Practicality or madness?

[erobitha]

The torso killings have to be handled with a little care I feel. The disposal of dead bodies by medical teaching areas after dissection training was not what it was today. Many parts did find their way into the river and washed up in “dead man” spots were the currents of the Thames often carried them. So a recent specimen could easily be mistaken as a murder victim. The victorians believed in a paradise after death that could only be achieved if the body was buried in tact - so for the medical profession to openly admit this would have caused an outrage. The cholera epidemic in the 1840’s was in large part caused by enterprising Anglican London churches throwing bodies into the sewer system and pretending the dead were buried, and then reselling the plot on later. I don’t think there was a huge desire by those in the medical profession to hold their hands up after this outrage just a few decades earlier.

[John G]

Once again, dissimilarities are interesting up to the point where rare similarities occur within two cases, or series of cases. I have explained - or tried to explain - this many times now, but I am happy to do so again:

Dissimilarities inbetween two theoretical cases:

One woman killed in Greenland in 1949, and a man killed in Tahiti in 1960.
The woman killed by strangulation, the man by gunshot.
The woman 103 years old, the man 20.
The woman a famous politician, the man a dishwasher.

Could it be more dissimilar? Surely the cases must be unconnected?

But what if both victims have had their abdominal organs removed, whereupon the killer has stitched the openings closed with copper thread?

Can you see how the dissimilarities become obsolete in such a case? Although there is just the one similarity?

In the cases we look at, the differences are not by any stretch of the imagination as big as they were in my example. We have the same gender, the same occupation of the victims, the same city, the same general timeframe, the same opening up of the abdominal cavity by a cut from pubes to breastplate. What differs is the fact that some victims were dismembered, but there may be many reasons for that, plus we have examples of killers who did dismember only some of their victims.
But both men were eviscerators, both men cut out colon sections, both men cut away abdominal walls and both men stole rings from their victims fingers. And we donīt even have a single other example of co-existing eviscerators in the same area. So why would we accept two eviscerators here - who did the exact same odd things??? In victorian London, at a time in which we have very few serial killers recorded?

You say the Ripper disembowelled whereas the Torso killer dissected. But we know that the Torso killer took out organs from his victims bodies, just like the Ripper did. Why would we claim that this was done in different manners in the two series? Why would we not admit that BOTH men actually disembowelled?
You claim that Jack "destroyed". Didnīt the Torso killer do that? He also cut open, he also took out organs and he FURTHERMORE cut his victims up in pieces. Who destroys more of the two..?

You see, I think you are a victim of generic thinking here, getting tangled up in perceived differences that were never there. And sadly, I think you are in plentyful company.

For the record, I donīt think that either the Ripper murders nor the Torso dittos were about destruction at all. I believe they were both about creating, actually.

But in only one Torso victim do we know that organs were removed. The abdominal wall was cut away in two C5 cases and one Torso case but there were substantially differences between these cuts. We do not know that all the victims had the same occupation. Sometimes there may be progression of a ritual but I'm not aware of any cases where a perpetrator alternated between a street slayer/eviscerator and dismemberer.

What I would say is that the Torso murderer, if indeed there was a single perpetrator of the 1887-89 cases, and assuming the victims were murdered, was an unusual dismemberer, not to say highly unusual (he certainly wasn't a pure defensive dismemberer, by far the most common type representing 82% of UK dismemberment victims 1985-2017.)

[Fisherman]

Her head was cut off and posed and found.Her killer clearly wanted it to be found .

That example has absolutely nothing to do with the missing head of the torsos, you are clutching at straws trying to justify the delusional theory you have about these torsos.


www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The question you asked was a straightforward one: "would you agree that the purpose of decapitating a head from the body would be to hide the identity of the person?"

I supplied the Rolling example, and now you are moving the goalposts AGAIN!! Since we have no idea what the Torso killer did with the heads other than to a limited extent (the 1873 torso and the Tottenham ditto), it applies that he may just as well have had another reason than hiding his deed - just as Rolling did.

If you want an answer to question A, you really should not ask question B. We are not psychics out here.

[Fisherman]

The torso killings have to be handled with a little care I feel. The disposal of dead bodies by medical teaching areas after dissection training was not what it was today. Many parts did find their way into the river and washed up in “dead man” spots were the currents of the Thames often carried them. So a recent specimen could easily be mistaken as a murder victim. The victorians believed in a paradise after death that could only be achieved if the body was buried in tact - so for the medical profession to openly admit this would have caused an outrage. The cholera epidemic in the 1840’s was in large part caused by enterprising Anglican London churches throwing bodies into the sewer system and pretending the dead were buried, and then reselling the plot on later. I don’t think there was a huge desire by those in the medical profession to hold their hands up after this outrage just a few decades earlier.

It is about the similarities inbetween the two series, erobitha. There was

-uterus taking
-heart taking
-cutting from sternum to bow
-neck cutting
-colon part removal
-taking away of the abdominal walls
-prostitute targetting
-ring taking
-no obvious signs of physical torture

present in victims from both series. Such things do not come about coincidentally in my world, least of all when two series coincide geographically and chronologically.

[Fisherman]

But in only one Torso victim do we know that organs were removed.

60 per cent of the supposedly five Ripper victims lost inner organs.
Out of the four 1997-1889 Torso victims, 80 per cent lacked inner organs when found, and there is evidence that they were actively removed in one of these cases.

The abdominal wall was cut away in two C5 cases and one Torso case but there were substantially differences between these cuts.

Was there? Describe the difference, please!

We do not know that all the victims had the same occupation. Sometimes there may be progression of a ritual but I'm not aware of any cases where a perpetrator alternated between a street slayer/eviscerator and dismemberer.

All the victims we DO know about were prostitutes, though. After that, we may reason that the rest were Wall Street stockbrokers and/or Egyptian ballet dancers, of course, but really ...

What I would say is that the Torso murderer, if indeed there was a single perpetrator of the 1887-89 cases, and assuming the victims were murdered, was an unusual dismemberer, not to say highly unusual (he certainly wasn't a pure defensive dismemberer, by far the most common type representing 82% of UK dismemberment victims 1985-2017.)

Why would the 1887-89 cases NOT be by a single killer? Hebbert said that the cutting performed was in just about every aspect similar, so that is a given in my world, not least since these were rare, skilled and precise examples of cutting. And yes, the killer certainly was highy unusual. As was the Ripper.

[Michael W Richards]

Move on, by all means, Michael. Go solve it and get that half dozen killers behind mental bars.

I think we need to focus on what we really have Fisherman. What miniscule evidence there is does suggest storylines, and one of them during that period was that a solitary man went out on some nights with the intention of killing someone, the someone in particular depending solely on an opportunity and instinct. It was a blitzkrieg when he decided the time was right, because he would like to have some time to mutilate the corpse further. He started killing in late August, and the second killing is so very similar in all aspects that we must conclude he wasn't finished when he left Polly. Or perhaps didn't get a chance to, rather. But also that the same man committed both of these murders.

That's a profile of his hunting technique right there, and that should at the very least be found in some form in every subsequent murder I believe. He hunts strangers and acts when he perceives he has an opportunity to do so, but he leaves his house that night ready to kill someone. Knife sharpened, maybe some chloroform as back a up in his jacket. But he wants to kill someone, wherever the instincts tell him to pounce.

Another storyline of that same period involves another solitary man, one who over time disarticulates a human woman, someone with the ability to lock away a corpse somewhere without arousing suspicion of course, allowing him days, or perhaps weeks, to play surgeon on a corpse. During that time he disposes of parts of the corpse here and there to make any identification difficult. There is never a complete victim to reassemble. Its like he does woodwork, or collects stamps, or maybe based on the curiosity preferences of those times, mounts insect specimens and labels them. Its a project for him. Its not instant gratification, its not impulse, its not an unplanned opportunity. Its a project, a diabolical project. In some ways he is worse than Jack, he does these terrible things frequently over a period of time, Jack strikes and slinks back into obscurity for a bit. He can suppress this...or doesn't have the need for frequency.

That's your man Fisherman, the diabolical project guy, but the fella we want here is the man in bold and underlined above.

[Trevor Marriott]

The question you asked was a straightforward one: "would you agree that the purpose of decapitating a head from the body would be to hide the identity of the person?"

I supplied the Rolling example, and now you are moving the goalposts AGAIN!! Since we have no idea what the Torso killer did with the heads other than to a limited extent (the 1873 torso and the Tottenham ditto), it applies that he may just as well have had another reason than hiding his deed - just as Rolling did.

If you want an answer to question A, you really should not ask question B. We are not psychics out here.

It is you that is ducking and diving and moving goal posts yet again

You quoted a case where a killer cut of the victims head off and posed it so that it was found.

The heads of none of the torsos were never found so whoever disposed of them presumably didnt want them to be found, or if they were used for medical research would never be found, which as i said is in total contradiction of the example of the case you quoted, so your initial statement regarding your case is of no relevance .

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

I think we need to focus on what we really have Fisherman. What miniscule evidence there is does suggest storylines, and one of them during that period was that a solitary man went out on some nights with the intention of killing someone, the someone in particular depending solely on an opportunity and instinct. It was a blitzkrieg when he decided the time was right, because he would like to have some time to mutilate the corpse further. He started killing in late August, and the second killing is so very similar in all aspects that we must conclude he wasn't finished when he left Polly. Or perhaps didn't get a chance to, rather. But also that the same man committed both of these murders.

That's a profile of his hunting technique right there, and that should at the very least be found in some form in every subsequent murder I believe. He hunts strangers and acts when he perceives he has an opportunity to do so, but he leaves his house that night ready to kill someone. Knife sharpened, maybe some chloroform as back a up in his jacket. But he wants to kill someone, wherever the instincts tell him to pounce.

Another storyline of that same period involves another solitary man, one who over time disarticulates a human woman, someone with the ability to lock away a corpse somewhere without arousing suspicion of course, allowing him days, or perhaps weeks, to play surgeon on a corpse. During that time he disposes of parts of the corpse here and there to make any identification difficult. There is never a complete victim to reassemble. Its like he does woodwork, or collects stamps, or maybe based on the curiosity preferences of those times, mounts insect specimens and labels them. Its a project for him. Its not instant gratification, its not impulse, its not an unplanned opportunity. Its a project, a diabolical project. In some ways he is worse than Jack, he does these terrible things frequently over a period of time, Jack strikes and slinks back into obscurity for a bit. He can suppress this...or doesn't have the need for frequency.

That's your man Fisherman, the diabolical project guy, but the fella we want here is the man in bold and underlined above.

I do focus on what we have. It is you who focus on what we donīt have; a minor swarm of killers/eviscerators.

[Michael W Richards]

I do focus on what we have. It is you who focus on what we donīt have; a minor swarm of killers/eviscerators.

A few is far more probable and preferable based on the known and established evidence Fisherman, despite whatever protests you might make. And to be honest, you cannot group a killer with a kill based on something like mutilations....considering anyman in that area would likely possess the requisite skills to cut into someone, and he would likely have access to a knife. Like in the case of Stride, or Alice, or Polly, or Martha. If anything is warranted, a Canonical Group of a smaller size is...not one including a dozen or more, spanning decades, and based around a mystical mega-morphing killer.

Now if the mutilations have specific characteristics...then you have something to group. Like creating Torsos for example.

[Fisherman]

It is you that is ducking and diving and moving goal posts yet again

You quoted a case where a killer cut of the victims head off and posed it so that it was found.

The heads of none of the torsos were never found so whoever disposed of them presumably didnt want them to be found, or if they were used for medical research would never be found, which as i said is in total contradiction of the example of the case you quoted, so your initial statement regarding your case is of no relevance .

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You ARE funny, Iīll give you that!!

First, you claimed Ed Gingerich only took out intestines from his wifes belly.

Then you moved on to claim that Jeffrey Dahmer killed all his victims in the same manner - only to make out as if what you had said was that he killed all his victims at home.

Then you claimed it was unique for a killer to have killed all victims at home - which it never was.

Then you said that decapitating killers decapitate to hide identity, full stop - and when I used Danny Rolling to show you that this is wrong, you said that Rolling was a different creature than the Torso killer. Which neither of us knows, of course.

Which leads us to your present post which is more of the same - you cannot famliarize yourself with the idea that the Torso killer may have cut the heads off on account of actually wanting to do so. To you, it must be a case of him wanting them not to be found or a case of providing them to medical research purposes. Well, believe it or not, but you are once again wrong; there was, is and will always be offensive mutilators who cut for the joy of it.

Do you have any more false impressions and comical misunderstandings on stock, Trevor? I mean, this would seem to be the perfect time to have them all straightened out, would it not?

PS: "The heads of none of the torsos were never found".
You are truly clueless, are you not, Trevor?

[Fisherman]

A few is far more probable and preferable based on the known and established evidence Fisherman, despite whatever protests you might make. And to be honest, you cannot group a killer with a kill based on something like mutilations....considering anyman in that area would likely possess the requisite skills to cut into someone, and he would likely have access to a knife. Like in the case of Stride, or Alice, or Polly, or Martha. If anything is warranted, a Canonical Group of a smaller size is...not one including a dozen or more, spanning decades, and based around a mystical mega-morphing killer.

Now if the mutilations have specific characteristics...then you have something to group. Like creating Torsos for example.

NO!!!! "A few" is NEVER more likely when we speak of mutilating and eviscerating killers in overlapping geographical areas and times! And THAT - as opposed to your false claims - IS based on the evidence AND on empirical insights.

[Trevor Marriott]

You ARE funny, Iīll give you that!!

First, you claimed Ed Gingerich only took out intestines from his wifes belly.

Then you moved on to claim that Jeffrey Dahmer killed all his victims in the same manner - only to make out as if what you had said was that he killed all his victims at home.

Then you claimed it was unique for a killer to have killed all victims at home - which it never was.

Then you said that decapitating killers decapitate to hide identity, full stop - and when I used Danny Rolling to show you that this is wrong, you said that Rolling was a different creature than the Torso killer. Which neither of us knows, of course.

Which leads us to your present post which is more of the same - you cannot famliarize yourself with the idea that the Torso killer may have cut the heads off on account of actually wanting to do so. To you, it must be a case of him wanting them not to be found or a case of providing them to medical research purposes. Well, believe it or not, but you are once again wrong; there was, is and will always be offensive mutilators who cut for the joy of it.

Do you have any more false impressions and comical misunderstandings on stock, Trevor? I mean, this would seem to be the perfect time to have them all straightened out, would it not?

PS: "The heads of none of the torsos were never found".
You are truly clueless, are you not, Trevor?

There is no need for any straightening in my case, but as to you, well you have completely mis understood, and continue to misrepresent the facts surrounding the torsos, further more as to your theories they become even more comical the more you are forced to justify them, when they continue to be torn apart.

You need to vacate your room in La La Land and come back to the real world

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

There is no need for any straightening in my case, but as to you, well you have completely mis understood, and continue to misrepresent the facts surrounding the torsos, further more as to your theories they become even more comical the more you are forced to justify them, when they continue to be torn apart.

You need to vacate your room in La La Land and come back to the real world

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And still you choose to stand before the boards, pants down? I have misunderstood nothing. The problem is that you cannot for the life of you ask a correctly worded question, Trevor. Nor can you understand a correctly worded answer. Which is one of the reasons why I never invested in your asking experts about the case.

I mean, what is the use, when you cannot provide correct input nor understand the output it receives?

Now, stop humiliating yourself further, please!

[Michael W Richards]

NO!!!! "A few" is NEVER more likely when we speak of mutilating and eviscerating killers in overlapping geographical areas and times! And THAT - as opposed to your false claims - IS based on the evidence AND on empirical insights.

The four I mentioned were not "eviscerated" Fisherman, a claim you seem to believe applies to anyone cut with a knife during those years. And yet 2 within the 4 mentioned are also within the current Canonical Five. Not eviscerated. Polly was cut open, not gutted. And the man who kills Polly isn't the issue anyway, we can clearly see he is the same man who kills the subsequent "Canonical" victim. He is not the same man that kills the next though, and perhaps not the same one that commits the last 3 "Canonicals". Why can I say that? Because if you had read my succinct and beyond rebuttal explanation in a post a while ago.....He hunts strangers and acts when he perceives he has an opportunity to do so, but he leaves his house that night ready to kill someone.

That is not clearly evident in any of those last 3 cases, and in the last, almost certainly not a stranger to the victim. WHY is the question you don't ask, its far more revealing that WHAT DID HE DO, and you presume far too much about a killer no-one knows in order to make your arguments. It doesn't work bud. You cant say he was this and that without anything more than your fertile mind to support it.

Ive seen you post what you believe is a MO and profile of this mega criminal or unknown killer you've created in your mind, with just rationalizations and guesses as a foundation. Well, there are 12-13 Unsolved murders in that file....5 of which are Canonicals...so did your man start with making Torsos in private, stabbing women in public, then move on to gutting women, then single cuts, then taking women apart in their own rooms, then back to gutting women in public again, then on to poisoning I suppose....I hope by reading this youll get6 an understanding of just how improbable and boldly presumptive your Torso-Ripper theories are.

[c.d.]

Why can I say that? Because if you had read my succinct and beyond rebuttal explanation in a post a while ago.....

Beyond rebuttal?????

c.d.