Jack the Ripper & The Torso Murders

[Herlock Sholmes]

I have recognised them Fish. As being unconnected.

[Fisherman]

I have recognised them Fish. As being unconnected.

You canīt, though. All you can do is to hypothesize that they are unconnected. And going on how you suggest that the connection I and others make is all led on by nothing but a desire for something new, I really do not think much of your hypothesizing. I tend to look at such posts as sadly uninformed. Horses led to water and all that.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

[FrankO]

Or in short, there are similarities & differences, but no proof of anything. The similarities connect the series. It's up to interpretation and evaluation of both similarities & differences wehther one decides if there was one perpetrator or more.

Cheers,
Frank

[Michael W Richards]

Today, 05:17 PM

There is, as I can remind you, no demand from the administrators of these boards to only write about proven stuff. The one way forward when things cannot be proven, is to suggest different scenarios and to work from that. The reason I connect the series is the large amount of similarities, some of which are rare in the extreme. If they are not connected, they are instead a mind boggling collection of astounding coincidences, cut open abdomens, excised uteri and hearts, removed abdominal walls, stolen rings and all.

The rare or unique aspect of some alledged Ripper murders is the characteristic of abdominal mutilation. The public venues aside, the focus and intent shown by Annie Chapmans killer as determined by the physician who examined her was specific. He was also quick. From Cadosche to Davis isnt that long a period of time.

In your view its quite probable such a killer dabbles in all sorts of mischief despite the very specific nature and rare features shown in some Ripper cases? Quiet the gruesome renaissance man. But as Im sure you know, historically he would be without precedent, thereby making him the least probable answer. Horse vs Unicorn?

My view is, as far as I can tell, gaining ground every day. Fifteen years ago, making the suggestion I make would get you laughed off the boards. A few decades back, this discussion could not have been had. That is a very, very different matter today, lamented by some but welcomed by others.
It is reminiscent of the dinosaurs in a funny way. They ruled the earth until they got extinguished. My humble guess is that you are about to join that self same group, although it will take time.

I hate to break it to you but if you review all the discussions that youve had concerning this theory of yours I doubt what youd find is anything resembling a blooming pro-theory consensus. I think you are probably right, 15 years ago people would have posted one response and moved on. I first joined in 2005 and I can say for sure that would have been the case back then. Very, very different today? Not so much Fish. If youll recall that Man and Dinosaur co-existed in the past, and the dinos won most of the fights. Helps to have some "weight" behind your argument.

But I can wait.

Hey, patience is a virtue. Good on ya. But I wonder what good patience is to a man who cannot accept that flood waters are about to sweep him away.

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

[Fisherman]

Or in short, there are similarities & differences, but no proof of anything. The similarities connect the series. It's up to interpretation and evaluation of both similarities & differences wehther one decides if there was one perpetrator or more.

Cheers,
Frank

Which is why we need to remind ourselves of the respective value of similarities and differences when we do that interpretation and evaluation! Herlock, in his post 183, wrongly claims that "the cons aren īt debatable" - in fact, it is the other way around, technically speaking. They are totally debatable and MUST be debated. And I will demonstrate why this is so. I have done it before, but it seems not everybody has taken stock of this exercise.

So, lets make up two sets of two murders each, and see what the built in similarities and differences can tell us.

A. First, we have series with five similarities and one dissimilarity:

1. Both victims are found in the same area and at general time period.
2. Both victims have had their abdomens cut open.
3. Both victims have been shot to death.
4. Both victims have gun powder residue on their temples, showing that they have been killed execution style, at very close range.
5. Both victims are members of the same family.
6. One of the victims is male, the other female.

The difference in sex will normally be regarded as crucial, so it is a big difference. However, the many similarities are overwhelmingly clear and there can be little doubt that these two victims have been killed by the same person or persons. Although the police would always say that they leave all avenues of research open, nobody would reason in any other way than these victims having fallen prey to the same killer or killers.

B. Now, we compare to a case with five differences and only one similarity:

1. The victims are one teenage girl and one ninety year old man.
2. The girl is killed by a gunshot, and the man is poisoned.
3. The girl is killed in Canada and the man in Mongolia.
4. The girl is killed in 2022, while the man is killed in 1998.
5. The girl is killed in a city apartment in Toronto, while the man is killed out in the open Mongolian landscape, far from civilization.
6. Both the girl and the man are found with the letter combination T-D-A-O-T D written in ink on their foreheads.

In spite of the many extreme differences, these two murders must and will be regarded as at least clearly linked to each other. If the information about the letters on the forehead never reached beyond the police, we can even conclude that we are dealing with the same killer or killers in both cases.

A dissimilarity can never prove two different perps, regardless of what that dissimilarity is. It is impossible, regardless of what that dissimilarity is. Some will say that if two murders are perpetrated far apart but at the same time, then we must have two different killers. That is true, but "at the same time" is not a dissimilarity, it is a similarity.

Contrary to this, a similarity can and will often prove a single perpetrator. It of course depends on the character of the similarity, but generally speaking, the rarer it is, the more certain we may be of a single perpetrator. And the more similarities there are, the more certain we may be of a single perp. If we have a combination of many similarities, some or all of them of a very rare kind, it is a done deal that a single killer must be the working premise, unless there is something to weigh the similarities up. And that something will never be a dissimilarity, but instead something like how it can be proven that one person is guilty of a murder in the first series, but has an alibi for the murders in the second series.

True to the above, the cons Herlock mentions in his post does nothing at all to clear away the possibility of a single killer. First, we CAN connect the torsos to each other, so Herlock is wrong there. They were connected by Charles Hebbert on account of how they were in just about every part exactly the same in terms of damage to the bodies. Crucially, it has nothing to do with disabling a common Ripper and Torso killer.
His next point is that we can't prove that the torso murders were murders, but that too means nothing for whether or not the two series were connected or not, until Herlock - or anybody else - can produce conclusive proof that they were NOT murders. Finally, Herlock tells us that the differences are conclusive in telling us that the series are unconnected. Which is when I direct him to the examples above - it is never about the differences, as long as there are similarities of an exceedingly rare kind. Plus, of course, much of the reasoning about dissimilarities are about how the Torso killer was a Westender - but that point goes up in flames when we see how 25 per cent of the canonical victims is firmly linked to the East End. Moreover, it was thought that one victim of the four was carried manually to the dumping site, implicating that this victim was dumped not far from where the killer lived or had a bolthole, and that victim was the Pinchin Street victim, where sack imprints were found on the dumped torso. It is also reasoned that the cutting was different and of varying skill - a point that dissolves when we acknowledge that the deeds were very likely carried out under very different conditions in terms of light, time access and so forth. A third point is that one killer dismembered, and the other did not. But we know that there was seemingly an effort to decapitate Kelly, and that the killer failed to do so by way of knife. And we also know that Hebbert informs us that the Torso killer only advanced to being able to decapitate by way of knife in September of 1889, making this matter a similarity between the series, not a dissimilarity. Herlock then tries the angle that the killers left their victims in different locations, but that can be readily explained by how the Torso killer likely killed in a site to which he could be linked and so he MUST dispose of his bodies by dumping them away from that site, whereas the Ripper murders demanded no such thing at all. And POOF! goes that argument. Differing circumstances will very likely result in differing results.

What we are left with is therefore a simple choice: Are evisceration victims in the same town and general time and with very rare damage done to their bodies more likely to be victims of one killer or two or more killers?
That is the one question we need to answer. Nothing else.

To be frank, it is a very, very easy question. And that brings us to how Herlock claims that the pros in these cases are debatable: We don't know that the damage looked alike, he says, and every dismembered and eviscerated victim will look like the next, apparently.
As we all understand, that is plain wrong. These murders involved cuts from sternum to groin, and the cuts made in evisceration murders may be of any size - and in any place of the torso - allowing for extracting organs.
And it is of course very odd to claim that all large flaps of abdominal wall flesh removed will look alike - it is the singular fact that removing abdominal walls as such is rarer than hens teeth that matters here. And that means that even if the flaps from Kelly, Chapman and Jackson were not all of the exact same size and shape, it is not in any shape or form likely to be an indication of different killers! The mere suggestion would be senseless. The rarity stipulates that a common killer must be then presumption, and after that, it takes clear an unambiguous evidence to disprove it.

[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.

[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!

[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]

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]

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.

[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

[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

[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]

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