Jack and the Thames Torso Murders: A New Ripper? by Drew Gray and Andrew Wise

[Sam Flynn]

In the case at hand, we know that there are inclusions of odd similarities within the two series

Superficial similarities, and huge dissimilarities which are often overlooked or made to appear "similarities" by generalisation. As an example of the latter, the Ripper murders happened in Spitalfields and most torsos were dumped in Battersea, a significant dissimilarity that is turned into an false similarity by claiming that both series happened in the same town.

[drstrange169]

Can we PLEASE keep this thread on topic?

I'd like to hear more about the book as it's really expensive in Australia.

The "flaps" business has been and can be rediscussed else where.

Can we not have yet another thread high-jacked by people pushing their own agendas?

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi all, just a quick note to let everyone know the book is available now for download on Kindle both in the UK and US.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Superficial similarities, and huge dissimilarities which are often overlooked or made to appear "similarities" by generalisation. As an example of the latter, the Ripper murders happened in Spitalfields and most torsos were dumped in Battersea, a significant dissimilarity that is turned into an false similarity by claiming that both series happened in the same town.

You have claimed before that the similarities are "superficial". But you have never been able to substantiate that for the simple reason that you don't know anything about it. You have even gone so far as to claim that the Jackson flaps were thin slivers, more or less, blithely looking away from how Hebbert said that they were large and disregarding how the papers described them as the entire lower abdomen.
Once that story is told, I am not the one having problems with my version of reality. You are.

And now you claim that I am "turning" the fact that the crimes all went down in the same city into a "false similarity"! The Ripper sites and the dumping sites of the torso killer were all within walking distance from each other, Gareth. One of the torso dumping sites was smack, bang in Ripper territory. The two sites furthest away from each other were the Nichols site and the Jackson site in Battersea. That stretch is easily walked in under two hours. And we know that the torso killer employed transport, cutting that time. We also know that he dumped in various parts of London, well away from each other.

The "problem" you identify therefore lies in how the Ripper did seemingly not venture outside the East End. That is where the conundrum lies: Could or could he not be the man who dumped bodies all over London? The question is an odd one - of course he could. The more pertinent question is another one: WOULD he do it? I don't see why he would not, if he killed in premises that could be tied too himself, then why would he NOT dump the bodies elsewhere? We must realize that the torso killer, whoever he was, was not a man intent on dumping the parts as quickly and easily as possible. He was a man who took great risks and travelled long stretches to dump the parts, so we are not looking at quick affairs, minimizing risk. Quite the contrary, actually. So IF the Ripper WAS the torso killer, then why would we think that the Ripper would have dumped all his bodies in Flower and Dean Street? We don't know why the Ripper killed, other than that he seemed to take an interest in opening people up and rummaging about inside them, we don't know why the Torso killer killed, other than he seemed to take an interest in opening people up and rummaging about inside them, and we don't know whether either man or both was trying to make some sort of point when doing that. Ergo, we cannot tell what were the driving forces involved and whether they would drive the Ripper to dump people he may have killed in premises that could be tied to himself in places far afield from the East End.

The geographical factor is pivotal to any question of a shared ID between two criminals. Let's not try and make that go away. This is an example of two closely related serial killer cases, both involving a number of very odd similarities. The fact that they were both committed in London is actually not uninteresting, let alone wrong. We SHOULD point that out.

What we should NOT do is what you do - claim that there were different incentives involved, that the men had different tempers, that they cut differently, that one was madman who tore out uteri and the other was "merely" a man who would go to that length on account of Jacksons pregnancy as some sort of makeshift truths. If you are to claim such things, then you need to think twice before you speak of me as the one who turns things into something that they are really not.

Although the topic of a common identity is very much in the focus of Drew Grays book and therefore something that can easily be discussed here, I am all for moving the discussion if you agree. Otherwise, I can just as easily stay here. You decide.

[drstrange169]

I see Deb Arif was already returned her Kindle and got a refund, so I guess that doesn't bode well.

[Abby Normal]

I see Deb Arif was already returned her Kindle and got a refund, so I guess that doesn't bode well.

yup. I was looking forward to it but ill be passing on this book now.

[barnflatwyngarde]

"yup. I was looking forward to it but ill be passing on this book now."

I simply do not understand how people can dismiss this book when there has not been one single full review of it.

I am about four chapters in, and I am enjoying it.
I do not know how the authors came up with the name of their person of interest, but I'm certainly not going to diss the book without having read it.

Debra Arif may well have claimed a refund fo her ebook, but I am not going to dismiss or criticise the book without having thoroughly read it.
Ms Arif is clearly very knowledgable on the case, but hey, maybe she is wrong in this instance.

Why are some people on these boards so quick to dismiss a book written by an acknowledged expert on Victorian London?

[Sam Flynn]

Why are some people on these boards so quick to dismiss a book written by an acknowledged expert on Victorian London?

It depends what you're after, I suppose. If there's little or no new information in the book that can't be found elsewhere, and/or there are errors in how the cases are described, then I can understand why those hoping for new info on the Ripper or the Torso series wouldn't be too interested in buying the book.

[Tom_Wescott]

[B]
I do not know how the authors came up with the name of their person of interest, but I'm certainly not going to diss the book without having read it.

I recall many years ago a fellow by the name of Rob Hills wrote several articles for Ripperologist magazine about this suspect, James Hardiman. In fact, if I recall correctly, Hills had the honor of having one of his articles (something about The Cats Meat Man) being the cover story of the very first digital issue of Rip. It's always stuck in my head for that reason. Anyway, that's where this particular suspect comes from, although reportedly the current authors have advanced the case considerably.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Abby Normal]

"yup. I was looking forward to it but ill be passing on this book now."

I simply do not understand how people can dismiss this book when there has not been one single full review of it.

I am about four chapters in, and I am enjoying it.
I do not know how the authors came up with the name of their person of interest, but I'm certainly not going to diss the book without having read it.

Debra Arif may well have claimed a refund fo her ebook, but I am not going to dismiss or criticise the book without having thoroughly read it.
Ms Arif is clearly very knowledgable on the case, but hey, maybe she is wrong in this instance.

Why are some people on these boards so quick to dismiss a book written by an acknowledged expert on Victorian London?

hi Barn
because there is detailed discussion of it on the other forum by very knowledgeable people whom I respect greatly and apparently the book is full of factual errors, there is no great detailed analysis of the torso murders, there is little if any new information on either the ripper or torso case and the suspect only has a very tenuous connection to the case and very weak circumstantial evidence. and apparently the author has no real desire to engage in debate, or learn from the real experts.
I had great hope for this book, in part because im one of the few who think theres a good possibility that the torso man and the ripper were the same, but after hearing about all its holes-im inclined not to waste my money.

[drstrange169]

>I simply do not understand how people can dismiss this book when there has not been one single full review of it.<<

Which is precisely why I asked if people could stay on topic. This is the single most expensive Kindle I've looked at buying. For that, I want to know the book is going to give lots of new information. I fully intend to read the book, I do all ripper books, it's just a question of, do I need it it now, can I wait to pick it up cheaply somewhere or do I order it from the library.

At the moment, if Deb, as the "torso" expert sees nothing interesting in it about the torso murders and Gary, the expert in anything "knackered", so to speak, has grave concerns about the accuracy of the claims about their suspects profession, I'm more than wary about the book.

However if you disagree, I'm still open minded enough about it to to be persuaded.

[Debra A]

People should read and judge the book for themselves. I agree.
I personally don't normally buy suspect theory books any more, and only bought this one because it made a link between the torso cases and the Whitechapel murders. The torso murders have been a research area of mine for over 15 years so I do have an interest and I have posted a lot of previously unseen source material to the boards in those years. For those with a long memory, people didn't discuss the torso cases the way they do now and not much was known about them back then.
I actually don't like the format of suspect books unless they offer something different. If this book had included an accurate or in depth analysis of the torso cases then I would have been more satisfied but it didn't, so I was disappointed. It was the reason I bought the book. I returned the book.

[Debra A]

It looks to me like the majority of the information on the torso cases has come directly from M.J. Trow's torso book, warts and all.

[MrBarnett]

It looks to me like the majority of the information on the torso cases has come directly from M.J. Trow's torso book, warts and all.

I was just going to ask about the inaccuracies you found.

Trow also proposed a knacker/cat’s meat man, didn’t he? I can’t recall if he mentioned Hardiman specifically.

Have the authors just joined the Trow and Hill theories together by means of what appears to be a misunderstanding of a single census record?

[John G]

It looks to me like the majority of the information on the torso cases has come directly from M.J. Trow's torso book, warts and all.

I enjoyed Trow's book, which seemed to be reasonably well researched, although I believe it did contain inaccuracies, such as the Tottenham victims tattoo, which if memory serves, your research indicated wasn't a tattoo- a bit of a problem, when you consider that the chapter was entitled, "Girl with the Rose Tattoo!

I've ordered Drew's book because I assumed it would be extremely well researched and detailed-he his a doctor , after all, but now I'm beginning to wonder if I made a wise decision!