Practicality or madness?

[Sam Flynn]

A little something from the net about necrophiliacs

Dead interesting!

[Fisherman]

Why was he on the "same vein" as JtR? Thus, one "series" implies a commuter killer, who took steps to prevent their victims from being identified (classic defensive dismemberer), and who stores the bodies of his victims. Whilst the other series implies a classic marauder, who had no interest in abducting their victims, storing their bodies, or dismembering them.

Regarding body parts. We have no idea why certain body parts were not found from the Torso crimes. For instance, both the left leg and uterus were missing from the Whitehall victim. This may indicate a defensive/offensive dismemberer, or maybe a killer who was assembling a left leg collection!

Equally, it may be indicative of a perpetrator wnho was scattering/ hiding body parts like pieces of a puzzle, and the aforementioned items were simply never found.

You rely on what you believe the series "imply", John. These are preconceptions, therefore, and not facts. We must keep an open mind here! And we are left with two series with inclusions of similarities that are extremely rare and far-reaching. Before we can explain that, the pertinent thing to do is to work from an assumption of a common originator.

The idea that a dismemberer with a bolthole cannot and/or will not kill in the streets is a very useful one - but it is an idea only, and not a proven thing. As I say, there are examples of those who have killed both in- and outdoors, just as there are examples of those who only occasionally dismember.

The onus of proof is therefore on you if you want to tell the series apart.

But on the whole, the old chestnut of a common originator is only a secondary topic of this thread. The question about whether both killers worked to similar agendas of killing, bleeding and cutting away in quick succession is what I am primarily after here. And it seems they did, does it not?

[Batman]

Would not the ordinary (well...) necrophiliac keep the body intact, though? This man very quickly sets about taking the body apart in small pieces.

A boat could be the secluded bolthole - but so could many other places. There is no need for the bolthole to be on the river, and we know that parts were dumped on shore. Why do that if they were dismembered on a boat? Why go ashore and dump if he could just throw the parts overboard?

If he did have access to a boat, then I´d say that the parts dumped on land would prove that there was some sort of intention behind this anomaly.

Ted Bundy was a true necrophiliac. This is what he was holding back all along but Keppel managed to eventually get it out of him. Ted Bundy was keeping parts (heads) and full bodies at locations he had mapped out in his mind and was returning to them later on. This is how Keppel realized The Green River Killer (Gary Ridgway) was also returning to the bodies. Bundy spent the night with the bodies. He would alter them with makeup to look more like his ex-fiancee (she one time woke up to Ted exploring her under the sheets with a flashlight). The lesson learned here is to stake out places where bodies are found without alerting the media (which is incredibly hard).

They will keep the body but many need new parts after they have served a purpose, meaning too rotten/used up and they need something fresh again. Ed Gein, Jeffery Dahmer all did this. Dahmer did it because he wanted to have friends. He cannibalized to solidify the friendship so that they would become part of him forever.

A boat would allow for the offender to dump blood and body pieces easily as well as a place to keep his crimes away from his home.

The Thames Torso Murders of the period of 1887 to 1889 start with river dumping. Rainham mystery. Part of the Whitehall mystery is river based but then the river parts stop and the torso is found in Whitehall at New Scotland Yard, suggesting the offender has gone from river dumping to land dumping.

Then we have a pause (or not if he is JtR) and is back to the river dumping again with Elizabeth Jackson, but then goes to dumping on land again with the Pinchin Street Torso after Jackson's parts are found.

Seems a pattern of when his Thames work is discovered he stops river dumping and turns to street dumping.

[Fisherman]

Dead interesting!

Don´t joke about as grave cases as these, Gareth...!

[Fisherman]

Ted Bundy was a true necrophiliac. This is what he was holding back all along but Keppel managed to eventually get it out of him. Ted Bundy was keeping parts (heads) and full bodies at locations he had mapped out in his mind and was returning to them later on. This is how Keppel realized The Green River Killer (Gary Ridgway) was also returning to the bodies. Bundy spent the night with the bodies. He would alter them with makeup to look more like his ex-fiancee (she one time woke up to Ted exploring her under the sheets with a flashlight). The lesson learned here is to stake out places where bodies are found without alerting the media (which is incredibly hard).

They will keep the body but many need new parts after they have served a purpose, meaning too rotten/used up and they need something fresh again. Ed Gein, Jeffery Dahmer all did this. Dahmer did it because he wanted to have friends. He cannibalized to solidify the friendship so that they would become part of him forever.

A boat would allow for the offender to dump blood and body pieces easily as well as a place to keep his crimes away from his home.

The Thames Torso Murders of the period of 1887 to 1889 start with river dumping. Rainham mystery. Part of the Whitehall mystery is river based but then the river parts stop and the torso is found in Whitehall at New Scotland Yard, suggesting the offender has gone from river dumping to land dumping.

Then we have a pause (or not if he is JtR) and is back to the river dumping again with Elizabeth Jackson, but then goes to dumping on land again with the Pinchin Street Torso after Jackson's parts are found.

Seems a pattern of when his Thames work is discovered he stops river dumping and turns to street dumping.

Street dumping is way more risky than river dumping, so I don´t buy into the idea that this would have lain behind the differences, Batman. Besides, if he favoured one over the other, why employ BOTH with the same victim? Makes no sense at all.

Bundy revisited his victims, but how could the torso killer do so - after having sent them down The Thames in pieces? Or having thrown them into a garden? The answer is that he could not.

The Ripper was certainly not able to revisit his victims. And if he only wanted a part to remember them by, then why carve out ALL parts from Kelly - and then leave them behind?

We are not dealing with necrophilia here. We are dealing with murders where - once the killer had done his thing - he was happy to leave the bodies behind. He discarded them once they had filled their role.

Dahmer kept parts from his victims to remember them by, in his apartment. He could not keep the whole bodies, so it was a necessity if he wanted something at all from them.

[Batman]

Street dumping is way more risky than river dumping, so I don´t buy into the idea that this would have lain behind the differences, Batman. Besides, if he favoured one over the other, why employ BOTH with the same victim? Makes no sense at all.

Yet the pattern is there. River discovery. Parts then found on land. Pause. River discovery. Parts then found on land.

Bundy revisited his victims, but how could the torso killer do so - after having sent them down The Thames in pieces? Or having thrown them into a garden? The answer is that he could not.

He keeps a core victim on the boat and replaces the parts he dumps, except the head. He is cycling the body parts. He always has a full cadaver made from different parts.

The Ripper was certainly not able to revisit his victims. And if he only wanted a part to remember them by, then why carve out ALL parts from Kelly - and then leave them behind?

Right, he can't revisit those ones, but can body parts he takes with him. Your Torso murderer model has access to some bodies (Thames victims) and not others (such as the C5), right?

We are not dealing with necrophilia here. We are dealing with murders where - once the killer had done his thing - he was happy to leave the bodies behind. He discarded them once they had filled their role.

I thought your Torso model has him keeping some bodies. In the necrophile model he is harvesting the sexual parts from the victims and just leaves the bodies there. This would be practically over 'madness' as per your OP heading.

Dahmer kept parts from his victims to remember them by, in his apartment. He could not keep the whole bodies, so it was a necessity if he wanted something at all from them.

He kept whole bodies, even seated them around watching TV with him. He disposed of them when they became too rotten. He even tried to create a zombie by injecting one of his victims with LSD directly into his brain.

[Fisherman]

Batman: Yet the pattern is there. River discovery. Parts then found on land. Pause. River discovery. Parts then found on land.

Yes, there is such a pattern. But far from ensuring him not being detected, it served to ensure maximum press coverage. He took immense risks, he did not minimize them. If he did, he would have weighed the bodies down and dumped them all from that boat - if he had one.


He keeps a core victim on the boat and replaces the parts he dumps, except the head. He is cycling the body parts. He always has a full cadaver made from different parts.

Why? Why would he keep parts from one victim if he had a fresh victim? Similarly, if he preferred the old parts, then why replace them at all? What you are suggesting is clearly in line with you watching "Dexter", I´ll say that much. To me, it´s not realistic at all.

Right, he can't revisit those ones, but can body parts he takes with him. Your Torso murderer model has access to some bodies (Thames victims) and not others (such as the C5), right?

Absolutely - and if we free ourselves from the notion of a necrophiliac at work, we have no problem whatsoever with that. Taking trophies from a body has nothing to do with necrophilia. A necrophiliac wants the whole body, not a kidney.

I thought your Torso model has him keeping some bodies. In the necrophile model he is harvesting the sexual parts from the victims and just leaves the bodies there. This would be practically over 'madness' as per your OP heading.

No, I never believed he kept any bodies at all, other than perhaps storing them for convenience until the dumping opportunity came along. And necrophiles do not harvest organs. They want the whole body.

He kept whole bodies, even seated them around watching TV with him. He disposed of them when they became too rotten. He even tried to create a zombie by injecting one of his victims with LSD directly into his brain.[/QUOTE]

That is what I am saying - he could not keep the bodies at length. And keeping parts from them is ritualistic behaviour, not necrophilia. He engaged in sex with them before he killed them, necrophilia was not his driving force.

[Batman]

Yes, there is such a pattern. But far from ensuring him not being detected, it served to ensure maximum press coverage. He took immense risks, he did not minimize them. If he did, he would have weighed the bodies down and dumped them all from that boat - if he had one.

How could he know river dumping would result in the parts being found? Why put a bag with body parts in a vault under construction if he wants to maximize press coverage?

Why? Why would he keep parts from one victim if he had a fresh victim? Similarly, if he preferred the old parts, then why replace them at all? What you are suggesting is clearly in line with you watching "Dexter", I´ll say that much. To me, it´s not realistic at all.

It has nothing to do with Dexter. All I was talking about with what Dexter did, was dump bodies from his boat. There isn't anything like necrophilia in the TV series either. Not that I remember. Boats are easy to clean down. A spot of blood on a boat is hardly something out of place giving fishing.

The "why" is answered by Bundy. He was trying to recreate his ex-fiancee. The answer to why he would keep parts (where is Jackson's head? where in the Rainham Mystery head?) is because of attachment (no pun intended). Gein did this.

Absolutely - and if we free ourselves from the notion of a necrophiliac at work, we have no problem whatsoever with that. Taking trophies from a body has nothing to do with necrophilia. A necrophiliac wants the whole body, not a kidney.

Ah, but a necrophiliac who has a corpse with rotten sexual parts, doesn't need a whole corpse, just those parts. I have also mentioned Ed Gein and his acts can and will dispute some of your ideas of necrophiliacs.

No, I never believed he kept any bodies at all, other than perhaps storing them for convenience until the dumping opportunity came along. And necrophiles do not harvest organs. They want the whole body.

Gein harvested including sexual parts which horribly can still be seen in his crime scene photos. He even made a lampshade from human skin and a belt buckle from nippes.

That is what I am saying - he could not keep the bodies at length. And keeping parts from them is ritualistic behaviour, not necrophilia. He engaged in sex with them before he killed them, necrophilia was not his driving force.

I suggest Gein here. Gein was even a body snatcher. Dug some up.

[Busy Beaver]

Sorry Guys, but some of this stuff is way more frightening than meeting face to face with the Ripper himself.

[Fisherman]

Batman: How could he know river dumping would result in the parts being found?

After his first try, he would know, right?

Why put a bag with body parts in a vault under construction if he wants to maximize press coverage?

If the vault belongs to the New Scotland Yard, then there´s your answer. It may also have had something to do with a resentment of the police, generally speaking.

It has nothing to do with Dexter. All I was talking about with what Dexter did, was dump bodies from his boat. There isn't anything like necrophilia in the TV series either. Not that I remember. Boats are easy to clean down. A spot of blood on a boat is hardly something out of place giving fishing.

Still does not answer my question. If he wanted old parts, why get new ones. If he got new ones, why keep the old ones? It´s beyond unrealistic, and frankly, the stuff of VERY bad movie scripts.

The "why" is answered by Bundy. He was trying to recreate his ex-fiancee. The answer to why he would keep parts (where is Jackson's head? where in the Rainham Mystery head?) is because of attachment (no pun intended). Gein did this.

Recreate his fiancée? Please, Batman! Where are the Jackson and Rainham heads? Isn´t the more pertinent question where yours is?

Ah, but a necrophiliac who has a corpse with rotten sexual parts, doesn't need a whole corpse, just those parts. I have also mentioned Ed Gein and his acts can and will dispute some of your ideas of necrophiliacs.

The thing is, a necrophiliac will not commence with just a kidney, Batman.

Gein harvested including sexual parts which horribly can still be seen in his crime scene photos. He even made a lampshade from human skin and a belt buckle from nippes.

How is that being a necrophiliac? A necrophiliac engages in sex with his... Oh, now I see. You think turning the lamp on is sex.

I suggest Gein here. Gein was even a body snatcher. Dug some up.

Yes, he did, Necrophiliacs often do. It has something to do with how people in graves are dead. But our man did not dig up corpses, did he?

[Batman]

Sorry Guys, but some of this stuff is way more frightening than meeting face to face with the Ripper himself.

Funny thing is, if you met the Ripper face to face you would probably be meeting a charming man who offers to walk you somewhere to help protect you from said ripper.

Gein just looks like your typical 1950s, 1960s, farmer/hunter from Wisconsin.

[Batman]

Still does not answer my question. If he wanted old parts, why get new ones. If he got new ones, why keep the old ones? It´s beyond unrealistic, and frankly, the stuff of VERY bad movie scripts.

It is movies that borrowed from Gein (Texas Chainsaw Massacre). It is movies that borrowed from JtR (The Lodger).

These fellas came before the movies.

We can show that Ted Bundy as a necrophiliac was also a brutal lust murderer. Bundy kept body parts, like heads.

With Gein we can show that while he didn't murder as many people as corpses he dug up, he had plenty to do with their bodies in the meantime and obviously sexual things were involved.

Here is a list of stuff recovered from Gein's abode. Obviously, a body intact wasn't big on his itinerary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Gein#Crimes

EDIT: BTW - While on the topic of movies... how about novels? Mary Shelly's descendants had body parts thrown into their garden.

[Abby Normal]

Reading the discussion on another thread about Martha Tabram´s viability as a Ripper victim, I find that Gary (Mr Barnett) makes a distinction between what he senses is a wish to annihilate in Tabram´s case and what he perceives as killing as a means to an end - that of cutting open and eviscerating victims. I hope I got that right, Gary?

In this vein, I would like to turn our attention to the 1873 torso victim, who I believe is not only a Thames torso murder but also one committed by Jack the Ripper, who I think was the killer behind both series.

Back in 1873, there was speculation among the medicos that this victim, found in many parts dumped in the Thames, had been subjected to the gruesome fate of having her dismemberment carried out to a part when she was still alive.
This owes to the muscle contraction that was evident in the body. If a body is cut up in close connection the the time of death, the muscles alongside the cuts will contract themselves. This reflex is lost after a shortish time. meaning that there will be no contraction within bodies that have not been cut up in close connection to death.

The next fact that is of interest here is that it was discovered that there was not a drop of blood inside the body. This means that the victim was effectively drained of blood, and that would not come about by her bleeding out, lying on the ground with a cut throat, for example. In such a case, some of the blood would not exit the body, but instead stay in areas close to the ground and below the level of the cut throat.

So what we are looking at is a body that was hung up or otherwise arranged to bleed it off totally. For example, the victim could have been hung from her feet, with a cut to the throat, and the blood would all exit the body in a matter of minutes.

These minutes, however, must be crammed in before the dismemberment was carried out, and so we can see that we have rather a rushed affair going on here. The victim is killed, quite possibly by the two blows to the temple that were recorded, the body is then hung up and the blood vessels, quite possibly the ones in the neck, are opened up to bleed the body off. Once this is achieved, the body is taken down again and immediately dismembered.

The dismemberment is however not rushed or sloppy. It is instead a meticulous affair, where neat disarticulation of the limbs - but for the joints at the shoulders and hips that are sawed straight off - is accompanied by the very precise and timeconsuming cutting away of the face and scalp in one single piece, including even the eyelashes.

My conclusion is that this murder was always about the killers wish to procure a body to cut up. And he went about his business in as practical a manner as possible, getting rid of the messy blood before he set about cutting.

This is a killer with the exact same kind of aim as I identify in the Ripper cases - a killer who is after bodies to cut up and shape to his will, sometimes taking out organs and on other occasions settling for the cutting only.

He is not a sadist, he is not a robber, he is not about personal vengeance and he does not even have to dislike women. He is about deconstructing female bodies and reshaping them to his will. When he does this in seclusion and with time on his hands, he can work slowly and meticulously. When he takes his work to the streets, there is no time for that, and he has to work fast. And after the torso murders, he is faced with the necessity to get rid of the bodies, whereas in the Ripper murders, he is at liberty to leave the victims where they fall.

Hi Fish
Interesting and good post.

Who do you think the Torsoripper most compares to other serial killers?
Gein, Dahmer, Kemper?

[Fisherman]

It is movies that borrowed from Gein (Texas Chainsaw Massacre). It is movies that borrowed from JtR (The Lodger).

These fellas came before the movies.

We can show that Ted Bundy as a necrophiliac was also a brutal lust murderer. Bundy kept body parts, like heads.

With Gein we can show that while he didn't murder as many people as corpses he dug up, he had plenty to do with their bodies in the meantime and obviously sexual things were involved.

Here is a list of stuff recovered from Gein's abode. Obviously, a body intact wasn't big on his itinerary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Gein#Crimes

EDIT: BTW - While on the topic of movies... how about novels? Mary Shelly's descendants had body parts thrown into their garden.

Thanks for the info about Geins´ chainsaw - I never knew he had one (this is a roundabout way of telling you that Hollywood movies may not always be all the purport to be, when it comes to facts and truths).

Yes, Gein kept body parts at his place. No, keeping body parts is not the same as being a necrophiliac. Being a necrophiliac is engaging in sex with dead bodies, not taking them apart.

As for Shelley, it was a relative, not relatives. And it was a part, not parts. But that is of course not the gist of the matter! And I agree that this is interesting. It is however not necrophilia. It is either a coincidence (term of the month out here) or it is a conscious matter. I tend to go with the latter, but cannot be sure.

If it WAS a conscious matter, then so much for the idea that the killer tried to obscure his deeds!

[Fisherman]

Sorry Guys, but some of this stuff is way more frightening than meeting face to face with the Ripper himself.

Anything in particular you are thinking of? Please let me know - I wouldn´t want to keep you up at nights.