I was thinking of cases in which the M.O. changed - before I saw your reply - but it is not the M.O. I am concerned with so much as what the murderer wants from the victim and how he intends to get away with his crime.

The Whitechapel Murderer was obviously not willing to spend so much time with a dead body as the Torso Murderers, nor to have the duty to dispose of it, that he might thereby have seriously risked being caught.

Since the Whitechapel Murders took place during the period in which the Torso Murders were committed, then the murderer - if he were the same person - would have changed his M.O. back and, moreover, wold have variously been mobile or pedestrian.

How likely is that?

[The Rookie Detective]

Thanks, RD.

I have read previously about Eddowes' claiming to have met the murderer.

I did not mean that the murderer did not know any of his victims, although I doubt that he did, nor the length of time he took to murder them, but how long he intended to spend with them after murdering them.

I was thinking of cases in which the M.O. changed - before I saw your reply - but it is not the M.O. I am concerned with so much as what the murderer wants from the victim and how he intends to get away with his crime.

The Whitechapel Murderer was obviously not willing to spend so much time with a dead body as the Torso Murderers, nor to have the duty to dispose of it, that he might thereby have seriously risked being caught.

Since the Whitechapel Murders took place during the period in which the Torso Murders were committed, then the murderer - if he were the same person - would have changed his M.O. back and, moreover, wold have variously been mobile or pedestrian.

How likely is that?

Again you make some great well-balanced points.

Your logic on this is solid and I completely understand where you're coming from on this.

I think the clue that potentially links the 2 series of murders, comes in the form of Elizabeth Jackson.

The fact that she remains the only Torso victim to ever be identified, gives us an indication that the killer had never intended for her to be identified.
If Jackson had never been identified, then any viable ink between the Ripper and Torso killer is arguably severed, because then we would have a clearer and more definitive separation between the 2 series of murders.

The question is, DID the man who dismembered Jackson intend for her to ever be identified?

It's improbable that he intended her to be named, although not impossible of course.

If we go with the likelier scenario of him having made a mistake, then the multiple witnesses who last saw Jackson talking with a man who looked like a Navvy, just hours before she was likely dismembered, are of potentially crucial significance.

We know that the Torso killer had to have had a private space in which to carry out his dismemberment of his victims, and so this reduces the time-frame between Jackson last being seen alive, to her having gone/been taken to a private location , and then for her to have been murdered, mutilated and dismembered.

A Navvy is a civil service engineer who works on the construction of the infrastructure of a town/city, including the railways and waterways.

Now we know that Jackson was dismembered and her body parts scattered in the waterways, after having been seen talking to a man who looked like a Navvy.

We also know that the Pinchin St torso was dumped under a RECENTLY CONSTRUCTED railway arch of the Great Eastern railway, the same stretch of line where Frances Coles met her death under another railway arch.
However, Coles would be considered more likely a Ripper victim than a Torso killer victim.

We know that the Pinchin St Torso was dumped next to land owned by the Board of Works, the body directly responsible for the development of the Infrastructure, i.e Railways/Canals/Roads.

We also know that earlier in the series, Polly Nichols was murdered next to the train line.

The phrase "RIGHT TRACK" was underlined and highlighted by the author of an alleged Ripper correspondence.

We also know that the Torso killer dumped parts of one of his victims under the ONGOING CONSTRUCTION of the New Scotland Yard building which stood just yards from the river.
The location at which the killer chose to place the torso was in the cellar, specifically under an ARCHED section that had only just been CONSTRUCTED and formed the physical foundations of the structure.

We also know that the recipient of many of the alleged Ripper letters was the former builder George Lusk, who guess what?...had previously worked for the Board of Works.

Lusk built and renovated Theatres and was involved in several projects that would have required skilled builders.

The many references to DEAR BOSS could indicate that the author of said letters was a former employee of George Lusk, or someone who had at least worked with Lusk at some point in the past.

When we combine all of those elements, we can see that there are some POTENTIAL connections to be made between the Ripper and the Torso killer...and that link comes in the form of the Navvy/building trade/construction of the infrastructure/board of works/George Lusk...and more crucially, the locations at which some of the bodies were DELIBERATELY placed by the Torso killer.

Can you imagine the Torso killer dumping his victim under the archway in Pinchin St, but him having previously been involved with the literal construction of that very same stretch of railway line?
Can you imagine the same man having been part of the literal building of that archway in the cellar of the New Scotland Yard building?

Did the Torso killer deliberately place his victims at locations he helped to build as a Navvy?

Parts of Torsos found in the Canal would have also been dumped at a place built by a group of Navvies.

Another question is...Who builds ARCHES?

Specialized builders who often work with Stone.

The Board of Works STONE breakers yard was next to the Pinchin St archway under which the killer dumped the body.

So...was there a Stone Mason who worked as a Navvy for the Board of Works under George Lusk?



I have identified in my own research a POTENTIAL candidate in the Marble Mason, John Donnelly, who lived at 12 Dorset St, but had a private workshop in the cellar of 38 Dorset St. The same address Stride and Kidney lived at.
Donnelly narrowly escaped being convicted of having murdered his common-law wife in his workshop in Jan 1894.

He was also named as the man who murdered Stride by a woman who walked into a police station in Cardiff Central.

He lived yards away from Millers Court


Check out my thread and see what you think.

He has only been referenced ONCE in the entire Ripperology timeline, BUT crucially he was discounted after it was stated on the JTR Forums that Donnelly had died in 1887.

This was incorrect.

The case of 1894 proves it.

I believe he is a candidate for the Torso Killer, and potentially the Ripper as well.


An unknown who warrants further attention.


Am I on the RIGHT TRACK?


RD

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Very interesting, although I do not think any of the letters were written by the Whitechapel Murderer.

I should mention that I am not very familiar with the Torso Murders.

I suppose you will not be surprised to read that what caught my eye was:

Now we know that Jackson was dismembered and her body parts scattered in the waterways, after having been seen talking to a man who looked like a Navvy.

So my question is: what was it about him that made the witness think he looked like a navvy?

[Charlie]

Am I on the RIGHT TRACK?

I don't know, but your demonstration is very attractive!

[Abby Normal]

Again you make some great well-balanced points.

Your logic on this is solid and I completely understand where you're coming from on this.

I think the clue that potentially links the 2 series of murders, comes in the form of Elizabeth Jackson.

The fact that she remains the only Torso victim to ever be identified, gives us an indication that the killer had never intended for her to be identified.
If Jackson had never been identified, then any viable ink between the Ripper and Torso killer is arguably severed, because then we would have a clearer and more definitive separation between the 2 series of murders.

The question is, DID the man who dismembered Jackson intend for her to ever be identified?

It's improbable that he intended her to be named, although not impossible of course.

If we go with the likelier scenario of him having made a mistake, then the multiple witnesses who last saw Jackson talking with a man who looked like a Navvy, just hours before she was likely dismembered, are of potentially crucial significance.

We know that the Torso killer had to have had a private space in which to carry out his dismemberment of his victims, and so this reduces the time-frame between Jackson last being seen alive, to her having gone/been taken to a private location , and then for her to have been murdered, mutilated and dismembered.

A Navvy is a civil service engineer who works on the construction of the infrastructure of a town/city, including the railways and waterways.

Now we know that Jackson was dismembered and her body parts scattered in the waterways, after having been seen talking to a man who looked like a Navvy.

We also know that the Pinchin St torso was dumped under a RECENTLY CONSTRUCTED railway arch of the Great Eastern railway, the same stretch of line where Frances Coles met her death under another railway arch.
However, Coles would be considered more likely a Ripper victim than a Torso killer victim.

We know that the Pinchin St Torso was dumped next to land owned by the Board of Works, the body directly responsible for the development of the Infrastructure, i.e Railways/Canals/Roads.

We also know that earlier in the series, Polly Nichols was murdered next to the train line.

The phrase "RIGHT TRACK" was underlined and highlighted by the author of an alleged Ripper correspondence.

We also know that the Torso killer dumped parts of one of his victims under the ONGOING CONSTRUCTION of the New Scotland Yard building which stood just yards from the river.
The location at which the killer chose to place the torso was in the cellar, specifically under an ARCHED section that had only just been CONSTRUCTED and formed the physical foundations of the structure.

We also know that the recipient of many of the alleged Ripper letters was the former builder George Lusk, who guess what?...had previously worked for the Board of Works.

Lusk built and renovated Theatres and was involved in several projects that would have required skilled builders.

The many references to DEAR BOSS could indicate that the author of said letters was a former employee of George Lusk, or someone who had at least worked with Lusk at some point in the past.

When we combine all of those elements, we can see that there are some POTENTIAL connections to be made between the Ripper and the Torso killer...and that link comes in the form of the Navvy/building trade/construction of the infrastructure/board of works/George Lusk...and more crucially, the locations at which some of the bodies were DELIBERATELY placed by the Torso killer.

Can you imagine the Torso killer dumping his victim under the archway in Pinchin St, but him having previously been involved with the literal construction of that very same stretch of railway line?
Can you imagine the same man having been part of the literal building of that archway in the cellar of the New Scotland Yard building?

Did the Torso killer deliberately place his victims at locations he helped to build as a Navvy?

Parts of Torsos found in the Canal would have also been dumped at a place built by a group of Navvies.

Another question is...Who builds ARCHES?

Specialized builders who often work with Stone.

The Board of Works STONE breakers yard was next to the Pinchin St archway under which the killer dumped the body.

So...was there a Stone Mason who worked as a Navvy for the Board of Works under George Lusk?



I have identified in my own research a POTENTIAL candidate in the Marble Mason, John Donnelly, who lived at 12 Dorset St, but had a private workshop in the cellar of 38 Dorset St. The same address Stride and Kidney lived at.
Donnelly narrowly escaped being convicted of having murdered his common-law wife in his workshop in Jan 1894.

He was also named as the man who murdered Stride by a woman who walked into a police station in Cardiff Central.

He lived yards away from Millers Court


Check out my thread and see what you think.

He has only been referenced ONCE in the entire Ripperology timeline, BUT crucially he was discounted after it was stated on the JTR Forums that Donnelly had died in 1887.

This was incorrect.

The case of 1894 proves it.

I believe he is a candidate for the Torso Killer, and potentially the Ripper as well.


An unknown who warrants further attention.


Am I on the RIGHT TRACK?


RD

interesting rd
jerry dunlop has found alot of links between the Board of works and the torso/ ripper crimes.
wheres your thread on donnelly?

[GBinOz]

Supposedly, we have two men killing and mutilating women, and one or two more running 'round cutting women's throats and stabbing them in the abdominal and genital regions; in the same small part of London and at the same time. Statistically speaking, that would be extraordinary and improbable.

It's not impossible, fair enough.

I'd say that in the event you've been making this case for a good while and few people are listening, Christer, then you have a far better argument than what you've been given credit for.

Great post FM. I particularly agree with your conclusion in the final paragraph.

Between the WM and the TTM we have 14 murders (leaving aside for the moment, Chapman, who Abbilene included), so we can only conclude that there were between 1 and 14 perpetrators. Magnaghten insisted that "the Whitechapel murderer had 5 victims—& 5 victims only". So to whom did he attribute the other 9 victims? Phillips, Bond, Anderson and Munro all had differing opinions on which victims could be attributed to Jack. Baxter stated at the Stride Inquest, referring to Eddowes, "There had been no skilful mutilation as in the cases of Nichols and Chapman, and no unskilful injuries as in the case in Mitre-square - possibly the work of an imitator;", an opinion possibly formed in discussion with Phillips who, at least initially, thought the same thing.

Christer's proposal has the best odds. The odds against increase dramatically with each additional perpetrator until we reach 14 (enough for a local branch of Psychopaths Anonymous) where the odds against must be in the region of Sagan's Googolplex.

It would be interesting if proposals for multiple murderers were accompanied by a proposed distribution of victims.

Cheers, George

[Fisherman]

You might see 'the same driving force,' Christer. Others remain entirely unimpressed by this line of thinking.

Not the scientists who are researching this kind of behavior, though. And I would. much rather side with them than with you, to be honest.

The fact that the Rainham murderer clumsily sawed off the head of his victim does not suggest to me a sexual knife fetishist--it suggest a man with a strictly utilitarian to desire to hide his victim's identity, almost certainly because identifying the victim would put the murderer in the frame.

The same man who "clumsily sawed off" the head of the Rainham victim moved on to be able to take a spine apart by way of knife in the summer of 1889. And then, in September of the same year, he had progressed (the term used by Charles Hebbert) to be able to decapitate by way of knife too. Maybe that comes closer to the acts of a "sexual knife fetischist", RJ?

You then launch of into a strange comment about burning people with cigarette lighters, which didn't happen in any of these cases, while failing to note there are dozens and dozens of 'torso' cases worldwide where the victim was decapitated--not to gain the 'sexual release' so near & dear to the morbid imaginations of profilers---but to thwart identification. See the Robert Durst case in Galveston among many, many more.

I remain,

Unconvinced.

The cigarette burning man you are referring to is Randy Kraft - who dismembered some of his victims. Which was the exact thing I was discussing with Fleetwood Mac, who is interested in examples of sexual serial killers who occasionally dismember. Why you would think that Krafts burning his victims with a cigarette would take away from that matter is for me to wonder about and you to explain.

You then, somewhat touchingly, move on to telling us that there are "dozens of torso cases" where the decapitation was part of an effort to thwart identification.
Donat you think that I am aware of that, RJ? Really?
The question that arises from this matter is this one:
In which of the dozens of torso cases you refer to, and where the dismemberment was carried out to thwart identification, do you have the killer cutting out the uterus from any of his victims?
None?
I see.

This is how it all works, RJ:

Cutting a murder victim open from pubes to ribs and carving out the uterus from said victim is always going to suggest aggressive mutilation, a willful act of cutting because the killer WANTS to cut.

Decapitating a murder victim, on the other hand, can have two reasons:

1. The killer WANTS to cut the head off (have a look at for example Danny Rolling, who cut the head off from a victim, and placed it in the bookshelf of her lodgings, some yards away from the headless body - he was not trying tho thwart identification, I'd say), and he is therefore of the exact same ilk as the example above - he is into aggressive mutilation of a body.

2. The killer wants to make the identification of his victim impossible. In these cases, the head is inevitably NOT left in the bookshelf of the victim, but is instead transported away and hidden/destroyed.

When we have a decapitated victim we therefore have a choice to make - is the killer a guy who wants to hide the identity of the victim or is he an aggressive mutilator who likes to dismember? That can be a hard question to answer, but not in our case, because we already KNOW that the Thames Torso killer was an aggressive mutilator who cut out the uterus from Liz Jackson together with a few other bits and bobs and floated them down the Thames. So what we are dealing with are two series involving aggressive mutilation, and therefore we are extremely likely to be looking at a common originator.

Last, but not least, there is absolutely nothing to prohibit a serial killer from aggressively mutilating and dismembering a victim and then taking advantage of the fact that he will be hard to trace if he makes the head go away. However, in such a case, it is not the hiding of the head that tells the story, it is instead the aggressive mutilation. Such a killer would be an aggressive mutilator who took advantage of the option to hide the identity of his victim post mutilations.

It should also be pointed out that dismemberment killers who want to thwart an identification will normally get rid of all the body parts in a way that makes it hard to find them, dug down, burnt or put in a suitcase that is lowered to the bottom of the sea and suchlike. They are anything but likely to serve up their deeds by floating the parts in buoyant parcels to strand along rivers, and they are equally unlikely to leave moles, scars and tattoos intact on the bodies of their victims, because these details are equally likely to provide an identification as the head is. Which ws what happened in the Jackson case of course - no head, but a scar secured an identification.

You are out of your depth here, RJ, but provided with an excellent opportunity to improve yourself.

[Fisherman]

That makes sense to me., you make some excellent points.

I am a believer in the Ripper and the Torso killer being the same man, or at the very least; 2 men working together & alternating their respective victims across the series.

I'd also like to add to the points raised concerning the murder of Kelly...and ask these questions...


1) Is the primary reason why the "Ripper" chose to murder Kelly INDOORS because he intended to decapitate her and/or dismember her?

We dont know. He seemingly tried to decapitate Chapman too, and possibly Eddowes. It is done in seconds if you know how to do it.

2) Did the Ripper use the fire/heat source in Kelly's room specifically to heat his knife to a temperature that could have made the act of decapitation that much easier?

It is the sharpness of the blade that does it, not the temperature, as far as I know.

3) Did he carry a bag specifically to take away her head?

Unknown.

4) Did he deliberately mutilate and obliterate her face because he wasn't able to successfully decapitate her, and so attacked her face out of sheer rage?

Unknown - but a fascinating suggestion that I personally think may have a lot going for it.

5) Did he abort the idea of combining INDOOR mutilation and dismemberment after botching the latter with Kelly?

Unknown.

6) After failing to decapitate Kelly, did he resort back to isolating his M.O technique for each victim, ergo, EITHER his slaying of Mckenzie & Coles, OR taking women to a private workshop and dismembering them with relatively no time limitations?

Unknown.

7) Did he deliberately CHOOSE a different M.O. across the series of victims, as a tactical ploy to confuse the police and to make them believe they were looking for 2 different men?

My guess is that he would have much preferred an overall recognition for all of the deeds.

8) Did he CHOOSE to vary his method/technique/weapon of attack, because the idea of experimenting with his victims was a key driving force in the satisfaction he got from the kill?

It is a common enough thing for sexual serial killers to try new - and more extreme - things as they move forward.

9) Had he spent any time as a convict in Coldbath Fields Prison; which operated a strict "Silent System" that forced prisoners to repeatedly carry out mundane tasks in complete silence, and is THIS the reason why nobody ever heard him kill?

Unknown. I always beleived, though, that the Eastenders as a rule were less impressed with cries of murder and suchlike than the Westenders.

10) Did the entire concept of the "Canonical 5" inadvertently stem from the Torso killer's failure to decapitate and dismember Kelly?

There are no other dismemberment signs on Kelly than the cut vertebrae, I believe. And if the killer wanted to specifically cut away one or more body parts by way of knife, I think he would have managed to do so. The neck, however, is trickier, on account of structural matters.

Lots to ponder


RD

Yes, indeed, there are heaps to ponder!

[Fisherman]

So do I.

There are murder cases in which the murderer spent a long time with the victim, such as the London Nudes Murders and, necessarily, the London Torso Murders, but it is quite obvious that the Whitechapel Murderer's mode of operation involved spending a limited amount of time with his victims and then taking trophies away with him.

That makes him an unlikely candidate for any of the Torso Murderers.

In a bolthole, the time limitations would not be there. In the open streets, they were. I submit that this would have an impact on how an aggressive mutilator needed to go about his crimes. We also have the fact that a bone saw would be an odd thing to carry along to the open street deeds, and so dismemberment would not be an option. there.

We have two series involving aggressive mutilations, and we have a large number of very rare similarities in between them.We therefore most likely have a common originator, who performed bolthole dismemberment murders and open street mutilation murders. In the first case, there were mutilations, in the second, there were seemingly attempts to dismember.

It is hard to think of a more richly served solution to what should never have been a riddle in the first place.

[Fisherman]

Looking at the data, the authorities believe that there have been somewhere approaching 70 serial killers since the 1590s (in Britain), identified or unidentified. Among those 70, are a selection of women, poisoners and others who targeted men and children. At the very most, you have 15 serial sexual murderers who may have at least some commonality with the WM and the TM, but with a good few of those it's stretching the boundaries of 'commonality'.

That data demonstrates just how rare these types of murders/serial killers are.

Supposedly, we have two men killing and mutilating women, and one or two more running 'round cutting women's throats and stabbing them in the abdominal and genital regions; in the same small part of London and at the same time. Statistically speaking, that would be extraordinary and improbable.

It's not impossible, fair enough.

But then we have research from qualified people who have studied 762 cases of sexual murder, and they conclude that 'carving on the body', evisceration and removal of limbs are all forms of dismemberment, all underpinned by the same psychology.

Putting two and two together, you're left with the most likely scenario: one man, no matter how the victims were dismembered and whether or not the WM attempted to decapitate Mary.

The only caveat I'd make is that the authors of the '762 cases' called for further research, and so I'd place it in that context.

I'd say that in the event you've been making this case for a good while and few people are listening, Christer, then you have a far better argument than what you've been given credit for.

I've been making the case for years on end. I am happy about every single ripperologist who actually reads up and understands these matters, and I can live with the ones who fails to do so. It was always going to be the case, for various reasons.

[Fisherman]

Thanks, RD.

I have read previously about Eddowes' claiming to have met the murderer.

I did not mean that the murderer did not know any of his victims, although I doubt that he did, nor the length of time he took to murder them, but how long he intended to spend with them after murdering them.

I was thinking of cases in which the M.O. changed - before I saw your reply - but it is not the M.O. I am concerned with so much as what the murderer wants from the victim and how he intends to get away with his crime.

The Whitechapel Murderer was obviously not willing to spend so much time with a dead body as the Torso Murderers, nor to have the duty to dispose of it, that he might thereby have seriously risked being caught.

Since the Whitechapel Murders took place during the period in which the Torso Murders were committed, then the murderer - if he were the same person - would have changed his M.O. back and, moreover, wold have variously been mobile or pedestrian.

How likely is that?

So yo are saying that a serial killer who sometimes uses transport and sometimes don' t is a unlikely thing?

How many examples do you want of the opposite?

It is likely not as if the killer dismembered his victims while being driven through the streets of London, is it? He most likely killed in some sort of bolthole, and THEN he used transport to dump the parts. If he had kept the parts lying in his bolthole, that would have spelt disaster if they were found and he was linked to then place.

The problem was not there with street killings - no need to transport and dump the victims.

Why invent problems that are not there?

[The Rookie Detective]

interesting rd
jerry dunlop has found alot of links between the Board of works and the torso/ ripper crimes.
wheres your thread on donnelly?

My Donnelly thread comes under "Leap of Faith"

I have a lot more data on Donnelly and currently endeavouring to find more, but I have chosen to omit certain details for the time being to see whether the thread has any viable traction with others.
At the moment is has not received any feedback; which is to be expected.
The key aspect of Donnelly is the fact he had a private workshop in the cellar of 38 Dorset Street accessed only be a ladder, and that he was a marble mason i.e. a specialist builder who worked with heavy stone work.
He also escaped conviction for the mysterious death of his so-called common law wife Alice, who visited him at his workshop.
She was last seen on the Thursday. He claimed she had a fit and fell into the fire in his workshop. He claimed to have nursed her for nearly 4 days before she was eventually "removed to the infirmary."
She was still alive but unconscious, although she died soon after in the infirmary.
Luckily for Donnelly the coroner stated her cause of death as natural causes from artery disease... This was despite her face being severely burnt and her body covered in bruises and burns, akin to someone being slowly tortured.
He was warned as to his behaviour and told he was lucky that she hadn't died in his cellar workshop, otherwise he would have a case to answer for.
There's also the case of a woman who walked into Cardiff Central police station and told the officer on duty that a man named John Donnelley had murdered Stride, but she was not taken seriously for reasons outlined in my thread.
Donnelly lived at 12 Dorset St for years, before and after the murders and so the Geo-profiiling also supports a man who lived in either Flower and Dean, Thrawl or Dorset St.
But it's his profession as a marble mason and his private workshop that most interest me.
He ran his workshop at 38 Dorset Street, the exact same address that Kidney and Stride lived prior to Stride leaving Kidney.
So we have a specialist builder living at 12 Dorset St, working in 38 Dorset St and Miller's Court within yards of both addresses.
These are all only very small details, but add them together and he warrants further investigation as a person of interest at the very least.
Let's also remember that the Torso killer needed to of had somewhere private in order to dismember his victims. His cellar had a fire which was possibly a small furnace used for stone work.
The Pinchin St torso was dumped next to the Board of Works Stone breaking yard.

I am currently trying to find if there exists a list of men who worked specifically on the Great Eastern Railway arches which directly link Pinchin St Torso with Frances Coles, and whether the arched cellar under which the Whitehall Torso was dumped was also made of a similar structure.
The Whitehall Torso and the Pinchin St torso were both dumped under ARCHES that formed part of the structural foundation of those sites.

When we also look at Jackson's last known movements and her being seen with a man described as looking like a Baby, then we have yet another link to the building of the infrastructure that involves railways, canals and possibly the reinforced arch in the cellar of the New Scotland yard building.


Donnelly himself was born in the north west and moved to London for work. He was never married to Alice despite claiming to be on multiple census returns.
At the time she mysteriously fell into the fire in his cellar, they had recently split up.
The question is, why did he leave her in his cellar for 4 days before she was removed to the infirmary?

I believe he may have been the Torso killer...and possibly the Ripper.
An unknown local working man who can be possibly be connected to both cases.

Regarding Jerry Dunlop; his work on the Board of Works is exceptional and he has found infinitely more data on that particular area than I ever could.

His research tells us a lot and I would encourage everyone to take a closer look at this.

RD

[rjpalmer]

Not the scientists who are researching this kind of behavior, though. And I would. much rather side with them than with you, to be honest.

These imaginary experts who have determined that the Whitechapel Murders and the 'Torso' Murders were committed by one and the same hand are now "scientists"?

Are you not aware, Christer, that studies have determined that 'signature' is a pseudoscience?

You then, somewhat touchingly, move on to telling us that there are "dozens of torso cases" where the decapitation was part of an effort to thwart identification.
Donat you think that I am aware of that, RJ? Really?
The question that arises from this matter is this one:
In which of the dozens of torso cases you refer to, and where the dismemberment was carried out to thwart identification, do you have the killer cutting out the uterus from any of his victims?

And here I thought I had referred to the Rainham victim's decapitation. Now she had her uterus cut and carried away, did she?

But alas, as I informed you in the past, however much I would enjoy a good healthy debate, I'm not going to do it until you learn to correctly use the 'Quote' function, as it is too much bother to readjust your interlinear responses so I can respond point by point.

I'm going to stick to that promise.