Torso Murders

[Elamarna]

Steve I know what your saying but the theory that The Torso Victims were not murdered and dismembered is a very weak one.

Cheers John

John

I agree with you. and we know Pierre does too.

Steve

[John Wheat]

So to your mind, the points I listed in post 124 would have been merely coincidental...?

Well Fisherman you make a good case for them being one and the same but I just don't buy it. The M.O.'s are certainly different enough for there to be two separate killers. The Torso killers motivation seems to be dismemberment whereas Jack seemed to want to stab and hack into the body. If I was forced to select a candidate for both series of murders then that would however be Wentworth Bellsmith and not Lechmere.

Cheers John

[Fisherman]

Well Fisherman you make a good case for them being one and the same but I just don't buy it. The M.O.'s are certainly different enough for there to be two separate killers. The Torso killers motivation seems to be dismemberment whereas Jack seemed to want to stab and hack into the body. If I was forced to select a candidate for both series of murders then that would however be Wentworth Bellsmith and not Lechmere.

Cheers John

I think the man who has nailed what the Ripper was about in two words is Simon Wood.

The only problem is that he got them in the wrong order.

It is not about deconstructing Jack. Itīs about Jack deconstructing.

That is what both the Ripper and the Torso man were doing. They both took women apart in pieces. They both seemingly had a fascination for this.

So basically, it is the exact same MO - they get hold of a woman, they kill the woman, and then they start to deconstruct that woman. Sometimes, the killer has access to a secluded space where he knows he will not be disturbed, and he uses that to carefully cut the victim up directly after having killed her, very clearly implicating that the purpose of the killing was to be able to disarticulate the body, to divide it into parts. Sometimes we can be certain that he starts out by cutting the abdomen open, breastbone to pubes - exactly like the Ripper - and he takes out inner organs, sexually related and un-sexually related - just like the Ripper - but the division into parts belongs to the picture too, as a driving force.

Have you ever come across any two series of murders in the same city at the same time, both involving so extremly rare details as cutting the abdomen open from stern to pubes, cutting the abdomen away in large flaps and taking out both sexually oriented and non-sexually oriented organs?

I have never heard of such a thing, and I think I can say for certain that there is no parallel example.

The two are doubtlessly the same in my eyes.

There are also more matters that tie the series together even more clearly, but I am saving them for now.

[Abby Normal]

Letīs just stop for a moment and see how far we have reached.

1. We have two series of murders, one spanning from 1873-1889, the other taking place in 1888. So they overlap.

2. We have evidence telling us that both series involve prostitutes as victims, and there is no evidence that any of the victims was not a prostitute.

3. We have one of the victims in series 1 being dumped in the killing zone of series 2.

4. We have evidence showing us that some of the victims of both series had their abdomens cut open from breastbone to pubes.

5. We have evidence telling us that both killers were eviscerators.

6. We know that both killers took out not only sexually oriented organs, but also non-sexually oriented organs from the bodies of the victims.

7. There are victims in both series who had their abdominal walls cut away in large flaps of skin with subcutaneous tissue attached.

8. We know that the killers in both series took the trouble to cut out organs, only to subsequently discard them.

9. We know that both perpetrators of the two series were said to be very skilled with a knife.

So which is the reasonable conclusion here?

Hi Fish
Thanks for this.
I lean toward slightly they were one and the same.

I'm not as aware of the 70's torsos as much of the 80's torsos. do you think they are definitely related? Debra please chime in also.

other than the dismemberment, and same general location-what ties them together? was there abdominal mutilations and/or internal organs removed?
any of the 70's torsos have flaps of skin removed similar to Jackson and Kelly?

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish
Thanks for this.
I lean toward slightly they were one and the same.

I'm not as aware of the 70's torsos as much of the 80's torsos. do you think they are definitely related? Debra please chime in also.

other than the dismemberment, and same general location-what ties them together? was there abdominal mutilations and/or internal organs removed?
any of the 70's torsos have flaps of skin removed similar to Jackson and Kelly?

I think there can be very little doubt that the 1873 torso victim is related to the ones of 87, 88 and 89. The body was cut up immediately after death (or even before), just as the other torsos, and there was the same dexterity and skill in the cutting; clean, unhesitating cuts and disarticulation had taken the body apart. The quick cutting up of the body is a very odd and unusual detail, pointing clearly to it being part of the aim with the killing. Any "normal" killing for, say, sexual desire, would reasonably involve the killing itself, followed by a cooling down period. After that, the killer would tend to the practical side of the murder, like disposing of the body. And there would be no muscle contraction. But in these cases, there is always muscle contraction. It is as if he could not wait to cut away with exactitude and great craftsmanship. It was never about disposing of the body, therefore, if you ask me - it was about a wish to deconstruct the body.

All the torso victims lacked inner parts, but having been thrown in the water in a cut up condition, it is hard to prove that they all had parts deliberately taken away. In some cases, however, like the Jackson case, the medicos are clear in pointing out that parts had been "removed", like for example the heart, lungs and thoracic viscera.

There is nothing pointing to the seventies victims having had their abdominal walls removed.

I donīt lean slightly to a common identity. I am at a 89 per cent angle, ready to bang my nose against the floor...

[Abby Normal]

I think there can be very little doubt that the 1873 torso victim is related to the ones of 87, 88 and 89. The body was cut up immediately after death (or even before), just as the other torsos, and there was the same dexterity and skill in the cutting; clean, unhesitating cuts and disarticulation had taken the body apart.

All the tosro victims lacked inner parts, but having been thrown in the water in a cut up condition, it is hard to prove that they all had parts deliberately taken away. In some cases, however, like the Jackson case, the medicos are clear in pointing out that parts had been "removed", like for example the heart, lungs and thoracic viscera.

There is nothing pointing to the seventies victims having had their abdominal walls removed.

I donīt lean slightly to a common identity. I am at a 89 per cent angle, ready to bang my nose against the floor...

Thanks for that Fish!!
truly fascinating-I need to mull over the implications of the ripper and torso man 70-80's are one in the same. (I was already leaning toward ripper and torsoman 80's being the same).

it pretty much rules out a lot of my favored suspects-hutch included.

[Fisherman]

Thanks for that Fish!!
truly fascinating-I need to mull over the implications of the ripper and torso man 70-80's are one in the same. (I was already leaning toward ripper and torsoman 80's being the same).

it pretty much rules out a lot of my favored suspects-hutch included.

Well, Abby, win a few, loose a few...? I genuinely donīt feel that you are out here to have it confirmed that Hutch was the man, but instead to try and make sense of the case as best as you can, staying open to different possibilities. It is a sound approach, and I commend you for it.

As I have implicated, there is more pointing to a shared identity, so you may need to keep that mind open in the future too...

[John Wheat]

I think the man who has nailed what the Ripper was about in two words is Simon Wood.

The only problem is that he got them in the wrong order.

It is not about deconstructing Jack. Itīs about Jack deconstructing.

That is what both the Ripper and the Torso man were doing. They both took women apart in pieces. They both seemingly had a fascination for this.

So basically, it is the exact same MO - they get hold of a woman, they kill the woman, and then they start to deconstruct that woman. Sometimes, the killer has access to a secluded space where he knows he will not be disturbed, and he uses that to carefully cut the victim up directly after having killed her, very clearly implicating that the purpose of the killing was to be able to disarticulate the body, to divide it into parts. Sometimes we can be certain that he starts out by cutting the abdomen open, breastbone to pubes - exactly like the Ripper - and he takes out inner organs, sexually related and un-sexually related - just like the Ripper - but the division into parts belongs to the picture too, as a driving force.

Have you ever come across any two series of murders in the same city at the same time, both involving so extremly rare details as cutting the abdomen open from stern to pubes, cutting the abdomen away in large flaps and taking out both sexually oriented and non-sexually oriented organs?

I have never heard of such a thing, and I think I can say for certain that there is no parallel example.

The two are doubtlessly the same in my eyes.

There are also more matters that tie the series together even more clearly, but I am saving them for now.

To Fisherman

I wouldn't be relying on anything said be anyone who believes the C5 were murdered by five different hands. That idea is absurd. Also The Torso Killers abdomen cutting didn't occur until after Tabram's murder. I hypothesis the Torso Killer was giving a playful nod to another killer.

Cheers John

[John Wheat]

To Fisherman

Just out of interest do you believe the Torso found in Paris in November 1886 and or the Torso found in 1902 were the work of The Torso Killer?

Cheers John

[Fisherman]

To Fisherman

Just out of interest do you believe the Torso found in Paris in November 1886 and or the Torso found in 1902 were the work of The Torso Killer?

Cheers John

Not really, no. But I am not up to scratch on the Paris torso. If it was as neatly disarticulated as the Thames victims, then it must be considered a possibility.
The 1902 Salamanca Place torso was a crude affair; not the Thames torso killer, therefore.

[Fisherman]

To Fisherman

I wouldn't be relying on anything said be anyone who believes the C5 were murdered by five different hands. That idea is absurd. Also The Torso Killers abdomen cutting didn't occur until after Tabram's murder. I hypothesis the Torso Killer was giving a playful nod to another killer.

Cheers John

I am actually not relying on Simon - I think he got it all wrong. Thatīs why I change his bid from "Deconstructing Jack" to "Jack deconstructing".

The Rainham torso had the abdomen cut open in 1887, long before Tabram fell prey.

[John Wheat]

I am actually not relying on Simon - I think he got it all wrong. Thatīs why I change his bid from "Deconstructing Jack" to "Jack deconstructing".

The Rainham torso had the abdomen cut open in 1887, long before Tabram fell prey.

To Fisherman

Yes but the Rainham Torso was more dissected than stabbed and hacked up in the manner of most of the C5.

Cheers John

[John Wheat]

Not really, no. But I am not up to scratch on the Paris torso. If it was as neatly disarticulated as the Thames victims, then it must be considered a possibility.
The 1902 Salamanca Place torso was a crude affair; not the Thames torso killer, therefore.

To Fisherman

I'm not massively knowledgable on the Paris Torso either and info on it is scarce however it's worth noting that the uterus had been removed.

Cheers John

[Fisherman]

To Fisherman

Yes but the Rainham Torso was more dissected than stabbed and hacked up in the manner of most of the C5.

Cheers John

That applies to all of the torso murders - they were much more "clean" killings. Anyhow, the torso killer was the first one to cut an abdomen from breastbone to pubes, so he did not emulate what the Ripper did. If anything, it was the other way around.

Or they were the same man. Which I really think we must accept that they probably were.

[Fisherman]

To Fisherman

I'm not massively knowledgable on the Paris Torso either and info on it is scarce however it's worth noting that the uterus had been removed.

Cheers John

Yes, but the uterus is targetted by a number of killers (Chikatilo springs to mind, f ex), while precise and exact dismemberment is a very uncommon thing. I would want to know how the Paris torso compares in that division.