Practicality or madness?

[John G]

Here's an interesting coincidence. John Sweeney ans Anthony Hardy (The Camden Ripper) were serial killers who dismembered victims and targeted prostitutes. They were both active in Camden over the same time frame. One of Sweeney's victims was dumped into the Regent"s Canal. Hardy lived a few hundred yards from Regents Canal. So startling were these similarities that Sweeney even tried to argue, unsuccessfully, that Hardy must of killed one of the victims he was accused of murderering. See: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/...detective-luck

[Fisherman]

You cant prove Jackson was murdered !!!!!!!!!!!!

In fact you keep deliberately ignoring the fact that there are no identifiable causes of death to show the torsos were the subject of murder. So for the life of me I fail to see why you and others keep banging on about a serial torso killer

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I seem to remember that you have put this forward before...?

And I seem to remember that I told you that I do not care in the slightest what you think about it, as long as there is a more or less universal understanding that Jackson WAS killed? And I seem to remember that I also pointed out that the legal decision was that a murder had been committed?

So what is it that makes you think that I would all of a sudden find your ideas in any way interesting? I donīt, simple as that.

[Fisherman]

hi fish
so we have pinchin and rainham with a vertical gash to the midsection. How many other of the torsos had this again?

Pinchin, Rainham and Jackson.

[Fisherman]

Ok then..exactly how many had specifically abdominal flesh taken away Fisherman, and exactly how many others that did not have that done do you seek to link with a single killer anyway? As to how many multiple killers were running about London at that time...well, theres Deeming, theres Jack, there is Torso making man, of just the victims left in the Unsolved files its not hard to imagine some were by multiple murderers...there are the terrorists that planned to kill large amounts of people,....

I suggest that Polly to Annie based on the evidence are almost certainly the work of one man. Because on the cumulative physical and circumstantial evidence. And the glaringly obvious similarities. Yes, I play it safer than you...but I also restrict my guesswork to something that can be justified using known and existing evidence. Not a simply a story about the most inconsistent multifaceted killer in history.

Two victims in the Ripper series had the abdominal wall cut away. One victim in the Torso series had her abdominal wall cut away. Ergo, in both series we have this inclusion that is extremely rare and very odd.

If it had been three victims in either series and none in the other, you would have had an excellent point.

As it stands, you have no point at all.

You suggest that Polly and Annie were the work of one man, based on the evidence?

Then why not suggest that Annie and Liz Jackson were the work of one man?

You apparently do not regard a street killing as something so uncommon that it must be one man only, becasue you rule out Eddowes. Ergo, ALL you base your take on is what was done to the victims. So letīs see, what did Polly and Annie have in common:

-Cut neck
-Abdomen opened up all the way

Is there more? I donīt think so.

Now, what do Annie and Liz Jackson have in common?

-Cut neck
-Abdomen opened up all the way
-Uterus extracted
-Abdominal wall cut away in large flaps
-Rings taken from victims fingers

Maybe you should revise your thinking? Dramatically?

[John G]

I have a question. Was the Rainham victim's torso bisected like Whitehall? It's some time since I looked at this case in detail, however, Dr Hebbert when referring to the parts infers that it was: "The parts were: (a) the lower part of the thorax and upper part of the abdomen, from the fifth dorsal vertebrae to the third lumbar vertebrae, (b) the pelvis from the third lumbar vertebrae."

And this from the Morning Post, 13 May, 1887. "On Wednesday morning the lower portion of the trunk of a female was washed ashore on the bank of the Thames at Rainham, Essex."

[jerryd]

I have a question. Was the Rainham victim's torso bisected like Whitehall? It's some time since I looked at this case in detail, however, Dr Hebbert when referring to the parts infers that it was: "The parts were: (a) the lower part of the thorax and upper part of the abdomen, from the fifth dorsal vertebrae to the third lumbar vertebrae, (b) the pelvis from the third lumbar vertebrae."

And this from the Morning Post, 13 May, 1887. "On Wednesday morning the lower portion of the trunk of a female was washed ashore on the bank of the Thames at Rainham, Essex."

Here is a good thread for reference, John.

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=28421&highlight=dorsal

[Fisherman]

Yes, I agree you've made an interesting point, which I will need to reflect on. I have a question: why would the heart and lungs be taken and not the pelvic organs, which of course should have been of primary interest to a hedonistic serial killer?

As I have said before, in both series reproductive organs as well as non reproductive ones are taken out of the bodies. That in itself goes a long way to tell us that:

A/ there is overwhelming reason to believe that there was just the one killer, and

B/ the aim of the killer was different from the traditional, if you will, aim of a sexually oriented eviscerator.

If a killer can get off on cutting out a kidney or a lung, just as he can get off on cutting out a uterus, then it becomes a useful suggestion that the killer relished in how he could use a body as a set of organs and parts that he could manipulate at his will.

[Fisherman]

Here's an interesting coincidence. John Sweeney ans Anthony Hardy (The Camden Ripper) were serial killers who dismembered victims and targeted prostitutes. They were both active in Camden over the same time frame. One of Sweeney's victims was dumped into the Regent"s Canal. Hardy lived a few hundred yards from Regents Canal. So startling were these similarities that Sweeney even tried to argue, unsuccessfully, that Hardy must of killed one of the victims he was accused of murderering. See: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/...detective-luck

It gets better, John: Sweeneys first murder was in the Netherlands, and THAT murder has been claimed to resemble the work of Frank Gust, who killed and dismembered three or four women there at around the same time (1990:ish). So we have not two but THREE killers involved.
However, they were all dismemberers and not eviscerators. Eviscerating raises the bar.

And in the end, as I keep saying, even if we DO find two eviscerators in the same general vicinity and time, that will not go to prove it a common thing. It remains totally unexpected. And before any real comparison can be made, these eviscerators-in-spe must also have extremely rare and odd inclusions similar inbeween their respective series.

Believe me, it never has happened and it never will.

[etenguy]

And how about British 1880`s standards? We would do good to remember that the 70:s and 80:s in the USA provided an environment crammed with serial killers. Victorian London does not seem to me to produce these characters in the same multitude, although they did exist.

As far as I am aware (quick look at murderpaedia), there were no other serial killers in this area during this time.

Moreover, are there any inclusions of the same kind of very precise and rare/odd similarities within these murders as there are inbetween the Ripper and Torso series?

Of course, even today, with perhaps as many as a couple of hundred serial killers on the loose in the US, if we get a series of strangulation killings in a restricted area and time in USA, the police will work from the assumption of a serial killer. That is all it takes, and the assumption of a serial killer is almost always correct when these things happen. That is becasue it is statistically much more likely that a singe maniac is at work than it is to believe in a dozen or so citizens turning murderous and resorting to strangulation in the same short period of time.

Guess what happens to the credibility of such an assumption of a serial killer on the loose if we have inclusions like eviscerations and cut away abdominal walls?

Both these murderers (Dahmer and Eyler) eviscerated some of their victims and dismembered some of their victims. I am pretty sure if the murders had remained unsolved, we would be considering whether the murders were all committed by one man, possibly based a little south of Chicago. There were a myriad of similarities beyond the eviscerations, their motives were similar, the way they procured victims was similar, the way they killed was similar, how they treated the bodies was similar but both had variations across victims. We would have good reason to believe it was a single serial killer - though in reality it was two.

[Fisherman]

As far as I am aware (quick look at murderpaedia), there were no other serial killers in this area during this time.



Both these murderers (Dahmer and Eyler) eviscerated some of their victims and dismembered some of their victims. I am pretty sure if the murders had remained unsolved, we would be considering whether the murders were all committed by one man, possibly based a little south of Chicago. There were a myriad of similarities beyond the eviscerations, their motives were similar, the way they procured victims was similar, the way they killed was similar, how they treated the bodies was similar but both had variations across victims. We would have good reason to believe it was a single serial killer - though in reality it was two.

One in Milwaukee and the other in Indiana. Itīs not exactly the same town, is it?

Plus there were differences inbetween the killings that would not have gone unnoticed by the authorities: Eyler was a sadomasochist, for example, and that was evident when finding his victims (his spitting image twin in that line of work is actually a killer working in California, William Bonin).

And, of course, the Holy Grail, a similarity inbetween the victims of Eyler and Dahmer that is extremely rare and odd was never there.

But I am glad that people are trying to fish for parallels to the Torsoripper; it will tell us just how close we can come. John G brought up a pair (that I backed up with a third killer) who were to some extent possibly interchangeable. These men were however not eviscerators, but they are interesting in their own right anyway.

As I said before, the wealth of serial killers in the late 1900:s is something else than victorian London, but regardless of that, it seems impossible to find any real comparison. And to be frank, I have no problems promising you that it is impossible - if you SHOULD stumble over two simultaneous eviscerators in a remote South African town or rural India, there is really no realistic chance of them having a specific very rare and odd inclusion similar, as is the case in the Torsoripper scenario.

[Michael W Richards]

It gets better, John: Sweeneys first murder was in the Netherlands, and THAT murder has been claimed to resemble the work of Frank Gust, who killed and dismembered three or four women there at around the same time (1990:ish). So we have not two but THREE killers involved.
However, they were all dismemberers and not eviscerators. Eviscerating raises the bar.

And in the end, as I keep saying, even if we DO find two eviscerators in the same general vicinity and time, that will not go to prove it a common thing. It remains totally unexpected. And before any real comparison can be made, these eviscerators-in-spe must also have extremely rare and odd inclusions similar inbeween their respective series.

Believe me, it never has happened and it never will.

Again Fisherman....how many eviscerations are there, and how many other victims do you group based on those kills.

Spoiler alert....3 canonicals were eviscerated. Just 3. Not a dozen victims, like you've espoused on other threads, and less that the accepted Canonical Group of Five. With 6-8 Murders left if the Unsolved file.

My point....if you want to focus on the evisceration murders then you better scale back your victim lists...dramatically.

[Michael W Richards]

As far as I am aware (quick look at murderpaedia), there were no other serial killers in this area during this time.



Both these murderers (Dahmer and Eyler) eviscerated some of their victims and dismembered some of their victims. I am pretty sure if the murders had remained unsolved, we would be considering whether the murders were all committed by one man, possibly based a little south of Chicago. There were a myriad of similarities beyond the eviscerations, their motives were similar, the way they procured victims was similar, the way they killed was similar, how they treated the bodies was similar but both had variations across victims. We would have good reason to believe it was a single serial killer - though in reality it was two.

Well done.

[Abby Normal]

I think your confusing risk taking with being a trait of dis organized killer, but if that is the case then all serial killers are disorganized.

but I agree with you on stride-on that one though I chalk it up to he simply lost patience and his temper as it seems she was not going easily to a secluded place with him.

Hi Abby,

Yes, every serial killer takes a degee of risks. However, JtR was pretty much suicidal with his risk taking, which was absolutely extreme. Frankly, a miracle he wasn't caught: he just got lucky. In fact, if JtR was an example of an organized serial killer, I'd be interested to see what a disorganised one looks like!

chase, mullins, Woodcock, hadden clark off the top of my head. bundy with the sorority attacks and if he was never caught they never would have connected these to him based on profile, since these were polar opposite to his usual highly organized MO, which just emphasizes how much a single serial killer can do things differently.

[Abby Normal]

Pinchin, Rainham and Jackson.

thanks fish-as did Nichols, chapman eddowes and mackenzie

ive often felt that the torsorippers strong initial inclination was to make this cut.

[etenguy]

One in Milwaukee and the other in Indiana. Itīs not exactly the same town, is it?

Clearly not the same town, or state even - but close enough we might consider it an area in which the killer would easily travel. I don't pretend this is an exact match to torso and ripper. situation - no two situations will be exactly the same.

Plus there were differences inbetween the killings that would not have gone unnoticed by the authorities: Eyler was a sadomasochist, for example, and that was evident when finding his victims (his spitting image twin in that line of work is actually a killer working in California, William Bonin).

Undoubtedly - just as there are between what we call the ripper murders and the torso murders.

And, of course, the Holy Grail, a similarity inbetween the victims of Eyler and Dahmer that is extremely rare and odd was never there.

Well, I think dismembering and evisceration are pretty rare.

But I am glad that people are trying to fish for parallels to the Torsoripper; it will tell us just how close we can come. John G brought up a pair (that I backed up with a third killer) who were to some extent possibly interchangeable. These men were however not eviscerators, but they are interesting in their own right anyway.

I wasn't really trying - my memory was jogged when someone else mentioned Dahmer. I don't know how many similar situations we might find if we looked hard. Though I'm not sure it really matters. Because something is true in one situation, doesn't mean it will be true universally. So even if we found an identical matching situation to torso & ripper in another town at another time, it doesn't prove anything.

As I said before, the wealth of serial killers in the late 1900:s is something else than victorian London, but regardless of that, it seems impossible to find any real comparison. And to be frank, I have no problems promising you that it is impossible - if you SHOULD stumble over two simultaneous eviscerators in a remote South African town or rural India, there is really no realistic chance of them having a specific very rare and odd inclusion similar, as is the case in the Torsoripper scenario.

It depends on what you consider an odd inclusion. I think we do have a real comparison - not exactly the same but close. Where does that get us if I am right. Nowhere really - its still rare and they are separate situations which may or may not have the same explanation.