Torso Murders

[Fisherman]

Jon Guy: It would have taken a lot of acid, Christer, and that would have been expensive.

I only read the other day how difficult it is to keep dead bodies weighed down in water. Maybe, all the parts found in the Thames were weighed down originally?

Then the job was sloppily done, since in at least one case (Jackson), the victim was very freshly dead.

But it was where building work was going on, wasn't it ?
Perhaps, the fact that it was New Scotland Yard is irrelevant, and it was just a construction site that would be cemented over.
Maybe, the building site was just close and convenient ?

Cemented over? A basement? I would not think so. And there were numerous working tools down there too, clearly showing that it was used as storage for the workers. I fail to see that the killerr was hoping that basement and tools alike were in the process of being cemented over...

Close and convenient? No place that is fenced in is convenient. Neither is the deepest recess. It would be much more convenient to drop the parts in the Thames that was very nearby.

Well, obviously, the sack or whatever may just not have been big enough.
Or, the body was in rigor, or the hand had identifying marks on it ?

But the hand was not dug down or anything such - it was floated down the Thames together with the rest of the parts. It was Jacksons hand, by the way, and the killer did not care whether she was identified or not, since he wrapped the parts in her own clothing.
And Jackson was preceded by a number of torsos - if the killer weighed the parts down sloppily, he should have understood that by now...

Thanks for playimg the Devils advocate, Jon - it clarifies.

[Debra A]

and the victorian doctors were divided in their opinions were they not?

The reality is that we cannot be certain about anything connected to these torsos. So we should keep an open mind, and not simply say they were all murdered.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The Victorian doctors were divided about what?

Someone looking at these murders with an open mind would accept that murder is also an option. You do not accept it.

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: Sorry fisherman, my reply is clear, the initial similarities are coincidence, which are later possibly copied. in which case it is not important which comes first.

So you are guessing that the Ripper copied the colon cutting and the Torso man copied the abdominal wall excising?

Okay. I could not agree less. It would be a very odd thing if it was true. Or two very odd things to be more precise.

Because if they are by the same killer, it is highly probably he will cut the same way each time, the shape of the flaps, the angle of the cut. Not sure why you cannot see that is important and confirmation of such would be indicative of the same hand!

Maybe he did cut the same way all the time. There is no telling so the point is moot. What we DO know is that the abdominal wall was cut away in three cases, and THAT is not moot in any way. Until it can be shown that this is something a killer is likely to do, or at least that there is a parallel case to show, the conclusion can only be one: In all probability the same culprit.

The common approach is to gain access to the body cavity, and the removal of organs, here we are specifically discussing the colon are we not?

There have been scores of killers who have opened up the abdominal cavity to gain access to the innards. But I do not know of single one - outside of these men - who have cut away the abdominal wall in large flaps to get to that goal. Can anyone please give an example?
Surely you can understand that if there are no other examples at all, or if they are extremely rare, then the obvious solution to the riddle is that the same man was responsible for both series. And that is more or less cemented by the colon business.

The cuts I am talking about are the actual cuts to create and remove the flaps, and the cuts to remove the colon.

Two totally separate killers may have the same need to cut away flaps to gain access to the body cavity, it is certainly the easiest way to work.

So which other killer has simplified matters in the same manner? And how common is it?

With regards to the second point is there any need to have other examples?

Absolutely. If they are there, you have something of a point unless they are very rare. If you are suggesting that the Ripper and the Torso man were coincidentally the only men in history who used this approach, you are proposing a whole new approach to investigative work simultaneously.

Fisherman you obviously know far more about this than I, but can I ask how many other murders there are in the period say 1888-1900 where victim are disembowelled to the same extent, which you could compare these too?

The point is that lack of other similar cases does not prove a link, it may cause one to look carefully at the issue, but it is not sufficient in itself in my opinion to prove a link.

Disembowelling is a general matter, a term that is used whenever a person is opened up and the innards taken out. It can be done in many ways, it can be extensive or miniscule, various organs can be targetted or not targetted, it can reveals sexual lust or not, etc.
Cutting away the abdominal wall in large flaps and severing the bowel in two places and taking the part out of the body are instead extremely specific deeds.

The reason the Texas Eyeball killer got his name is not because he killed and eviscerated - he got it because he took the eyes out and kept them.
Maiming, eviscerating, cutting - general, unspecific.
Taking the eyeballs out - specific.


But I made it very clear the link between Rainham and the Ripper killings is just coincidence. there is no copycat at that point.
Coincidences of that type do happen.

"Is" just coincidence? Could be just coincidence, you mean. The degree to which I agree with that hinges on the number of cases you can find where a killer takes away part of the colon and where he cuts the abdominal wall away. I won´t even ask you if you think that the rarer the matter, the lesser the chance that such a "coincidence" will occur - you either agree or you are wrong.


I feel you are missing the points I made.

Not at all - you can read and understand them and disagree anyway. That´s what I am doing.

1. Rainham and Hanbury street are coincidence.
Indeed the view that Chapman's cuts were skilful, in reality says the killer knew what he was doing, cutting the correct way, following a obvious procedure, such as opening the body up correctly, rather than just diving in.

A coincidence is more unlikely the more unusual the detail compared is.


2. A copycat could have followed the release of details in the Ripper series, hence my suggestion that the latter Torso's may have been copycats, but a suggestion is a long way from a fact.
It is possible that similar results came about by accident; I will however say that it is somewhat improbable!

Both your suggestions are somewhat improbable, actually.


3. The aim in both sets of murders was to remove organs and cut, to destroy the body.
While that is very rare, being rare does not prove the two are related, but it does mean we must consider the possibility.

And if there are coinciding details like the abdominal wall and the colon, we should be less inclined to think they are unrelated. The more things like these there are, and the rare they are, the lesser the chance of coincidence. And they are rare as hen´s teeth.

4. The removal of flaps of skin suggests the killers of both sets of murders knew what they were doing, and while not essential that they were medically trained, they knew how to cut a body and the procedure used to gain access to the body cavity.

No, it suggests nothing along the line of two killers - it suggests that in each case, the killer did something very rare, and he is therefore likely to be one and the same. The matter does not promote two killers in any way at all the proposal of two killers leans solely on OTHER factors.

Did notice that had not made it clear that I consider them all to be murders, I see no other option in the light of the evidence.

Whoops - we agree.

Although my views obviously do not fit yours, they hold up medically, and that is my point.

That depends on how usual the matters are, as I said before.

I may well be wrong, it could be the same killer!

We agree again!

However at present, all I see is two sets of murders, carried out by persons who knew what they were doing when they cut.
unfortunately that does not even prove the same background and training, but it does suggest similar.

It proves other matters: The same procedure, the same decisions and choices and the same very rare decisions. The background and training is subordinate to that.

At the end of the day, is it possible they are the same kille for both sets?

Yes, of course it is possible!

Spot on.


Is it probable?

No that has not be proven.

"Been proven"? A proven probability? If a probability CAN be proven, then that is done by pointing to how very rare matters are probably related: If two people are found dead with a missing part of the colon and with the abdominal wall cut out, then I would say it IS proven that they probably are related deeds.


I fear we will not agree on this at present, I need more to reach your conclusion.

There is more, Steve, rest assured. But like I told your mate Pierre, I am not putting it on the table as of now.
I really don´t need to either - there is enough as it is.


All the best,
Fisherman

[Elamarna]

Fisherman

Please Pierre is not my mate.
I disagree with him at least 95% of the time.

I really don't mind disagreeing with you on most of what you say. That's normal.

But please let's at least agree Pierre is not my mate!


You may well have more. However the trend not to publish things truly baffles me, Not just with you I may add. There are more doing the same, from a purely intellectual level I find that sad.

I am sorry there is not enough to prove your point to others at present. Saying there is does not change that!

The fact that you fail to see the significance of the cuts themselves rather than seeing them as a signature. Which you have not actually seen is equally baffling.
It's like saying two men sign the same name. It's an unusual name so must be same guy. But not actually looking to see if they are alike.

I am certainly not going to get into one of the long arguments over this and will butt out now.

Especially since I orginaly post on this thread to back your viewpoint on the colon cuts.
Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

The Victorian doctors were divided about what?

Someone looking at these murders with an open mind would accept that murder is also an option. You do not accept it.

Debra

Well you could be right, anyone might, but would they have the knowledge and expertise in assessing the facts to be able to say with any certainty that in fact they were all murders.? Finding a dismembered torso doesn't always mean murder does it?

If you then asked those same people to consider other alternatives to murder as we have discussed coupled with what we know the Victorians got up to and the methods they used would they still be able to say then with any certainty that they were murders?

The Victorian doctors were divided in whether or not anatomical skill was use in both the removal of the limbs and the removal of other parts in the course of the dismemberment in relation to the different torsos

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Please Pierre is not my mate.
I disagree with him 95% of the time

I really don't mind disagreeing with you on most of what you say. That's normal.



But please let's at least agree Pierre is not my mate!

Steve

I´ll think about it. I see you together out here all the time. And I have mates with whom I disagree over many things.

[Elamarna]

I´ll think about it. I see you together out here all the time. And I have mates with whom I disagree over many things.

A bit like you a trevor then?

Seriously I do not know the guy at all. I have mates on here. Pierre is certainly not one of them.

All the best.

Steve

[Abby Normal]

Well said that man!

Thanks!-sent you a PM.

[Fisherman]

A bit like you a trevor then?

All the best.

Steve

Nah - Trevor and me are the best of mates. He makes me laugh.

HEY, TREV, MATE! ANY NEWS ON THAT TOURNIQUET YET...?

[Elamarna]

Nah - Trevor and me are the best of mates. He makes me laugh.

HEY, TREV, MATE! ANY NEWS ON THAT TOURNIQUET YET...?

Pierre never makes me laugh!!!
Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

Nah - Trevor and me are the best of mates. He makes me laugh.

HEY, TREV, MATE! ANY NEWS ON THAT TOURNIQUET YET...?

Yes good news I am right you are wrong

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Yes good news I am right you are wrong

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

That IS news, Trevor! So the victorian doctors were not all that bad anyway - they could stem the blood from a wound after a severed body part by applying pressure on the severed part.

Amazing!!

[Trevor Marriott]

That IS news, Trevor! So the victorian doctors were not all that bad anyway - they could stem the blood from a wound after a severed body part by applying pressure on the severed part.

Amazing!!

You dont know the chord was not placed around the arm to act as a tourniquet before death and before dismemberment. Again your blinkered approach to these torsos has shown through.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[jerryd]

You dont know the chord was not placed around the arm to act as a tourniquet before death and before dismemberment. Again your blinkered approach to these torsos has shown through.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Tourniquet was NEVER an option mentioned by Dr. Neville or the officer that conveyed the arm to the station. The string was attached just above the elbow. The arm was severed at the shoulder. Dr. Neville felt the string may have been used to keep blood from trickling from the wound and splashing on the killer when transporting the arm in which he said it scarcely served it's purpose as the blood was still trickling from the wound anyway when he examined it. In other words, it probably was not tied tight enough for a tourniquet, Trevor.

Dr Neville's after-thought was that the string may have been used to attach a weight to the arm. No weight was found.

[Fisherman]

Tourniquet was NEVER an option mentioned by Dr. Neville or the officer that conveyed the arm to the station. The string was attached just above the elbow. The arm was severed at the shoulder. Dr. Neville felt the string may have been used to keep blood from trickling from the wound and splashing on the killer in which he said it scarcely served it's purpose as the blood was still trickling from the wound anyway when he examined it. In other words, it probably was not tied tight enough for a tourniquet, Trevor.

Dr Neville's after-thought was that the string may have been used to attach a weight to the arm. No weight was found.

Well, that saved me another "blinkered" post, Jerry - many thanks! I often wonder if Trevor simply guesses his way around the cases, he seems to know less about them than I do about abstract physics.

"No weight was found" - an apt description of Trevors efforts.