torso maps

[Herlock Sholmes]

Any difference, no matter how large or small it is, will always speak in favour of two killers - to a degree. Sometimes it will do so clearly (one killed by knife, one by gun), other times it will not do so very clearly at all, instead opening up for one killer (the pinky sawed off on one victim, the thumb on another).

That is how differences work and what they can do for an investigation.

Once similarities occur, they carry a lot more weight than the dissimilarities, generally speaking (if one victim dies in the east of London and another in the west of London, that would seem to speak for two killers. But if the victims both have had their abdominal walls taken away in sections, the difference immediately becomes subordinate to the similarity - it becomes much more likely with a killer travelling some distance than with a coincidental taking away of the abdomen in the two cases).

The more similarities there are and the rarer they are, the lesser the chance of two killers. When we have examples of abdomens cut open from sternum to groin, we have a very, very rare thing. In itself, it points very clearly to one killer. Once organs are taken out, we are dealing with a type of crime that occurs only very rarely. When both these parameters are present, they reinforce one another - they become confirmations of the one killer scenario being the by far most likely one. If we then add something like the abdominal wall being cut away, then the differences we have become totally weightless when it comes to making the call of one or two killers. We have one killer only - and he sometimes dismembered, while he did not do so on other occasions. For whatever reason, this killer went berserk on the streets of East London in 1888, killing out in the open streets. All the while, though, he kept to the pattern of killing and then moving on to disassembling his victims immediately after that; there was muscle contraction in the torso cases telling us that this was so. It was not the average dismemberment killer at work, hesitating in the longest to go about the gruesome cutting. It was somebody who killed to enable the cutting phase, and who seemingly came for that part.

The question of the number of killers is a done deal since the evidence leaves us in no doubt. We either are dealing with a set of incredible, unparalleled coincidences - or we are dealing with no coincidences at all. The case is either the strangest case ever - or completely straightforward.

Let that sink in, and welcome back afterwards.

More condescending waffle which is to be expected.

Overwhelmingly likely to have been 2 killers. Let that sink in.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I can´t be sure that the flaps were not collateral damage. But I can be sure that if that was the case, then not only did the killer produce one such large flap, but instead two in Jacksons case, three in Kellys and four in Chapmans.

So?

Were they ALL "collateral damage"? Isn´t it indicative of a wish to remove the abdominal wall if it is done in two or more sections, Herlock?

No.

I can´t be sure that the dismemberment wasn´t done for practical reasons. But I can be sure that such dismemberments normally involve dumping on one site only and trying to conceal the parts. Once parts turn up in a police building and are floated down a stream that gives them up, year out an year in, it tends to point to a killer who was not interested in hiding what he did - on the contrary.

Normally?!

As for geography, we don´t know where the torso killer picked up and killed his victims (how many times must I say that before it sinks in?), but overall, what is needed to allow for a single killer is that the distances between the murder and dumping sites allow for just the one man. And they do so with the greatest of ease.

Or one.

I think I prefer this lower expendage of energy approach when I’m talking to a convert.

[Sam Flynn]

As for geography, we don´t know where the torso killer picked up and killed his victims

You mean to say he picked up the Pinchin Street victim in Battersea? Who'd a thunk it.

[Fisherman]

More condescending waffle which is to be expected.

Overwhelmingly likely to have been 2 killers. Let that sink in.

To be totally and completely wrong and to disregard the facts in order to make a point - that is what I call really condescending. To turn a factual discussion into a mix of whining and mudwrestling is much the same.

[Fisherman]

You mean to say he picked up the Pinchin Street victim in Battersea? Who'd a thunk it.

He could have. And that is my whole point, one that you only want chosen parts of.

[Fisherman]

I think I prefer this lower expendage of energy approach when I’m talking to a convert.

Explain to me how it is not indicative of a wish to remove the abdominal wall when it is done in two or more sections, please.

While you are at it, explain what it is you fail to understand about who dismemberment killers normally dump all parts on one site and try to hide what they have done. Apparently, that concept is hard to grasp...?

As for your comment "Or one", it doesn´t make any grammatical or thematical sense to me. An explanation, please?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Explain to me how it is not indicative of a wish to remove the abdominal wall when it is done in two or more sections, please.

I don’t know Fish and, to be honest I just dont care. Cuts, slashes, hacks, stabs, slices. It’s like reading the tea leaves. Unless you have exact parallels across all the killings then you’re just making assumptions.

While you are at it, explain what it is you fail to understand about who dismemberment killers normally dump all parts on one site and try to hide what they have done. Apparently, that concept is hard to grasp...?

Unless you can lend me your copy of the ‘dismemberers handbook‘ I can’t answer that one either. Everything has to work to some kind of operation guide with you. People can’t do anything if someone isn’t on record as doing it before. Something can’t have happened if you judge it to be unlikely.

As for your comment "Or one", it doesn´t make any grammatical or thematical sense to me. An explanation, please?

It was my answer to something I read earlier which I misplaced by inserting it where I did. An error on my part.

There is now, and has been for quite a while, absolutely no reason to continue. This case is obviously not as important to me as it is to you. It’s an obsession that we all know centres around your belief that Lechmere was Jack The Ripper despite an utter dearth of evidence. You obviously see the TK killings as a way to bolster your case hence the zealousness of your posts. Anyone who is absolutely ‘confident’ as you are that Jack and TK were one and the same borders delusional. They ‘might’ have been but it’s a million miles away from certain...but not to you. All of the majority that disagree with you are blind, ignorant idiots because it’s soooo obvious. Well it’s not.....and you know it. Dont bother responding Fish I have no interest in your arrogant response. I’ve learned that from experience

[Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Fisherman
Explain to me how it is not indicative of a wish to remove the abdominal wall when it is done in two or more sections, please.

I don’t know Fish and, to be honest I just dont care. Cuts, slashes, hacks, stabs, slices. It’s like reading the tea leaves. Unless you have exact parallels across all the killings then you’re just making assumptions.

You don´t know? But you still claim that when an abdominal wall is taken away in large slabs, all those slabs can be collateral damage? They can all have come about as the killer did...what? How is it even remotely possible that some sort of action on the killers behalf will result in the abdominal wall being cut away as an unintended bi-effect?
And now you suddenly "don´t care"? Maybe you should care. Maybe you should look at the matter in a sober way? Maybe you should accept that any suggestion of the flaps getting cut away coincidentally is, well ... bonkers.

While you are at it, explain what it is you fail to understand about who dismemberment killers normally dump all parts on one site and try to hide what they have done. Apparently, that concept is hard to grasp...?

Unless you can lend me your copy of the ‘dismemberers handbook‘ I can’t answer that one either. Everything has to work to some kind of operation guide with you. People can’t do anything if someone isn’t on record as doing it before. Something can’t have happened if you judge it to be unlikely.

Wrong. Unlikely things happen every day. Like people thinking that there were two killers - quite unlikely. I do not wish to have labels like this glued on me. There are things that work in certain ways - a boat with a hole in it sinks. Pointing that out is not insisting on a kind of operation, it is common sense. When there are multiple odd inclusions in two murders in the same area and time, we are reasonably dealing with just the one killer. That too is common sense and has nothing to do with any wish on my behalf to make it more likely by accepting it. The problem lies in your attitude, as far as I can tell - uteri taken, prostitutes killed, hearts taken, abdomens ripped open, abdominal walls taken away: must be two killers! Because there are differences!

As for your comment "Or one", it doesn´t make any grammatical or thematical sense to me. An explanation, please?

It was my answer to something I read earlier which I misplaced by inserting it where I did. An error on my part.

Aha. Thanks for the explanation. It had me worried since I could not make any sense at all of it.

There is now, and has been for quite a while, absolutely no reason to continue. This case is obviously not as important to me as it is to you. It’s an obsession that we all know centres around your belief that Lechmere was Jack The Ripper despite an utter dearth of evidence. You obviously see the TK killings as a way to bolster your case hence the zealousness of your posts. Anyone who is absolutely ‘confident’ as you are that Jack and TK were one and the same borders delusional. They ‘might’ have been but it’s a million miles away from certain...but not to you. All of the majority that disagree with you are blind, ignorant idiots because it’s soooo obvious. Well it’s not.....and you know it. Dont bother responding Fish I have no interest in your arrogant response. I’ve learned that from experience
__________________
Regards

Herlock

Don´t bother responding? Sit still and take the insults? The accusations of obsessions, zealousness, delusions? Of calling people blind idiots? And the statement that I would know that I am wrong?
Of course, Herlock. As I say, unlikely things happen every day.

[RockySullivan]

Exactly Gareth. Of the five ‘traits’ that Fish adds to ‘evidence’ of the flaps 2 of them can be dismissed out of hand. Indeed, as you pointed out, why was ‘torture’ added in the first place if not as padding? Flaps should also be dismissed (but it won’t be).

Flaps should be dismissed! this is a joke? It's a piece of the postmortem mutilation signature. You constantly state the similarities are insignificant but you fail to cite any sources that show this type of mutilation was common.

[RockySullivan]

wrong post

[Sam Flynn]

Explain to me how it is not indicative of a wish to remove the abdominal wall when it is done in two or more sections, please.

Explain to me how the removal of [small portions of] the abdominal wall in one torso case - in the West of London - be remotely significant when compared to the extensive removal of the abdominal wall in two cases in the East of London.

Furthermore, explain why the removal of said [small portions of] the abdominal wall - in the West of London - wasn't connected with the fact that the victim was pregnant.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Originally Posted by Fisherman
Explain to me how it is not indicative of a wish to remove the abdominal wall when it is done in two or more sections, please.

I don’t know Fish and, to be honest I just dont care. Cuts, slashes, hacks, stabs, slices. It’s like reading the tea leaves. Unless you have exact parallels across all the killings then you’re just making assumptions.

You don´t know? But you still claim that when an abdominal wall is taken away in large slabs, all those slabs can be collateral damage? They can all have come about as the killer did...what? How is it even remotely possible that some sort of action on the killers behalf will result in the abdominal wall being cut away as an unintended bi-effect?
And now you suddenly "don´t care"? Maybe you should care. Maybe you should look at the matter in a sober way? Maybe you should accept that any suggestion of the flaps getting cut away coincidentally is, well ... bonkers.

Yes, I can say that I don’t have a definitive answer on certain points of events that occurred 130 years ago. Unlike someone who believes that they have it all sown up. Two killers aiming to cause internal damage with a knife for whatever motive might do the same thing. They might not. We cannot be anything approaching certain. Some cuts/flapscould have been by-products Of other actions. The only problem is misguided certain. I have no problem with an opinion. I have no problem with someone saying ‘well we can’t be sure but I favour this explaination.’ I have an issue with certainty when I feel that it’s misplaced for whatever reason.

While you are at it, explain what it is you fail to understand about who dismemberment killers normally dump all parts on one site and try to hide what they have done. Apparently, that concept is hard to grasp...?

Unless you can lend me your copy of the ‘dismemberers handbook‘ I can’t answer that one either. Everything has to work to some kind of operation guide with you. People can’t do anything if someone isn’t on record as doing it before. Something can’t have happened if you judge it to be unlikely.

Wrong. Unlikely things happen every day. Like people thinking that there were two killers - quite unlikely. I do not wish to have labels like this glued on me. There are things that work in certain ways - a boat with a hole in it sinks. Pointing that out is not insisting on a kind of operation, it is common sense. When there are multiple odd inclusions in two murders in the same area and time, we are reasonably dealing with just the one killer. That too is common sense and has nothing to do with any wish on my behalf to make it more likely by accepting it. The problem lies in your attitude, as far as I can tell - uteri taken, prostitutes killed, hearts taken, abdomens ripped open, abdominal walls taken away: must be two killers! Because there are differences!


It’s not ‘common sense’ to say that just because there’s no record of something occurring previously (which might even be a reflection of the records) that it cannot happen now. What it breaks down to is that you feel that it’s perfectly reasonable to come up with any scenario (plucked from your own imagination) to explain away the differences in the way the killers operated but any attempt to explain the injuries (as Gareth has done) is totally unjustified.

As for your comment "Or one", it doesn´t make any grammatical or thematical sense to me. An explanation, please?

It was my answer to something I read earlier which I misplaced by inserting it where I did. An error on my part.

Aha. Thanks for the explanation. It had me worried since I could not make any sense at all of it.

There is now, and has been for quite a while, absolutely no reason to continue. This case is obviously not as important to me as it is to you. It’s an obsession that we all know centres around your belief that Lechmere was Jack The Ripper despite an utter dearth of evidence. You obviously see the TK killings as a way to bolster your case hence the zealousness of your posts. Anyone who is absolutely ‘confident’ as you are that Jack and TK were one and the same borders delusional. They ‘might’ have been but it’s a million miles away from certain...but not to you. All of the majority that disagree with you are blind, ignorant idiots because it’s soooo obvious. Well it’s not.....and you know it. Dont bother responding Fish I have no interest in your arrogant response. I’ve learned that from experience
__________________
Regards

Herlock

Don´t bother responding? Sit still and take the insults? The accusations of obsessions, zealousness, delusions? Of calling people blind idiots? And the statement that I would know that I am wrong?
Of course, Herlock. As I say, unlikely things happen every day.

The ‘insults’ as you call them are responses. You have these types of insults against me many times on different threads Fish so I tend to respond. Your posts tend toward condescension. You often begin reasonably but when it becomes apparent that the person you are debating with will not come round to your way of thinking you become irate. You feel it’s ok to say insulting things but are quick to play the ‘offended’ card when people respond. I’ll continue to look at any aspects of the case that still interest me but I’ll do it with caution because I have no reason to favour one conclusion over another except for my own opinion.

[Fisherman]

The ‘insults’ as you call them are responses. You have these types of insults against me many times on different threads Fish so I tend to respond. Your posts tend toward condescension. You often begin reasonably but when it becomes apparent that the person you are debating with will not come round to your way of thinking you become irate. You feel it’s ok to say insulting things but are quick to play the ‘offended’ card when people respond. I’ll continue to look at any aspects of the case that still interest me but I’ll do it with caution because I have no reason to favour one conclusion over another except for my own opinion.

Herlock, I really don´t think it is a good idea to claim that I am more or less lying and misleading about the case, all in order to try and twist matters into some sort of propaganda for Lechmere as the Ripper, that I am zealous and arrogant - and that you are only defending your poor self against my unfair onslaught.

That is a pathetic picture, and one that will immediately be recognized as such by those who scrutinize it.

You are quite simply defending a cause that should be abandoned, the quicker the better - but you either fail to see it or you simply won´t admit to it. Instead, you try to turn the table on me, by claiming that "anyone who is absolutely ‘confident’ as you are that Jack and TK were one and the same borders delusional."

There is not a single parallel case in the recorded history of crime, where two eviscerating serial killers have roamed the same area at the same time.

But it borders on delusion to draw any conclusions from this fact.

Case after case have been accepted as being the work of the same man on very much smaller similarities then the massive ones we have at hand here.

But it borders on delusion to accept that eviscerations, uteri taking, heart taking and the cutting away of the abdominal walls points straight to a common originator.

Instead, we should accept that the flaps were collateral damage, all of them - they just happened to come off as the killer poked about inside his victim. Ooops, there goes the stomach wall! In two pieces!
And we should accept that two men had a flair for hearts and uteri in late victorian London. And we should accept that both men liked opening up abdomens all the way from ribs to groin. And that they both sought prey from within the ranks of prostitutes. And that neither man was into physical torture. And that both men made a fast business of killing and cutting, connecting the two parts immediately.

Otherwise, we are bordering on delusion. And we are only doing so because we want to twist the facts to fit our own thinking.

Meanwhile, in a parallel universe, nobody has to twist any fact at all to see that the two series fit together. Nothing has to be changed, no collateral damage flaps have to be invented, no massive coincidences have to be at play - it works perfectly and effortlessly WITHOUT any twisting. And Charles Lechmere´s age does not have to be twisted either, to fit in with the 1873-1889 murder series that emerges when we put one and one together and reach two - without adding anything at all in the shape of collateral damage, coincidences and accusations of those who stick with the facts WITHOUT any "extras" being dishonest.

Good day to you.

[Sam Flynn]

"There is not a single parallel case in the recorded history of crime, where two eviscerating serial killers have roamed the same area at the same time."

The Torso cases cannot be classified as the work of an "eviscerating serial killer", because there were no serial eviscerations, and the perpetrator(s) did not roam the "same area". As to the "same time", this was in all likelihood due to the fact that the two series overlapped; series which, furthermore, showed distinctly different cadences.

[Sam Flynn]

"And Charles Lechmere´s age does not have to be twisted either, to fit in with the 1873-1889 murder series"

And many millions of others fit the same criteria.