Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Could Jack have killed some of the torso victims?

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

  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
    So why didn't these things feature in each and every case? Granted, that doesn't apply to the removal of the foetus, as that was only relevant in one instance, but you'd think that a practised single perpetrator would show a bit more consistency in his technique throughout all the torso cases.

    Indeed, if that perpetrator were also the Ripper, you'd think that thorough evisceration would happen each and every time. Yet, in the ONLY case to happen anywhere near the Ripper's territory, not only was there no evisceration, but the abdomen was not even opened! Furthermore, the dismemberment only extended as far as the head and the legs, so it's even doubtful that the Pinchin Street case can be pinned on "the" Torsoman, let alone Jack the Ripper.
    You know, Gareth, you are asking the wrong question over and over again: "Why was he not consistent?"

    I truly believe he WAS consistent, and that all of the deeds were different expressions of the same thing. They all fit into a pattern, but it is not until you know the pattern that you can see it.

    What you are aiming at is easy to see: If the deeds differed in some way, let´s try and peddle the idea that they did not have the same originator. And let´s try hardest when it comes to the Pinchin Street deed, since that is the one deed that not only ties the series together through the geograpy, but worse still links things to Charles Lechmere. So if one case can be forgotten about, it should preferably be this one!

    Charles Hebbert was just as aware of the differences between the cases as you and I are. He knew infinitely more about them than we do. And he was just as aware as you and I are that a wide geographical distribution speaks against a common originator, just as differing things done to the victims will do so.
    All of this he knew, but he was adamant that it was the same originator just the same. And why? Because he had the victims on his slab and was able to see and feel every cut in those bodies and that left him in no doubt that the killer was one and the same in each of the cases.
    And it was not as if the cutting work was of the expected quality - this was cutting that displayed a lot of skill. We may recall the initial reactions of Dr Galloway on seeing the meticulous and exact cutting done on the Rainham torso. Galloway was totally blown away by it, and Hebbert tells us that the other three bodies were more of the exact same.

    Therefore, as I said, you are asking the wrong question. The correct question is "what can we learn from how this killer expressed himself in more than one way? What is this about, if it is not about dismemberment only? What was he trying to achieve by what he did? What urge did he satisfy, and how could different results be equally viable to reach that satisfaction?"

    The answer is hinted at by how he left the head on the Pinchin Street torso, how he meticulously carved the face away IN ONE PIECE from the 1873 victim, how he sawed that victims arms and legs off at the hips and shoulders, how he took away the abdominal walls from some victims (Kelly and Chapman included) and how he carefully placed a length of Eddowes colon beside her body, how he made a pillow of Kellys own organs and flesh for her, etcetera, etcetera.

    Asking why not all victims had such a pillow made for them is asking the wrong question. Asking why Kelly had one made for her is asking the right question. It is not and was never about the lacking consistency. It is and was always about how what he was producing, and how it could be expressed by a multitude of elements, as proven by the victims.

    I´ll leave you to ponder all of this, and - of course - to ask me to show you how I can prove that Jackson had a long vertical gash cut into her trunk from sternum to pelvis, instead of - as you claim - only having a large hole made in her abdomen. It´s in the reports, all of it and very clear to see. If, that is, you are interested enough to open your eyes to material that does not concur with your own take. Such things can hurt, I know.
    Last edited by Fisherman; 01-10-2019, 04:47 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    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.
    So why didn't these things feature in each and every case? Granted, that doesn't apply to the removal of the foetus, as that was only relevant in one instance, but you'd think that a practised single perpetrator would show a bit more consistency in his technique throughout all the torso cases.

    Indeed, if that perpetrator were also the Ripper, you'd think that thorough evisceration would happen each and every time. Yet, in the ONLY case to happen anywhere near the Ripper's territory, not only was there no evisceration, but the abdomen was not even opened! Furthermore, the dismemberment only extended as far as the head and the legs, so it's even doubtful that the Pinchin Street case can be pinned on "the" Torsoman, let alone Jack the Ripper.

    Leave a comment:


  • Harry D
    replied
    Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post
    Not sure if this is the same case Harry but regarding Torso murders possibly interesting
    John Gill was 7 years old when he was killed but he's often said to be 8 because his birthday was right around the corner. He was young enough that he was probably still excited about the prospect. The Ripper stalked London in the fall of 1888, and it was a combination of timing and savagery that linked Gill's murder to the Ripper killings, at least in the court of popular opinion.

    According to PhD student Lauren Padgett (via Leeds Trinity University), Gill went missing on December 27 in Bradford, north of London. He was found in a stable near his home on December 29, and at a glance, he was neatly dressed in his clean clothes. Those clothes hid the grisly truth: his arms, legs, and ears had been sliced off, his internal organs had been removed and placed on top of him, and his shoes were left inside his chest.

    Police consulted with a chemist who had a proven track record, and his methods were impressive even today. He examined the body and the entire area at a microscopic level, and found some clues. The boy had eaten a currant-filled bun not long before he died — perhaps a bribe? The body was wrapped in a newspaper from Liverpool, but the name and address on it was a dead end. They eventually did arrest a local man in connection with the killing, but evidence was circumstantial and no one was ever prosecuted.

    Read More: https://www.grunge.com/81940/unsolve..._campaign=clip
    Thanks, Darryl. I had a feeling APerno might have been mixing things up with the John Gill murder, although Gill's remains were found together, and not distributed in multiple locations.

    Seeing as Bradford is in the North of England, some 200 miles away from London, I doubt it is tied to the Thames Torsos. I found it kind of amusing how the police considered it was a bunch of drunk kids whipped up by the Ripper frenzy. I wonder what they were basing that on? I'm not entirely convinced that the milkman was innocent.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
    Agreed, on which point I'd make two observations. First, that the abdomen was not opened in all cases - Pinchin, for example. Second, that eviscerating a torso can aid disposal; Dennis Nilsen, for one, removed the entrails of some victims to make their bodies easier to chop up, carry and/or burn, and I daresay there are other killers who did so for similar practical reasons. In the case of the Torso victims whose bodies were dumped in water, the removal of thoracic and/or abdominal organs might also have helped reduce buoyancy, allowing the body parts to float away further without being easily seen on the surface.

    Not that evisceration was a constant feature in the Torso cases, either. The relevant question might not be "Why did the victims have wounds above and beyond dismemberment?" as "Why did the perpetrator(s) stop short of total evisceration, nor eviscerate at all on occasion?". We saw in Miller's Court what JTR could do indoors (albeit with limited time), so why weren't all the Torso victims thoroughly emptied in each and every case?
    We have come a long way when we are suggesting that a uterus can have been taken out for reasons of improving buoyancy...

    When it comes to what was done to the torso victims, the inference is that the killer had time to do what he wanted to them. The only reasonable answer to the questions "why did the killer do this?" and "why didn´t the killer do that?" must therefore be "because he chose to". And that nullifies the idea that he would always cut off any protruding limb, given the chance, that he would always eviscerate, given the chance, that he would always take the arms of a body, given the chance, etc., etc.

    It is a very useful lesson in understanding the killer and his mindset, once we allow that truth to sink in. He was not about dismembering OR ripping. He had a broader agenda.
    Last edited by Fisherman; 01-10-2019, 02:50 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Kattrup View Post
    Perhaps it’s difficult to answer because you’ve not stated what you consider wounds “above and beyond” what was needed for dismemberment.

    I suspect that you, like Fisherman I seem to recall, consider opening the abdomen unnecessary?

    Which is untrue. So perhaps there in fact were very few wounds “above and beyond”?
    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.

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post
    Gill went missing on December 27 in Bradford, north of London.
    North of London is putting it mildly. Bradford is 200 miles north of London

    Leave a comment:


  • Darryl Kenyon
    replied
    Not sure if this is the same case Harry but regarding Torso murders possibly interesting
    John Gill was 7 years old when he was killed but he's often said to be 8 because his birthday was right around the corner. He was young enough that he was probably still excited about the prospect. The Ripper stalked London in the fall of 1888, and it was a combination of timing and savagery that linked Gill's murder to the Ripper killings, at least in the court of popular opinion.

    According to PhD student Lauren Padgett (via Leeds Trinity University), Gill went missing on December 27 in Bradford, north of London. He was found in a stable near his home on December 29, and at a glance, he was neatly dressed in his clean clothes. Those clothes hid the grisly truth: his arms, legs, and ears had been sliced off, his internal organs had been removed and placed on top of him, and his shoes were left inside his chest.

    Police consulted with a chemist who had a proven track record, and his methods were impressive even today. He examined the body and the entire area at a microscopic level, and found some clues. The boy had eaten a currant-filled bun not long before he died — perhaps a bribe? The body was wrapped in a newspaper from Liverpool, but the name and address on it was a dead end. They eventually did arrest a local man in connection with the killing, but evidence was circumstantial and no one was ever prosecuted.

    Read More: https://www.grunge.com/81940/unsolve..._campaign=clip

    Leave a comment:


  • Harry D
    replied
    Originally posted by APerno View Post
    And also, do you subscribe that the Torso Killer was responsible for the boy that was found? That torso had been dropped (I believe) in a play ground and then several parts of the boy were found scattered through the neighborhood like the fiend wanted to play some sort of perverse scavenger hunt game. (Sorry but off the top of my head I am vague on this crime's details.)
    Does have anyone have any info on this? I haven't heard of this case before.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by Kattrup View Post
    I suspect that you, like Fisherman I seem to recall, consider opening the abdomen unnecessary?

    Which is untrue.
    Agreed, on which point I'd make two observations. First, that the abdomen was not opened in all cases - Pinchin, for example. Second, that eviscerating a torso can aid disposal; Dennis Nilsen, for one, removed the entrails of some victims to make their bodies easier to chop up, carry and/or burn, and I daresay there are other killers who did so for similar practical reasons. In the case of the Torso victims whose bodies were dumped in water, the removal of thoracic and/or abdominal organs might also have helped reduce buoyancy, allowing the body parts to float away further without being easily seen on the surface.

    Not that evisceration was a constant feature in the Torso cases, either. The relevant question might not be "Why did the victims have wounds above and beyond dismemberment?" as "Why did the perpetrator(s) stop short of total evisceration, nor eviscerate at all on occasion?". We saw in Miller's Court what JTR could do indoors (albeit with limited time), so why weren't all the Torso victims thoroughly emptied in each and every case?

    Leave a comment:


  • Kattrup
    replied
    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
    Ive asked this about a million times and no one has yet to answer: why did the torso victims all have wounds above and beyond what was needed just for dismemberment?
    Perhaps it’s difficult to answer because you’ve not stated what you consider wounds “above and beyond” what was needed for dismemberment.

    I suspect that you, like Fisherman I seem to recall, consider opening the abdomen unnecessary?

    Which is untrue. So perhaps there in fact were very few wounds “above and beyond”?

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Originally posted by jerryd View Post
    Hi JR,

    Eight men that work there testified it was NOT there until that weekend. The surveyor took measurements, with a light, in the very spot the torso was found and stated it was NOT there when he surveyed. Frederick Wildbore was last in that vault 8 days before the discovery according to his testimony. He saw the parcel 2 times the day before he finally told Mr. Brown about it. Once with his mate, Richard Lawrence, again with a match struck, and they stated they were very close to it. It was the third time that Wildbore reported it to Mr. Brown [the next day] and it was later dragged out and identified as the torso of a woman.


    I think we need to keep in mind also, this discovery was predicted in similar fashion to the Pinchin Torso, to a newspaper, days before the discovery.
    Hi jerry
    Thanks for this and the previous post. It should be rather obvious(it is to me any way) that not only would it have been extremely difficult, time consuming and risky to dump it there, but that something is obviously going on with these torsos other than your garden variety dismemberment and disposal.

    Leave a comment:


  • jerryd
    replied
    Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
    Hardly guaranteed to be found. If it made anyone look foolish, it was the workmen who didn't find it for quite some time, perhaps two months.

    Hi JR,

    Eight men that work there testified it was NOT there until that weekend. The surveyor took measurements, with a light, in the very spot the torso was found and stated it was NOT there when he surveyed. Frederick Wildbore was last in that vault 8 days before the discovery according to his testimony. He saw the parcel 2 times the day before he finally told Mr. Brown about it. Once with his mate, Richard Lawrence, again with a match struck, and they stated they were very close to it. It was the third time that Wildbore reported it to Mr. Brown [the next day] and it was later dragged out and identified as the torso of a woman.


    I think we need to keep in mind also, this discovery was predicted in similar fashion to the Pinchin Torso, to a newspaper, days before the discovery.

    Leave a comment:


  • jerryd
    replied
    Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
    Depends on what you mean by 'convenient,' Jerry. Granted, it's never convenient to lug a dead weight over a fence; on the other hand, it may have been entirely convenient depending on who it was who dumped the body. A Westminster local who noticed the site was insufficiently guarded at night? Where else are you going to hide a body in Westminster other than a vacant lot? Or was it someone west of the site who originally planning on the Thames but ran out of wind and never quite made it?
    A portion of Frederick Wildbore's testimony at inquest:

    The witness was here asked to look at a plan prepared, and he pointed out the spot under which the vault was placed, thus being on the westward side of the works; and he pointed out also the entrance of the workmen in Cannon-row. He pointed out, too, the way he went to the vault, and the plan was handed to the jury. The witness resumed. - The way I went to the vault was not difficult to me, but it would be rather puzzling to any one to find the place if they were not acquainted with the way and the spot.
    By the Jury. - I went down to the vault by a way I knew from where I worked. I could get there without going down planks. I could not see in the recess or vault without striking a match, it was so dark even in daytime, and people who did not know the place could not have found there way there.


    Also, these excepts from The Daily Telegraph October 3, 1888:

    At present only the foundations and a portion of the first storey have been built, and the place is surrounded by a high hoarding.

    The ground structure consists of a vast labyrinth of brick passages, archways, and vaulted chambers.

    Although there are a large number of men employed on the works, very few of them, it is said, would have readily found their way through the intricate vaults to the spot where the mutilated trunk was concealed.To a stranger venturing alone among these dark corridors there would seem to be a danger of failing to find his way out again.

    RJ, have you seen the layout of the basement I posted awhile back? We are not talking about one 15x20 vault. That was the size of the vault the torso was found. There were many vaults, crypts, trenches, debris, etc. in the basement. Above that was a sub-basement and ground floor above that. It wasn't just a matter of scaling the hoarding [which by the way, the police found no evidence of] and dropping the body off. Which begs the question, why not just throw it over the hoarding or drop it once you were over the hoarding in a wide open area? The Thames was steps away. Why not toss it in the water?
    Last edited by jerryd; 01-09-2019, 10:35 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Ive asked this about a million times and no one has yet to answer: why did the torso victims all have wounds above and beyond what was needed just for dismemberment?

    Leave a comment:


  • APerno
    replied
    Found this, an extract from a 2005 profiling report; I wonder what it says about the likely hood of the OP question; one killer, two killers, copy cat?

    http://www.perno.com/Boxing/fofm.jpg

    I can't figure out how to post an image, you'll have to click the link to see the table.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X