torso maps

[Abby Normal]

If you think that the truth is an insult, then you are seriously in need of help

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

What truth trevor? You made a statement of fact and all i did was ask you to back it up?

You said the overwhelming evidence was that the torso victims werent murdered? And if im not mistaken i do beleive the conses then and now is that obviously they were.

If they werent murdered at least explain why not?

I thought it was a rather inocuous request, and would give you a chance to express your views.

[RockySullivan]

What truth trevor? You made a statement of fact and all i did was ask you to back it up?

You said the overwhelming evidence was that the torso victims werent murdered? And if im not mistaken i do beleive the conses then and now is that obviously they were.

If they werent murdered at least explain why not?

I thought it was a rather inocuous request, and would give you a chance to express your views.

abby you're killin me! Let him be, do you really want another lecture on why the torso victims weren't murdered? We know they were.

[Fisherman]

I’ll comply with your ‘order’ to leave the thread. It will allow you the chance of a further insult without response. I’ll leave the ‘debate’ to those with more patience that I have to be spoken down to by someone who sees no fault in himself. I post on 4 other forums, with hundreds of people, having sometimes quite strident debates but they never descend to these kind of attitudes. I know that you don’t like coincidences but that’s a very informative one. Only you Fish. Only you.

For the sake of sanity and clarity, I cannot and have not ordered you to leave the thread. I have asked you to stop discussing me and start discussing the case, something that you have failed to do. Discussing the case is what I am out here for, and I welcome anybody who wants to do that. Those who instead spend their posting commenting on how I am deluded and claiming that I am the sole originator of everything evil on Moder Earth are less welcomed by me. I cannot do anything about it but to ask them to not to do so out here, and that is what I did.

When you are ready to discuss the case again - and ready to accept being criticized for your view of it, just as I am - then I will merrily welcome you back, the sooner the better. Meanwhile, enjoy the other forums.

[Fisherman]

Hi fish
I would say another clue to them being unfortunates is the fact the were never ided. As in no one cared enough about them to notice them missing, the transient nature of there lifestyle and the stigma attached to the profession.

All very much agreed, Abby. And to be frank, once we know that one of the victims WAS a prostitute, the better guess immediately becomes that the others were too, given how serial killers who kill a large number of women rarely have only one prostitute on the list.

[Sam Flynn]

If true. It could point to the torso killer targeting child bearing women. Which hurts my leaning to them being the same man of course but i admit the truth even if it hurts my case. This is an interesting angle.

Thanks, Abby. In terms of its being the same man, it's interesting that Pinchin's estimated age range is higher than the rest of the victims - another difference between that case and those in the West.

[Harry D]

Once we have Kelly in the mix, it really becomes useless - the age span accepted by the Ripper allows for just about anything. Od course we can say "maybe he had a flair for really young girls", but I don´t like dressing things up to change the facts. "Maybe he wanted to cut into a pregnant woman", "Maybe the flaps were collateral damage", "Maybe he took the uterus out from Jackson to get at the foetus" and so on. Why not stick with what we actually KNOW?

Indeed, Fish. Most serial killers target prostitutes because they’re easy pickings. I think the Ripper murders were mostly crimes of opportunity rather than the killer specifically targeting a certain kind of woman. Although I’ve theorised that one of the reasons the killer went to town on Mary Kelly, other than it taking place indoors, is because she was a finer physical specimen than the others. Perhaps the same goes for Eddowes’ facial mutilations? If we take Stride as an interruption, the others weren’t much to look at.

The Zodiac Killer’s first six victims were young couples, his last confirmed kill was a 29 year-old cab driver. I’m not sure police even connected it to him until Zodiac mailed part of the cabbie’s bloodied shirt. It’s also possible that the Zodiac tried to abduct a young mother and her infant daughter.

[Fisherman]

Thanks, Abby. In terms of its being the same man, it's interesting that Pinchin's estimated age range is higher than the rest of the victims - another difference between that case and those in the West.

So we can suggest a scenario where the Ripper was only interested in ripping older women and Kelly was a mistake, whereas the torso killer wanted to kill fertile women, looking for the ultimate prize, a foetus - and the Pinchin Street woman was a mistake (if she was 40, Hebbert allowed for 25 too).

And then we can tell the two killers APART!! Hooray!

The again, we can also say that all the victims ranged from 24 to 47 and that both killers may have had victims in their 20:s as well as in their 40:s.

That kind of makes the Schlaraffenland of two serial killers doing the same things to their victims go away, does it not?

What you are doing is speculating and guessing - and interestingly, ALL of your guesswork goes to try and support the two killer camp. And all the while the facts are stubbornly against you.

No two serial killers will emerge in the same city, at the same time and do the same things to their victims, least of all if what they do is very rare and weird. And that is emphatically the case here.

I note the efforts on your behalf to try and sweep the Pinchin Street torso under the carpet. It is very understandable, since she must be a rusty nail driven through your body. But keep in mind that Hebbert was very clear about the originator of the Pinchin Street murder being the same man who killed the other 1887-1889 victims. When describing the Jackson and Oinchin Street cases, he wrote:

"In the last volume of Reports I was able to give a description of two cases of mutilation which occurred duering 1887 and 1888. I now take the opportunity of recounting two more instances of mutilation which have happened during the present year. In almost every respect they are similar to the first two cases, and appear to belong to a series of murders and dismemberment by the same hand ..."

and

"...The mode of dismemberment and mutilation was in all similar, and showed considerable skill in execution, and it is a fair presumption from the facts that the same man committed all the four murders."


So not only are you faced with the problem of explaining overall why two series of murders that have very far-reaching similarities involving uteri and heart extractions and the removal of the abdominal walls in flaps, you now also face the task of explaining away how the Pinchin Street torso could have been cut with a handiwork that produced a resut that was in all parts similar to what happened in the other cases - and still be the work of yet another killer (they are coming thick and fast).

And what do you have to help you out on this journey of utter folly?

You have the fact that the Pinchin Street torso was dumped in the East, in Ripper territory. OF COURSE, the torso killer would NOT do that! To suggest it is unscientific and statistically abominable! It´s just that the distance from other dumping sites is bridgeable in half an hour or so.

The next point you use is that Hebbert allowed for an age of 40. So we may conclude that the torso killer, who only preyed on ages up to 35, could NOT be the killer! It´s just that Hebbert said that the Pinchin Street woman could be anywhere between 25 and 40, so there goes that argument.

Last up, she was not opened up and she had her arms left on the body. And we all know that a killer who did not leave the arms in other cases would NEVER, NEVER do so in this one.
But he did leave a leg on the 1874 victim. Bugger.

So the one ironclad evidence that remains is that he did not cut the abdomen open, he just marked it by a 15 inch incision, running from breast to groin. So we can conclude that it was just a coincidence that the rest of the work on the body was "in all similar" to the work on the other torso bodies.

Yes, that has to be it. Good case, Gareth! Watertight! Screw Hebbert, what did he know? And just how much importance should we attach to having been in place and seen the bodies, millimeter by millimeter, and very clearly recognizing a cutting work you have seen before? Bollocks! There are only so many ways one can cut! Therefore we - especially YOU - are certainly better suited to make the correct calls about those things.

It´s wish-based revisionism at it´s absolute prime, a total disregard of the evidence chosen to shape an alternative reality. I´m sorry, but I cannot put in in any other way.

[Fisherman]

Indeed, Fish. Most serial killers target prostitutes because they’re easy pickings. I think the Ripper murders were mostly crimes of opportunity rather than the killer specifically targeting a certain kind of woman. Although I’ve theorised that one of the reasons the killer went to town on Mary Kelly, other than it taking place indoors, is because she was a finer physical specimen than the others. Perhaps the same goes for Eddowes’ facial mutilations? If we take Stride as an interruption, the others weren’t much to look at.

The Zodiac Killer’s first six victims were young couples, his last confirmed kill was a 29 year-old cab driver. I’m not sure police even connected it to him until Zodiac mailed part of the cabbie’s bloodied shirt. It’s also possible that the Zodiac tried to abduct a young mother and her infant daughter.

I think Kellys looks may have played a role in the shaping of the body the killer performed - I believe she filled a certain set of requirements in another way than the rest in the Ripper series.

I believe there is a parallel in Jacksons pregnancy - through that, she filled another requirement tied to the killers wishlist.

This is closely tied to what I identify as the underlying inspirations grounds for the murders, Ripper and torso murders alike.

I don´t agree that the Ripper victims were nothing much to look at. It is for example a tad unfair to judge the physical attraction power of Nichols from a mortuary photo. Murdered people are as a rule not attractive. Nichols reportedly gave an impression of being ten years younger than she really was, and may well have been reasonably attractive - in life.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Dont leave! All the plants will die! : )

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

[Trevor Marriott]

abby you're killin me! Let him be, do you really want another lecture on why the torso victims weren't murdered? We know they were.

So Clever clogs perhaps you would care to tell how exactly they were murdered.

I wait with interest, especially as in all the cases no specific causes of death could be established, and even you and the other numpties should know that a cause of death is a prerequisite for murder.

I should also point out that the term "Found dead" appears in some of the inquest verdicts and I have to ask why was this not the case in the others? because there was no evidence in the remaining inquests to justify a wilful murder verdict other than the doctors opinion. When I use the term wilful murder I am aware that it also covers death by other means and not specifically a homicide.

With that I will again quote Dr Biggs a modern day forensic expert who has reviewed both the Whitechapel murders and the Torsos. What does he say about Victorian doctors and their opinions.

"As with much of what went on ‘back in the day’, learned medical men would assert things without backup, and this would be taken as fact without challenge. Much of what is ‘known’ appears to be little more than subjective opinion / assumption / guesswork. Even if we can accept all of the ‘objective’ record as fact, there is so little of this available now that it becomes difficult to draw any firm conclusions this far down the line, in 1888 people believed just about anything a doctor said"

It seems that another serial killer has been invented and some on here are trying to justify their beliefs in propping up that theory

Take the rose tinted glasses off there is a 50/50 chance that one,some, or all could have been murdered and then dismembered, but the other 50% is that they died from other causes and their bodies dismembered to hide that fact. But that 50% ratio is ignored because of the invention of another serial killer who some seem fit to link to the Whitechapel murders, when there is no police evidence from 1888 which shows the police suspected the same killer.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FrankO]

Look at how the torso killer cuts his victims up in varying ways, some in many oarts, some having a leg left, some havig the arms attached, some cut diagonally, some straight off. Why would he do that, if he simply did it for practical reasons or had a closed MO? Why not the classical parts, torso, arms,legs, head, every time? What possible reasons can there be for this? Did he forget how to sever arms before dumping the Pinchin Street torso? Or was something else at play? I certainly think so.

I agree that something more than just the practical angle was at play, Christer.

The Torso killer may well have cut out organs before the Ripper scare. The Rainham heart and lungs were missing and that victim is a very close parallel to Jackson in many a respect, so I think it must be considered a very good possibility that both women had their organs removed by the killer.

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.

Personally, I don´t think the Ripper was primarily interested in what was beneath the skirts of his victims. Or, to be more precise, I think he was interested in taking his victims apart and the abdominal cavity lends itself to that practice in a very pedagogical manner.

That, again, is logical when you look at it from the perspective that Torso Man and the Ripper were one and the same.

But he also cut the flesh from the buttocks of Kelly, cut away flesh from her thigh, cut Eddowes´ face substantially, severing the nose (after a failed attempt) and so on.

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.

And you have to admit that even if we were to accept that this was the only recorded instance of two eviscerating serial killers working the same general area in the same approximate time, it would be odd in the extreme if both men answered to an agenda of not only targetting the reproductive area, if both men cut out organs of both sexual and non-sexual character - and just by happenstance took away the abdominal walls in large flaps from victims in both series.

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.

The odds are astronomical, Frank. Astronomical. There is an end to what we can allow for in terms of similarities. It does not make the case less strange, but it is nevertheless a reality and a wake up call.

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.

[RockySullivan]

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

wah wah

[Fisherman]

I wait with interest, especially as in all the cases no specific causes of death could be established, and even you and the other numpties should know that a cause of death is a prerequisite for murder.

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.

Take the rose tinted glasses off there is a 50/50 chance that one,some, or all could have been murdered and then dismembered, but the other 50% is that they died from other causes and their bodies dismembered to hide that fact. But that 50% ratio is ignored because of the invention of another serial killer who some seem fit to link to the Whitechapel murders, when there is no police evidence from 1888 which shows the police suspected the same killer.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

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 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.

[RockySullivan]

So Clever clogs perhaps you would care to tell how exactly they were murdered.

I wait with interest, especially as in all the cases no specific causes of death could be established, and even you and the other numpties should know that a cause of death is a prerequisite for murder.

I should also point out that the term "Found dead" appears in some of the inquest verdicts and I have to ask why was this not the case in the others? because there was no evidence in the remaining inquests to justify a wilful murder verdict other than the doctors opinion. When I use the term wilful murder I am aware that it also covers death by other means and not specifically a homicide.

With that I will again quote Dr Biggs a modern day forensic expert who has reviewed both the Whitechapel murders and the Torsos. What does he say about Victorian doctors and their opinions.

"As with much of what went on ‘back in the day’, learned medical men would assert things without backup, and this would be taken as fact without challenge. Much of what is ‘known’ appears to be little more than subjective opinion / assumption / guesswork. Even if we can accept all of the ‘objective’ record as fact, there is so little of this available now that it becomes difficult to draw any firm conclusions this far down the line, in 1888 people believed just about anything a doctor said"

It seems that another serial killer has been invented and some on here are trying to justify their beliefs in propping up that theory

Take the rose tinted glasses off there is a 50/50 chance that one,some, or all could have been murdered and then dismembered, but the other 50% is that they died from other causes and their bodies dismembered to hide that fact. But that 50% ratio is ignored because of the invention of another serial killer who some seem fit to link to the Whitechapel murders, when there is no police evidence from 1888 which shows the police suspected the same killer.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Common sense. Its a series of murders at a pace of a few times a year. Like all the other torso killings I'm gonna go with murdered.

[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!