Jack the Ripper & The Torso Murders

[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]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[The Rookie Detective]

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.

Based on the Torso Canonical 4 yes, but if we choose to include some similar cases, then your logic cannot be applied in the same way.

The Battersea Case of 1873, arguably the Torso Killers FIRST kill... A Head WAS found...minus a face, nose and chin I believe.

And if we also choose to include the Lambeth 1902 case; arguably the torso killer's LAST kill, then a Head WAS found with the body.

This means there are 2 known Torso cases nearly 30 years apart whereby the heads of the victims were found.

It depends if you're a Canonical 4 believer or whether you choose to consider whether there was a reason why in the Torso killer's first and last kills; the heads of the respective victims were found.

That strengthens the argument that the killer didn't deliberately INTEND to hide the heads at all, it's just that the heads from the majority of the victims were never found.

Just because a head isn't found, doesn't mean a killer has deliberately intended to hide the head, it could be down to circumstances that meant the head wasn't discovered.

One thing is for sure though; the killer made a mistake when Jackson was identified. The killer didn't want any of his victims IDENTIFIED but wasn't bothered which parts of his victims were FOUND.

That's the difference between IDENTIFICATION and DISCOVERY.
The killer displayed the 1902 torso in a pile
The killer displayed the Pinchin Street Torso under the archway.
The killer displayed various body parts by leaving them in places where it is certain that they either could or would be found.

If the killer truly wanted to hide anything then NONE of the body parts would have ever been found by anyone and the victims would have faded into history as missing persons.
But from the killers perspective; what the point in killing multiple victims over decades and for the effort to not be known or acknowledged.
A serial killer whose work is never known is about as useful as a chocolate teapot.

A serial killer isn't overly concerned about whether murders are attributed to them specifically; hence why many serial killers remain silent about their kills after they've been caught...
Their bigger concern is for a killer's victims to be known and remembered for being the unfortunate victims of a serial killer.
There's no gain or control post-kill if a victim becomes a missing person and nobody ever knows that a person has been murdered in the first place.
It's on this basis that the killer chose to have fun by depositing various body parts at different times from different victims; it was all part of the thrill of power and control that the killer would of had.

This is also what brings the Torso killer into line with the Ripper.

RD

[Fisherman]

Brilliant Christer!

Ha ha!

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


RD

Thank you, R D! As for what happens next, who can tell? If abdomens cut from sternum to groin, cut out uteri and abdominal walls cut away in large panes in two parallel murder series can be reduced to and described as "a few random cuts", I would not want to bet any money on what will follow.

It was all about a few haphazard slips of the knife?

One of the series was an alien attack from the planet Pluto?

What one doctor called the abdominal wall, another referred to as the left armpit, and so the series are not linked by this matter at all?

I am very much looking forward to where it is going, but at a total loss to make any informed guess about it. I mean, who can?

[FrankO]

Your post #186 is an excellent example of what I wrote in post #184, Christer. You give us your interpretation and evaluation of both similarities & differences, based upon your norms and values, books you’ve read, documentaries you’ve seen, experts/people you spoke to, experiences, sense of logic, gut feeling and whatnot. Just as Herlock has done.

Seeing that you’ve addressed this 'epistle' of a post to me, I suppose you want me to react to it in some way. So, I do have some observations, even if I know they aren’t going to change your mind in the least.

A dissimilarity can never prove two different perps, regardless of what that dissimilarity is.
...
Contrary to this, a similarity can and will often prove a single perpetrator.

I’m convinced neither of the two can prove anything, but I think you’re correct in that similarities are more likely to point to one perpetrator than differences are likely to point to different perpetrators operating independently of one another. But that’s as far as it can go, as far as I’m concerned.

Of course, the similarity in your example B more or less proves the two murders are connected. Unfortunately, we don’t see a similar similarity in our 2 series.

And that something will never be a dissimilarity, …

It’s good that this is your opinion or even conviction, but it’s ‘just’ your opinion/conviction. It just shows that you attach little or even no value/weight to differences. And with respect to the differences we can see between the series of Torso Man and the Ripper, it's funny to see - if you don't mind me putting it like that - that you attach a great deal of weight to the rarity of mutilation type murders, but seemingly not to the rarity of the change from relatively low risk & and low frequency murders to high risk & high frequency murders and then back again to low risk & low frequency murders.

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.

I must be missing something, because how do you arrive at 25 percent? Only one of Torso Man’s 7 victims was identified and she was not firmly linked to the East End (or did I miss something there, too?). Even if she was, that would only amount to some 14 per cent. And even if she was, that wouldn’t change a thing about the fact that Torso Man got rid of a great amount of body parts in the West End and he only dumped one of them close to Ripper territory. How would that be going up in flames? Could you please explain what you mean by that 25 per cent?

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.

Similarity? I think you’re stretching things a little too much, Christer. Fact is that the Ripper notched the vertebrae of Nichols, Chapman and Kelly, but didn’t decapitate them. So, that’s not a similarity, however close it seems.

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.

It’s a (near) fact that Torso Man had some private place from where he had to get rid of his victims, while the Ripper chose to take the risk of doing his thing out in the streets and leave his victims where he killed them. As facts, they don’t – POOF! – go away (with this I'm not saying that you claimed that the facts go away; I know you were talking about an argument based on these facts). An argument about locations, and frequency for that matter, remain a difference that cannot be swept under the carpet as easily as you seem to suggest.

The difference could, of course, be explained by one guy who just temporarily wanted ‘something else’ until it annoyed him or whatever, but it could just as easily be explained by two different blokes, having a similar sort of appetite. In fact, until that ‘something else’ is pinpointed and supported by some evidence, the ‘two bloke explanation’ even seems better.

I know it doesn’t to you, as you put an enormous amount of weight in, especially, the rarity of the similarities and as good as none in the differences, but that doesn’t mean your view has to be the correct one. As I said, it’s up to how each of us interprets and evaluates the similarities & differences for themselves.

The best,
Frank

[FrankO]

As to your post #190, I'd have written it as follows, to get a better perspective. The blue is what I added to your words.

We have:
- Three victims who have had their abdominal walls cut away, two Ripper (out of 4 or 5 = 40 or 50%) victims and one Torso victim (out of 7 = 14%).
-Six victims who have suffered a cut all the way down from ribs to pubes, four from the Ripper series (80 or 100%) and two from the Torso series (29%). If we add the fifteen inch cut to the abdomen of the Pinchin Street victim, we make it seven (43%). And we’d better add that 4 out of 4 or 5 Ripper victims suffered a cut that opened their abdomen (80 or 100%), while there were 1 (14%) or 2 (29%) Torso victims that suffered such a cut. Number 2 would be the Rainham victim, but it's unclear if the cut down her abdomen actually opened her belly. Seeing that it isn't mentioned by Hebbert or anywhere else, while it would have been something worth mentioning, it seems that the cut didn't open her belly.
-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. Of course, there’s no way of knowing whether either the Ripper tried to decapitate or Torso Man first just cut his victims’ throats before he decapitated them.
-Four victims who had their uteri cut out from their bodies, three Ripper victims (out of 4 or 5 = 60% or 75%) and one Torso victim (out of 7 = 14%).
-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. Of course, there’s no way of knowing whether Torso Man actively cut out the hearts or that it was just a by-product of dividing the upper torsos from the lower torsos. But if it wasn’t just a by-product, there’s no way of knowing that Torso Man took away or kept any of the organs that were never found. We do, however, know the Ripper took organs away with him from the crime scene.
Furthermore, the difference between what was done to Kelly and what was done to Jackson (besides dismemberment) is quite striking. Yes, the belly wall was cut away in a number of flaps, but that’s it, it ends there. Of course, any number of explanations may be offered for this difference, but it will never change the bare fact.

The best,
Frank

[Fisherman]

Your post #186 is an excellent example of what I wrote in post #184, Christer. You give us your interpretation and evaluation of both similarities & differences, based upon your norms and values, books you’ve read, documentaries you’ve seen, experts/people you spoke to, experiences, sense of logic, gut feeling and whatnot. Just as Herlock has done.

Seeing that you’ve addressed this 'epistle' of a post to me, I suppose you want me to react to it in some way. I do have some observations, even if I know they aren’t going to change your mind in the least.


I’m convinced neither of the two can prove anything, but I think you’re correct in that similarities are more likely to point to one perpetrator than differences are likely to point to different perpetrators operating independently of one another. But that’s as far as it can go, as far as I’m concerned.

If the similarity is of a rare enough kind, it will constitute absolute proof of a common originator. No dissimilarity can prove two different killers, though. Broadly, we agree, which is good.

Of course, the similarity in your example B more or less proves the two murders are connected. Unfortunately, we don’t see a similar similarity in our 2 series.

There we go: it would be proof. Of course, in our series we have other indicators. But they are very, very rare in some instances. The cut away abdominal wall, for example. You are welcome to provide examples of that practice, if you know of them, Frank. I think there is the odd example, but they are very, very few and extremely far between. It also applies that we have more pointers, like the cut from sternum to groin and the cut out uterus, both of which are aslo exceedingly rare things. And then there are more matters that are the same in both series.
Do you consider these matters even remotely likely to be purely coincidental? Or are you thinking along the copycat suggestions we sometimes get - even from the victorian police! Or do you look upon it in some other fashion?
What I am saying was never that we all must look upon this as a proven case of a single killer - although I think that in a court of law, the similarities would be enough to conclude a common killer. What I am instead saying, is that it is unforgiveable that the similarities have never been looked upon as telling us all that the LIKELY thing is a common killer. After that, it is all good and well to have all sorts of hunches about the matter. But as long as there is absolutely nothing to prevent the suggestion of a single killer being the correct one, I would say that ripperology has acted with no respect for the laws of logic in this matter for more than a hundred years.


It’s good that this is your opinion or even conviction, but it’s ‘just’ your opinion/conviction. It just shows that you attach little or even no value/weight to differences. And with respect to the differences we can see between the series of Torso Man and the Ripper, it's funny to see - if you don't mind me putting it like that - that you attach a great deal of weight to the rarity of mutilation type murders, but seemingly not to the rarity of the change from relatively low risk & and low frequency murders to high risk & high frequency murders and then back again to low risk & low frequency murders.


Again, that is because we should never ascribe the kind of value to dissimilarities that we do to similarities. As I showed in my example, five incredibly strong examples of dissimilarities are easily dissolved by just the one rare similarity. The other way, it comes nowhere near a changed verdict, as I also showed. It is all about knowing what weight these things represent on the scales, Frank. It MAY be wrong, but the facts recorded are very much in favour of a single killer. The dissimilarity of low risk/high risk murders may easily have a lot of other explanations than two killers. I have explained how that could work. It would not be any great coincidence or deviation at all if he did the Ripper murders for publicity, for example. It would be a perfectly logical reason. But we cannot dispel the similarities in the same fashion, because it requires that we must accept a large array of very unexpected coincidences going on. And while one is fine, two is less so. Three? Nope. Four? Five? Six? It just does n ot happen, Frank, although myriads of criminals have suggested these things. They are nevertheless convicted, and they should be.

I must be missing something, because how do you arrive at 25 percent? Only one of Torso Man’s 7 victims was identified and she was not firmly linked to the East End (or did I miss something there, too?). Even if she was, that would only amount to some 14 per cent. And even if she was, that wouldn’t change a thing about the fact that Torso Man got rid of a great amount of body parts in the West End and he only dumped one of them close to Ripper territory. How would that be going up in flames? Could you please explain what you mean by that 25 per cent?

When I write canonical victims, I mean the four victims of 1887-89, Rainham, Whitehall, Jackson and Pinchin. One out of four was found in the East End, and that makes for 25 per cent.


Similarity? I think you’re stretching things a little too much, Christer. Fact is that the Ripper notched the vertebrae of Nichols, Chapman and Kelly, but didn’t decapitate them. So, that’s not a similarity, however close it seems.

The similarity lies in how neither killer provided evidence of being able to decapitate by way of knife in 1888. Contrary to this, the Torso killer used a saw (but managed to do it by knife in September of 1889!), whereas the Ripper seemingly failed to take heads of by way of knife. And I actually think - but may of course be wrong - that there were signs of a possible effort to decapitate in the Eddowes case too.
So this is where something that has often been put forward as a dissimilarity ("Hey, Fisherman - the Torso killer took off heads, but the Ripper tried and failed, that MUST prove two killers!")
NOT so!
Ergo, I am not stretching anything at all, I am depicting the evidence.

It’s a (near) fact that Torso Man had some private place from where he had to get rid of his victims, while the Ripper chose to take the risk of doing his thing out in the streets and leave his victims where he killed them. As facts, they don’t – POOF! – go away. The matter of locations, and frequency for that matter, remain a difference that cannot be swept under the carpet as easily as you seem to suggest.

Only, Frank, I don't sweep anything under the carpet. Sweeping things under the carpet is hiding things. But I don't hide this matter at all, do I? I offer alternative explanations than the one that a killer who kills in a bolthole will not also kill in the open street. I have pointed to we may have a wish for publicity that he did. not get with the Torso murders, how he may have liked the extra thrill, how he may have been practically hindered on the Ripper murder days to use the bolthole and so forth. It has nothing to do with sweeping anything under the carpet, you know.
I will of course immediately admit that you have what looks like a good point, and I have nothing against admitting that I would not per se have expected the Torso killer to take his murders to the streets. But once I can see how the exceedingly rare things the Torso killer did to his victims hit the streets in the midst of his reign, I believe we have little choice but to start looking for reasons for why he did so. And, as you can see, I have no problems at all to find explanations for it that are both logical and well known within the ranks of serial killers.
I would say that thinking up alternative reasons for why both killers - out of sheer coincidence - cut out uteri, opened up abdomens from sternum to groin, stole rings from victims, cut away the abdominal walls from victims in large panes, were called skilled cutters, worked in the same town and in overlapping times, and targetted prostitutes, is a much harder exercise, and with much less of a chance to make a lasting impression on me with no evidence to support it. Two eviscerating serial killers who did the same extremely rare things to their victims, and who both stayed uncaught? What are the odds, Frank? one in a hundred? Or less?

The difference could, of course, be explained by one guy who just temporarily wanted ‘something else’ until it annoyed him or whatever, but it could just as easily be explained by two different blokes, having a similar sort of appetite. In fact, until that ‘something else’ is pinpointed and supported by some evidence, the ‘two bloke explanation’ even seems better.

It is the other way around, I'm afraid. Since we have the same rap sheet in terms of damage done on so many levels, it is evidence of two killers that is needed to change the picture. Otherwise, we must gobble down what I firmly believe would be the greatest set of weird coincidences in criminal history. If there is an even weirder set of coincidences anywhere, I still haven't heard of it. Have you?

I know it doesn’t to you, as you put an enormous amount of weight in, especially, the rarity of the similarities and as good as none in the differences, but that doesn’t mean your view has to be the correct one. As I said, it’s up to how each of us interprets and evaluates the similarities & differences for themselves.

The best,
Frank

But why would I put the differences on equal footing with the similarities, Frank? There are heaps of examples of serial killers who engaged in thrill killings to spice up their regular menus. There are examples of serial killer who scout the media to see if their deeds are given the space they hope for, and examples of those who changed their deeds in order to gain that publicity. And there are of course examples of killers who have killed both in safe surroundings and in risky locations. Given how many of these killers are opportunists, that should not surprise anybody.

But there are no examples of two eviscerating sexual serial killers who in the same area and time have produced a set of similarities of the very rare kind we have in these two series.

One thing is relatively common and should be entirely uncontroversial, while the other is unheard of. It requires comparing not apples to pears, but okapis to sunken ship wrecks, Frank. It is a non contest, in boxing terms.

[Fisherman]

As to your post #190, I'd have written it as follows, to get a better perspective. The blue is what I added to your words.

We have:
- Three victims who have had their abdominal walls cut away, two Ripper (out of 4 or 5 = 40 or 50%) victims and one Torso victim (out of 7 = 14%).
-Six victims who have suffered a cut all the way down from ribs to pubes, four from the Ripper series (80 or 100%) and two from the Torso series (29%). If we add the fifteen inch cut to the abdomen of the Pinchin Street victim, we make it seven (43%). And we’d better add that 4 out of 4 or 5 Ripper victims suffered a cut that opened their abdomen (80 or 100%), while there were 1 (14%) or 2 (29%) Torso victims that suffered such a cut. Number 2 would be the Rainham victim, but it's unclear if the cut down her abdomen actually opened her belly. Seeing that it isn't mentioned by Hebbert or anywhere else, while it would have been something worth mentioning, it seems that the cut didn't open her belly.
-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. Of course, there’s no way of knowing whether either the Ripper tried to decapitate or Torso Man first just cut his victims’ throats before he decapitated them.
-Four victims who had their uteri cut out from their bodies, three Ripper victims (out of 4 or 5 = 60% or 75%) and one Torso victim (out of 7 = 14%).
-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. Of course, there’s no way of knowing whether Torso Man actively cut out the hearts or that it was just a by-product of dividing the upper torsos from the lower torsos. But if it wasn’t just a by-product, there’s no way of knowing that Torso Man took away or kept any of the organs that were never found. We do, however, know the Ripper took organs away with him from the crime scene.
Furthermore, the difference between what was done to Kelly and what was done to Jackson (besides dismemberment) is quite striking. Yes, the belly wall was cut away in a number of flaps, but that’s it, it ends there. Of course, any number of explanations may be offered for this difference, but it will never change the bare fact.

The best,
Frank

Just a detail here, Frank. Jacksons heart and lungs were removed, as pointed out by the medical expertise. There is no mentioning of any accidental cutting, taking the heart out of the ribcage, nor the lungs. Somebody "removed" them, that is to say, cut them out. And we should also keep in mind that there was a cut all the way down from ribs to pubes to make use of when removing the heart.
It sounds like anything but an accident or collateral damage to me.
It also applies that in one of the cases, if I remember correctly, the cut was carried through the cartilage of the breast plate, creating an even larger hole to cut out the heart through, should that be the inclination of the killer.
Although I cannot conclusively prove that all of this has to do with such an inclination, you must admit that I have a damn good case!

There are also other sketchy things in your post, like how you say that one torso victim only had her uterus cut out. Apart from that being more than enough to make the comparison, it actually applies that the pelvic section was missing in the Whitehall case.
So how do we conclude that she did not have her uterus cut out, Frank? I sure as hell can't do that.

[rjpalmer]

but it could just as easily be explained by two different blokes, having a similar sort of appetite.

Hi Frank. A well-reasoned and fair-minded post, but can I just comment on the above statement?

Let's just remember--and I'm sure you don't disagree--that we might also be looking at two different blokes with a very different appetite.

Are you familiar with the Buck Ruxton case?

Here were two unidentified women, found scattered along a river and under a bridge, who had been horrifically mutilated with surgical precision. So horrific that the press called them the 'jigsaw' murders.

I have no doubt that had these murders happened in 1890 instead of the 1930s, or in London instead of in Lancaster, Christer and other 'torso' enthusiasts would have had them down as the work of Jack the Ripper.

They would have been wrong, though.

In reality, these were domestic murders. Ruxton had been irrationally jealous of his wife, killed her in a fit of rage, and then also killed the maid because she was a witness. He then cut up the bodies in an elaborate fashion, not for sexual reasons, but to hide their identities and for ease of transportation, hoping they wouldn't be traced back to him.

Ruxton had studied surgery in Calcutta and in London, and as in some of the London 'torso' cases, he had great skill in disarticulating joints. And since the police had grown clever between 1888 and the 1930s, he even went to further lengths, cutting off fingertips and breaking up the teeth.

Yet, as in the Elizabeth Jackson case, Ruxton was 'sloppy' despite all his efforts and intents---he wrapped up some of the bodies in a newspaper, not knowing it was a special edition that only circulated in certain parts of the country, which greatly reduced the police dragnet and ultimately led them to Lancaster.

It was his 'L. E. Fisher' moment.

That doesn't prove Ruxton wanted the bodies to be 'displayed' or didn't care if they were identified--he obviously did care. He just made a mistake, and fortunately for the cause of justice the bodies were discovered before animals and insects and Father Time could destroy what evidence remained.

Personally, the way I see it, there is simply no way to legitimately differentiate between a 'serialist' and a domestic murderer, just by looking at a dead body.

There might be remarkable similarities in two cases with entirely different motives. For whatever reason, a certain type of 'Ripperologist' thinks he has this ability, but no such ability truly exists.

To state the obvious, a cat and a cow both have four legs, but they are not the same animal. Some see cats wherever they look; I remain unconvinced.

Cheers.

[Fisherman]

Hi Frank. A well-reasoned and fair-minded post, but can I just comment on the above statement?

Let's just remember--and I'm sure you don't disagree--that we might also be looking at two different blokes with a very different appetite.

Are you familiar with the Buck Ruxton case?

Here were two unidentified women, found scattered along a river and under a bridge, who had been horrifically mutilated with surgical precision. So horrific that the press called them the 'jigsaw' murders.

I have no doubt that had these murders happened in 1890 instead of the 1930s, or in London instead of in Lancaster, Christer and other 'torso' enthusiasts would have had them down as the work of Jack the Ripper.

They would have been wrong, though.

In reality, these were domestic murders. Ruxton had been irrationally jealous of his wife, killed her in a fit of rage, and then also killed the maid because she was a witness. He then cut up the bodies in an elaborate fashion, not for sexual reasons, but to hide their identities and for ease of transportation, hoping they wouldn't be traced back to him.

Ruxton had studied surgery in Calcutta and in London, and as in some of the London 'torso' cases, he had great skill in disarticulating joints. And since the police had grown clever between 1888 and the 1930s, he even went to further lengths, cutting off fingertips and breaking up the teeth.

Yet, as in the Elizabeth Jackson case, Ruxton was 'sloppy' despite all his efforts and intents---he wrapped up some of the bodies in a newspaper, not knowing it was a special edition that only circulated in certain parts of the country, which greatly reduced the police dragnet and ultimately led them to Lancaster.

It was his 'L. E. Fisher' moment.

That doesn't prove Ruxton wanted the bodies to be 'displayed' or didn't care if they were identified--he obviously did care. He just made a mistake, and fortunately for the cause of justice the bodies were discovered before animals and insects and Father Time could destroy what evidence remained.

Personally, the way I see it, there is simply no way to legitimately differentiate between a 'serialist' and a domestic murderer, just by looking at a dead body.

There might be remarkable similarities in two cases with entirely different motives. For whatever reason, a certain type of 'Ripperologist' thinks he has this ability, but no such ability truly exists.

To state the obvious, a cat and a cow both have four legs, but they are not the same animal. Some see cats wherever they look; I remain unconvinced.

Cheers.

You really should not try and decide for me which calls I would make - or not. It is rude and dumb.

I have written about the Ruxton case for the Swedish audience and I am quite familiar with it.

You claim that you have no doubt that the murders would have made me reason that they belonged to the Torso murders if they had happened in 1890. Well, R J, the two bodies found had been skillfully dismembered and emptied of the viscera inside them, so if they had been dumped in London in 1890, why would I not reason that they could belong to the series of the Thames murders? Going on that info only?

The thing is though, that you had to move fifty years down the line and you had to move from London to Lancaster to find these murders. And THAT, R J, effectively tells the murders apart. It is a great reason to assume that they were not carried out by the same man who committed the Torso murders.

There are of course also differences involved that would raise an eyebrow or two - the careful removing of lips, teeth, fingerprints, eyes and scars and moles, for example, speaks a very clear language about how the victims could with great certainty be linked to the killer. If you remember, the Torso victims from 1887-89 had no such signs on their bodies. There was not a single effort found on the bodies in those cases that suggested a desire to hide the identities of the victims. So one of these killers was likely a killer of strangers, while the other was a domestic killer or something such, where a link existed.

That would certainly give me a pause, instead of leaping to the conclusion that they needed to be linked to the Thames Torso series.

There was also extensive stabbing in these two cases, just as it was evident that much blunt trauma had been used. That too would seem to me to be a major difference that needed to be listened to. The Torso killer, like the Ripper, seems to have been a killer who rather quickly dispatched his victims, so that he could turn to the cutting. No flurries of stabbing there.

All in all, R J, I would claim that far from being the pushover you suggest that I am, I would instead weigh up the matter carefully. My conclusion would perhaps be that we should be careful before opting for any path. Certainly, I would try and see if the method of disarticulation was the same as in the Torso murders, seven cuts and a twist, followed by a severing of the sinews. If the method was different - and it was NOT different inbetween the 1887-89 cases, it was the exact same throughout - I would come down on a decision of an unlikely connection. But I would be reluctant to rule it out entirely, on account of how examples of two sexual serial killers who work in the same place and time is something that criminal history has a very hard time finding examples of.

How lucky, then, that the Ruxton murders were nothing of the sort, being geographically and chronologically way off the Torso murders. And only used by you to make a false point.

Of course one can do what you do, if one has that kind of approach to ones fellow posters. One can say that if Richard Cottingham had carried out his murders in London of 1888, people would think that they may well be connected to the Ripper murders. And you know what? That would be testimony to the good sleuthing capacity of people, not an example of how they would thirst to jump on any murder they could to add to the tally of the "Torsoripper".

Are we clear on this now, R J?

PS. Comparing using a local newspaper to leaving named clothing on a victim is perhaps not the brightest point of your ripperological career. There is sloppy, and then there is sloppy. Just look at your post!

PPS. The next time you think yourself able to read my mind, why not just ask?

[Herlock Sholmes]

. But I would be reluctant to rule it out entirely, on account of how examples of two sexual serial killers who work in the same place and time is something that criminal history has a very hard time finding examples of.

Just as criminal history has yet to throw up a single example of a killer murdering a woman in the street on his way to work (and about 20 minutes before he was due to clock on) Or a single example of a person discovering a murdered woman in the street and turning out to have been the killer himself.

In the interest of balance of course.