The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[Elamarna]

It may be personnel opinion,but it was based on Long's testimony,or facts if you prefer Elemana.
And I would be happy to oblige in replying to anything you claim is unsupported.

Sorry you say that you beleive he did not perform his duties correctly .
Did he fail to follow procedure according to police code?


Steve

[Sam Flynn]

Which Torso victim had there abdomen cut open in this way?

I think Christer mentioned the Rainham torso.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Now that the Torso killer has been brought up, what does that do to your former thoughts?
Do you stand by them, saying that two evisceration killers at the same time in the same place is not to be expected?
Or do you say that of course there can be eviscerators co-existing in the same town at the same time?

If you go for the latter option, then it must be pointed out that Jack and the Torso killer both:

-cut abdomens from ribcage to pubes

-took out organs of a sexual and non-sexual character

-preyed on prositutes, perhaps in all cases

-took rings from the fingers of their victims

-cut out parts of the colon on some victims

-seemed more interested in post-mortem mutilation than in killing
abstained from torture as far as we can tell - they were not sadists, they aquired bodies to cut into

-cut away the abdominal walls in panes from their victims in some cases

-were mistaken for people with surgical experience at some stage, apparently owing to how skilled they were with the knife

You need to read that book, Herlock! Which is it, by the way? Both Mei and Gordon make a number of mistakes.

Kelly was thought to be a personal deed on account of the combination of the overkill and the facial damage. It is a wise reflection to make, normally. But it does not apply here, if I am correct.

So there has to be an alternative reason for the overkill and face-cutting. And yes, as a I have hinted at many times, such a reason can be identified. Moreover, that reason is very clearly present in the torso murders too, sometimes less obvious, other times VERY obvious. The 1873 torso case is by far the clearest exponent, and the most obvious parallel to the Kelly murder in this respect. So if the killer is the same, we may reasonably forget about Barnett - he was 15 in 1873.

Like you say, I am convinced that Lechmere was Jack. But I am even more convinced that Jack was the Torso killer. It is an inevitable conclusion, going on the forensic evidence. So it´s no surprise to me when the Pinchin Street torso is found on the doorstep of Lechmeres childhood address in the same street.

It's the Trow book that I have Fish. It's one of a great number of books that I have on my 'to re-read list.'

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: Regardless of the thread, you just can't resist bringing up one or more aspect of your theories, no matter how off-topic. I knew this would happen as soon as Lechmere got a name-check.

Well, Gareth, it seems you cannot resist discussing what YOU want to discuss, so I cannot see why my interests and/or theory would be inferior in this respect. Maybe you can explain that? It seems you are on a crusade to stop any disussion of Lechmere and the Torso murderer, and I think that is odd. The possible connection promises to possibly provide the greatest breakthrough in the Ripper research ever, and I for one find that interesting. Move the material to another thread if you wish, but please respect that you cannot be the judge of what others ought or ought not discuss on public boards.

The point, which I've already made, is that there is only a limited number of ways one can cut open an abdomen. To read any significance into the Torso murderer's victim having had her abdomen cut open from breastbone to pubis is about as valid as it is to suggest that every pizza triangle in town was probably cut by the same person.

No, it is not. Pizzas are cut in millions, while abdomens are cut open in murder cases on very, very rare occasions. And when it happens, the cuts vary (as opposed to the pizza cuts) from small cuts (like MacKenzie, like Ellen Bury) to large gashes stretching all the way.
Pizza slices can only be cut one way. Abdomens can be cut in many ways.

It also applies that BOTH these murder series display examples of where the abdominal wall was taken away, by removing it in large panes. I don´t know if you regard this as just another choice of murderous pizza topping, but if you DO, I´d advice you to think again. It is something that is extremely rare in murder cases, and as I have pointed out, I have managed to find one (1) parallel example. In that case, it was a cannibal who cut a whole body up n small pieces and laid it out to dry in the sun.

Making comparisons between evisceration murders and pizza eating/deer hunting is somewhat odd. Please respect that we are dealing with murderers of a very, very rare kind here.

[Fisherman]

It's the Trow book that I have Fish. It's one of a great number of books that I have on my 'to re-read list.'

Okay! Then be adviced that it involves a number of errors. I´d be happy to help out with it, if you wish. Alternatively, you may look up Debra Arifs posts on the issue, and you will be better off than if only reading Trow. For example, he has a chapter of about a girl with a rose tattoo (that was never there) and his sketch of how the Rainham victim was divided into pieces misses out on a vital cut. Just to mention a few things.

The book has it´s good sides, but needs a lot of help in some sections.

[Fisherman]

Which Torso victim(s) had there abdomen cut open in this way?

The Rainham torso and Liz Jackson both had their abdomens opened up all the way down and the Pinchin Street torso had a wound stretching from two inches below the sternum down into the vagina. It was fifteen inches.

[Wickerman]

What puzzles me is why the officer decided to pick up and examine a screwed up piece of material in the first place because at that point I believe he was not aware of any murder anywhere. Its not normal for police to go around picking up pieces of screwed up material, and I have no doubt there was other litter in and around that area, where a market was normally held.

Could Dc Halse have placed it there having taken it from Mitre Sq. ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

PC Long does say to the coroner that there were rumors of a murder, but he only heard of a second murder (the City), just before he left for the station.
So, hearing rumors of a murder, he finds a bloodstained rag that had not been there when he passed 30 mins previous.
Those are two viable reason's for him to investigate.

[Fisherman]

Well, quite apart from vastly different signatures and MOs there were substantial differences in the injuries suffered by the C5 victims in contrast to the Torso victims. And if you think that dismemberment murderers don't inflict abdominal injuries then think again.

But methinks this argument needs to be transferred to a more suitable thread.

By the way, I still have no idea why you continue to include the earlier dismemberment cases-apart from Old Lechmere, of course!

There are no vastly different signatures. They are the same in both cases.

There are differences inbetween ALL victims. Kelly differes from Stride, who differs from Nichols, who differs from Jackson, who differs from Eddowes, who differs from... It´s the amount of likenesses that cannot be a sheer coincidence. Like I said, which other town has had two serialist eviscerators simulataneously? Ever?

When did I ever say that dismemberment killers cannot inflict abdominal injuries, John? Or even hint at it? Why would yo suggest such a thing, when it has no basis in reality? I know quite well that they can - I effectively argue that the Torso killer was just such a man!!

You have no idea why I include the 1873 victim? Okey, here goes:

Victim killed in direct or nearly direct connection with the body being cut up - as in all the other torso cases.

Victim not subjected to sadism - abductors are very often sadists who want time and a victim on their hands in a secluded surrounding. This killer was not of that type. No torture can be discerned on any of the torso victims.

The cutting work on the 1873 torso was neat and clean.

The limbs had been neatly cut open and disarticulated - just like in the other cases.

FInally, there is another factor that I have hinted at many times. It ties the cases very closely together, revealing the common inspiration ground. This factor I will not give up, and so you have to trust me about it.

[Fisherman]

The Torso man/Ripper discussion is moved to "Motive, method and madness" under the heading "Same motive-same killer".

[Wickerman]

But it wasn't described as a whole apron it was described as simply two pieces, and those two pieces could have come from any old apron.

Robinson said he could identify it, if he saw the whole of it. The two pieces produced are described as "an apron", not part of an apron.
It's only "an apron" if it is complete.
Semantics is not your strong point Trevor.

I am not saying that these two pieces are not the relevant pieces, But he was never asked how was he able to positively identity the two pieces as coming from the apron he saw her wearing, when all old white aprons worn at that time looked the same. He should have been asked what was identifiable about the apron he saw her wearing for him to positively identify what was put before him at the inquest.

It didn't matter, one of the two pieces had come off her body, the second piece was matched to the first.
PC Hutt saw her leave the station wearing an apron.
PC Robinson saw last saw her in the cell, she was wearing an apron.

....... Identification is a major issue in criminal trials today. Is that officer being truthful in his testimony or simply going with the flow on what was believed by the time the inquest was opened.

Of course you can claim someone was lying.
That is the common route taken by theorists who can't provide evidence - just claim, "well, someone was lying".
Sure Trevor, all fringe theorists end up down that road eventually, I mean look at the Hutchinson threads.....
On second thoughts, don't bother, we don't need another distraction.

[Fisherman]

Sure Trevor, all fringe theorists end up down that road eventually, I mean look at the Hutchinson threads.....
On second thoughts, don't bother, we don't need another distraction.

If the Torso/Ripper discussion is the first one, you´ll be glad to see it´s been moved by now, Jon!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Okay! Then be adviced that it involves a number of errors. I´d be happy to help out with it, if you wish. Alternatively, you may look up Debra Arifs posts on the issue, and you will be better off than if only reading Trow. For example, he has a chapter of about a girl with a rose tattoo (that was never there) and his sketch of how the Rainham victim was divided into pieces misses out on a vital cut. Just to mention a few things.

The book has it´s good sides, but needs a lot of help in some sections.

Thanks for that Fish.

Is there a better book on the subject?

[Abby Normal]

There is no proof that any of the Torso Victims were killed-that's just a theory. There is no proof that any mutations carried out by The Torso perpetrator were for anything other than disposal of the body. Dismemberers do sometimes carry out eviscerations.
There are vast differences in MO and signature between the Whitechapel murders and The Torso crimes.

wrong, wrong wrong..oh no here we go

[Abby Normal]

Now that the Torso killer has been brought up, what does that do to your former thoughts?
Do you stand by them, saying that two evisceration killers at the same time in the same place is not to be expected?
Or do you say that of course there can be eviscerators co-existing in the same town at the same time?

If you go for the latter option, then it must be pointed out that Jack and the Torso killer both:

-cut abdomens from ribcage to pubes

-took out organs of a sexual and non-sexual character

-preyed on prositutes, perhaps in all cases

-took rings from the fingers of their victims

-cut out parts of the colon on some victims

-seemed more interested in post-mortem mutilation than in killing
abstained from torture as far as we can tell - they were not sadists, they aquired bodies to cut into

-cut away the abdominal walls in panes from their victims in some cases

-were mistaken for people with surgical experience at some stage, apparently owing to how skilled they were with the knife

You need to read that book, Herlock! Which is it, by the way? Both Mei and Gordon make a number of mistakes.

Kelly was thought to be a personal deed on account of the combination of the overkill and the facial damage. It is a wise reflection to make, normally. But it does not apply here, if I am correct.

So there has to be an alternative reason for the overkill and face-cutting. And yes, as a I have hinted at many times, such a reason can be identified. Moreover, that reason is very clearly present in the torso murders too, sometimes less obvious, other times VERY obvious. The 1873 torso case is by far the clearest exponent, and the most obvious parallel to the Kelly murder in this respect. So if the killer is the same, we may reasonably forget about Barnett - he was 15 in 1873.

Like you say, I am convinced that Lechmere was Jack. But I am even more convinced that Jack was the Torso killer. It is an inevitable conclusion, going on the forensic evidence. So it´s no surprise to me when the Pinchin Street torso is found on the doorstep of Lechmeres childhood address in the same street.

good post fish

also both the torso man and ripper apparently stopped at roughly the same time-fall1889.

chew on that a little bit.

[Abby Normal]

Thanks for that Fish.

Is there a better book on the subject?

mie trow sucks. I saw a documentary he did on the ripper and it was probably the worst docu I ever saw, let alone worst ripper docu.

not impressed with that dude at all.

I'm waiting for Debras book on it. (or fishes)