What did Jack make of the Torso Killer?

[Harry D]

What do you reckon our mate Jack thought of the nefarious Thames Torso Killer? Do you think he would've respected his work and admired him? Conversely, Jack could've viewed him as an unwanted competitor and been jealous of the facility the Thames Torso Killer possessed to utterly destroy his victims. Or it could've been that Jack was so wrapped up in his own demented bubble, that he gave the Torso Killer a short shrift. Depending on how much publicity it received, is this something Jack would've known about in the first place?

I know this is all guesswork, since we have no idea if Jack knew of the Thames Torso Killer or the idiosyncrasies of his personality, but that's the nature of the beast that is Ripperology, so indulge me.

[RockySullivan]

I find it hard to believe the Ripper & Torso aren't one in the Same. I just read that the uterus was removed from the Whitehall torso is this accurate?

[John Wheat]

I think Jack probably didn't pay that much attention to the Torso Killer. I would guess Jack was probably too wrapped up in his own demented bubble. I expect the Torso Killer was quite pleased about Jack having someone who the Police paid attention too probably meant he could go about his business with less heat on him.

[Hatchett]

Hi,

I think a strange thing is that if the Torso Killer was someone different to the Ripper, that makes two actual working serial killers and one who went on to become a serial killer, all killing or working at the same time, in reasonably the same or nearby areas. I am adding Chapman as the dormant killer of course.

Another alternative could be that they were all the same man.

Best wishes.

[sdreid]

I would suppose that Jack took pleasure in being given credit, by some, for one or more of the Torso Killer's victims.

[RockySullivan]

I find it somewhat of an absurd notion that two serial killers were targeting woman (both focused on prostitutes) and that two seperate killers where removing the uterus from victims in the same year. It's absolutely preposterous in my opinion and it's obvious to me torso was the ripper. The Whitehall torso where the uterus was removed. Pretty specific!

[SirJohnFalstaff]

I find it somewhat of an absurd notion that two serial killers were targeting woman (both focused on prostitutes) and that two seperate killers where removing the uterus from victims in the same year. It's absolutely preposterous in my opinion and it's obvious to me torso was the ripper. The Whitehall torso where the uterus was removed. Pretty specific!

My suggestion is, if, and it's a big if, JtR was also the torso killer, there was something particular about those women. Possibly, he knew them personally, and couldn't risk having their body identified. That of course, brings us back to Jack being some mastermind, which I don't agree with.

[Hatchett]

Hi,

Maybe with the Torso murders he had some way of transporting the corpses, or killed them in his room?

Just a thought.

[Lechmere]

I think there is a good chance that Jack the Ripper looked in the mirror and said 'Hello Thames Torso Killer'.

And yes the differences in his treatment of the bodies after death may be explained by the location where they were killed - i.e. in a secure place that he had control over, rather than in a public place or someone else's abode.
Disposal then becomes an issue and he would have to have a means of conveyance.

[RockySullivan]

Hi,

Maybe with the Torso murders he had some way of transporting the corpses, or killed them in his room?

Just a thought.

Yes perhaps "no not tonight" meant no I don't want to go there. Transporting the bodies raises an interesting question. How did the torso killer transport the torsos which were it appears often wrapped in coats? Did he he walk around carring parts wrapped up?

[Lechmere]

Horse and cart?

[Defective Detective]

I don't believe they were one in the same, but I also think that the Thames Torso Murderer may not have been a serial killer in the strictest sense of the term: the method of disposal - a part here, a part there - suggests a degree of organization common to serial killers now but one which I think may have been materially impossible for a solo killer in 1888.

The fact that a horse and buggy were apparently used to transport some of the torsos suggests - does not prove to my mind but only suggests - more than one person may have been involved. And the fact that one of the torsos was placed in the foundation of the future police headquarters, as it was under construction, to my mind suggests whoever did it was taunting the police.

Taken together, I incline more to view the Thames Torso Murders as the result of some form of organized crime; perhaps a pimp disposing of wayward prostitutes under his 'protection', or even a white slavery ring capturing prostitutes to sell overseas and disposing of the troublesome ones. Any mutilations, the missing uteri, the missing fetuses, etc. could just as easily be curiosity on the part of the person doing the disposing. I think there are qualitative differences between the kind of person or persons doing these murders and the Whitechapel villain. I do not think the latter could have been satisfied with the more generic style of disposal of the Torso victims.

In other words, I think the "Ripper murders" were driven by subjective psychological motivations, where the Thames Torso murders may have been driven by concerns of profit.

If I'm right, the Thames Torso murderer would have been grateful to "Jack The Ripper", as others have said, for taking the head off him; where the Ripper may not even have been aware these other killings existed.

[Harry D]

Hello, DD.

A very well-written post and I agree with your sentiments. I certainly get more of an 'organized crime' feel from the Thames Torso Killer than an actual serial killing per se.

Any mutilations, the missing uteri, the missing fetuses, etc. could just as easily be curiosity on the part of the person doing the disposing.

I would proffer two possibilities here:
1) They thought by removing body parts it would lead the mislead the authorities into taking this for a Ripper crime.
2) Or he/they were harvesting internal organs, which out of the two, is what I'd be more likely to go with.

The Thames Torso Killer had the means and logistics for butchering his victims and disposing of them, whereas Jack mainly operated in public places within a localized area and was sometimes minutes from being caught. Nothing is black & white here, however. If they were one and the same, it's possible that, being an opportunistic killer, he couldn't resist the compulsion to murder Nichols, Chapman et al. when the chance presented itself. Or that he took to 'ripping' in Whitechapel as some kind of thrill kill? Perhaps he got some kind of kick out of living on the edge and decided to liven things up a bit?

[Fisherman]

he/they were harvesting internal organs, which out of the two, is what I'd be more likely to go with.

How do you explain that the Pinchin Street torso had her organs intact, in such a case?
How do you explain that the Rainham torso had her organs intact, in such a case?
Why would the killer put Jacksonīs opened-up uterus in a package and throw it in the Thames?

Apart from the missing uterus in the Whitehall case and the "returned" uterus of Elizabeth Jackson, which specific organs is it you think of as having been "harvested"?

The best,
Fisherman

[SirJohnFalstaff]

Silly question: how do we know there was a killer?

Speaking specifically about the Whitehall corpse.


No cause of death were found, except that drowning and asphyxiation were ruled out.