Same motive = same killer

[Fisherman]

Hi Abby
Including Hebbert who is probably one of the only people actually involved to have made a direct comparison:

"During the years 1887-1889, a series of murders was committed in London, by unknown and unidentified assassin. The victims were thirteen women of the class of prostitutes. These outrages were done by more than one man, the post-mortem examination showing very clearly that in one series the motive was the desctruction of the identity of the person, and concealment of the crime. In the second, savage and singularly purposeless mutilation. The examination also proved the difference in the skill and intention of the operator. In the first series, as I may put it, the women's bodies were skillfully divided into sections such as might be done by a butcher or a hunter, evidently for the purpose of easy carriage and distribution, as the different parts were found in various districts, some in Regent's Park, Chelsea, Battersea, Isle of Dogs. even, in one case, the vaults of New Scotland Yard. In the other series, the women were horribly and unmercifully mutilated. Even the internal organs had been removed and taken away. It was in the last series that the theory of satyriasis was strengthened by the post-mortem examinations."

Alfred Hebbert 1908

Here it is again, a comparison is made between the perceived unemotional dividing of the body and the "horrible and unmerciful" cutting work of Jack.

The Torso man took out the heart, the lungs and the uterus from Jackson. That is not a very merciful act.

The thing to keep in mind, though, is that BOTH killers cut away the abdominal walls of victims in large flaps.

Presumably the Ripper did this in a rage and overcome by satyriasis whereas the Torso killer cut neatly and cleanly.

Than again, the outcome was described as "dissimilar" or something like that in the latter case...

A lack of psychological and criminological insight was what steered the victorians wrong, as far as I am concerned.

[Fisherman]

Good point, well made. Of those that were accustomed to cutting up dead animals, here's some food for thought:

Swanson reported having had the police visit 76 butchers and slaughterers in Whitechapel/Aldgate, interviewing proprietors and enquiring into the character of the "servants" (presumably employees/apprentices) who'd worked with them over the past 6 months. Even assuming that each butcher/knacker employed only one other person, that makes a total of 152 active or recently-employed professionals in the area, at least, not including those businesses with two or more other employees, nor those who fell outside Swanson's 6-month cutoff.

With that in mind, I shouldn't be surprised if there were easily more than 300 men with current/recent experience of butchery/knackering in this part of East London alone. Not to mention retired professionals, those who'd moved on to other jobs, or cooks and private individuals who knew how to prepare a pig, sheep or lamb.

Maybe there were 300 men used to cutting up animals in East London in them days, yes.

But in 218 years, there were only two eviscerating serialists in the whole of Britain. Or one, even, going on your definition.

[Sam Flynn]

Maybe there were 300 men used to cutting up animals in East London in them days, yes.

But in 218 years, there were only two eviscerating serialists in the whole of Britain. Or one, even, going on your definition.

Yes - and that "eviscerating serialist" was Jack the Ripper. The perpetrator of the torso cases, if he was a serial killer, was a "dismembering serialist", not that I believe that dismemberment was his primary motivation.

Besides, I very much doubt that we know of every instance of murder, evisceration or dismemberment that ever happened in Britain during those 218 years. The sensationalist popular press was very much a product of the 1880s, so who knows what else might have been out there in the centuries that preceded the Autumn of Terror?

Even today, not everything gets covered by the popular papers, and there are doubtless "serialists" of various shapes and sizes who are literally getting away with murder, then as now.

[Fisherman]

They're rather different propositions, Harry. The first is a statistical matter, the latter psychological one.

The latter will have it´s statistics too, Gareth. I believe that what Harry proposes is that if it is viable to suggest that two serialists who were into severing necks (with throats inside), opening up abdomens, cutting out uteri and cutting the abdominal wall away in large flaps, then it is certainly also viable to imagine that if it was just the one killer, he was able to change his mo.

[Sam Flynn]

He probably had neved seen or heard about dismemberment as a goal in itself.

Has anyone? Was there ever a "serialist" out there who was such a wanker that he only killed people purely because he wanted to chop their arms off?

[Sam Flynn]

The latter will have it´s statistics too, Gareth

We're talking about an individual's behaviour, Fish. If we're interested in Serial Killer "A", it makes not one jot of difference if serial killer "B", "C" or "D" happen to have changed their MO.

By the way, your argument about the rarity of serial killers cropping up in (roughly) the same place is a bit of an own-goal, but I shan't explain why.

[Fisherman]

Yes - and that "eviscerating serialist" was Jack the Ripper. The perpetrator of the torso cases, if he was a serial killer, was a "dismembering serialist", not that I believe that dismemberment was his primary motivation.

It´s good to hear that you admit that this is solely a "belief" of yours - up until now, I have been ascerted that the Torso killer was not an eviscerator and mutilator, full stop.

Now, let´s float with the idea that dismemberment was his priary motivation! I don´t discount that possibility at all, by the way. But if he wanted to dismember, WHY do you think he wanted to do that?

If it was for practical reasons only, why was the body of the 1873 victim divided into so many parts? From the torso, for example, the part involving the right breast was cut away. How was that a practical concern? And if it was, then why not do the same to the part with the left breast?
Why were the Rainham torso and Jacksons torso cut into three parts? Why did he leave the arms on the Pinchin Street torso and the leg on the 1874 torso? Why did he cut away the face from the 1873 torso? What was that about? And what was the use of cutting out the lungs and heart from Jackson, after having cut the sternum open?

Is it not true that dismemberers generally cut away limbs and head from the torso, and then they are done with it?

Since the Torso killer differed so radically, would you agree that we should look for the reason?

Did you read the article from Huffington Post that I supplied, discussing dismemberment and mutilation from the expert´s viewpoint? It classifies five types of dismemberment murders, and describes one type like this:

"The third most common category is usually referred to as an 'offensive' mutilation where the dismemberment is in fact the real purpose of the murder all along, and these include lust and necro-sadistic murders. Those driven by primarily sexual motives mutilate the corpse in characteristic ways, Konopka, Kunz and colleagues report, for example severing genital organs or breasts. Some perpetrators pull out abdominal organs through the disfigured genital tract. Death by strangling is apparently very common in this kind of homicide."


A combination of mutilation and dismemberment, therefore - like Hebbert said, he also spoke of mutilation and dismemberment, looking very much alike in all four cases 1887-89.
An interest for the abdominal organs, and the dismemberment is in fact "the real purpose of the murder all along" - so, as I initially said, I agree that dismemberment seems to have been this killers aim.

Besides, I very much doubt that we know of every instance of murder, evisceration or dismemberment that ever happened in Britain during those 218 years. The sensationalist popular press was very much a product of the 1880s, so who knows what else might have been out there in the centuries that preceded the Autumn of Terror?

Even today, not everything gets covered by the popular papers, and there are doubtless "serialists" of various shapes and sizes who are literally getting away with murder, then as now.

There will be a grey zone, perhaps - but that does not alter the fact that we are dealing with very, very, very rare deeds in both of the series we are talking about. Maybe you can suggest an "alternative truth" - Donald Trumps invention - but it matters not.

[Abby Normal]

Here it is again, a comparison is made between the perceived unemotional dividing of the body and the "horrible and unmerciful" cutting work of Jack.

The Torso man took out the heart, the lungs and the uterus from Jackson. That is not a very merciful act.

The thing to keep in mind, though, is that BOTH killers cut away the abdominal walls of victims in large flaps.

Presumably the Ripper did this in a rage and overcome by satyriasis whereas the Torso killer cut neatly and cleanly.

Than again, the outcome was described as "dissimilar" or something like that in the latter case...

A lack of psychological and criminological insight was what steered the victorians wrong, as far as I am concerned.

that's a good and valid point Fish and I couldn't agree more.
If the situation happened today, knowing what we do about serial killers now and change in MO and yes, even sig, I think there would be different thinking on it.

[Abby Normal]

Has anyone? Was there ever a "serialist" out there who was such a wanker that he only killed people purely because he wanted to chop their arms off?

The point is Sam, that there are serial killers whos dismember purely for practical reasons, like Nilsen who you pointed out, and some who do it as part of their fantasy-like Brudos, kemper etc. and that the victorian drs were probably not as familiar, or at all, with the latter.

and considering that the torsoman made mutilations above and beyond what was needed just to cut someone up to get rid of, and the bizarre way which he distributed the parts I would say that its fairly obvious he was in the latter category.

[Abby Normal]

It´s good to hear that you admit that this is solely a "belief" of yours - up until now, I have been ascerted that the Torso killer was not an eviscerator and mutilator, full stop.

Now, let´s float with the idea that dismemberment was his priary motivation! I don´t discount that possibility at all, by the way. But if he wanted to dismember, WHY do you think he wanted to do that?

If it was for practical reasons only, why was the body of the 1873 victim divided into so many parts? From the torso, for example, the part involving the right breast was cut away. How was that a practical concern? And if it was, then why not do the same to the part with the left breast?
Why were the Rainham torso and Jacksons torso cut into three parts? Why did he leave the arms on the Pinchin Street torso and the leg on the 1874 torso? Why did he cut away the face from the 1873 torso? What was that about? And what was the use of cutting out the lungs and heart from Jackson, after having cut the sternum open?

Is it not true that dismemberers generally cut away limbs and head from the torso, and then they are done with it?

Since the Torso killer differed so radically, would you agree that we should look for the reason?

Did you read the article from Huffington Post that I supplied, discussing dismemberment and mutilation from the expert´s viewpoint? It classifies five types of dismemberment murders, and describes one type like this:

"The third most common category is usually referred to as an 'offensive' mutilation where the dismemberment is in fact the real purpose of the murder all along, and these include lust and necro-sadistic murders. Those driven by primarily sexual motives mutilate the corpse in characteristic ways, Konopka, Kunz and colleagues report, for example severing genital organs or breasts. Some perpetrators pull out abdominal organs through the disfigured genital tract. Death by strangling is apparently very common in this kind of homicide."


A combination of mutilation and dismemberment, therefore - like Hebbert said, he also spoke of mutilation and dismemberment, looking very much alike in all four cases 1887-89.
An interest for the abdominal organs, and the dismemberment is in fact "the real purpose of the murder all along" - so, as I initially said, I agree that dismemberment seems to have been this killers aim.



There will be a grey zone, perhaps - but that does not alter the fact that we are dealing with very, very, very rare deeds in both of the series we are talking about. Maybe you can suggest an "alternative truth" - Donald Trumps invention - but it matters not.

good post fish, can you supply the huffington post article again?

[Fisherman]

good post fish, can you supply the huffington post article again?

That I can!

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/dr-raj-persaud/the-psychology-of-corpse-dismemberment_b_1577919.html

[Fisherman]

Has anyone? Was there ever a "serialist" out there who was such a wanker that he only killed people purely because he wanted to chop their arms off?

Ooopla.

You mean you didn´t know?

That would explain quite a bit.

Yes, indeed there are such people. It´s time for me to post the Huffington Post article again, it seems:

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/dr-raj-persaud/the-psychology-of-corpse-dismemberment_b_1577919.html

An excerpt, my highlighting:

"The third most common category is usually referred to as an 'offensive' mutilation where the dismemberment is in fact the real purpose of the murder all along, and these include lust and necro-sadistic murders. Those driven by primarily sexual motives mutilate the corpse in characteristic ways, Konopka, Kunz and colleagues report, for example severing genital organs or breasts. Some perpetrators pull out abdominal organs through the disfigured genital tract. Death by strangling is apparently very common in this kind of homicide."

Have you read about Sean Vincent Gillis, Gareth? I think I´ve got his name right.
He was a serial killer, who would not admit to anything once the coppers got hold of him. After putting him under severe pressure, he suddenly said six words, that were the beginning of an avalance of confession on his behalf. The words were chilling to those who have seen the corpse of Mary Kelly:

"I wanted to see her femur."

There are some pretty weird creatures out there. Not in heaps, they are very rare - but they exist, and have a typology of their own in this case, as you see.

If you have never understood the existance of this group of perps, it becomes understandable how you cannot fathom what I am saying.

[Fisherman]

We're talking about an individual's behaviour, Fish. If we're interested in Serial Killer "A", it makes not one jot of difference if serial killer "B", "C" or "D" happen to have changed their MO.

By the way, your argument about the rarity of serial killers cropping up in (roughly) the same place is a bit of an own-goal, but I shan't explain why.

No? Keeping it for future exploits? Should be fun!

I was not speaking of serial killers A, B, C or D, by the way. I said that there is a statistic angle to changing MO:s, just as their is a statistic angle to just about everything.

[Joshua Rogan]

Ooopla.

You mean you didn´t know?

That would explain quite a bit.

Yes, indeed there are such people. It´s time for me to post the Huffington Post article again, it seems:

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/dr-raj-persaud/the-psychology-of-corpse-dismemberment_b_1577919.html

An excerpt, my highlighting:

"The third most common category is usually referred to as an 'offensive' mutilation where the dismemberment is in fact the real purpose of the murder all along, and these include lust and necro-sadistic murders. Those driven by primarily sexual motives mutilate the corpse in characteristic ways, Konopka, Kunz and colleagues report, for example severing genital organs or breasts. Some perpetrators pull out abdominal organs through the disfigured genital tract. Death by strangling is apparently very common in this kind of homicide."

Have you read about Sean Vincent Gillis, Gareth? I think I´ve got his name right.
He was a serial killer, who would not admit to anything once the coppers got hold of him. After putting him under severe pressure, he suddenly said six words, that were the beginning of an avalance of confession on his behalf. The words were chilling to those who have seen the corpse of Mary Kelly:

"I wanted to see her femur."

There are some pretty weird creatures out there. Not in heaps, they are very rare - but they exist, and have a typology of their own in this case, as you see.

If you have never understood the existance of this group of perps, it becomes understandable how you cannot fathom what I am saying.

Hmmm, Gillis is an interesting case. As is the other serial killer active at the same time and place;

"More attention was paid to cold cases of murdered women when Derrick Todd Lee was apprehended on May 27, 2003. When certain cases could not be linked to Lee, investigators began to wonder if another serial killer had been in operation at the same time. Though Lee began his killing in 1992, between 1994 – when Gillis began his murders – and 2003 there were two serial killers silently and secretly targeting the women in, around, and just outside the Baton Rouge area."

[Fisherman]

Hmmm, Gillis is an interesting case. As is the other serial killer active at the same time and place;

"More attention was paid to cold cases of murdered women when Derrick Todd Lee was apprehended on May 27, 2003. When certain cases could not be linked to Lee, investigators began to wonder if another serial killer had been in operation at the same time. Though Lee began his killing in 1992, between 1994 – when Gillis began his murders – and 2003 there were two serial killers silently and secretly targeting the women in, around, and just outside the Baton Rouge area."

Yeah, we´re in the US now, and so the serialists are coming along thick and fast.

I think the thing we should focus on here is when you say that certain cases could not be linked to Lee - supposedly meaning that they differed in style and signature. However, generally speaking, the police should entertain the idea that it is probably a question of one killer only. It is when the specifics of the case vary too much for this to be likely and when there are no revealing similarities the time has come to realize that two killers may be on the prowl.

I´ll look up Lee - I think I have read about him before, but I really cannot keep up with all the US serialists...