torso maps

[John Wheat]

If nothing else, the Paris case illustrates that it's evident that more than one person can independently hit upon the idea of dismembering and disposing of a body, and do so at the same time... sorry, in the same decade.

Exactly Sam that's one of the points I was trying to make.

[John Wheat]

Ah! Now I see what you are after. Well, to me, the distance in combination with the character of the deed rules out the Paris torso.

If we look at the torso killings only, they are of differing character, all of them - to a degree. A torso dumped on land and with no eviscerations differs a lot from one dumped in the river and having organs taken out. But the connecting factor was always there in the handiwork of the killer. It is like handwriting, to a degree - and this killer had a very deviating handiwork, cutting meticulously and quickly at the same time, requiring a lot of skill.

He also cut out uteri and hearts and he cut away the abdominal wall in flaps from a victim. That too qualifies as a distinct and quite, quite rare handwriting. And there were Ripper victims carrying his signature too. Plus it was siad that the Ripper was a skilful cutter too, in spite of the much cruder conditions he probably worked under.

As I keep saying, differences, even large such ones, go away if there are rare enough similarities.

There are.

There aren't any rare similarities between Jack and The Torso Killer though.

[Fisherman]

If nothing else, the Paris case illustrates that it's evident that more than one person can independently hit upon the idea of dismembering and disposing of a body, and do so at the same time... sorry, in the same decade.

There are other examples - but are there any of two dismemberment killers working simultaneously in the same general area? I donīt think so. It is a very, very rare thing and the idea that such a brotherhood did not only materialize in the victorian East End but it also produced two dismemberment killers who were very skilled with the knife and saw, and who both cut in a way that was "in all similar" borders on the VERY exotic.

But such is the defence of the idea of the Pinchin Street torso not belonging to the tally. It goes along well known lines, having been used in the debate about the combined Ripper and Torso killer, and the arguments all start with "what if...?"and the certainty that nobody can categorically rule out that the lightning will hit the same treetop not twice but thrice in a row.

Itīs a real rot and has nothing to do with serious suggestions. Throw it to the wind, I say - but that entails the risk that the wind will have nothing to do with it and throw it right back...

[Fisherman]

There aren't any rare similarities between Jack and The Torso Killer though.

Dream on, John.

Uterus removal is very rare.

Heart removal is very rare.

Cutting the abdominal wall away in large sections is rarer than purple icebears.

Etcetera, etcetera.

Letīs not deny reality. That cannot possibly be the aim of these boards.

[Sam Flynn]

A torso dumped on land and with no eviscerations differs a lot from one dumped in the river and having organs taken out.

Not all the London torso cases were eviscerated, only a minority.

He also cut out uteri and hearts

Like evisceration, the removal of a uterus was not a feature of all the London torso cases, only a minority. Also in a minority, the removal of the heart in one case also involved the complete removal of the lungs.

and he cut away the abdominal wall in flaps from a victim.

No. Mary Kelly had her abdominal wall cut away - entirely, in three flaps, from flank to flank and from sternum to pubis and beyond. Elizabeth Jackson had part of her abdominal flesh removed in two strips in the middle of the belly, apparently from approx the level of the navel downwards. Furthermore, Jackson was the only torso victim to have had part of her abdominal wall removed in this way.

[Fisherman]

Not all the London torso cases were eviscerated, only a minority.Like evisceration, the removal of a uterus was not a feature of all the London torso cases, only a minority. Also in a minority, the removal of the heart in one case also involved the complete removal of the lungs.

No. Mary Kelly had her abdominal wall cut away - entirely, in three flaps, from flank to flank and from sternum to pubis and beyond. Elizabeth Jackson had part of her abdominal flesh removed in two strips in the middle of the belly, apparently from approx the level of the navel downwards. Details are unclear, but what is crystal clear is that Jackson was the only torso victim to have had part of her abdominal wall removed in this way.

Yawn. Why do you keep making the statement that not all torsos were eviscerated? What possible meaning does that have in the debate? Does it make the eviscerations go away? Or do they remain as an established fact?

The same goes for the uterus and the heart - they are proven eviscerations, carried out by the torso killer. He was an eviscerator. But he did not eviscerate all his victims. One is proven, two is most likely, three could well be.

The Ripper was an eviscerator. But he did not eviscerate all his victims. Three only out of the canonical five. What should we read into that?

The newspaper articles are very clear on how the lower abdomen was taken away in Jacksons case. In "two large flaps" as per Hebbert. And that is an extremely rare thing, almost unheard of - if it was not for the Ripper. Who ALSO took away large flaps of the abdominal wall from two of HIS victims.

Maybe you should make the point that he did not take such flaps from all victims? Maybe that nullifies that he did in two cases? Following your logic?

You are really getting desperate now, Gareth. You are repeating yourself, and that is not a good thing to do when what you say is of an embarrasing quality. And that is the nicest thing I can say about it, to be frank.

Goodnight. Sweet, factbased dreams!

[John Wheat]

Dream on, John.

Uterus removal is very rare.

Heart removal is very rare.

Cutting the abdominal wall away in large sections is rarer than purple icebears.

Etcetera, etcetera.

Letīs not deny reality. That cannot possibly be the aim of these boards.

Get over yourself. The Uterus and Heart removal happened in one Torso case.

[Trevor Marriott]

Dream on, John.

Uterus removal is very rare.

Heart removal is very rare.

Cutting the abdominal wall away in large sections is rarer than purple icebears.

Etcetera, etcetera.

Letīs not deny reality. That cannot possibly be the aim of these boards.

And the reality is that there are other plausible explanations for some organs to be found missing from the dismembered bodies, but of course reality is not one of your strongest points is it ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[RockySullivan]

Not all the London torso cases were eviscerated, only a minority.Like evisceration, the removal of a uterus was not a feature of all the London torso cases, only a minority. Also in a minority, the removal of the heart in one case also involved the complete removal of the lungs.

No. Mary Kelly had her abdominal wall cut away - entirely, in three flaps, from flank to flank and from sternum to pubis and beyond. Elizabeth Jackson had part of her abdominal flesh removed in two strips in the middle of the belly, apparently from approx the level of the navel downwards. Furthermore, Jackson was the only torso victim to have had part of her abdominal wall removed in this way.

and why did the Pinchin torso and Polly Nichols both have abdominal mutilations and no organ removal?

[Sam Flynn]

Why do you keep making the statement that not all torsos were eviscerated? What possible meaning does that have in the debate?

Because it's obvious that the frequency by which a factor appears is vital to establishing the significance of that factor in a given series. If it only appears rarely - e.g. ONCE!!! - then it's not likely to be significant, is it?

The same goes for the uterus and the heart - they are proven eviscerations, carried out by the torso killer.

ONCE!!!!!

He was an eviscerator.

No, he (or they) was a dismemberer, who occasionally eviscerated. Call him "a dismemberer who occasionally eviscerated" if you like, but no honest person would call him "AN" eviscerator, because evisceration was by no means a consistent feature in the torso crimes. Whoever was/were responsible for them was primarily a dismemberer, full stop.

The Ripper was an eviscerator. But he did not eviscerate all his victims. Three only out of the canonical five. What should we read into that?

First, it's more like four out of the canonical five, as Nichols was well on her way to evisceration, and she was practically if not actually disembowelled at the very least. Secondly, what we can read into what we know is that the majority of the canonical five were, without a shadow of a doubt, eviscerated with no other apparent purpose in evidence. We can also read that uteri were removed three times and, if the killer had followed through on Nichols, we'd have four out of five times when a uterus was removed. If, as is reasonable, we posit for the sake of argument that Stride was not a Ripper victim, we have a 100% consistency of actual, or intended, evisceration coupled with the removal of the womb.

Compare and contrast that with the pathetically infrequent instances of evisceration and womb-removal in the torso cases, for which practical, "non-paraphilic" explanations can easily be found.

The newspaper articles are very clear on how the lower abdomen was taken away in Jacksons case. In "two large flaps" as per Hebbert.

"Large" and "flaps" are not empirical terms, and we all know about newspaper articles, don't we? I'll stick to Hebbert's book, if you don't mind. Secondly, "the lower abdomen" does NOT mean "the abdominal wall", but PART of it. Furthermore, it is unlikely that even the entire lower abdomen was removed, but only PART of it, in two flaps, from the level of the navel to pubis.

You want some "large flaps"? You want to talk about the "removal of the abdominal wall"? Then you should look at Mary Kelly, not Elizabeth Jackson.

You are really getting desperate now, Gareth. You are repeating yourself

That's because you keep coming out with the same over-generalised and biased statements.

[Abby Normal]

Because it's obvious that the frequency by which a factor appears is vital to establishing the significance of that factor in a given series. If it only appears rarely - e.g. ONCE!!! - then it's not likely to be significant, is it?ONCE!!!!!No, he (or they) was a dismemberer, who occasionally eviscerated. Call him "a dismemberer who occasionally eviscerated" if you like, but no honest person would call him "AN" eviscerator, because evisceration was by no means a consistent feature in the torso crimes. Whoever was/were responsible for them was primarily a dismemberer, full stop.First, it's more like four out of the canonical five, as Nichols was well on her way to evisceration, and she was practically if not actually disembowelled at the very least. Secondly, what we can read into what we know is that the majority of the canonical five were, without a shadow of a doubt, eviscerated with no other apparent purpose in evidence. We can also read that uteri were removed three times and, if the killer had followed through on Nichols, we'd have four out of five times when a uterus was removed. If, as is reasonable, we posit for the sake of argument that Stride was not a Ripper victim, we have a 100% consistency of actual, or intended, evisceration coupled with the removal of the womb.

Compare and contrast that with the pathetically infrequent instances of evisceration and womb-removal in the torso cases, for which practical, "non-paraphilic" explanations can easily be found.
"Large" and "flaps" are not empirical terms, and we all know about newspaper articles, don't we? I'll stick to Hebbert's book, if you don't mind. Secondly, "the lower abdomen" does NOT mean "the abdominal wall", but PART of it. Furthermore, it is unlikely that even the entire lower abdomen was removed, but only PART of it, in two flaps, from the level of the navel to pubis.

You want some "large flaps"? You want to talk about the "removal of the abdominal wall"? Then you should look at Mary Kelly, not Elizabeth Jackson.That's because you keep coming out with the same over-generalised and biased statements.

Sam
Why do you have such an issue with the word flaps? Its the term the dam dr used. If its good enough for him it should be good enough for us.
I dont get it.

[Fisherman]

Get over yourself. The Uterus and Heart removal happened in one Torso case.

Actually, both Jackson and the Rainham victim lost their hearts. And it does not matter that it did not happen in all cases, since it is a very specific similarity anyway.
Saying that there are no similarities is being economic with the truth.

[Fisherman]

And the reality is that there are other plausible explanations for some organs to be found missing from the dismembered bodies, but of course reality is not one of your strongest points is it ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Oh, I think reality is something I master a lot better than you, Trevor. I have never said that the organs were all lost to eviscerations, but instead very clearly noted that it is only in Jacksons case that we can be definitely sure of it. I know it and I respect it, although I personally think that the logical deduction is that the Rainham victims heart was taken by the killer, just as Frank van Oploo agreed about a few posts back. The damage is very much a carbon copy of Jacksons fate. That, however, does not lead me to say that it must have been an evisceration.

So what is your problem? Where am I not complying with reality? Explain to me, Trevor!

[Fisherman]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Why do you keep making the statement that not all torsos were eviscerated? What possible meaning does that have in the debate?

Because it's obvious that the frequency by which a factor appears is vital to establishing the significance of that factor in a given series. If it only appears rarely - e.g. ONCE!!! - then it's not likely to be significant, is it?


Iīm afraid we cannot say that a factor is unsignificant if it only happnes once in a murder series like this. We are not discussing statistics here, we are discussing murder. What is found on a murder site (or dumping site) contains vital information, and that goes for all of it. If a signed confession only appears on one site, my advice to the police is not to throw it away on account of it not being present on the other sites, but instead to recognize that they have solved the case.
This, you will not tolerate. To you, any detail can be skipped over if it is only present in one case. To me, it is very different: what a killer does to a victim carries immense importance to our overall understanding of that killer, and represents our best chance to decode and find him.
It must also be said that we should not work from the idea that only one of the torso victims was eviscerated. There is every possibility that two or more were, and I think you are aware of that. So eviscerations were on this killers bill of undertakings, and therefore any other series of murders that involve eviscerations must be regarded as something that likely offers a connection if that other series is in sync chronologically and geographically.
You seem to think it is a shame that the torso killer could not have refrained from the Jackson eviscerations, since it offers that link. I instead think it is a blessing that we have it on record, because it sheds light on the case and allows us a better understanding of it.
Quote:
The same goes for the uterus and the heart - they are proven eviscerations, carried out by the torso killer.

ONCE!!!!!

See the above. Imagine that we have a man on record that has raped, killed, cooked and eaten a three year old girl. Imagine further that he has a record involving ten more rapes of young girls.

Now, in the town where he lives, another young girl is found floating in pieces in a casserole.

If that happened, I would say: It is probably the same man who killed and cooked and ate that other girl, he lives in this town.

What would you say? "Itīs most probably not him. He only did that ONCE!!! It is NOT significant, he is a mere rapist. Cooking and eating a girl just once does not make you a cannibal!"

Can you see where that goes awry? Once a cannibal, always a cannibal. Once an eviscerator, always an eviscerator. And in this case, it could well be thrice an eviscerator, always an eviscerator.
Quote:
He was an eviscerator.

No, he (or they) was a dismemberer, who occasionally eviscerated.


People who "occasionally eviscerate" are eviscerators, Gareth. How on earth you could write what you just did is something I really have problems understanding. "He occasionally eviscerated, but that does not make him an eviscerator" - try that on for size.


Call him "a dismemberer who occasionally eviscerated" if you like, but no honest person would call him "AN" eviscerator, because evisceration was by no means a consistent feature in the torso crimes. Whoever was/were responsible for them was primarily a dismemberer, full stop.

He was a dismemberer and an eviscerator. He dismembered in all cases and eviscerated in some. Thereīs your full stop. You are embarrasing yourself.

Quote:
The Ripper was an eviscerator. But he did not eviscerate all his victims. Three only out of the canonical five. What should we read into that?

First, it's more like four out of the canonical five, as Nichols was well on her way to evisceration, and she was practically if not actually disembowelled at the very least.

This is interesting. In the torso case, we have PROVEN eviscerations, and you say he was NOT an eviscerator. It leads me to think that you have a hard time admitting when eviscerations are in place. But look at this - now you want to call Nichols eviscerated, in spite of how she was not! "Practically if not actually disembowelled", no less!

Listen carefully now: We do NOT have any conclusive information about why Nichols was NOT eviscerated! Likewise, we do NOT have any conclusive information about why the Pinchin Street torso was not eviscerated. We do NOT work from out ideas and convictions as if they were facts, fit to substitute reality for.
The Rippers five canonical victims were eviscerated in three out of five cases only. Basta!

Do I think that Nichols was about to get eviscerated? Yes, I do - but I am not certain of it, since "my" killer was not somebody who had an absolute need to eviscerate - he was somebody interested in how women are constructed and who wanted to deconstruct them, take them apart, if you will. Sometimes by taking out a kidney, on other occasions by cutting a face away.

So letīs stick with what we have, not what we want to have shall we? I feel that is always the best way to go about things with intact credibility.


Secondly, what we can read into what we know is that the majority of the canonical five were, without a shadow of a doubt, eviscerated with no other apparent purpose in evidence. We can also read that uteri were removed three times and, if the killer had followed through on Nichols, we'd have four out of five times when a uterus was removed. If, as is reasonable, we posit for the sake of argument that Stride was not a Ripper victim, we have a 100% consistency of actual, or intended, evisceration coupled with the removal of the womb.


How is cutting away the thigh flesh an evisceration? How is cutting the buttocks away an evisceration? How is cutting the forehead and nose off an evisceration?
How are these measures NOT an apparent purpose? Deconstructing, not eviscerating, is the term that covers what happened.

Deconstructing is what happened to the torso victims too. Including eviscerations.

It is kind of touching to see how you make Nichols an evisceration victim and how you take Stride off the list to make a collection of victims that suits your purposes.

Come to think of it, if you can say that Nichols was eviscerated, then I can say that the Whitehall and Rainham victims also were. They at least actually DID loose organs! And if we strike the Pinchin Street victim off the list - something you are begging us on your knees to do - then out of the four Hebbert linked together, only three are left, all of them eviscerated.

Then again, I think that is precisely how we should NOT work. The cases are not simple ones, there is no clear path to walk, only two series of murders, overlapping in geography, in time and in a number of details of what was done to the victims, these details involving uterus taking, heart taking and the taking away of the abdominal wall in large flaps.


Compare and contrast that with the pathetically infrequent instances of evisceration and womb-removal in the torso cases, for which practical, "non-paraphilic" explanations can easily be found.

Equally, paraphilic reasons can be found. And certainly, cut away abdominal walls can be found. In both series.
Quote:
The newspaper articles are very clear on how the lower abdomen was taken away in Jacksons case. In "two large flaps" as per Hebbert.

"Large" and "flaps" are not empirical terms, and we all know about newspaper articles, don't we? I'll stick to Hebbert's book, if you don't mind. Secondly, "the lower abdomen" does NOT mean "the abdominal wall", but PART of it. Furthermore, it is unlikely that even the entire lower abdomen was removed, but only PART of it, in two flaps, from the level of the navel to pubis.

You want some "large flaps"? You want to talk about the "removal of the abdominal wall"? Then you should look at Mary Kelly, not Elizabeth Jackson.

Letīs agree, shall we, that we do not know the exact extent of how much of Jacksons abdominal wall was cut away. Letīs agree, shall we, that it may have been the entire lower abdominal wall. Letīs agree, shall we, that what we cannot rule out (and what has support in a number of paper articles) must be looked upon as a possibility. Letīs not, shall we, try and obfuscate.

The Jackson flaps may well have been just about equal in size to those in the Chapman and Kelly cases. Fact.
You dislike that idea, but you cannot dispell it. Fact.
You try to do so anyway. Shameful fact.

Quote:
You are really getting desperate now, Gareth. You are repeating yourself.

That's because you keep coming out with the same over-generalised and biased statements.

The only overgeneralisations and biased inclusions are courtesy of you. "Nichols was actually eviscerated, more or less". "We can take away Stride, and then we will see a 100 per cent confirmation of my take on things". "The Jackson flaps were mere strips". "The journalists got it all wrong when they wrote about Jacksons abdomen having been removed".

Itīs a pack of embarrasing misleadings and pathetic attempts at latter-day revisionism, dressed up as facts. Shame on you for trying to put the blame of such things on me.

[Sam Flynn]

Sam
Why do you have such an issue with the word flaps? Its the term the dam dr used. If its good enough for him it should be good enough for us.
I dont get it.

I don't have an issue with the word, but the significance invested in it. There are only so many ways to name pieces of flesh.