Mary Jane Violence

[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?

[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 it´s a question of the Torso killer not being able to help himself, Abby, didn´t 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?

[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]

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]

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, I´m way too squeamish.

[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.

[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.

[Michael W Richards]

Ah, but it´s a question of the Torso killer not being able to help himself, Abby, didn´t 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?

[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]

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.

With all due respect bud, I believe that's exactly what it was.

[Fisherman]

The numbers that corelate are small, 4 victims had this, 2 had that, 1 had no cuts, 1 was indoors.

That does not mean anything at all when the correlations we know are there, are extremely rare ones. If one man is killed by a gunshot in New Jersey and another one three days later in Boston by strangulation, the clever thing to do is to go for two different killers - up to the point that it is revealed that both victims had their left pinky cut away.

Same thing with abdominal flaps. Same thing with missing colon sections. Same thing with taken out hearts. Same thing with taken away uteri. Same thing with cutting from ribs to pubes.

All of these matters are examples of the same mechanism. One by one. And when we put them together, it takes a very severe case of denial not to acknowledge a probable common originator.

Otherwise we are saying:

Yes, the series both involved taken out hearts - but that must be a coincidence only.

Yes, the series both invoilved taken out uteri - but that must be a coincidence only.

Yes, the series both involved cut away abdominal walls - but that must be a coincidence only.

Yes, the series both involved missing colon sections - but that must be a coincidence only.

Yes, the series both involved cutting from ribs to pubes - but that must be a coincidence only.

Yes, the series both involved stolen rings - but that must be a coincidence only.

Yes, the series both involved prostitute victims - but that must be a coincidence only.

Yes, the series were both perpetrated in Victorian London - but that must be a coincidence only.

Yes, the series both appeared in the late 1800:s - but that must be a coincidence only.

Yes, both series were described by medicos as having been had inclusions of very skilled cutting - but that must be a coincidence only.

This kind of coincidence collection has never occurred on planet earth and subsequently been proven to have had two originators. It just will not happen. It is so very close to impossible as to represent something extremely close to ironclad proof. Being the charitable man that I am, always willing to accept that incredibly strange things MAY happen, I am prepared to say that although I think any court of law would be satisfied that this cannot involve any real doubt, I would merrily accept any claims from a freak fraction that the case is not 110 per cent proven.

But that does not entail opening up for any acceptance that the scales are evenly matched. The weight difference between our different takes compare to that between an elephant after a sumptous supper and an anorectic mosquito.

[Fisherman]

With all due respect bud, I believe that's exactly what it was.

And that would be a possibility - if it was not for the similarities. They put an effective end to lofty speculations.

[Michael W Richards]

The reason, as you say, that this has never occurred on planet earth... with 2 or perpetrators working their specific manias out at the same time and in the same rough geographical area,..is because its only in modern times, with even larger concentrated populations, that we can see that real rarity of certain acts. What you are discounting is the principle of mimicry and how fortuitous that would be to someone who commits murders while an assumed madman is running amok. If someone felt they needed to kill someone during that Fall, after the murder of Annie, then evisceration is a very attractive way to disguise true intention. Marys killer for example...he could be the man in the triangle with her and Joe and after struggling and slashing and cutting her throat, he decides to act like the madman and cut her to bits. Problem is, that killer didn't know what meaning any acts had to the killer, and his choice of action maybe directly related to the specific nature of the mutilations. On that point....I believe its clear from what Phillips said that he believed the killer of Annie Chapman killed her so he could mutilate her, and when mutilating her, he cut in a way that allowed him to access a specific organ. The one he took.

[Fisherman]

The reason, as you say, that this has never occurred on planet earth... with 2 or perpetrators working their specific manias out at the same time and in the same rough geographical area,..is because its only in modern times, with even larger concentrated populations, that we can see that real rarity of certain acts.

And what examples can you tell me about from modern times when there were as many and rare similarities between two eviscerating serial killers...? None. I can answer that for you. And the reason for THAT is that regardless of how we in modern times keep track of things in a much more efficient manner, the odds of finding two killers of this kind of character in the same town and time are higher than Burj Khalifa.
Speaking of how modern times are different is all good and well, b ut they cannot provide you with what you are looking for just the same. It just does not happen, Michel, and for very good reasons.

What you are discounting is the principle of mimicry and how fortuitous that would be to someone who commits murders while an assumed madman is running amok.

No, I am not discounting mimicry at all - I am simply pointing to how similarities in 99 cases out of a 100 are about the same killer and not about copycats. They are primarily the stuff of tv-series and crime fiction. And I have already told you that if there WAS copycatting involved, then the copycatting amazingly went in BOTH directions. And that effectively puts an end to what was already a VERY fringe possibility. Write a crime story by all means, if you feel a need to use that concept. But don´t impose it upon a ratioinal discussion!

If someone felt they needed to kill someone during that Fall, after the murder of Annie, then evisceration is a very attractive way to disguise true intention.

Yes, and we all know how the history of crime is riddled with people who disguise their fould deeds by tearing out hearts and uteri and cutting away abdominal walls, don´t we? What you are proposing are things that are incredibly less likely than the very simple and obvious explanation that when victims have the same extremely odd damage, that points to a mutual killer. It is by far the easiest and least tortured solution to what is only a very strange thing if we start introducing the "Whitechapel Four" or whatever tou like to call the array of eviscerators you propose.

Marys killer for example...he could be the man in the triangle with her and Joe and after struggling and slashing and cutting her throat, he decides to act like the madman and cut her to bits. Problem is, that killer didn't know what meaning any acts had to the killer, and his choice of action maybe directly related to the specific nature of the mutilations. On that point....I believe its clear from what Phillips said that he believed the killer of Annie Chapman killed her so he could mutilate her, and when mutilating her, he cut in a way that allowed him to access a specific organ. The one he took.

Once again, why would we favour this far-fetched nonsense over a simple, logical and rationally and empirically based suggestion of a single killer? Why? And why not suggest that a men´s choir from the local parish was responsible, all of them wanting to have a go at evisceration? The more the merrier, surely?

PS. So you would opt for accepting the ten similarities I listed in post 236 as ten examples of coincidences, pure and simple ...? Really?

[Sam Flynn]

What you are discounting is the principle of mimicry

There's no mimicry between the Ripper murders and the torso murders, as they're entirely different in nature, timing and location. I note that Fisherman is still banging on about the torso killer(s) being an "eviscerator", but that's not the case. On the few occasions where a torso was eviscerated, it was almost certainly done for very practical reasons relating to the disposal of the body - it wasn't to scratch some kind of "eviscerator's itch".