Jack and the Thames Torso Murders: A New Ripper?

[Sam Flynn]

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

The specifics are that Jackson's heart and lungs (possibly "heart-and-lungs" as one entity) were removed, whereas only Kelly's heart was taken out.

The specifics are that in only one torso case was the abdomen cut open in two slips which were limited in extent, almost certainly so as to remove the foetus and the uterus in which it resided. In contrast, Kelly's abdomen was laid entirely open from one side to the other, and from rib-cage to pelvis, by the removal of three large - by which I mean huge - flaps of flesh.

Specifically, Kelly's whole abdomen was excavated and all the organs removed, which is not remotely the case with Jackson or any of the other torso victims, whose internal organs (thoracic or abdominal) went almost completely unscathed.

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.

Again, let's look at the specifics. All the torso victims bar one were dumped in the West of London, and that includes Jackson. Whether they lived there or not - and most, if not all of them, probably did - that's almost certainly where they were "processed" prior to being disposed of.

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.

I meant co-terminous. The East End "ripping-and-eviscerating" murders started in August 1888 and ended in November 1888, whereas the torso crimes started before then and continued on afterwards.

Let's look at the frequencies. From May 1887 to Sept 1889 (I'll leave out the 1873 case, because that makes the hit-rate even more pathetic), just over 864 days, four torso victims were found - that's an average rate of 1 murder every 212 days. With the canonical Ripper murders, five victims were claimed in a period of 70 days, at a staggering average of 1 murder every 14 days. That's one hell of a difference.

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

Only one ripping-and-eviscerating victim, Kelly, was young; the majority of "ripped" victims were in their 40s. As far as we know, this was not the case with the torso victims. Besides, we all know that prostitutes/unfortunates are common targets for murderers, so we can't read too much into victimology.

Even when we consider the unfortunates who died in the Whitechapel Murder series, most of us accept that Jack the Ripper wasn't responsible for them all. It follows that, in the years 1888-91, there were certainly independent killers of unfortunates operating within the confines of Whitechapel itself. If we extend the net to cover the whole of London, and extend the timescale back to 1873, then there's plenty of scope for one or more torso killers to have been at large, entirely independent of either the canonical Ripper or the perpetrators of the other Whitechapel Murders.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: The specifics are that Jackson's heart and lungs (possibly "heart-and-lungs" as one entity) were removed, whereas only Kelly's heart was taken out.

So, for you, how Jackson also had her lungs taken out nullifies the suggestion that there was just the one killer? Jackson had her limbs taken off, Kelly didn't, so it cannot be the same man?
Let me assure you, Gareth, that matters like these ar mere trivialities. There is an eight month time scope between the slaying, and they both involve taken out hearts and uteri and taken away abdominal walls. The kind of killer who would do such a thing are nut mushrooms, growing in large schools. They are incredibly rare.
There are differences between ALL murder victims. You say that Kelly did not have her lungs taken out like Jackson did, and you use that to "prove" two killers. How about Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Stride - none of them had their hearts taken out at all, so how on earth could they have the same originator as Kelly did? Isn't it madness to even suggest such a thing?
The sooner you manage to get your head out of the sand and stop inventing excuses, the sooner we will make some progress. Well, YOU will, many of the rest of us are already in the know.

The specifics are that in only one torso case was the abdomen cut open in two slips which were limited in extent, almost certainly so as to remove the foetus and the uterus in which it resided. In contrast, Kelly's abdomen was laid entirely open from one side to the other, and from rib-cage to pelvis, by the removal of three large - by which I mean huge - flaps of flesh.

These are the "specifics" you choose to see, whereas other specifics are something you prefer to try and sweep under the carpet. And you have the audacity to claim that it its almost a certainty that the abdominal wall sections taken from Jackson we're removed on account of her pregnancy. It is speculation, and nothing else.
And it is fine to speculate! But what must be prioritized is a strict division between facts and mere and obvious speculation. The "specifics" you speak of seems to be linked to idle speculation all the time - Jackson was pregnant, so THAT was why the killer removed the abdominal wall. Speculation - he may have had that reason and he may not have. "Almost certainly" does not enter any honest discussion. The suggestion can be put forward, but not in any way as a proven fact - or as a "near certainty".
Regardless of how much value you ascribe to your own ingenuity, you at least manage to keep your nose over the water so as to admit that you cannot prove it. All you can do is to baselessly claim it is almost a certainty. Well, as long as it is NO certainty, it is something that does not even enter the factual basis for how we must reason. The factual basis involves only the matter that both Kelly and Jackson had their uteri taken out and that taken out uteri is something that is incredibly rare. So there you are. All the blustering and guesswork in the world cannot help your cause.
Leading on that you know the actual sizes of the flaps from Jackson and Kelly and that you are able to compare them will only worsen your case and show what it is worth - based on falsities and guesswork as it is. Now, either you produce PROOF that you know the shapes and sizes of the flaps or you admit that you are making up bedtime stories and presenting them as the truth. It is the kind of shameful thing that should disqualify any person who enters this bog of desinformation, and you are no exception.

Specifically, Kelly's whole abdomen was excavated and all the organs removed, which is not remotely the case with Jackson or any of the other torso victims, whose internal organs (thoracic or abdominal) went almost completely unscathed.
Again, let's look at the specifics. All the torso victims bar one were dumped in the West of London, and that includes Jackson. Whether they lived there or not - and most, if not all of them, probably did - that's almost certainly where they were "processed" prior to being disposed of.I meant co-terminous. The East End "ripping-and-eviscerating" murders started in August 1888 and ended in November 1888, whereas the torso crimes started before then and continued on afterwards.

There's the next "almost certainly". PROVE it, Gareth, but don't expect me to swallow it, hair and hide!
It also applies that REGARDLESS if they WERE "processed" in the western parts of the town, it does not make the similarities go away. So if we KNEW that the torsos were processed in the West End, in Rainham, in Camden Town or in the garden of Buckingham Palace, we would not be left with the idea of two illers anyway - we would be left with the insight that the killer processed his torso vifctims elsewhere than in Whitechapel. And we would still be looking at the same killer anyway.

Let's look at the frequencies. From May 1887 to Sept 1889 (I'll leave out the 1873 case, because that makes the hit-rate even more pathetic), just over 864 days, four torso victims were found - that's an average rate of 1 murder every 212 days. With the canonical Ripper murders, five victims were claimed in a period of 70 days, at a staggering average of 1 murder every 14 days. That's one hell of a difference.

"One hell of a difference" can never be so much of a hellish difference so as to make the similarities go away. Moreover, we have absolutely no idea what the common originator did on the OTHER days. There is no need to accept that he was idle - but even if he was, the similarities do not go away on account of that. Whatever dissimilarity or anomaly you dig up, that remains - all it does is to call upon us to realize that in spite of how all the deeds could have been exactly similar, they are not, and so we need to accept that there was always a reason behind the dissimilarities, and in all probability a very simple and/or logical one, once we knew it. "I carefully took out the heart and the lungs from one woman who I had in my basement for some time, cutting away at her, and prior to that, I had taken out the heart of another woman in a court off Dorset Street. I was a bit less careful there, and more like ripped the heart out from her".
Oooooh! Big deal!! SURELY it cannot be THAT simple?

Only one ripping-and-eviscerating victim, Kelly, was young; the majority of "ripped" victims were in their 40s. As far as we know, this was not the case with the torso victims. Besides, we all know that prostitutes/unfortunates are common targets for murderers, so we can't read too much into victimology.

Well, if you can read in an "almost certainty" into how the torso killer cut the flaps from Jacksons abdomen on account of her pregnancy (and you think he did so by taking away two very narrow strips of flesh??? ), then I fail to see how it would not be much more useful to have THE PROVEN FACT that the victims were prostitutes in both series as a point of potentially very large importance!
Because it is not fair?
Because it points in a direction you don't want it to?
Because you make the rules?

I see.

Even when we consider the unfortunates who died in the Whitechapel Murder series, most of us accept that Jack the Ripper wasn't responsible for them all.

And how would that alter the similarities inbetween Kelly and Jackson, for example? If other murders were unrelated, then so must these two be?

It follows that, in the years 1888-91, there were certainly independent killers of unfortunates operating within the confines of Whitechapel itself. If we extend the net to cover the whole of London, and extend the timescale back to 1873, then there's plenty of scope for one or more torso killers to have been at large, entirely independent of either the canonical Ripper or the perpetrators of the other Whitechapel Murders.

Yes, there is scope for millions of killers, given the time frame and the geographical boundaries set.

It is not until we add the taken out hearts, the taken out uteri and the taken away abdominal flaps that this goes away. Didn't you go on about how we need to look at the specifics? Apparently, that urge of yours was never vital to this question.
One has to ask oneself why? Why are the specifics all-important on occasion while they instead need to be kept out of the discussion on others?

You have not made a single point of value so far. Is that going to change anytime soon? Or are you going to bang on about how victims who have their hearts taken out must have separate killers if their lungs are not treated in the same way in both cases? Oh, sorry - not "must have", you are not that sure of it. You only make the humble claim of a near certainty...
Given how I understand that you for the longest time even claimed that there was no evidence that Jackson had her uterus removed by her killer (how on God´s green earth did you DO that, Gareth...?), I entertain very little hope of any improvement. But I won't leave the debate without giving it my best shot!

[Sam Flynn]

And how would that alter the similarities inbetween Kelly and Jackson, for example?

It wouldn't alter the similarities, nor the far more numerous dissimilarities.

And what's with "Jackson, for example"? It's not as if the other torso victims (or Jackson herself, for that matter) were treated in a manner remotely like the victims of Jack the Ripper.

[Sam Flynn]

These are the "specifics" you choose to see

No. Those are the specifics, period.

[Kattrup]

or

Besides, we all know that prostitutes/unfortunates are common targets for murderers, so we can't read too much into victimology.

In any case, perhaps too much is already being read into victimology, since only one of the torso women is known to have been a prostitute.

I don’t think there’s evidence the others were? rather there’s evidence to suggest they were not unfortunates

So claiming JtR and TK both targeted prostitutes is based on Jackson only, isn’t it?

[Sam Flynn]

I could say that Kelly got off lightly since she was not cut up in pieces - but I would not say something that dumb.

Not just dumb, but clearly not true. If you want an example of "overkill", look at Mary Kelly, not Elizabeth Jackson, who sustained very little damage by comparison.

[Abby Normal]

In any case, perhaps too much is already being read into victimology, since only one of the torso women is known to have been a prostitute.

I don’t think there’s evidence the others were? rather there’s evidence to suggest they were not unfortunates

So claiming JtR and TK both targeted prostitutes is based on Jackson only, isn’t it?

One is only all you need really. Its a similarity, its a link.

Amd the rest of the torsos were never ided. Why is that? Probably because they were unfortunates and nobody cared they were missing. Or assumed they mived on.

And no matter what you and sam say, victimology is important. Its serial killer study 101 actually.

[Abby Normal]

Not just dumb, but clearly not true. If you want an example of "overkill", look at Mary Kelly, not Elizabeth Jackson, who sustained very little damage by comparison.

Both had gruesome, and extreme post mortem mutilation sam, overkill in the extreme. Trying to claim one had more is patently ridiculous.. if you want to argue the nature of the overkill was different ok, there were differences.

[Fisherman]

It wouldn't alter the similarities, nor the far more numerous dissimilarities.

And what's with "Jackson, for example"? It's not as if the other torso victims (or Jackson herself, for that matter) were treated in a manner remotely like the victims of Jack the Ripper.

Similarities will always outweigh dissimilarities, and the more specific and odd these similarities are, the more conclusive they will be in establishing links.

We've been over this a million times, but I will happily provide it a millon more times if it only does the trick in the end.

Old example: If a man X and a woman Y are killed in Australia and Denmark, respectively, ten years apart, one by suffocation and the other by cannon fore, there is no reason at all to link them.
Once we find that both victims have had the words "intellectual corruption" burnt into their buttocks, that will change in a jiffy, and it will be established that the two cases are linked without any doubt at all.

That's how it works.

I am quite aware that the torso victims differ from the Ripper ditto in many an instance, and that Jackson - not least by means of the abdominal flaps (that we cannot describe in terms of size, by the way) - is the clearest example of an overlap.
The torso victims are, however, linked to each other by Hebbert, who was c´very clear on how he saw a common perpetrator. And so there is a moral to this that we may need tolerant: serial killers do not work to a manual that will produce the exact same result every time.

In this vein, I would like to point to something that is of interest to us. Once the torso killer is suggested as being the same as the Ripper, anything that differed inbetween the victim in the series is regarded by some (like you) as extremely important in telling the deeds apart - different shoe size, different combing of the hair, different ages, different teeth, different dialects, just about anything that tells the victims apart seems to be highly prized.
But what I would suggest is that we move away some little from the notion that a serial killer will always produce twin deeds if the circumstances allow for it. Such a thing would predispose that the killer had an agenda that called upon him to always do the same thing - ALWAYS rip from point A to B, otherwise it is not the same killer. Always take the lungs out intact, otherwise it is not the same killer. Always kill in the same streets, otherwise it is not the same killer. Always take organs out, otherwise it is not the same killer.
The problem is that we KNOW that these series involved inclusions that were NOT repeated, and so we must accept that a killer´s agenda can allow for a broad spectre of measures.
Next: what if the killer has an appetite for taunting society and the police? What if he wants maximum coverage and interest? Could that possibly have an impact on how he kills?
I´ll leave you to ponder that by yourself.

[Fisherman]

No. Those are the specifics, period.

Sorry, but these are public boards, and you don't get to pick and choose. ALL specifics are to get on the table, and guesswork is NOT to be regarded as established specifics.

[Fisherman]

In any case, perhaps too much is already being read into victimology, since only one of the torso women is known to have been a prostitute.

I don’t think there’s evidence the others were? rather there’s evidence to suggest they were not unfortunates

So claiming JtR and TK both targeted prostitutes is based on Jackson only, isn’t it?

And it is therefore true. If it was said that they both ONLY targeted prostitutes, it would be another matter, but the truth of the mater is that we have it on revord that the torso killer and the Ripper both targeted prostitutes.

Since serial killers who target prostitutes normally target ONLY prostitutes (with the odd exception), the better guess is that all the victims in both series were prostitutes, but it is something that must remain open to debate and research as it stands.

[Fisherman]

Not just dumb, but clearly not true. If you want an example of "overkill", look at Mary Kelly, not Elizabeth Jackson, who sustained very little damage by comparison.

So explain to us how it is not overkill to have your heart, lungs and uterus cut out, to have your uterus excised and packed up with cord and placenta in two chunks of flesh cut from your abdomen, and to be subsequently cut up in pieces?

Exactly how is that NOT overkill? If you are having any problems with the term as such, it denotes when something more than necessary in order to just kill is done to a victim.

Please expand! And keep in mind that I never spoke of a comparison, I said that both Jackson and Kelly are examples of extreme overkill.

Try and deny that, by all means.

[Fisherman]

Have you noticed, Gareth, that you are now in the same habit as dear old Ben used to be regarding Hutchinson, speaking of "near certainties" - something you and I used to laugh off?

It is a "near certainty" that the killer lived in the western parts of London, near Battersea.

It is a "near certainty" that the torso killer only cut out Jacksons uterus because she was pregnant.

It is a "near certainty" that Kellys flaps were totally different to Jacksons in terms of both size and shape.

And all the while, no conclusive evidence for these "near certainties" is presented. All we get to know down here on the factory floor is that you have decided that this is so.

[Sam Flynn]

Both had gruesome, and extreme post mortem mutilation sam, overkill in the extreme. Trying to claim one had more is patently ridiculous.

I don't think it is. Kelly was practically destroyed, Jackson nowhere near so.

[Sam Flynn]

One is only all you need really.

You need more than one example in order to establish a pattern.

Its a similarity, its a link.

The similarities, such as they are, are debatable, and the differences outnumber them.