Patterns formed by murder locations

[Fisherman]

David:

"Alas, Fish, whatever your dictionaries may say, what happened to JtR victims and to Mr Torso's is very much different."

Thatīs a strange way of putting things - have I ever claimed that it was not...?

"The messy work at Miller's court is very much different as well. The Torso victims were carefully dismembered, with neat cuts at the jointures."

Yes. And I fail to see that I have disputed this.

"And no part of MJK body was found in the Thames."

Nor was any part from the Pinchin Street torso, David. What does that tell you?

"Another HUGE difference is that Mr Torso tried his best to cover his victims identity."

Two heads were found, David. And the tattooed arm on the Tottenham torso was one of the few bits that surfaced in that case - most of the other parts went missing. Jackson was identified. Clothes belonging to her were used to wrap her, clothes that were later identified by her mother.

How do these things accord with your assertion that the torso killer tried his best to cover his victims identity?

"Unless you want to suggest that cutting a body in neat pieces and dumping that pieces in a convenient place is just like taking the risk of fumbling into a dead woman in the street."

You amaze me, David. Why would I do that? Anybody can see that difference. But there are other parameters to weigh in, and without doing ALL of the homework, we will end up with a dissatified teacher.

Letīs, for instance, look at what you say about dumping the cut up torso pieces in "a convenient place". It was not just the one place, David - the torso killer dumped parts in several places when he had struck. And he opted for anything but convenience, since he sometimes placed parts where there was massive police surveillance. He threw a part over the fence to Mary Shellys son - how was that "convenient"? He went down into the Whitehall basement when the new Scotland Yard house was erected, in total darkness - not once, but probably twice, to dump a torso and dig down body parts close to it. How is that "convenient"?

And no, I was not sure what you meant. If I am, I never say that I am not. Styckningsmord and dismemberment murders are not the same, but when we translate dismemberment murders, we write styckningsmord just the same. Thatīs why I was confused, and I fail to see why I would not be allowed to be.

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Not sure what you mean, David?
Fisherman

I believe you know what I mean, Fish. Unless you want to suggest that cutting a body in neat pieces and dumping that pieces in a convenient place is just like taking the risk of fumbling into a dead woman in the street.

[DVV]

Alas, Fish, whatever your dictionaries may say, what happened to JtR victims and to Mr Torso's is very much different.
The messy work at Miller's court is very much different as well. The Torso victims were carefully dismembered, with neat cuts at the jointures. And no part of MJK body was found in the Thames.
Another HUGE difference is that Mr Torso tried his best to cover his victims identity. The Ripper didn't care.

[Fisherman]

...and ethymologically:

"dismember
c.1300, from O.Fr. desmembrer (11c.), from M.L. dismembrare "tear limb from limb; castrate," from L. de- "take away" + membrum "limb""

What I have always done is to work from the presumption that dismember murders were the equivalent of the Swedish term "styckningsmord" - and to "stycka" is to cut up in pieces. And "styckningsmördare" is the Swedish term for people who cut others in pieces after having killed them, more often than not for practical purposes.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Wikipedia says: "Dismemberment is the act of cutting, tearing, pulling, wrenching or otherwise removing, the limbs of a living thing." And the Ripper did not do this. So letīs settle on "disassemblement" then! As long as we understand each other, weīll be fine.

On a side note, was the Black Dahlia "dismembered? Her limbs were still in place, but she was sawed in two at the waist.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Not sure what you mean, David? Must dismemberment involve sawing off limbs? I looked it up in a dictionary, and it said:"to dismember [dismembered|dismembered] {vb} (also: to lacerate, to burst, to break up, to tear)
tear apart {vb}

SYNONYMS
take apart · discerp

This is where I think Kelly applies. And thatīs regardless of dictionaries - she WAS disassembled, as I prefer to put it. Thatīs what I think both Kellys killer and the torso killer did - they disassembled bodies.


The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

And, just like you have discovered, both men dealt in dismemberment. And dismemberment killers are extremely rare creatures, and much more so when it seems the dismemberment in itself may have been the motive behind the strikes.
Fisherman

'Morning Fish !
I'm surprised at your post.
No, I haven't discovered that "both men [if ever there was a lone killer behind the Torso murders, which we don't know] dealt in dismemberment", not at all.
Whose ripper-victim was "dismembered" ?

[Fisherman]

David:

"I beg your pardon, Sir ? What about putting your hands on hot entrails and bowels ?"

THATīS fumbling - possibly. But there are elements involved that point in both directions, and letīs not forget that these were not careful operations carried out in optimal circumstances. They were blitz-quick affairs, performed in deep darkness. So letīs not ask too much. The excision of Chapmans uterus impressed Phillips a lot, and the Eddowes kidney is an example of some sort of skill at any rate.

"When ?"

Iīve already told you that we donīt know exactly. The torso as such was found in the basement of Whitehall in the beginning of October 1888, but the murder as such was deemed to belong to the beginning of September, if I remember correctly. At any rate, this is the second torso series we speak of.

"Not my take, but interesting and reasonable. Go ahead, Fish."

Maybe I will. But not just now, David.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hello Raven!

I agree, as you will understand. I also think that the absolutely best explanation is that the early as well as the late torso strikes WERE the work of one man. The only other possibility is that London was plagued by TWO men who enjoyed sawing people in bits and placing them in all sorts of odd places, and this within the short space of fifteen years, two men that were both skilled at severing joints and who both employed the knife in a very skilled and economic manner, two men that both used fine-toothed saws etcetera.
The more useful solution is that the same man was probably responsible for both series.

As for Davids private feeling that the Ripper was very special - yes, he was. But so was the torso killer. And, just like you have discovered, both men dealt in dismemberment. And dismemberment killers are extremely rare creatures, and much more so when it seems the dismemberment in itself may have been the motive behind the strikes.

You make a good case, therefore.

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Hi Raven

@ DW and Fisherman
I'm sure this is none of my business

Why would it not ?

but the killer in 1874 could easily be the one in 1888

It could. But "easily", I don't think so.

So the point that the torso murders and ripper murders could not be the same because of MO, isn't totally impossible. Both deal with mutilation of bodies in any event, dismemberment being one way to mutilate a body...

Dr Bond was involved in both cases and never thought so. Anyway, everything is possible, but mainly because we know next to nothing about the Torso murders. That's therefore a very weak evidence of a connection.
Certainly a killer can change his MO and Kurten and others killed all kinds of victims. But there is something special with the ripper murders, something you won't find in Kurten's murders, nor in Mr Torso's.

[RavenDarkendale]

@ DW and Fisherman

I'm sure this is none of my business, but the killer in 1874 could easily be the one in 1888, and after. The Green River killer operated over a more than a 20 year period, was convicted of 48 murders and confessed to nearly double that number. His victimology alone spoke against it being him, yet good old DNA said different. You see he killed a lot of black prostitutes and serial killers do not usually kill outside their own race.

So the point that the torso murders and ripper murders could not be the same because of MO, isn't totally impossible. Both deal with mutilation of bodies in any event, dismemberment being one way to mutilate a body...

God Bless

RD

[DVV]

David:

"I think you're wrong, Fish. The Ripper fumbled quickly in the the abdomen of dead females and let them at the crime scene.
I see no evidence of Mr Torso (if ever he was a lone killer and not an organized team) doing this, or having this in mind as his distinctive fantasy."

Fumbled? Not too sure about that - taking out a kidney from the front, cutting through a membrane just may speak of something else than fumbling.

I beg your pardon, Sir ? What about putting your hands on hot entrails and bowels ?

Otherwise, you are correct

Just routine.

- the torso killer may not have done this (although there IS that missing utrerus!)

When ?

Likewise, Jack did not saw off limbs on his victims.

Indeed.

But that is not where I see a possible likeness. It is in how Kelly was disassembled, if you like, just as the torso victims were disassembled. And if Kellyīs killer had had access to a saw, who knows what had happened?
Anyhow, David, before you state that I am of the meaning that these killings were very closely related, let me say that they are not! They MAY however be related to an extent that may produce a need to look at the possibility that there WAS a connection, if you take my meaning.
If I was pressed to say whether I believed the killer was one and the same in all cases, I would say no. But - as you know - I have a suspect that had his mother staying in Cable Street, a VERY short stretch from where the Pinchin Street torso was found, and that mother was listed as a catīs meat woman in 1891. The horseflesh type ... It is not too much of a stretch to imagine saws and knifes in that house of hers, thus.
Therefore, I find the coincidence in geographical placing much interesting, and I do not rule out that the Pinchin Street case was the one and only case that should perhaps be knitted to the Ripper - who was Lechmere, if Iīm right.
The Pinchin street torso stands out in some parameters, and that has me thinking, thatīs all. And IF it was the Ripperīs deed, then we may need to consider the whole series. Interestingly, Lechmere was 24 in 1873, and so the age is not an issue. But being 24 makes no man a torso killer, I know that!

Not my take, but interesting and reasonable. Go ahead, Fish.

[Fisherman]

David:

"I think you're wrong, Fish. The Ripper fumbled quickly in the the abdomen of dead females and let them at the crime scene.
I see no evidence of Mr Torso (if ever he was a lone killer and not an organized team) doing this, or having this in mind as his distinctive fantasy."

Fumbled? Not too sure about that - taking out a kidney from the front, cutting through a membrane just may speak of something else than fumbling. Otherwise, you are correct - the torso killer may not have done this (although there IS that missing utrerus!)

Likewise, Jack did not saw off limbs on his victims.

But that is not where I see a possible likeness. It is in how Kelly was disassembled, if you like, just as the torso victims were disassembled. And if Kellyīs killer had had access to a saw, who knows what had happened?

Anyhow, David, before you state that I am of the meaning that these killings were very closely related, let me say that they are not! They MAY however be related to an extent that may produce a need to look at the possibility that there WAS a connection, if you take my meaning.
If I was pressed to say whether I believed the killer was one and the same in all cases, I would say no. But - as you know - I have a suspect that had his mother staying in Cable Street, a VERY short stretch from where the Pinchin Street torso was found, and that mother was listed as a catīs meat woman in 1891. The horseflesh type ... It is not too much of a stretch to imagine saws and knifes in that house of hers, thus.

Therefore, I find the coincidence in geographical placing much interesting, and I do not rule out that the Pinchin Street case was the one and only case that should perhaps be knitted to the Ripper - who was Lechmere, if Iīm right.

The Pinchin street torso stands out in some parameters, and that has me thinking, thatīs all. And IF it was the Ripperīs deed, then we may need to consider the whole series. Interestingly, Lechmere was 24 in 1873, and so the age is not an issue. But being 24 makes no man a torso killer, I know that!

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

I think you're wrong, Fish. The Ripper fumbled quickly in the the abdomen of dead females and let them at the crime scene.
I see no evidence of Mr Torso (if ever he was a lone killer and not an organized team) doing this, or having this in mind as his distinctive fantasy.

[Fisherman]

David:

"In my country women have no breast on their head. Did I miss something exciting ?"

You should come to Sweden!!

No, seriously, I only read nose, seemingly. Modest of me! Anyhow, sorry about that.

"fact is that you have used 1872-74 cases to prove that there were two comparable serial killers in 1888."

1873-74 and 1884, actually. And yes, because I think it was the same torso killer all along - just like most people tend to do. Like you say yourself, two such creatures would be a total anomaly. And I furthermore think that there are enough likenesses if only using the late series to state that two rather similar killers may have been at work in 1888 (if it was not just the one - you tell me that one should not expect more than one...). I could have chosen Phillips wording on the Pinchin street case as regards the damage to the neck, for example.

The best,
Fisherman