Jack the Ripper & The Torso Murders

[Lewis C]

The coincidences do not mount up. The idea The Ripper and the Torso Killer are one and the same is pure speculation. The Ripper case is a separate case and the idea that solving the Torso murders first and then come at the Ripper from a different angle is the only way to progress the case is ridiculous. In my opinion the best way to progress the Ripper case is to get rid of all the stupid theories and look at suspects that could have actually been the Ripper. I suggest violent murderers such as Bury and Kelly.

Yes, I think that the only way that solving the Torso case would help in solving the Ripper case is if JtR is the Torsoman, or one of them. If he isn't, I don't see how solving the torso case helps at all.

I'd say that not all, but most of the best suspects in the case are either known murderers - Bury, Kelly, Chapman, and Deeming - or people known to be violent, such as Levy, Cohen, and LeGrand.

[John Wheat]

Yes, I think that the only way that solving the Torso case would help in solving the Ripper case is if JtR is the Torsoman, or one of them. If he isn't, I don't see how solving the torso case helps at all.

I'd say that not all, but most of the best suspects in the case are either known murderers - Bury, Kelly, Chapman, and Deeming - or people known to be violent, such as Levy, Cohen, and LeGrand.

Hi Lewis C

I don't think that the Torso Killer and Jack were the same person. So solving the Torso case won't help at all.

I'm not sure I agree with your point that not all but most of the best suspects in the case are either known murderers or people known to be violent. But I see your point. I make no secret of my belief that Bury was the Ripper. But I think if Bury wasn't the Ripper then it is likely to be Kelly.

Cheers John

[jerryd]

Hi Lewis C

I don't think that the Torso Killer and Jack were the same person. So solving the Torso case won't help at all.

I'm not sure I agree with your point that not all but most of the best suspects in the case are either known murderers or people known to be violent. But I see your point. I make no secret of my belief that Bury was the Ripper. But I think if Bury wasn't the Ripper then it is likely to be Kelly.

Cheers John

Here you go John Wheat. James Kelly (your Ripper) and John Arnold (probable torso involvement) all under one roof. Of course, I semi-joke about this being THE James Kelly.

[jerryd]

hi jer
im having a hard time picturing a victim going willingly in there at night time. whats your thoughts specifically on what happened to tje whitehall victim? two men lured her in under guise of a sex for money ? she was attacked by two men outside and they carried her in and cut her up in there? amd dosnt parts being wrapped in newspaper not make sense in these type scenarios?

isnt more likely she was killed and cut up somewhere else and brought in parts, parts wrapped in newspaper and her own clothes? (whether one man or more).

wildbore knew those vaults well, discovered the body and as you pointed out his route to the NSY from his home is right by where parts were found and thrown in the river from.

imho he is the best suspect we have for torsoman. would anything rule him out from being the ripper as well?

Abby,

It's really hard to even guess how one lured a woman in there. If that's what even happened? I just have a hunch, based on fairly good evidence, that she was either killed AND dismembered in there, or at least dismembered in there.

As far as being wrapped in newspaper. If his intent was to have parts of the body discovered but remain unidentifiable, the clothing wrap would be a bad idea. It was that mistake that partly led to the ID of Elizabeth Jackson. He got smart by Pinchin torso and left no trace of clothing, except an old chemise.

Yes, one likely route Wildbore would trek home from NSY was direct in the path of many body parts.

Nothing rules him out that I have found. Nothing rules him in either. One slight clue that is interesting is in the Alice McKenzie case. She stated she was going out again to meet a man she knew from Tottenham. Wildbore lived at one time in Tottenham. He was also from the same general area near Peterborough that Alice was from.

As far as him being a navvy? I wouldn't exactly say he fits in that category. He was a carpenter by trade and worked for a construction firm who was building the NSY building. The Board of Works oversaw that project, but he did not work directly for them. But, we only know from the Jackson case that the witness stated the man had the appearance of a navvy. Probably the rough hat and moleskin trousers. That description fits a carpenter as well.

[Lewis C]

Hi Lewis C

I don't think that the Torso Killer and Jack were the same person. So solving the Torso case won't help at all.

I'm not sure I agree with your point that not all but most of the best suspects in the case are either known murderers or people known to be violent. But I see your point. I make no secret of my belief that Bury was the Ripper. But I think if Bury wasn't the Ripper then it is likely to be Kelly.

Cheers John

Hi John,

I'm open to the possibility that JtR could have committed some of the Torso murders, but right now, I tend to doubt it.

Bury is my top suspect too, but where I think that we differ is that you said you believe Bury was the Ripper, whereas I think the odds are against any one of the named suspects being the Ripper, but the odds aren't as long for Bury as for any of the others.

[Lewis C]

Here you go John Wheat. James Kelly (your Ripper) and John Arnold (probable torso involvement) all under one roof. Of course, I semi-joke about this being THE James Kelly.

Hi Jerry,

His Ripper? I think it's more like his distant 2nd choice. Do you know the date of that document?

[jerryd]

Hi Lewis C.

That is the 1891 Census.

[Fisherman]

I hsve not speculated on your motives for repeatedly misrepresenting other posters, modern experts, and the original sources. I have noted that you have repeatedly done so.

And here you misrepresent me again. You even misrepresent yourself.

You inserted Lechmere into the Paris Torso Thread. PI's first post in the thread came after that and did not discuss Lechmere. My first post came much later, and was a response to you introducing Lechmere into the thread.

Let´s get this ridiculousness overweigh as quickly as possible.

Yes, I was the first one to speak of Lechmere on the Paris Torso thread. And when I did so, there I had a logical reason to. Moreover, there was at the stage no bid from Jonathan Menges to keep Lechmere out of the thread.

Once Jon Menges asked to keep the carman out of the thread, I did as requested.

But you did not.

You pulled the carman into the discussion not once, but twice. In spite of my feeling you that Jon Menges had requested for us not to do it.

Then Private Investigator also introduced Lechmere into the discussion.

The inescapable conclusion is one of how I followed the bid of Jon Menges, while you and Private Investigator did not.

End of story.

You still have not reacted to the point I made about you being ignorant about how two of the torsos had their abdomens cut open all the way down, making them a pretty parallel with the Ripper murders. That point seems less attractive for you to discuss? It would be enlightening to hear to which - if any - degree this added knowledge impacts your take on the matter of one or two killers. Arguably, it should have a great impact, but I don't hold my breath. Most people would find that it is of great use to know these things before you form a view, but you are not like most people, perhaps?

Nor did you react to how I pointed out that it is kind of odd to tell the series apart, the way you do, by pointing out that the head, leg-and armless torsos (the one exception being that the arms were still on the Pinchin Street torso) were not positioned on their backs and displayed for shock value...?
Personally, I kind of think that severed heads and limbs have a shock value all of their own, but you may of course disagree with that too.

An added point of mine would be that you have twice claimed that there were body parts buried in the torso series, claiming that this would point to a desire to hide the deeds. Not only does this look away from the important point that has been made that it is likely that the parts mentioned were accidentally buried, but it also introduces the rather weird idea that a killer who wanted to hide what he had done, would go about it by burying a leg and a foot from a victim - while putting the torso from whence the leg and feet came on display close to the point where the leg was later found!
In my universe, the desire to hide that deed is somewhat hampered by that torso being left in full view. Actually, if it had not been for the torso, nobody would have gone looking for more body parts, would they?
It therefore served not as a point of hiding anything but instead as a point of highlighting that there may be body parts about - come and see what I have done!

Can you see how this impacts your claim of a separate killer, dead set on hiding what he had done?

If not, I am certain that others can.

Happy New Year, Fiver.

[The Rookie Detective]

The Torso Killer wasn't trying to hide anything.

He deliberately placed body parts in various places at different times.

If my memory serves me well, in the Rainham case for example, the killer appears to wait until after the inquest to dump even more body parts.

He was toying with the public.

I agree that he never wanted his victims to be IDENTIFIED, but he did intend for his victims to be DISCOVERED.

And that is what strengthens the case for the Torso killer and the Ripper having been the same man.

The Pinchin Street torso was literally a hybrid kill, the victim having been beaten and mutilated and dumped in Ripper territory...but with a Torso killer display.

I agree with Fisherman on this and the more I look, the more the link between the Torso killer and Ripper having been the same man is strengthened.


RD

[Fiver]

The Torso Killer wasn't trying to hide anything.

If the Torso Killer wasn't trying to hide anything then why were most body parts thrown in rivers or canals? Why were even the most visible parts put in places where they could have lain unnoticed for days, perhaps even weeks? Why were some body parts buried? Why were none of the heads ever found?

[Fiver]

Let´s get this ridiculousness overweigh as quickly as possible.

Yes, I was the first one to speak of Lechmere on the Paris Torso thread. And when I did so, there I had a logical reason to. Moreover, there was at the stage no bid from Jonathan Menges to keep Lechmere out of the thread.

Once Jon Menges asked to keep the carman out of the thread, I did as requested.

Once Jon Menges asked to keep the carman out of the thread, you continued to post about him.

Stop denying the facts.

[Fisherman]

Once Jon Menges asked to keep the carman out of the thread, you continued to post about him.

Stop denying the facts.

Stop making up false facts. I responded to Private Investigators post, but contrary to him and you, I did not bring the carman up after Jon Menges bid. You and Private Investigator did. THOSE are the only facts around, and twisting and distorting them does you no favors. Now, try and discuss the matters I provided in my last post instead of disrupting and trying to masquerade the truth, please.

[Fisherman]

If the Torso Killer wasn't trying to hide anything then why were most body parts thrown in rivers or canals? Why were even the most visible parts put in places where they could have lain unnoticed for days, perhaps even weeks? Why were some body parts buried? Why were none of the heads ever found?

There is that ”buried” charade again. The parts found under earth may have been accidentally buried. And what kind of fool reasons that putting a torso above ground will assist in the effort of hiding a deed? Your reasoning is completely weird, and you need to understand that.
Lets hear it now: If a killer is intent on hiding what he has done, why would he place a torso as a beacon of light above parts he has buried?
Any chance that you can spot the anomaly? Or?

The rest has - also - been discussed and shown to merit no belief that the killer must have been intent on hiding what he did. That stands.

[Abby Normal]

The Torso Killer wasn't trying to hide anything.

He deliberately placed body parts in various places at different times.

If my memory serves me well, in the Rainham case for example, the killer appears to wait until after the inquest to dump even more body parts.

He was toying with the public.

I agree that he never wanted his victims to be IDENTIFIED, but he did intend for his victims to be DISCOVERED.

And that is what strengthens the case for the Torso killer and the Ripper having been the same man.

The Pinchin Street torso was literally a hybrid kill, the victim having been beaten and mutilated and dumped in Ripper territory...but with a Torso killer display.

I agree with Fisherman on this and the more I look, the more the link between the Torso killer and Ripper having been the same man is strengthened.


RD

hi rd
Agree.
the fact that pinchin was dumped in ripper territory with a vertical gash to the midsection is enough to link the two series. pinchin was already linked to the torso series, so pinchin by itself links the torso murders with the ripper murders. but we have another torso victim in jackson also linking to chapman and kelly in that her stomach flesh were removed in flaps. we have the tottenham head linked to eddowes, in that the face mutilated eerily similar. amd in general both series victims were displayed and left in public for shock value.
we have a victimology link in that jackson was a prostitute.
we have temporal link in that the series overlapped in time, with both series apparently ending about the same time with pinchin and mckenzie.
we have a mo link in that a ruse was used to get the victims to a secluded place.
we have a general sig link in that post mortem mutilation was apparently the main focus, and specifically with a cutting instrument being the main weapon. and while a saw wasnt used in the ripper series, a knife was used in both. and specifically a vertical gash to the midsection and neck being cut.

and we have the rarity of two post mortem type serial killers operating in basically the same time and same place, in the early history of serial killers when it was still a very rare phenomenon.

theres more than enough fact based similarities to reasonably conclude they were the same man.

[The Rookie Detective]

If the Torso Killer wasn't trying to hide anything then why were most body parts thrown in rivers or canals? Why were even the most visible parts put in places where they could have lain unnoticed for days, perhaps even weeks? Why were some body parts buried? Why were none of the heads ever found?

Excellent questions Fiver

There was a mix of the killer placing various body parts on both land and in the water, and so by choosing to vary the locations, the killer was aware that at least some of the body parts WOULD be found.
If the killer wanted to hide what he had done, then he would have disposed of the body parts in a manner in which NONE of the body parts from any of the victims would have ever been found.
But from a serial killer's point of view; what would be the fun in that? No recognition. The victim would have just become a missing person and there would be no acknowledgement that a murder had even taken place. In placing body parts under a railway arch, in a park, over a fence onto Shelley's estate, in the cellar vault of the NSY building etc, we can see that the killer wanted public awareness that a Torso killer was on the loose.

This is evidenced by the fact that TWO of the torso victims were declared BEFORE the body parts were placed at their respective dumping sites. One of which being the John Cleary (Arnold) incident for the Pinchin Street torso.

In other words, the Torso killings revolved around trying to push a story through the press. John Arnold (Cleary) told the reporters that there was a body, but the torso didn't make an appearance until days later. And so either John was a psychic with special powers of foresight, or he knew of/was told about the murder.

It's almost as though the killer is trying to seek acknowledgment by having someone tell the press about a body before the body has even been dumped.


With regards to the time between the killer dumping body parts, to the point of those said body parts being discovered; I think that the killer wasn't overly concerned about when the torsos had been found, but more concerned with wanting those body parts to be discovered eventually.

The killer would have read the newspaper articles and perhaps enjoyed the waiting game. Another reason why he may have chosen to dismember the victims; could be because he wanted the finding of each body part to be drawn out longer. That is conjecture of course, but it is a reasonable conclusion to make, especially when you consider that he dumped each victim's body parts at different times. I.e. He didn't dump a victim's dismembered body parts at the same time, but instead STAGGERED his placing/dumping of the body parts.

Your last point is the most interesting regarding the heads of each victim. Why indeed were no heads ever found.

I would imagine there could be a multitude of reasons, but I would say that because no heads were found, it implies that he didn't want any of his victims to be IDENTIFIED. He may have also used the heads for other purposes and kept them as trophies.

This is where we must again draw a clear line between; Identification and Discovery.

The torso killer didn't intend for any of his victims to be identified, because no heads were ever found.
However, he did intend for the body parts/torsos to be discovered, because otherwise, none of the torsos would have ever been found.

I do have my own hypothesis on what he did with the heads of each of his victims; I believe he may have put the heads into some of the structures he helped to build. It wouldn't surprise me if he placed the heads in newly built railway arches, within the walls of building projects, within the walls of one of Lusk's theatre renovations, in concrete foundations, in a stone quarry, etc...

The heads must have been put somewhere and I believe that one day they may still be found.

Just a hunch



RD