Jack and the Thames Torso Murders: A New Ripper?

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer,

Dismembering a Body

"In addition to this, the chest and abdomen may be opened up and eviscerated. Skin, subcutaneous tissue and muscle may also be removed in square or oblong segments, often as an attempt to remove tattoos, digitis, genitalia and breasts to hinder identification." (Black, Rutty, Hainsworth, Thomson, Criminal Dismemberment: Forensic and Investigative Analysis, 2017)

In the aforementioned book, there's actually a large section of skin and subcutaneous tissue, removed as part of the dismemberment process.

Of course, with Jackson, the strips of skin and subcutaneous tissue that was removed removed also encompassed the right buttock. As there are no body organs in the buttocks this procedure was not just about evisceration.

Throughout the Torso crimes the perpetrator took steps to prevent identification. I would note that a tattoo, for instance, an identifying feature mentioned by Black, Rutty et al. would suggest that the victim was a prostitute, as ordinary women of this period didn't have tattoos.

Of course, something else was going on besides removing identifying features. Bizarrely, in the Jackson case, the strips of skin were included with the uterus and placeta. This is a highly unusual serial perpetrator with a ghoulish sense of humour, who was clearly taunting the authorities, as also evidenced by his scattering of body parts, like pieces of a puzzle: even the body parts thrown into The Thames weren't weighed down, ensuring they would float and be found.

In any event, the Kelly crime scene was radically different. You could say that the abdomen in that case was removed in section, demonstrating a superficial resemblance. Alternatively, you could say it was just hacked to pieces by a killer showing no skill at all.

Yes, I know Rutty´s 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 that´s a no-go. Plus I want examples, names, John. Cases!

[John G]

Just to add to my previous post.

From Black and Rutty et el., 2017:

"In addition to this, the chest and abdomen may be opened and eviscerated."

From Dr Hebbert's autopsy of Elizabeth Jackson:

"The chest had been opened in front by the mid-line. The upper part of the sternum cut through, and the contents of the chest had been removed"

From Black and Rutty et al., 2017.

" Skin, subcutaneous tissue and muscle may also be removed in square and oblong segments, often as an attempt to remove tattoos, digits, genitalia and breasts to hinder identification."

From Dr Hebbert:

"The flaps of skin and subcutaneous tissue consisted of two long, irregular slips taken from the abdominal walls."

For a comparison of MJK and the Torso crimes see page 149 of Gordon, 2002:

"In this last case [Kelly] There were distinct traces of furious mania. The murderer having plenty of time at his disposal slashed and cut the body in all directions, evidently under the influence of frenzy." See: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...0monro&f=false


Monroe then goes on to compare Pinchin Street with MJK.

[Abby Normal]

But serial killers come in many shapes and sizes, and commit rather different crimes, which is what I see when I compare the torso cases to the JTR murders; I even see the torsos as radically different from the non-canonical Whitechapel Murders, for that matter.

I don't think there is, but that might be related to something you've already touched upon, namely the explosion in the popular press in the late 19th Century. Before then, there were much fewer newspapers around and those that existed tended to be rather sober in nature; tales of tawdry serial crime and provincial murders were less likely to be reported than they would be in later years.

You're quite right in your earlier observation that industrialisation and urbanisation helped bring in the age of the "modern" serial offender, but the Industrial Revolution had kicked in over a century before the Ripper murders, and the populations of Britain's cities and port towns had grown accordingly. Bearing that in mind, it might be argued that, by the latter quarter of the 19th Century, the conditions were ripe for a city like London to spawn two, three or more concurrent serial offenders.

thanks Sam
It is fascinating isn't it? morbid and sad yes, but interesting nonetheless.

[Sam Flynn]

but I think my earlier point stands re rarity of serial killers in 1880 time frame.

But serial killers come in many shapes and sizes, and commit rather different crimes, which is what I see when I compare the torso cases to the JTR murders; I even see the torsos as radically different from the non-canonical Whitechapel Murders, for that matter.

Do you or anyone knows if there is any numbers on this anywhere?

I don't think there is, but that might be related to something you've already touched upon, namely the explosion in the popular press in the late 19th Century. Before then, there were much fewer newspapers around and those that existed tended to be rather sober in nature; tales of tawdry serial crime and provincial murders were less likely to be reported than they would be in later years.

You're quite right in your earlier observation that industrialisation and urbanisation helped bring in the age of the "modern" serial offender, but the Industrial Revolution had kicked in over a century before the Ripper murders, and the populations of Britain's cities and port towns had grown accordingly. Bearing that in mind, it might be argued that, by the latter quarter of the 19th Century, the conditions were ripe for a city like London to spawn two, three or more concurrent serial offenders.

[John G]

Can you name any such dismemberment case where the abdominal wall was removed in flaps, John?

Hi Christer,

Dismembering a Body

"In addition to this, the chest and abdomen may be opened up and eviscerated. Skin, subcutaneous tissue and muscle may also be removed in square or oblong segments, often as an attempt to remove tattoos, digitis, genitalia and breasts to hinder identification." (Black, Rutty, Hainsworth, Thomson, Criminal Dismemberment: Forensic and Investigative Analysis, 2017)

In the aforementioned book, there's actually a large section of skin and subcutaneous tissue, removed as part of the dismemberment process.

Of course, with Jackson, the strips of skin and subcutaneous tissue that was removed removed also encompassed the right buttock. As there are no body organs in the buttocks this procedure was not just about evisceration.

Throughout the Torso crimes the perpetrator took steps to prevent identification. I would note that a tattoo, for instance, an identifying feature mentioned by Black, Rutty et al. would suggest that the victim was a prostitute, as ordinary women of this period didn't have tattoos.

Of course, something else was going on besides removing identifying features. Bizarrely, in the Jackson case, the strips of skin were included with the uterus and placeta. This is a highly unusual serial perpetrator with a ghoulish sense of humour, who was clearly taunting the authorities, as also evidenced by his scattering of body parts, like pieces of a puzzle: even the body parts thrown into The Thames weren't weighed down, ensuring they would float and be found.

In any event, the Kelly crime scene was radically different. You could say that the abdomen in that case was removed in section, demonstrating a superficial resemblance. Alternatively, you could say it was just hacked to pieces by a killer showing no skill at all.

[Abby Normal]

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.

thanks Sam
I have no problem with that at all-of course I disagree-I lean somewhat heavily they were the same man, but there are major differences I concur.

but I think my earlier point stands re rarity of serial killers in 1880 time frame.

Do you or anyone knows if there is any numbers on this anywhere?

[Sam Flynn]

that two such creatures were operating at the same time in the same city who both just happened to be interested in post mortem mutilation is just a tad too much coincidence for me.

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.

[barnflatwyngarde]

A group that hasn´t any legs to stand on is not a very useful group, is it?

In Glasgow we would call them "Short Arsed Shuggies".
😉

[Abby Normal]

I don't think that serial killing was a new phenomenon at the time. On the contrary, it's probably as old as humankind.
Not the case in the majority of the torso murders; even in those where it happened, there are eminently (and rather obvious) practical reasons why the dismemberer(s) cut open the abdomen.
To paraphrase a well-known saying: Diff'rent flaps for diff'rent chaps.

Hi Sam

I don't think that serial killing was a new phenomenon at the time. On the contrary, it's probably as old as humankind.

I think that the rise of modern serial killing probably got its start (or at least took off) as a result of the Industrial revolution, rise of populations in city and towns and the increase of leisure time. and increase of flow of information and the press. sure there were always serial killers but not anything even close to what started in late nineteenth century. and continued to build into the 20th century. to me its like a phase transition ocurred.

and by the late 1800s early 1900s it had gotten to the point(flow and recording of info and the press) if there was a serial killer we would hear about it. In the decade 1880-1890 you could probably count the number of serial killers operating in the world on one hand. that two such creatures were operating at the same time in the same city who both just happened to be interested in post mortem mutilation is just a tad too much coincidence for me.


im really excited to read this book and get a Casebook independent view on it.

[Fisherman]

To paraphrase a well-known saying: Diff'rent flaps for diff'rent chaps.

And we know that the flaps were different inbetween the Chapman/Kelly cases and the Jackson case, because...?

Oh, I see. We don´t know that. We just make it up.

[Fisherman]

I agree. Defensive dismemberers do sometimes remove "flaps of skin". And I think the Torso perpetrator was an offensive/defensive dismemberer.

Can you name any such dismemberment case where the abdominal wall was removed in flaps, John?

[Fisherman]

The group doesn’t have a head - it’s an anarchist group - but they’re ‘armless (except when they get legless).

A group that hasn´t any legs to stand on is not a very useful group, is it?

[John G]

I don't think that serial killing was a new phenomenon at the time. On the contrary, it's probably as old as humankind.
Not the case in the majority of the torso murders; even in those where it happened, there are eminently (and rather obvious) practical reasons why the dismemberer(s) cut open the abdomen.
To paraphrase a well-known saying: Diff'rent flaps for diff'rent chaps.

I agree. Defensive dismemberers do sometimes remove "flaps of skin". And I think the Torso perpetrator was an offensive/defensive dismemberer.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Caz
I kind of look at it another way-at this early time when serial killing was just emerging

I don't think that serial killing was a new phenomenon at the time. On the contrary, it's probably as old as humankind.

abdoman targeted

Not the case in the majority of the torso murders; even in those where it happened, there are eminently (and rather obvious) practical reasons why the dismemberer(s) cut open the abdomen.

with flaps of flesh from stomach area removed

To paraphrase a well-known saying: Diff'rent flaps for diff'rent chaps.

[Abby Normal]

I agree that copy cat murder sounds more Hollywood than grim reality, Abby.

That said, the torso murders [deaths/manslaughters?] don't appear to me to reflect any kind of attempt to copy the way the ripper rolled, so I'm not sure what criteria are being used to argue that the same killer fits all. I look forward to finding out.

From what I've read to date, the ripper and torso cases seem to me to be entirely independent of one another, not so coincidentally unfolding at a time when we know such series were emerging as a recognisable phenomenon of modern life in 'civilised' societies. Cream anyone? Klosowski?

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz
I kind of look at it another way-at this early time when serial killing was just emerging and it was relatively rare-whats the chances that two serial killers-post mortem mutilaters at that- appear at the same time and place? added to that the similarities (and yes there are differences, I just see more similarities) between the two:

Same time and place
same victimology
probable ruse involved to get victims where killer wanted them
internal and external parts targeted
no Overt attempt to hide
no overt sexual activity
knife used
abdoman targeted with flaps of flesh from stomach area removed

and I just see lean to them being the same man.


itll be interesting to read this book and get another (non casebook) opinion on it.