torso maps

[Fisherman]

Re the murders of Helen Scott and Christine Eadie, there is compelling evidence to suggest that Sinclair targeted them in The Worlds End pub with his brother in law Gordon Hamilton.

A probable case of folie a deux.

Are you considering the possibility of more than one killer for the torso killings?

There were traces from Hamilton found on the clothes of the victims, possibly semen. He died before the case could be pursued, though.

I have one killer and one killer only for the torso murders. AND the Ripper murders. And the Pinchin Street victim is included there...

I am economical in that sense.

The kind of ritualistically coloured background and inspiration drive I believe to be there is not something that a killer is likely to share with somebody else. If there was a second participator, then my best bet is that he or she was forced into it by the real killer - but I see no indication whatsoever that there were two torso killers.

Do you see such a thing yourself?

[barnflatwyngarde]

Yes, Scott and Eadie are included, and it´s a very well known case. And true enough, they were picked up in Edinburgh, so thanks for pointing that out. I actually think that all the victims of 1977 were picked up in pubs. May be wrong on that, though.
Overall, Sinclair was a frequent visitor of Edinburgh, that is not far away from Glasgow. So the connection was an obvious one here too - or should have been.

Re the murders of Helen Scott and Christine Eadie, there is compelling evidence to suggest that Sinclair targeted them in The Worlds End pub with his brother in law Gordon Hamilton.

A probable case of folie a deux.

Are you considering the possibility of more than one killer for the torso killings?

[Abby Normal]

So you go from posts starting ‘hi friend’ to this

hi HS
its an affectionate (supposed to be funny) way of someone who really dosnt want someone to leave but trying to be cavalier about it.


Its now a cliché here in the states-its from the movie Stripes and Bill Murray says it to his girlfriend when she tells him shes leaving.

[Fisherman]

In 1961, Angus Sinclair bound, gagged, raped and strangled a girl. In 1977, seven women were bound, gagged, raped and strangled - and Sinclair lived in Glasgow, where it happened.

Fisherman,
If you are including the murders of Helen Scott and Christine Eadie in these 7 murders, they were actually abducted/picked up from an Edinburgh pub, "The World's End".

Yes, Scott and Eadie are included, and it´s a very well known case. And true enough, they were picked up in Edinburgh, so thanks for pointing that out. I actually think that all the victims of 1977 were picked up in pubs. May be wrong on that, though.
Overall, Sinclair was a frequent visitor of Edinburgh, that is not far away from Glasgow. So the connection was an obvious one here too - or should have been.

[barnflatwyngarde]

In 1961, Angus Sinclair bound, gagged, raped and strangled a girl. In 1977, seven women were bound, gagged, raped and strangled - and Sinclair lived in Glasgow, where it happened.

Fisherman,
If you are including the murders of Helen Scott and Christine Eadie in these 7 murders, they were actually abducted/picked up from an Edinburgh pub, "The World's End".

[Fisherman]

And not one head was ever found, do you not think that is a significant factor.?

Were the removal of the heads to hide the identity, if it was for what purpose, why would a serial killer want to hide the identity of a down and out female he had just murdered, and if there were a serial killer why would he go to all that trouble to dismember a body, when it could have simply have been dumped anywhere in the dead of night had and all.

The WM killed his victims where he met them, so no positive comparisons there with the torsos.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Correction, the head of the Tottenham torso WAS found.

Plus, of course, if he threw the heads in the Thames together with the rest of the parts, the heads would sink to the bottom. Whether he knew this or not is written in the stars.

There is also the possibility that he kept the heads.

What there is not is any evidence at all that he kept the heads from the police for reasons of wanting to hide the identities of the victims. If he did, then how clumsy was it to leave a victims´own clothes on the body? And to leave moles and scars?

[Fisherman]

At the very least we can say that all the torso victims had their heads and limbs removed, and that all but one of them were dumped in West London over more than a decade.

Alternatively, we can say than none but one had body parts dug down and subsequently found.

Alternatively, we can say that two of the torsos only had their abdomens cut open from sternum to groin.

Alternatively, we can say that one torso only had a leg attached to the body.

Alternatively, we can say that one torso only had parts dumped in Regents Canal.

Alternatively, we can say that one torso only was found with the head.

Depending on which torso we have a burning desire to take away from the score (for whatever reason), we can pick and choose which detail to opt for to do so.

If the Pinchin Street torso is the torso we feel a burning desire to take away from the score (for whatever reason), we may do well to ponder that the distance between St Pancras lock to Pinchin Street is more or less the same as the distance from St Pancras lock to Battersea Park. So unless we can think up any reason for why the torso killer would be opposed to enter Pinchin Street, we need a reason to explain why he was willing to go to St Pancras lock. Moreover, the distance from Battersea Park to Pinchin Street is more or less equivalent to the distance between Battersea Park and St Pancras lock. So if he could travel north to St Pancras lock, then why was it impossible for him to travel east to Pinchin Street, given that the distances are very much alike, as the crow flies? I am having all sorts of trouble understanding that, but I would be happy to have it explained to me.

Then again, we can accept the bid of the expert Hebbert, who saw the wounds in minute detail and stated that they were in all similar in all cases. The advantage of going with the informed expert is that:

A/ It makes us look trustworthy and interested in the fact details
and
B/ We do not have to dabble with the facts to try and impose an unsubstantiable view on people.

That´s two great points, easily achieved. It took me all of a nano-second.

[Trevor Marriott]

At the very least we can say that all the torso victims had their heads and limbs removed, and that all but one of them were dumped in West London over more than a decade.

And not one head was ever found, do you not think that is a significant factor.?

Were the removal of the heads to hide the identity, if it was for what purpose, why would a serial killer want to hide the identity of a down and out female he had just murdered, and if there were a serial killer why would he go to all that trouble to dismember a body, when it could have simply have been dumped anywhere in the dead of night had and all.

The WM killed his victims where he met them, so no positive comparisons there with the torsos.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

The killer apparently did not work to a closed pattern.

At the very least we can say that all the torso victims had their heads and limbs removed, and that all but one of them were dumped in West London over more than a decade.

[Fisherman]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman
There is always a cause of death when somebody dies, regardless if it is murder or not. And not being able to establish the cause of death does not mean that it cannot have been murder.

You are right, and if you digest my post you will see that I say there is only a 50% chance that they were murdered, and when a cause of death cannot be established, and there is no other evidence in support of a murder then the true verdict back then should have been "found dead" or today it would recorded as an "open verdict"


The chance cannot be weighed in percentages, Trevor. The exercise is utter folly. All and sundry agreed that it was a series of murders - well, before you surfaced, that is.

In 1961, Angus Sinclair bound, gagged, raped and strangled a girl. In 1977, seven women were bound, gagged, raped and strangled - and Sinclair lived in Glasgow, where it happened.

Did the police suspect Sinclair? No, not for a moment. Did they connect the murders by way of similarities? No, they did not.

You cannot compare the workings of a modern day serial killer to one 130 years ago, likewise you cannot compare a Victorian police investigation to a modern day one, so much has changed in 130 years on both fronts


One would have thought that the police actually learnt something over such a span of time. But no...?

You can put all the trust you want in how the Victorian police would have made the connection between the Ripper and the torso cases, if it was there.

Me, I take a look at the overall understanding of these types of crimes at the time, and I have had my explanation to why the connection was not made.

And that is simply your opinion with no tangible evidence to back it up or to connect the torsos with a serial killer, and to connect the Whitechapel murders to a make believe torso killer.


Abdominal flaps are extremely tangible. But why discuss this with you? You honestly don´t seem to understand how ridiculous your suggestions are. Which is good for you, but not for the case as such.

The sooner we reach the stadium where you say that you are not going to go on arguing since it is throwing pearls for pigs, the better. Oink!

[Fisherman]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Jackson had the sternum opened up, and so we have a different access to the heart opened up in that case

Jackson's entire thorax was emptied, the lungs as well as the heart.

Quote:
The Whitehall victim had no such damage at all, and the heart was not taken.

Nor her lungs.


You are making my point for me. The torso victims differed. The killer apparently did not work to a closed pattern. So looking for such a pattern will be a waste of time.

[Trevor Marriott]

There is always a cause of death when somebody dies, regardless if it is murder or not. And not being able to establish the cause of death does not mean that it cannot have been murder.

You are right, and if you digest my post you will see that I say there is only a 50% chance that they were murdered, and when a cause of death cannot be established, and there is no other evidence in support of a murder then the true verdict back then should have been "found dead" or today it would recorded as an "open verdict"

In 1961, Angus Sinclair bound, gagged, raped and strangled a girl. In 1977, seven women were bound, gagged, raped and strangled - and Sinclair lived in Glasgow, where it happened.

Did the police suspect Sinclair? No, not for a moment. Did they connect the murders by way of similarities? No, they did not.

You cannot compare the workings of a modern day serial killer to one 130 years ago, likewise you cannot compare a Victorian police investigation to a modern day one, so much has changed in 130 years on both fronts

You can put all the trust you want in how the Victorian police would have made the connection between the Ripper and the torso cases, if it was there.

Me, I take a look at the overall understanding of these types of crimes at the time, and I have had my explanation to why the connection was not made.

And that is simply your opinion with no tangible evidence to back it up or to connect the torsos with a serial killer, and to connect the Whitechapel murders to a make believe torso killer.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

wah wah

Even the disciples are getting in on the act

[Sam Flynn]

Jackson had the sternum opened up, and so we have a different access to the heart opened up in that case

Jackson's entire thorax was emptied, the lungs as well as the heart.

The Whitehall victim had no such damage at all, and the heart was not taken.

Nor her lungs.

[Fisherman]

I agree that something more than just the practical angle was at play, Christer.
I have no doubt that the organs in the Rainham case were removed by the murderer. But as they were not cut out through the opening in the abdomen (the diaphragm was intact), the only possibility remaining is that he cut them out after cutting up the upper torso into 2 pieces just above the breasts. By cutting the torso in that place, he cut the lungs in 2 and divided the heart, probably at its upper part. Besides that this is significantly different than how the Ripper cut organs out, it’s also inextricably connected to the dividing the body into several parts.
That, again, is logical when you look at it from the perspective that Torso Man and the Ripper were one and the same.
Exactly. This fits exactly with what I wrote before about what Vernon Geberth, a retired homicide commander, is saying in his books: that the mutilation and cutting is directed at those parts of the body that interest the murderer sexually. We see this type of cutting in the case of Kelly and to a lesser degree in those of Nichols and Eddowes. However, (as far as we know), we see a lot less of this in the torso cases, where the murderer had way more time with his victims.
I have no problem admitting that, yet, it doesn’t change my stance for now: I have more credence in the pattern gleaned from the Ripper victims, which is supported by what Vernon Geberth has written and the differences I see between the 2 series (which are all case-related) than in statistics and the similarities.
If new (preferably case) evidence comes to light and I hope it does, I am the first to change his view on the subject at hand, Christer. For now, we have to agree to disagree.

I´m fine with disagreeing with you, Frank. To me, the similarities cannot be subordiante to the differences. You see it differently, and are willing to allow for a massive coincidence.

Just two remarks:

I fail to see how nosetips and kidneys can have been cut away for sexual reasons, other than if we look at sexuality as 100 per cent control-driven. In such a case, ALL parts of the human body can have sexual implications.
I don´t think they did. I think that they were used as props, more or less, answering to a ritualistic behaviour coupled to his inspiration.

Also note how the Rainham victim and Jackson differ - Jackson had the sternum opened up, and so we have a different access to the heart opened up in that case. It tallies quite well with how the killer may have been exploring different avenues for his work. The Whitehall victim had no such damage at all, and the heart was not taken. If it was an urge on his behalf, why?
Because it was one of many ways in which he could answer up to the agenda set by the inspiration ground from which he worked, I say. There was never any absolute need to take out the heart, the uterus, the kidney, the liver etc - but each and every such matter was nevertheless an exponent of the agenda he was working to. As far as I´m concerned, he could just as well have taken out the brain, the spleen and the femur bones and he would still be the same killer with the same overall intentions.

Thanks for the exchange so far, Frank!