Jack the Ripper & The Torso Murders

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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]

I have recognised them Fish. As being unconnected.

[Fisherman]

It’s my opinion (so no attempted ‘refutation’ is needed) that the alleged connection stems from a desire for something new. Perhaps a sense of inertia within the subject as a whole? It’s become a bit of a crusade. When cutting up bodies and hacking around inside it’s hardly remarkable that similarities occur; the argument isn’t an impressive one. So we have torsos that can’t even be connected to each other. We can’t even assume that they were actually murders. Then we have the huge differences that we are all aware of. The differences massively outweigh the supposed similarities. I don’t understand the ‘excitement’ over this topic. To me it’s as clear as day that they weren’t connected. But that’s just my opinion.

Nope. The connection stems from wanting to have something very old properly recognized.

[The Rookie Detective]

The head of one of Victorian London's "torso" victims was found and conclusively identified.

And lo and behold, hiding it had not been the act of a 'sexual' murderer--it was a standard 'disposal' case.

Skull found in David Attenborough's garden was murder victim Julia Martha Thomas | Daily Mail Online

Kate Webster murdered and then dismembered her landlady Julia Thomas in 1879 in order to dispose of the body. (She even briefly assumed her landlady's identity to sell her property, which was her undoing). Webster took particularly care with the head because the head was the Victorian equivalent of DNA.

Without out it--provided there were not highly distinguishable birth marks or a club foot, etc. --a body could not be identified.

That fundamental forensic reality should not be lightly dismissed. 'Hiding a body' didn't mean the same then as it means now.

An absolutely brilliant post.

This is a key example of the fact that not all the torso killings can be attributed to THE torso killer, ergo, of Whitehall and Pinchin Street fame.

I knew of this case of Webster, and of course the Barnes Mystery...but hadn't realized that this related the same case.
By highlighting the fact that a female killer chose to dismember another woman, bury the head to conceal her identity and then boil the victim's body and THEN dump the parts into the Thames, proves that anything is possible.

We know that she was hanged in 1879, so any torso killing after that weren't her.

But something I do find rather interesting is that when Kate was hanged, she had a young child, possibly a son.

The process of boiling the victims torso occurred in the 1902 Lambeth case.

Just wondering if the 2 are connected in some way.

I do have a working hypothesis on the 1902 case that I have been formulating and will attempt to post later today.

I believe the 1902 Lambeth case was also the Torso killer


RD

[The Rookie Detective]

It’s my opinion (so no attempted ‘refutation’ is needed) that the alleged connection stems from a desire for something new. Perhaps a sense of inertia within the subject as a whole? It’s become a bit of a crusade. When cutting up bodies and hacking around inside it’s hardly remarkable that similarities occur; the argument isn’t an impressive one. So we have torsos that can’t even be connected to each other. We can’t even assume that they were actually murders. Then we have the huge differences that we are all aware of. The differences massively outweigh the supposed similarities. I don’t understand the ‘excitement’ over this topic. To me it’s as clear as day that they weren’t connected. But that’s just my opinion.

Even though I disagree with you on this Herlock, I admire your views because every thread needs a balance for it to retain a degree of contextual integrity.
I find that the best threads are those that offer different views and ways of thinking, and that's by far the best way to raise open discussion.

I believe one of the main issues with both the Ripper and Torso series respectively, is that nobody can be sure the correct number of victims and/or the correct parameters of time relating to the killer/s first and last kills.

It's the same concept as trying to statistically analyse the will of the people through democratic voting, but only half the people vote and so the full true picture is never realised and considered.

As they say...

"72% of all statistics are completely made up."

That is Ripperology in a nutshell.

RD

[Herlock Sholmes]

It’s my opinion (so no attempted ‘refutation’ is needed) that the alleged connection stems from a desire for something new. Perhaps a sense of inertia within the subject as a whole? It’s become a bit of a crusade. When cutting up bodies and hacking around inside it’s hardly remarkable that similarities occur; the argument isn’t an impressive one. So we have torsos that can’t even be connected to each other. We can’t even assume that they were actually murders. Then we have the huge differences that we are all aware of. The differences massively outweigh the supposed similarities. I don’t understand the ‘excitement’ over this topic. To me it’s as clear as day that they weren’t connected. But that’s just my opinion.

[The Rookie Detective]

Wasn't the arch at Pinchin Street fairly recent construction? Or am I misremembering?

Yes, fairly recently. I am not sure of the exact time frame, but it was noted in multiple newspapers that the archway had been recently constructed.

I believe this is relevant.


RD

[Fisherman]

Today, 05:17 PM
Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
There can be no fruitful investigative effort if the victim cannot be linked to the killer.

Ripperologists, to name one group, have been presuming its acceptable for over 135 years Fish.

And still, just as I say, there can be no fruitful investigative effort if the victim cannot be linked to the killer. How would that work, Michael? Why would a killer of strangers, who had no link at all to his victim, fear getting caught by way of an identification of that victim? Please explain!

And why would we predispose that the Ripper was satisfied with five minutes with a victim? Since he did did not get around to eviscerating two of the canonical ones, I think we can bet that he was not satisfied at all.

There is the evidence that validates my comment above. The Canonical Group is as it infers, a collective agreement, not an established "series". The murder that did not show evidence of evisceration or any mutilation beyond a single cut, Liz Stride, is the only one that matches that criteria. And it seems by the evidence in that murder that a single cut is all that was intended. So stating that the one murder in the "Canonical" Group is evidence of his inability to complete his desires is, at best, a guess. Guessing is fine, but if you intend to have your guesses find "Canonical" agreement with others, some actual evidence needs to be presented. Presumptions and guesses have gone as far as they can go I believe without something substantial to support them.

Your take that the killer wanted just the one cut to Strides neck is every bit as much a guess as is my view (the one favored by most ripperologists) that he was interrupted. So yes, by all means, bring on your evidence!

Ergo, if he was also the torso killer, then he was looking for another type of gratification than extended time with the victims in the Ripper series. It could be about a heightened public interest, a wish for thrill killing or even practical reasons. The point being that we donīt know, and so we cannot tell the series apart by way of second guessing the psychological implications of the murders.

I know that it seems perfectly rational to you to suggest that there is little difference between someone who is focused on murder and abdominal mutilation with short duration public events, and someone who dismembers in secret with untold amounts of time with the victims remains, but I would disagree with that.

Please do. It alters absolutely nothing for me.

You have used an as yet uproven theory of a connected number of murders to begin this, and then you have demonstrably different acts which you seek to marry to the same individual killer, based on the idea that we dont know anything about the killers motivations or psychology so we cant assume they are disparate events. In all, its just you guessing. I for one would be pleased if you would remember that sand foundation you are building on.

Then what shall we call your take, Michael? Air? Farts? Laughing gas? Surely not "proven", eh?

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.
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.

But I can wait.

[Michael W Richards]

There can be no fruitful investigative effort if the victim cannot be linked to the killer.

Ripperologists, to name one group, have been presuming its acceptable for over 135 years Fish.

And why would we predispose that the Ripper was satisfied with five minutes with a victim? Since he did did not get around to eviscerating two of the canonical ones, I think we can bet that he was not satisfied at all.

There is the evidence that validates my comment above. The Canonical Group is as it infers, a collective agreement, not an established "series". The murder that did not show evidence of evisceration or any mutilation beyond a single cut, Liz Stride, is the only one that matches that criteria. And it seems by the evidence in that murder that a single cut is all that was intended. So stating that the one murder in the "Canonical" Group is evidence of his inability to complete his desires is, at best, a guess. Guessing is fine, but if you intend to have your guesses find "Canonical" agreement with others, some actual evidence needs to be presented. Presumptions and guesses have gone as far as they can go I believe without something substantial to support them.

Ergo, if he was also the torso killer, then he was looking for another type of gratification than extended time with the victims in the Ripper series. It could be about a heightened public interest, a wish for thrill killing or even practical reasons. The point being that we donīt know, and so we cannot tell the series apart by way of second guessing the psychological implications of the murders.

I know that it seems perfectly rational to you to suggest that there is little difference between someone who is focused on murder and abdominal mutilation with short duration public events, and someone who dismembers in secret with untold amounts of time with the victims remains, but I would disagree with that.

You have used an as yet uproven theory of a connected number of murders to begin this, and then you have demonstrably different acts which you seek to marry to the same individual killer, based on the idea that we dont know anything about the killers motivations or psychology so we cant assume they are disparate events. In all, its just you guessing. I for one would be pleased if you would remember that sand foundation you are building on.

[Fisherman]

The killer's failure to conceal the identity of one victim is not proof that they did not try to hide the victim's identity.

And missing parts from a body is not proof of a desire to hide the identity of the victim.

Only one victim was identified by a scar on their hand, and not all of Elizabeth Jackson's family thought the body was her.

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.

More victims had marks that could have given their identities away, so we may see that the killer did not take even basic precautions to hide the identities of his victims. Furthermore, since we know that the one identified victim was a prostitute, we are dealing with the distinct possibility that the killer targetted unfortunates and that there was never any risk in the first place that the identities of his victims would lead the police to his treshold.

[Fisherman]

Based on that reasoning there can be no fruitful investigation of any of the Ripper or Torso killings, since no one can be linked to any of them or any of the other unsolved murders of the time. Not one shred of forensics or eyewitness testimony points to anyone in any of these cases.

You may have missed it, but the sentence you quoted me on was of a general nature.