Practicality or madness?

[Abby Normal]

It’s apparently from dr. Biggs, by way of Trevor Marriott.

From this thread about EJ https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...570#post532570

thanks kattrup-much appreciated. point taken

[etenguy]

Whether or not it is to be expected to have an eviscerating serial killer every twenty years is something I do not have the knowledge to say. Personally, I think it sounds unexpected - but it does not detract from what you say: the longer the time span, the less odd it becomes with two serial eviscerating killers. But it should be noted that we would have two such men cutting abdominal flaps within a nine month span! And that comes pretty close to being simultaneous, although that word of course points to an exact correlation.

Hi Fisherman - I read some statistics about serial murderers who eviscerate (Based on American data but I can't remember which area - I think California) which identified that they are rare but appeared about every 20 years. I think it was on murderpaedia or a link from there. I would need to find the reference again, I didn't think to take a note at the time.

That the torso murderer became active again around the time of the ripper murders may mean:
a) it was the same person - I don't discount that
b) the ripper murders excited the torso murderer to continue his spree (the torso murder before that was May 1887). So the overlap may not be coincidence but as a result of a causal relationship.

It nevertheless requires two animal slaughterers turning to eviscerating prostitutes, taking out hearts and uteri, cutting away abdominal walls, stealing rings in a nine-month period. And both would remain uncaught. And none of them would engage in torture, they would instead BOTH peculiarly be interested in post-mortem cutting only.
What that proposal leads up to is the question: When these things happen in the same town and in overlapping times, what is more likely: One killer or two? And although the two killer scenario is not impossible, it is nowhere near as likely as the one killer ditto, I´m afraid. I´m sure you must realize this too.

I do take your point - if my speculation is right (two murderers, same job) we would have two slaughtermen murdering women in London and there would be an overlap in time during which they are both cutting and eviscerating women with some striking similarities between some victims in each series - but also other victims in each series which are quite differently mutilated). It may be that the similarities (mid-line cut, flaps, removal of organs) arise from their job training with the torso murderer being more adept (older or just more experienced - see next paragraph). Then the coincidence becomes that the two men committing the murders (if there were two) had the same occupation. Of course it could be that men who have an obsession with cutting and evisceration were drawn to an occupation that allowed them full vent, at least on animals.

I do not think we can automatically accept this is all the work of one man, but the possibility does exist and the idea should not dismissed out of hand. Other evidence should be examined (as you have been doing) to help us reach a conclusion about whether one killer or two is more likely.

Do elaborate on this, Etenguy! Exactly which skills is it that tell the two apart? And please don´t say that the Torso killer could dismember whereas the Ripper could not, because we cannot rule out that the Ripper CHOSE not to dismember. Otherwise, I much welcome a discussion on this theme!

You are right to caution against comparing dismemberment skills, since the ripper did not dismember (though he had an ideal opportunity with Kelly which he did not take). The torso murderer though, always dismembered his victims (this is a difference that needs explaining and I find the lack of availability of his 'chop shop' not compelling - we need a deeper explanation I think).

The difference in skills I was referring to is the organ removal - the ripper (from the doctors' description) was less adept, especially with Kelly, while the torso killer is more experienced - or at least appears to be. An explanation may be the ripper necessarily worked fast in the dark and the torso murderer had more time and light. I could accept that explanation mostly, except for the Kelly murder. So does this point to different men or the same man working in different circumstances? I can't be sure but Kelly leads me to lean towards different men.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman - I read some statistics about serial murderers who eviscerate (Based on American data but I can't remember which area - I think California) which identified that they are rare but appeared about every 20 years. I think it was on murderpaedia or a link from there. I would need to find the reference again, I didn't think to take a note at the time.

Is that one evert 20 years in California? Or in every major city? Or in the US? It would be valuable to know. There are 40 million people in California, so if we "translate" it to London we may be looking at one every 80 years.

That the torso murderer became active again around the time of the ripper murders may mean:
a) it was the same person - I don't discount that
b) the ripper murders excited the torso murderer to continue his spree (the torso murder before that was May 1887). So the overlap may not be coincidence but as a result of a causal relationship.

But the four torso murders that overlap the Ripper murders started in May of 1887, etenguy. So the Ripper murders cannot have led on the torso ditto. It took fifteen months after the Rainham murder before the Ripper murders started.

I do take your point - if my speculation is right (two murderers, same job) we would have two slaughtermen murdering women in London and there would be an overlap in time during which they are both cutting and eviscerating women with some striking similarities between some victims in each series - but also other victims in each series which are quite differently mutilated). It may be that the similarities (mid-line cut, flaps, removal of organs) arise from their job training with the torso murderer being more adept (older or just more experienced - see next paragraph). Then the coincidence becomes that the two men committing the murders (if there were two) had the same occupation. Of course it could be that men who have an obsession with cutting and evisceration were drawn to an occupation that allowed them full vent, at least on animals.

In 1990-91, three women were found in the Dallas area with their eyes gouged out. This will have meant either:
1. That we have a killer who is fixated on eyes, and who takes them out, or
2. That we have two or three killers, who all engage in eye removal in their occupations, like eye surgeons, and who have turned to murder in the same town or time

Both possibilities exist, but the message I am trying to hammer home is that option 1 is incredibly more likely than option 2!

If we have two murderous aninal slaughterers going on evisceration sprees in the same town and time in London, this too will be incredibly less likely than just the one killer being at work. It is simple logic. Of course, butchery has been found to desensitize those who engage in it, but eviscerating serial killers are neverthless rare in the extreme.
The one guy that immediately springs to mind on this score will be Fritz Haarmann. He certainly was a butcher, he certainly was a serial killer and he certainly eviscerated his victims - but he did not cut away the abdominal wall, because as an accomplished butcher he didn´t have to! He made two cuts to the abdomen and that was it.
Now, what are the odds of a butcher like Haarmann surfacing, killing and eviscerating? I know of no other eviscerating german serial killer. What, then, are the odds of TWO Haarmanns coming along at the same time and in Hannover? Truth be told, the mere fact that astronomical odds CAN be guessed tells us that it MAY happen. But the really crucial question is: Is it even remotely likely? Should we work from the assumption of one or two killers when we have serial murder involving eviscerations in the same time and town?
That questions answers itself, does it not?

I do not think we can automatically accept this is all the work of one man, but the possibility does exist and the idea should not dismissed out of hand. Other evidence should be examined (as you have been doing) to help us reach a conclusion about whether one killer or two is more likely.

You see, this is where you get it terribly wrong, in my mind. You speak of how it cannot be "dismissed out of hand" that there was only one killer, and you say that "the possibility exists". As if you were being generous!
But in reality, the possibility does not only exist, it is instead almost certainly the correct assumption. It is by far the best suggestion.
It is the two killer scenario that is - only just - possible, and that "cannot be dismissed out of hand". It´s not the other way around.
Hang on to that feeble straw if you want to, but don´t try to turn it in to a tree trunk, etenguy!

You are right to caution against comparing dismemberment skills, since the ripper did not dismember (though he had an ideal opportunity with Kelly which he did not take). The torso murderer though, always dismembered his victims (this is a difference that needs explaining and I find the lack of availability of his 'chop shop' not compelling - we need a deeper explanation I think).

But what if it was that simple: that he had access to the chop shop only at times? Why would we need a "deeper explanation" if this was so? It is a very easy and straightforward explanation that covers the problem eminently.
There may of course be other explanations that you find more appealing, but that does not in any way detract from how the accessibility matter works quite well. Why would we deem the suggestion in any way not enough or unadmissible?

The difference in skills I was referring to is the organ removal - the ripper (from the doctors' description) was less adept, especially with Kelly, while the torso killer is more experienced - or at least appears to be.

So what organ removal in Kellys case is it you compare to the torso cases? Can you describe exactly how the two series were different in this respect? If it is about the heart, for example, how do the cases compare? In the Jackson case, for example, we know that the sternum was cut through, leaving the killer with a lot more wriggling room, so to speak. So what are you speaking of? I find that most people who mention cutting skill differences do so not on account of cold, hard facts but more on account of their own preconceptions. You are welcome to make a factually good case, based on the evidence. But can you?

An explanation may be the ripper necessarily worked fast in the dark and the torso murderer had more time and light. I could accept that explanation mostly, except for the Kelly murder. So does this point to different men or the same man working in different circumstances? I can't be sure but Kelly leads me to lean towards different men.

Liz Jackson was at one time lying on her back, with her abdomen opened up, the abdominal wall taken away and the uterus removed.

Annie Chapman was found lying on her back, with her abdomen opened up, the abdominal wall taken away and the uterus removed.

Mary Kelly was found on her back, her abdomen was opened up, the abdominal wall was taken away and the uterus removed.

To me, this leads me to lean against a common killer. Why we would even go near the idea of two (or three, as some will have it!) killers, is an enigma to me.
If these kinds of similarities, rare in the extreme, are not enough, then what is...?

[Michael W Richards]

In the 1873 Thames Torso murder investigation the authorities suggested that "

the “torso murderer” was an organized offender who treated the body parts of the victim not as a problem, but as objects in a game with the authorities."

In 1874 near Putney a body was found, "the decomposed remains of a woman, lacking head, arms and feet". In 1887 and 1888 similar remains were found in the Thames. That's four for those that are counting, only 1 of which coincides with the alleged Ripper spree. Either that is one man, or more than 1 man. The likelihood is that its more than one man considering the length between kills. That means in the LVP 2 or more people were creating torso's. That alone challenges any claims that serial killers could not co-exist in London in 1888. 2 or more did what the agitator on this thread claims are so unique that we must also include victims without dismemberment as well, because the nature of these types of crimes are so rare and therefore must be linked by a single killer. Hogwash.

At least 3 Torso murders happened before that Fall 1888, one may have overlapped that "series". The Torsos took place over a 14 year span. Ripper murders did not include any dismemberment, and were over in a 2 1/2 months.

So...if the antagonist believes that these murder series are so similar and must be linked by a single killer, then he must also believe that only one man made all the preceding Torso's. Only logical, right? Rare crimes, One man??.....kills and waits a year to kill again, then he waits 13 years to kill again,.. then another year. The same man also doesn't disarticulate even one victim in a span that if authorities are to be believed was 2 1/2 months start to finish? Seems reasonable to anyone? Well, of course, to just one person it does.

Its not just the fact that there is no evidence at all to support the contention, or rather, belief,...its also that its an unreasonable premise.

Its a just for the jolly idea, and a folly for anyone actually looking for legitimate avenues to explore.

[Fisherman]

Read through this and see if anybody can spot the - very obvious - error:

"In 1874 near Putney a body was found, "the decomposed remains of a woman, lacking head, arms and feet". In 1887 and 1888 similar remains were found in the Thames. That's four for those that are counting, only 1 of which coincides with the alleged Ripper spree. Either that is one man, or more than 1 man. The likelihood is that its more than one man considering the length between kills. That means in the LVP 2 or more people were creating torso's."

Then read through this and see if anybody can spot the - very obvious - error:

One man??.....kills and waits a year to kill again, then he waits 13 years to kill again,.. then another year.

Next, this. I hope everybody can see the - very obvious - error:

Its not just the fact that there is no evidence at all to support the contention...

It would feel nice to say that posts like this one takes the term ignorance to hotherto unexplored heights - but they have been explored many times before. And some of them by the same author.

[Michael W Richards]

Read through this and see if anybody can spot the - very obvious - error:

"In 1874 near Putney a body was found, "the decomposed remains of a woman, lacking head, arms and feet". In 1887 and 1888 similar remains were found in the Thames. That's four for those that are counting, only 1 of which coincides with the alleged Ripper spree. Either that is one man, or more than 1 man. The likelihood is that its more than one man considering the length between kills. That means in the LVP 2 or more people were creating torso's."

Then read through this and see if anybody can spot the - very obvious - error:

One man??.....kills and waits a year to kill again, then he waits 13 years to kill again,.. then another year.

Next, this. I hope everybody can see the - very obvious - error:

Its not just the fact that there is no evidence at all to support the contention...

It would feel nice to say that posts like this one takes the term ignorance to hotherto unexplored heights - but they have been explored many times before. And some of them by the same author.

Sorry, I neglected to mention the Thames murder first, 1873...which is followed by Putney in '74, then 1887, then 1888. That's four, yes? And from 1874 until 1887 is 13 years, yes? So the data was correct wasnt it? Only you would think that small omission would be enough to invalidate the general idea.

What is clear is that not only were the Torso murders likely done by 2 different individuals due to the intervening length, its highly improbable that he then takes a break from disarticulating in any fashion, to do the Ripper murders in an entirely different fashion for 2 1/2 months in the Fall of 88.

Stomach flaps indeed. You've succeeded in the creation of some novel fiction...maybe stick to that genre.

[c.d.]

You might find this link on the Cleveland Torso Murders of the 1930s interesting. Eliot Ness (of Al Capone fame) was involved.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Torso_Murderer

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

You might find this link on the Cleveland Torso Murders of the 1930s interesting. Eliot Ness (of Al Capone fame) was involved.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Torso_Murderer

c.d.

Don't mention that cd, now hell have a single Torso Ripper killer acting up from 1873 until the 1930's.....wouldn't surprise me to discover the antagonist believes he's also immortal....

[Fisherman]

Okay, I will explain what is terribly wrong in the three snippets I posted:

1. "In 1874 near Putney a body was found, "the decomposed remains of a woman, lacking head, arms and feet". In 1887 and 1888 similar remains were found in the Thames. That's four for those that are counting, only 1 of which coincides with the alleged Ripper spree. Either that is one man, or more than 1 man. The likelihood is that its more than one man considering the length between kills. That means in the LVP 2 or more people were creating torso's."

Somehow, this ends up in the glaring mistake of claiming that there were two or more people creating torsos in the LVP - and that is of course not any truth at all. Nowehere near it, actually.
It is this exact kind of mumbo-jumbo we should take all possible care to avoid having soiling debates out here.

2. One man??.....kills and waits a year to kill again, then he waits 13 years to kill again,.. then another year.

Unless the killer/s have been identified, I cannot see how we can establish how many murders were committed, let alone establish that the killer/s were dormant for any specific amount of time.
This precise kind of balderdash that does not belong to any intelligible discussion.

3. Its not just the fact that there is no evidence at all to support the contention...

Anybody familiar with the torso cases are aware that the Lancet very clearly pointed out how the dismemberment of the 1873 victim was dexteriously carried out. So we have a skilled and exact cutter at work here. So the same city, a timeframe that allows for a shared identity, the same dumping river and the same skilled and dexterious cutting, plus we have a killer who attacks the face, just as the Ripper did. That is of course evidence pointing in the direction of a common perpetrator, whether we like it or not.
It is this kind of denial of factual realities that smears the boards with evasion and ignorance, and it really must be pointed out when it happens.

[Fisherman]

You might find this link on the Cleveland Torso Murders of the 1930s interesting. Eliot Ness (of Al Capone fame) was involved.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Torso_Murderer

c.d.

Yes, C.D. , I have already pointed to this case as a potentially very useful comparison, in my exchange with Frank. But some posters are less interested in factually viable comparisons, and more so in trying to get back at posters who have revealed them as being unversed in the facts.

It comes with the territory, sad though it may be. The good thing is that these kinds of people are rarely satisfied with just the one public lashing, but instead come back for a second helping and a third, and a...

If nothing else, that behaviour is extremely helpful in painting a picture of what we are dealing with.

[JeffHamm]

Also, the Brighton Trunk murders of 1934 are interesting. A dismembered body was found in a trunk at the railway station, but never identified (the feet and arms were found elsewhere, but the head was never recovered). The victim was known as "pretty feet", because she had "dancer's feet", apparently. Suspecion was on a local medical man who was providing illegal abortions (she was 5 months pregnant at the time, though I don't think there were signs of an attempted abortion, so not sure where that link came from).

Anyway, it was while searching places near the railway station they found a 2nd body in a trunk. The victim was identified as Violette Kaye, who was a dancer and prostitute, and her boyfriend Toni Mancini was tried for her murder. He was found not guilty (his defense was she was killed by a client, and he hid the body because he feared police wouldn't believe him as he had a record - years later, in the 70s I think, he confessed she was killed in a row, but was not tried for purgery because there was no corroboration).

Anyway, the murders were unrelated, yet, both in Brighton, both involved bodies in trunks, both victims seemed to be dancers (but I think dancers feet might be a reference to a particular shape of foot, rather than meaning the person was a dancer per se, so not sure if that's similar). Regardless, bodies in the same small area, both in trunks, both female, etc, yet despite those rare and strong similarities, the victims were killed by different people - neither of which knew of the other crime.

- Jeff

P.S. Just did a bit more searching on "dancer's feet", and apparently ballet and such, produces common injuries (broken long bones on the outer side of the foot - called dancer's fracture) so it seems likely that dancer's feet is not just a foot shape, but rather indicates the feet showed characteristics consistent with dancing (as in long hours of practice, ballet in particular it seems is bad for the feet).

[Abby Normal]

Also, the Brighton Trunk murders of 1934 are interesting. A dismembered body was found in a trunk at the railway station, but never identified (the feet and arms were found elsewhere, but the head was never recovered). The victim was known as "pretty feet", because she had "dancer's feet", apparently. Suspecion was on a local medical man who was providing illegal abortions (she was 5 months pregnant at the time, though I don't think there were signs of an attempted abortion, so not sure where that link came from).

Anyway, it was while searching places near the railway station they found a 2nd body in a trunk. The victim was identified as Violette Kaye, who was a dancer and prostitute, and her boyfriend Toni Mancini was tried for her murder. He was found not guilty (his defense was she was killed by a client, and he hid the body because he feared police wouldn't believe him as he had a record - years later, in the 70s I think, he confessed she was killed in a row, but was not tried for purgery because there was no corroboration).

Anyway, the murders were unrelated, yet, both in Brighton, both involved bodies in trunks, both victims seemed to be dancers (but I think dancers feet might be a reference to a particular shape of foot, rather than meaning the person was a dancer per se, so not sure if that's similar). Regardless, bodies in the same small area, both in trunks, both female, etc, yet despite those rare and strong similarities, the victims were killed by different people - neither of which knew of the other crime.

- Jeff

P.S. Just did a bit more searching on "dancer's feet", and apparently ballet and such, produces common injuries (broken long bones on the outer side of the foot - called dancer's fracture) so it seems likely that dancer's feet is not just a foot shape, but rather indicates the feet showed characteristics consistent with dancing (as in long hours of practice, ballet in particular it seems is bad for the feet).

first of all the stupidity of some juries never ceases to amaze me. secondly, how do you know mancini didnt kill both?

[Abby Normal]

You might find this link on the Cleveland Torso Murders of the 1930s interesting. Eliot Ness (of Al Capone fame) was involved.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Torso_Murderer

c.d.

yes. facinating case. the dr whom ness suspected was probably the killer.

[Fisherman]

Also, the Brighton Trunk murders of 1934 are interesting. A dismembered body was found in a trunk at the railway station, but never identified (the feet and arms were found elsewhere, but the head was never recovered). The victim was known as "pretty feet", because she had "dancer's feet", apparently. Suspecion was on a local medical man who was providing illegal abortions (she was 5 months pregnant at the time, though I don't think there were signs of an attempted abortion, so not sure where that link came from).

Anyway, it was while searching places near the railway station they found a 2nd body in a trunk. The victim was identified as Violette Kaye, who was a dancer and prostitute, and her boyfriend Toni Mancini was tried for her murder. He was found not guilty (his defense was she was killed by a client, and he hid the body because he feared police wouldn't believe him as he had a record - years later, in the 70s I think, he confessed she was killed in a row, but was not tried for purgery because there was no corroboration).

Anyway, the murders were unrelated, yet, both in Brighton, both involved bodies in trunks, both victims seemed to be dancers (but I think dancers feet might be a reference to a particular shape of foot, rather than meaning the person was a dancer per se, so not sure if that's similar). Regardless, bodies in the same small area, both in trunks, both female, etc, yet despite those rare and strong similarities, the victims were killed by different people - neither of which knew of the other crime.

- Jeff

P.S. Just did a bit more searching on "dancer's feet", and apparently ballet and such, produces common injuries (broken long bones on the outer side of the foot - called dancer's fracture) so it seems likely that dancer's feet is not just a foot shape, but rather indicates the feet showed characteristics consistent with dancing (as in long hours of practice, ballet in particular it seems is bad for the feet).

Well, Jeff, I think Abby makes a very good point in saying that since the first case you bring up was never solved, it is kind of hard to establish that the killer was not the same in both cases. If anything, it seems that both victims were dancers, and that in itself should arouse some interest, don´t you think?

Are you aware of any circumstances that would rule out a common killer? Was there such a stance from the police, and if so, what was it grounded on? Do you know?

All of this being said, we should of course take a look at how this all relates to the cases we are interested in. Were the Brighton cases part of a series? Or, to be more precise, were they part of TWO series? And how do we establish that...?

Were they evisceration murders?

Did they both involve the same sort of peculiar and rare damage/s?

If you have been reading my posts on this thread, you will be aware that some time back, I said that I do not only allow for, but also expect that sometime in the future, sooner or later, there will be two serial killers and eviscerators active in the same general time frame and the same general geographical area. This I say because that is the nature of things - weird coincidences do happen every now and then. It would of course be an extremely weird coincidence if it did take place, but I am all for allowing for coincidences happening. I am even saying that they WILL happen, they are part of life. The salient point, however, is of course that even if it SHOULD happen, it would not go to prove that it is in any way likely. All it proves is that it is possible - and we have known that from day one.
Anything that is not practically impossible, is by way of nature possible. No matter how unlikely it is. In our case, all we can do is to establish how likely things are - and although some out here like to think it is more likely with two killers than one for the Ripper/Torso murders, that is very, very, very far removed from the actual truth.

In my reasoning, I also took great care to point out that although I allow for two eviscerating serial killers in the same town and time on a theoretical level, I do NOT expect them to inflict the same peculiar and odd kinds of inclusions that we have in the Ripper and Torso series, without the series being connected! The magnitude of such a thing is lightyears away from the magnitude of two trunk murders appearing in the same town and time. Actually, dismemerment murders are quite often so called trunk murders, for reasons of one of the ingredients in the heading of this thread: practicality.
Practical dismemberers are people who kill not for the fun of dismembering but instead for reasons of allowing themselves the opportunity to move a body away from a location to which they are linked, or to even obscure that a murder has taken place (the latter does not apply in the Brighton cases, where the crimes WOULD be detected).
A typical dismemberment trunk murder is one where a man kills a spouse in his own home, whereupon the need to clear away the body arises (you will. ote that this is for example the case for the second Brighton trunk). To that end, he buys a suitcase and stuffs it in there, and disposes of the suitcase, typically by throwing it in the nearest harbor.
This all means that the typical trunk killer is not a serial killer, but instead a one-off killer. I know of no case where a serial killer dismembered bodies and stuffed them in trunks on a regular basis - but I am not in any way adverse to this having happened, of course! If there is a need to get rid of bodies and if putting them in trunks meets that need, then why not? I´m just saying that I have not yet heard of it happening.

Summing up, it is hard to say what the Brighton trunks were about. Maybe it is two uninked cases of domestic affairs in combination with a timely trunk sale at the local Woolworths, who knows?
Then again, maybe it is a case of a double murderer who did away with two dancers simultaneously - after all, if two dancers are found on the same day, both dismembered and put in trunks in close proximity to each other, surely a guess of some sort of connection is not unreasonable?

At the end of the day, though, and whichever way, it does nothing to prove that two serial eviscerating killers are ever likely to cause the same very odd and peculiar and rare damage to their respective victims in the same town and time. The difference is monumental.

[Michael W Richards]

Fisherman, you pick one or two characteristics of a murder, within one of the 2 series, and with broad strokes apply your theory across the whole of the series, like in the case of cutting of the face. Or the stomach flaps. These are previously publicized acts, and do not occur in most of the murders from either series. Since there has been no real series established anyway, just a presumed Canonical Group, Id object less to comparatives that are based on similar subjects before adding those that are quite obviously not.