Practicality or madness?

[John G]

Indeed, but the approach was rather different. The legs and arms were cut off in the other cases, but the Pinchin Street torso still had its arms. Why would a practised Torso Killer leave the arms on? I'd have thought that the body would have been easier to conceal and dispose of it had been cut into more portable pieces, something which the perpetrator of the more "western" atrocities would have known from practical experience.

I think it depends what type of dismemberment you think was involved. Personally, I consider it highly unlikely that Pinchin Street was purely defensive, where the motivation is usually concealment of the body and to divide the body up into smaller parts to make it more manageable to lift and removed unnoticed from the crimes scene (Rutty, 2017).

However, as you point out yourself, in the case of Pinchin Street the perpetrator cut up the body in a somewhat limited way, which I don't think would have greatly assisted portability. Moreover, no effort was made to conceal the body.

Therefore, as I've argued before, I think we're looking at a much rarer form of dismemberment, which is also indicated by the unusual abdominal wound and the coincidence of the body being left in the heart of Ripper territory close to the anniversary of Annie Chapman's death which, like Whitehall, is suggestive of a perpetrator trying to taunt the police and to draw attention to their handiwork. I also believe rarer forms of dismemberment are indicated in the other three cases.

Thus, if we're dealing with with a case of offensive dismemberment, then dismemberment may not be the primary purpose:

"Offensive dismemberment. This often results from murder arising from sexual gratification or the sadistic pleasure of inflicting pain on the living or injury on the dead. This type of dismemberment is often involves mutilation of the sexual regions of the body, and is rare. In this situation, dismemberment may be the primary purpose of the murder." (Rutty,2017.)

[Michael W Richards]

Do we have a source to the facial injuries on the 1884 victim being similar to Kate? - I've tried to find what you are referring to and drawn a blank, I'm afraid.

Contextually that would be interesting, since the historic precedents for injuries like the ones on Kates face were to signify that the victim was being designated a snitch, songbird, canary, "nose"....

[Kattrup]

Nonetheless, unlike the C5 we do have a quasi forensic connection. Thus, all four Torso victims were neatly disarticulated. This is of considerable importance when you consider that of the three possible modes of dismemberment-disarticulation, transaction of bone via chopping, transaction if bone via sawing-this is the rarest form: 16% of New York City cases 1990-2006 (Fridie, 2007).
See also Porta and Cattaneo, 2017: " The dismemberment of a corpse is fairly rare forensic medicine...in this context, the disarticulation of body parts is even rarer."

Moreover, "Pathologists know through experience that removing an arm or leg through the joints is technically demanding and disarticulating a head through the vertical spine is even harder." (Rutty, 2017 ).

Late 20th Century statistics do not apply to Victorian London.

Power tools, for instance, mean the numbers you cite are inapplicable.

[Michael W Richards]

Seems to me a glaring question arises with the Kelly murder when trying to match her, among others, with a Torso killer. He's indoors, no pressing threat that we know of, he has all sorts of time to make meaningless cuts and do meaningless things...so, why do we not see any dismemberment at all? Cant say he didn't have the time or the opportunity.

[John G]

Late 20th Century statistics do not apply to Victorian London.

Power tools, for instance, mean the numbers you cite are inapplicable.

I'm afraid this is completely wrong. For instance, are you suggesting they didn't have hand saws in the nineteenth century? This is highly relevant because even today, in the modern era, " Hand saws are the usual instrument of choice for dismembering a body; however, GR [Guy Rutty] has experienced a case involving an electric saw, which is likely to become more common with increasing commercial availability." (Rutty, 2017.)

Moreover, as Rutty further points out, disarticulation is "technically demanding" and all four Torso victims, 1887-1889, were neatly disartriculated. Are you therefore suggesting that people in the nineteenth century were, in general, significantly more technically adept in this regard? If that's the case, what is your theoretical basis for such a remarkable assertion?

[Fisherman]

Regarding the issue of a forensic link and the 1887-1889 cases. Trevor Marriott's expert, Dr Biggs, has of course essentially ruled this out. However, surely we already knew this. There's obviously no hard forensics, such as tool mark analysis or DNA evidence, which links the crimes, although that's also true of the C5 Whitechapel murders, but few people seem to think they were killed by different perpetrators.

Nonetheless, unlike the C5 we do have a quasi forensic connection. Thus, all four Torso victims were neatly disarticulated. This is of considerable importance when you consider that of the three possible modes of dismemberment-disarticulation, transaction of bone via chopping, transaction if bone via sawing-this is the rarest form: 16% of New York City cases 1990-2006 (Fridie, 2007).
See also Porta and Cattaneo, 2017: " The dismemberment of a corpse is fairly rare forensic medicine...in this context, the disarticulation of body parts is even rarer."

Moreover, "Pathologists know through experience that removing an arm or leg through the joints is technically demanding and disarticulating a head through the vertical spine is even harder." (Rutty, 2017 ).

I“m afraid that what Biggs have done is to comment on the general appearance of dismemberment murders, nothing else. The forensics involved - Hebberts assertion that the four victims between 87-89 were all the work of a single man - were based on the cutting technique, and that technique was similar in all respects. That“s good enough for me, not least coupled with the immense rarity of the deeds.

[Fisherman]

Seems to me a glaring question arises with the Kelly murder when trying to match her, among others, with a Torso killer. He's indoors, no pressing threat that we know of, he has all sorts of time to make meaningless cuts and do meaningless things...so, why do we not see any dismemberment at all? Cant say he didn't have the time or the opportunity.

Or the need.

[Fisherman]

Indeed, but the approach was rather different. The legs and arms were cut off in the other cases, but the Pinchin Street torso still had its arms.

Actually, there was a leg left on the 1874 torso, Gareth. Meaning that whatever reason there was behind taking one of the legs off, it was not to facilitate transport. Once you leave one leg on a body, you may just as well leave two.
I must mention Dennis Nielsen in this context too. When he was caught, a couple of plastic bags were found in his apartment. In them, the police found a left side of a chest with the arm attached, a right side of a chest with the arm attached, a torso without head, arms and legs - and a torso with both arms attached, but the hands severed from them. So you see, there is no rule stipulating that killers who take all the limbs off a body will always do so.
My own feeling is that it is not actually the arms you need to go away, but instead the address - Pinchin Street forms a link between the Ripper deeds and the Torso ditto, plus a link to Charles Lechmere, and you never liked that link, did you?
If it had not been about the address, you could just as well have claimed that Jackson was the odd one out, since she was the only one to loose her abdominal wall a much rarer thing than loosing (or not loosing) your arms. But such things are OK as long as they do not occur in the East End, it would seem?

Why would a practised Torso Killer leave the arms on? I'd have thought that the body would have been easier to conceal and dispose of it had been cut into more portable pieces, something which the perpetrator of the more "western" atrocities would have known from practical experience.

Why would Dennis Nielsen leave the arms on? He was every bit as "practised" as the Torso killer, seemingly. The answer to such questions is normally "because he wanted to". The Pinchin Street torso was left in a public spot and was quite likely placed there to invoke terror and make a name for the killer. And there is something very creepy about torsos with the arms left on them.
Anyway, the question of whether the Pinchin Street woman belonged or not is a non-issue since Hebbert noted that the exact same type of cutting had been applied in this case as in the three others = same killer.

[jerryd]

hi jerry
thanks! for some reason i thought the ear was also cut off the tottenham head?

Hey Abby.

I don't think so. This is the original article I posted awhile back. But still, and I thought of the same thing when I found the article, it has a ring of Eddowes mutilations of the face to it.

[Abby Normal]

Hey Abby.

I don't think so. This is the original article I posted awhile back. But still, and I thought of the same thing when I found the article, it has a ring of Eddowes mutilations of the face to it.

thanks Jerry
ok thanks for clearing that up. still the face gashed and more significantly the nose cut off Tottenham is still so similar to Eddowes.

[jerryd]

Hi Jerry,

Thanks for this. Warwick Castle, Paddington, which is within the Little Venice area is 3.6 miles from Whitehall. St Pancras Lock is 3.8 miles from Whitehall.

The home of the man that saw the torso 3 times before reporting it is 3.58 miles from Whitehall.

[Michael W Richards]

Or the need.

How about the desire Fisherman? You say need...did Torso man need to cut his victims into pieces so he could drop them here or there, or did he desire to avoid detection and therefore did things that way, or did he just need and or desire to cut women into pieces? In all 3 of those cases, there is no evidence that the murder in room 13 created any of those questions. The murderer killed her, cut her up, and left up to chance who found her. Limbs attached.

Why does a killer change? Evolution...sure....to meet a new threat of discovery or to mislead investigators,...ok,...so why does one change from making Torsos that he works on in private accommodations then discreetly gets rid of the pieces here and there, to a man who brazenly kills in public with all the heightened risks and leaves his victims out in the open, to one that makes Torsos, then to someone who now needs a private space to kill women, without dismemberment, and then just leave them where he worked on them? I know you are not a slow learner, but these characteristics, in the most basic profile parameters, don't match. I know youd like to include even more victims with injuries and actions that don't match a Ripper or a Torso killer too...again, they don't match.

Instead of creating a Dr Moriarty, why not just work with real humans and the physical evidence.

Mary was not dismembered because her killer didn't want to do that, even with the opportunity. That's not Torso man.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

What theories are there regarding the overlap of the Scotland Yard torso and the double event? That was the total opposite of a defensive dismemberment. What might explain the juxtaposition of the both the torso killings and the ripper killings?

[Fisherman]

How about the desire Fisherman?

Yes, what about it? What do you know about it?

You say need...did Torso man need to cut his victims into pieces so he could drop them here or there, or did he desire to avoid detection and therefore did things that way, or did he just need and or desire to cut women into pieces? In all 3 of those cases, there is no evidence that the murder in room 13 created any of those questions. The murderer killed her, cut her up, and left up to chance who found her. Limbs attached.

I am speaking merely practically, Michael: If the Torso killer killed in premises that could be traced to his person, then it stands to reason that he did not want the bodies to lie around in those premises. I“m sure you understand this. Furthermore, if he therefore needed to transport the bodies away, then there is the possibility that he could not do so without attracting attention UNLESS he cut them up in parts that he could carry out in, say, a bag.
Conversely, if Kelly“s killer knew that his person could not be traced via the 13 Millers Court address, then there would be no - guess what? - no NEED to cut the body up and make it ready for transport.
That is why I used the word need: to point out that your suggestion that the killer would always dismember when given the chance, does not have to be in any way correct. And - as I have pointed out on numerous occasions - there are multiple examples of multiple killers who somethimes dismember and other times not, even WITHOUT the kind of circumstances pointed to here.

Why does a killer change? Evolution...sure....to meet a new threat of discovery or to mislead investigators,...ok,...so why does one change from making Torsos that he works on in private accommodations then discreetly gets rid of the pieces here and there, to a man who brazenly kills in public with all the heightened risks and leaves his victims out in the open, to one that makes Torsos, then to someone who now needs a private space to kill women, without dismemberment, and then just leave them where he worked on them? I know you are not a slow learner, but these characteristics, in the most basic profile parameters, don't match. I know youd like to include even more victims with injuries and actions that don't match a Ripper or a Torso killer too...again, they don't match.

Once again, you are now predisposing a whole lot about the murders that we cannot possibly know. You are telling us one killer is brazen and the other discreet, for example. This will not do - it is presenting supposition as fact. Further ore, you are placing the wagon before the horse when you speak about the differences as if they were in any way decisive. They are not, they can be overcome very easily - like I showed you in the Kelly case versus the torso cases. It can all boild down to something as simple as the torso victims having been killed in an abode linkable to the killer. Voilą, problem solved.
What cannot be explained are the similarities, not the differences. There are not enough space to cram in all the spectacular coincidences it requires by any stretch.

Instead of creating a Dr Moriarty, why not just work with real humans and the physical evidence.

The creator here is YOU. You create a poster who has created a Dr Moriarty. I never did. I pointed to a very common type of killer, an opportunistic and psychopathich serial killer with narcissistic traits. If that makes him Moriarty in your eyes, then Bundy, Gacy, Ridgway et al are all Moriarty twins.
I advise you to drop that silliness, or it will bite off a large chunk of your behind.

Mary was not dismembered because her killer didn't want to do that, even with the opportunity. That's not Torso man.

And have a look: you finally get a little something right: Yes, Mary was not dismembered becasue the killer chose not to do so. However, as I have shown before, several killers have dismembered some victims while leaving others in one piece. In youyr world, that means that these killers suffered from severe szhizophrenia, I take it? Or amnesia, forgetting that they must dismember, perhaps?
Once again, you are being silly, uninformed and arrogant to top it off. It cannot dissolve the similarities, I“m afraid. And they will ALWAYS rule the day, when they are of the kind of character we are looking at here.

[Fisherman]

What theories are there regarding the overlap of the Scotland Yard torso and the double event? That was the total opposite of a defensive dismemberment. What might explain the juxtaposition of the both the torso killings and the ripper killings?

What is it that you think needs an explanation?