Jack the Ripper & The Torso Murders

[The Rookie Detective]

Jerry... just in case, here's his signature from the 1921 census...




Just wondering if there's any similarity to any of the alleged written correspondences.


RD

[FrankO]

Hmmm...I may be influenced by too many episodes of "Criminal Minds," but what if leaving the Pinchin Torso in the Ripper's area was more of a *challenge* by the Torso Killer? Perhaps he resented the publicity JtR was getting in the papers?

You may well be right, PC. The impression I've always had was that the thigh thrown over railings into the garden of the Shelley estate, the Whitehall and the Pinchin Street torso were all attempts by the Torso killer to be more interesting, shocking, intriguing or something like that rather than anything else. I can't help but wonder if he dumped one of his torsos in Pinchin Street for the exact reason you suggest: that he resented the publicity and, with it, the notoriety that the Ripper was getting and he was not.

Had the Pinchin Street torso actually been dumped "smack bang in the heart of Ripper territory", as some have it, instead of just outside of it, and if the Ripper victims had been killed a great deal more to the west, then I'd be more prepared to believe there was just the one perpetrator.

All the best,
Frank

[Michael W Richards]

not only is this incorrect on many levels, its a low blow by you and MR and very regrettable.

its an insulting misnomer to begin with, because fishs ideas is a theory or theories.you do know the difference between a myth and a theory I hope? And fish has come up with alot of original research and theory on his own.

one of the most original being that a possible inspiration/ motive by torsoman was the anatomical venus displays in the local museums, which closed right around the time the first torso victims started to surface.

A new play had opened in 1888 in London, Jeykll and Hyde was playing at the Lyceum during the Ripper murders, does that then constitute another art inspired theory about Jack? A theory suggests a possible solution while acknowledging it is unproven, a Myth perpetuates the unproven. ""The one myth there ever was, was that the Torso killer was another man than the Ripper." That quote seems to indicate that this theory has been upgraded to fact by the author. Something that is categorically incorrect.

Myth: A traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation.

Theory: An idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events.

I have no problem with theories per se, I have some unproven ones about some of these cases myself. What I do have some concern about when Theories are presented as being viable Solutions without the required substantive evidence to enable that transition. This whole premise is interesting, but it doesnt take hold using the known facts in these cases. He has a theory, but it doesnt hold up under closer examination.

[Pcdunn]

You may well be right, PC. The impression I've always had was that the thigh thrown over railings into the garden of the Shelley estate, the Whitehall and the Pinchin Street torso were all attempts by the Torso killer to be more interesting, shocking, intriguing or something like that rather than anything else. I can't help but wonder if he dumped one of his torsos in Pinchin Street for the exact reason you suggest: that he resented the publicity and, with it, the notoriety that the Ripper was getting and he was not.

Had the Pinchin Street torso actually been dumped "smack bang in the heart of Ripper territory", as some have it, instead of just outside of it, and if the Ripper victims had been killed a great deal more to the west, then I'd be more prepared to believe there was just the one perpetrator.

All the best,
Frank

Thanks, FrankO. I agree with your points entirely. I had read a book on Victorian murders and crimes, and saw that bodies (whole or dismembered) disposed of in rivers wasn't all that uncommon. Some of the Torsos cases seem fully ordinary defensive crimes, but the ones you mention-- including Pinchin-- seem deliberately competing with Ripper cases for newspaper ink.

The Paris Torso cases are intriguing, in case their perpuerator visited London, too?

[John Wheat]

I thought we were discussing the facts Fish, your unwavering belief that the 2 series are in reality just 1 longer series. Your conviction is admirable, however your supporting evidence..not so much. Were the Torso murders in 1888-89 the only time in history, to that point, that we see these kinds of acts? No. They are not. Are there any murders prior to 1888 that seem very similar to the ones pinned on Jack the Ripper? Lets just say, to the murder of Annie Chapman? Not really. Some of those murders were quite unique, but dismemberment, again, not so much.

Your suggestion that the 2 series must be by one man doesnt account for very similar Torso murders that pre-date the Ripper crimes by over a decade. They could have been by the same man in 1888. Who knows? So you want to put on the table that you believe a killer who may have dismembered a few times over the course of 14 years from 1873 until 1888 suddenly begins a whole new rain of terror and style of murder, while still continuing on with his old habits?

I find a lot of Ripperology embraces the Marvel Universe philosophy, where the practically impossible is held in the highest regard.

Not only are the previous Thames Torso murders more similar than the Ripper murders to the later Torso Murders but the Paris Torso murders are more similar too.

[Abby Normal]

Did he propose it before CallMeBill in 2018?

hello fiver
hawley was talking about the ripper, fish applied the idea to torsoman or the torsoripper. another original idea was the THEORY that torsoripper didnt learn how to decapitate by knife until pinchin, which would explain why he couldnt take the heads off chapman and kelly(if indeed that was what he was trying to do). Fishs ideas pertaining to the torsoripper, including these and many others and also applying it to a single suspect is an over all THEORY. One that ties all together logically and reasonably and done with a hell of alot of time and effort. he dosnt deserve to be ridiculed and insulted by calling his THEORY a myth. cmon man.

[FrankO]

An offensive dismemberer intends for only the IDENTIFICATION of his victims to be concealed, but wants the bodies to be DISCOVERED.

Hi RD,

I think that would only be true, back in those days, if he could be sure that he could be linked to the victim (because he had a clear link to her). If she was a stranger to him, then there would be little chance, if any at all, that he would be traced and, so, there would have been little need to cut off her head to make identification difficult or impossible. Back in those days, all the police had was capturing the culprit in the act, having him come forward to confess or having reliable witnesses that would sort of deliver the killer on a silver platter. That Torso Man very likely didn't do the attacking, killing & cutting and dumping in the same place, reduced the risk he took.

So, the way I see it is that he either had a strong link to his victims or the cutting off of the head was aggressive.

All the best,
Frank

[FrankO]

So, the way I see it is that he either had a strong link to his victims or the cutting off of the head was aggressive.

Of course, there's the third possibility (already mentioned) that the heads were cut off to facilitate the getting rid of the body (in parts). Still, that would not have been to prevent the identity being discovered.

[FrankO]

My in-depth analysis.

Ripper - killed in the streets, bodies left on display and not dismembered.

Torso killer - stored and killed indoors, dismembered, wrapped, parts distributed and chucked in the river at different locations.

Two different men.

Hi Mike,

I'd like to add the high frequency Ripper murders 'smack bang' near the end of the very low frequency Torso murders and that the Whitehall victim was killed around the beginning of August, which means that her body was probably still kept somewhere when Nichols and Chapman were killed.

Cheers,
Frank

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi Mike,

I'd like to add the high frequency Ripper murders 'smack bang' near the end of the very low frequency Torso murders and that the Whitehall victim was killed around the beginning of August, which means that her body was probably still kept somewhere when Nichols and Chapman were killed.

Cheers,
Frank

Ah yes, but that's not completely accurate.

There is an argument to say that the Torso killings went on for much longer, at least until 1902.

Even the list of Ripper murders is incomplete.

The issue lies with the term "canonical"

It condenses the Ripper murders to within a relatively small time frame, but the term does nothing more than constrain the true depth and breadth of the murders.

The so called "canonical 5" has hindered the investigation since day one, because it shields us from seeing the whole truth of the case.

RD

[Mark J D]

... the Whitehall victim was killed around the beginning of August, which means that her body was probably still kept somewhere when Nichols and Chapman were killed...

Hi Frank. Can I ask what convinces you that the DoD was at the beginning of August?

I have the following, relating to the finding of the right arm:

Daily News, 3 October 1888

... This limb had been in the water for about three days, so that if yesterday's discovery is connected with it the date of the murder would be somewhere about the 8th of September...

Bests,

Mark D.

[FrankO]

Ah yes, but that's not completely accurate.

Hi RD,

The thing is that we don't know if it's accurate, completely or less. But if we assume the Ripper killed more than just the C4 or C5, then all bets will be off, because it would mean that he also killed women less similar or even unsimilar to C4/C5 and perhaps even completely different than Torso Man's victims (if we assume he was responsible for 1873 through to 1889 or even 1902). If we would assume more victims for Torso Man, then things might be more different, still.

So, we either argue based on the 'canonicals', which is what I did, or we incorporate whichever murders we see fit, but, of course, that might very well lead to other insights/'conclusions'.

All of this, however, doesn't change the fact that C4/C5 were killed and mutilated in a certain fashion and timeframe, of which the latter, especially, clearly differed from the timeframe in which Torso Man's victims were killed and mutilated & cut up in.

Cheers,
Frank

[FrankO]

Hi Frank. Can I ask what convinces you that the DoD was at the beginning of August?

I have the following, relating to the finding of the right arm:

Daily News, 3 October 1888

... This limb had been in the water for about three days, so that if yesterday's discovery is connected with it the date of the murder would be somewhere about the 8th of September...

Bests,

Mark D.

I'd have to look into that, Mark. In my notes, which I quickly consulted when writing my post, I've written that she'd been dead for about 2 months. In order to know what convinced me to write that down in my notes, I'd have to re-read the material, of which, of course, the snippet from 3 October is a part.

But even if we'd assume that the Whitehall victim was killed at or around 8 September, it wouldn't change my basic point: that Torso Man did have some place for storage at his disposal when he killed Chapman. Which would go against the notion that some have that Torso Man only committed his Ripper crimes when he didn't have a storage room at his disposal.

Cheers,
Frank

[FrankO]

Hi Frank. Can I ask what convinces you that the DoD was at the beginning of August?

I've looked into it, Mark and I based the beginning of August on Dr. Hebbert's findings, but without taking his examinations on all of the body parts into account.

He examined the right arm on 16 September, about which he wrote: "The appearance of the hands would suggest maceration in water from three to four weeks,...", which seems to indicate a time of death around 15 to 20 August.

Then he examined the trunk shortly after its discovery and wrote about that: "The trunk had been mutilated after death, and the death had probably occurred about two months previously." This would put the death at the beginning of August.

About 2 weeks after the trunk he examined the left leg and foot, about which he wrote: "The date of death was six weeks to two months previously." This would put death between half August and the beginning of September.

Based on this we might conclude she was killed somewhere between the beginning of August and the beginning of September. So, I admit my stating "at the beginning of August" was a bit too far back...

Cheers,
Frank

[Mark J D]

I've looked into it, Mark and I based the beginning of August on Dr. Hebbert's findings, but without taking his examinations on all of the body parts into account.

He examined the right arm on 16 September, about which he wrote: "The appearance of the hands would suggest maceration in water from three to four weeks,...", which seems to indicate a time of death around 15 to 20 August.

Then he examined the trunk shortly after its discovery and wrote about that: "The trunk had been mutilated after death, and the death had probably occurred about two months previously." This would put the death at the beginning of August.

About 2 weeks after the trunk he examined the left leg and foot, about which he wrote: "The date of death was six weeks to two months previously." This would put death between half August and the beginning of September.

Based on this we might conclude she was killed somewhere between the beginning of August and the beginning of September. So, I admit my stating "at the beginning of August" was a bit too far back...

Cheers,
Frank

Thanks for going to all this trouble, Frank!

Myself, I worry at the scale of the 'margin of error' where elapsed periods of several weeks are postulated. For that reason, I'm pretty sold on Dr Neville's right arm just being three or four days dead!

Bests,

Mark D.