Jack and the Thames Torso Murders: A New Ripper?

[Abby Normal]

You're ignoring the specifics and over-generalising.
Eh? Oh, you mean they lived in London. Yes, at opposite ends of the city, where they also died.
The torso murders ran for over a decade. What we have here is an overlap, not two co-terminous series of crimes.
As are many victims of prostitute killers. You (rightly) noted that prostitutes were often murder victims, so why not this dismiss this criterion for similar reasons?
Jackson was extreme overkill? No - Kelly was extreme overkill; Jackson got off lightly.

Hi Sam

You're ignoring the specifics and over-generalising.

i dont know removing the heart, cutting away abdomin in sections etc. seem pretty darn specific to me.

Eh? Oh, you mean they lived in London. Yes, at opposite ends of the city, where they also died.

Jackson was last heard of sleeping rough on the embankment, but we don't know exactly where she lived-any way hardly at opposite ends of the city, either way though its moot because we don't know where torsoman picked her up-may well have been WC for all we know.

but triple set moot point any way because yes same city-not like one was in London and the other was in Liverpool.

The torso murders ran for over a decade. What we have here is an overlap, not two co-terminous series of crimes.

did you mean to say contemperous? because actually they were both "co-terminous"-both series ended at the same time-which is a much bigger coincidence then any overlap of the series.

actually I think this point gets overlooked alot by the seperate series crowd. ive never seen a good explanation for it, or even an attempt for that matter.

As are many victims of prostitute killers. You (rightly) noted that prostitutes were often murder victims, so why not this dismiss this criterion for similar reasons?

simply because its same victimology. theres a boatload of different victimology. both here targeted youngish female prostitutes.

if torsoman targeted a different victim type, it would be game over, for me anyway.

Jackson was extreme overkill? No - Kelly was extreme overkill; Jackson got off lightly.

you've got to be kidding with this one, sam

[Sam Flynn]

Uterus taken away. Very, very unusual.

Heart taken away. Very, very unusual.

Cut from sternum to groin. Very unusual.

Abdominal wall removed in flaps. Almost unheard of.

You're ignoring the specifics and over-generalising.

Londoners, both of them.

Eh? Oh, you mean they lived in London. Yes, at opposite ends of the city, where they also died.

Killed within a period of eight months.

The torso murders ran for over a decade. What we have here is an overlap, not two co-terminous series of crimes.

Both young women.

As are many victims of prostitute killers. You (rightly) noted that prostitutes were often murder victims, so why not this dismiss this criterion for similar reasons?

Extreme overkill. Rare.

Jackson was extreme overkill? No - Kelly was extreme overkill; Jackson got off lightly.

[Abby Normal]

Similarities:

Uterus taken away. Very, very unusual.

Heart taken away. Very, very unusual.

Cut from sternum to groin. Very unusual.

Abdominal wall removed in flaps. Almost unheard of.

Cut by knife. Common.

Extreme overkill. Rare.

Prostitutes, both of them. Common.

Londoners, both of them.

Killed within a period of eight months.

Both young women.

This cannot be explained away, īm afraid, and it takes precedence over the dissimilarities, hands down. Any police force who did not work from the notion of a single killer when damage like this is involved would be beyond irreparably stupid.

aaaaaand this is why I favor they were the same man. there are differences of course, as highlighted by JohnGs good post-but the similarities are more, and more striking-more RARE similarities than differences IMHO.

[Abby Normal]

Unfortunately didn't think my last post was hostile! It certainly wasn't intended to be, although as we take diametrically opposed views there is bound to be a large degree of disagreement.

Firstly, an overview. Serial killers can sometimes elaborate or evolve their ritualistic behaviour. For instance, Schlesinger refers to an offender who began with post mortem mutilation and progressed to dismemberment: http://jaapl.org/content/38/2/239.long However, I'm not aware of any cases where a serial killer as alternated between dismemberment and JtR style street killing. In fact, are there any examples of an offender who has alternated between dismemberment and any other kind of violent murder?

However, things are far more complicated than that. For instance, the Torso Perpetrator was very consistent in his ritualistic behaviour, and these rituals differed substantially from what we observe in the C5 murders.

Thus, the Torso perpetrator decapitated his victims, JtR didn't. This may have been ritualistic, or practical, I.e. to prevent identification. In any event, this "signature" is absent in all of the C5 cases, even though in Kelly's case at least, he presumably had more than enough time. This suggests to me that "JtR" lacked either the skill or the inclination to perform such an act.

The Torso victims were all stored: in the case of the Whitehall victim for up to 8 weeks, and Jackson for several days: she was last seen on the 31st May, but her remains were not discovered until 4th June. This ritual clearly meant something to the Torso perpetrator, considering the risk he must have been taking in not disposing of the remains straight away but clearly was not a consideration for JtR.

The Torso perpetrator scattered body parts all over London, like "pieces of a puzzle". JtR didn't, even though he had the perfect opportunity with Kelly, considering the number of body parts removed.

The Torso perpetrator either abducted his victims, and took them to his dismemberment site, or inveigled them. JtR didn't.

The Torso perpetrator dismembered all of his victims. JtR dismembered none of his, even though Kelly afforded him the perfect opportunity.

Geographical considerations. JtR operated within a remarkably small area, I.e. Whitechapel/Spitalfields. For instance, from Flower and Dean Street, all of the murder sites are within a range of 0.6 miles, with the exception of Mitre Square, which was 1.1 miles away. In contrast, Torso operated all over London: I have already referred to the fact that Jackson's remains were scattered over a wide area, and Rainham is 27 miles from Whitechapel.

What can we deduce from this? It is submitted that JtR lacked transport, or/and was psychologically unwilling to expand his range. It also suggests to me that JtR was a poor man-like the bulk of Whitechapel residents-who simply couldn't afford the extravagance of, say, a horse and cart, let alone stabling costs, feeding of animal, vet fees etc.

In contrast, Torso must have been a much better off perpetrator, someone with the income to afford transport, as well as a bolt-hole/dismemberment site.

Hi John
this is a good post- I disagree with the basic premise, but good points nonetheless.

[Sam Flynn]

Jackson's heart was missing.

And both her lungs in their entirety, let's not forget.

Good posts, John.

[Fisherman]

Were JtR murders as "theatrical as Torso's, as you suggest? In my ipioon, yes, but in a fundamentally different way.

It is a question of displaying the handiwork of a killer in both series. It is about producing murders that evoke maximum press interest and public outrage in both series, whether consciously or not. Most killers have no such interests at all, and so this is yet another striking similarity of many.

[Fisherman]

Differences between Jackson and Kelly.

Jackson was dismembered, Kelly wasn't.

Jackson was decapitated, Kelly wasn't.

Kelly was killed in situ, Jackson wasn't.

Jackson's body parts were scattered over a wide area. Kelly's weren't scattered at all.

Jackson's body parts were bundled up into parcels. Kelly's weren't.

Jackson had two long vertical strips of skin removed from the abdominal wall, which were then parcelled up with other body parts. Kelly didn't.

Kelly was killed in a frenzy, by a perpetrator exhibiting no skill whatsoever. Jackson wasn't: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...0monro&f=false

Jackson's heart was missing. In respect of Kelly this is a contentious point.

Jackson was pregnant,and the foetus was missing, suggesting this was a main focal point for Torso, which may partially explain the abdominal wall injuries: see, for example, Debra's Gray's Anatomy theory. Kelly wasn't..

Similarities:

Uterus taken away. Very, very unusual.

Heart taken away. Very, very unusual.

Cut from sternum to groin. Very unusual.

Abdominal wall removed in flaps. Almost unheard of.

Cut by knife. Common.

Extreme overkill. Rare.

Prostitutes, both of them. Common.

Londoners, both of them.

Killed within a period of eight months.

Both young women.

This cannot be explained away, īm afraid, and it takes precedence over the dissimilarities, hands down. Any police force who did not work from the notion of a single killer when damage like this is involved would be beyond irreparably stupid.

[Fisherman]

John G:

However, things are far more complicated than that. For instance, the Torso Perpetrator was very consistent in his ritualistic behaviour, and these rituals differed substantially from what we observe in the C5 murders.

So which are his rituals, John? Mind you, its good that you have finally dumped the idea that these were all practical dismemberments!

Thus, the Torso perpetrator decapitated his victims, JtR didn't. This may have been ritualistic, or practical, I.e. to prevent identification. In any event, this "signature" is absent in all of the C5 cases, even though in Kelly's case at least, he presumably had more than enough time. This suggests to me that "JtR" lacked either the skill or the inclination to perform such an act.

If the torso killer needed to dismember to dump, then that is the whole explanation, is it not? Why on earth would the Ripper decapitate, if it was not something he felt compelled to do for reasons of urge or ritual? But this has been said a thousand times! Why is it not enough?

The Torso victims were all stored: in the case of the Whitehall victim for up to 8 weeks, and Jackson for several days: she was last seen on the 31st May, but her remains were not discovered until 4th June. This ritual clearly meant something to the Torso perpetrator, considering the risk he must have been taking in not disposing of the remains straight away but clearly was not a consideration for JtR.

No, not all torso victims were stored. The 1873 victim was not. And you must realize that if the killer LIKED his bodies and/or body parts, then the Ripper COULD NOT store his victims, whereas the torso killer could. Very uncomplicated, therefore. A problem only arises if we conclude that there was an actual urge to stor bodies that could not be quenched, in which case the Ripper would have needed to carry his victims into some storage facility and leave them there. Does that sound likely to you? If he could store, he would store sometimes, but when he couldn't, he didn't. How about that?

The Torso perpetrator scattered body parts all over London, like "pieces of a puzzle". JtR didn't, even though he had the perfect opportunity with Kelly, considering the number of body parts removed.

You mean if he had brought a sack along to carry her in? To the Thames, presumably?
The torso murders involve some sort of transport means. No such means were employed in the Ripper murders. Again a problem only arises when we believe that the killer felt an unquenchable urge to transport bodies before dumping them. Did he?
How about floating the parts of the torso victims got press coverage and leaving a dead prostitute with her innards spread all around her ALSO reached that goal. Win-win, eh?

The Torso perpetrator either abducted his victims, and took them to his dismemberment site, or inveigled them. JtR didn't.

So we need to accept that a killer who can and will kill in a secluded location can also kill out in the streets. ehhh, let's see.... okey, accepted!
Is it to be expected, though? No, it is not. Then why think it happened? Because the similarities go a long way to prove it beyond reasonable doubt.

The Torso perpetrator dismembered all of his victims. JtR dismembered none of his, even though Kelly afforded him the perfect opportunity.

It is only if we think dismemberment was - again - an unquenchable need for the killer that this becomes of interest. Otherwise it remains that when you kill at home, you dismember, when you kill away from home, you don't have to.

Geographical considerations. JtR operated within a remarkably small area, I.e. Whitechapel/Spitalfields. For instance, from Flower and Dean Street, all of the murder sites are within a range of 0.6 miles, with the exception of Mitre Square, which was 1.1 miles away. In contrast, Torso operated all over London: I have already referred to the fact that Jackson's remains were scattered over a wide area, and Rainham is 27 miles from Whitechapel.

The victims can have been procured in the same small area nevertheless. And RAINHAM, John? Do you think the victim was slain in RAINHAM...? The part down there had of course floated there! Why bring up the distance to Rainham in this context? It is not a sound thing to do. We need to be reasonable, John!

What can we deduce from this? It is submitted that JtR lacked transport, or/and was psychologically unwilling to expand his range. It also suggests to me that JtR was a poor man-like the bulk of Whitechapel residents-who simply couldn't afford the extravagance of, say, a horse and cart, let alone stabling costs, feeding of animal, vet fees etc.

We cannot deduce that the Ripper lacked transport, no. He may have owned thirty carriages and an omnibus for all we know. All we can say is that he di9d not USE transport, but that is another thing altogether. The torso killer may not have used transport when picking up his victims, we only know that he did so when dumping the bodies. And as we - hopefully - have agreed by now: When you kill at home...

In contrast, Torso must have been a much better off perpetrator, someone with the income to afford transport, as well as a bolt-hole/dismemberment site.

No, he must not have been more affluent at all. The price of Wales has been suggested as the Ripper, and the reason that none of us believe in him as the perp is NOT that he was too rich.

[Fisherman]

In fact, are there any examples of an offender who has alternated between dismemberment and any other kind of violent murder?

Let's begin there: Ted Bundy occasionally dismembered. The Mad Butcher of Kingsbury Run did. Tsutomo Miyazaki did. There are quite probably more or even many more, but I don't want to spend any more time looking for them.

[John G]

Were JtR murders as "theatrical as Torso's, as you suggest? In my ipioon, yes, but in a fundamentally different way.

[John G]

Differences between Jackson and Kelly.

Jackson was dismembered, Kelly wasn't.

Jackson was decapitated, Kelly wasn't.

Kelly was killed in situ, Jackson wasn't.

Jackson's body parts were scattered over a wide area. Kelly's weren't scattered at all.

Jackson's body parts were bundled up into parcels. Kelly's weren't.

Jackson had two long vertical strips of skin removed from the abdominal wall, which were then parcelled up with other body parts. Kelly didn't.

Kelly was killed in a frenzy, by a perpetrator exhibiting no skill whatsoever. Jackson wasn't: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...0monro&f=false

Jackson's heart was missing. In respect of Kelly this is a contentious point.

Jackson was pregnant,and the foetus was missing, suggesting this was a main focal point for Torso, which may partially explain the abdominal wall injuries: see, for example, Debra's Gray's Anatomy theory. Kelly wasn't..

[John G]

Unfortunately didn't think my last post was hostile! It certainly wasn't intended to be, although as we take diametrically opposed views there is bound to be a large degree of disagreement.

Firstly, an overview. Serial killers can sometimes elaborate or evolve their ritualistic behaviour. For instance, Schlesinger refers to an offender who began with post mortem mutilation and progressed to dismemberment: http://jaapl.org/content/38/2/239.long However, I'm not aware of any cases where a serial killer as alternated between dismemberment and JtR style street killing. In fact, are there any examples of an offender who has alternated between dismemberment and any other kind of violent murder?

However, things are far more complicated than that. For instance, the Torso Perpetrator was very consistent in his ritualistic behaviour, and these rituals differed substantially from what we observe in the C5 murders.

Thus, the Torso perpetrator decapitated his victims, JtR didn't. This may have been ritualistic, or practical, I.e. to prevent identification. In any event, this "signature" is absent in all of the C5 cases, even though in Kelly's case at least, he presumably had more than enough time. This suggests to me that "JtR" lacked either the skill or the inclination to perform such an act.

The Torso victims were all stored: in the case of the Whitehall victim for up to 8 weeks, and Jackson for several days: she was last seen on the 31st May, but her remains were not discovered until 4th June. This ritual clearly meant something to the Torso perpetrator, considering the risk he must have been taking in not disposing of the remains straight away but clearly was not a consideration for JtR.

The Torso perpetrator scattered body parts all over London, like "pieces of a puzzle". JtR didn't, even though he had the perfect opportunity with Kelly, considering the number of body parts removed.

The Torso perpetrator either abducted his victims, and took them to his dismemberment site, or inveigled them. JtR didn't.

The Torso perpetrator dismembered all of his victims. JtR dismembered none of his, even though Kelly afforded him the perfect opportunity.

Geographical considerations. JtR operated within a remarkably small area, I.e. Whitechapel/Spitalfields. For instance, from Flower and Dean Street, all of the murder sites are within a range of 0.6 miles, with the exception of Mitre Square, which was 1.1 miles away. In contrast, Torso operated all over London: I have already referred to the fact that Jackson's remains were scattered over a wide area, and Rainham is 27 miles from Whitechapel.

What can we deduce from this? It is submitted that JtR lacked transport, or/and was psychologically unwilling to expand his range. It also suggests to me that JtR was a poor man-like the bulk of Whitechapel residents-who simply couldn't afford the extravagance of, say, a horse and cart, let alone stabling costs, feeding of animal, vet fees etc.

In contrast, Torso must have been a much better off perpetrator, someone with the income to afford transport, as well as a bolt-hole/dismemberment site.

[Fisherman]

John G: Firstly, I don't accept that there is any certainty that identifying features were not removed from Liz Jackson: the right buttock was targeted for a reason, which certainly wasn't the targeting of body organs!

Here we go! It was not the buttock that Jackson lost, it was part of it, and it came away attached to one of the flaps meaning that whatever identifying features there was on it, it was retrieved for the police to check. They said nothing about any such features.
And speaking of loosing part of a buttock - that happened to Kelly too. WHAT a coincidence, eh?
Whether the buttock/s were "targetted" or not in these cases, we really cannot say, but I suggest that for your convenience, you may need to accept that it was targetted in one case but not in the other. We really must not start thinking these women were subjected to the same targetting, must we?

Cases? Well, Karl Danke removed pieces of skin from a victim, which included the abdominal wall. I could also refer you to a couple of cases where victims were cut up into hundreds of pieces, at which point you'll no doubt put a limit on the allowable number of pieces as you're controlling the criteria.

Karl Danke (isnīt it Denke?) cut up the bodies in small pieces that he dried in order to consume them. A very different creature, thus.
I was not aware that I control the criteria, but thank you for that, itīs a huge advantage, Iīm sure.
I could already at this stage ask if this is how you are going to go about your debating? Accusations of me deciding the criteria is not a very benevolent way of debating. But each to his own!

And as you're the one asserting the argument, exactly how much research have you done? For instance, 14 cases of offensive dismemberment (lust murders) were investigated by the Institute of Forensic Medicine in Hamburg, between 1959 and 1987 ( Puschel et al, 1987).

Iīm sure that much material can be dug up that I have not read. When it produces two serial killers and eviscerators in the same area and time, please let me know.

Have you looked at detailed forensic reports for these cases? Or what about Scandinavia? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9608692

I have read a few Scandinavian studies, but if you wish to proclaim yourself in any way superior or better, then just say so. I think I am pretty well read up on these kinds of cases, but providing the boards with a real expert is always going to be welcome!

Moreover, you can't directly compare a nineteenth century perpetrator with modern cases. I mean, a mutilator or dismemberer of this period could hardly head off to the local DIY store for a set of power tools. Equipped with, say, a Victorian knife, they would have faced more difficult challenges, particularly as "skin is often the hardest tissue to cut" (Rutty, et al., 2017, and in circumstances where the victim was emaciated, i.e. Chapman. A different strategy for cutting up the body may therefore have been required, which suggests a practical purpose rather than a ritual.

I love the "head off" pun! Intentional, I take it?
Otherwise, I fail to see where you are going with this. I canīt remember having spoken about power tool dismemberment. Have I?

Regarding precedent, consider the geo-profiles. Thus, the Whitechapel street slayings all took place within around 1 square mile, a classic marauder profile. Whereas, in direct contrast, The Torso perpetrator was an obvious commuter offender.

ALL dumpers of dismembered bodies are commuters to a degree, John. It goes with the territory - you kill in one place and dump in another. And I have provided examples of serial killers who have dismembered only on occasion. So what is the problem? The torso killer dumped parts all over London, even in Pinchin Street, so placing him at one fixed spot is impossible. I myself am suggesting that he aimed to give London a wake-up call by dumping many parts in the west so that they would float past the largest metropolis of the era. This killer wanted publicity and recognition!


Therefore, where is there another example of a serial killer alternating as a JtR-style murderer, slaughtering victims in the street, with a completely different persona as a dismemberer: abducting victims (something JtR didn't do), storing their bodies for up to 8 weeks (something JtR didn't do), preventing identification of victims (something JtR didn't do) and scattering the remains of the victims over a wide geographical area (something JtR didn't do.)?

Why donīt you begin by proving that the torso killer abducted his victims? For example? If you are going to claim it as a certainty?

There are lots of examples that are unique among the ranks of serial killers, and so it should not be expected that we can always produce exact parallels. It is another matter to point out that they are so rare so as never to have produced two serial killers who eviscerated in the same time and place. That is another matter altogether, and a very telling one.

I mean, consider Liz Jackson. The left leg and thigh were found off Battersea; the lower part of the abdomen was found at Horsely-Down; the liver near nine-elms; the upper part of the body, in Battersea Park; the neck and shoulders off Battersea; the right foot and part of leg at Wandsworth; the left leg and foot, Limehouse; the left arm and hand, Bankside; buttocks and bony pelvis, off Battersea; right thigh, Chelsea embankment.

Yes, John, very good! This is exactly what we need to address - if the killer lived by Battersea Bridge, why did he not dump ALL parts from the same spot? Why did he dump some of them on land, for example?
I have considered Jackson a whole lot, by the way. And no matter how much considering I spend on her, she always turns up a taken out heart, like Kelly, a taken out uterus, like Kelly and a cut away abdominal wall, like Kelly.
Coincidence? No. Not in a million years, John. It ends there, all the quibbling. It goes no further until you can PROVE that the torso man had a different intention than the Ripper - not guess, prove! Until that happens, itīs a very, very, very easy call to make.

In fact, we even see this same sort of macabre game being played out in the earlier dismemberment crimes, with body parts being scattered, "along different parts of the Thames, presenting police with pieces of a puzzle." (Rutty, 2017)

And your explanation for that is...?

As with the storing of the bodies, and the dismemberment process, this was a ritual that was important to the Torso perpetrator, but completely irrelevant to JtR.

The Ripper murders did not allow for this course of action. The bodies were not dismembered in those cases, see? And to think that somebody who wanted his work recognized the way the torso killer did could not possibly want it recognized on slightly different merits is simply uninformed. Both series are quite likely to be - at least to a degree - about recognition and putting the fear of God into London.

Against which your argument, with respect, amounts to three very distinct cases, with only superficial similarities: One victim eviscerated by a perpetrator demonstrating skill; one victim hacked to pieces in a frenzy, and another victim who had two strips of skin removed in an area that encompassed the right buttock. And what did the perpetrator do with these pieces of skin? He bundled them up with the uterus and placenta, demonstrating the same ghoulish sense of humour as with the scattering bod the body parts. As for JtR, I don't think he had Mich of a sense of humour, ghoulish or otherwise.

Yeah? Well, I beg to disagree. His murders were very bit as theatrical as the torso mans, and from where I stand, I can see a common inspiration source to a very significant degree.
Apparently, you canīt, but that really can never be my problem.

You say that Chapman was a case involving skill - and Gareth says it was not. People disagree.

You say that Kelly was a hacking frenzy - and some say that her heart was removed using the Virchow technique. People disagree.

You say that Jackson lost part of her buttock - and you forget that Kelly did too.

If you ask me, Iīd say that all three murders give away a man who had some insight into anatomy - not necessarily a lot, but some - and a lot of fascination for the female body. Given that it was the same man, that was to be expected, of course.


Can we take the next step in a slightly less hostile tone? Iīm game if you are.

[John G]

Yes, I know Ruttyīs book. But the examples here refer to when tissue is removed to get rid of tattoos and such, and there were no tattoos or marks on the three victims we discuss, were there? Plus the killer did not even take the flaps away and destroy them, they were either left with the victim or floated down the Thames, which is why we know that they were not taken away to make identification harder.

So thatīs a no-go. Plus I want examples, names, John. Cases!

Firstly, I don't accept that there is any certainty that identifying features were not removed from Liz Jackson: the right buttock was targeted for a reason, which certainly wasn't the targeting of body organs!

Cases? Well, Karl Danke removed pieces of skin from a victim, which included the abdominal wall. I could also refer you to a couple of cases where victims were cut up into hundreds of pieces, at which point you'll no doubt put a limit on the allowable number of pieces as you're controlling the criteria.

And as you're the one asserting the argument, exactly how much research have you done? For instance, 14 cases of offensive dismemberment (lust murders) were investigated by the Institute of Forensic Medicine in Hamburg, between 1959 and 1987 ( Puschel et al, 1987).

Have you looked at detailed forensic reports for these cases? Or what about Scandinavia? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9608692

Moreover, you can't directly compare a nineteenth century perpetrator with modern cases. I mean, a mutilator or dismemberer of this period could hardly head off to the local DIY store for a set of power tools. Equipped with, say, a Victorian knife, they would have faced more difficult challenges, particularly as "skin is often the hardest tissue to cut" (Rutty, et al., 2017), and in circumstances where the victim was emaciated, i.e. Chapman (because "when a person is very thin the skin at autopsy loses its elasticity . It is more difficult to carefully remove organs when the opening cannot be stretched." ( Phillip Harrison, in Marriott, 2013). A different strategy for cutting up the body may therefore have been required, which suggests a practical purpose rather than ritual and signature.

Regarding precedent, consider the geo-profiles. Thus, the Whitechapel street slayings all took place within around 1 square mile, a classic marauder profile. Whereas, in direct contrast, The Torso perpetrator was an obvious commuter offender.

Therefore, where is there another example of a serial killer alternating as a JtR-style murderer, slaughtering victims in the street, with a completely different persona as a dismemberer: abducting victims (something JtR didn't do), storing their bodies for up to 8 weeks (something JtR didn't do), preventing identification of victims (something JtR didn't do) and scattering the remains of the victims over a wide geographical area (something JtR didn't do.)?

I mean, consider Liz Jackson. The left leg and thigh were found off Battersea; the lower part of the abdomen was found at Horsely-Down; the liver near nine-elms; the upper part of the body, in Battersea Park; the neck and shoulders off Battersea; the right foot and part of leg at Wandsworth; the left leg and foot, Limehouse; the left arm and hand, Bankside; buttocks and bony pelvis, off Battersea; right thigh, Chelsea embankment.

In fact, we even see this same sort of macabre game being played out in the earlier dismemberment crimes, with body parts being scattered, "along different parts of the Thames, presenting police with pieces of a puzzle." (Rutty, 2017)

As with the storing of the bodies, and the dismemberment process, this was a ritual that was important to the Torso perpetrator, but completely irrelevant to JtR.

Against which your argument, with respect, amounts to three very distinct cases, with only superficial similarities: One victim eviscerated by a perpetrator demonstrating skill; one victim hacked to pieces in a frenzy, and another victim who had two strips of skin removed in an area that encompassed the right buttock. And what did the perpetrator do with these pieces of skin? He bundled them up with the uterus and placenta, demonstrating the same ghoulish sense of humour as with the scattering bod the body parts. As for JtR, I don't think he had Mich of a sense of humour, ghoulish or otherwise.

[Fisherman]

Very different districts at the opposite ends of the same city, and very different murders committed to very different, albeit overlapping, timescales. I just can't see the comparison, and can easily conceive of separate, independent perpetrators.

That said, I'm looking forward to the book as well, if only because I know it will be a very interesting read.

Same old, same old.

Where were the victims procured? You donīt know.

There were differences - but how can we sweep the massive and odd similarities under the carpet? We canīt.

Can we say that the similarities came about for different reasons? No.

So whatīs left? Nothing, Gareth.