Same motive = same killer

[Fisherman]

If dismemberment was one of his outlets for his paraphilia there is no reason why Kelly wouldn't have been dismembered. Why when he had opportunity to dismember which he did he would have done.

I am sorry, John, but is seems you do not follow me. I am not saying that dismemberment was the only outlet or an outlet that must be present.

The issue is a somewhat difficult one to assess, because I think we must leave leeroom for the killer dismembering BOTH on account of necessity AND on account of it satisfying his paraphilia.

As I keep pointing out, the 1873 victim had the shoulders and thighs SAWN through - but the knees and elbows, for example, were neatly disarticulated. Disarticulating knees and elbows are harder than disarticulating shoulders and thigs. My contention is that one of the dismemberment methods was part of him satisfying his paraphilia, and when that was satisfied, he simple took care of the rest in order to clear his premises of the corpse.

Time and space may have played a big role, just as the implements he had access too may have. Whichever the case is with that, my idea is that the combined Torso killer/Ripper used the many bodies he procured in different ways, all of these ways being diffeent paths to satisfy the paraphilia.

He COULD dismember, and he WOULD do so at times, and specifically so when he was dealing with victims he had to discard afterwards. But if we look at the 1874 victim, the torso had a leg attached to it as it was discarded. That does not point to him having to take the bodies apart in small pieces, and therefore the rest of the dismemberment done to that body seems unneccessary from a practical point of view.

Hope you can follow me now. Not necessarily agree, but follow.

[Fisherman]

That has to be a journalistic blunder. The "front of the pelvis" being absent makes absolutely no sense - neither does "the whole skin" being absent, for that matter.

Does it sound too much like Kelly for your taste?

[Fisherman]

Maybe the journalist had been reading Wikipedia;

"The pelvis (plural pelves or pelvises) is either the lower part of the trunk of the human body[1] between the abdomen and the thighs (sometimes also called pelvic region of the trunk) or the skeleton embedded in it[2] (sometimes also called bony pelvis, or pelvic skeleton)."

Yes, it is conjecture, but reaonable, I think.
Hebbert describes the slips in "a System of Legal Medecine", but not their extent. I will try to find time to transcribe the details.

Since Gareth will not say that it is reasonable if you point a gun to his temple, I may as well do it for you: Yes, it is very reasonable. I think that Chapman, Kelly and Jackson all had more or less the whole of their abdominal walls removed, at least the part covering the lower abdomen.

But the thing is, it is only laid down in words about Kelly. So Gareth tells us that she differs from the others; Chapman supposedly had only a part of the abdominal wall removed, and although that part can have been most of it, that is not how Gareth likes to read it. And we know how he treats Hebberts wording "slips" as a means to ensure us that only the thinnest of slivers were cut away in her case.

The truth of the matter is that we do not know. But we DO know that an odd inclusion like cutting the abdomen away in flaps points directly to a connection between the cases, and therefore it is more likely than not that the flaps looked alike to some smaller or larger degree - that is what happens in connected cases.

[Fisherman]

Wrong on all counts. You don't give up, do you? More's the pity.

Then provide the evidence to prove your point and I promise never to post on Casebook again, Gareth. Mind you, the similarities must involve very unususal inclusions to count.

Tempting?

But still, there will be no answer, will there?

That´s understandable. And absolute.

[John Wheat]

I am sorry, John, but is seems you do not follow me. I am not saying that dismemberment was the only outlet or an outlet that must be present.

The issue is a somewhat difficult one to assess, because I think we must leave leeroom for the killer dismembering BOTH on account of necessity AND on account of it satisfying his paraphilia.

As I keep pointing out, the 1873 victim had the shoulders and thighs SAWN through - but the knees and elbows, for example, were neatly disarticulated. Disarticulating knees and elbows are harder than disarticulating shoulders and thigs. My contention is that one of the dismemberment methods was part of him satisfying his paraphilia, and when that was satisfied, he simple took care of the rest in order to clear his premises of the corpse.

Time and space may have played a big role, just as the implements he had access too may have. Whichever the case is with that, my idea is that the combined Torso killer/Ripper used the many bodies he procured in different ways, all of these ways being diffeent paths to satisfy the paraphilia.

He COULD dismember, and he WOULD do so at times, and specifically so when he was dealing with victims he had to discard afterwards. But if we look at the 1874 victim, the torso had a leg attached to it as it was discarded. That does not point to him having to take the bodies apart in small pieces, and therefore the rest of the dismemberment done to that body seems unneccessary from a practical point of view.

Hope you can follow me now. Not necessarily agree, but follow.

No I follow exactly what your saying it's just the lack of dismemberment of Kelly is for me one of the many reasons why Jack and The Torso Killer were two very different killers. And frankly your explanation just does not hold water at all.

[Fisherman]

No I follow exactly what your saying it's just the lack of dismemberment of Kelly is for me one of the many reasons why Jack and The Torso Killer were two very different killers. And frankly your explanation just does not hold water at all.

Whether it holds water or not hinges on whether I am right or not, and I dare say neither you nor me can be sure about that. To me, much as I know that it is not usual with people who dismber only occasionally, I have no problems at all realizing that this seems to be what happened here. And there are parallels, so there is no obstacle to remove.

In that respect, I am watertight, John.

[Fisherman]

Seems I have a future on Casebook after all. Gareth has not come up with the goods to have me removed.

For some reason.

Goodnight.

[Sam Flynn]

No I follow exactly what your saying it's just the lack of dismemberment of Kelly is for me one of the many reasons why Jack and The Torso Killer were two very different killers.

Indeed. What happened to this mythical dismemberment "paraphilia" in Miller's Court? Why didn't he just get on with it and "paraphilia" her good and proper, instead of messing about with all that unneccessary evisceration, disfigurement and flaying of flesh?

[Joshua Rogan]

Given the patchiness of the source data, to say nothing of its accuracy, I think it's going a step too far to suggest that the killer cut along the pelvic bone as if he were using the bone itself as a template.

I think it's what the sparse evidence we do have points to, but fair enough.

Removing the "whole of the flesh" from the front of a woman's pelvic region from one side to the other wouldn't result in what I'd describe as "slips" of flesh; and to have labelled them as such would have been a bit of an understatement.

The slips included not just the front of the pelvic section but also some of the upper abdominal section too, from the perineum to (at least) the navel. Here is Hebbert's description from aSoLM;

"The flaps of skin and subcutaneous tissues consisted of two long, irregular slips taken from the abdominal walls.
The left piece included the umbilicus, the greater part of the mons Veneris, the left labium majus and labium minus. The right piece included the rest of the mons Veneris, the right labium majus and minus, and part of the skin of the right buttock. These flaps accurately fitted together in the mid-line, and laterally corresponded to the incisions in the two lower pieces of the trunk."

[Sam Flynn]

Thanks Josh

Here is Hebbert's description from aSoLM;

"The flaps of skin and subcutaneous tissues consisted of two long, irregular slips taken from the abdominal walls.

The left piece included the umbilicus, the greater part of the mons Veneris, the left labium majus and labium minus. The right piece included the rest of the mons Veneris, the right labium majus and minus, and part of the skin of the right buttock. These flaps accurately fitted together in the mid-line, and laterally corresponded to the incisions in the two lower pieces of the trunk."

That paints a picture of two long strips running up the midline of the abdomen, extending from the buttock to the umbilicus or just beyond, the two strips together perhaps being some 5" wide (which would encompass the mons veneris and labia majora as described).

If the killer had been cutting along the pelvic bone, the resultant pieces of flesh would have been much wider due to the broad, shallow nature of the female pelvis - more "slab-like" than "slip-like", I'd suggest. Besides, I'm sure Hebbert would have mentioned that the "slips" had extended as far as the pelvic bone, had this been the case.

[Abby Normal]

I am sorry, John, but is seems you do not follow me. I am not saying that dismemberment was the only outlet or an outlet that must be present.

The issue is a somewhat difficult one to assess, because I think we must leave leeroom for the killer dismembering BOTH on account of necessity AND on account of it satisfying his paraphilia.

As I keep pointing out, the 1873 victim had the shoulders and thighs SAWN through - but the knees and elbows, for example, were neatly disarticulated. Disarticulating knees and elbows are harder than disarticulating shoulders and thigs. My contention is that one of the dismemberment methods was part of him satisfying his paraphilia, and when that was satisfied, he simple took care of the rest in order to clear his premises of the corpse.

Time and space may have played a big role, just as the implements he had access too may have. Whichever the case is with that, my idea is that the combined Torso killer/Ripper used the many bodies he procured in different ways, all of these ways being diffeent paths to satisfy the paraphilia.

He COULD dismember, and he WOULD do so at times, and specifically so when he was dealing with victims he had to discard afterwards. But if we look at the 1874 victim, the torso had a leg attached to it as it was discarded. That does not point to him having to take the bodies apart in small pieces, and therefore the rest of the dismemberment done to that body seems unneccessary from a practical point of view.

Hope you can follow me now. Not necessarily agree, but follow.

Well I follow fish. Up to point where you go no further unfortunately. But I guess I’ll just have to wait for the book. ; )

[Abby Normal]

Indeed. What happened to this mythical dismemberment "paraphilia" in Miller's Court? Why didn't he just get on with it and "paraphilia" her good and proper, instead of messing about with all that unneccessary evisceration, disfigurement and flaying of flesh?

Because all of it was part of his motivation sam. And KELLY was killed in her own room, not his, so dismemberment wasn’t needed for ease in removal, nor could he stick a torso in his pocket and leave.

[Fisherman]

Indeed. What happened to this mythical dismemberment "paraphilia" in Miller's Court? Why didn't he just get on with it and "paraphilia" her good and proper, instead of messing about with all that unneccessary evisceration, disfigurement and flaying of flesh?

What happened to the paraphilia in Millers Court?

Have you seen the photo of Kelly on her bed?

That´s what happened to the paraphilia in Millers Court.

Now, you (falsely) said that I was wrong in my earlier post, and so I am waiting for you to produce the goods to go with it. Tell us about those parallell serial killer cases with inclusions of similar odd traits, in the same location and at the same time. Or admit that you cannot, for the simple reason that history has never produced any such thing.

When we are wrong, we admit it, right?

[Jon Guy]

So,it seems all the arguments against a possible Torso Ripper are just personal opinions, and not facts.

[Harry D]

Because all of it was part of his motivation sam. And KELLY was killed in her own room, not his, so dismemberment wasn’t needed for ease in removal, nor could he stick a torso in his pocket and leave.

Yes, Abby, I think circumstance is key here. Overall, the killer was interested in dehumanising and deconstructing his prey, whether it was through mutilation, organ removal or dismemberment.