Jack the Ripper-The Secret Police Files

[Fisherman]

In case anybody should take any interest at all in what Pierre posts (for whatever reason), it needs to be said that when the way to do it involves very close similarities and when these similarities are extremely rare, the likelihood that we are dealing with one killer grows with every such similarity.
In these two series, there is an overwhelming group of similarities, some of them extremely rare, and that means that we can more or less bank on the series having the same originator.

[Pierre]

In case anybody should take any interest at all in what Pierre posts (for whatever reason), it needs to be said that when the way to do it involves very close similarities and when these similarities are extremely rare, the likelihood that we are dealing with one killer grows with every such similarity.
In these two series, there is an overwhelming group of similarities, some of them extremely rare, and that means that we can more or less bank on the series having the same originator.

I certainly understand your way of thinking. And letīs say that you are right. But the problem is that when I say

There is a long way from the way to do it to the person who did it

there are two very serious problems.

Firstly, there is the word "to". This word is pointing out the methodological problems of connecting the way to the person.

Secondly, there is the word "person".

It doesnīt matter if you find similarities between two sets of murders / cases when these can not be historically connected to one person.

The "similarities" may be connected to a person using journalistic methods. But not historical methods.

Regards, Pierre

[Fisherman]

Pierre now posts "the problem is that when I say There is a long way from the way to do it to the person who did it, there are two very serious problems."

Thatīs very modest of him. Personally, Iīd say that whatever he posts, there are very serious problems.

Itīs a good thing that the police think like us journalists and not like historians, let me just add that before I leave Pierre to his much deserved oblivion.

[Pierre]

Pierre now posts "the problem is that when I say There is a long way from the way to do it to the person who did it, there are two very serious problems."

Thatīs very modest of him. Personally, Iīd say that whatever he posts, there are very serious problems.

Itīs a good thing that the police think like us journalists and not like historians, let me just add that before I leave Pierre to his much deserved oblivion.

You forgot to write: As I leave the two problems to their oblivion.

[Fisherman]

Pierre is of course correct - both himself, his problems AND his thinking is best suited for oblivion.

My bad.

[John G]

So you are saying that it is not the case that both series involved medicos opting for the killers having surgical knowledge? That is just me cherry-picking?

Maybe you need to read it again, John, and make a new effort to understand what you are told?

Medical opinion was divided. Dr Phillips appears to think that Chapman's perpetrator had surgical skill. Dr Brown was unsure, but seems to think Eddowes' perpetrator may have been a medical student. Dr Galloway changed his mind as to whether the Rainham perpetrator had surgical skill. Dr Hebbert believed that a common or garden butcher or Hunter could have been involved in the Torso crimes. Dr s Bond and Phillips believed Kelly's killer exercised no skill whatsoever. Dr Brown believed Eddowes evisceration had knowledge of the position of the abdominal organs, especially the kidney. Dr Sequeira, on the other hand, argued that the miscreant had "no great anatomical skill" and "no design on any particular organ of the body.'

Do I really need to go on?

[John G]

John, the time span has nothing to do with the geography. Regardless of the years passing, the murders were nevertheless a London affair. Thatīs what I mean by the same geographical area.
You claim that the Torso remains turned up "all over London", but you need to keep in mind that dumping sites and murder sites were not the same in the torso cases. Each and every one pf the victims could potentially have been picked up in Bucks Row for all we know.
As for parts dumped on dry land, they were found in Central London, not very far from each other, perhaps three or four miles, with the exception of the Pinchin Street torso.

As for shared traits, I trust you can read? If so, itīs listed on this thread, but I am happy to re-list it:

Both series:

-happened in the same town.
-happened at the same time period, the torso killings overlapping the Ripper ones.
-involved cutting necks and bleeding off victims.
-involved opening up the abdomens of the victims from breastbone to pubes.
-involved the taking out of organs of both a sexual and a non-sexual character.
-involved cutting away abdominal walls in large flaps.
-involved taking away parts of the colon.
-involved the taking of rings from the fingers of the victims.
-involved what seems to be posing of the victims.
-involved the preying on prostitutes.
-involved medicos opting for the idea that the killers had surgical insights.

Those are the shared traits, John.

What do you mean "involved the preying on prostitutes". What evidence do you have that any of the victims were soliciting when they were murdered? How many victims were involved in prostitution when they were murdered. In fact, considering only one Torso victim was ever identified, good luck with answering those questions!

You've highlighted that different body parts were removed from different victims. How does that imply the same perpetrator? What evidence do you have that the purpose of removal was the same?

Posing of victims? In respect of the C5 that's just so theory. In what way were the Torso victims' dismembered body parts posed?

What victims had their rings missing?

The matter of surgical insights I've already discussed in a previous post. And it would be immensely helpful if you stopped cherry picking the evidence to prop up a weak theory.

Cutting of necks? In the case of the Torso victims they were decapitated, almost certainly to prevent identification as the heads were never recovered. How on earth do you discern the same purpose in relation to the C5?

What do you mean "the same town"? London, for instance, didn't exist until the creation of the London County Council in 1889. Until then there was simply the "Square Mile", or City of London. Where's your evidence that any of the Torso victims were murdered in "London"?

What about the Tottenham Torso of 1884? I believe Debra has argued that there were significant differences when compared with the other victims, and I note that even you're not including this one in your massive two decade series. This suggests that at least two dismemberers were operating in "London" during the latter part the nineteenth century.

What do you mean by flaps? How large were they in comparison with one another? Flaps isn't a medical term. In fact today "skin flaps" refers to grafting. Do you think the perpetrator was a plastic surgeon?

[John Wheat]

I'm afraid Fisherman, like Pierre, is not intereted in obvious facts.

I agree John. Although I think you may be understating things.

[John G]

John G: What do you mean by "panes". Here's a definition of this word, none of which relate to something an "eviscerating serial killer" would do: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Panes.

Panes, flaps, sections. The name is not as important as the implications - the killer cut away the abdominal wall in parts, two in Jacksons case, three in Kellys, four in Chapmans.

If you mean that the Torso victims were cut up into sections, then how else is a dismemberer supposed to divide up a body?

See the above, if you cannot understand what I mean.

Please give another example were a dismemberer has switched to becoming a mutilaltor, and then switched back again to a dismemberer?

Randy Kraft is a contender. But you are asking the question in a faulty manner. It is not as if the torso killer was NOT an eviscerator. He took out the uterus from Jacksons body, the lung and hearts from the Rainham victim AND Jackson, he took out colons etcetera. He may have taken out a lot more, but we cannot be sure, since the river may - itīs not all that likely, but possible - have helped with some of the organ extractions.
Plus the extractions were carried out via openings to the abdomen that were of the exact same character as the Rippers cuts - ribcage to pelvis.
So what you need to ask is if there are examples of people who have included dismemberment in some cases, whereas they didnīt in others. Like Randy Kraft.
Now itīs your turn. Give me an example where a serial killer has cut away the abdominal wall from a victim. Give me an example where two serial killers have plagued the same city at the same time, inflicting the same kind of evisceration cuts and damages to their victims.
My prediction is that you will be unable to give any examples, but letīs see!

Itīs funny how you now seem to invest in how dismemberment is a matter that is desired by the killer, a goal per se. You used to think that it was solely a way of disposing of body parts, a purely practical matter. But there you go!

An example where the abdominal wall is cut away in parts? Are you serious? Contained within the abdominal wall are the organs of the abdomen. The abdomen is divided into four quadrants: http://med.umich.edu/lrc/coursepages..._wall_ans.html Therefore, how on earth is a perpetrator expected to access any of the abdominal organs without dividing it into sections? How can you effectively dismember a body without dividing the abdominal wall? In fact, if you make a random slash accross the abdomen, you've divided the abdominal wall into two sections. If you make, say, two random slashes in the shape of a cross, then you've effectively divided the abdominal wall into four sections. Without a proper context, what is this supposed to prove? What do you mean the cuts wereof the "same character" ? Please cite source material.

I have already addressed the issue of different organs being missing.

Dismemberment a desire per se? Cite medical opinion to demonstrate this wasn't the case. In fact, you might like to consider Dr Phillips' comments at the Pinchin Street inquest:

"The mutilations in the Dorset Street case were most wanton, whereas in this case it strikes me they were made for the purpose of disposing of the body."

And what about Dr Hebbert's comments in relation to Liz Jackson? "It was clear from the director and manner of the cuts that no ordinary surgical or dissecting-room operation had been carried out, but the system of division of the parts gave evidence of design and skill,-the design probably being for the purpose of concealment of the crime and easy carriage of the parts; the skill not showing the anatomical knowledge of a surgeon, but rather the aptitude learnt by a butcher, horse knackerer, or other person used to deal with dead animals and to readily separate limbs at the joints."

I would also note that both kidneys were present in this case. Not so with Eddowes. Doesn't that tell you something?

[John G]

I agree John. Although I think you may be understating things.

Thanks John. I think, on reflection, that you're probably right!

[John G]

Hello Fisherman,

Which victims did Randy Kraft eviscerate?

[Sam Flynn]

Which victims did Randy Kraft eviscerate?

He might have castrated and/or dismembered (literally, as in cut off the [external] "male member") them, but I can't recall that he removed any internal organs. Besides, didn't he take most of his victims home, drug and torture them for some time before dumping their bodies on the freeway? Apropos Dahmer, his MO was to pick up a victim, take them home, where he'd "experiment" on some and/or kill them before flaying them, displaying their bodies for souvenir photographs, butchering and/or eating them etc.

These are very different patterns of behaviour, and no doubt the motivations behind them were quite different also. Where they converge is how they met their victims - more often than not in bars - and how they got them to the scene of the crime - via private and/or hired transport. But these are matters of practicality, and as such are by no means unique to these two killers, nor to their predecessors or successors.

[Fisherman]

Medical opinion was divided. Dr Phillips appears to think that Chapman's perpetrator had surgical skill. Dr Brown was unsure, but seems to think Eddowes' perpetrator may have been a medical student. Dr Galloway changed his mind as to whether the Rainham perpetrator had surgical skill. Dr Hebbert believed that a common or garden butcher or Hunter could have been involved in the Torso crimes. Dr s Bond and Phillips believed Kelly's killer exercised no skill whatsoever. Dr Brown believed Eddowes evisceration had knowledge of the position of the abdominal organs, especially the kidney. Dr Sequeira, on the other hand, argued that the miscreant had "no great anatomical skill" and "no design on any particular organ of the body.'

Do I really need to go on?

I know that medical opinion was divided. That, however, does not detract from my point that both the torso killer and the Ripper were believed by named medicos to have had surgical expertise. So no, you donīt need to go on - you could have spared the effort as a whole, even.

[Fisherman]

John G: What do you mean "involved the preying on prostitutes". What evidence do you have that any of the victims were soliciting when they were murdered? How many victims were involved in prostitution when they were murdered. In fact, considering only one Torso victim was ever identified, good luck with answering those questions!

That one torso victim WAS a prostitute, as were the Ripper victims. Ergo, it is a proven point that prostitute victims were preyed on by both men.

If I had said that the victims were actively prostituting themselves when contacted by the killers, you would have had a point.
But you donīt.
And if you think that it is of no interest that ALL the identified victims of these two murder series were engaged in prostitution, then think again.

You've highlighted that different body parts were removed from different victims. How does that imply the same perpetrator? What evidence do you have that the purpose of removal was the same?

Both killers were reaady and willing to eviscerate (very, very rare) and to take out organs of both a sexual and non-sexual nature (even more rare). It is not enough to interest John G, but it IS something that woud interest any crime investigator.

Posing of victims? In respect of the C5 that's just so theory. In what way were the Torso victims' dismembered body parts posed?

When you place a torso in the cellar of the New Scotland yard, you do so to get attention. In that respect, there was posing on behalf of the torso killer.

What victims had their rings missing?

Chapman and Jackson. You mean you didnīt know?

The matter of surgical insights I've already discussed in a previous post. And it would be immensely helpful if you stopped cherry picking the evidence to prop up a weak theory.

Point out the cherry-picking you speak of, please. Itīs kind of hard to defend myself against unspecified accusations. Itīs also uncivil, but thatīs another matter.

Cutting of necks? In the case of the Torso victims they were decapitated, almost certainly to prevent identification as the heads were never recovered. How on earth do you discern the same purpose in relation to the C5?

How on earth do you rule out that the necks were cut? Because that was my point.

What do you mean "the same town"? London, for instance, didn't exist until the creation of the London County Council in 1889. Until then there was simply the "Square Mile", or City of London. Where's your evidence that any of the Torso victims were murdered in "London"?

It is the inference, since their parts were found there. Could have happened in Belfast, though.

What about the Tottenham Torso of 1884? I believe Debra has argued that there were significant differences when compared with the other victims, and I note that even you're not including this one in your massive two decade series. This suggests that at least two dismemberers were operating in "London" during the latter part the nineteenth century.

I donīt rule it out, John. The limbs were skilfully dismembered, so it may well be a Thames torso deed.

What do you mean by flaps? How large were they in comparison with one another? Flaps isn't a medical term. In fact today "skin flaps" refers to grafting. Do you think the perpetrator was a plastic surgeon?

Take a knife. Plunge it in to your belly. Cut away your abdominal wall in four pieces, choose the size yourself, but four is the number.
Thatīs what I mean with flaps.
The fact that it is not a medical term is neither here nor there and you will not be able to obfuscate the matter like that. Sorry.

[Fisherman]

An example where the abdominal wall is cut away in parts? Are you serious? Contained within the abdominal wall are the organs of the abdomen. The abdomen is divided into four quadrants: http://med.umich.edu/lrc/coursepages..._wall_ans.html Therefore, how on earth is a perpetrator expected to access any of the abdominal organs without dividing it into sections? How can you effectively dismember a body without dividing the abdominal wall? In fact, if you make a random slash accross the abdomen, you've divided the abdominal wall into two sections. If you make, say, two random slashes in the shape of a cross, then you've effectively divided the abdominal wall into four sections. Without a proper context, what is this supposed to prove? What do you mean the cuts wereof the "same character" ? Please cite source material.

I have already addressed the issue of different organs being missing.

Dismemberment a desire per se? Cite medical opinion to demonstrate this wasn't the case. In fact, you might like to consider Dr Phillips' comments at the Pinchin Street inquest:

"The mutilations in the Dorset Street case were most wanton, whereas in this case it strikes me they were made for the purpose of disposing of the body."

And what about Dr Hebbert's comments in relation to Liz Jackson? "It was clear from the director and manner of the cuts that no ordinary surgical or dissecting-room operation had been carried out, but the system of division of the parts gave evidence of design and skill,-the design probably being for the purpose of concealment of the crime and easy carriage of the parts; the skill not showing the anatomical knowledge of a surgeon, but rather the aptitude learnt by a butcher, horse knackerer, or other person used to deal with dead animals and to readily separate limbs at the joints."

I would also note that both kidneys were present in this case. Not so with Eddowes. Doesn't that tell you something?

Yes, that you have misunsderstood the cases even further. Chapman did not loose any kidneys either. Does that tell YOU something?

Why do you speak of dividing the abdominal wall? I am speaking about cutting the abdominal wall away, and removing it in pieces.
Can you tell that there is a difference? Or is it too hard a task for you?