Could Jack have killed some of the torso victims?

[APerno]

This may be old news to you all (I am new here) but let me make sure; are you familiar with this particular crank letter, I have never seen it before? I pulled it from a Minnesota newspaper but it is obviously a clip from a London newspaper, but I don't know which one.

I think we can conclude that the writer was familiar with the Whitehall event and the Dear Boss letter.

It was postmarked Portsmouth, November 28th. If you have not see it you might find the threat interesting. It is as though he is promising us there will be a Pinchin Street torso.

I have no clue what "same handwriting" the newspaper is referring to, maybe the 'From Hell' letter or maybe 'Dear Boss'

I find it interesting that he brags about having "plenty of time to do it properly" -- that is something we today often note about the Mary Kelly murder.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby, sorry for the late reply.

"Vertical gashes" were only "above and beyond" dismemberment, if you think dismemberment is always six pieces: head, two arms, two legs, trunk.

Since the torso cases were dismembered in another manner, it is not clear that the cuts to open the abdomen were unnecessary for dismemberment.

As Sam Flynn has pointed out, when dividing the trunk in several pieces, it might be a good idea to somehow deal with the internal organs etc. which might otherwise flop around, drop out, make a mess, be a nuissance or whatever. When one considers that three of the four torso cases were divided directly above the pelvis, is it not fairly obvious that the dismemberer would first remove the intestines?

But what about the fourth case - Pinchin? Well, luckily we have available the thoughts of an experienced, senior investigative officer, who personally inspected the torso: James Monro. He stated: "The whole of the wound looks as if the murderer had intended to make a cut preparatory to removing the intestines in the process of dismemberment, & had then changed his mind."

The point is not that Monro must have been correct. It's possible he was mistaken.
The point is that he considered it completely unsurprising that a dismemberer would first remove the intestines in the process of dismemberment. Meaning that all the abdominal gashes that you consider "above and beyond" dismemberment are not necessarily so.

The theory that the Torso Killer was a post-mortem mutilator eviscerator who just for jollies did more than dismember is just that - a theory. It is not proven, and there seems to be very little to support it. It is entirely possible that whoever disposed of the Torso victims did so with no other thought or impulse than to dispose of them, and that the damage done to the bodies was merely a part of cutting them into convenient pieces.

Hi kattrup
Thanks! Yes iaccepted the possibility of that to sams response of the same point you make.

I dont neccessarily agree, especially when you consider victims having heart and lungs removed, face removed, etc.However, i see the point.

And im glad you also bring up disposal, because to me it looks like it was much more than just trying to dispose. Parts in the river, on the bank, in shelley estate yard, basement of the new scotland yard, in pinchin street. No, to me there is special significance to the killer in the way he dumped, which is why i also think there was more to the way he cut up. But thats just me.

[Kattrup]

Have I ever said that opening the abdomen is unnecessary if you want to take out inner organs? I hope not - it would leave a job only a magician could handle.

Hi Fisherman, sorry for the late reply.

No, Abby Normal and I were discussing the wounds "above and beyond" dismemberment.

Like you, Abby Normal seemed to consider opening the abdomen unncessary for dismemberment. It is not - it is perhaps only unncessary for what you'd consider a normal dismemberment in six pieces, where the trunk stays intact.

Since the Torso Killer did things differently, it might very well have been necessary for him to open the abdomen.

See my reply above to Abby Normal.

What I have said is that there is no need to take away the abdominal wall to get at the organs - all of them. A useful exercise is to study the Ed Gingrich case if you want to see what I am getting at.

Taking the abdominal wall away from a victim is always going to be above and beyond the necessary. Taking the heart and lungs out from a torso section is much the same - it is above and beyond what is requiered. Taking the uterus out - same thing. Taking a foetus out from the uterus - same thing. Cutting a face away from a victim - same thing.

These are all matters that - instead of facilitating the job - makes things harder and more timeconsuming.

I disagree, since the divisions of the bodies might have necessitated removing various organs, so they might in fact have facilitated the job.

[Kattrup]

vertical gashes to the abdomen for starters

Hi Abby, sorry for the late reply.

"Vertical gashes" were only "above and beyond" dismemberment, if you think dismemberment is always six pieces: head, two arms, two legs, trunk.

Since the torso cases were dismembered in another manner, it is not clear that the cuts to open the abdomen were unnecessary for dismemberment.

As Sam Flynn has pointed out, when dividing the trunk in several pieces, it might be a good idea to somehow deal with the internal organs etc. which might otherwise flop around, drop out, make a mess, be a nuissance or whatever. When one considers that three of the four torso cases were divided directly above the pelvis, is it not fairly obvious that the dismemberer would first remove the intestines?

But what about the fourth case - Pinchin? Well, luckily we have available the thoughts of an experienced, senior investigative officer, who personally inspected the torso: James Monro. He stated: "The whole of the wound looks as if the murderer had intended to make a cut preparatory to removing the intestines in the process of dismemberment, & had then changed his mind."

The point is not that Monro must have been correct. It's possible he was mistaken.
The point is that he considered it completely unsurprising that a dismemberer would first remove the intestines in the process of dismemberment. Meaning that all the abdominal gashes that you consider "above and beyond" dismemberment are not necessarily so.

The theory that the Torso Killer was a post-mortem mutilator eviscerator who just for jollies did more than dismember is just that - a theory. It is not proven, and there seems to be very little to support it. It is entirely possible that whoever disposed of the Torso victims did so with no other thought or impulse than to dispose of them, and that the damage done to the bodies was merely a part of cutting them into convenient pieces.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby. Considering that 3 of the 4 so-called 'torso' victims were unidentified, isn't it playing it a bit fast-and-loose to suggest the 'victimology' was the same as in the 'Ripper' murders? We don't in fact know that, do we? One of the victim's hands were described as rather soft and gentile; I doubt that would have been the case with Tabram, Nichols, Eddowes, etc. All the best.

HI RJ
no not for sure. But the one torso victim that was IDed, Elizabeth Jackson was an unfortunate, and I would imagine the others were also, which might also be another indicator of them being prostitutes--not IDed--- because no one cared enough about them, sadly.

[rjpalmer]

Hi Abby. Considering that 3 of the 4 so-called 'torso' victims were unidentified, isn't it playing it a bit fast-and-loose to suggest the 'victimology' was the same as in the 'Ripper' murders? We don't in fact know that, do we? One of the victim's hands were described as rather soft and gentile; I doubt that would have been the case with Tabram, Nichols, Eddowes, etc. All the best.

[Abby Normal]

This observation is necessarily subjective, but, to me, the ‘essence’ of the Ripper is that he is committing his crimes in public. We can argue whether this was by necessity, I suppose, but I personally don’t think it can be an accident. Anyone this extreme is doing what he sets out to do. It has some meaning for him, in the same way it had meaning for David Berkowitz to shoot couples in public, or the Beltway Snipers to take their ‘campaign’ to the streets of DC, or the various nutters who slice and stab in public, like, for example, Tom Cutbush.

The torso victims, by stark contrast, appear to be the work of some person or persons who are making painstaking efforts to hide their tracks: cutting up and scattering the remains, dumping the body in the river, hiding it at a building site, etc. Except possibly in the case of Pinchin Street (and the body may have been prematurely abandoned for reasons unknown) they don’t want to be found out, and, if possible, they don’t even want the body to be found out. This suggests these are standard ‘domestic’ killings, where there was some traceable link between the victim and whoever dumped her. There also seems to be a clear if somewhat mysterious psychological divide between those who chose to kill in ‘public’ and those who chose to kill in ‘private,’ and we see relatively few examples of those who cross this divide. So, no, Fish, I don’t think the ‘new school of thought’ is winning the day and replacing ‘old thinking.’ I think Scotland Yard had it right 130 years ago when they dismissed the torso victims as attributable to some other hand than the street slasher of East London.

You can argue the details of various incisions until the cows come home, but what you are really up against is the subjective ‘essence’ of two very different psychologies.

hi rj
good post and you very well may be right. but to me and others we see a very "public" dumping and displaying of victims in both series.

It dosnt really seem the torsoman was trying to hide the body parts at all(Ill concede possibly hiding the victims ID) but something deeper psychologically going on here--I havnt quite put my finger on it yet-Possibly to shock the public, polluting London with the victims, marking his territory, a big FU to the police-something along those lines.


and the re the "various incisions"-folks can focus on the minute differences until the cows come home but its not going to change the fact that there are many similarities--including others that span the entire two series: like same victimology, same time and place and most important, to me anyway-the same (extremely rare) post mortem mutilation and removal of body parts.

[rjpalmer]

This observation is necessarily subjective, but, to me, the ‘essence’ of the Ripper is that he is committing his crimes in public. We can argue whether this was by necessity, I suppose, but I personally don’t think it can be an accident. Anyone this extreme is doing what he sets out to do. It has some meaning for him, in the same way it had meaning for David Berkowitz to shoot couples in public, or the Beltway Snipers to take their ‘campaign’ to the streets of DC, or the various nutters who slice and stab in public, like, for example, Tom Cutbush.

The torso victims, by stark contrast, appear to be the work of some person or persons who are making painstaking efforts to hide their tracks: cutting up and scattering the remains, dumping the body in the river, hiding it at a building site, etc. Except possibly in the case of Pinchin Street (and the body may have been prematurely abandoned for reasons unknown) they don’t want to be found out, and, if possible, they don’t even want the body to be found out. This suggests these are standard ‘domestic’ killings, where there was some traceable link between the victim and whoever dumped her. There also seems to be a clear if somewhat mysterious psychological divide between those who chose to kill in ‘public’ and those who chose to kill in ‘private,’ and we see relatively few examples of those who cross this divide. So, no, Fish, I don’t think the ‘new school of thought’ is winning the day and replacing ‘old thinking.’ I think Scotland Yard had it right 130 years ago when they dismissed the torso victims as attributable to some other hand than the street slasher of East London.

You can argue the details of various incisions until the cows come home, but what you are really up against is the subjective ‘essence’ of two very different psychologies.

[rjpalmer]

They all fit into a pattern, but it is not until you know the pattern that you can see it.

No offense, Fish, but I used to have a roommate in college that used to make similar observations about the cracks in the ceiling after inhaling one or two left-handed cigarettes.

[Abby Normal]

If it helps, I'm at my most vulnerable around 11:30 pm UK time, after two or three whiskies

Me too!

[Sam Flynn]

dam! thought I had ye!

If it helps, I'm at my most vulnerable around 11:30 pm UK time, after two or three whiskies

[Abby Normal]

On the contrary, I think that there are eminently practical reasons for a dismemberer to remove internal organs. If you're going to quarter a body, then you have a choice of leaving the mushy wobbly bits - including vast lengths of intestines - to hang loose, or taking them out to facilitate carrying and disposing of the more solid casing that normally keeps them in. If you're going to remove a foetus to avoid cutting through it, then it's inevitable that the womb comes out with it. If you want a thorax to coast less visibly down a river, then it makes sense to remove nature's flotation chambers, aka the lungs; likewise, if you want an abdomen to coast less visibly downriver, you remove the air-filled stomach and intestines. If you want to store your butchered victim for a while before disposal, it makes sense to take out the delicate viscera, to minimise rot and the tell-tale stench that accompanies it. And so on.

dam! thought I had ye!

OK thanks for the response, while I don't necessarily agree in this case, I can admit its a possibility!

[Sam Flynn]

Thanks Sam
I think we agree then-that it wasnt neccessary to remove the internal contents to dismember a body and that the torsoman had an interest in doing so that wasnt for practical reasons-just like the ripper then???

On the contrary, I think that there are eminently practical reasons for a dismemberer to remove internal organs. If you're going to quarter a body, then you have a choice of leaving the mushy wobbly bits - including vast lengths of intestines - to hang loose, or taking them out to facilitate carrying and disposing of the more solid casing that normally keeps them in. If you're going to remove a foetus to avoid cutting through it, then it's inevitable that the womb comes out with it. If you want a thorax to coast less visibly down a river, then it makes sense to remove nature's flotation chambers, aka the lungs; likewise, if you want an abdomen to coast less visibly downriver, you remove the air-filled stomach and intestines. If you want to store your butchered victim for a while before disposal, it makes sense to take out the delicate viscera, to minimise rot and the tell-tale stench that accompanies it. And so on.

[Abby Normal]

That only really applies to Pinchin, though; a seemingly pointless vertical gash - singular - which didn't even penetrate the abdominal wall. Where others had sustained vertical gashes, they appeared in conjunction with other vertical/horizontal cuts through the abdominal cavity and/or thorax, and the removal of abdominal and/or thoracic organs (and one baby). These cuts might have been above and beyond what was required for dismemberment, but they were somewhat necessary for the purposes of dividing the bodies or opening a bodily cavity to remove the contents.

Thanks Sam
I think we agree then-that it wasnt neccessary to remove the internal contents to dismember a body and that the torsoman had an interest in doing so that wasnt for practical reasons-just like the ripper then???

[Sam Flynn]

vertical gashes to the abdomen for starters

That only really applies to Pinchin, though; a seemingly pointless vertical gash - singular - which didn't even penetrate the abdominal wall. Where others had sustained vertical gashes, they appeared in conjunction with other vertical/horizontal cuts through the abdominal cavity and/or thorax, and the removal of abdominal and/or thoracic organs (and one baby). These cuts might have been above and beyond what was required for dismemberment, but they were somewhat necessary for the purposes of dividing the bodies or opening a bodily cavity to remove the contents.