Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Could Jack have killed some of the torso victims?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    Hebbert saw the same perp behind the deeds on account of what he identified as cutting performed by a very skilled cutter. It was the same type of cutting in each of the four cases he reported on. Either four separate killers decided to dismember these women and just happened to be very skilled with the knife and could disjoint neatly and flawlessly, or it was just the one killer. I can see where the evidence points.
    One killer the Torso Killer. Though a separate killer from Jack the Ripper. Neither of which were Lechmere.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
      I´m still wondering what makes Uncle Jack want to rule out some of the Torso murders as possible Ripper deeds, while he accept others...?
      Fish, you misunderstand me. Probably my wording is wrong. I mention the Pinchin and Whitehall cases (I actually had a brain freeze and forgot Jackson ) because they were more likely being within the same time frame as Jack, who I have always believed began his 'murderous glut' around the beginning of 1888 (maybe not now, hmmm) I'm starting to agree with you, having read your arguments within this very post. I've always been of the opinion that Jack and Torso were two different murderers, with the exception of Pinchin, which was in Whitechapel, therefore giving a direct link to the WM. But lately I've been reconsidering the torso victims and your argument for this is strengthening my reconsideration I'm certainly being sold on Pinchin and Jackson right now.... The fact that both sets of victims displayed abdominal mutilation and missing parts can't just be coincidence.
      Best regards,
      Adam


      "They assumed Kelly was the last... they assumed wrong" - Me

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by John Wheat View Post
        One killer the Torso Killer. Though a separate killer from Jack the Ripper. Neither of which were Lechmere.
        One out of three, John.

        You'll get there.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Uncle Jack View Post
          Fish, you misunderstand me. Probably my wording is wrong. I mention the Pinchin and Whitehall cases (I actually had a brain freeze and forgot Jackson ) because they were more likely being within the same time frame as Jack, who I have always believed began his 'murderous glut' around the beginning of 1888 (maybe not now, hmmm) I'm starting to agree with you, having read your arguments within this very post. I've always been of the opinion that Jack and Torso were two different murderers, with the exception of Pinchin, which was in Whitechapel, therefore giving a direct link to the WM. But lately I've been reconsidering the torso victims and your argument for this is strengthening my reconsideration I'm certainly being sold on Pinchin and Jackson right now.... The fact that both sets of victims displayed abdominal mutilation and missing parts can't just be coincidence.
          Maybe we should also add the Rainham case of 1887? It is a complete parallel to Jackson, more or less, the torso having been divided in the same three parts and the heart and lungs having gone missing. It will not get any more similar than that, I´d say, and if there are two torso cases that cannot be anything but linked, these are the ones.

          Thanks for the thumbs up, by the way, and for agreeing about the low likelihood of anything but a common killer. Just as you say, it is mainly about the abdominal mutilation and missing parts (not least the clear giveaway with the flaps taken from Chapmans, Kellys and Jacksons abdomens), but there are other markers too, like the missing rings from Chapmans and Jacksons hands, like the lack of signs of physical torture, like how the victims were bled after death, like the victimology suggesting a killer targeting prostitutes and not least like how it seems both killers primary aim was never to kill but to acquire dead bodies. The Ripper killed swiftly and then set about his cutting business and it would seem that was the exact thing the torso killer did too - it was established that his victims were cut up in direct connection to their deaths by means of looking at the muscle contraction of the body; if the cuts are inflicted in close proximity to death, the muscles will contract although the victim is clinically dead. This is an all-important thing, because the ordinary dismemberer, who cuts up a body for reasons of disposal facilitation, will take some serious time to work up the guts to get the cutting done. More often than not, they have to go out and buy themselves saws and knives to do the work, and then the job is finished in the bathtub a day or two after the victim died. Not so the Torso man - he seems to have had his fine-toothed saw and his very sharp knife laid out before he killed his victims, waiting for him to put them into use.

          The possibility of two killers is not there, considering these parts of the evidence.

          Now, you will risk being subjected to criticism from the guy who says that the Torso man was not a mutilator, the guy who claimed that he was not an eviscerator and the guy who says that the torso victims were probably not even murdered, but I dare say you will be fine. We will all be, as long as we stick with the evidence.
          Last edited by Fisherman; 01-08-2019, 04:17 AM.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Kattrup View Post
            As you said, perhaps some persons - plural and maybe not connected. Since we don’t know how the women died, it’s an assumption that they were all murdered, and yet another assumption that they were all murdered by the same man.

            E.g. Elizabeth Jackson, Debra Arif has posted sources showing EJ talked about getting rid of her foetus. So perhaps her death was an abortion gone wrong and her dismemberment an attempt to hide that crime. Meaning she was not killed by a “torso killer”.
            Similarly for the other women, we don’t know how they died so it’s possible their deaths are not related.

            In fairness Hebbert, who examined all of them, and the police believed they were murdered by the same man.
            As I said to Fish it is wrong to assume that these torsos were the results of a serial killer when there are other equally plausible explanations to consider.

            Initial verdicts of found dead were brought in which were totally correct because no cause of deaths were established. Then the same doctors who were involved in those verdicts were involved in the remainder, and still there was no specific causes of death established yet verdicts of wilful murder brought in, why did that happen?

            So given that why are researchers so adamant that they were all the work of a lone serial killer, when there is no evidence to back it up, its ridiculous.

            We simply do not know and will never know now. It is quite possible that some may have died as a result of a homicide, or died as a result of back street operations, or as a result of a domestic incident. You cannot even rule out the disposal of body parts by medical students, and to that end why is is that no skulls were ever found, was it because the skulls which contained the brain would be highly sough after for medical student teachings.

            As I have said before these torsos should be referred to as "The Thames Toros Mysteries" not The Thames Torso Murders" When are people going to realize that the dismemberment of bodies and the subsequent disposal of parts does not always equate to murder

            If anyone can show me anything different then I will be gladly to look at it Fish and others seem to want to connect them to one person by the way the bodies were dismembered, that is their own personal interpretations they are not medical experts. The opinions given by the Victorian doctors are simply opinions with nothing to support what they say.

            Again may I remind you and others what Dr Biggs a modern day forensic pathologist has said in relation to these opinions, and that is that in 1888 people believed all that doctors said without question, It seem 130 years later that is still the case in some quarters.

            If you havent read it yet there is a lengthy chapter in my book in which Dr Biggs gives his assessment of the Victorian doctors opinions and conclusions.

            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Uncle Jack View Post
              I'm certainly being sold on Pinchin and Jackson right now.... The fact that both sets of victims displayed abdominal mutilation and missing parts can't just be coincidence.
              The abdominal mutilation in the Pinchin Street case was rather superficial, in that the abdominal wall had not been cut through. Also, the missing parts were the head and legs, as opposed to internal organs; the sort of parts that tend to be missing in dismemberment cases, in fact, not evisceration murders. Personally, I doubt that this was the work of "the" Torso killer, let alone Jack the Ripper.

              Elizabeth Jackson had been cut into several pieces which were found all over the place. Most of the body parts, including her missing internal organs, were recovered, apart from her head, the contents of her chest and intestines. Her uterus had been removed, but this was found dumped with a portion of her torso. This has all the hallmarks of someone scattering evidence to the four winds, not an evisceration murderer per se.
              Kind regards, Sam Flynn

              "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                One out of three, John.

                You'll get there.
                No three out of three Christer.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by John Wheat View Post
                  No three out of three Christer.
                  Ah - you changed your mind; good!

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Sam Flynn: The abdominal mutilation in the Pinchin Street case was rather superficial, in that the abdominal wall had not been cut through. Also, the missing parts were the head and legs, as opposed to internal organs; the sort of parts that tend to be missing in dismemberment cases, in fact, not evisceration murders. Personally, I doubt that this was the work of "the" Torso killer, let alone Jack the Ripper.

                    So there COULD probably have been eviscerations, but there were not. What can we conclude from that, Gareth?

                    That it was not Jack the Ripper, who simply MUST have been about eviscerations only?

                    Or that the murders were not necessarily about eviscerations at all?

                    Look at Kelly! Was her thigh eviscerated? Her breasts? Her face? Isn't it true that it is evident that not only eviscerations were on the killers agenda but instead mutilations as such seems to have played a vital role?
                    And if it did then why would we assume that this killer absolutely must eviscerate, given the chance?
                    The Torso killer didn´t. He eviscerated at times, while abstaining from it at other tines, as demonstrated by the Pinchin Street torso.
                    Why must the Ripper be different? So that we can tell them apart?

                    Elizabeth Jackson had been cut into several pieces which were found all over the place. Most of the body parts, including her missing internal organs, were recovered, apart from her head, the contents of her chest and intestines. Her uterus had been removed, but this was found dumped with a portion of her torso. This has all the hallmarks of someone scattering evidence to the four winds, not an evisceration murderer per se.

                    Kellys uterus had been removed and discarded too, EXACTLY like Jacksons was. And you forget that Jacksons heart and lungs were also removed, as per Hebbert. Why did this killer do that? Because she was pregnant? To facilitate dismemberment?
                    The torso killer was an aggressive mutilator and eviscerator. That is what the facts and evidence tell us. It puts him on par with that other serial killer who roamed the same city at the same time, by the way - what's his name again...?
                    Your take on things leaks worse than the Titanic, I'm afraid.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by APerno View Post
                      To my mind the problem with "Jack' being the torso killer doesn't lay in the style or extent of the mutilations but in the locations. If both sets of murders were by the same hand why then did 'Jack' risk open assaults on the street when he had an (obviously) secure place to practice his 'trade'? And if he was cunning enough to lure women to his 'chop-shop' (to steal a phrase) why not apply that skill and avoid all high risk kills?

                      IMO I can put the torso killer in Mary Kelly's room quicker than I can the killer of Martha, Polly, Anne, and Kate. These attacks show no cunning or planning, only the behavior of a high risk marauder.

                      Also there is the absence of personality in the Whitechapel fiend; the torso killer had a very dark sense of humor (the Whitehall and Pinchin Street dumps speak to that) while 'Jack' seems to have no personality he wished to share with the public.

                      Which obviously takes me to the opinion that none of the 'Ripper letters' came from the Whitchapel fiend.

                      I would though consider that the 'From Hell' letter, kidney and all, may have come from same guy (the torso killer) who dumped a body in the New Scotland Yard building; the two behaviors complement each other.

                      The torso killer seems to have a problem with authority; the Whitechapel fellow only seems to seek anonymity.
                      I don't know AP
                      either one of dear boss or from hell letters could be authentic-and I definitely see dark humor in both. the gsg is almost certainly from the killer so theres that too.

                      ive always maintained that the ripper murders could be when his chop shop was not available and had to kill on the streets. then theres the thrill factor too.

                      I would though consider that the 'From Hell' letter, kidney and all, may have come from same guy (the torso killer) who dumped a body in the New Scotland Yard building; the two behaviors complement each other.

                      interesting. which torso victim do you think its from?
                      "Is all that we see or seem
                      but a dream within a dream?"

                      -Edgar Allan Poe


                      "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                      quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                      -Frederick G. Abberline

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Kattrup View Post
                        As you said, perhaps some persons - plural and maybe not connected. Since we don’t know how the women died, it’s an assumption that they were all murdered, and yet another assumption that they were all murdered by the same man.

                        E.g. Elizabeth Jackson, Debra Arif has posted sources showing EJ talked about getting rid of her foetus. So perhaps her death was an abortion gone wrong and her dismemberment an attempt to hide that crime. Meaning she was not killed by a “torso killer”.
                        Similarly for the other women, we don’t know how they died so it’s possible their deaths are not related.

                        In fairness Hebbert, who examined all of them, and the police believed they were murdered by the same man.
                        even if thats true about EJ, it dosnt mean the dr couldnt be the torso killer. of course he could. maybe that was part of his MO. unfortunates coming to him for help and bam.
                        "Is all that we see or seem
                        but a dream within a dream?"

                        -Edgar Allan Poe


                        "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                        quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                        -Frederick G. Abberline

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Uncle Jack View Post
                          Fish, you misunderstand me. Probably my wording is wrong. I mention the Pinchin and Whitehall cases (I actually had a brain freeze and forgot Jackson ) because they were more likely being within the same time frame as Jack, who I have always believed began his 'murderous glut' around the beginning of 1888 (maybe not now, hmmm) I'm starting to agree with you, having read your arguments within this very post. I've always been of the opinion that Jack and Torso were two different murderers, with the exception of Pinchin, which was in Whitechapel, therefore giving a direct link to the WM. But lately I've been reconsidering the torso victims and your argument for this is strengthening my reconsideration I'm certainly being sold on Pinchin and Jackson right now.... The fact that both sets of victims displayed abdominal mutilation and missing parts can't just be coincidence.
                          exactly uncle
                          post mortem serial killers are very rare to begin with and all the torso victims had mutilations above and beyond what was needed for dismemberment. all had there abdomen targeted and some had internal organs taken out.
                          both series probably ended the same time with pinchim and McKenzie. another coincidence?

                          too many coincidences for me and I just dont see two of these creatures lurking about the time and place targeting the same type of victim.
                          Last edited by Abby Normal; 01-08-2019, 06:30 AM.
                          "Is all that we see or seem
                          but a dream within a dream?"

                          -Edgar Allan Poe


                          "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                          quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                          -Frederick G. Abberline

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                            Ah - you changed your mind; good!
                            No need as I am right.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by APerno View Post
                              I would though consider that the 'From Hell' letter, kidney and all, may have come from same guy (the torso killer) who dumped a body in the New Scotland Yard building; the two behaviors complement each other.
                              Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                              interesting. which torso victim do you think its from?
                              Not the Whitehall torso, as the kidneys were still in situ.

                              In fact, I believe the kidneys of all the 87-89 torso victims were recovered, so there would need to be another unknown victim for this to be the case.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                I don't know AP

                                Call me Anthony

                                either one of dear boss or from hell letters could be authentic-and I definitely see dark humor in both. the gsg is almost certainly from the killer so theres that too.

                                I am a Harry Dam advocate when it comes to the Dear Boss letter and Saucy Jacky postcard. When you look at Dam's history (both back in the States and when with The Star) he is such an obvious candidate I find it difficult to understand why CID didn't move against him. They so recognized the Americanisms in the phrasing of both correspondences that they started interviewing cowboys and Indians (literally) but still (best as we know) they never bothered Dam about it. (And everyone knew he had caused the "leather apron" mess.)

                                I stated earlier that I believe PC Long made-up the importance of the GSG to distract from the fact that he didn't make his 2:20 round. By claiming that both the apron and graffito were not there at 2:20 makes him sound less incompetent, i.e. makes it sound like he had done a complete investigation at 2:20. The ruse worked, the City Police became obsessed with the writing and no one seems, at the time, to question why the murderer would have hung around the crime scene for (a minimum of) 35 minutes after Kate was found.

                                This of course does not mean Jack couldn't have written the message (sometime before 2:20), but we can't depend on PC Long for a time frame regarding either the apron or the griffito and actually it's only PC Long's 'time-frame claim' that makes the writing a possible clue anyway.

                                I believe people, then and now, want this base, brutish man, the Whitechapel killer to have an infamous personality that the media can embrace, and thus quickly accept the various writings as his. It adds color to what is very likely a boring, debased, smelly man. In the same vein that makes people want Jack be a toffer, with cape and conspiracy, the letters make him a more interesting villain.

                                ive always maintained that the ripper murders could be when his chop shop was not available and had to kill on the streets. then theres the thrill factor too.

                                Not unreasonable logic. A question for the profilers: is it more common for there to be multiple serial killers operating at the same time, or is it more common for a serial killer to use multiple MOs? I wonder which way the numbers fall?

                                interesting. which torso victim do you think its from?

                                Someone addressed that below. I was unaware that we knew the torso victims were intact (at least in regards to the kidneys), the poster says they were. I can't speak to his statement now, I need to read more.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X