Jack the Ripper & The Torso Murders

[Fisherman]

The name marked on the clothes was L E Fisher, not Elizabeth Jackson. It took the police quite a bit of work to trace that back to Jackson. And some members of Jackson own family didn't think the body was hers.

Yes, the name in the clothing was L E Fisher, which is why I wrote not that "a name", not Jacksons own name, was found in them. And yes, just as you admit, this enabled the police to trace the clothing back to Liz Jackson. And yes, this is why I say that if the killer really wanted to prevent an identification of the body, then he was incredibly careless and sloppy.
Of course, personally, I don't think the killer had the first idea about whether or not the woman he had killed was L E Fisher or somebody else, because I don't think the two were aquainted at all. I think the killer targetted prostitutes and I think part of the reason for it may well have been becasue he knew that they would not lead the police to his doorstep. It is not secret that I think that the Ripper made the exact same choice and partly so for the exact same reasons.

The important thing to keep in mind is that the fact that he left the marked clothing with his victim speaks loudly and clearly against the idea that the killer prioritized hiding the identity of his victims.

Again, failure of the killer to hide one victim's identity does not prove the killer wasn't trying to hide the victims identities.

Prove? No. But it certainly is the exact way that the evidence is pointing. Together with how we know that the one victim that was identified was a prostitute, and how we are aware that moles and scars were left on his victims bodies, how he did not make the parts go away but instead in some cases placed them in locations where the WOULD be found in a short time, it all points away from any decision to try and hide the identities of his victims. None of us can prove the case either way, but one of us CAN produce a wealth of circumstantial evidence that points away from any notion of a killer intent on hiding what he had done and who his victims were.

We have to look at the whole picture which shws that none of the victims were identified by their heads, since none of the heads were found.

That, Fiver, is not "the whole picture". It is one singled out matter that need not indicate a will to hide the identities. More to the point, when we DO look at the whole picture, the lost heads seem not to be part of a desire to obfuscate what the killer had done or the identities of his victims.

[jerryd]

Jerry, random question, but do we know if Wildbore had any connection to the Clerkenwell Vestry?

I have been trying to look for other Wildbore individuals to try and see how common the name was, or whether it was fairly rare.

RD

Hi RD.

I had at one time tried connecting the dots with the Wildbores. There are some interesting possible connections. I say possible because they hail from the same area near Leicester. Our Wildbore, for example, was born near Peterborough. There was a Frederick Wildbore that was a surgeon in London that hailed from Lincolnshire. There was a Samuel Wildbore that was a chemist living at 1, Backchurch Lane in the 1860's, by the way. He had a son named Frederick that died at a young age. Turned out to be a dead end. There was also the builder Frederick Augustus Wildbore living near Battersea. Not sure if he was connected to our Wildbore. I remember seeing the Clerkenwell gentleman, but never put two and two together with him.

Regarding Wildbore the witness, his father committed suicide and he was raised by his uncle. His father's twin.

[Fiver]

Yes, one victim WAS identified, and that victim was identified conclusively on account of how the killer had not cared about removing bodily marks that were specific to the victim. Furthermore, he had wrapped parts of her in her own clothes, marked with a name and all, and easily traceable back to the victims identity.

The name marked on the clothes was L E Fisher, not Elizabeth Jackson. It took the police quite a bit of work to trace that back to Jackson. And some members of Jackson own family didn't think the body was hers.

Again, failure of the killer to hide one victim's identity does not prove the killer wasn't trying to hide the victims identities. We have to look at the whole picture which shws that none of the victims were identified by their heads, since none of the heads were found.

[rjpalmer]

Just to clarify, the "Mr Wildbore" mentioned in the article is very unlikely to be the same man

Yes--they aren't the same bloke. The member of the Clerkenwell Vestry is Thomas Wildbore, born in Leicestershire.

[The Rookie Detective]

you gotta be kidding me?!? wow nice find rd!!

i dont know if hes trying to leave a clue, but perhaps more of it was a mistake. as in he knew he was mentioned in the newspaper, so had it around his place to read what it said about him. and which when it came time to wrap up parcels of his handiwork and dispose, he used parts of that paper he had laying around.

Just to clarify, the "Mr Wildbore" mentioned in the article is very unlikely to be the same man, but seeing as the name is particularly rare, I find the surname of Wildbore appearing in the same newspaper that was found with the torso, that is then found by a man with the same surname rather coincidental.

It may be nothing more than that, but there's also another reason why I feel the link with Wildbore is interesting, and that's because there was another key publication printed on the same day that also has some potential relevance to Wildbore.

I will explain more as the thread progresses.


RD

[Abby Normal]

The reason I ask; is because a "Mr Wildbore" is mentioned in the article on the far right column entitled "Putting down Mr Ross"

Interestingly, this article appears on page 2 of a 4-page newspaper.

If you look at the date and name of the newspaper, you'll see it's from the London Echo, dated Friday 24th August 1888...

Pieces of this very same newspaper dated 24th August 1888, were found with the Whitehall torso.... discovered by the carpenter and workman on the site, Frederick Wildbore.

It does make me wonder whether he was trying to give us a little clue...

As I have stated earlier in this post, I believe that the killer murdered his victim on the 24th August, and this newspaper possibly holds the clue to the killer's identity/motivation/kill date etc...

In the same publication on page 1, there is a listing for the London theatre production of Jekyll and Hyde.

Very Apt

But there's another reason why the 24th August is significant...and I will reveal all shortly.


RD

you gotta be kidding me?!? wow nice find rd!!

i dont know if hes trying to leave a clue, but perhaps more of it was a mistake. as in he knew he was mentioned in the newspaper, so had it around his place to read what it said about him. and which when it came time to wrap up parcels of his handiwork and dispose, he used parts of that paper he had laying around.

[The Rookie Detective]

I īm not. But I understand fully why you are.

I am sending off our exchange with a small excerpt from a fictive play, involving a police sergeant and a PC.

Sergeant: Anything to report, Jenkins?

PC: Indeed, Sir!

Sergeant: So letīs hear it then.

PC: Well, Sir, do you remember that woman that was killed on our grounds last autumn?

Sergeant: Nope. Remind me, please.

PC: Well, she was attacked by some knife wielding maniac. He cut her throat, and cut her open from sternum to groin. Then he cut out her uterus from her. But before doing that, he had cut away her abdominal wall in large sections of flesh. He also stole her rings from her finger. A prostitute, she was.

Sergeant: Ah, her! Yes, I remember now. And?

PC: Well, the thing is, we today we found another woman dead. And would you believe it, she too had been attacked by a knifeman. And she had also been cut open from sternum to groin. And she had had her throat cut. And she had had her uterus cut out from her body. But before doing that, her killer cut away her abdominal wall in large flaps. And guess what? He had also stolen a ring from her finger. And she was a prostitute!

Sergeant: And, Jenkins? Where are you going with all of this?

PC: Well, Sir, I am thinking that we may perhaps have the same killer involved? The damage is the same in so very many ways, and it is a very, very rare murder type, so …

Sergeant: Nah, Jenkins. The damage the same, you say? You know, there are only so many ways one can cut a woman. And after all, whatīs a few random cuts?

PC: Brilliant, Sir! Tea?

++++++

There is a word for this kind of reasoning too, you know, Herlock. But I will honour your decision not to use it.

After all, we both know what it is.

Brilliant Christer!

Ha ha!

Is it wrong that I want to see what happens next?


RD

[Fisherman]

This is the usual type of comment that surfaces in any discussion with you. There is a word for it but I’ll refrain from using it. I have no interest in discussing anything with you. I have no interest in anything that you say. I’m done with this subject.

I īm not. But I understand fully why you are.

I am sending off our exchange with a small excerpt from a fictive play, involving a police sergeant and a PC.

Sergeant: Anything to report, Jenkins?

PC: Indeed, Sir!

Sergeant: So letīs hear it then.

PC: Well, Sir, do you remember that woman that was killed on our grounds last autumn?

Sergeant: Nope. Remind me, please.

PC: Well, she was attacked by some knife wielding maniac. He cut her throat, and cut her open from sternum to groin. Then he cut out her uterus from her. But before doing that, he had cut away her abdominal wall in large sections of flesh. He also stole her rings from her finger. A prostitute, she was.

Sergeant: Ah, her! Yes, I remember now. And?

PC: Well, the thing is, we today we found another woman dead. And would you believe it, she too had been attacked by a knifeman. And she had also been cut open from sternum to groin. And she had had her throat cut. And she had had her uterus cut out from her body. But before doing that, her killer cut away her abdominal wall in large flaps. And guess what? He had also stolen a ring from her finger. And she was a prostitute!

Sergeant: And, Jenkins? Where are you going with all of this?

PC: Well, Sir, I am thinking that we may perhaps have the same killer involved? The damage is the same in so very many ways, and it is a very, very rare murder type, so …

Sergeant: Nah, Jenkins. The damage the same, you say? You know, there are only so many ways one can cut a woman. And after all, whatīs a few random cuts?

PC: Brilliant, Sir! Tea?

++++++

There is a word for this kind of reasoning too, you know, Herlock. But I will honour your decision not to use it.

After all, we both know what it is.

[The Rookie Detective]

The reason I ask; is because a "Mr Wildbore" is mentioned in the article on the far right column entitled "Putting down Mr Ross"

Interestingly, this article appears on page 2 of a 4-page newspaper.

If you look at the date and name of the newspaper, you'll see it's from the London Echo, dated Friday 24th August 1888...

Pieces of this very same newspaper dated 24th August 1888, were found with the Whitehall torso.... discovered by the carpenter and workman on the site, Frederick Wildbore.

It does make me wonder whether he was trying to give us a little clue...

As I have stated earlier in this post, I believe that the killer murdered his victim on the 24th August, and this newspaper possibly holds the clue to the killer's identity/motivation/kill date etc...

In the same publication on page 1, there is a listing for the London theatre production of Jekyll and Hyde.

Very Apt

But there's another reason why the 24th August is significant...and I will reveal all shortly.


RD

[The Rookie Detective]

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.

Jerry, random question, but do we know if Wildbore had any connection to the Clerkenwell Vestry?

I have been trying to look for other Wildbore individuals to try and see how common the name was, or whether it was fairly rare.

RD

[Herlock Sholmes]

These are the ”few” cuts you call random. Anybody else, more versed in the fine art of reading and understanding information, will easily see that far from being random, they are cuts that represent repetitions within the series, some of them of an exceedingly rare kind. Which is why I am pointing to them. If they had been random, I had not done that. So you are, quite simply, not telling the truth here.

This is the usual type of comment that surfaces in any discussion with you. There is a word for it but I’ll refrain from using it. I have no interest in discussing anything with you. I have no interest in anything that you say. I’m done with this subject.

[Fisherman]

I’ve seen it and I dismiss it. You’ve made your point 6b massively more individualistic and significant than a few random cuts which you are trying desperately to link together so your post does nothing to tip the balance. The similarities are not particularly impressive but the differences are clear, obvious and beyond debate.

It is interesting that you should misuse the word ”desperately” in this manner. The ”few random cuts”, as you call them, are to begin with not few at all. We have:
- Three victims who have had their abdominal walls cut away, two Ripper victims and one Torso victim.
-Six victims who have suffered a cut all the way down from ribs to pubes, four from the Ripper sereis and two from the Torso series. If we add the fifteen inch cut to the abdomen of the Pinchin Street victim, we make it seven.
-Nine victims in total, who all had their throats severed - and Dr Phillips suggested in the Pinchin Street case, that the victim had her throat severed before she had the head cut off.
-Four victimes who had their uteri cut out from their bodies, three Ripper victims and one Torso victim.
-Two victims who had their hearts removed by the killer, one in each series. And there is ample reason to think that the Rainham victim suffered the exact same fate.

These are the ”few” cuts you call random. Anybody else, more versed in the fine art of reading and understanding information, will easily see that far from being random, they are cuts that represent repetitions within the series, some of them of an exceedingly rare kind. Which is why I am pointing to them. If they had been random, I had not done that. So you are, quite simply, not telling the truth here.

As for the differences, yes it is ”beyond debate” that they are in place. Then again, nobody has ever debated that they are. Whether they in any way point to two killers is another and much more dubious matter. As I have already shown you, they can very, very easily be explained within the premise of a single killer.

To have something that is both interesting and beyond debate, you need to turn to the proven similarities. And it is quite enough to look at the abdominal flaps. Once we know that they are represented in both series, we also know that based on that information only, the likelihood of a single killer is many, many times greater than the likelihood of two killers.

Debate away, by all means. But donīt think that ridiculously clumsy points like the one about ”a few random cuts” stands any more chance than a snowball in hell to make it out in one piece. Such antics will get the treatment they call for, I īm afraid.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’ve seen it and I dismiss it. You’ve made your point 6b massively more individualistic and significant than a few random cuts which you are trying desperately to link together so your post does nothing to tip the balance. The similarities are not particularly impressive but the differences are clear, obvious and beyond debate.

[Fisherman]

It’s a matter of pros and cons. The pros are debatable - cuts which might have resembled cuts in the ripper case. Any number of corpses dismembered or eviscerated are going to have similarities. The cons aren’t debatable - we can’t connect the torsos to each other, we can’t even prove that they were murders and we can see the glaring differences in the way that the ripper killed and left his victims compared with the torsos. It’s not close.

See my answer to Franks post, please!

[Fisherman]

We can fence on this but Id prefer to discuss other things if that suits ya.

I would welcome, embrace, cherish, holler about, and jubilantly accept any such suggestion, Michael.