Mary Jane Violence

[John Wheat]

But - in comparing the torsos with the Ripper murders - we're talking about very different kinds of mutilation, with almost certainly very different purposes. Cutting off the legs and the head and carrying the troso from your base to dump it in a railway arch is radically dissimilar from killing a woman where she's found, cutting her abdomen open and excising her organs.

I mention the railway arch specifically, because this was the ONLY torso found in East London. If I were being pedantic, I'd point out that the Pinchin Street incident happened, not in 1888, but in 1889 - fully ten months after the canonical Ripper murders had ended.

I agree with all that Sam. I believe that Jack and The Torso Killer were two separate serial killers. However I also believe that the C5 with the possible exception of Liz Stride were killed by the same man. For example I don't believe you can separate Mary Kelly from the rest of the C5 purely because she was murdered indoors.

[Sam Flynn]

Agreed. It's not very likely there were three, four or more post mortem mutilators about the East End in 1888.

But - in comparing the torsos with the Ripper murders - we're talking about very different kinds of mutilation, with almost certainly very different purposes. Cutting off the legs and the head and carrying the troso from your base to dump it in a railway arch is radically dissimilar from killing a woman where she's found, cutting her abdomen open and excising her organs.

I mention the railway arch specifically, because this was the ONLY torso found in East London. If I were being pedantic, I'd point out that the Pinchin Street incident happened, not in 1888, but in 1889 - fully ten months after the canonical Ripper murders had ended.

[Sam Flynn]

and nothing superficial about the totenham torsos face mutilated like edowes. or the torso;parts dumped audaciously in public.

Not only superficial compared to the Ripper murders, but entirely dissimilar in nature... and in a different part of London.

[John Wheat]

and you have a veritable broadway musical of serial killers and post mortem mutilators trapsing around the east end. i can see it now .. the dance number like the one with the chimney sweeps in mary poppins...but instead of broomsticks its knives. lol.
wake up.

Agreed. It's not very likely there were three, four or more post mortem mutilators about the East End in 1888.

[Abby Normal]

I always loved literate posters. But donīt ya know, Abby, that the similarities are purely "superficial"?

yeah it borders on fake news when i see people keep using that term. nothing superficial about it. simply similar. its facts pire and simple.

and nothing superficial about the totenham torsos face mutilated like edowes. or the torso;parts dumped audaciously in public.

[Abby Normal]

Anytime you have actions taken that had been preceded by the same acts described in newspapers and on the streets, you have the potential for mimicry. Note the walls taken from Annie were to quickly access the area he intended on taking something from, and that there were "no meaningless cuts"...he killed her so he could mutilate her abdomen and take specifically her uterus. Conclusively. So...tell me....why did Marys killer kill her? Wasn't for the uterus, I believe that was between Marys legs with a breast under her head. Wasnt to take any abdominal organs...so why cut the abdominal flaps if not preoccupied with internal organs within that region?

Anyone can do what someone else did. Any person properly motivated and can kill and mutilate. Guy argues with "cheating" girlfriend, kills her, cuts the body up to dispose of it. Or Girl with cheating boyfriend. Business partner caught stealing the company funds and bankrupting the business...pervert abducts girl and after abusing her kills her and cuts her up. To take abdominal flaps as a step towards a further act in that specific area clearly show why the actions were taken, so...again....why take abdominal flaps when there is no internal abdominal goal...why not disassemble her fully if you intended on doing so....why leave organs that were taken from 2 prior victims..why have her able to struggle and defend herself when none of the priors had that opportunity...why kill her indoors if you are a killer who has precedent for killing women outdoors and leaving them to be found soon after, which may have been part of his "thrill"...why make the identification of the deceased, and the access to her, more difficult..

If people would analyze these acts for the possible motivations behind them I would have way more agreement here than I do. I know why Annies killer killed her, and I know why as a comparative, Polly should be presumed to have fallen to the same killer. I do not know why Liz Stride was killed, or had just one cut, I don't know why Kates killer cut a colon section and her nose and face, or why she was killed at all...and I don't know that for Kelly either. I have my theories.

The most ineffective way of studying these crimes for clues as to the reasons is to just assume that all the victims died because their killer was crazy, an uncontrollable beast. Annies killer wanted her uterus, or a uterus rather..so...what did Marys killer want Fish, explain the wounds as relates to what was eventually done. Cut flesh off the thighs so he could take her heart? Slash her face while she is fighting back...so he could take her heart? Place a breast under her head...so he could take her heart? Place her hand over her midsection after emptying it...so he could have her heart?

You personally take that to an extreme...not only do you want to assume, despite contradictory evidence, that not only the Five Canonicals were killed by one crazy uncontrollable man with the only motivation of madness, you want to make him into an indoor disarticulating hobbyist as well.

People need to work a bit harder. Assuming a madman on the loose for everything that went on there is just infantile sleuthing. And it continues to set back any real progress in this field.

and you have a veritable broadway musical of serial killers and post mortem mutilators trapsing around the east end. i can see it now .. the dance number like the one with the chimney sweeps in mary poppins...but instead of broomsticks its knives. lol.
wake up.

[Abby Normal]

Yeah, there were vast dismiliarities between some of these crimes. For instance, Whitehall Torso: abducted, stored for several weeks, body dumped, decapitated, no known connection to Whitechapel, no proof of evisceration. Chapman: not abducted, Whitechapel victim, eviscerated, not stored, not decapitated, body not dumped.

The "flaps" argument is incidental as it doesn't demonstrate a common purpose, by a perpetrator using the same tools and demonstrating the same level of skill. And again, let's look at comparisons:

Jackson: abducted, body parts scattered, decapitated, skill demonstrated. Two long irregular strips were removed from the abdomen, but this could have been for practical purposes to aid with disposal, i.e she was pregnant so the cuts suggest the perpetrator may have simply been cutting around the bulge in the abdomen, before removing the foetus for reasons of easier disposal.No connection whatsoever to Whitechapel, had been living rough on the embankment.

Kelly: Hacked to pieces, no skill demonstrated, not abducted, not decapitated, body parts not scattered. Whitechapel victim.

By the way, "flaps" in this context just means pieces of skin so pretty meaningless for comparison purposes.

where do you guys keep coming up with this abducted nonsense?!?

[Errata]

So, what if the Ripper is a Torso copycat? The Thames Torso Murder is sheer destruction. Almost a masterpiece of dehumanization. We don’t see anything remotely like that until maybe Kate Eddowes. Until Mary Kelly. Until Elizabeth Jackson. The crimes of 15 years apart. It’s not out of the question that someone who was younger and impressionable came in contact somehow with the crime in 73, and upon attending adulthood and for size, decided to try and replicate it.

[Sam Flynn]

By the way, "flaps" in this context just means pieces of skin so pretty meaningless for comparison purposes.

What we can compare, though, are their dimensions. As you've said, Jackson had two strips of flesh cut from her abdomen above her "baby-bump", whereas the (three) large flaps of flesh cut from Kelly laid her entire (non-gravid) abdomen completely open, from flank to flank, from the bottom of her ribs to the floor of her pelvis. Jackson underwent keyhole surgery in comparison.

[John G]

Anytime you have actions taken that had been preceded by the same acts described in newspapers and on the streets, you have the potential for mimicry. Note the walls taken from Annie were to quickly access the area he intended on taking something from, and that there were "no meaningless cuts"...he killed her so he could mutilate her abdomen and take specifically her uterus. Conclusively. So...tell me....why did Marys killer kill her? Wasn't for the uterus, I believe that was between Marys legs with a breast under her head. Wasnt to take any abdominal organs...so why cut the abdominal flaps if not preoccupied with internal organs within that region?

Anyone can do what someone else did. Any person properly motivated and can kill and mutilate. Guy argues with "cheating" girlfriend, kills her, cuts the body up to dispose of it. Or Girl with cheating boyfriend. Business partner caught stealing the company funds and bankrupting the business...pervert abducts girl and after abusing her kills her and cuts her up. To take abdominal flaps as a step towards a further act in that specific area clearly show why the actions were taken, so...again....why take abdominal flaps when there is no internal abdominal goal...why not disassemble her fully if you intended on doing so....why leave organs that were taken from 2 prior victims..why have her able to struggle and defend herself when none of the priors had that opportunity...why kill her indoors if you are a killer who has precedent for killing women outdoors and leaving them to be found soon after, which may have been part of his "thrill"...why make the identification of the deceased, and the access to her, more difficult..

If people would analyze these acts for the possible motivations behind them I would have way more agreement here than I do. I know why Annies killer killed her, and I know why as a comparative, Polly should be presumed to have fallen to the same killer. I do not know why Liz Stride was killed, or had just one cut, I don't know why Kates killer cut a colon section and her nose and face, or why she was killed at all...and I don't know that for Kelly either. I have my theories.

The most ineffective way of studying these crimes for clues as to the reasons is to just assume that all the victims died because their killer was crazy, an uncontrollable beast. Annies killer wanted her uterus, or a uterus rather..so...what did Marys killer want Fish, explain the wounds as relates to what was eventually done. Cut flesh off the thighs so he could take her heart? Slash her face while she is fighting back...so he could take her heart? Place a breast under her head...so he could take her heart? Place her hand over her midsection after emptying it...so he could have her heart?

You personally take that to an extreme...not only do you want to assume, despite contradictory evidence, that not only the Five Canonicals were killed by one crazy uncontrollable man with the only motivation of madness, you want to make him into an indoor disarticulating hobbyist as well.

People need to work a bit harder. Assuming a madman on the loose for everything that went on there is just infantile sleuthing. And it continues to set back any real progress in this field.

Yeah, there were vast dismiliarities between some of these crimes. For instance, Whitehall Torso: abducted, stored for several weeks, body dumped, decapitated, no known connection to Whitechapel, no proof of evisceration. Chapman: not abducted, Whitechapel victim, eviscerated, not stored, not decapitated, body not dumped.

The "flaps" argument is incidental as it doesn't demonstrate a common purpose, by a perpetrator using the same tools and demonstrating the same level of skill. And again, let's look at comparisons:

Jackson: abducted, body parts scattered, decapitated, skill demonstrated. Two long irregular strips were removed from the abdomen, but this could have been for practical purposes to aid with disposal, i.e she was pregnant so the cuts suggest the perpetrator may have simply been cutting around the bulge in the abdomen, before removing the foetus for reasons of easier disposal.No connection whatsoever to Whitechapel, had been living rough on the embankment.

Kelly: Hacked to pieces, no skill demonstrated, not abducted, not decapitated, body parts not scattered. Whitechapel victim.

By the way, "flaps" in this context just means pieces of skin so pretty meaningless for comparison purposes.

[Michael W Richards]

In my world, once we note that Chapman and Kelly both had their abdominal walls cut away in flaps, any suggestion of different killers go out the window. The chances that two killers would separately come up with that idea is too miniscule to show up in a microscope. Once again, eviscerators are very, very rare. Guess what that does to eviscerators who take the abominal wall away, like lifting a lid off a treasure trove?

We can have innumerable differences between victims, and we can have different implements used - but when this happens, such matters become totally obsolete insights.

Anytime you have actions taken that had been preceded by the same acts described in newspapers and on the streets, you have the potential for mimicry. Note the walls taken from Annie were to quickly access the area he intended on taking something from, and that there were "no meaningless cuts"...he killed her so he could mutilate her abdomen and take specifically her uterus. Conclusively. So...tell me....why did Marys killer kill her? Wasn't for the uterus, I believe that was between Marys legs with a breast under her head. Wasnt to take any abdominal organs...so why cut the abdominal flaps if not preoccupied with internal organs within that region?

Anyone can do what someone else did. Any person properly motivated and can kill and mutilate. Guy argues with "cheating" girlfriend, kills her, cuts the body up to dispose of it. Or Girl with cheating boyfriend. Business partner caught stealing the company funds and bankrupting the business...pervert abducts girl and after abusing her kills her and cuts her up. To take abdominal flaps as a step towards a further act in that specific area clearly show why the actions were taken, so...again....why take abdominal flaps when there is no internal abdominal goal...why not disassemble her fully if you intended on doing so....why leave organs that were taken from 2 prior victims..why have her able to struggle and defend herself when none of the priors had that opportunity...why kill her indoors if you are a killer who has precedent for killing women outdoors and leaving them to be found soon after, which may have been part of his "thrill"...why make the identification of the deceased, and the access to her, more difficult..

If people would analyze these acts for the possible motivations behind them I would have way more agreement here than I do. I know why Annies killer killed her, and I know why as a comparative, Polly should be presumed to have fallen to the same killer. I do not know why Liz Stride was killed, or had just one cut, I don't know why Kates killer cut a colon section and her nose and face, or why she was killed at all...and I don't know that for Kelly either. I have my theories.

The most ineffective way of studying these crimes for clues as to the reasons is to just assume that all the victims died because their killer was crazy, an uncontrollable beast. Annies killer wanted her uterus, or a uterus rather..so...what did Marys killer want Fish, explain the wounds as relates to what was eventually done. Cut flesh off the thighs so he could take her heart? Slash her face while she is fighting back...so he could take her heart? Place a breast under her head...so he could take her heart? Place her hand over her midsection after emptying it...so he could have her heart?

You personally take that to an extreme...not only do you want to assume, despite contradictory evidence, that not only the Five Canonicals were killed by one crazy uncontrollable man with the only motivation of madness, you want to make him into an indoor disarticulating hobbyist as well.

People need to work a bit harder. Assuming a madman on the loose for everything that went on there is just infantile sleuthing. And it continues to set back any real progress in this field.

[Fisherman]

au contrair mon frer!

first torsos found in river, face scalped, totenham torso found in street, head recovered face mutilated just like eddowes, ripper murders start bodies found in street, whitehall torso found in SY vault, mary kelly face mutilated, breasts removed, jackson torso parts found in river, stomach flaps removed like kelly and chapman leg thrown in frankensteins garden, mckenzie gashed in street, pinchin torso gashed found in street.

not scattered. placed and or left in public. too many similarities. same man.

I always loved literate posters. But donīt ya know, Abby, that the similarities are purely "superficial"?

[Fisherman]

My feeling with the torso case is that it was semi-botched disposal. The killer doesn't appear to actually care whether the body parts are found or not or when. They're disposed of in a scattered manner. The turn of the dial in methodology just goes a bit too far away to suggest it's the same killer.

Not agreed. The evidence is there, both when it comes to similarities and - not least - the probable inspiration grounds. We have known for the longest time now that dismemberment can be an expression of a sickness of the mind, a wish to (yes, Michael!) disassemble people.

This is where I believe the explanation to why these deeds were of a sexual nature lies. Most of the sexual crimes are about control as such - many rapes are committed because the rapist feels he has been denied access to a partner, and he retaliates by taking control of that intended partner. If we are to take control close to itīs extreme, we include killing the person selected for sexual gratification.
An even more extreme expression of such control would be if the killer took apart the victim in pieces, making the chosen person a "Lego toy", more or less - that sounds (at least to me) like the very pinnacle of control.

And this is what happens in BOTH series. But the Ripper murders do not involve the time necessary to dismember, not the implements. Therefore, the killer settles for taking organs out only. In the dismemberment murders, however, he has afforded himself the time to take the body even more apart, and he has the implements at hand to do so.

In both series, he seeks a maximum of acknowledgement, terror and shock. In the torso series, this is expressed in many ways, not least by the chosen dumping sites. We may also see that the dismemberment are not maximally effective - he leaves a leg on the 1874 torso and both arms on the Pinchin Street victim, parts that he should have taken away if it was only about facilitating dumping. In the Ripper series, it is expressed by the apparent exhibiting of the bodies - but for Stride, where he was likely disturbed, and Nichols, where a staging would give away that a murder had taken place murder. Apparently, this was something he tried to avoid in that single strike.

Itīs anybodys guess why. And anybodys right to point put what a combined series of murders, spanning from at least 1873 to at least 1888, does to the gallery of so called suspects. Most of them go out the window, and that means that the chances of some posters accepting these very simple matters are non-existent.

[Fisherman]

One pattern that goes throughout with these killings is that the body in each instance was not in any way hidden. There was no attempt to cover up, dispose or spirit away any of these women post murder (the very opposite of the torso cases). The intention by the killer appears to be that these bodies should be found at the soonest opportunity. The killer wants to hear that the body has been found and the reaction that follows. The escalation therefore is fuelled by creating an even more visceral response to the previous murder and driven by not being caught for the first one committed. There's a lack of evidence that these killings have a sexual motivation, but a general fascination with anatomy and higher than average understanding of it clearly went towards what drove the killer on. One of my theories is it could be the killer was either very familiar with or at least saw one or two complete Anatomical Venus models on display somewhere and may have been partly motivated to recreate the poses of these life size and life like wax figures.

It was even said about Kelly by a commentator in a paper that her faced looked just like one of those wax models that could be found at medicosī places. So yes, you are making a very astute observation.

[Fisherman]

Hmm...Ignoring the pattern established in the first 2 murders, committed by a stranger predator,... one would imagine that the obvious differences here would be hard to reconcile a serial killers series with that.

In my world, once we note that Chapman and Kelly both had their abdominal walls cut away in flaps, any suggestion of different killers go out the window. The chances that two killers would separately come up with that idea is too miniscule to show up in a microscope. Once again, eviscerators are very, very rare. Guess what that does to eviscerators who take the abdominal wall away, like lifting a lid off a treasure trove?

We can have innumerable differences between victims, and we can have different implements used - but when this happens, such matters become totally obsolete insights.