Mary Jane Violence

[Fisherman]

Its not about his ability to suppress or control any desire he may have had, its about what he chose to do at that minute and what we believe someone who has demonstrated a particular characteristic or trait might do in a given situation.

Nota bene "what we believe". The problem here is that we do not believe the same thing at all. You beleive that the dismemberments represent a trait the torso killer could nbot possibly do without, while I say that he very well could do that - and that the similarities prove my point beyond resonable doubt.

The Mary question lingers...if Marys killer is also Torso man, then why don't we see that compulsion in that room?

Because the "compulsion" the combined killer had was a wider one of disassembling. It was never a case of one killer compelled to dismember and another one compelled to eviscerate. These killers were BOTH eviscerators, and in the Ripper cases, there was never any need for dismemberment. Easy-peasy.

[Michael W Richards]

Ah, but itīs a question of the Torso killer not being able to help himself, Abby, didnīt you know that? If you dismember in one case, you will dismember in them all! Similarly, if you have murdered and cut up and eviscerated in one case, you will never blend dismemberment into the mix.

So this is why we may confidently rule Kelly out as a possible victim of the man who dismembered the torso victims - she was not dismembered and therefore she was not his victim. Screw the fact that she was not killed in the Torso mans bolthole.

Surely, you are not going to ruin all of this by claiming that a killer can bridge this kind of a gap?

Its not about his ability to suppress or control any desire he may have had, its about what he chose to do at that minute and what we believe someone who has demonstrated a particular characteristic or trait might do in a given situation. The Mary question lingers...if Marys killer is also Torso man, then why don't we see that compulsion in that room?

[Michael W Richards]

Hi MR
I don't "want" them to be, anymore than I want johnny gill, emma smith or francis coles to be by the torsoripper, or the ripper for that matter-which if I really wanted to be all inclusive I could, but I don't-because the evidence just isn't there to include them in either.

however, the evidence does lead me to conclude (well lean to anyway-im not at 100%) that torsoman and ripper were-Both series:

1. post mortem mutilators
2. same victimology
3. same time
4. same place
5. end at same time
6. no overt attmpts to hide
7. victims left in odd and shocking places
8. vertical gashes to midsection
9. stomach sections removed in flaps
10. internal organs removed
11. faces gashed

the only difference is the ripper victims werent dismembered. but is cutting breasts off, nearly decapitating and denuding flesh to the bone really that different from dismemberment? not to me.

The part I made bold is a critical one...I believe carving someone up is very different from disarticulating their body, and as has been pointed out, IF the killers is the same in all these cases, then why wouldn't he dismember Mary? He has the privacy it seems many assume he wanted..I personally don't see that indicated at all in the 1st 2 murders, but...and the time. So why isn't her head on the table with the entrails. Why flop the left arm back over her body when it would be easy to just remove it?

1. That applies to only 4 of Five Canonical victims. Which may be all we need to see multiple killers.
2. Only 2 of the victims were known to be soliciting, which made for easy targets. There is a victim that is half the age of the rest.
3. If you mean night, sure...but the time of night varied.
4. If you mean the East End, ok...but one was killed in the city.
5. Depends on whom you believe and what the evidence says, did they end in Nov 88 or the following year?
6. Taking a victim somewhere private then choosing where to dispose of some parts involves hiding, leaving the victim where they were attacked and killed isn't.
7. Again, its where he attacked. The placement of limbs and Torsos is premeditated.
8. Not all victims were mutilated, at least not dramatically.
9. 2 victims.
10. Removed, or removed and taken? I sense a real difference between them.
11. 2 victims.

The numbers that corelate are small, 4 victims had this, 2 had that, 1 had no cuts, 1 was indoors. I think assuming all these variances can be set aside for a common weapon, or method of killing is a mistake. Knives were abundant, the pistol hadn't yet made its way into mainstream usage then. The fact that knives were used isn't a surprise. we have all sorts of people of the period using knives on throats, even self inflicted cuts. Its the next step that separates the wheat from the chaff...does he just leave, or does he open the body up? In the case of the Torsos, this isn't a blitzkrieg type situation. Its premeditated. Its specific and unusual. Its working for periods of time reducing a single human to multiple parts. Then secretly disposing of what isn't desired. That's unlike any Ripper style murder. Grab them suddenly wherever he chose, kill them quickly and efficiently, then do what it was he wanted in the first place. Cut into the body, not separate it.

[Fisherman]

Heart, uterus and kidney are ALL internal organs. They have that in common. How likely is it that in Whitechapel in the Autumn of 1888 that there would have been a killer who was specifically targeting hearts, one that was specifically targeting kidneys and one that was specifically targeting uteri? Seems extremely unlikely.

c.d.

Well, one thing we may conclude is at least that Eddowes and Kelly were done for by different men. The guy who killed Eddowes was obviously a lefty, the type who takes out left kidneys only.

[Fisherman]

High marks for the bravado and self marketing my friend,..but not so high a score on accuracy, provability, and viability though.

As for provability, I beleivve we are on equal footing, with me having the edge (the same things wee done and the same organs taken together with abdominal walls - that is powerful circumstantial evidence that will stand up in a court of law).

As for accuracy, it is more accurate to recognize similarities than to claim that they were never there.

As for viability, one killer is always a better suggestion than two when there are similarities like these around.

As for bravado, it is not very brave to point out the obvious. You are much more brave, trying to defend the idea of a bunch of killers. I would never dare to do that, Iīm way too squeamish.

[Fisherman]

Because the Torso man makes Torso of humans, that why. Rippers rip, Torso men make Torsos, not a difficult concept to grasp, is it? Oh yeah...you and Fish want them to be the same person...so I can see your problem there.

"Makes Torso of humans"? It was not very long ago that people out here claimed that the dismemberments were all practicalities, Michael. It seems we have now moved on to acknowledging that the killer actually produced something more than waste. Thats progress. Of sorts.

Now, all you need to do is to get your head around how a killer who regards arms and legs and torsos and hearts and uteri as interesting parts of a human body that can be toyed with, may actually settle for the innards only when armed with a knife only and working out in the open streets.

They do the same things, and take the same parts. That provides us with a 1 + 1 equation.

[Fisherman]

It might simply have been because it's easier to remove one or two abdominal organs when you're up against the clock and your "operating theatre" is a public right of way.

If he removed the uterus, collateral damage style, what are you suggesting it had gotten in the way of? The options of digging a deeper hole?

[Fisherman]

Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

I hedged in Marys case because I believe he had ample alone time to take off her arms, or legs, or head while in that room. If he can strip her thigh clean with a knife, cutting off the tissues that cling to the bone.. and all that muscle, tendon and fat..he could have easily cut through a thigh bone in the same time, or removed it at the hip joint, or cut off her head. He didn't.





why would he need to? he dosnt need to get the body out of his place this time.[/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]

Ah, but itīs a question of the Torso killer not being able to help himself, Abby, didnīt you know that? If you dismember in one case, you will dismember in them all! Similarly, if you have murdered and cut up and eviscerated in one case, you will never blend dismemberment into the mix.

So this is why we may confidently rule Kelly out as a possible victim of the man who dismembered the torso victims - she was not dismembered and therefore she was not his victim. Screw the fact that she was not killed in the Torso mans bolthole.

Surely, you are not going to ruin all of this by claiming that a killer can bridge this kind of a gap?

[APerno]

Heart, uterus and kidney are ALL internal organs. They have that in common. How likely is it that in Whitechapel in the Autumn of 1888 that there would have been a killer who was specifically targeting hearts, one that was specifically targeting kidneys and one that was specifically targeting uteri? Seems extremely unlikely.

c.d.

a Free Mason scavenger hunt?

[c.d.]

Heart, uterus and kidney are ALL internal organs. They have that in common. How likely is it that in Whitechapel in the Autumn of 1888 that there would have been a killer who was specifically targeting hearts, one that was specifically targeting kidneys and one that was specifically targeting uteri? Seems extremely unlikely.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Working indoors was certainly an incentive to butcher Mary Kelly more extensively than any of the Whitechapel victims but it was not the motivation imo.

Well damn, Harry. Don't leave us hanging like that. The motivation was ??????

c.d.

[Lipsky]

I did not perceive your comment as either negative OR positive - how could I? I never heard about Rust Cohle.

But I agree that the Rippers audacity served him well.

"Fortune favors the bold"

[Abby Normal]

Because the Torso man makes Torso of humans, that why. Rippers rip, Torso men make Torsos, not a difficult concept to grasp, is it? Oh yeah...you and Fish want them to be the same person...so I can see your problem there.

Hi MR
I don't "want" them to be, anymore than I want johnny gill, emma smith or francis coles to be by the torsoripper, or the ripper for that matter-which if I really wanted to be all inclusive I could, but I don't-because the evidence just isn't there to include them in either.

however, the evidence does lead me to conclude (well lean to anyway-im not at 100%) that torsoman and ripper were-Both series:

post mortem mutilators
same victimology
same time
same place
end at same time
no overt attmpts to hide
victims left in odd and shocking places
vertical gashes to midsection
stomach sections removed in flaps
internal organs removed
faces gashed

the only difference is the ripper victims werent dismembered. but is cutting breasts off, nearly decapitating and denuding flesh to the bone really that different from dismemberment? not to me.

[Sam Flynn]

"The whole inference seems to me that the operation was performed to enable the perpetrator to obtain possession of these parts of the body."

That doesn't contradict what I said. If someone wants to remove some organs quickly in the street, then clearly he's not going to target the heart or lungs, as that would entail opening up the ribcage, so he's restricted to taking abdominal organs. The cuts inflicted were necessary for this purpose, which is really all that Phillips says.

This tells us nothing about what the killer would have liked to have done, if he'd had more time and privacy.

[Michael W Richards]

I am quite aware that being alone does not equal being wrong. Fewer people out here support Lechmere than the ones who donīt, so I know the feeling. The only difference is that I am quite likely right and you are almost certain to be wrong.

Then again, that IS a major difference...

High marks for the bravado and self marketing my friend,..but not so high a score on accuracy, provability, and viability though.