Double throat cuts

[John G]

I admire your optimism, John

I guess I'm just an eternal optimist, Gareth!

[John G]

Hi John and fish
fascinating discussion. I'm not even going to try and answer in detail why the killer did what he did in any kind of detail-because we simply don't know what the hell goes on inside the mind of a serial killer.

My take on it is that torso man removed heads because they had a ritualistic reason and also practical reason (ease in removal of body from his place-perhaps hiding ID). just a coincidence that it overlapped.

if torso man and the ripper were one and the same-then I would venture that the ripper murders were when he couldn't bring them to his private place and had to kill on the streets. which would preclude head removal and taking away for several obvious reasons.

Hi Abby,

Yes, it's certainly possible that the decapitation were for ritualistic purposes, or even ease of disposal. Although my strong preference is that they were carried out as a defensive measure-to prevent identification.

Regarding the possibility that JtR and Torso Man were the same killer. Murdering victims in public would obviously make decapitation harder, although you could argue that in respect of four of the C5 the perpetrator made a reasonable attempt but was lacking in experience to be successful.

A major problem, though, as I see it, is why would Torso Man bother to target victims in public places, or perhaps in circumstances when his dismemberment site wasn't available, if decapitation and dismemberment were so important to him? And why were all of the JtR style murders committed within such a tiny geographical area, when Torso Man was prepared to operate all over London, with no reason to believe that he was a Whitechapel resident. It's certainly a huge coincidence if they were the same killer.

And then there's Kelly, of course. She was obviously murdered indoors, so I don't see what precluded her killer from dismembering and decapitating the body of that was his I'll intention.

[John G]

Pierre

Here's a link to a nine year Indian series of all medicolegal autopsies which I think demonstrates:

A. How rare throat cut murder is
B. How it is uncommon for all deep structures to be involved

NB the Ripper murders would cut the larynx below the tracheal cartilage

http://www.ejmanager.com/mnstemps/115/115-1425267294.pdf

Paul

Thanks for this Paul. Of course this is a modern study. Here's some excellent statistics from Colin Roberts, which demonstrates that cut throat murders were also rare in nineteenth century England: http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=314649

[John G]

John G: Okay. Regarding timing. Why target victims in a public area, where timing was always going to be an issue, if the decapitation issue was important to the killer, whether it be for ritualistic or practical purposes, i.e. to prevent identification?

Well, to begin with, if I am on the money here, I would describe the ritualistic behaviour the killer employed as a large toolbox. I think there were a number of things that he could do that all answered to the demands of the ritual. If I should try and explain what I mean, I would suggest that you imagine somebody to whom the ritual lay in disassembling a car. In such a case, it would work for the ritual performer to take away a rear view mirror. And it would work to take away a door. And it would work to tear away the exhaust pipe. These things would all do the trick.
Similarly, I think that the killer could choose from a variety of things when performing the ritual on his victims. And that means that he would not need to go for the head, he could go for the abdomen instead, etcetera. And much as he would be restrained by time - and also by implements - there would always be time to strike some ritualistic item off the list.
I really cannot be any clearer on this without spilling the beans totaly, and I prefer not to do that as of now.

And would decapitation really have taken that much more time for JtR, considering that he allocated enough time to eviscerate and remove body organs?

No, it would only have taken marginally more time; there would be some obstacles like much less light and so on, but on the whole, I am convinced that if the Ripper and the torso man were one and the same, he could easily have taken the heads off in the Ripper cases too. With a knife, too.
But as I hinted at before, I don´t necessarily consider the removal of the head as part of the ritual - and to be frank, I think it was not. But note how he DID "work" on the heads in both the Eddowes case and the Kelly case.

Moreover, four of the C5 victims received extensive neck cuts so, for an experienced decapitator, would decapitation have taken that much longer? If he didn't have the right implements, why not?

A sturdy knife would do, John, no doubt about it. The rest is answered above.

And would taking the head away from the crime scene have really been that problematic? After all, he removed body organs. Why not simply equip himself with a reasonable sized bag?

A kidney or a uterus would fit snugly into a pocket and be easily hidden. A head? No. Plus it is heavy and bulky and will not only be a heinous risk but it will also slow you down.

And If the argument is that all of the C5 victims were opportunistic, hence the lack of preparation, then that creates the problem that, by a massive coincidence, all of the opportunistic murders of this serial killer happened to take place within the same tiny geographical area, about one square mile, whereas the planned murders took place all over London.

No, John, you are confusing murder places with dumping places. All of the torso murders were quite likely committed in the same locality! And then the parts would NOT be dumped on the doorstep of that locality, since that would get the killer caught, right?
The Ripper victims left no geographical clue in that very detailed sense.

And why would a killer who, hitherto, must have planned his crimes, suddenly transform into a opportunist killer? Why then return to the previous MO?

Because BOTH sets provided him with the opportunity to perform the ritual. And because it is a well known fact that serialists who manage to stay uncaught often become very brazen and fearless, believing they actually cannot be stopped. The street killings, however, only gave him time to a very restricted ritual performance, and so he held on to the other type too, where he could indulge in perfecting the ritual with no time restraints.
This, at least, is my suggestion.

As you know, I believe Torso decapitated his victims for practical purposes, i.e. to prevent identification. However, if it was for ritualistic purposes, why not decapitate Kelly, where timing issues wouldn't have been a real problem?

Because decapitating was not part of the ritual to him. The cutting away of all the facial features was, however, that at least is my suggestion. Take a look at the 1873 victim, where the whole face was removed in the shape of a mask. He was not after a decapitation in that case, he was after carving the face away. After that, he arrrived at the dumping phase, and it was only then the head went off.

After all, considering the extensive damage to the body, he seems to have spent a significant time with the victim who, in any event, was murdered indoors.

Yes, and in the Kelly case, we see much more of the ritual than we do in the other Ripper cases for that exact reason.

And if it's to be argued that the killer's signature was evolving, how does this explain the subsequent decapitation murders of Elizabeth Jackson and Pinchin Street?

I would not say that the signature - if that equals the ritualistic element - evolved. It was fixed from the beginning, and the ony thing that could evolve was the speed and skill of the killer. To me, the killer chose different parts from that toolbox every time he killed, and that would produce different results. Kelly is the most complete example of the ritual - as far as we can tell.
However, we do not know what happened to the heads in the Jackson and Pinchin Street cases. They could have represented the pinnacles of his trade for all we know.

I hope I have not confused you now, John. But more than that, I hope that I have managed to demonstrate that these cases may not be as simple as they appear to be, a "maniac revelling in blood" and a practically directed dismemberment killer.

That was not the case at all, if I am correct.

Hello Christer,

Well, I would say that at the very least there's no evidence that the Torso victims were abducted in the same geographical area. And, importantly, the one victim to be identified, Liz Jackson, was living rough on the embankment, miles away from Whitechapel.

I think the Torso perpetrator must also have had transport, considering the fact that body parts were disposed of all over London. In contrast, there's no reason to believe JtR had access to transport, especially given the remarkably small geographical area in which in which the victims were targeted.

The Torso perpetrator must also have had a disposal site. Again, no read on to believe JtR had access to such premises.

You argue that "both sets provided him with the opportunity to perform the ritual." However, as I see it, any ritualistic elements were fundamentally different between the two sets of crimes.

As you know, I don't accept that the 1873 victim was murdered by the same perpetrator as the latter perpetrator. The time lag would be unprecedented. And the only real connection is the means of dismemberment: disarticulation through the joints. However, a review of New York dismemberment cases found that 25% showed a combination of transaction and disarticulation-which seemed to be the case with the latter Torso cases, as a saw appears to have been used- and 16% disarticulation only, so it doesn't seem to be a rare form of dismemberment: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...erment&f=false

I'm not sure about ritual in respect of Kelly. What I see is overkill, by a perpetrator intent on destroying the body. And, of course, the total lack of skill demonstrated differentiates this case from both the Torso and earlier C5 cases.

You argue that the "signature was fixed from the beginning." What do you say that signature was? Because, as you know, I consider that different signatures were apparent between both sets of crimes.

Finally, I totally agree that in none of these crimes, accept Kelly, is there evidence of a "maniac revelling in blood." In fact, in the case of Chapman and Eddowes at least, JtR appears to have demonstrated a significant amount of skill.

Nonetheless, I consider Torso Man to be a significantly, if not substantially, more organized and risk-averse perpetrator.

[John G]

Hi Fisherman,

I've just been refamiliarizing myself with the Battersea Torso case. In that case the face was removed from the skull, with what appears to be a degree of skill, although the skull itself was never recovered.

In contrast, Kelly's face was hacked to pieces by a perpetrator demonstrating no skill whatsoever.

The Battersea Torso was also dismembered skilfully, where as Kelly was mutilated by a perpetrator demonstrating no skill whatsoever.

It therefore seems apparent that any similarities between the two cases are only superficial.

[Robert St Devil]

that,s a hard call john... only bc we don,t know what the torso killer did with their heads. however, the ripper did denude mary,s leg to the bone (with the hint of a suggestion that he performed ,that part, adeptly enough).
i xan understand that torso killers murders dont appear as lusty as the rippers; that he took a meticulous approach ie. his time with his dead victims since he preserved them somehow somewhere whereas jack the ripper was quick with victims ie. suspected prostitutes.

[John G]

that,s a hard call john... only bc we don,t know what the torso killer did with their heads. however, the ripper did denude mary,s leg to the bone (with the hint of a suggestion that he performed ,that part, adeptly enough).
i xan understand that torso killers murders dont appear as lusty as the rippers; that he took a meticulous approach ie. his time with his dead victims since he preserved them somehow somewhere whereas jack the ripper was quick with victims ie. suspected prostitutes.

Good point, Robert, about time spent with victims. In the case of the Whitehall victim, for example, she may have been stored for months. To my mind, all the evidence points to the Torso perpetrator and JtR having fundamentally different personalities and objectives.

Interestingly, Dr Bond was involved in both the Whitehall case and, of course, Kelly's autopsy. However,whilst be concluded that the Whitehall perpetrator had a great deal of skill, he didn't think that Kelly's murderer had the ability of a common horseslaughter.

Overall, I still think that Kelly probably was a JtR victim, but she was certainly something of an outlier.

[Robert St Devil]

well, that and moving the corpse around, thats different!

your post has me thinking about objectives john... as in, what was the objective of cutting catherines and mary janes faces when he set no precedent for facial mutilations with his prior victims or any suspected of following...

im lately favoring these murders being the criminal acts of a sexually demented mind in an era of sexually demented minds. not to say that those modern times were wholly dissimilar from contemporary day in that regard; but i dont see his actions being wholly exclusive from other generally similar accounts of lustmordian rapists prior to or around the time of his murders either - strangles, mutilates, dissects, harvests, &c. to satiate some masturbatory fantasy all "kinda seem like the routine" for these deviants.

im not ready to push the hypothesis from possible to probable just yet, but the cases are hinting. linking the torso killings with the jack the ripper murders together by sexual dementia could suggest he had a promiscuous attitude towards murdering women, or was driven by varying degrees of insatiability, or had varying attractions to these women... altho i dont favor the last one bc there seems to be a general disregard for the victim.

by straying into mutilating catherines and/or mary janes face, is that revealing that jack the rippers murders may have been more than routine to him?

[John G]

well, that and moving the corpse around, thats different!

your post has me thinking about objectives john... as in, what was the objective of cutting catherines and mary janes faces when he set no precedent for facial mutilations with his prior victims or any suspected of following...

im lately favoring these murders being the criminal acts of a sexually demented mind in an era of sexually demented minds. not to say that those modern times were wholly dissimilar from contemporary day in that regard; but i dont see his actions being wholly exclusive from other generally similar accounts of lustmordian rapists prior to or around the time of his murders either - strangles, mutilates, dissects, harvests, &c. to satiate some masturbatory fantasy all "kinda seem like the routine" for these deviants.

im not ready to push the hypothesis from possible to probable just yet, but the cases are hinting. linking the torso killings with the jack the ripper murders together by sexual dementia could suggest he had a promiscuous attitude towards murdering women, or was driven by varying degrees of insatiability, or had varying attractions to these women... altho i dont favor the last one bc there seems to be a general disregard for the victim.

by straying into mutilating catherines and/or mary janes face, is that revealing that jack the rippers murders may have been more than routine to him?

I don't think there's any reason whatsoever to conclude that the Torso crimes were motivated by sexual dementia-I mean, we don't even know for certain that any of these victims were even murdered!

With the C5 victims we certainly cannot be sure that only one perpetrator was responsible; and I have little doubt that Kelly is an outlier.

Moreover, I think any attempt to determine the reasons for the JtR murders is doomed to failure. I mean, Keppel et al. (2005) concluded that JtR was a lust murderer based upon the fact that he was suffering from picquerism, a "psychological" condition that doesn't even exist! It was simply made up by criminologists and, frankly, I think we should stay well clear of such pseudo-scientific approaches.

[Robert St Devil]

ive been influenced lately john by the thesis of Dr Amber Aragon-Yoshida entitled Lustmord and Loving the Other: A History of Sexual Murder in Modern Germany and Austria (1873 - 1932) .

i would hope you or the forum might read-thru as a model for this type of sexual violence, and opine:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1550%26context%3Detd&ved=0ahUKEwj86p2U7o3VAhXiQpoKHcdpC28QFggdMAA&usg=AFQjCNEc970yLU7_jtlNbL5peKDdyuiNlg

In particular, Chapters 1 & 3.

Chapter 1 accounts for the sexual serial killer who murdered 10 maidens between 1878 and 1882 in Bochum Germany. It,s fascinating in the perspective that this german town of Bochum experiences a similar whitechapel phenomena in response - public meetings, ladies walking accompanied by men, and a rumour that the perpetrator leaves a message that there will be ten more murders. The picture on pg 40 shpuld look vaguely familiar to you, and the first paragraph on pg 42 might catch your attention too... with the description of the woman,s head being ,,wholly,, cut off.

Chapter 3 is interesting for the explanation the criminal Voigt offers on why he murdered this woman; and damned if it doesnt sound like the type of explanation that one might expect to get from the ripper on his murder of polly nicholls.

i,m not delving into pseudo-sciences john; only recognizing that germany was beginning to identify these similar types of lustful crimes for legal purposes as far back as 1886, Dr Krafft-Ebing being a pioneer in this process (i have a link to his work in my Lustmord and Hannah Rosser thread)

[Harry D]

Overall, I still think that Kelly probably was a JtR victim, but she was certainly something of an outlier.

Was MJK a prostitute? Yes. Was she killed in Whitechapel? Yes. Was her throat cut? Yes. Was she mutilated and had her organs removed? Yes. Of course, she was more extensively butchered than the other victims but then she was the only one killed indoors. You might as well say Stride was the outlier, as she only had her throat cut and there was no evidence she was soliciting.

[c.d.]

As usual, Harry I agree with you. I don't see how Kelly is an outlier other than being killed indoors.

c.d.

[John G]

As usual, Harry I agree with you. I don't see how Kelly is an outlier other than being killed indoors.

c.d.

There are two main factors as I see it: objective and skill. In respect of the other C5 victims who were eviscerated, a significant amount of skill was apparent, whereas in respect of Kelly the perpetrator demonstrated no skill whatsoever, despite the fact that he was under nothing like the same level of time pressures. Moreover, the motive appeared to be the total destruction of the body, rather than the skilful removal of body organs.

That said, I still think on balance of probability that Kelly was a JtR victim, but that's simply down to temporal and geographical factors.

In summary, if Kelly was a JtR victim I think he must have been either heavily intoxicated, suffering from a mental breakdown, or driven by a personal motive.

[Wickerman]

To be honest, there is no comment as to the presence or lack of skill, specifically with the removal of Kelly's organs.
Is the random removal of lumps of flesh a reasonable indication of skill?
There's no neat way to carve up someone face either.

Not to be facetious but, how would we expect a skillful person to remove lumps of flesh, in squares, strips?
Battlefield surgeons were not always neat, but they were skilled.

I would also offer that just because the killer was inside, out of public eyes, there was no surety that he would be left alone, anyone could come to the door, or window for that matter, any other client, friend, neighbor.

And, finally, given the seemingly unfinished state of the mutilations, how sure can we be that he wasn't disturbed at Millers Court.
The condition of the body almost looks like he just stopped, and left the scene in the middle of carving her up.
If that is the case then we cannot be sure what his final intentions were.

[John G]

To be honest, there is no comment as to the presence or lack of skill, specifically with the removal of Kelly's organs.
Is the random removal of lumps of flesh a reasonable indication of skill?
There's no neat way to carve up someone face either.

Not to be facetious but, how would we expect a skillful person to remove lumps of flesh, in squares, strips?
Battlefield surgeons were not always neat, but they were skilled.

I would also offer that just because the killer was inside, out of public eyes, there was no surety that he would be left alone, anyone could come to the door, or window for that matter, any other client, friend, neighbor.

And, finally, given the seemingly unfinished state of the mutilations, how sure can we be that he wasn't disturbed at Millers Court.
The condition of the body almost looks like he just stopped, and left the scene in the middle of carving her up.
If that is the case then we cannot be sure what his final intentions were.

We have Dr Bond's opinion concerning JtR's skill level,l, which could only be substantively based on his assessment of the Kelly murder as this was the only C5 post mortem that he attended(compare and contrast his assessment of the Whitehall Torso where he did discern a significant level of skill). Moreover, in respect of Kelly, no other medical professional contradicted him.

Finally, there isn't a shred of evidence that the killer was disturbed: this is an opinion wholly based upon unfounded speculation.