Could Jack have killed some of the torso victims?

[Trevor Marriott]

What if the Ripper series ended with Kelly... Eddowes, even? Why were there no undoubted Ripper murders before August 1888, when the torso cases started many years earlier? As to the end of the torso murders, what about the 1902 case?

Sam
I whole heartedly agree with all you have said, but sadly its not going to stop them.

The ones that want to believe in this torso debacle are so blinkered its unreal, and the sad thing is that they really believe it despite the overwhelming facts and evidence which clearly negates this misguided theory.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor Marriott: I notice that you failed to respond to questions I put to you before xmas on your belief that the torsos and the WM were the work of the the same person. Perhaps you would be so kind as to answer now?

Perhaps you would care to share with us any evidence which shows the police in 1888 suspected that firstly, all the torsos you refer to were the subject of homicides.

They speak of the cases as murders, as we have done since. Hebbert, the top authority on these cases, said that they were murder cases - by a single perpetrator.

Hebbert simply gave an opinion which was not corroborated by any definitive evidence which pointed specifically to homicides.

They would have listened to Hebbert, and there is a reason that this is the normal take on things. Since 1889, these cases have been referred to as the Tames Torso murders, Trevor. Since 1889, it has been well known that the missing heads made it hard to identify the cause of death, but the cases are NEVERTHELESS referred to was murder cases. And wisely so - it is by far the best guess we can make, and there can be little doubt that it is the correct verdict. Some of the cases were actually ruled murders at the inquests, for these very reasons.

Perhaps you could supply the official police record, or any other official documentation from 1889 to show all these torsos were referred to under the heading of The Thames Torso Murders?

The murder verdicts you refer to were arrived at by the direction of the coroner simply on the opinion of the doctor without supporting medical evidence.

And thirdly that they suspected that JTR was responsible for murdering the women whose torsos were found in the thames.

[COLOR="Red"]The idea was launched and considered, but rejected on grounds involving an idea that dismemberment murders were always about practical matters like transport or disenabling identification.[COLOR="Red"]

Was the idea launched in 1888 if so please tell who launched it, and who rejected it?

I suspect it is a more recent suggestion

Trevor, people who claim that the Ripper victims had their innards stolen by enterprising mortuary attendants are not fit to suggest that other people entertain "wildly speculative ideas". As for the lost heads, you would perhaps know how that works better than most.
And that is all I have to say to you for now. You've had your answers, adieu.

I dont know any poster who claims that the organs were stolen by mortuary attendants

You really do need to read my book

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Michael W Richards]

These 2 actions...mutilation vs dismemberment, have as much to do with each other as eviscerating and poisoning do. Or stabbing a victim to death and decisively slicing the throats to kill them do.

This square peg in round holing that goes on here daily is just proof how ingrained the beliefs are. If one assumes its reasonable to assume no 2 people could do similar acts in the same place and near the same time, then its natural to try and put different crime signatures under one suspect, but its not reasonable to assume that to begin with.

The Torsos predated the Fall of Terror, and occurred after those few months. If anything people should be more eager to study the Torso murders over the alleged Ripper murders, because that killer...or those killers, operated over a substantially longer period. One assumed madman on a short lived spree pales in comparison.

[Fisherman]

Michael W Richards: These 2 actions...mutilation vs dismemberment, have as much to do with each other as eviscerating and poisoning do. Or stabbing a victim to death and decisively slicing the throats to kill them do.

You need be a lot more discerning than that, Michael.

Dismemberment is divided in categories of non-aggressive and aggressive dismemberment. I take it you are aware of this?
Non-aggressive dismemberment is carried out in order to facilitate the disposal of the body - if you don't feel like throwing the corpse over your shoulder and walk down the tenement stairs, you can cut it up and put it in a bag, and THEN carry it down the stairs. That is non-aggressive dismemberment.
Non-aggressive dismemberment can also be about cutting away parts that can give away the identity of people.

So when it comes to these dismemberers, you have a point - a poisoner is as likely as a gun man or a knife wielder to dismember in a non-aggressive manner.

Its only when we realize what an aggressive dismemberment is that your argument turns useless. And that's because aggressive dismemberment is dismemberment led on by an urge within the killer to cut a body up in little pieces - or, putting it differently, to MUTILATE by means of cutting limbs away and cutting up the body.

Can you see how this means that such a killer is VERY similar to a mutilator and totally dissimilar to a poisoner? Let's hope you can. Because if you can, you will realize that your whole point was wasted.

This square peg in round holing that goes on here daily is just proof how ingrained the beliefs are. If one assumes its reasonable to assume no 2 people could do similar acts in the same place and near the same time, then its natural to try and put different crime signatures under one suspect, but its not reasonable to assume that to begin with.

No, its not. Any two perpetrators can do the same things to their victims. It is only when these things become odd and peculiar and when they stack up that we can be certain of a common originator, viz:

Two victims who both have had their throats cut can have different killers, although if it happens in the same time and space, the likelier thing is that there is one killer only...

... but two victims who have their abdominal walls taken away, who have their hearts taken out and their uteri removed and who are cut from sternum to groin in the same area and time will not have different killers. The markers are too many and too specific to allow for it.

So you see, I am entirely flexible, but not a fantasist. I allow for killers doing the same things to their victims - to a degree. Once that line is surpassed, we are entering La-La-land when we fail to acknowledge the implications passed on to us. And we sadly become deniers of logic, of history, of criminal insights and of statistics, all in the same time. Once that happens, we should not take too much pride in how we are openminded enough to allow for just about anything.

The Torsos predated the Fall of Terror, and occurred after those few months. If anything people should be more eager to study the Torso murders over the alleged Ripper murders, because that killer...or those killers, operated over a substantially longer period. One assumed madman on a short lived spree pales in comparison.

The thing is we cannot tell over how long periods these men were active. The torso killer could have done away with victims over a very long time, some of the victims never being found. And the Ripper may well have changed his MO or simply evolved. Plus many serial killers have lain dormant for many, many years.

It all boils down to a need to explain and understand WHY this killer did what he did, not IF he did it. He VERY apparently did.

[Abby Normal]

What if the Ripper series ended with Kelly... Eddowes, even? Why were there no undoubted Ripper murders before August 1888, when the torso cases started many years earlier? As to the end of the torso murders, what about the 1902 case?

hi Sam
The murders of both series ended in 1889 with McKenzie and pinchin those two are the most obvious IMHO. and they both had there abdomans sliced open.

why would pinchin killer gash her abdomen?-it had nothing to do with dismemberment. both torso man and ripper like to cut the stomach area.

Why were there no undoubted Ripper murders before August 1888, when the torso cases started many years earlier?

I would posit torsoripper had access to his chop shop and didnt with the ripper victims. and or perhaps he upped the thrill with street murders.

[Abby Normal]

Michael W Richards: These 2 actions...mutilation vs dismemberment, have as much to do with each other as eviscerating and poisoning do. Or stabbing a victim to death and decisively slicing the throats to kill them do.

You need be a lot more discerning than that, Michael.

Dismemberment is divided in categories of non-aggressive and aggressive dismemberment. I take it you are aware of this?
Non-aggressive dismemberment is carried out in order to facilitate the disposal of the body - if you don't feel like throwing the corpse over your shoulder and walk down the tenement stairs, you can cut it up and put it in a bag, and THEN carry it down the stairs. That is non-aggressive dismemberment.
Non-aggressive dismemberment can also be about cutting away parts that can give away the identity of people.

So when it comes to these dismemberers, you have a point - a poisoner is as likely as a gun man or a knife wielder to dismember in a non-aggressive manner.

Its only when we realize what an aggressive dismemberment is that your argument turns useless. And that's because aggressive dismemberment is dismemberment led on by an urge within the killer to cut a body up in little pieces - or, putting it differently, to MUTILATE by means of cutting limbs away and cutting up the body.

Can you see how this means that such a killer is VERY similar to a mutilator and totally dissimilar to a poisoner? Let's hope you can. Because if you can, you will realize that your whole point was wasted.

This square peg in round holing that goes on here daily is just proof how ingrained the beliefs are. If one assumes its reasonable to assume no 2 people could do similar acts in the same place and near the same time, then its natural to try and put different crime signatures under one suspect, but its not reasonable to assume that to begin with.

No, its not. Any two perpetrators can do the same things to their victims. It is only when these things become odd and peculiar and when they stack up that we can be certain of a common originator, viz:

Two victims who both have had their throats cut can have different killers, although if it happens in the same time and space, the likelier thing is that there is one killer only...

... but two victims who have their abdominal walls taken away, who have their hearts taken out and their uteri removed and who are cut from sternum to groin in the same area and time will not have different killers. The markers are too many and too specific to allow for it.

So you see, I am entirely flexible, but not a fantasist. I allow for killers doing the same things to their victims - to a degree. Once that line is surpassed, we are entering La-La-land when we fail to acknowledge the implications passed on to us. And we sadly become deniers of logic, of history, of criminal insights and of statistics, all in the same time. Once that happens, we should not take too much pride in how we are openminded enough to allow for just about anything.

The Torsos predated the Fall of Terror, and occurred after those few months. If anything people should be more eager to study the Torso murders over the alleged Ripper murders, because that killer...or those killers, operated over a substantially longer period. One assumed madman on a short lived spree pales in comparison.

The thing is we cannot tell over how long periods these men were active. The torso killer could have done away with victims over a very long time, some of the victims never being found. And the Ripper may well have changed his MO or simply evolved. Plus many serial killers have lain dormant for many, many years.

It all boils down to a need to explain and understand WHY this killer did what he did, not IF he did it. He VERY apparently did.

hi fish
good post-totally agree.

however, I think you may not share my notion of the torsoripper ending his killings in 89 with McKenzie and pinchin?

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: Why were there no undoubted Ripper murders before August 1888, when the torso cases started many years earlier?

It is not as if there were numerous torso victims before 1887. One in 1873, one possible in 1874 and one possible in 1884. Why would the Ripper deeds need to occur along that stretch for you to believe in a common originator?

As to the end of the torso murders, what about the 1902 case?

It was a case of crude and sloppy cutting, Gareth. It had nothing to do with the other cases, going by the quality of the work. The only common denominator is dismemberment, nothing else. Gordon liked the case since it sat well with Chapman - note how he does. not mention the 1873 case, though, where the cutting was dexterous and skillful, just as in the 1887-89 cases.
Its cherrypicking, and one cherry is rotten.

[Sam Flynn]

McKenzie and pinchin... both had there abdomans sliced open.

Although there were cuts to the abdomen in both cases, the abdomens were not opened.

why would pinchin killer gash her abdomen?

Why would Jack the Ripper have stopped short after only having cut the outer layer of the abdomen? Same goes for Alice Kenzie.

I would posit torsoripper had access to his chop shop and didnt with the ripper victims.

If so, we're looking for someone who was periodically evicted from his West London chop-shop in 1888, returning there in June 1889 to do for Elizabeth Jackson, moving to a chop-shop in the East End in time to commit the Pinchin Street murder a few months later.

Not so much a torso killer, as a yo-yo killer.

[Trevor Marriott]

Sam Flynn: Why were there no undoubted Ripper murders before August 1888, when the torso cases started many years earlier?

It is not as if there were numerous torso victims before 1887. One in 1873, one possible in 1874 and one possible in 1884. Why would the Ripper deeds need to occur along that stretch for you to believe in a common originator?

As to the end of the torso murders, what about the 1902 case?

It was a case of crude and sloppy cutting, Gareth. It had nothing to do with the other cases, going by the quality of the work. The only common denominator is dismemberment, nothing else. Gordon liked the case since it sat well with Chapman - note how he does. not mention the 1873 case, though, where the cutting was dexterous and skillful, just as in the 1887-89 cases.
Its cherrypicking, and one cherry is rotten.

Fish
Let me remind you one final time, you keep stating that there was a serial killer at large responsible for The WM and the murders of the female torsos found in the Thames. I keep reminding you that there has to be a definite cause of death established. It is not sufficient to keep saying I think. It is not sufficient for you to keep interpreting the medical evidence in a way that suits you theory, because there are plausible explanations for the torsos, the dismemberment's and why they were dismembered. Explanations you continually choose to ignore.

Irrespective of how the torsos were dismembered and why lets look at 4 of the torsos

May 1887 Body parts examined by Dr`s Bond and Hebbert. No cause of death established - Verdict -Found dead

Sept 1888- The Whitehall Torso- Body parts found on land- Body parts examined again by Dr`s Bond and Hebbert- Again no cause of death established- Verdict - Found Dead

June 1888 - Elizabeth Jackson body parts examined by Dr`s Bond and Hebbert, No specific cause of death again established by doctors
Verdict- Wilful Murder- How does thtat come about bad direction by the coroner or the belief that the verdict of wilful murder incorporated the original doctors opinion that her death has occurred as a result of a failed abortion operation.

Sept 1889- Pinchin St Torso Body part found on land and examined by Dr`s Bond and Hebbert. Part of Doctors evidence "Immediate cause of death was syncope, as shown by the condition of the heart and general bloodlessness of the tissue which would indicate haemorrhage as the cause of syncope"

Dr Biggs comments on the above
"I am also perplexed by their cause of death! ‘Syncope’ is just a word denoting fainting or collapse. In the olden days, words such as ‘exhaustion’, ‘shock’ or ‘syncope’ were used as a ‘cause of death’ and were not questioned. We couldn’t get away with that now! It sounds like they don’t actually know the cause of death, but they are reluctant to admit it"

Again without a cause of death to point to murder a verdict of wilful murder was made.

I have to ask why did the coroners direct the jury to bring in verdicts of wilful murder in the last two cases when there is not one scrap of evidence to support this.

You nor anyone else can safely say that these torsos were the work of a serial killer, when you cant even prove they were actually murdered.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Busy Beaver]

So here we have somebody who actually knows how the torso victims were killed - that's about time!

Tell us all about it!

The Ripper cut and the torso man cut. It is normally said that Kelly was "hacked to pieces", so you may wish to avoid your distinction criteria in that respect.


Fisherman, The Ripper used a knife and "ripped" open and or mutilated his victims as shown by the rather nifty illustrations of the Catherine Eddowes murder, where as the Torso man cut of or amputated body pieces- which the Ripper did not do and nor did the Torso man mutilate. That's what I am trying to say. JTR is not the Torso man. I will stick by my gut instinct until a professional or new information proves me wrong.

[Fisherman]

So here we have somebody who actually knows how the torso victims were killed - that's about time!

Tell us all about it!

The Ripper cut and the torso man cut. It is normally said that Kelly was "hacked to pieces", so you may wish to avoid your distinction criteria in that respect.


Fisherman, The Ripper used a knife and "ripped" open and or mutilated his victims as shown by the rather nifty illustrations of the Catherine Eddowes murder, where as the Torso man cut of or amputated body pieces- which the Ripper did not do and nor did the Torso man mutilate. That's what I am trying to say. JTR is not the Torso man. I will stick by my gut instinct until a professional or new information proves me wrong.

Then what you tried to say is not what you said. You said that the Torso man and the Ripper killed in different manners, and I am not psychic enough to realize when people mean try to say one thing and say another.

The problem I have with things like this is that people have a propensity to say the Torso man killed differently, was affluent, had access to his own cart, was a planner, used a ruse when the Ripper didn't - and all of this is smoke and mirrors.

We don´t know. We just don't. All we know is that we can be reasonably certain that there was just the one killer, since the evidence points very strongly in that direction.

If your gut instinct tells you that they were two men and the first and only combo of two eviscerating serialists in history, then you should stick with that instinct if you feel so inclined. That's just fine. Its the many myths that are produced by those who believe in two killers that nag me, not the belief as such.

Sorry if I sound grumpy.

[Fisherman]

Although there were cuts to the abdomen in both cases, the abdomens were not opened.Why would Jack the Ripper have stopped short after only having cut the outer layer of the abdomen? Same goes for Alice Kenzie.

If so, we're looking for someone who was periodically evicted from his West London chop-shop in 1888, returning there in June 1889 to do for Elizabeth Jackson, moving to a chop-shop in the East End in time to commit the Pinchin Street murder a few months later.

Not so much a torso killer, as a yo-yo killer.

Again: We do not know where his "chop shop" was situated. We don't even know that there was one, its all presumption. Which is just about the worst way to go about things.

[Abby Normal]

hi fish
good post-totally agree.

however, I think you may not share my notion of the torsoripper ending his killings in 89 with McKenzie and pinchin?

hey fish
not sure if you saw above post. what say you?

[Fisherman]

Fish
Let me remind you one final time, you keep stating that there was a serial killer at large responsible for The WM and the murders of the female torsos found in the Thames. I keep reminding you that there has to be a definite cause of death established. It is not sufficient to keep saying I think. It is not sufficient for you to keep interpreting the medical evidence in a way that suits you theory, because there are plausible explanations for the torsos, the dismemberment's and why they were dismembered. Explanations you continually choose to ignore.

Irrespective of how the torsos were dismembered and why lets look at 4 of the torsos

May 1887 Body parts examined by Dr`s Bond and Hebbert. No cause of death established - Verdict -Found dead

Sept 1888- The Whitehall Torso- Body parts found on land- Body parts examined again by Dr`s Bond and Hebbert- Again no cause of death established- Verdict - Found Dead

June 1888 - Elizabeth Jackson body parts examined by Dr`s Bond and Hebbert, No specific cause of death again established by doctors
Verdict- Wilful Murder- How does thtat come about bad direction by the coroner or the belief that the verdict of wilful murder incorporated the original doctors opinion that her death has occurred as a result of a failed abortion operation.

Sept 1889- Pinchin St Torso Body part found on land and examined by Dr`s Bond and Hebbert. Part of Doctors evidence "Immediate cause of death was syncope, as shown by the condition of the heart and general bloodlessness of the tissue which would indicate haemorrhage as the cause of syncope"

Dr Biggs comments on the above
"I am also perplexed by their cause of death! ‘Syncope’ is just a word denoting fainting or collapse. In the olden days, words such as ‘exhaustion’, ‘shock’ or ‘syncope’ were used as a ‘cause of death’ and were not questioned. We couldn’t get away with that now! It sounds like they don’t actually know the cause of death, but they are reluctant to admit it"

Again without a cause of death to point to murder a verdict of wilful murder was made.

I have to ask why did the coroners direct the jury to bring in verdicts of wilful murder in the last two cases when there is not one scrap of evidence to support this.

You nor anyone else can safely say that these torsos were the work of a serial killer, when you cant even prove they were actually murdered.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

If you look closely you will see that I am not debating with you, Trevor. So you are wasting your time.

[Fisherman]

hey fish
not sure if you saw above post. what say you?

I say that I am not certain that it stopped there, Abby. But I concur that there seems to have been a tapering down of sorts by late -89.