Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Torso Murders

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    Dr Biggs went to great lengths to explain the use of the term flaps of skin, so these are not something which link these murders.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    Biggs was - as always - speaking of something entirely different, namely how flaps and tongues of skin were generally produced in relation to the sloppy dismemberment work most dismemberment killers employ.

    So Biggsī comment has no bearing whatsoever on the issue.
    Last edited by Fisherman; 05-12-2016, 06:20 AM.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by John G View Post

      In respect of Kelly, I would have to conceded that there is no evidence the genital area was specifically targeted. In fact, there seems to have been very little design at all on the part of the killer- as was said at the inquest, the injuries were "most wanton."
      Contrary to your take, John, I would suggest that the Kelly murder was all about design.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by John G View Post
        Hi Fisherman,

        In the case of Chapman, the killer's purpose for inflicting the abdominal injuries was clearly the targeting of the uterus.
        The uterus can very easily be removed through a cut. There is no need whatsoever to remove the abdominal wall. If you look at cases where the uterus has been taken, you will see what I mean. I have not yet identified any case where the abdominal wall was taken away before the uterus was plucked out.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by John G View Post
          Hi Abby,

          I'm afraid I would disagree with just about all of this. Victimology? Only one torso victim was identified.

          General location? We have no idea where the torso victims were abducted from and body parts were scattered all over London.

          General time frame? Some torso murders date back to the early 1870s.

          Post mortem mutilation/ abdomen targeted? This only applies to the Pinchin Street Torso, as far as I'm aware, where the mutilations were no where near as extensive as the Whitechapel victims and, according to Dr Phillips, were carried out for purposes of disposal of the body. Moreover, no abdominal organs were removed, so different objective implies different killer.


          Knife cutting instrument used? How else could a body be dismembered in the late nineteenth century? Note: the chainsaw hadn't been invented.

          Unsolved? Agreed.

          Both involved a series? How do you know? Where's the proof the torso victims were murdered?

          Probable ruse? Well, at the risk of sounding like Pierre, can you provide source material for this assertion?

          Debra Arif? Yes, I have the utmost respect for Debra. However, as I'm sure she'd acknowledge, she is not, as far as I'm aware, a medical expert, and therefore unqualified to give informative opinion in this area.

          The others? Please cite their relevant medical qualifications.
          Hi John

          I'm afraid I would disagree with just about all of this. Victimology? Only one torso victim was identified.
          right and she was an unfortunate. and the others-I wonder why they weren't identified? right-probably because they were too-and nobody cared when they went missing.

          General location? We have no idea where the torso victims were abducted from and body parts were scattered all over London
          .

          right-so they could have met there killer anywhere-inlcuding whitechapel. and anyway its in the same city-close enough my friend.

          General time frame? Some torso murders date back to the early 1870s.
          sorry- I was only referring to the 80's cases-should have been more clear. but even if the 70s cases are included-so what? again close enough and serial killers have been known to stop for long periods of time-not that the difference between 70's and 80's is that long anyway.

          Post mortem mutilation/ abdomen targeted? This only applies to the Pinchin Street Torso, as far as I'm aware, where the mutilations were no where near as extensive as the Whitechapel victims and, according to Dr Phillips, were carried out for purposes of disposal of the body. Moreover, no abdominal organs were removed, so different objective implies different killer.
          all the torsos had internal organs removed and/or post mortem mutilation to the abdomen. same basic sig John.

          also, Nichols didn't have any internal organs removed-should we discount her too then from the ripper series?

          [QUOTE]
          Knife cutting instrument used? How else could a body be dismembered in the late nineteenth century? Note: the chainsaw hadn't been invented.
          oh I don't know-an axe, a large saw, a meat cleaver?heck even a knife. They were all invented by then weren't they?

          Both involved a series? How do you know? Where's the proof the torso victims were murdered?
          so neither the torsos or the ripper victims weren't even series now? were going backward now. I guess there were a dozen or so separate killers? don't think so. even the police at the time thought they were both series.

          torso victims not murdered? I guess theres no proof. but perhaps they dismembered themselves.

          Probable ruse? Well, at the risk of sounding like Pierre, can you provide source material for this assertion?
          the general consensus is that the ripper acted like he was a client and led or let the victims lead him to a secluded area.

          and unless the torso victims went willingly with torso man for the purpose of being killed, mutilated and hacked apart, then I'm pretty sure a ruse was used here too.

          Debra Arif? Yes, I have the utmost respect for Debra. However, as I'm sure she'd acknowledge, she is not, as far as I'm aware, a medical expert, and therefore unqualified to give informative opinion in this area.
          bite your tongue John. Debra is one of the most gifted researchers around and dosnt need to be a medical expert to read autopsy reports and other source material and find similarities.

          and with all due respect, for someone who is constantly quoting Trevor Marriott, Id be a little more polite with whom you disparage. and quite frankly, Ill go with Debra every time.
          "Is all that we see or seem
          but a dream within a dream?"

          -Edgar Allan Poe


          "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
          quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

          -Frederick G. Abberline

          Comment


          • #65
            [QUOTE=Pierre;380525]
            Originally posted by John G View Post

            I havenīt read the book but I think Trevor Marriot uses Biggs much in the way that Fisherman uses the barrister in his "documentary".
            This is getting deplorable.

            Itīs not surprising, but it is sad.

            Comment


            • #66
              Christer:

              What Phillips says is that the killer was able to secure the womb and part of the bladder with "one sweep of the knife". And that is not something surgeons do. Ever. Ergo, Phillips thught that the knofe work was of a very high quality. And that is very reminiscent of the Torso man.

              Do you think that level of skill would be acquired by a meat cart driver or someone who helped out in his Ma's cats' meat shop? Would he have so frequently 'secured' internal organs with a single sweep of the knife that he developed such a recognisable skill?

              I'm with you when you speak of the similarities between the torso and JTR injuries, but for me that makes Lechmere an even less likely candidate.

              Gary

              Comment


              • #67
                To Abby Normal

                I have to agree with you on the point your making that the Torso victims were murdered and dismembered any other interpretation doesn't stand up remotely to scrutiny.

                Cheers John

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by John Wheat View Post
                  To Abby Normal

                  I have to agree with you on the point your making that the Torso victims were murdered and dismembered any other interpretation doesn't stand up remotely to scrutiny.

                  Cheers John
                  With respect you are talking a load of old tosh. By your posts you clearly want to believe these torsos were the subject of murders. But there are more plausible explanation for the dismemberments to consider. I would suggest you sit down and consider them.

                  You raised this topic again, but it has been raised many times and flogged to death, with the same old people, wearing the same old blinkers saying the same old things.

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                    With respect you are talking a load of old tosh. By your posts you clearly want to believe these torsos were the subject of murders. But there are more plausible explanation for the dismemberments to consider. I would suggest you sit down and consider them.

                    You raised this topic again, but it has been raised many times and flogged to death, with the same old people, wearing the same old blinkers saying the same old things.

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                    quit wasting your time here trevor-youve got tee shirts to sell
                    "Is all that we see or seem
                    but a dream within a dream?"

                    -Edgar Allan Poe


                    "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                    quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                    -Frederick G. Abberline

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
                      Christer:

                      What Phillips says is that the killer was able to secure the womb and part of the bladder with "one sweep of the knife". And that is not something surgeons do. Ever. Ergo, Phillips thught that the knofe work was of a very high quality. And that is very reminiscent of the Torso man.

                      Do you think that level of skill would be acquired by a meat cart driver or someone who helped out in his Ma's cats' meat shop? Would he have so frequently 'secured' internal organs with a single sweep of the knife that he developed such a recognisable skill?

                      I'm with you when you speak of the similarities between the torso and JTR injuries, but for me that makes Lechmere an even less likely candidate.

                      Gary
                      I prefer to discuss the similaritites between the Torso killer and the Ripper without adding Lechmere to the mixture. I know what his name does to a number of posters out here, and I donīt want that to veil the main issue.

                      However! If we were to bring the carman into the discussion, I would like to say that I find that the 1873 Torso murder belongs to the same killer as does the 1887, 1888 and 1889 murders. And once I start counting, I find that Kosminski was around 8 years in 1873. Und so weiter. Bury, Druitt, Chapman and scores of others fall away.
                      Lechmere does not. He was 24 in 1873, and he therefore fits the bill as one of very few candidates, agewise.

                      Did he have the required skill with the knife? I could not say, and I would be as bold as to claim that neither could you. If he was involved in the horse meat business, it carries weight that the medicos said that the Torso killer may well have been a butcher, with lots of cutting behind him. Lechmere may or may not have had this knowledge. At any rate, he had access to a horse and cart, we know that much. But letīs leave him out for now, shall we, and save the blood pressure from boiling over in a number of camps?

                      As for securing the uterus and part of the bladder with one sweep of the knife, I canīt say that I am overly impressed with the exactitude. Did the killer want part of the bladder? For what? If he had secured organs intact, it would have been another thing, but part of a bladder? Just how skilled was that cut?

                      I think that the Torso killer had a lot of anatomical knowledge, when it comes to knowing which organ goes where in the human body. I also think he had a deep fascination with the topic. And I think that the dismemberment was actually part of the aim on his behalf.

                      Most dismemberment killers arrive at the conclusion that they need to cut up the body late in the process. They kill and they realize that they need to get rid of the body. Many hour may pass between the killing and the division in parts. Sometimes even many a day passes before the killer has worked up the courage to cut away.
                      It is a practicality they would have avoided if given the chance, and so they drag the process out.

                      The victims of the Torso killer were cut up in pieces directly after they had been killed. The muscle contraction bears witness of this. In the 1873 case, the medico said that it could well be that the killer started cutting the body up before death. As gruesome as it sounds, it teaches us something: In the case of the Torso killer, there was no hesitation - instead, it would seem that the dismemberment may have been what he was after. Or part of it.

                      Looking at the Rainham case and the Jackson case, my suggestion would be that the killer ended the lives of these women, then he cut them from ribcage to pubes and took out inner organs. After that, and still very close in time to the death, he dismembered the victims. Evisceration followed by dismemberment, thus.

                      In the Jackson case, he took out the uterus. In the Rainham case (as well as in the Jackson case), he also took out non-sexually related organs, like the heart and lungs.

                      How many serialists take out both sexually related and non-sexually realted inner organs?

                      I can think of two, for starters. Oddly enough, they lived and worked in the same metropolis and at the same period of time.
                      Last edited by Fisherman; 05-12-2016, 07:50 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                        With respect you are talking a load of old tosh. By your posts you clearly want to believe these torsos were the subject of murders. But there are more plausible explanation for the dismemberments to consider. I would suggest you sit down and consider them.

                        You raised this topic again, but it has been raised many times and flogged to death, with the same old people, wearing the same old blinkers saying the same old things.

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                        The only person talking tosh on this thread is you Trevor. The idea that The Torso Killer didn't murder and dismember the Torso victims is about the most ludicrous idea on this site.

                        Cheers John

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                          The victims of the Torso killer were cut up in pieces directly after they had been killed. The muscle contraction bears witness of this. In the 1873 case, the medico said that it could well be that the killer started cutting the body up before death. As gruesome as it sounds, it teaches us something: In the case of the Torso killer, there was no hesitation - instead, it would seem that the dismemberment may have been what he was after. Or part of it.

                          Heloi Fisherman. Would the body have to be in a certain condition to achieve dismemberment [ie. in rigor, frozen]?
                          there,s nothing new, only the unexplored

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Robert St Devil View Post
                            Heloi Fisherman. Would the body have to be in a certain condition to achieve dismemberment [ie. in rigor, frozen]?
                            No, not at all. In the Torso case, there was not time provided for any rigor to develop - the dismemberment followed quickly upon death.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Robert St Devil View Post
                              Heloi Fisherman. Would the body have to be in a certain condition to achieve dismemberment [ie. in rigor, frozen]?
                              Good question, Robert.

                              Could they have been frozen?

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
                                Good question, Robert.

                                Could they have been frozen?
                                No, Gary - there would have been no muscle contraction in a frozen body, when cutting it up.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X