Mary Jane Violence

[Abby Normal]

There were atleast two post mortem mutilators in London at the time. William Henry Bury was a post mortem mutilator whether you believe he was the Ripper or not as Ellen Bury was stabbed in the abdomen after she was killed. I personally believe Bury was the Ripper and I do agree post mortem mutilators are rare.

hey john
as you know bury is one of my favored suspects for the ripper. however, if he wasnt the ripper then he wasnt a postmortem mutilator in the same city as torsoman, as he did that to his wife in scotland and of course isnt a serial killer either like torsoman.

[John Wheat]

"a better illustration would be that no time in history have there been two post mortem eviscerating serial killers operating in the same city at the same time."

Although I don't personally think the two are related, It's a really good point. What are the odds of two super violent post mortem mutilaters being in the same place at the same time?

There were atleast two post mortem mutilators in London at the time. William Henry Bury was a post mortem mutilator whether you believe he was the Ripper or not as Ellen Bury was stabbed in the abdomen after she was killed. I personally believe Bury was the Ripper and I do agree post mortem mutilators are rare.

[Errata]

re timescales.. yes torsoman victims more spread out timewise but seems to reach a creshendo during the ripper killings. and both series then end around the same time with pinchin and mckenzie. ive never seen any explanation for that and the chances that two postmortem ttype serial killers just happen to end both their respective series at the same time is way too much of a coincidence for me.

The torso killer(s) generally made an attempt to dispose of most of the body. You gotta wonder about the ones that were never found. Washed out to sea, stuck under a snag, buried even. Could be 15 years of bits in a basement somewhere.

[Abby Normal]

Why though, if it is the same murderer, were all the ripper victims in a concentrated area in Whitechapel and the torso murders spread across town? To me, it seems to suggest a very different approach in finding victims. Add this to the different post murder treatment of the victims and the different timescales involved, it points to two separate murderers to me.

hi eten
no worries. they could be. im not 100% sold they were same man. more like 75%. there are obvious differences which you point out.
re location.. we dont know where torsoman nor the ripper lived nor where torsomans chop shop was. so for example, if torsoman lived in tje east end and his chop shop was in the west, and chop shop not available, then that could explain this. he kills on the street near his house. there could be other explanations to like access or not to a cart at certain times. the situation changes but the urge is still there.

re timescales.. yes torsoman victims more spread out timewise but seems to reach a creshendo during the ripper killings. and both series then end around the same time with pinchin and mckenzie. ive never seen any explanation for that and the chances that two postmortem ttype serial killers just happen to end both their respective series at the same time is way too much of a coincidence for me.

[etenguy]

hi al
pretty low i would say. and add to that they both end the same time with mckenzie and pinchin.

Why though, if it is the same murderer, were all the ripper victims in a concentrated area in Whitechapel and the torso murders spread across town? To me, it seems to suggest a very different approach in finding victims. Add this to the different post murder treatment of the victims and the different timescales involved, it points to two separate murderers to me.

[Errata]

The Thames Torsos really are an enigma. I've never felt the same person was responsible for both the torsos and the Whitechapel killings. If the Whitechapel killers goal was to be able to mutilate, then Polly Nichols would have been a big backstep from having the means to completely dismember people and dump them in the river.
Unless he was compromised at his previous kill site and was forced to take to the streets?
Hmm...

I’m with you. Not all torsos are alike. The majority of them seem straightforward ways to dump a body. Two of them seem to have quite a bit more to them, like cutting them apart was the point and not just a tool. But they’re 15 years apart. It’s definitely weird

[Abby Normal]

"a better illustration would be that no time in history have there been two post mortem eviscerating serial killers operating in the same city at the same time."

Although I don't personally think the two are related, It's a really good point. What are the odds of two super violent post mortem mutilaters being in the same place at the same time?

hi al
pretty low i would say. and add to that they both end the same time with mckenzie and pinchin.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

"a better illustration would be that no time in history have there been two post mortem eviscerating serial killers operating in the same city at the same time."

Although I don't personally think the two are related, It's a really good point. What are the odds of two super violent post mortem mutilaters being in the same place at the same time?

[Abby Normal]

Example: I don't see a "subtle" difference between hacking someone to pieces, for no discernable purpose whatsover, and relatively skilfully removing two strips of flesh to facilitate easier disposal of the remains. This is a major difference.

Abducting victims, or inveigling then to the murder/ dismemberment site, is fundamentally different to street slayings.

Decapitation of a victim, and successfully preventing identification, is fundamentally different from taking no steps to prevent identification.

Scattering of body parts, probably for impact value, is fundamentally different from not scattering body parts.

Dismembering a victim is fundamentally different from not dismembering a victim.

To further illustrate the point, no serial killer in history has ever alternated between two such dramatically different MOs/ signatures. In fact, in simpler terms, no serial killer in history has ever alternated between dismemberment and non-dismemberment crimes.

Vastly different Mo.

Vastly Different signature.

And that's assuming that a single perpetrator was responsible for the C5, they might not have been.

And that's assuming that all the Torso victims had a single perpetrator. They might not have had, as there are significant differences between some of these crimes.

Not subtle differences. Massive differences.

hi John

Example: I don't see a "subtle" difference between hacking someone to pieces, for no discernable purpose whatsover, and relatively skilfully removing two strips of flesh to facilitate easier disposal of the remains. This is a major difference.

I don't really see what point your trying to make here or what your differentiating. both ripper and torso victims were hacked to pieces to one degree or another and both torso victim Jackson and ripper victims Kelly and chapman had "strips" or sections of there stomach flesh removed, presumably to gain easier access to the inside.

Abducting victims, or inveigling then to the murder/ dismemberment site, is fundamentally different to street slayings.

stop with the abduction stuff. please. there is no evidence any of the torso victims were abducted. and the idea that torso man went out and forcibly kidnapped victims and brought them back to his chop shop is patently ridiculous. No, the obvious answer is that both Torsoman and the ripper targeted unfortunates with the same MO of rusing them to a place were he could do his thing. undoubtedly under the pretense of carrying out an act of prostitution.

Decapitation of a victim, and successfully preventing identification, is fundamentally different from taking no steps to prevent identification.

I concede torsoman MAY have tried to prevent ID by decapitating and hiding the heads, although I think it has more to do with the head having special significance to the serial killer, as it usually does to post mortem serial killers, which both torsoman and the ripper clearly were. and with the fact that both series have facial mutilations, with Eddowes and totenham being so similar and I think its a fair estimation that in all likelihood that decapitation was do to psychological reasons(sig) and not MO in disposal/hiding ID.[QUOTE]

Scattering of body parts, probably for impact value, is fundamentally different from not scattering body parts

.

well at least you see that torsomans scattering was probably for impact-so I give you that! because it definitely was (and the odd and public places he did scatter them probably also had special meaning to him also). so given that his scattering was for impact, its really no different than how the ripper left his victims. maximum shocking impact. he just couldn't dismember on the streets and scatter elsewhere. nevertheless both series the victims were left in shocking public places.

To further illustrate the point, no serial killer in history has ever alternated between two such dramatically different MOs/ signatures. In fact, in simpler terms, no serial killer in history has ever alternated between dismemberment and non-dismemberment crimes.

Your starting with a false premise here because the torsoman did post mortem mutilate above and beyond what was needed for dismemberment on every single one of the torso victims. and that being said-there are plenty of serial killers that do both-Dahmer, Gein and brudos just off the top of my head.

Vastly different Mo.

Vastly Different signature.

again no.

MO is the how the crime is comitted. the logistics. commonly changes due to circumstances.
sig is the why (deep seated psychological reasons-the motivation). rare that it changes, but can slightly due to killer escalation.

MO is the same in both series-rusing unfortunates to a secluded place. quickly murdered, knife primary weapon.
Sig is the same in both series-post mortem mutilation and removing of body parts.

no evidence of torture or sexual abuse in either.

a better illustration would be that no time in history have there been two post mortem eviscerating serial killers operating in the same city at the same time.

[John Wheat]

Example: I don't see a "subtle" difference between hacking someone to pieces, for no discernable purpose whatsover, and relatively skilfully removing two strips of flesh to facilitate easier disposal of the remains. This is a major difference.

Abducting victims, or inveigling then to the murder/ dismemberment site, is fundamentally different to street slayings.

Decapitation of a victim, and successfully preventing identification, is fundamentally different from taking no steps to prevent identification.

Scattering of body parts, probably for impact value, is fundamentally different from not scattering body parts.

Dismembering a victim is fundamentally different from not dismembering a victim.

To further illustrate the point, no serial killer in history has ever alternated between two such dramatically different MOs/ signatures. In fact, in simpler terms, no serial killer in history has ever alternated between dismemberment and non-dismemberment crimes.

Vastly different Mo.

Vastly Different signature.

And that's assuming that a single perpetrator was responsible for the C5, they might not have been.

And that's assuming that all the Torso victims had a single perpetrator. They might not have had, as there are significant differences between some of these crimes.

Not subtle differences. Massive differences.

Totally agree John and also doesn't The Torso Killer seem more likely to be the media inspired Top hatted toff with money to move about, own a chop shop etc than Jack who strikes me as more likely to be a Workingclass/underclass type of killer who may not have had access to a chop shop etc and probably murdered unfortunates of the same class as himself?

[John Wheat]

Hi Marie Jeanette Davis

Welcome to the boards.

[packers stem]

There were no issues identifying Kate. The facial marks I agree were a personal touch, but I think they related to just making a public statement about Kate and what she was up to. I think Marys killer did some "venting", and as in Marthas murder, that implies some anger directed at the deceased.

There were problems identifying Eddowes
check out the woman from Rotherhithe who incorrectly identified her as her sister.

[John G]

whats lazy thinking is knee jerk assigning different killers to the same series of murders simply because one cant see all the specific similarities but seeing subtle differences as being different killers because one cant fathom them being do to changes in circumstances and or the kilers changing mood/desries.

Example: I don't see a "subtle" difference between hacking someone to pieces, for no discernable purpose whatsover, and relatively skilfully removing two strips of flesh to facilitate easier disposal of the remains. This is a major difference.

Abducting victims, or inveigling then to the murder/ dismemberment site, is fundamentally different to street slayings.

Decapitation of a victim, and successfully preventing identification, is fundamentally different from taking no steps to prevent identification.

Scattering of body parts, probably for impact value, is fundamentally different from not scattering body parts.

Dismembering a victim is fundamentally different from not dismembering a victim.

To further illustrate the point, no serial killer in history has ever alternated between two such dramatically different MOs/ signatures. In fact, in simpler terms, no serial killer in history has ever alternated between dismemberment and non-dismemberment crimes.

Vastly different Mo.

Vastly Different signature.

And that's assuming that a single perpetrator was responsible for the C5, they might not have been.

And that's assuming that all the Torso victims had a single perpetrator. They might not have had, as there are significant differences between some of these crimes.

Not subtle differences. Massive differences.

[Abby Normal]

I'm not twisting anything, and I really don't like your tone.

I'll not waste my time in future.

suit yourself -and probably just as well because when you post erroneous and misleading information your actually doing worse than wasting peoples time.
"tip of Eddowes nose" -cmon Sam this is blatant incorrect and misleading and you know it.

Sorry Sam your normally one of the better posters on here but when it comes to anything torsos related this is par for the course with you.

and if you don't like my tone I suggest you go back and look at your patronising post that prompted my response. along with aforementioned misinformation rudely telling me to take it to another thread after you've had your lengthy say.

give me a break.

[Sam Flynn]

ah ok,i see. take it to a different thread... but not before youve had your two cents?
Eddowes had her nose cut off.. whats this tip crap?
part of one earlobe. lol. your twisting and attempt to minamize is laughable. she had part of her ear cut off.
amd her nose was cut off and her face gashed. same as tottenham torso. no amount of erroneous info or twisting can change that. its a FACT.

I'm not twisting anything, and I really don't like your tone.

I'll not waste my time in future.