Torso Killer discussion from Millwood Thread

[Fisherman]

No **** fishlock

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...e-torso-killer

Elementary, Rockson.

[bolo]

Nope, the ID:d victim had no tattoo - she had a scar her mother remembered her by, plus her clothing was subsequently identified.

Okay, thanks for the correction.

Why you find eviscerations and cut away flaps of abdominal flesh less important because a victim has subsequently been dismembered, I simply fail to grasp. But it is and remains your prerogative, of course.

I find it less important because there is a very practical reason to take out the organs before cutting and sawing a body into smaller parts with a view of of dumping them into a river while there was not in the Ripper killings; whoever killed Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly wanted to open their bodies, create havoc and take organs out, there was no practical aspect to it, except of course if you believe in the business-like organ harvesting theory but I think we both agree that it's a red herring.

There are cities much larger today than London was in 1888, many of them with sad social conditions. So far, though, no such city has seen two simultaneously working eviscerating serial killers, let alone two such creatures that inflicted the same type of odd and rare damage on their victims. That goes into my weighing of the case. Does it go into yours...?

London in the late 1880s wasn't just any old large city but one of the most important centres of metropolitan, industrial and social development in the world with a number of pecularities not found elsewhere. It was the spearhead of many a medical, technical or social revolution, so why not in terms of crime?

[RockySullivan]

Not to be a party-pooper, but there were actually people proposing a shared identity back in 1888.

No **** fishlock

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/victims/non-canonical-victims/torso-killings/8715-what-did-jack-make-of-the-torso-killer

[Fisherman]

Hi Abby,



If I may chime hin here - I don't see it as relevant within the murderer's killing and disembowelling/dismembering ritual but in my opinion, it becomes very important when all has been said and done. In the Ripper cases, the bodies were left were they were for everyone to see, unmoved, no attempt was made to hide them or hinder ID (well, not in all cases but I guess you catch my drift). Two different approaches that may point to different killers.



I allow myself all these interpretations you mention, Fisherman; two or more killers, one killer (Ripper and Torsoman are one and the same), dismembering part of the ritual and/or just for practical reasons, etc. What I've written so far represents the bottom line of my interpretations and thoughs, and I can't reach any other temporary verdict at the moment because there simple aren't enough facts to work with. I go with the little we have, like the fact that only one torso victim got identified and the heads were never found. The identified victim had a tattoo which made the docs refer to her as a prostitute but they couldn't tell in the other cases; at least one victim had smooth hands and manicured fingernails so it might as well not have been a street worker. I would be interested to find out who they were but it's impossible because whoever chopped and sawed them to pieces obviously did not want them to be identified and was successful with it.

Then there are the similarities you've mentioned several times, flaps of flesh, cuts sternum-down, organs taken out, etc. I put quite some importance to that in case of the Ripper killings but have troubles doing so with victims that got dismembered; as I've mentioned before, the organ and intestines removal might also have been done mostly for practical reasons but of course we cannot tell at this point whether this was the case or the killer actually put more thought into it or even kept trophies.

Yes, I TEND TO THINK that Torsoman was mostly pragmatic about getting rid of the bodies in parts and hiding/destroying the heads in order to prevent ID. Why? Because it's the most likely explanation in my eyes. No need to make things more complicated than they are.

London and greater area was a huge metropolitan region back in the LVP. Thousands of partly traumatised immigrants, some of whom fled from bloody pogroms in their home country, flooded the city and specially the East End. The negative aspects of industrialisation also created an army of downtrodden worker bees who worked their bums off in sweat shops for some lousy pennies 12 or more hours a day and 6 days a week, as well as a large number of lowest-class prostitutes who sold themselves for truppence. Social and political upheaval was all around, quite a few people (namely certain immigrant groups) radicalised themselves - in short, in a city with a socio-political climate like that and millions of people on the census, the idea of two or more killers that were about at the same time does not sound outlandish to me. At least I see it as a possibility that you should also put some thought into to balance things out a bit.

Cheers,

Boris

Nope, the ID:d victim had no tattoo - she had a scar her mother remembered her by, plus her clothing was subsequently identified.

Why you find eviscerations and cut away flaps of abdominal flesh less important because a victim has subsequently been dismembered, I simply fail to grasp. But it is and remains your prerogative, of course.

Once there is overlapping evidence, there is also a need to "complicate" things. Actually, to me, its simplifying them: same things, same killer.

There are cities much larger today than London was in 1888, many of them with sad social conditions. So far, though, no such city has seen two simultaneously working eviscerating serial killers, let alone two such creatures that inflicted the same type of odd and rare damage on their victims. That goes into my weighing of the case. Does it go into yours...?

[bolo]

Hi Abby,

Hi jeff
at the end of the day is there really that BIG of a difference between removing an arm or a head and removing a breast, or large sections of flesh, or internal organs?

If I may chime hin here - I don't see it as relevant within the murderer's killing and disembowelling/dismembering ritual but in my opinion, it becomes very important when all has been said and done. In the Ripper cases, the bodies were left were they were for everyone to see, unmoved, no attempt was made to hide them or hinder ID. Two different approaches that may point to different killers.

This is the fault you keep doing, Bolo - you say that a killer who dismembers and dumps the parts in a river wants to prevent detection and ID.

It is the same as saying that dismemberment coupled with dumping the parts in a river MUST be about staying uncaught and not having the victims ID:d.

In other words, you do not allow for ANY other interpretation.

If the killer was mentally ill, he may have wanted to keep the parts, but decided against in on account of the smell coming from them. In such a case, dumping them has nothing to do with detection and ID matters. For example.

Itīs all fine and dandy to have a conviction, but it becomes a bad thing when that conviction comes with a blindfold.

My belief is that the killer used the bodies to shape something out of them, and that once this was accomplished, he had no desire to hang on to the parts any longer. I also believe that some parts did not belong to that something he shaped in the first place, and therefore he would have been uninterested in them from beginning to end, whereas other parts were essential.

[...]

Can you see how this works, Bolo? This is the EXACT type of killer I think we are dealing with. And actually, it was at the time even thought that Rolling could have surgical experience! That would have been on account of how he managed to sever the head by knife, a not very easy thing to do.

You ask why the killer of Nichols had to make a test run before he could get his cut right. Perhaps he just wasn't any surgeon, and he simply misjudged how to begin in the right place. The torso killer did the exact same thing on occasion, having to make a fresh start on a cut because he misjudged the first one. So there is no difference in that respect - either. But we may do well to keep in mins that the women were probably cut under VERY differing circumstances and time frames, Bolo.

I allow myself all these interpretations you mention, Fisherman; two or more killers, one killer (Ripper and Torsoman are one and the same), dismembering part of the ritual and/or just for practical reasons, etc. What I've written so far represents the bottom line of my interpretations and thoughs, and I can't reach any other temporary verdict at the moment because there simple aren't enough facts to work with. I go with the little we have, like the fact that only one torso victim got identified and the heads were never found. The identified victim had a tattoo which made the docs refer to her as a prostitute but they couldn't tell in the other cases; at least one victim had smooth hands and manicured fingernails so it might as well not have been a street worker. I would be interested to find out who they were but it's impossible because whoever chopped and sawed them to pieces obviously did not want them to be identified and was successful with it.

Then there are the similarities you've mentioned several times, flaps of flesh, cuts sternum-down, organs taken out, etc. I put quite some importance to that in case of the Ripper killings but have troubles doing so with victims that got dismembered; as I've mentioned before, the organ and intestines removal might also have been done mostly for practical reasons but of course we cannot tell at this point whether this was the case or the killer actually put more thought into it or even kept trophies.

Yes, I TEND TO THINK that Torsoman was mostly pragmatic about getting rid of the bodies in parts and hiding/destroying the heads in order to prevent ID. Why? Because it's the most likely explanation in my eyes. No need to make things more complicated than they are.

London and greater area was a huge metropolitan region back in the LVP. Thousands of partly traumatised immigrants, some of whom fled from bloody pogroms in their home country, flooded the city and specially the East End. The negative aspects of industrialisation also created an army of downtrodden worker bees who worked their bums off in sweat shops for some lousy pennies 12 or more hours a day and 6 days a week, as well as a large number of lowest-class prostitutes who sold themselves for truppence. Social and political upheaval was all around, quite a few people (namely certain immigrant groups) radicalised themselves - in short, in a city with a socio-political climate like that and millions of people on the census, the idea of two or more killers that were about at the same time does not sound outlandish to me. At least I see it as a possibility that you should also put some thought into to balance things out a bit.

Cheers,

Boris

[Fisherman]

Was I not saying one killer years before Fishboy hijacked the train?

I wasnīt aware of how much of a pioneer your were in this respect, Rocky. My humblest apologies for not acknowledging it - and, of course, for stealing what was always your idea. Naughty me.

Not to be a party-pooper, but there were actually people proposing a shared identity back in 1888.

[Abby Normal]

Was I not saying one killer years before Fishboy hijacked the train?

hey Rocky!
I guess I have a bad memory because I cant remember you have been saying they were the same man for years, but Ill take it, and glad I know your overall position on the matter!
in a nutshell can you please summarize your ideas on why you think they were the same man?

[Abby Normal]

The part was found on the foreshore of the river, near Wandsworth Bridge. The green circle (Maysoule Road) is where Wildbore lived.

got it Jerry!
Thanks-very interesting. Wildbore raises his head again!

[RockySullivan]

Yes, they could, on account of having moles and such things left on their bodies. At the end of the day, only one victim WAS, but that's another matter.

I note that you agree with me that there was just one killer, and that's progress anyway.

Was I not saying one killer years before Fishboy hijacked the train?

[jerryd]

Hi jer
this part is too far from the river though to have been thrown in the river though isnt it?

The part was found on the foreshore of the river, near Wandsworth Bridge. The green circle (Maysoule Road) is where Wildbore lived.

[Abby Normal]

Yes, actually, it can be shown that JtR did not want, nor had the skills, to dismember. In Kelly's case, he had all the time in the world to do what ever he wanted. He did not dismemeber her in any way. By not doing something he had the opportunity to do indicates he did not want to do it. What he did do was mutilate her to an extent far greater than any of the other victims, because what JtR wanted to do was mutilate. The frenzied attacks on both Eddowes and Kelly's faces are of an entirely different character than the careful skinning and removing of the face you've mentioned in the torso cases. Again, in Kelly's case in particular, there is nothing in her mutilations that is done careful or deliberately, there is just a wholesale frenzied attack. Nothing like the torso cases at all

And, in Chapman's case the medical reports indicate an apparent attempt, and failure, to decapitate the victim. An attempt followed by failure demonstrates that JtR didn't have the skill to do it, or at the very least, didn't have the knowledge to realize that he didn't have the time to do it. Dr. Bond's report includes his opinion that JtR did not even possess the skill of a butcher or cattleman, although Dr. Phillips did think that Nichols, Chapman, and Kelly's killer did show some skills but not the killer of Eddowes (Phillips did not believe Eddowes was by JtR, but apparently Stride was ok to include).

However, the medical reports on the torso victims clearly state that the disarticulation was done by someone with a high level of skill in that area. This is a skill set difference that indicates the torso killer and JtR are not the same person because the skill set goes with the killer.

I just can't see any connection.

- Jeff

Hi jeff
at the end of the day is there really that BIG of a difference between removing an arm or a head and removing a breast, or large sections of flesh, or internal organs?

[Abby Normal]

The "odd" parcel of Jackson's body turned up on the foreshore near Wandsworth Bridge. I say odd because it is the opposite direction of the flow of the other parts. It seems to appear that part may have been deliberately dumped near that area. On the map I have included here, the circle with the pin in it is Maysoule Road. The red lines are the Wandsworth Bridge and Albert Bridge. The Albert Bridge obviously is off the map, but the red lines show almost the start of it.

Hi jer
this part is too far from the river though to have been thrown in the river though isnt it?

[Fisherman]

Jeff Hamm: The frenzied attacks on both Eddowes and Kelly's faces are of an entirely different character than the careful skinning and removing of the face you've mentioned in the torso cases. Again, in Kelly's case in particular, there is nothing in her mutilations that is done careful or deliberately, there is just a wholesale frenzied attack. Nothing like the torso cases at all.

Imagine, if you will, what was left on the victim of the 1873 victim when her face was cut away. Then take a look at Kellys face. Then tell me that they did not look the same at all.

The notion that there is nothing careful or deliberate at all in the mutilations tell me that you are on the same level of understanding the Ripper cases as Robert Anderson was, it was done by "a maniac, revelling in blood".

Anser me this one question: The inner organs of Kelly were all plucked out and placed beside her. There is no mentioning at all anywhere that any of the organs had any sort of damage at all to them. They seem to have been plucked out whole and undamaged.

Not deliberate? Not careful?

The eyes of Kelly were photographed, meaning that they were totally or relatively undamaged after all of that careless and frenzied carving on her face.

Not deliberate? Not careful?

Under Kellys head, a breast, the kidneys and the uterus had been tucked in, like some sort of pillow.

Not deliberate? Not careful?

The man who killed Kelly was not a maniac who could not control himself. The deed is in all probability the best indication we have to the contrary.

[Fisherman]

Yes, actually, it can be shown that JtR did not want, nor had the skills, to dismember. In Kelly's case, he had all the time in the world to do what ever he wanted. He did not dismemeber her in any way. By not doing something he had the opportunity to do indicates he did not want to do it. What he did do was mutilate her to an extent far greater than any of the other victims, because what JtR wanted to do was mutilate. The frenzied attacks on both Eddowes and Kelly's faces are of an entirely different character than the careful skinning and removing of the face you've mentioned in the torso cases. Again, in Kelly's case in particular, there is nothing in her mutilations that is done careful or deliberately, there is just a wholesale frenzied attack. Nothing like the torso cases at all

And, in Chapman's case the medical reports indicate an apparent attempt, and failure, to decapitate the victim. An attempt followed by failure demonstrates that JtR didn't have the skill to do it, or at the very least, didn't have the knowledge to realize that he didn't have the time to do it. Dr. Bond's report includes his opinion that JtR did not even possess the skill of a butcher or cattleman, although Dr. Phillips did think that Nichols, Chapman, and Kelly's killer did show some skills but not the killer of Eddowes (Phillips did not believe Eddowes was by JtR, but apparently Stride was ok to include).

However, the medical reports on the torso victims clearly state that the disarticulation was done by someone with a high level of skill in that area. This is a skill set difference that indicates the torso killer and JtR are not the same person because the skill set goes with the killer.

I just can't see any connection.

- Jeff

1. He did not HAVE to dismember the Ripper victims. They were not in his house!

2. Kelly had notches on her spine, leading Phillips to suggest a botched decapitation. Chapman had something along the same lines. Chapman was killed in September-88 and Kelly in November-88. The Rainham victim was found in May -87, the Whitehall victim was found in September -88, Jackson was found in June -89. All of these victims had had their heads SAWN off. When the Pinchin Street victim was found in September of 1989, she had had her head taken off by means of knife, and Charles Hebbert pointed this out as a sign of the killer progressing in his skills.

Can you see how the two series fit together? Before September -89, NEITHER man seems to have been able to decapitate by knife. So at the stage when you say that the Ripper was unable to decapitate, I think you are totally wrong: he would be perfectly able to decapitate, given a saw. But he did not carry a saw into the streets, did he? So he (possibly) tried with a knife - and failed.

Is there any evidence that the Torso killer knew how to decapitate by knife at this stage in time? No, there is not - because he used a saw on the three victims of May 1887 to June 1888.

Both men were deemed to possess a high level of skill with their knives, by the way. That's one more of those "coincidences".

[Fisherman]

A killer who dismembers a body and dumps the parts, some of them wrapped in parcels, in a river or more or less hidden spots, wants to prevent detection and ID. It seems quite off to me to think that someone works for hours to chop up a body and then uses the tide and flow of a river to sort of make his deeds known in a random way.

Depending on which torso cases you want to include in your theory, the 1887 case showed a degree of skill that I don't see in Polly's case. Doesn't it seem odd to you that an accomplished dismemberer of 1887 needs at least two goes at the start of his 1888 street killer career to get the mutilation thing right.

This is the fault you keep doing, Bolo - you say that a killer who dismembers and dumps the parts in a river wants to prevent detection and ID.

It is the same as saying that dismemberment coupled with dumping the parts in a river MUST be about staying uncaught and not having the victims ID:d.

In other words, you do not allow for ANY other interpretation.

If the killer was mentally ill, he may have wanted to keep the parts, but decided against in on account of the smell coming from them. In such a case, dumping them has nothing to do with detection and ID matters. For example.

Itīs all fine and dandy to have a conviction, but it becomes a bad thing when that conviction comes with a blindfold.

My belief is that the killer used the bodies to shape something out of them, and that once this was accomplished, he had no desire to hang on to the parts any longer. I also believe that some parts did not belong to that something he shaped in the first place, and therefore he would have been uninterested in them from beginning to end, whereas other parts were essential.

I really don't care very much if it seems off to you, but I think you need to accept that appearances may deceive. Not all killers who cut off a head do so to hinder an ID process. Some killers do it for a much less intricate reason: they want to do it. And out of these killers, a significant part are people who also want to use the parts to send messages and invoke terror. One such example would be the Gainsborough Ripper, Danny Rolling, who cut off a head and put it on a shelve, for the finders to behold. But there are other examples of the practice too.

Rolling committed this crime in a students apartment. But imagine that he had done it in his own apartment, had he owned such a thing (he was a drifter, living in a tent)! Once the victim had started to smell, he would face getting caught. So what possible action would he take, do you think?

Exactly. And I believe the exact same thing: He would dispose of the remains.

Where would he do it? Outside his tent, or some place else, that he was not so acutely linked to?

I agree with your thoughts again - he would probably use the latter alternative.

Would he try to hinder an identification? Only if the victim could be tied to him. Victims you have no ties to cannot give you away by being ID:d. Which is why it would not help to know the ID:s of the torso series, if they were all prostitutes the killer had picked up randomly. In such a case, he would not care about erasing moles, taking scars away and so on. Hell, he could even leave clothing marked with names on his victims, since he was sure they could not be linked to him!

Now, a killer like Rolling, who we KNOW tried to scare people witless by facing them with a chopped off head in a shelve, what would he want to do with the body parts he could have chopped his victims up in? Make them go away? Hardly, it would mean a lot of work for no reason - the victim could not be tied to him, and he much preferred if people were made aware of his work. So what if he was faced with the possibility of throwing the parts somewhere that guaranteed him that they would be found? Would he like such an option? Once again I agree - he probably would cherish it. And if that option involved having the parts surfacing outside the White House in Washington or something such, he would probably think that was the best possible option.

Can you see how this works, Bolo? This is the EXACT type of killer I think we are dealing with. And actually, it was at the time even thought that Rolling could have surgical experience! That would have been on account of how he managed to sever the head by knife, a not very easy thing to do.

You ask why the killer of Nichols had to make a test run before he could get his cut right. Perhaps he just wasn't any surgeon, and he simply misjudged how to begin in the right place. The torso killer did the exact same thing on occasion, having to make a fresh start on a cut because he misjudged the first one. So there is no difference in that respect - either. But we may do well to keep in mins that the women were probably cut under VERY differing circumstances and time frames, Bolo.