Practicality or madness?

[etenguy]

hi eten
thats easy. just off the top of my head:
zodiac shooting, stabbing back to shooting
gsk bludgeon shooting bludgeon
btk smother/strangle then shoot, then back to smothering
nilsen cut then bludgeon/hammer

all within months sometimes days inbetween. same as torsoripper.

these changes are based on the serial killers personal circs, and the apparent differences of torso and ripper victims can easily be explained by one simple personal circ of the serial killer. his chop shop not available.

Hi Abby

You mention a number of serial killers who used different methods for killing their victims at different times, but not a substantial difference in the whole murder approach. I was trying to think of one who (like the torso/ripper if that was only one person) had a very different approach.

In the case of the murders we are discussing, there is one distinct set of murders where mutilation appears to be the main aim of the murder and the victim's identity is not obscured (ripper) against another set where complete dismemberment (possibly to aid disposal of the body) and identity hiding (including beheading and disposing of the heads in a way in which they would not be found) is clearly important and both these modes of operating occurring in the same time period.

These seem very different MOs to me (in a way that the method of dispatch by a murderer is not) and why I struggle to accept that the ripper type murders were committed by the same man who simply did not have his 'chop shop' available. The level of care to hide the victim's identity seems to be too important to the torso murderer for a ripper type murder to be committed by the same man who simply shrugs his shoulders and thinks sod it, I'll leave the body in one piece and who cares if their identity is known. I think it more likely the torso killer would wait until his chop shop was available - the two MOs seem almost contradictory in this respect. The ripper puts the victim on full posed display and the torso murderer does everything to hide the victim's identity and disperses the body disposal. The ends of the murders seem very different

I hope I have articulated better the difference I would need to reconcile to accept the torso and ripper to be the same person.

EDIT

Kelly's murder is problematic in this regard. If the murderer was both the ripper and the torso killer, why was Kelly not dismembered and beheaded instead of defleshed? He had the time, privacy and space to do this. Is it because there were two different killers who had two different end results they were trying to achieve? Clearly I think this is likely the case.

[harry]

Me be fair Fisherman? It was you that introduced Gillis into the thread,you that bought forward the subject of control,you that intimated there was a connection between Gillis,JTR and the torso murderer.You say I am untrue in my replies to those claims.You please be fair. For a start,Gillis may have been telling lies,making excuses.Who knows?
If JTR was a control freak,as the saying goes,he had a funny way of showing it.Killing in a public place, where his chances being disturbed must have been even to him,obvious,allowing little time to exercise control,before or after a killing. What pleasure of control did that allow?

[Trevor Marriott]

You see, that is the predominant mark of the Torso killer - his cutting skills, the masterfully disjointed limbs, the exactitude of what he did. Most other dismemberments are sloppy. What evidence is there to tell us that this one was not?

There was nothing amazingly skillful or unique as to how the torsos were dismembered

What does Dr Biggs say

"Another observation that is usually quoted in historical cases is that the 'quality' of the dismemberment somehow points towards a skilled individual. Whether this is medical / surgical / anatomical knowledge, or just prior experience of butchery / abattoir work varies, but the observation is often cited. I can see how it is tempting to jump to this conclusion, but I have to say that I would usually regard the quality of dissection as an indicator of a lack of prior knowledge or experience! Anyone who has taken the legs off a roast chicken can probably work out that the legs will come off a human with the right encouragement..."

"Because the cuts are not particularly well planned in advance, there are often flaps and strips of skin here and there, with tears in the soft tissue and spurs of broken off bone. The skin often has multiple cuts: cuts that don't 'add' any value to the process of limb removal. They might be interpreted as deliberate 'mutilation', but a simpler explanation is that the person didn't really know what they were doing and just sort of 'went for it'."

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby

You mention a number of serial killers who used different methods for killing their victims at different times, but not a substantial difference in the whole murder approach. I was trying to think of one who (like the torso/ripper if that was only one person) had a very different approach.

In the case of the murders we are discussing, there is one distinct set of murders where mutilation appears to be the main aim of the murder and the victim's identity is not obscured (ripper) against another set where complete dismemberment (possibly to aid disposal of the body) and identity hiding (including beheading and disposing of the heads in a way in which they would not be found) is clearly important and both these modes of operating occurring in the same time period.

These seem very different MOs to me (in a way that the method of dispatch by a murderer is not) and why I struggle to accept that the ripper type murders were committed by the same man who simply did not have his 'chop shop' available. The level of care to hide the victim's identity seems to be too important to the torso murderer for a ripper type murder to be committed by the same man who simply shrugs his shoulders and thinks sod it, I'll leave the body in one piece and who cares if their identity is known. I think it more likely the torso killer would wait until his chop shop was available - the two MOs seem almost contradictory in this respect. The ripper puts the victim on full posed display and the torso murderer does everything to hide the victim's identity and disperses the body disposal. The ends of the murders seem very different

I hope I have articulated better the difference I would need to reconcile to accept the torso and ripper to be the same person.

EDIT

Kelly's murder is problematic in this regard. If the murderer was both the ripper and the torso killer, why was Kelly not dismembered and beheaded instead of defleshed? He had the time, privacy and space to do this. Is it because there were two different killers who had two different end results they were trying to achieve? Clearly I think this is likely the case.

hi eten
because of the circs of it being in her place, no need for it and actually makes it more problematic and or he simply was into the evisceration part of it only then.

ill turn it around on you-all the torsos had mutilations above and beyond what was needed for dismemberment. why?

and re trying to hide identity. then why dump torsos and parts where he knows theyll be found? isnt trying to hide the body so its never found the first and most effective way to prevent id? yet he continued to float parts down the river eventhough they kept being found. dumping in shelley estate garden, the new SY building, tottenham in front of a heavily patrolled building, in the middle of the road in pinchin? cmon eten, hes making no overt attempt to hide. on the contrary hes displaying in odd and shocking places, just like the ripper.

i think well just need agree to disagree at this point my friend.

[etenguy]

hi eten
i think well just need agree to disagree at this point my friend.

Hi Abby

It probably is a good place to draw a line under this debate. I'm sure this issue will come up again though.

[Fisherman]

But none of then did it in almost complete darkness, on a rain sodden pavement in 1888. in a time which beat a doctor who in 1888 specialized in the female anatomy.

And there was no evidence of digging away was there, Eddowes kidney was carefully removed, as was Chapmans uterus with the fallopian tubes still attached.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

That´s a tall order - to be comparable, they must have had the same lighting conditions and they must have been on a rain dampened pavement in 1888...?

Let´s return to Ed Gingrich, Trevor - he shoved his hand through that seven-inch hole and dug out the innards from his wife by way of FEELING for them. Ergo, he could have been blindfolded since he did not work by sight but by touch.

The idea that the innards were not removed at the sites is - at best - a very bad one. Most people make the reflection that the killer opened up his victims in order to get at the innards, and quite frankly, that is an extremely sound reflection. In my world, it will take proof to the contrary before any belief at all can be invested in the idea that people in the morgues finished off what the killer started.

[Trevor Marriott]

That´s a tall order - to be comparable, they must have had the same lighting conditions and they must have been on a rain dampened pavement in 1888...?

Let´s return to Ed Gingrich, Trevor - he shoved his hand through that seven-inch hole and dug out the innards from his wife by way of FEELING for them. Ergo, he could have been blindfolded since he did not work by sight but by touch.

The idea that the innards were not removed at the sites is - at best - a very bad one. Most people make the reflection that the killer opened up his victims in order to get at the innards, and quite frankly, that is an extremely sound reflection. In my world, it will take proof to the contrary before any belief at all can be invested in the idea that people in the morgues finished off what the killer started.

In the case of Ginrich the term innards you use simply referred to just is that innards !

In the case on Chapman and Eddowes a hand was placed inside their abdomens through open wounds, and whoever it was would have to have had sufficient knowledge to be able to firstly locate the specific organs that were targeted, and sufficient knowledge to know how to remove them.

So to compare this with Ginrich is a non starter.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Me be fair Fisherman?

Yes, Harry, I would like that very much if you can manage it. Are you yourself fond of having it claimed on your behalf that you have stated things as facts that you instead pointed to as possibilities?

It was you that introduced Gillis into the thread,you that bought forward the subject of control,you that intimated there was a connection between Gillis,JTR and the torso murderer.

I said - and can say again - that Gillis was a post mortem mutilator and that the Ripper/Torso killer SEEMS to have been the same, wherefore it may well be a productive line of research to look into what post mortem mutilators are like. What I did NOT say - but what you claimed i DID say - was that it is a proven thing that these killers wee of the exact same ilk. Once you claim that on my behalf, you make me look like somebody who cannot tell indications and possibilities from proven facts, and I consider that grossly unfair. Can you see how that works?

You say I am untrue in my replies to those claims.You please be fair. For a start,Gillis may have been telling lies,making excuses.Who knows?

Yes, Gillis may have been lying - which is why I would never claim that it is a proven fact that the killers were two (or three) of a kind. However, since there are other examples of the type of post mortem mutilator tht Gillis claimed to represent, it becomes useful to work from the assumption that he was truthful. Actually, if we were to consider the fact that people can lie an obstacle to reasoning theoretically about these matters, we may just as well forget about our possibilitites to reason about serial murder at all. What if they ALL lied about why they did what they did?
In my world, it is sounder to look at the kinds of typologies that emerge when serail killers are studied, and there is a group of post mortem mutilator who seem to represent the4 same kind of overall character - a person that seems meek, who makes very little trouble, who has no reputation of being violent or a tough guy, who does not get into brawls - and who is nevertheless a formidable murder machine. Gillis is an example, but we should also look at men like Dahmer and Gein, for example, where the act of murder is secondary to the one of taking control of the dead body and mutilating it for whatever purpose.
The reason I am interested in this is because IF (nota bene that I am not saying that it is a proven thing, please, Harry!) the Ripper/Torso killer was of this ilk, then we may have a very good explanation for why the police back in 1888 had no realistic chance at all to understand the pathology of the killer and identify him. They were looking for rough characters, preferably mad ones with no British passport.

If JTR was a control freak,as the saying goes,he had a funny way of showing it.Killing in a public place, where his chances being disturbed must have been even to him,obvious,allowing little time to exercise control,before or after a killing. What pleasure of control did that allow?

The control as such is never going to be directed in any other direction than towards the victim. That is the very nature of the serial killers control thinking. It is not about controlling that Mrs Bumble on the second floor is not disturbed by what is going on, Harry. Supposedly, the wish for control is led on by a frustrated history in the killers past, where he has been deprived of control or unable to get control, and therefore resorted to methods where control will be achieved.

[Fisherman]

There was nothing amazingly skillful or unique as to how the torsos were dismembered

What does Dr Biggs say

"Another observation that is usually quoted in historical cases is that the 'quality' of the dismemberment somehow points towards a skilled individual. Whether this is medical / surgical / anatomical knowledge, or just prior experience of butchery / abattoir work varies, but the observation is often cited. I can see how it is tempting to jump to this conclusion, but I have to say that I would usually regard the quality of dissection as an indicator of a lack of prior knowledge or experience! Anyone who has taken the legs off a roast chicken can probably work out that the legs will come off a human with the right encouragement..."

"Because the cuts are not particularly well planned in advance, there are often flaps and strips of skin here and there, with tears in the soft tissue and spurs of broken off bone. The skin often has multiple cuts: cuts that don't 'add' any value to the process of limb removal. They might be interpreted as deliberate 'mutilation', but a simpler explanation is that the person didn't really know what they were doing and just sort of 'went for it'."

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Biggs is here - of course - speaking GENERALLY about dismemberment murders, Trevor. He is not commenting on the Torso series. In that series, there were no soft tissue tears, no spurs of broken off bone, no sloppy cuts and so on. Read what Galloway had to say about the Rainham case, please.
It is extremely bad form to quote Biggs and try to lead on that he is commenting on the Torso murders like you do here. It borders on deception and fraud, I´m afraid.

[Fisherman]

In the case of Ginrich the term innards you use simply referred to just is that innards !

In the case on Chapman and Eddowes a hand was placed inside their abdomens through open wounds, and whoever it was would have to have had sufficient knowledge to be able to firstly locate the specific organs that were targeted, and sufficient knowledge to know how to remove them.

So to compare this with Ginrich is a non starter.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Gingerich plucked out all his wifes internal organs and piled them in a heap beside her, Trevor, after having taken a steak knife from a drawer and cutting a seven-inch hole in his wifes abdomen through which he worked.

So why would we not reason that he needed to locate the organs and know how to remove them? Becasue that was what he did. Why would it be harder to take out half a uterus and a kidney in Mitre Square? How does that prove that it could not have been done by a man like Gingerich, who had no anatomical training or experience at all?

Can you see what this does to your case? Is it time to call me deluded again?

[Trevor Marriott]

Biggs is here - of course - speaking GENERALLY about dismemberment murders, Trevor. He is not commenting on the Torso series. In that series, there were no soft tissue tears, no spurs of broken off bone, no sloppy cuts and so on. Read what Galloway had to say about the Rainham case, please.
It is extremely bad form to quote Biggs and try to lead on that he is commenting on the Torso murders like you do here. It borders on deception and fraud, I´m afraid.

Well again you are wrong because he was asked to specifically comment on the torsos and was asked to also opine on your theory and comment on the inquest reports and the medical evidence in relation to all the torsos !

If you had bothered to ready my book you would have seen, and been able to read all the questions and his answers he gave regarding both the Torsos and the Whitechapel victims.

In a previous post you stated that the torso mutilations etc were carried out by someone using a unique method. Dr Biggs clearly negates that doesnt he ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Well again you are wrong because he was asked to specifically comment on the torsos and was asked to also opine on your theory and comment on the inquest reports and the medical evidence in relation to all the torsos !

But he is NOT commenting on the Torso series, Trevor! He stated very clearly that HIS experience only involved sloppy cases of dismemberment, and that is why he comments on that kind of deed. The Torso series is widely regarded as something very much different on account of how it is the exact reverse: it was a series where the doctors took part of clean and neat cutting in exact angles, where there was regularly the same amount of cuts to disjoint the limbs and so on. Let me quote Galloway, who examined the Rainham torso:
"Not only has the cutting-up been performed in an exceedingly skilful manner, but the operation had been carried out at the part of the spine offering the least resistance to separating..."
Galloway also noted that the legs and thighs had been removed with perfectly straight cuts, and that the limbs had been taken cleanly out of their pelvic sockets by means of cutting obliquely from the inside to the out, and that all cuts were clean with no signs of jadedness.
That does not sound anything like what Biggs described, does it? And guess why? Becasue Biggs describes the typical sloppy dismemberment case, and NOT the cases from the Torso series. Galloway tells us why the Torso series differed: "These body parts had been removed with skill, not simply torn off to hide a murder." The latter method is what Biggs speaks of in that quote you used. The former method is something entirely different.
We must be able to tell these matters apart if we are to stand any chance of having a relevant discussion!

If you had bothered to ready my book you would have seen, and been able to read all the questions and his answers he gave regarding both the Torsos and the Whitechapel victims.

If he actually commented on the Torso series, then why did you not post that comment instad of Biggs descrition of typical, sloppy dismemberment work?

In a previous post you stated that the torso mutilations etc were carried out by someone using a unique method. Dr Biggs clearly negates that doesnt he ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I won´t be able to tell until I see Biggs commenting specifically on the Torso murders, I´m afraid. However, your question is a non-item, because I have never said that the Torso killer used a "unique method", Trevor. What I have said is that he cut in an exceedingly skilful fashion. The method as such remains overall the same, though, albeit the Torso killer in some occasions parted his bodies in more sections than what is usuallly the case.
However, where most dismemberers get a saw and cut crudely through a thigh, this killer used his knife to meticulously, swiftly and very exactly cut the joint free from it´s pelvic socket and lifted it out. For example. The skill factor present in the series is something rare.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Fish
just curious to your count for torsos attributed by the same man-"torsoman"? Ive got the following:

Thames '73
Tottenham 84
Rainham 87
SY/Whitehall 88
Jackson 89
Pinchin 89

I know about Thames '74 and "morning Crescent" 84 but don't really have enough info on these two to include or not.

so I got six (somewhat)definite all by torsoman.
For ripper victims I have the c5 plus tabram and McKenzie-so seven.

So for the torsoripper ive got 13 total.

Whats your count?

[Trevor Marriott]

I won´t be able to tell until I see Biggs commenting specifically on the Torso murders, I´m afraid. However, your question is a non-item, because I have never said that the Torso killer used a "unique method", Trevor. What I have said is that he cut in an exceedingly skilful fashion. The method as such remains overall the same, though, albeit the Torso killer in some occasions parted his bodies in more sections than what is usuallly the case.
However, where most dismemberers get a saw and cut crudely through a thigh, this killer used his knife to meticulously, swiftly and very exactly cut the joint free from it´s pelvic socket and lifted it out. For example. The skill factor present in the series is something rare.

You are the only one it seems who supports the superior skill factor,outside of the basics in dismembering a body. There are only three ways to dismember a body, one with a knife, the other with a saw, or a combination of both,and using a saw would not necessitate sawing through the joints.

Where is the direct evidence, which shows a specific cause of death to any of the torsos relative to the WM time period? and I dont mean opinions or beliefs based on opinions, show me one injury that caused that victims death which suggests they were murdered!

It doesnt matter what anyone says to you about these torsos, you are clearly obsessed with the fact that they were all murdered by a serial killer, and that they were all murdered by the same hand, you need to wake up to reality and lose that obsession

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish
just curious to your count for torsos attributed by the same man-"torsoman"? Ive got the following:

Thames '73
Tottenham 84
Rainham 87
SY/Whitehall 88
Jackson 89
Pinchin 89

I know about Thames '74 and "morning Crescent" 84 but don't really have enough info on these two to include or not.

so I got six (somewhat)definite all by torsoman.
For ripper victims I have the c5 plus tabram and McKenzie-so seven.

So for the torsoripper ive got 13 total.

Whats your count?

Basically, Abby, I am reasoning that the four Hebbert cases are airtight as an entity - Hebbert said that the cuts to the victims were in all respects similar, and that closes the deal : same killer in those cases.
After that, I tend to reason that the cases where there is skilled cutting will arguably belong to the same tally too. And I am totally satisfied that the 1873 case belongs. The 1874 case is hard to pin down, since it seems the main reason to couple it to the 1873 case is that this was apparently done back in the day. Whether the cutting was skilled or not is not touced upon, but given the contemporary police thought it was two of a kind, reasonably, the cutting was of the same sort. That means that we have 4 + 2 cases, and the Tottenham case was also one of skilled cutting, so I think it belongs too. Seven, therefore in total, to add to the six Ripper deeds, Tabram involved. Thirteen in total. But I do. ot rule out MacKenzie in any way, nor do I do so with Mylett.
It is hard to make any calls because there are peripheral cases where les certainty applies. A least two dozen murders, how does that sound?