Practicality or madness?

[seanr]

I've just stumbled across the case of William Fish aka the Blackburn murderer. Also followed a strategy similar to Kate Webster of the Barnes Mystery and the body disposal is striking similar to the 1873 torso case (with the entire body being bled out).

It strikes me that mutilating a body and dumping it in pieces, removing the head and perhaps separately burying or burning it, would be a more successful strategy for making a body unrecognisable in the 1800s and then much less so from the twentieth century on. Meaning that bodies dumped in this way would be much more common in the earlier century.

One might say the Torso Murderer (or Murderers) only removed the heads because they wanted the enjoy mutilation in its own sake, but the removal of the then only recognisable features is one of the things which is common to all of the torso cases so the desire to prevent the victim being recognised seem consistent to me. With perhaps the exception of the 1873 case, where the face was in fact rendered unrecognisable, although if the later cases are the same perpetrator, they changed strategy to completely removing the heads, so perhaps the police came closer to finding out who the victim was than they thought and the perpetrator was spooked enough to change approach.

Which raises the other point. If the goal was to make the torso victim untraceable, that would tend to suggest a fear the victim could be traced back to the perpetrator. Which would make leaving the recognisable marks on the dumped limbs of Elizabeth Jackson a big mistake. The perpetrator would plausibly be someone who can be linked to Elizabeth Jackson. So, how much do we know about Elizabeth Jackson?

[harry]

Abby,
My three posts on this thread are plain to interpret.Nowhere,or in any form,have I used the word proven.,or suggested that Fisherman had used the term.It is a lie that he keeps repeating.Now you seem to be of the same opinion.So the challenge is to both of you.Show me where I used it.It is foolishness of him and you to alledge I did anything of the sort,because my posts can be seen.
I know what he is trying to establish.He has been trying for years to get Cross accepted as being the Ripper,and the torso killer.He has failed miserably and he cannot accept that failure.Gillis is just one more example and a failed one,out of several,to try and show a comparison.Even the experts are having a problem in typecasting Gillis,or establishing a reason why he acted as he did.Control,as an element of serial killers,is hard to define.The word itself is ambiguous.Only a fool would attempt to define the mind and reasoning of the Ripper.He was and is unknown.

[Abby Normal]

I've just stumbled across the case of William Fish aka the Blackburn murderer. Also followed a strategy similar to Kate Webster of the Barnes Mystery and the body disposal is striking similar to the 1873 torso case (with the entire body being bled out).

It strikes me that mutilating a body and dumping it in pieces, removing the head and perhaps separately burying or burning it, would be a more successful strategy for making a body unrecognisable in the 1800s and then much less so from the twentieth century on. Meaning that bodies dumped in this way would be much more common in the earlier century.

One might say the Torso Murderer (or Murderers) only removed the heads because they wanted the enjoy mutilation in its own sake, but the removal of the then only recognisable features is one of the things which is common to all of the torso cases so the desire to prevent the victim being recognised seem consistent to me. With perhaps the exception of the 1873 case, where the face was in fact rendered unrecognisable, although if the later cases are the same perpetrator, they changed strategy to completely removing the heads, so perhaps the police came closer to finding out who the victim was than they thought and the perpetrator was spooked enough to change approach.

Which raises the other point. If the goal was to make the torso victim untraceable, that would tend to suggest a fear the victim could be traced back to the perpetrator. Which would make leaving the recognisable marks on the dumped limbs of Elizabeth Jackson a big mistake. The perpetrator would plausibly be someone who can be linked to Elizabeth Jackson. So, how much do we know about Elizabeth Jackson?

hi seanr
the face of the 73 torso was found as was the totenham head of 84. so not sure how much hiding torsoman was trying to accomplish. heads are traditionally one of the most important parts to the post mortem type mutilators so i think the missing heads have more to with that than with the killer intentionally trying to hide them. plus they are actually the easiest part of the body to hide because they sink in water. interstingly the noses were all cut off of the 73 torso, the 84 tottenham, eddowes and kelly. and tottenham and eddowes were even more similarily mutilated-faces gashed, nose cut off and ear cut off. whether torsoman and the ripper were the same or not, they had a thing for the face/head.

re jackson: her boyfriend was checked out and he was out of town and cleared. the killer therefore knew that the marks on her were meaningless in terms of being any way able to lead back to him- in other words it was another stranger murder.

[Fisherman]

Abby,
My three posts on this thread are plain to interpret.Nowhere,or in any form,have I used the word proven.,or suggested that Fisherman had used the term. It is a lie that he keeps repeating. Now you seem to be of the same opinion.So the challenge is to both of you.Show me where I used it.

" comparing only one man's experience,and intimating it proves the ripper was the same sort of person,and is also the torso killer,because that person too exhibits the same characteristics is mind boggling."

Can we be done with this charade any time soon, Harry?

[Kattrup]

the killer therefore knew that the marks on her were meaningless in terms of being any way able to lead back to him- in other words it was another stranger murder.

Hi Abby
that’s quite the assumption there, about what the killer knew.

It’s a common overinterpretation to assume everything that happened as wanted, anticipated, planned etc by the perpetrator(s). But we don’t actually know that the dismemberer was on Hannibal Lecter’s level of insight. There’s a reason Lecter is fictional.

While EJ was eventually identified, there’s no reason to think the killer counted on it or did not care about it. Quite the opposite.

A simpler explanation is that he or they did the best they could to hide her identity but were less “forensically” aware that modern criminals. Or had fewer options available.

[Harry D]

I still want to know what's up with several of the Torsos being predicted in locations before they were discovered.

Weird coincidence, misreporting, whut?

[Fisherman]

I've just stumbled across the case of William Fish aka the Blackburn murderer. Also followed a strategy similar to Kate Webster of the Barnes Mystery and the body disposal is striking similar to the 1873 torso case (with the entire body being bled out).

Just read up on the case a little bit. Just like you say, the medico onvolved said that the body had been drained of every drop of blood. If this was true, the body must have been arranged in a position so as to allow for this. It is kind of baffling, because one of the main differences between Fish´s victim ( a small girl, strangely enough named Emily Holland!) and the 1873 torso victim is that there was no mutilation in Fishs case. It seems to have been a traditional parting in six parts, torso, legs, arms and head, and so there would have been no need to drain the body totaly of blood. There is the possibility that the neck was cut (this was, I beleive, given as cause of death) whereupon the body was left lying on a sloping plane, which would pretty much empty the blood content.

To me, a probable cause of the draining out of blood from the 1873 victim was if the killer had far-reaching intentions to mutilate the body. For instance, the cutting away of the face and scalp would have been a lot less messy with no blood present. But taking the limbs and head off a torso normally does not lead on any draining out of the blood.

A case that is intersting in this context it the Black Dahlia case, where the blood was also drained from the body. The face was then mutilated and the body was severed in two through the waist, whereupon it was placed in a spot where it was certain to be found, the two body parts left with a little distance inbetween them. Here, he do have cuts that would have been gory to produce unless the blood was drained, and we can see that the killer strived for a clean impression - he (or she) had washed the body thoroughly before it was put on display. This seems to me to be more of a likeness to the 1873 deed than Fish´s slaying of Emily Holland, although there are of course points of similarity involved here too.

One interesting question is whether Fish tried to hide what he did or not. The torso was found i a field, the legs in a ditch and the charred arms and head were found in the chimney of Fish´s barber shop. That begs the question what went down first. Did he hide head and arms, only to find out that there was no space for the rest, whereupon he paniced and threw the rest away outside? If so, why in two different spots?

Anyways, three seems not to have been any inclusions of unnecessary mutilations or any wish to put what he had done on display, and so we are seemingly dealing with a somewhat different matter.

It strikes me that mutilating a body and dumping it in pieces, removing the head and perhaps separately burying or burning it, would be a more successful strategy for making a body unrecognisable in the 1800s and then much less so from the twentieth century on. Meaning that bodies dumped in this way would be much more common in the earlier century.

I think it is not until we get DNA research that a body could be identified without head and distinctive marks or other such matters on the body. And we can see how the Torso murderer seemed unflummoxed by the moles and scars there were on "his" bodies. He seems not to have been interested in any hiding away of identitites at all. He weven left the victims clothing with the body in the Jackson case, marked with a name and all. Furtherm ore, he placed numerous parts in public places where they were bound to be found - that is not the tactic of somebody who wishes to conceal a murder, it is the hallmark of somebody looking for recognition.

One might say the Torso Murderer (or Murderers) only removed the heads because they wanted the enjoy mutilation in its own sake, but the removal of the then only recognisable features is one of the things which is common to all of the torso cases so the desire to prevent the victim being recognised seem consistent to me. With perhaps the exception of the 1873 case, where the face was in fact rendered unrecognisable, although if the later cases are the same perpetrator, they changed strategy to completely removing the heads, so perhaps the police came closer to finding out who the victim was than they thought and the perpetrator was spooked enough to change approach.

As Abby pointed out, there is a face (1873) and a head (Tottenham) to contradict that idea. And we should ask ourselves when it became a certified method to take away an identity to carefully cut away the face and scalp from a victim before dumping it, with the very obvious possibility of it beiong found and ID:d. Why that time-consuming cutting when he could have made the face unrecognisable with thwo strokes of a shovel?
To me, there is a very obvious possibility of a ritualistic inclusion when something like this happens. I have heard of no other case at all where it has gone down, but whenever I find there is meticulous handling of body parts.it has without exception beern becasue the paerts and the handling has had a meaning to the killer. To quote Gillis: "I wanted to see her femur".

Which raises the other point. If the goal was to make the torso victim untraceable, that would tend to suggest a fear the victim could be traced back to the perpetrator. Which would make leaving the recognisable marks on the dumped limbs of Elizabeth Jackson a big mistake. The perpetrator would plausibly be someone who can be linked to Elizabeth Jackson. So, how much do we know about Elizabeth Jackson?

A good deal, actually. But we do not have any record at all of any of the other torsos having had moles and scars and such things removed, so I think we can bank on how this was something the killer did not engage in. And that tells me that he took no interest in hiding identities at all.

[Fisherman]

Hi Abby
that’s quite the assumption there, about what the killer knew.

It’s a common overinterpretation to assume everything that happened as wanted, anticipated, planned etc by the perpetrator(s). But we don’t actually know that the dismemberer was on Hannibal Lecter’s level of insight. There’s a reason Lecter is fictional.

While EJ was eventually identified, there’s no reason to think the killer counted on it or did not care about it. Quite the opposite.

A simpler explanation is that he or they did the best they could to hide her identity but were less “forensically” aware that modern criminals. Or had fewer options available.

In the Jackson case, there WAS the option of cutting away moles and scars, just as there WAS the option of taking the clothes away from the body for example. These are very basic things if you wish to hide an identity. Of course, we could reason that the killer perhaps did not understand that matters like these could give him away. But is it even remotely likely?

If he had sunk the parts in the Thames in a weighted down sack, I would say he tried to hide what he did. But a killer who offers the police the victims clothing together with the scars and moles on her body, and who throws some of the parts away on various spots on dry land where they WILL be found will never fill the shoes of a killer intent on hiding what he has done. Short of hoisting the corpse up the parliament flagpole, it is hard to think of a safer way of getting what you have done out there.

[Fisherman]

I've just stumbled across the case of William Fish aka the Blackburn murderer. Also followed a strategy similar to Kate Webster of the Barnes Mystery and the body disposal is striking similar to the 1873 torso case (with the entire body being bled out).

Do we have the original source for the claim about the drained-out blood? It seems Fish - who readily confessed - said nothing about it himself. And there are some inconsistencies in the press reports, like how one source says that the torso was found in a trunk, wheras the others say that the trunk (sic) was found in a field...

[Kattrup]

These are very basic things if you wish to hide an identity. Of course, we could reason that the killer perhaps did not understand that matters like these could give him away. But is it even remotely likely?

Yes, it is very likely.

The killer or killers probably did everything they could think of in a stressful situation to conceal her identity and the corpse. There’s nothing to indicate a desire for the body to be found.
Again, interpreting the fact that the body was, in fact, found as meaning the killer wanted it to be found is just not very meaningful, in my opinion.

[Fisherman]

Yes, it is very likely.

No, Kattrup, it is not. It is possible (many things are, are they not?), but only just. Most people understand that personal clothing and distinguishing body marks and scars are very useful indicators to identify people by.

The killer or killers probably did everything they could think of in a stressful situation to conceal her identity and the corpse.

Then he could not really think of much, could he? And why do you think the situation was stressful? Most people believe the killer had oceans of time on his hands, killing the victims in a hidden-away bolthole. And it´s not as if he threw all parts around the neaarest corner, is it? No, he took his time to wrap, tie up and transport them. He even cut a face away from one victim, eyelashes and all left neatly in place. So much for stressfulness.

There’s nothing to indicate a desire for the body to be found.

No? Placing a torso in the cellar vaults of the New Scotland Yard does not involve a certainty that it will be found? Tossing body parts into private gardens wilkl not involve them being found? Placing them in public gardens will not result in them being found? And the killer was not aeare that just about every package he floated down the Thames was found? He always entertained the hope that NEXT package will sink or float out into the sea undetected?

Again, interpreting the fact that the body was, in fact, found as meaning the killer wanted it to be found is just not very meaningful, in my opinion.

That all boils down to the likelihood that it WILL be found. If somebody hides a torso in a swamp and it is found there, then no, it is not meaningful to claim that it was meant to be found. But denying that a torso in the New Scotland Yard is certain to be found is just as meaningless, in MY humble opinion.

[Kattrup]

Most people today understand that personal clothing and distinguishing body marks and scars are very useful indicators to identify people by.

By stressful, I mean that we don’t know the circumstances of EJ’s death. Obviously the dismemberer had time and place to dismember but it does not follow that he was cool as a cucumber.
You’re also assuming that the 1873 face is by the same man as did EJ, that is completely unfounded. And again assuming that the end result (cutting the face) which you interpret as careful or whatever, was intended and planned, rather than just an effort to hide identity.

That all boils down to the likelihood that it WILL be found. If somebody hides a torso in a swamp and it is found there, then no, it is not meaningful to claim that it was meant to be found. But denying that a torso in the New Scotland Yard is certain to be found is just as meaningless, in MY humble opinion.

And again assuming that because it was found, the killer wanted it found. In a big city, how easy is it to hide a body for a long time? The killer might have thought realistically it would be found, but better later than sooner, so took every effort to hide it. And it worked - the body in the cellar went undiscovered for some time.

Whether it was certain to be found is irrelevant, the fact is it was wellhidden.

[Fisherman]

Most people today understand that personal clothing and distinguishing body marks and scars are very useful indicators to identify people by.

Don´t be silly, Kattrup. To understand that clothing and scars and moles are identifying markers, all you need to grasp is that they are personal to the carrier. I think we may safely rule out that the victorians were blissfully unaware of this, not least since we know that these very items WERE used before and during the Ripper scare as identifyers.

By stressful, I mean that we don’t know the circumstances of EJ’s death. Obviously the dismemberer had time and place to dismember but it does not follow that he was cool as a cucumber.

Nor does it in any way imply that he was under any form of stress whatsoever. Absense of evidence is not evidence of absence. We know that he was brazen enough to find himself half a dozen victims who he, varying from victim to victim, strung up and drained completely of blood, cut the face meticulousy from the skull, took out inner organs like heart and uterus, cut VERY skilfully, leaving no sign of jadedness in any cut, transported the body parts to different parts of London and dumped them there, involving entering the fenced off building site of the New scotland Yard and seeking out the deepest vaults there, instead of nervously throwing the torso away the second he got inside - nothing at all speaks of anything but composure and a willingness to spend quite some time with the body parts.

You’re also assuming that the 1873 face is by the same man as did EJ, that is completely unfounded. And again assuming that the end result (cutting the face) which you interpret as careful or whatever, was intended and planned, rather than just an effort to hide identity.

No, it is not completely unfounded at all. For starters, we know that the body was very dexteriously cut up, which is not a common thing. After that, there is another link to the Ripper murders that I find very strong, but I keep it under wraps for now.
And how can cutting away a face in it´s entirety, eyelashes, nose and all, NOT be intended and planned? Was it a slip of the knife...? Whoops, sort of?

And again assuming that because it was found, the killer wanted it found. In a big city, how easy is it to hide a body for a long time?

Ask John Christie. Ask Jeff Dahmer. Ask John Wayne Gacy. Ask Dennis Nielsen.

The killer might have thought realistically it would be found, but better later than sooner, so took every effort to hide it.

But he did NOT make every effort to hide his bodies. Placing a body in the police building is not along those lines at all.

And it worked - the body in the cellar went undiscovered for some time.

All body parts left by a killer will go undiscovered for some time, be that a minute or a year. Some parts stand a chance of remaining undiscovered, but a torso in the cellar vaults of the Scotland Yard is not among them.

Whether it was certain to be found is irrelevant, the fact is it was wellhidden.

It is not in any way irrelevant if it is certain to be found, Kattrup. Quite the opposite, in fact. You see, what you represent, together with posters like Gareth Williams, is the no-nonsense school: you always opt for the less fantastic/flamboyant solution if there is a choice. And that is more often than not the correct choice - the absolute majority of the murders committed are trivial matters.
Take, if you will, the typical dismemberment murder. It is committed by a man who gets a little too much to drink on a Friday and gets it into his head that his fiancée is cheating on him. He whacks her over the head and kills her, something he only realizes the following morning.
At that stage, he stresses out (unlike our man) and ponders calling the police. Many do, some do not. The ones who decide to try and get away with it go to work on Monday, the corpse of their fiancées left in a closet.
On Wednesday, when the corpse starts to smell, they get a kitchen knife and a saw and carry their former loved ones to the bath tub. They then set about parting the bodies in six, making a very uneven and sloppy job of it. They put the parts in a suitcase, carry the suitcase down to the car and head for the harbour where they throw the suitcase into the water.

This is the standard dismemberment. It is the normal outcome. Your cup of tea.

Sadly, that does not mean that when we have a serial killer who dismembers, we will get half a dozen murders looking like this.

Sexual serial killers are more or less always psychopaths. They don´t give a rats behind about the ones they kill, nor do they care about what you and I think about it. Moreover, psychopaths are not given to panick, so at no stage do they stress out during their sprees. They are - as you put it - cool as cucumbers.

Now, once we take a look at the group of psychopathic sexual serial killers, we find that some of them - like the beforementioned Gacy, Christie, Nielsen and Dahmer, for example - do away with people, but take great care to hide what they have done. They want to kill, they like to kill, but they have no wish to make it front page news.

Then there is the other category, the ones who get diagnosed as narcissists - these are guys who actually want acknowledgement for what they do. Consequentially, they make sure that it becomes headline stuff. They take off a head and put it on a shelve in the victims apartment, looking right at the ones who enter it afterwards, all for shock value and for shouting "This is what I can do!" to the world. Like Danny Rolling. They pose their victims naked on the hillsides of a major metropolis, like Bianchi and Buono did. They pose them in degrading and humilating positions, like Jeffrey Alcala. They pose them by a sign, saying "Dead End", like Gillis.

The man we are looking at is de facto not likely to have been stressed out in any way. Accordingly, when we find that he has deposited body parts in so many various places of London where he knew they WOULD be found, and once we know that he persistenly used a method of floating the rest down the Thames that resulted in almost all of the parts being found, time after time, we can be fairly certain that we are dealing with a sexual serial killer who was a psychopath and quite likely a narcissist too. Among the total of the worlds inhabitants, these are very rare creatures indeed. Among the serial killer ranks, they are middle-of-the-road guys; what to expect, more or less.

This actually provides you with a fair opportunity to opt for the least dramatic choice even here, Kattrup. Your cup of tea, you know. Take that chance, that is my advice.

[Abby Normal]

I still want to know what's up with several of the Torsos being predicted in locations before they were discovered.

Weird coincidence, misreporting, whut?

yes very odd.jerrys all over this one.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby
that’s quite the assumption there, about what the killer knew.

It’s a common overinterpretation to assume everything that happened as wanted, anticipated, planned etc by the perpetrator(s). But we don’t actually know that the dismemberer was on Hannibal Lecter’s level of insight. There’s a reason Lecter is fictional.

While EJ was eventually identified, there’s no reason to think the killer counted on it or did not care about it. Quite the opposite.

A simpler explanation is that he or they did the best they could to hide her identity but were less “forensically” aware that modern criminals. Or had fewer options available.

Hi kattrup!
happy new year to you.

I respectfully disagree. I really don't see how the killer tried to hide her body or identity when hes tossing parts all over the place in very public places. He could even more easily tossed them ALL in the river. perhaps he was ignorant that clothing or identifying marks on the body could help ID (but I don't see how he could) but even so the first and best way to hide ID is to hide the body/parts so theyre never found, something he obviously didn't do.
And considering all the weird, public and RISKY places he left others-Tottenham on the street in front of a heavily patrolled building, NSY building, pinchin street etc., I think there is MUCH more going on here than trying to hide bodies/IDs. so this pattern shows hes not concerned with the bodies being able to be tied back to him, probably because these are stranger murders.

No, Im with fish on this one. He is deliberately putting these parts and bodies in these places because it has some special significance for him-whether that be to shock the public, taunt the police, Mark his territory?, or something only he knows or some combination of these IMHO.