Francis Hermans - Update - Solid evidence of him being in vicinity of torso murders.

[rjpalmer]

Turning his victims to ash does not seem to have been any preference at all in his case.

But that's a rather obtuse objection, Fish, isn't it?

In a crowded area like Central London, you can't burn a body without alerting the neighbors--provided you even have access to a private fireplace.

In Salt Lake, Hermans had access to a church furnace. Judging by the photo in Post #90, the next building was some distance away. Yet, even inside the church in Salt Lake, the stench was bad enough that a neighbor complained.

It would be very difficult to get away with such a rash and disgusting act in residential Central London.

In other words, when in Rome, do as the Romans. You are suggesting it was Hermans 'preference' to burn bodies, but I would humbly suggest it was simply what was expedient in these particular circumstances. Given other circumstances, he may have dumped the body in the river or buried the body at a building site, so as not to draw undue attention.

I'm not willing to ascribe some sort of morbid psychology to what can be readily explained by the 'practical' aspects of a particular crime, appalling as his actions may have been.

[Fisherman]

But that's a rather obtuse objection, Fish, isn't it?

In a crowded area like Central London, you can't burn a body without alerting the neighbors--provided you even have access to a private fireplace.

In Salt Lake, Hermans had access to a church furnace. Judging by the photo in Post #90, the next building was some distance away. Yet, even inside the church in Salt Lake, the stench was bad enough that a neighbor complained.

It would be very difficult to get away with such a rash and disgusting act in residential Central London.

In other words, when in Rome, do as the Romans. You are suggesting it was Hermans 'preference' to burn bodies, but I would humbly suggest it was simply what was expedient in these particular circumstances. Given other circumstances, he may have dumped the body in the river or buried the body at a building site, so as not to draw undue attention.

I'm not willing to ascribe some sort of morbid psychology to what can be readily explained by the 'practical' aspects of a particular crime, appalling as his actions may have been.

It is a difference and it should be noted as one. Of course, any dismemberment killer who had formerly not burnt his victims could do so, for whatever reason. But that does not detract from how the difference is there.
You say "When in Rome, do as the Romans". Did the Roman dismemberment killers poison their victims? Or did they whack them over the temple/cut their throats? Do you know?
There are many differences involved here, all of them being against Hermans being the Torso killer. We can of course say "But he COULD have done that, could he not?", but that would be looking away from the differences for no good reason at all, I feel.
As for how no Londoner would have gotten away with burning victims, I could use the same argument: He COULD have done so. Landru did, people felt the smell but he was able to go on for the longest time. And Dennis Nielsen burnt his victims, many of them. In London. Itīs a weird world.

[Dupin]

Yes London is a place you can get away with many things, especially if you have a garden like Nielsen had.
A year ago half a mile from me a barbecue was causing a lot of smoke.
In London you would normally shut your windows and complain to the dog.
But one neighbour sent her young son to find out who was doing what.
He climbed a high wall surrounding the small back garden to be horrified by the sight of neighbours barbecuing the remains of their french au pair that they told everyone had gone home.
If not for that, they might well have not ended up in the Old Bailey dock.
Hope I haven't spoiled your tea.

[rjpalmer]

Landru did, people felt the smell but he was able to go on for the longest time.

Landru killed some of his victims in a villa in the middle of a field outside of the village of Gambais, far from Paris. Not exactly the same thing as disposing of a body in a crowded district in London.

[MrBarnett]

The smell of boiling horseflesh was considered a significant ‘nuisance’ in Victorian London. That’s why the activity was heavily regulated. ;-)

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Yes London is a place you can get away with many things, especially if you have a garden like Nielsen had.
A year ago half a mile from me a barbecue was causing a lot of smoke.
In London you would normally shut your windows and complain to the dog.
But one neighbour sent her young son to find out who was doing what.
He climbed a high wall surrounding the small back garden to be horrified by the sight of neighbours barbecuing the remains of their french au pair that they told everyone had gone home.
If not for that, they might well have not ended up in the Old Bailey dock.
Hope I haven't spoiled your tea.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-44238521

[Astatine211]

Thanks for that, A!

I’m very intrigued by the reference to the Ratcliff Highway. This is a photo of the Seaman’s Rest in the Highway. I’ve got a better one somewhere.

A few years after Emmeline married Frank this was Mary Kelly’s patch.

The Swedish church where Elizabeth Stride commonly went for financial support was only a few hundred metres away as well.

[MrBarnett]

The Swedish church where Elizabeth Stride commonly went for financial support was only a few hundred metres away as well.

Yes, it was. The street to the left of the SH was Betts Street, at one time possibly the most notorious in the area. The next street W was Princes (later Swedenborg) Street which led into the square where the Swedish church was located.

This end of the Highway was the East End’s premier red light district in the 1880s.

[Fisherman]

Landru killed some of his victims in a villa in the middle of a field outside of the village of Gambais, far from Paris. Not exactly the same thing as disposing of a body in a crowded district in London.

The point I was REALLY making wat that people DID feel the smell, and nobody reported it to the police and so Landru could carry on. Sensing that this may not impact your thinking, R J, I added Dennis Nielsen who DID live in London and who DID burn a number of bodies there. The idea that noone would do so in a large city is a non-starter, Iīm afraid. People ave been burning bodies, flushing body parts down the sewer system, clogging it, and using femurs from murder victims as fence-posts in their backyards in old London. One would think that a killer would be more cautious than that, but no, they are not.

Plus, as I said, the difference involved in the burning matter is but one of many in Hermansī case. In my eyes, he remains a very improbable candidate for the Torso killerīs role. The one thing that could affect that to some degree is if it can be proven that he cut in the same manner as the Torso killer did.

Over and out.

[Michael W Richards]

"What we seem to have here is the kind of dismemberment killer that the Victorians were aware of: the kind who tried to hide a crime by way of dismemberment. The Torso killer seems to me to be an aggressive dismemberer - a man whose motivation was the deeds themselves, a man who liked cutting into flesh."

This is the kind of presumption that Im sure led you down your current path, and its a baseless argument. Why do you think that there is evidence the dismemberer was in this strictly for the act of dismemberment? And since youve based your premise on the Torsos being by the same man called Jack, is he also guilty for the other Torsos dating back 15 years before the Ripper series and continuing on 14 years after it?

I think your made a correct statement in that the Victorians were aware that someone or some people were making Torsos, but presuming this person or group did so for the "cutting" rather than the disposal is a product of your quest to find some connectivity between a serial abdominal mutilator,.. who by the way was interested in obtaining organs which required the cutting... and almost 30 years of Torso making. If the Torso killer(s) dismembers simply because he likes cutting...rather than for the blatantly obvious motive of easier disposal,...which is why the vast majority of modern day dismemberment happens,... why isnt any Ripper victim dismembered? Or anyone dismembered killed outdoors, in public? And if you claim that the Torsos are also by Jack, does that mean for you that 1 man does these things for almost 15 years prior with just a brief 2 month outdoors serial abdominal mutilation run? Or is he guilty of all unsolved murders in London from 1873 to 1902...(Ive been waiting for you to make that leap too...maybe one day)

Once again you choose to decide he liked cutting before any proof of that is known, and youve decided that Jack liked cutting too...which is why he killed. Well, in Annies case at least, you are very incorrect. Both the physical evidence and the coroner evidence reveals her mutilations were to obtain a specific organ, and that required the cutting. Whether he enjoyed that part or not, that is the bottom line.

As Annies case reveals both the murder and the cuts were done ONLY to achieve an objective, not to satisy some bizzare cutting fetish.

[Fisherman]

"What we seem to have here is the kind of dismemberment killer that the Victorians were aware of: the kind who tried to hide a crime by way of dismemberment. The Torso killer seems to me to be an aggressive dismemberer - a man whose motivation was the deeds themselves, a man who liked cutting into flesh."

This is the kind of presumption that Im sure led you down your current path, and its a baseless argument. Why do you think that there is evidence the dismemberer was in this strictly for the act of dismemberment? And since youve based your premise on the Torsos being by the same man called Jack, is he also guilty for the other Torsos dating back 15 years before the Ripper series and continuing on 14 years after it?

I think your made a correct statement in that the Victorians were aware that someone or some people were making Torsos, but presuming this person or group did so for the "cutting" rather than the disposal is a product of your quest to find some connectivity between a serial abdominal mutilator,.. who by the way was interested in obtaining organs which required the cutting... and almost 30 years of Torso making. If the Torso killer(s) dismembers simply because he likes cutting...rather than for the blatantly obvious motive of easier disposal,...which is why the vast majority of modern day dismemberment happens,... why isnt any Ripper victim dismembered? Or anyone dismembered killed outdoors, in public? And if you claim that the Torsos are also by Jack, does that mean for you that 1 man does these things for almost 15 years prior with just a brief 2 month outdoors serial abdominal mutilation run? Or is he guilty of all unsolved murders in London from 1873 to 1902...(Ive been waiting for you to make that leap too...maybe one day)

Once again you choose to decide he liked cutting before any proof of that is known, and youve decided that Jack liked cutting too...which is why he killed. Well, in Annies case at least, you are very incorrect. Both the physical evidence and the coroner evidence reveals her mutilations were to obtain a specific organ, and that required the cutting. Whether he enjoyed that part or not, that is the bottom line.

As Annies case reveals both the murder and the cuts were done ONLY to achieve an objective, not to satisy some bizzare cutting fetish.

Michael, I normally avoid any sort of debate with you, for reasons well known to those who have followed our exchanges. One reason for this is how you - one of the true zealots of ripperology - take it upon yourself to accuse others of being too fixed in their judgments.

This time, you say that my argument about aggressive dismemberment is "baseless".

What you disregard is how I VERY clearly say that it SEEMS to me that we are dealing with aggressive dismemberment when it comes to the Thames Torso killer. Not that it is an established fact.

I ground my take on many things, for example the fact that the killer dismembered his victims in immediate connection to the murders. Dismemberment murders that are carried out in order to hide the deed or identity of the victim are typically affairs where time passes between the murder and the dismemberment.
There is also the fact that the killer meticulously cut away a scalp and face from the skull of a victim. That is not in line with classical dismemberment murders designed to hide the deed or the identity of the victim.
We also have a case where the arms were left on the torso, something that does not lend itself very well to either a suggestion of trying to facilitate transport or hide an identity. We have another case where one leg was left attached to the body.
And, of course, we have eviscerations, with a uterus packed up inside two flaps of skin from the abdomen of a woman together with the cord and placenta.
And we have exceedingly skilful cutting.
And we have lots and lots of body parts accounted for.
Plus we have reason to think that the killer may have killed prostitutes.

None of these things sit at all well with the suggestion of classical dismemberment deeds, designed to hide the murders or the identity of the victim. They all, however, sit perfectly well with the concept of aggressive dismemberment.

This is why I say that it SEEMS that the killer engaged in aggressive dismemberment. I think I have a very good case for it, but I do not exaggerate things, because I do not think it would be wise to do so.

And you, Michael?

You say, and I quote:

"As Annies case reveals both the murder and the cuts were done ONLY to achieve an objective, not to satisfy some bizzare cutting fetish."

As if this was in any way an established fact. Which it is not. Neither you nor me can say whether what happened to Chapman was led on by a wish to procure the uterus or by a wish to cut up a body. Neither me nor you know the mindset or the aims of the killer as he stepped into the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street. And to boot, even if he HAD decided to try and procure the uterus from Chapman, such a thing can be an example of aggressive dismemberment just the same! What you seem to forget is that the killer also cut away the abdominal cover from Chapman, leaving it on the murder site apart from one part of it - was that also only done to achieve the objective to get at the uterus? Which can be accessed without such a thing?

The one thing that tells us apart, Michael, is that you claim for a fact that you do know the intentions and motivations of the killer, while I acknowledge that we can only speculate abiut it and base those speculations on the few facts that are available to us. And this you describe as ME being the one overstepping the line...?

The moral of pointing this out to you should be simple enough: A dogmatic zealot should not preach caution to those who are much ahead of himself in that respect.

Having explained this to you, I will now return to my favourite form of debating with you - which is to abstain from it.

[Abby Normal]

Michael, I normally avoid any sort of debate with you, for reasons well known to those who have followed our exchanges. One reason for this is how you - one of the true zealots of ripperology - take it upon yourself to accuse others of being too fixed in their judgments.

This time, you say that my argument about aggressive dismemberment is "baseless".

What you disregard is how I VERY clearly say that it SEEMS to me that we are dealing with aggressive dismemberment when it comes to the Thames Torso killer. Not that it is an established fact.

I ground my take on many things, for example the fact that the killer dismembered his victims in immediate connection to the murders. Dismemberment murders that are carried out in order to hide the deed or identity of the victim are typically affairs where time passes between the murder and the dismemberment.
There is also the fact that the killer meticulously cut away a scalp and face from the skull of a victim. That is not in line with classical dismemberment murders designed to hide the deed or the identity of the victim.
We also have a case where the arms were left on the torso, something that does not lend itself very well to either a suggestion of trying to facilitate transport or hide an identity. We have another case where one leg was left attached to the body.
And, of course, we have eviscerations, with a uterus packed up inside two flaps of skin from the abdomen of a woman together with the cord and placenta.
And we have exceedingly skilful cutting.
And we have lots and lots of body parts accounted for.
Plus we have reason to think that the killer may have killed prostitutes.

None of these things sit at all well with the suggestion of classical dismemberment deeds, designed to hide the murders or the identity of the victim. They all, however, sit perfectly well with the concept of aggressive dismemberment.

This is why I say that it SEEMS that the killer engaged in aggressive dismemberment. I think I have a very good case for it, but I do not exaggerate things, because I do not think it would be wise to do so.

And you, Michael?

You say, and I quote:

"As Annies case reveals both the murder and the cuts were done ONLY to achieve an objective, not to satisfy some bizzare cutting fetish."

As if this was in any way an established fact. Which it is not. Neither you nor me can say whether what happened to Chapman was led on by a wish to procure the uterus or by a wish to cut up a body. Neither me nor you know the mindset or the aims of the killer as he stepped into the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street. And to boot, even if he HAD decided to try and procure the uterus from Chapman, such a thing can be an example of aggressive dismemberment just the same! What you seem to forget is that the killer also cut away the abdominal cover from Chapman, leaving it on the murder site apart from one part of it - was that also only done to achieve the objective to get at the uterus? Which can be accessed without such a thing?

The one thing that tells us apart, Michael, is that you claim for a fact that you do know the intentions and motivations of the killer, while I acknowledge that we can only speculate abiut it and base those speculations on the few facts that are available to us. And this you describe as ME being the one overstepping the line...?

The moral of pointing this out to you should be simple enough: A dogmatic zealot should not preach caution to those who are much ahead of himself in that respect.

Having explained this to you, I will now return to my favourite form of debating with you - which is to abstain from it.

well said fish. you are of course, totally correct.
like a strictly defensive dismemberer is going to leave limbs on the the body, or dump a body in the middle of pinchin street, or leave a head on a sidewalk, or make exteraneous post mortem mutilations that have nothing to do with trying to hide the identity or that aids in removal.

[Michael W Richards]

Michael, I normally avoid any sort of debate with you, for reasons well known to those who have followed our exchanges. One reason for this is how you - one of the true zealots of ripperology - take it upon yourself to accuse others of being too fixed in their judgments.

This time, you say that my argument about aggressive dismemberment is "baseless".

What you disregard is how I VERY clearly say that it SEEMS to me that we are dealing with aggressive dismemberment when it comes to the Thames Torso killer. Not that it is an established fact.

I ground my take on many things, for example the fact that the killer dismembered his victims in immediate connection to the murders. Dismemberment murders that are carried out in order to hide the deed or identity of the victim are typically affairs where time passes between the murder and the dismemberment.
There is also the fact that the killer meticulously cut away a scalp and face from the skull of a victim. That is not in line with classical dismemberment murders designed to hide the deed or the identity of the victim.
We also have a case where the arms were left on the torso, something that does not lend itself very well to either a suggestion of trying to facilitate transport or hide an identity. We have another case where one leg was left attached to the body.
And, of course, we have eviscerations, with a uterus packed up inside two flaps of skin from the abdomen of a woman together with the cord and placenta.
And we have exceedingly skilful cutting.
And we have lots and lots of body parts accounted for.
Plus we have reason to think that the killer may have killed prostitutes.

None of these things sit at all well with the suggestion of classical dismemberment deeds, designed to hide the murders or the identity of the victim. They all, however, sit perfectly well with the concept of aggressive dismemberment.

This is why I say that it SEEMS that the killer engaged in aggressive dismemberment. I think I have a very good case for it, but I do not exaggerate things, because I do not think it would be wise to do so.

And you, Michael?

You say, and I quote:

"As Annies case reveals both the murder and the cuts were done ONLY to achieve an objective, not to satisfy some bizzare cutting fetish."

As if this was in any way an established fact. Which it is not. Neither you nor me can say whether what happened to Chapman was led on by a wish to procure the uterus or by a wish to cut up a body. Neither me nor you know the mindset or the aims of the killer as he stepped into the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street. And to boot, even if he HAD decided to try and procure the uterus from Chapman, such a thing can be an example of aggressive dismemberment just the same! What you seem to forget is that the killer also cut away the abdominal cover from Chapman, leaving it on the murder site apart from one part of it - was that also only done to achieve the objective to get at the uterus? Which can be accessed without such a thing?

The one thing that tells us apart, Michael, is that you claim for a fact that you do know the intentions and motivations of the killer, while I acknowledge that we can only speculate abiut it and base those speculations on the few facts that are available to us. And this you describe as ME being the one overstepping the line...?

The moral of pointing this out to you should be simple enough: A dogmatic zealot should not preach caution to those who are much ahead of himself in that respect.

Having explained this to you, I will now return to my favourite form of debating with you - which is to abstain from it.

Fisherman, all I did was to point out the very obvious fact that in the vast majority of cases involving dismemberment it was done for one of 2 reasons. To conceal the identity of the victim, or to dispose of the body clandestinely. You suggested that dismemberment was a primary goal...without any evidence. You suggest a man as a Suspect based on proximities, and you disregard the evidence that show us that Torso's were happening before and after the alledged Ripper killings.

What I suggested by Annie was a summation of Dr Phillips assessement of the wounds made...someone far better than you or I to do so. There were no meaningless cuts...and the object of the whole matter was the uterus. Which he took intact. Yet you say we cant be sure. Well, the attending physician at her pm could, so your opinion on this means squat.

Thats a killer obsessed with female organs, or internal cutting, neither of which are relevant when considering a man who in hiding cuts off limbs.

Saying you have a made a "good case" is just you saying it. It is meaningless because you offer no proof other than your hunches.

If you were a real man and want to debate issues, stop pretending you have any evidence of anything, and cite evidence other than your interpretations of evidence. The fact that you dont debate my posts is a reflection of your own narcissm and feelings of superiority over others. Ive many times put you in your place and you come back with " Ive proven that already", or that Im being unfair with you. Well, a fair assement of your theorizing is that its a belief system that chooses to exist without any foundations in evidence.

[Michael W Richards]

Thanks for another example of what I just stated.

The point I was REALLY making wat that people DID feel the smell,

Evidence? Or your take on it?

The idea that noone would do so in a large city is a non-starter, Iīm afraid.

Evidence? Or your take on it?

One would think that a killer would be more cautious than that, but no, they are not.

And Your expertise and training on how killers think is...?

In my eyes, he remains a very improbable candidate for the Torso killerīs role.

Finally, a statement that is real...its just your opinion.

If you made better points and actually used evidence I would take you for more than a self absorbed attention seeker.

[rjpalmer]

Plus we have reason to think that the killer may have killed prostitutes.

If Rubenhold and her supporters cried foul at calling 'The Five' prostitutes, what on earth would their reaction be to Ripper theorists calling the 'torso' victims prostitutes?

The majority of them were never even positively identified.

The moment you label your victim a 'prostitute,' then you are looking for a killer of prostitutes, whether that is the correct solution or not.