Jack the Ripper-The Secret Police Files

[Harry D]

I think that an often overlooked detail in the comparison between the Ripper/Torso cases is that both of the series started back up around the same time in 1889, and both seemingly ended in the same year. Personally, I'm unconvinced McKenzie was a Ripper victim but she's the last victim that meets the criteria (throat cut, body mutilated). Does this hold any significance? It would be statistically rare for two serial killers to be active in the same locality at the same time. What are the odds that the both of them reemerged after a long layoff? Unless one was motivation for the other?

[Abby Normal]

I think that an often overlooked detail in the comparison between the Ripper/Torso cases is that both of the series started back up around the same time in 1889, and both seemingly ended in the same year. Personally, I'm unconvinced McKenzie was a Ripper victim but she's the last victim that meets the criteria (throat cut, body mutilated). Does this hold any significance? It would be statistically rare for two serial killers to be active in the same locality at the same time. What are the odds that the both of them reemerged after a long layoff? Unless one was motivation for the other?

Hi Harry
great point and its something that i had overlooked, or at least didn't explicitly think hard about. Not only the starting again about the same time, but more significant IMHO the finishing of both series in 1889. Ive always thought that McKenzie was more than likely a ripper victim (what you mentioned plus victimology and clincher-on back with skirt raised up).

I wonder what happened to both our killers that made them stop at the same time? another coincidence? or same man?

[Sam Flynn]

And why do you keep going on about the prostitution connection? This was the late nineteenth century: many poor women of the period were casual prostitutes, it wasn't that uncommon.

And, as we know, prostitues have been - still are - easy targets for assault or murder; compelled, as they are, to go off with strangers. If there were to be an entire spate of serious assaults/murders, involving two or more perpetrators (serial or otherwise), it should come as no surprise if prostitues were numbered among the victims.

[Fisherman]

And, as we know, prostitues have been - still are - easy targets for assault or murder; compelled, as they are, to go off with strangers. If there were to be an entire spate of serious assaults/murders, involving two or more perpetrators (serial or otherwise), it should come as no surprise if prostitues were numbered among the victims.

What I actually said, was that both the Ripper and the Torso man were known to have preyed on prostitutes, regardless of they were aware of it or not. And that from an investigative point of view, this is always of interest. John G is having all sorts of trouble accepting this, and wants to believe that I said that both killer actively sought out and targetted prostitutes (which I THINK they did), something that cannot be proven and should therefore not be put forward as a given.

Personally, I would say that before we have serialists joining in, the chance of prostitutes being among the victims is significantly smaller than after. The most common murder is that of a spouse, but when a single man kills several victims, that logic is overridden.

[Sam Flynn]

It would be statistically rare for two serial killers to be active in the same locality at the same time.

Rare, maybe, but perhaps not all that rare - and certainly not so rare that we must assume a single hand at work. Don't forget that there were many more Whitechapel Murders besides the C5, some (most?) of which were almost certainly committed by one-off killers. So, it's clear that we had several "non-torso" murderers active at the same time in a very small area, whether they were of the "serial" type or not. In particular regard to the Torso Murders, it's by no means established that they were committed by the same perpetrator anyway. Even if they were, there are very few objective similarities between them and the distinctive evisceration murders we see in four of the C5.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: Rare, maybe, but perhaps not all that rare - and certainly not so rare that we must assume a single hand at work.

It should be accepted as a very useful lead, though. It WAS that rare. But the assumption of a single killer must always be based on MO, signature and damage to the bodies. And as you know...

Don't forget that there were many more Whitechapel Murders besides the C5, some (most?) of which were almost certainly committed by one-off killers. So, it's clear that we had several "non-torso" murderers active at the same time in a very small area, whether they were of the "serial" type or not.

Which are the murders you are discussing here, Gareth? Because it is anything but obvious that Tabram, MacKenzie etc were not killed by the Ripper.

In particular regard to the Torso Murders, it's by no means established that they were committed by the same perpetrator anyway.

If not, we are dealing with two or more dismemberers who neatly and cleanly opened up the joints and disarticulated the limbs - a rare thing, according to specialist Guy Rutty. Furthermore, we are dealing with two or more dismemberers who opened up bellies, ribs to pubes and who took out organs. I find that utterly, utterly unexpected.

Even if they were, there are very few objective similarities between them and the distinctive evisceration murders we see in four of the C5.

No, Gareth, you need to drop that idea.

Bellies cut from ribcage to pubes.

Abdominal walls taken away in flaps.

Organs taken out from the victims, both of a sexual and a non-sexual character.

The victims having had their necks cut.

Rings being taken from the victimīs fingers.

Medicos opting for the killers having surgical knowledge/expertise.

Prostitutes being involved.

Colon sections taken out from the victims.

That is a very impressive list of very acute similarities, all adhering to the perhaps rarest of all serial killing types, the evisceration ones.

I cannot get it into my head that how anyone can think these similarities something that can be swept under the carpet as uninteresting. The level of the discussion is severely damaged by such an attitude. And that is totally objective, Gareth, with no wish to wind anybody up. One cannot be incredibly convinced of a connection with two cases of stabbings, one involving around ten stabs and the other firty or sixty stabs, and then say that the similarities I list, belonging to an indefinitely rarer group of murders are not enough.

[Fisherman]

Letīs press on a little bit, Gareth, and try to make sense of things.

As I understand it, you advice against making the assumption that two killers who work in the same city during the same time period, and who cut womenīs bellies from ribcage to pubes, who take awy abdominal walls in large flaps, who take out organs from their victims of both a sexual and non-sexual character, who cut the necks of their victims, who pluck away rings from their fingers of the dead women, who are considered by medicos to have surgical expertise, who both seem to prey on prostitutes and who cut away colon sections from the victims, would probably be the same offender.

But if we had had two killers working in the same town at the same time period, who during daytime attacked women with knives and dealt multiple stabs, then you would immediately go for the idea that these men were probably one and the same? That is how we recognize a shared identity?

To me, the mere suggestion is weird. Surely you can see that too?

[Abby Normal]

Hi Harry
great point and its something that i had overlooked, or at least didn't explicitly think hard about. Not only the starting again about the same time, but more significant IMHO the finishing of both series in 1889. Ive always thought that McKenzie was more than likely a ripper victim (what you mentioned plus victimology and clincher-on back with skirt raised up).

I wonder what happened to both our killers that made them stop at the same time? another coincidence? or same man?

hey fish
whats your take on the ripper and torso man both stopping roughly the same time in 1889?

[Fisherman]

hey fish
whats your take on the ripper and torso man both stopping roughly the same time in 1889?

That I do not know that either man (well...) DID stop in 1889. There are other murders/deaths after that date that are interesting to look at too, some found on land, some in water.

Generally speaking, though, it is of course of interest that both series seem to die down at a similar time. And it certainly does no harm at all to the suggestion that the originator was the same man in both series...

[Harry D]

That I do not know that either man (well...) DID stop in 1889. There are other murders/deaths after that date that are interesting to look at too, some found on land, some in water. .

What are those, if you don't mind?

[Fisherman]

What are those, if you don't mind?

Sorry, Harry, but I prefer not to give them up here. The ones mentioned on other threads (or boards) are the ones found floating in regents Canal off Broadway market.

At any rate, there are no victims in the London area who fit the Ripper/Torso bill closely after 1889 as far as I know, so if the originator/s of the series kept on killing, there was either a change in the way he/they operated, or the victims were either never found or in such a condition that it was impossible to see the similarities.

[Pierre]

Sorry, Harry, but I prefer not to give them up here. The ones mentioned on other threads (or boards) are the ones found floating in regents Canal off Broadway market.

At any rate, there are no victims in the London area who fit the Ripper/Torso bill closely after 1889 as far as I know, so if the originator/s of the series kept on killing, there was either a change in the way he/they operated, or the victims were either never found or in such a condition that it was impossible to see the similarities.

Emigrating after Pinchin Street explains it.

Regards, Pierre

[Fisherman]

Emigrating after Pinchin Street explains it.

Regards, Pierre

Half of it, Pierre.

[John G]

Upset, are we? People disagreeing - ouch! You are making rather the fool of yourself, John - and you seem to like it!

Not a single doctor saw skill in the Kelly murder? And yet you KNOW that she had her kidneys taken out from the front - which Brown considered skilful.

Explain to me why it was skilled in the Eddowes case and not in the Kelly case, or accept that you are plain silly, John. I have brought this up before, and you have failed miserably to either understand it or answer it. The exact same operation cannot be skilled on one victim only if two suffered it.

Thatīs that point wasted for you. Letīs move on, shall we?

A "most wanton" murder is a murder that seems steered by a sexuality that the killer could not control. That is the hallmark of all the ripper murders, or so people like to think. Kelly was cut up, as was the other victims, save Stride, for what appeared to be a sexually grounded wish to eviscerate the victims. The word wanton figures once in the investigation, but that does effectively NOT mean that only the Kelly killing was of a seemingly wanton character.

Two points destroyed. Letīs have a look at the third.

The Chapman killing could not be regarded as wanton if the sole aim was to get at the uterus.

If the wish for the uterus was a wanton wish, then what happens? Answer: What happens is that your third point goes for a looong vacation.

The flaps: "...how else do you think the perpetrators were going to access to abdominal organs? Via a small circular incision in exactly the right location, I suppose!"

How do you suppose that a medically and surgically untrained killer like Ed Gingrich was able to take out ALL of his wifes organs via a seven inch cut the her stomach, John? How do you suppose that eviscerators normally get at the organs? By cutting an opening in the abdomen or by taking away the abdominal wall in flaps? Read up. Find out. Correct yourself. As it is, you are proudly flaunting ignorance.

Four points demolished. Nice.

You claim that I favour Dr Brown over Sequeira, thus as you so charmingly put it, I am cherry-picking. Well, there a cherry you can shove up your behind, since I am not favouring any of them. I am not saying that Brown is m ore correct, I am saying that he DID suggest that it was a sign of skill to remove the kidney from the front, and I cannot conclude that he was wrong. Going with Sequeira could be right or wrong and the same goes for Brown. What remains is his view that cannot be discarded, not least since it has been seconded by latter day surgical and medical people on the boards.

Hope that cherry does not hurt. It will come out...you know when!

Five points buried. Deep.

Dr Phillips competent? Yes. Thatīs why he held the office he did. Thatīs why he was called in to look at many of the cases. Does his failure to recognize the similarities I listed make him a bad doctor? No, it makes you a bad suggester.
I somehow believe he DID notice that both women had their abdomens opened up from ribs to pubes, etcerera.
Are you trying to suggest that Phillips believed that Kelly and Chapman fell to different hands? Please enlighten us!

Six points burned.

I have no medical experience, and I am therefore not allowed to have an opinion. Reading up wonīt help me, I need an exam.

Need I say more? Seven out of seven points gone to the rats.

You really canīt help yourself, can you?

Oh dear, you seem to be rather stressed. Have you considered deep breathing techniques?

Anyway, I would start, once again, by pointing out that you're being highly selective with the cases in order to bolster a weak theory.

Moreover, much of your post is, I'm afraid, pretty much incomprehensible, however, I will address the main points: by the way, you're allowed to have an opinion, despite your lack of medical knowledge, or supporting evidence from experts. It's just that it won't count for very much, that's all.

Firstly, Dr Brown. He considered Eddowes' Kidneys had been skilfully removed, however, and this may come as a surprise to you, he didn't view Kelly's remains and, not surprisingly, made no comment as to the skill of the perpetrator: In fact, he thought Eddowes kidney had been removed skilfully because it had been "carefully" removed, not because of how it was accessed-okay he did say this would require some "knowledge", but consider this exchange:

Coroner: " Would such a knowledge be likely to be possessed by someone accustomed to cutting up animals?"

Dr Brown: "Yes".

Hardly heavily reduces the number of possible suspects does it? Well, apart from Lechmere, of course! So that's that point demolished.

What's next? "A 'most wanton' murder is a murder is a murder that seems steered by a sexuality the killer could not control." Are you just making it this up? I mean, have you been conducting another seance with Dr Phillips, perchance? In fact, can you even understand plain English? "Wanton" means "capricious; random; arbitrary; motiveless" (OED). In the Pinchin Street case the mutilations were not "wanton", because they were carried out for the purpose of disposal of the body, per Dr Phillips. In Chapman's case the purpose, according to Dr Phillips, was "to enable the perpetrator to obtain possession of these parts of the body." Conversely, in Kelly's case absolute destruction was inflicted on the body. For instance, the whole of the surface of the abdomen and thighs were removed ; the face was heavily mutilated; and the breasts were removed. Dr Bond concluded that the perpetrator, "does not even possesses the technical knowledge of a butcher or horse slaughterer or any person accustomed to cut up dead animals", and not a single medical contradicted him. Frankly, I suspect only you, or your acolytes, could discern skill or purpose amongst this destruction!

So that's another point demolished.

What's next? Oh yes, Ed Gingrich. How did he remove his wife's organs? By making an incision in the abdomen and removing the abdominal wall! Ring any bells?

To be more specific. Chapman was clearly emaciated, with the body "showing signs of great deprivation" [the same was probably true of Liz Jackson, incidentally, as she'd been living rough on the embankment].

Now this is highly significant, and I'll explain why. According to Phillip Harrison, an experienced eviscerator, evisceration is more difficult if there is a poor covering of body fat (Marriott, 2015). This is because the skin looses its elasticity, and that makes it more difficult to carefully remove organs because the opening can't be stretched. However, a surgeon would use a retractor to make the opening as large as possible-and surgeons do need as much room as possible for internal workings [didn't know that, did you?]

So, let's just assume that Chapman's killer didn't have access to a retractor. It would, therefore, make sense that, in order to overcome these difficulties, he would need to make a number of incisions and remove the abdominal wall in pieces, rather than in, say, one big lump, which was probably completely impractical in these circumstances. Wait a minute! Isn't that what happened? Therefore, no need to hypothesize such nonsense as a two/three/four sectioned killer. The perpetrator's strategy was simply determined by circumstances.

As for Kelly, no skill at all was demonstrated, so the killer probably inflicted a number of cuts to the abdomen, and simply gouged out the abdominal wall in pieces, or "sections", if you prefer. The fact that all of the pelvic organs were removed also supports this argument.

So that's another argument destroyed.

You think that Dr Phillips, a medical professional who attended a number of autopsies, wouldn't have been an incompetent doctor if he hadn't make the link that you, someone with no medical experience and relying on incomplete notes, have apparently made? Are you serious?

As for whether he believed Kelly and Chapman were killed by different people, he never commented on the issue so we'll never know, will we? Oh, unless your seance is able to enlighten us!

Please let me know if you require any further assistance, I'm always ready to help out a struggling poster.

[John G]

Letīs press on a little bit, Gareth, and try to make sense of things.

As I understand it, you advice against making the assumption that two killers who work in the same city during the same time period, and who cut womenīs bellies from ribcage to pubes, who take awy abdominal walls in large flaps, who take out organs from their victims of both a sexual and non-sexual character, who cut the necks of their victims, who pluck away rings from their fingers of the dead women, who are considered by medicos to have surgical expertise, who both seem to prey on prostitutes and who cut away colon sections from the victims, would probably be the same offender.

But if we had had two killers working in the same town at the same time period, who during daytime attacked women with knives and dealt multiple stabs, then you would immediately go for the idea that these men were probably one and the same? That is how we recognize a shared identity?

To me, the mere suggestion is weird. Surely you can see that too?

Organs which are "sexual and non-sexual" in character? Are there any other types of organs?