JtR failed amputation. Torso killer was successful.

[Abby Normal]

That would equate how you don´t think that taking out a heart (or perhaps two) and taking out a uterus amounts to any special interest in taking out internal body parts, Gareth.

Then again, you have a few things going for you, and I actually agree to an extent - although we do have evidence that he took out internal body parts, it seems this could not have been an ultimate aim for him. If it was, then why did not all the victims suffer eviscerations?

My suggestion would be because organ excising was but one of many different things he could do, and that all of these things would be satisfactory to him. Compare, if you will, how Eddowes and Kelly had their faces cut (no organ excising there) and how flesh was cut away from the thighs of Kelly (no organ excising there), how Eddowes had her nose cut off (no organ excising there) and so on.

It was not only about organ excising for the torso killer - but organ excising was part of his agenda.

Similarly, organ excising was part of the Rippers agenda too - but it was NOT all he did to his victims.

I just watched a Youtube video with the Swedish criminologist Leif G W Persson commenting on the Ripper murders. He said that the kind of murders he perpetrated, with organ excising and very extensive cutting, is something that is so rare that there are not many cases around in the criminological history of the world.
Strange then, is it not, that one of the very, very few examples should have coexisted with the Ripper, same city, same time...?

well put fish

agree 100%

[Sam Flynn]

all the torso victims had post mortem mutilation above and beyond what was needed for dismemberment

I don't see that, sorry. And, even where this might be argued, the wounds were as nothing compared to the mutilations suffered by most Ripper victims in a much shorter period of time and in far more challenging circumstances.

and internal organs were missing.

In a very few instances, and even then probably for practical purposes. He even left the womb behind, on the odd occasion when it was removed.

[Abby Normal]

Because if it was not in place,I don´t think the killer would have produced what he set out to do, Abby. It would be as if Michelangelo carved his Pietá with the left arms missing from Maria and Jesus.

so it was more important to torsoripper what he left behind, than what he took?

hes creating works of art in what he left?

whats the significance then for what he took (the body parts, internal organs)???

[Fisherman]

I don't see that, sorry. And, even where this might be argued, the wounds were as nothing compared to the mutilations suffered by most Ripper victims in a much shorter period of time and in far more challenging circumstances.In a very few instances, and even then probably for practical purposes. He even left the womb behind, on the odd occasion when it was removed.

Gareth, you must be able to take on board that the organ excising may NOT have been a practical matter. As long as you put your head in the sand, you will deliberately throw away the other possibilities. Why would you do that?

How is the taking out of a heart a practical exercise for a dismemberer? How is taking the uterus out a practical exercise for a dismemberer? How is ripping the abdomen open from sternum (and beyond!) to pelvis a practical exercise for a dismemberer?

Can you explain that?

By the way, you say that "he even left the womb behind" about the torso killer. Well, so did the Ripper in Millers Court, right?

[Fisherman]

so it was more important to torsoripper what he left behind, than what he took?

hes creating works of art in what he left?

whats the significance then for what he took (the body parts, internal organs)???

Personally, I ascribe a relatively low value to how organs were taken. I think that the most logical option is that he took them for being able to relive what he had done to his victims. Alternatively, he could of course have taken them for consumption, but going on gut feeling only, I don´t believe that he did, although I favour the idea that fetischism and ritual played a role to him. And it is a fact that fetischists and ritualists may engage in cannibalism. It´s just not something that appeals to my thinking.
I think that it was what he produced by his cutting that was his primary driving force.

[Abby Normal]

Gareth, you must be able to take on board that the organ excising may NOT have been a practical matter. As long as you put your head in the sand, you will deliberately throw away the other possibilities. Why would you do that?

How is the taking out of a heart a practical exercise for a dismemberer? How is taking the uterus out a practical exercise for a dismemberer? How is riooing the abdomen open from sternum (and beyond!) to pelvis a practical exercise for a dismemberer?

Can you explain that?

Hi fish

riooing

I believe your ps have lost their tails
lol

[Fisherman]

Hi fish




I believe your ps have lost their tails
lol

Just noticed that and added them, Abby!

[Sam Flynn]

Gareth, you must be able to take on board that the organ excising may NOT have been a practical matter.

But it probably was. Saw through the thorax or abdomen, dig out and dump the organs rather than have them slop around or dangle out when carrying the torso. Cut out the baby, and the womb comes with it (but don't keep the womb, unlike wot Jack did).

And what of all the torso cases when NO organ removal happened at all?

[Abby Normal]

Personally, I ascribe a relatively low value to how organs were taken. I think that the most logical option is that he took them for being able to relive what he had done to his victims. Alternatively, he could of course have taken them for consumption, but going on gut feeling only, I don´t believe that he did, although I favour the idea that fetischism and ritual played a role to him. And it is a fact that fetischists and ritualists may engage in cannibalism. It´s just not something that appeals to my thinking.
I think that it was what he produced by his cutting that was his primary driving force.

thanks fish
so what was more important to the torsoripper-what he took and kept or what he left behind or "dumped"?

[Sam Flynn]

And it is a fact that fetischists and ritualists may engage in cannibalism.

Perhaps he ate their heads.

I think that it was what he produced by his cutting that was his primary driving force.

What he/they produced by cutting were anonymised corpses divided into portable chunks.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn:
But it probably was.

YOU think that is probable, and that´s fine. But what I am saying is that it can sometimes be useful to try and look in the other direction too, no matter how painful it seems.

Saw through the thorax or abdomen, dig out and dump the organs rather than have them slop around or dangle out when carrying the torso.

No other dismemberment killer seems to make that choice, though. The organs are left in the body and dumped with it. And in the torso case, it seems only some organs got in his way so much as to require cutting out before dumping.
Take the heart, for example, firmly fixed in the peritoneum. It would no go anywhere, and it would not dangle out. It would be tucked away behind the ribcage. So why would this killer want to take it out? It would serve no practical aim at all. Surely you can see that?
Maybe it dangled out in the Rainham case because the killer had divided the sternum.
Then again, for what practical reason would he do so? He had already opened the abdomen up from sternum to pubes, so why get a saw and saw through the sternum? Could you give me a practical reason for that?
Has not the time come to finally admit that what this killer did went way beyond practicalities? That is why I say that you must dare to take your head out of the sand for once, Gareth.

Cut out the baby, and the womb comes with it (but don't keep the womb, unlike wot Jack did).

Jack did NOT keep Kelly´s womb, Gareth, He discarded it at the murder scene. Can you see the similarity?
How many eviscerators have we on record who cut the uterus out AND LEAVE IT? I can think of two. Or one, to be more precise.

And what of all the torso cases when NO organ removal happened at all?

I already answered that. Both the Torso killer and the Ripper went beyond organtaking. Both of them = similarity.

[Fisherman]

thanks fish
so what was more important to the torsoripper-what he took and kept or what he left behind or "dumped"?

What he DID, Abby. The torso killer dumped everything, quite probably the heads too. But it was what he had done before this that mattered to him. If I am correct, of course.

He didn´t dump the Ripper victims, so in that case one can say that what he left was more important than what he took away (or with himself). If I am correct, of course.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: Perhaps he ate their heads.

Who knows? In fish, that is the most nourishing part, the one salmonfishing grizzlys go for first. The biggest bears get the head, and floats the rest down the river.
There could also be ritualistic reasons for eating heads.

In the end, I don´t believe he ate any of the missing parts, but that´s just a guess on my behalf.


What he/they produced by cutting were anonymised corpses divided into portable chunks.

A puzzle is also something divided into parts. But it has a meaning if we put it together in the correct way.
Just because you cannot see anything that goes beyond pure mayhem, that does not mean that other can´t do so either.
One question for you, regarding the totally meaningless and frenzied hacking you see in the Kelly case: how damaged were the innards? The liver, the spleen, the uterus...? How hacked to pieces where they?
If there were no damages on them, would you agree that it seems they were neatly and purposefully cut out? And is that what frenzied killers do? Neatly cut organs from their attachments and pluck them out of a body?

[Batman]

The muscular structures appeared as though an attempt had made to separate the bones of the neck. - Philips on Chapman.

What they are indicating here is that muscles, not the markings left by the knife, look as if an attempt had been made to separate the bones of the neck. That means it looks like they have been pulled upon.

Eddowes nose amputation isn't remarked upon at the time as the type of amputation associated with any surgical or medical procedure involving its removal. Seems to me it was crudely hacked off and the lip possibly cut in the process.

Even Kelly's right thigh denuded in front to the bone is just a hatchet job with a knife. Nothing to do with medicine or experience with amputations.

It's like this. The Torso Murders is capable of amputations. If JtR could amputate, he would amputate and even tries it with some success... nose, breasts, but Chapman's neck and Kelly's leg says it's not this experienced Torso Murderer who was well able to do all that.

[Abby Normal]

What he DID, Abby. The torso killer dumped everything, quite probably the heads too. But it was what he had done before this that mattered to him. If I am correct, of course.

He didn´t dump the Ripper victims, so in that case one can say that what he left was more important than what he took away (or with himself). If I am correct, of course.

Very interesting fish. Care to expound?