Torso Murders

[Elamarna]

Quoting James Scobie: "When the coincidences mount up ... it becomes one coincidence too many."

Dear Fisherman

Everyone has their own view on such things..
Cheers

Steve

[Fisherman]

Dear Fisherman

Everyone has their own view on such things..
Cheers

Steve

Arguably yes - but we can always look at how much water a view holds, if comparing.

How many cases can we identify where a dismemberment murderer is recorded as doing a very clean and neat job, making it his business to produce cuts with no frays, straight angles and so on?

That is a very uncommon type of killer.

He becomes even more uncommon if he starts cutting up his victim immediately after death, more or less - or perhaps even while the victim is still alive.

There were not many serialists recorded in the second half of the 19:th century. It would be very odd if the men had the same approach. It would be odder still if they worked in the same city. And it would be odd in the extreme if they were active in that city during two decades following upon each other.

There MAY have been two such men.

But the more viable guess is that they were one and the same.

Thatīs what I am saying.

[Harry D]

To Harry D

I think all the famous suspects Thompson, Sickert, Van Gough etc are complete non starters for either the Ripper or the Torso Killer.

Cheers John

Absolutely, John. It would seem that some people are convinced that a famous serial killer like the Ripper must therefore be a famous person, even better if this person has a taste for the macabre. Although, I will say that Thompson is the best of a bad bunch. He was a drifter in Whitechapel, he had surgical skills, and a motive for hating prozzies (although I remember reading that this story might have been appropriated from another writer).

[John Wheat]

Absolutely, John. It would seem that some people are convinced that a famous serial killer like the Ripper must therefore be a famous person, even better if this person has a taste for the macabre. Although, I will say that Thompson is the best of a bad bunch. He was a drifter in Whitechapel, he had surgical skills, and a motive for hating prozzies (although I remember reading that this story might have been appropriated from another writer).

To Harry D

Yes to be fair I would say that Thompson is the best of a bad bunch too.

Cheers John

[Fisherman]

To Harry D

Yes to be fair I would say that Thompson is the best of a bad bunch too.

Cheers John

I think that anybody who has a carreer as an author, painter, artist etc, is extremely unlikely to become a serialist.

Similarly, I think that anybody who is a serialist is extremely unlikely to evolve into an author, painter, artist etc.

That is why I donīt think Thompson is a likely candidate.

As a rule, more or less, serial killers are grey men.

[Harry D]

To Harry D

Yes to be fair I would say that Thompson is the best of a bad bunch too.

Cheers John

Just to clarify, I mean Thompson is one of the "better" famous suspects, not a good suspect in his own right.

[Elamarna]

I think that anybody who has a carreer as an author, painter, artist etc, is extremely unlikely to become a serialist.

Similarly, I think that anybody who is a serialist is extremely unlikely to evolve into an author, painter, artist etc.

That is why I donīt think Thompson is a likely candidate.

As a rule, more or less, serial killers are grey men.

Fisherman

While I do not think Thompson was the killer, its back to a bunch of coincidences again has we were discussing earlier, he is as others say the best of, shall we call them the artist bunch.

At the time of the murders, Thompson was unknown, he was a grey man.
He is an interesting character, but on the evidence provided so far, not I think JtR.


regards

Steve

[Fisherman]

Fisherman

While I do not think Thompson was the killer, its back to a bunch of coincidences again has we were discussing earlier, he is as others say the best of, shall we call them the artist bunch.

At the time of the murders, Thompson was unknown, he was a grey man.
He is an interesting character, but on the evidence provided so far, not I think JtR.


regards

Steve

Yes, I know that he was unknown as a writer at the time of the murders - but where is the precedence of a man who has gone from being a serial killer into becoming a famed author, painter, artist...?

Thatīs why I donīt favour any of the "artist bunch", if you like.

You see, once a serialist starts out to kill, I think the killing becomes his "carreer", his imprint on the world he lives in.

[Joshua Rogan]

Jack Unterweger?

[John G]

John G: Both Eddowes' kidney an Chapman's uterus were carefully removed, according to the Victorian doctors.

But how can carefull removing a uterus take part of the bladder and part of the abdominal wall with it?
And if he managed to carefully take out the kidney from Eddowes, why did he fail to do so with the uterus?

And Paul Harrison commented that only a person with an "expert knowledge of anatomy" (Marriott, 2013)would be able to remove the organs in the way described, especially considering that he would be working with a Victorian knife, under extreme time pressure, and in almost totally darkness.

But we both know that others disagree with that view, John. The expert Dr Galloway said that the Rain ham deed was made by a man with "thorough knowledge of surgery", but then he changed his mind. At what stage should we listen to him?

In fact, Dr Calder and Paul Harrison attempted to remove a kidney using a Victorian knife, and found it an almost impossible task.

And indeed, Hebbert said that surgeons would NOT be capable to do what the torso killer did. He had more skill - but NOT surgical skill.
If you have a steady hand and the correct type of blade, then you CAN remove a kidney without damaging the surrounding tissues - and without being a surgeon. It is that simple.

Mind you, good news in respect of my chief suspect, FT, as he trained as a surgeon for 6 years.

He was 14 in 1873, when the first torso victim surfaced. And there is every reason to accept that this victim was killed by the same man as Kelly was in 1888 - in fact, these two victims are very closely tied together.
Thompson is emphatically not our man.

I have discussed the matter with Richard Patterson on Facebook, actually. His verdict was that given how Lechmere was found alone with the freshly killed Nichols, Richard thinks that I have a very good suspect, "perhaps even the best one", as he put it.

Richard is open-minded and judges things very soundly. His research into Thompson is impressive - but Francis Thompson did not kill the 1873 victim.

How many more well-known writers, composers, painters etcetera have been serialists, by the way - have you checked that?

And where is the answer to my question: Why did the torso killer make such an immaculate job of disarticulating and cutting up his victims, why all the neat, clean work, all the perfect angles, all the exactitude - if he was just discarding the bodies? Surely there has to be an explanation? And he did the cutting immediately, while the bodies were still warm, perhaps even still alive. How do we account for that?

But you seem to have unilaterally decided that TM, if he existed all, had exceptional knife skills. I mean, did any medical professional at the time say this? Nope, don't think so.

Moreover, Paul Harrison and Dr Calder, who went as far as carrying out their own post mortem experiments, clearly concluded that, based on the medical evidence, both Eddowes' and Chapman's killer had human anatomical knowledge. As Paul Harrison pointed out, " To remove the kidney from its membrane as is documented shows a high level of skill and anatomical knowledge....The uterus was also removed without damaging any underlying tissue. This is also very difficult especially as the report says that the sigmoid colon was invaginated into the rectum very tightly." (Marriott, 2013).

And we haven't even touched upon the radically different signature characteristics of JtR and TM. For instance, TM stored his victims for some time-in the case of the Whitehall victim, possibly several months- indicating he wanted to spend time with the remains, i.e. to relive the experience. On the other hand, JtR couldn't care less about such matters. And TM took extreme steps to prevent his victims from being identified; JTR couldn't care less. JtR's main objective was the targeting of body organs, not so TM. I could go on...

Of course, I could also point out that you have failed to give a single example from world criminological history where a serial killer has dramatically alternated his signature in such a way.

Frankly, I think TM's signature is much closer to the Hammersmith Nude Murderer, not that they were the same person, if course. However, this killer stored the victims for significant periods and, although he didn't prevent them from being identified, he stripped the bodies, which eliminated forensic traces.

And what's your overall conclusion? That Lechmere was a one man killing machine! Unbelievable ! Seriously, Fish, are you going to attribute every unsolved London murder, that occured in the latter part of the nineteenth century, to him? I mean, what about Rose Mylett? If Dr Phillips was correct, that JtR was in expert in the technique of strangulation , then maybe so was Lechmere! Oh dear, what have I said? I fear your going to tell me he was!

[John G]

Yes, I know that he was unknown as a writer at the time of the murders - but where is the precedence of a man who has gone from being a serial killer into becoming a famed author, painter, artist...?

Thatīs why I donīt favour any of the "artist bunch", if you like.

You see, once a serialist starts out to kill, I think the killing becomes his "carreer", his imprint on the world he lives in.

So now a poet can't be a serial killer! Or that a poet can't evolve into a serial killer, but TM can evolve into JtR, then evolve back again!

[John G]

Arguably yes - but we can always look at how much water a view holds, if comparing.

How many cases can we identify where a dismemberment murderer is recorded as doing a very clean and neat job, making it his business to produce cuts with no frays, straight angles and so on?

That is a very uncommon type of killer.

He becomes even more uncommon if he starts cutting up his victim immediately after death, more or less - or perhaps even while the victim is still alive.

There were not many serialists recorded in the second half of the 19:th century. It would be very odd if the men had the same approach. It would be odder still if they worked in the same city. And it would be odd in the extreme if they were active in that city during two decades following upon each other.

There MAY have been two such men.

But the more viable guess is that they were one and the same.

Thatīs what I am saying.

But the medical professional at the time concluded that the killer was probably a hunter, or a butcher. In other words, a cut and slash merchant!

[Fisherman]

Jack Unterweger?

Hmm. He turned to writing in jail. Would he have done so undetected?

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor Marriott: Here you are again spouting of your little known medical knowledge, suggesting that modern day medical experts such as Phil Harrison and Dr Calder who are conducting posts mortems on a daily basis, and are removing organs for that purpose are wrong. I think they know their stuff far better than you and others on here who continually challenge and disagree with what you are told by these experts, simply because it goes against personal beliefs. They have no hidden agenda, they are not ripperologists, they give their opinions in good faith. If those opinion dont sit to well with you and the others then tough.

Andy Griffiths and James Scoboie had no hidden agenda, and they were not ripperologists, but gave their opinions in good faith.

That did not sit well with you, did it?

Accomplished medicos have differed from Harrison and Calder, and thatīs all that needs saying. You are accusing me of cherrypicking, but you do the exact same thing yourself.

You have been told by Dr Biggs that at times many of these early victorian doctors opinions were nothing more than guesswork, and that way back then people believed what they were told, shame that doesn't apply today

And you have been told by me and Debra that Bigg was under- or misinformed, and that he was never in a position to give an informed view.

You were also given the opportunity to put in writing anything you wanted clarifying by Dr Biggs as were others. To date you or anyone else has failed to respond. I would now say that the time has come to either put up or shut up with this course of action knocking these modern day experts

Can you see me shutting up because you wish for it, Trevor? I will do no such thing. I will keep pointing out your shortcomings and your misinformation visavi Biggs, rest assured!

At least I clarified the issues with the experts and not simply like you taking no notice of what they say. Those are what are called short comings. I guess you are scared that any clarification made by dr Biggs will confirm what we already know that murders cannot be proven in āll the cases

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[John G]

John


my view would be not related to either group, but if had to make a choice the later series.

coincidences do happen.

Steve

Your absolutely correct Steve, although personally I wouldn't rule out the Tottenham Torso. Of course, if there was more than one Torso killer, although there's no proof most of the victims were murdered, this suggests that such a killer wasn't particularly rare.

Moreover, William Bury proves that there was at least one other East End resident capable at the time of mutilating a victim, unless he was JtR, of course.