Same motive = same killer

[Fisherman]

I think if they were the same man, and I am in no way convinced they were,we have a serial killer who liked to cut up and into and remove body parts of women. No torture, no sexual assault in either. The rarest breed-A post mortem mutilator who liked to cut up bodies of dead women.

This is, to my mind, one of the very best arguments for a shared identity. There seems to be no sadism at all involved in what the Ripper did, unless we are dealing with necro-sadism.
And there seems to be no sadism involved in what the Torso killer did, unless we are dealing with necro-sadism.

The general acceptance that the Torso killer had a bolthole begs the question what his aim was. People who abduct or lure victims into boltholes with the intent to kill will arguably have further reacing aims than that. I think it is fair to say that the norma reason for using a bolthole to kill is to be able to inflict damage and pain on the victim over a period of time before actually killing (usually) her.

But there is no evidence at all of any real physical damage or torture having been inflicted before the kill. There´s the odd bruise or two, but they may have come about as the killer grabbed or possibly hit the victim to subdue her. But no cuts, burnmarks, broken bones, whipmarks, nothing like that.

Therefoere it applies that if the dismemberment was merely practical, it seems the killer brought the victims to his lair, killed them, dismembered them and got rid of them.

Why?

It will not have been about robbery; Jackson was impoverished, pennyless.

So what remains?

The curious fact that both serialists seems to have killed swiftly and with no infliction of torture beforehand, implies to me that the aim was the same in both series - the procuring of a body. And since it is hard to come across freshly dead people in the streets, the killer had to take care of that part himself. It was, it seems, a means to an end - to access a body and to be able to cut into it, eviscerate it, mutilate it, cut it up in pieces - all of this at will, choosing what he wants to do to the different victims as he goes along.

Those who believe that the dismemberment was only about practical matters, what motive do you perceive for the torso killings? And what motive do you ascribe to the Ripper?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I was wording myself economically. The long answer is "No, I really dont think that is a very credible suggestion. And no, it is not impossible, but very, very unlikely to my mind."

You say ‘economically.’

Some might say ‘dismissively.’

There are different reasons why anyone might want/need to get rid of a body. I’m assuming that there was nothing too specific in the method of dismembering?

[Sam Flynn]

Those who believe that the dismemberment was only about practical matters, what motive do you perceive for the torso killings?

There could have been a dozen different motives, but the desire to mutilate clearly wasn't one of them, neither was the desire to take internal organs... because these things just did not happen in most, if not all, of the torso cases.

[Fisherman]

There could have been a dozen different motives, but the desire to mutilate clearly wasn't one of them, neither was the desire to take internal organs... because these things just did not happen in most, if not all, of the torso cases.

But Gareth, to begin with, to those who dismember for deeply rooted psychological reasons. the dismemberment per se IS mutilation.

And we can add a lot more, can´t we?

1873 - cutting the face away from the skull.

1887 - cutting the abdomen and the sternum open all the way down. And in this case, the heart and lungs were absent, just as was the case with Jackson. It was very possibly something that the killer did.

1888 - The Whitehall torso lacked a number of organs. It is very possibly so that this was something the killer did.

1889 - Jackson was cut open, she had her abdominal wall removed in large flaps, her uterus and the adjoining parts cut out and her heart and lungs removed.

So we effectively know that he mutilated and eviscerated Jackson. How does it not become our best guess that this was why the other victims lacked parts too?

I don´t know why you are so completely desperate to defend the idea of the torso killer being a practical dismemberer only when there is so much evidence telling us that this could not have been so.

[Fisherman]

You say ‘economically.’

Some might say ‘dismissively.’

There are different reasons why anyone might want/need to get rid of a body. I’m assuming that there was nothing too specific in the method of dismembering?

The division in much more parts that normal. The taking away of the abdominal wall from Jackson. The very precise cutting. The disarticulation in stead of sawing. The eviscerations. The fact that he sometimes took away the arm or leg on one side in a different manner than on the other. The fact that he in 1873 BOTH disarticulated and sawed through the bone.

That is specific and odd, all of it. The classical dismemberment divides the body in six parts by sawing it up.

And I am not dismissive, Herlock. I do not think that your suggestion is a very viable one, and so I say that. But I do not dismiss what cannot be dismissed.

[Debra A]

Those who believe that the dismemberment was only about practical matters, what motive do you perceive for the torso killings? And what motive do you ascribe to the Ripper?

Speaking as someone willing also to consider that dismemberment in Elizabeth Jackson's case ( if considered in isolation and ignoring Hebbert's opinion that the torsos were series) may have been solely about practical matters; I'd suggest a scenario whereby Faircloth and Elizabeth's close friends and family were all complicit in covering up the fact that Elizabeth had died whilst trying to abort her unborn child. A child Faircloth claimed Elizabeth said she had wanted to 'shunt' many times previously. In fact, I think I could make a pretty convincing case for such a thing. Including juicy titbits I haven't mentioned before and a bit of manipulation.

[Fisherman]

Speaking as someone willing also to consider that dismemberment in Elizabeth Jackson's case ( if considered in isolation and ignoring Hebbert's opinion that the torsos were series) may have been solely about practical matters; I'd suggest a scenario whereby Faircloth and Elizabeth's close friends and family were all complicit in covering up the fact that Elizabeth had died whilst trying to abort her unborn child. A child Faircloth claimed Elizabeth said she had wanted to 'shunt' many times previously. In fact, I think I could make a pretty convincing case for such a thing. Including juicy titbits I haven't mentioned before and a bit of manipulation.

Juicy titbits and manipulation sounds like a dangerous enough concoction...!

[Fisherman]

I must say, Debra, that I find the most intriguing part any explanation to why the lungs and heart came out, together with the uterus and the flaps. It would be hilarious if the originators did it with the intention to hide the abortion and make it look like the work of an eviscerator and mutilator instead. Considering the reactions from Steve and Gareth, one has to concede that this effort failed totally.

[Abby Normal]

This is, to my mind, one of the very best arguments for a shared identity. There seems to be no sadism at all involved in what the Ripper did, unless we are dealing with necro-sadism.
And there seems to be no sadism involved in what the Torso killer did, unless we are dealing with necro-sadism.

The general acceptance that the Torso killer had a bolthole begs the question what his aim was. People who abduct or lure victims into boltholes with the intent to kill will arguably have further reacing aims than that. I think it is fair to say that the norma reason for using a bolthole to kill is to be able to inflict damage and pain on the victim over a period of time before actually killing (usually) her.

But there is no evidence at all of any real physical damage or torture having been inflicted before the kill. There´s the odd bruise or two, but they may have come about as the killer grabbed or possibly hit the victim to subdue her. But no cuts, burnmarks, broken bones, whipmarks, nothing like that.

Therefoere it applies that if the dismemberment was merely practical, it seems the killer brought the victims to his lair, killed them, dismembered them and got rid of them.

Why?

It will not have been about robbery; Jackson was impoverished, pennyless.

So what remains?

The curious fact that both serialists seems to have killed swiftly and with no infliction of torture beforehand, implies to me that the aim was the same in both series - the procuring of a body. And since it is hard to come across freshly dead people in the streets, the killer had to take care of that part himself. It was, it seems, a means to an end - to access a body and to be able to cut into it, eviscerate it, mutilate it, cut it up in pieces - all of this at will, choosing what he wants to do to the different victims as he goes along.

Those who believe that the dismemberment was only about practical matters, what motive do you perceive for the torso killings? And what motive do you ascribe to the Ripper?

Good post fish
Assuming it’s the torsoripper, one man, I’m trying to think of serial killers with this type of MO and the closest I can come up with is Gein and Dahmer. Although Dahmer had a sexual component to his.
Do you think there was any sexual component at all to either series?

[Kattrup]

Kattrup, I would like to bring up four of the points you made, but in a separete discussion. The reason being that I am intrigued by how you loftily can state things like these as it they were true. I have numbered the issues, and take them one by one.

1. You say that the torso killer (whom you luckily speak of as "he", and I agree that this is the logical thing to do since it was in all probability one person only, and a male) "probably kept the heads". However, a head thrown in water will sink on account of it´s density and weight. It is therefore going beyond what is viable to say that the killer probably kept the heads.
Furthermore, the 1873 case, which is for very logical reasons also tied into the series, had an inclusion of a face being cut off and thrown away. And the face constitutes part of the head. Plus the 1884 Tottenham torso was dumped with the head present.
But, as I say, even if we acceptonly the 1887-89 torsos, we cannot say which is more probable, that he kept the heads or discarded them.

I am sorry, it was worded a little too economically. I was responding to Abby Normal's theory that some parts of the victims the killer wanted to keep.
My counterargument was: then why not assume he wanted to keep the heads, since they were the only part never found in any of the cases? (in the four torso cases we were discussing)
I do not personally believe he kept them, since it is just as likely they were disposed of in the Thames and never found.
Also, I only discuss the various possible actions of the Torso Killer in the context of Abby Normal's argument; I do not at present accept that a torso killer actually existed, since there is little evidence to suggest his existence.
If he did exist, then I agree he would be a he

2. Of course raritites play the greatest of roles in identifying serialists. Ridgway deposited pebbles in the vaginas of his victims, and the police was in no doubt whatsoever that this was definite proof of a link. And this holds true regarding any damage done, as long as it is present on two or more victims. Cigarette burn marks - no certain thing, but an indicator pointing to a link. Having been beaten - less of a certainty, but it willgo down a s ain indicator too, albeit a fainter one. The uterus having been taken - a very clear pointer since it is so rare. Pebbels inserted in the vagina - a certain indicator. The abdominal wall being cut away in large flaps - more or less the same, so rare that little reaslistic doubt can be entertained.
These things all predispose that we have a geographical commonality and a time commonality and that no copycats were at large. Apart from that, they cannot be contested when it comes to the overall usefulness.

This presupposes that we agree on what damage was intentionally inflicted by a murderer or dismemberer. I do not think we do.
You frequently use terms and phrases in a particular manner in order to suggest more of a link than is actually present. Case in point, "the uterus having been taken" - well, was it? Not really in the same manner, was it? Jackson's uterus was cut out, but since she was heavily pregnant, it's very possible that it was only because someone wanted access to the foetus. The uterus was found bundled up with other parts of her, and so cannot really be shown to have had any particular significance. So yes, it was "cut out" but there's a big difference in the context.
Similarly, "necks cut" - a cut throat in a murder victim is something altogether different from a decapitation of a woman already dead from natural causes.

3. The time overlap is of course not the most important factor for believing that it was the same originator. The damage is. Otherwise it would apply that regardless of the damage, a time overlap will always be the best pointer to the same killer. Not if we have a strangulation and a gunshot killing, though! But! IF the strangulation and the gunshot killing both involve the killer subsequently cutting the abdomen open by means of cutting away large flaps of meat from the abdominal wall and taking away the uterus, then the police will work from the assumption of a link - they will accept that it is the same killer.

I think the overlap in "mysteries", in particular the ending at roughly the same time, is the most suggestive of a common origin. The damage, as stated, is not very similar, and indeed, any similarity could easily be incidental.

4. Of course the damage listed shows a link between the series. I fail to see how you can even say such a thing. It is not as if Abby grabbed a number of cases out of thin air - he is speaking about cases that ARE linked in time, that ARE linked geographically and that ARE linked by means of similar types of damage having been done.
I presume that what you tried to say is that it cannot be regarded as having been conclusively proven that there is a real link, but that is another matter altogether. And as you know, my take is that the link is proven beyond reasonable doubt - it cannot realistically be a coincidence.

The damage listed does not link the two series, since the similarity is superficial and could easily stem from the practical concerns of (quickly) cutting open a human body. The fact that Jackson was pregnant, the slips cut were from the front of her belly, along with the damage to the uterus must necessitate speculation that the main objective was to gain access to the foetus. Since we don't know that she was actually murdered, there's no reason to link her to the Ripper crimes.

The link between the series that does exist is the contemporary speculation that some of the torso cases were the Ripper's work.
Sadly for you, that is also one of the main arguments against any link since the authorities dismissed a connection.

Similarly, the main evidence for arguing that some of the torso cases are linked is Hebbert's belief that they were: the opinion of an experienced medical man who witnesses all four cases. Others disagreed but of course, his opinion constitutes a real linking of cases.

[Kattrup]

And if you think they’re not discussing the same thing, then perhaps it’s because your take is off topic. This is a thread is about comparing and contrasting the similarities or not of the torso killer series and the ripper series.

If you want to start a new thread about whether or not the torso victims were murdered or if they were by the same man than be my guest.

Well, let's check what this thread is about:

A thread for discussing whether the eviscerators in London 1888 were one or two men. Or more, for that matter...

I guess I'm allowed to stay?

[Elamarna]

Like you post 2615 Kattrup. Good points, saved me posting much the same


Steve

[Fisherman]

Good post fish
Assuming it’s the torsoripper, one man, I’m trying to think of serial killers with this type of MO and the closest I can come up with is Gein and Dahmer. Although Dahmer had a sexual component to his.
Do you think there was any sexual component at all to either series?

I think there was a deep desire behind both series. Of course, many will call it a sexual urge, but one must realize that we are speaking about sexuality in the widest of definitions. Wishes, urges, arousal - not a desire to engage in sex with the victims.

[Abby Normal]

I think there was a deep desire behind both series. Of course, many will call it a sexual urge, but one must realize that we are speaking about sexuality in the widest of definitions. Wishes, urges, arousal - not a desire to engage in sex with the victims.

I agree.

[Debra A]

Juicy titbits and manipulation sounds like a dangerous enough concoction...!

The theory would serve as a good vehicle to remember Elizabeth's human qualities and her life story within a backdrop of illegitimacy, abortion, infanticide and the seldom mentioned brutality that ordinary everyday people were often capable of in those days, especially women.

Selling out or playing the game?