Torso Killer discussion from Millwood Thread

[JeffHamm]

And you cant show that the killer did NOT want to dismember. Now, WHO would have thought that?

Can we raise the quality of the discussion, please?

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

[jerryd]

A closer look at how close Maysoule Road was to the Wandsworth Bridge find.

[jerryd]

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.

[jerryd]

The time of the deposits off the bridge have been a question of mine. I did find some interesting reports and posts for everyone to chew on.

First, the police point of view initially:

Then, thanks to John Savages research, he came up with this model:

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread....dge#post129870

THE FIND AT HORSLEYDOWN

We do not have an exact time that the body parts were found at George's Stairs but from the information we have it would seem likely that it was sometime about midmorning. The distance from Albert Bridge to George's stairs would be approximately 4.7 nautical miles and the body would have to travel on an ebb tide. To decide the speed that the body part would travel at, consider that maximum speed of 3.5 knots would be at spring tides, but on the date in question neap tides were occurring and this would give a slower maximum speed of about 2 knots. The tide does not move at this speed all the time but starts from zero at high water and increases for the next three hours or so and then starts to decrease in speed until low water is reached. Therefore let us assume an average speed of 1 knot.

High water at Albert Bridge on 4th. June 1889 occurred at 05.16hrs., taking the assumed average speed it would need 4 hrs. 45mins. to travel the 4.7 miles from Albert Bridge to George's Stairs, this gives an arrival time of 10.01hrs. George's stairs were on the south side of the river opposite St. Katherine's Dock and this would be in keeping with the northerly breeze mentioned earlier. This model suggest that the body parts were placed in the water around 4-5am, a time when the area may have been at it's most quiet.

Debs added to this by stating the wicket gates of the park were opened at 5 a.m.

Side note: Frederick Wildbore in 1888 was arriving for work (according to inquest testimony) around 6 a.m. The construction of the police building was still ongoing when Elizabeth Jackson was murdered. In the thread I linked to, Dave Gates had this to say about the Shelley Estate deposit, which I think is something to consider.

I am looking at the Battersea area land finds. The find of the 6th comes from a killing on the 4th at the latest. The next land find ( Shelly's pad) is on the 9th. Would the police still have the area of the find on the 6th still cordoned off? Could there have been an intermittent stream of gaukers at the dump site of the 6th. Is the recovery site of the 9th a function of post discovery activity on the site of the 6th? Is it reasonable to assume a package of this variety could have been there 3 days? Grosvenor road is close to gardens as depicted on the 1888 directory map, would there have been a smell? The find of the 9th was wrapped in part of the jacket, not wrapping paper, is that sufficient to suggest multiple depositional events? Dave

[Abby Normal]

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.

Yes, I have given the assumption that one man was responsible for both the torso and Ripper killings a good long thought and even took into consideration that the switch to street murders could have happened to boost publicity. I also pondered on Abby's idea of a temporary chop shop accommodation, read Hebbert's Exercise In Forensic Medicine and several dozen press articles on casebook but still can't make heads or tails of it. Among other problems, the idea that one man was the author of both the torso and Ripper killings goes against the theory of progression/learning curve from case to case. If we add Tabram to the Ripper murders, the killer went through a learning and testing process (consciously or subconsciously) which included a switch from stabbing to slashing and increasingly intense mutilations and organ removal. This spanned a period from August 1888 to November. Given the injuries inflicted on Polly, the killer probably did not have the necessary experience to go any further or got disturbed (yes, I know... Crossmere... please let us not elaborate on that in here...).

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?

About the press coverage of the Ripper and torso cases, I did not say that the Londoners did not feel threatened by the torso killings at all but public echo pales in comparison to the Ripper murders, and that's a fact, just compare the press releases for each case and the public hysteria that got worse with every new case. The torso killings were a long row of anonymous body parts that got washed ashore or were found on land, it just wasn't the same as the Ripper killings where each victim had a name and came from the midst of the poorest part of London where thousands of other people in the very same situation fought for survival every day. The torso killer victims may have come from the same ranks but since not even the doctors and police could put a name to them, public reception wasn't as emotional as in the Ripper cases.

This has not changed until today. Just go and ask people about Jack the Ripper and they will most probably know him while only true crime buffs will know the torso killings. The linking of both series seems to be a relatively new phenomenon, and even though I agree with you that there are a few interesting similarities between the cases that make it worth keeping at it, I'm still not convinced.

I'm looking forward to the upcoming book on the matter that hopefully will shed some more light on it.

Bolo
you have to keep in mind hes going from using a private chop shop where hes got all the time in the world to killing on the street. Two times to get it right? Thats pretty quick in my mind, and perhaps tabram was his first outside trigger kill, say she wouldnt come back to his chop shop, or she just pissed him off. Nichols he was disturbed, by lech (or if it was lech, than by paul).

Just really try to imagine two post mortem type serial killers lurking around the same area, picking up and killing prostitutes in the middle of the night and cutting up there bodies at the same time. Did they tip there hat to each other under a gas light... after you, govna!
the idea of two of these cretins about is getting more far fetched to me the more i think about it.

And also keep in mind how incredibly different the crimes of other serial killers have been: zodiac, btk, bundy, panzram, the recent golden state killer.

Compared to them, the apparent differences between torsoman and the ripper are peanuts.

and yes looking forward to that book!

[RockySullivan]

That's absurd to think someone can learn how to do that so quickly and so well. It's just not even logical at all. The killer has taken to the streets where he doesn't have to chop up, lug around and dump a body, getting used to ripping outside with people all around and Chapman is in a backyard.

[bolo]

Whoever came up the theory that Jack quickly learned over a few weeks how to remove a uterus in the dark in seconds is more ****in batshit than the Ripper.

A learning process like that not only encompasses physical/medical/anatomical skills but also what really gets him off: abdominal mutilation, which he very much intensified in the Chapman case. In this light, the idea of some sort of progression makes sense to me.

[RockySullivan]

Among other problems, the idea that one man was the author of both the torso and Ripper killings goes against the theory of progression/learning curve from case to case. If we add Tabram to the Ripper murders, the killer went through a learning and testing process (consciously or subconsciously) which included a switch from stabbing to slashing and increasingly intense mutilations and organ removal. This spanned a period from August 1888 to November. Given the injuries inflicted on Polly, the killer probably did not have the necessary experience to go any further or got disturbed (yes, I know... Crossmere... please let us not elaborate on that in here...).

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?

Whoever came up the theory that Jack quickly learned over a few weeks how to remove a uterus in the dark in seconds is more ****in batshit than the Ripper.

[bolo]

The whole point is that the torso killer did NOT "go to great lengths" to hide his victims identities, Bolo. If he HAD, he would not have left body marks on his victims such as moles and scars. He would not have served up an intact face, ready for mounting on a dummy. He would not have seen to it that his body parts were allowed to float ashore all over London, giving the police the possibility to establish height, weight, age, complexion, hair color and so on, allowing them to see whether the women had given birth etcetera. Far from hiding these ID markers, he swamped the police and press with them.

Contrary to what you say about the Londoners not feeling threatened by the torso killer (wherefrom did you get the idea...?), IŽd say that since the victims were not identified, many, many more women had reason to feel threatened. The Ripper only killed in the East End, and only prostitutes, so 99 per cent of Londons women had no reason to fear him. The Torso killer? VERY different story, because it was not known that he had his sight set on any particular type of woman and it was not known where he procured victims.

The whole reason for the Ripper scare lies in the size of the press coverage. And when you say that the Torso killer didn't do a very good job if he was after publicity, how does that particular view change if you work from the perception that the Torsoman and the Ripper were one and the same? Have you given that any thought? Has it occurred to you that a perceived lack of sufficient coverage in the press may be part of the incentive for the Torso killer to add street murders to his agenda? And that this is why the Ripper murders were perpetrated? No?
If you try that line of thinking, then note how it may well be that the torso murders were the ones that fulfilled his fantasies to the fullest, allowing him to carry out his ritualistic desires to the full, and that this was the reason that the torso murders did not seize but instead occurred alongside the Ripper murders!

It is an interesting exercise, I can promise you that much.

If I am wrong, then its just two cases of serial murder in the same town at the same time, involving numerous similarities like eviscerations of uteri, hearts and lungs, the cutting away of abdominal walls and the cutting out of colon sections, coupled with ripping from sternum to pelvis and the occasional ring theft. Nothing strange about that, eh? Surely, every town has had its siamese serial killer twins?

Move on, everybody, nothing to see here!

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.

Yes, I have given the assumption that one man was responsible for both the torso and Ripper killings a good long thought and even took into consideration that the switch to street murders could have happened to boost publicity. I also pondered on Abby's idea of a temporary chop shop accommodation, read Hebbert's Exercise In Forensic Medicine and several dozen press articles on casebook but still can't make heads or tails of it. Among other problems, the idea that one man was the author of both the torso and Ripper killings goes against the theory of progression/learning curve from case to case. If we add Tabram to the Ripper murders, the killer went through a learning and testing process (consciously or subconsciously) which included a switch from stabbing to slashing and increasingly intense mutilations and organ removal. This spanned a period from August 1888 to November. Given the injuries inflicted on Polly, the killer probably did not have the necessary experience to go any further or got disturbed (yes, I know... Crossmere... please let us not elaborate on that in here...).

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?

About the press coverage of the Ripper and torso cases, I did not say that the Londoners did not feel threatened by the torso killings at all but public echo pales in comparison to the Ripper murders, and that's a fact, just compare the press releases for each case and the public hysteria that got worse with every new case. The torso killings were a long row of anonymous body parts that got washed ashore or were found on land, it just wasn't the same as the Ripper killings where each victim had a name and came from the midst of the poorest part of London where thousands of other people in the very same situation fought for survival every day. The torso killer victims may have come from the same ranks but since not even the doctors and police could put a name to them, public reception wasn't as emotional as in the Ripper cases.

This has not changed until today. Just go and ask people about Jack the Ripper and they will most probably know him while only true crime buffs will know the torso killings. The linking of both series seems to be a relatively new phenomenon, and even though I agree with you that there are a few interesting similarities between the cases that make it worth keeping at it, I'm still not convinced.

I'm looking forward to the upcoming book on the matter that hopefully will shed some more light on it.

[RockySullivan]

The whole point is that the torso killer did NOT "go to great lengths" to hide his victims identities, Bolo. If he HAD, he would not have left body marks on his victims such as moles and scars. He would not have served up an intact face, ready for mounting on a dummy. He would not have seen to it that his body parts were allowed to float ashore all over London, giving the police the possibility to establish height, weight, age, complexion, hair color and so on, allowing them to see whether the women had given birth etcetera. Far from hiding these ID markers, he swamped the police and press with them.

That's fish **** my main man, Ripper did a hell of a job of making sure those girls weren't id'd. Could these girls be tied back to him, but not the Ripper victims?

[Fisherman]

Hi Sam, Abby, Fisherman, all,



you took the words right out of my mouth.

I used "hidden" in my previous post to describe my impression of the introverted torso killings vs. the extroverted Ripper murders that I would label as "open". Of course there are serial killers who used both dismemberment and disembowelling to act out their delusions but many of them were less flexible when it comes to getting rid of the bodies or covering their tracks. Some of them went to great lengths to make detection and ID of the bodies/body parts difficult while others left the bodies of the victims where they killed them. However, the number of cases where the killer was very careful with hiding the bodies to hinder ID in one case and totally indifferent towards detection and identification in another does not seem very high as far as I can see.

Then there is the reaction of the general public to the crimes. While the Ripper murders kicked off a mass psychosis, the torso killings did not have the same impact, even though press coverage was quite thorough. I think the anonymity of the victims and the way the bodies or parts were found played a role here, it just didn't make people feel threatened the way the Ripper killings did. In some cases, the doctors couldn't even tell if or how the victims were killed. If Torsoman really was out for publicity as it has been mentioned before, he didn't do a very good job in my opinion.

The whole point is that the torso killer did NOT "go to great lengths" to hide his victims identities, Bolo. If he HAD, he would not have left body marks on his victims such as moles and scars. He would not have served up an intact face, ready for mounting on a dummy. He would not have seen to it that his body parts were allowed to float ashore all over London, giving the police the possibility to establish height, weight, age, complexion, hair color and so on, allowing them to see whether the women had given birth etcetera. Far from hiding these ID markers, he swamped the police and press with them.

Contrary to what you say about the Londoners not feeling threatened by the torso killer (wherefrom did you get the idea...?), IŽd say that since the victims were not identified, many, many more women had reason to feel threatened. The Ripper only killed in the East End, and only prostitutes, so 99 per cent of Londons women had no reason to fear him. The Torso killer? VERY different story, because it was not known that he had his sight set on any particular type of woman and it was not known where he procured victims.

The whole reason for the Ripper scare lies in the size of the press coverage. And when you say that the Torso killer didn't do a very good job if he was after publicity, how does that particular view change if you work from the perception that the Torsoman and the Ripper were one and the same? Have you given that any thought? Has it occurred to you that a perceived lack of sufficient coverage in the press may be part of the incentive for the Torso killer to add street murders to his agenda? And that this is why the Ripper murders were perpetrated? No?
If you try that line of thinking, then note how it may well be that the torso murders were the ones that fulfilled his fantasies to the fullest, allowing him to carry out his ritualistic desires to the full, and that this was the reason that the torso murders did not seize but instead occurred alongside the Ripper murders!

It is an interesting exercise, I can promise you that much.

If I am wrong, then its just two cases of serial murder in the same town at the same time, involving numerous similarities like eviscerations of uteri, hearts and lungs, the cutting away of abdominal walls and the cutting out of colon sections, coupled with ripping from sternum to pelvis and the occasional ring theft. Nothing strange about that, eh? Surely, every town has had its siamese serial killer twins?

Move on, everybody, nothing to see here!

[bolo]

Hi Sam, Abby, Fisherman, all,

If not hidden, they weren't easily accessible. None of those body parts were left in the middle of a public right of way, the remaining parts were chucked into a fast-flowing river, and the heads were never found. That's different behaviour to that exhibited by the Ripper, to say nothing of the fact that the torso victims were evidently killed and dismembered elsewhere, before being transported to a dump-site. In contrast, all the Ripper victims where killed where their bodies were found.

you took the words right out of my mouth.

I used "hidden" in my previous post to describe my impression of the introverted torso killings vs. the extroverted Ripper murders that I would label as "open". Of course there are serial killers who used both dismemberment and disembowelling to act out their delusions but many of them were less flexible when it comes to getting rid of the bodies or covering their tracks. Some of them went to great lengths to make detection and ID of the bodies/body parts difficult while others left the bodies of the victims where they killed them. However, the number of cases where the killer was very careful with hiding the bodies to hinder ID in one case and totally indifferent towards detection and identification in another does not seem very high as far as I can see.

Then there is the reaction of the general public to the crimes. While the Ripper murders kicked off a mass psychosis, the torso killings did not have the same impact, even though press coverage was quite thorough. I think the anonymity of the victims and the way the bodies or parts were found played a role here, it just didn't make people feel threatened the way the Ripper killings did. In some cases, the doctors couldn't even tell if or how the victims were killed. If Torsoman really was out for publicity as it has been mentioned before, he didn't do a very good job in my opinion.

[Fisherman]

sounds like Jack learned a lesson from that face stretched out on the block.

And what would that lesson be?

[Fisherman]

If not hidden, they weren't easily accessible. None of those body parts were left in the middle of a public right of way, the remaining parts were chucked into a fast-flowing river, and the heads were never found. That's different behaviour to that exhibited by the Ripper, to say nothing of the fact that the torso victims were evidently killed and dismembered elsewhere, before being transported to a dump-site. In contrast, all the Ripper victims where killed where their bodies were found.

And the fact that both killers on at least one occasion both:

took out uteri
took out hearts
took out lungs
cut away a section of the colon
cut away the abdominal wall in large flaps
took rings from the fingers of victims
cut from sternum to pubes
abstained from inflicting physical torture
were considered skilled with the knife by examining medicos
killed or dumped bodies in the same city, on one occasion even in the same district
worked simultaneously

... is nothing but a bunch of coincidences? Please, PLEASE answer that question with either a yes or no!

You seem to believe that no serial killer can use more than one way of going about his business. Do you need me to post examples to the contrary? If you believe that no serial killer can go between dismemberment and no dismemberment, do you want me to post examples to the contrary?

Is it unlikely that a serial killer will both dismember and not dismember and not dismember? Yes. So what does it take to reveal such a character? It takes proof that he used inclusions that overlapped inbetween the two series. And the more rare these inclusions are, the more certain we can be of a common originator.

Case solved.

[Sam Flynn]

Pinchin was hidden? jacksons leg thrown into the shelley yard hidden? Whitehall torso put in a construction site with dozens of workers about hidden?
sorry-no.

If not hidden, they weren't easily accessible. None of those body parts were left in the middle of a public right of way, the remaining parts were chucked into a fast-flowing river, and the heads were never found. That's different behaviour to that exhibited by the Ripper, to say nothing of the fact that the torso victims were evidently killed and dismembered elsewhere, before being transported to a dump-site. In contrast, all the Ripper victims where killed where their bodies were found.