Torso Killer discussion from Millwood Thread

[Fisherman]

You said that I've stumbled into the same trap than the doctors who examined the body parts and torsi and did not rate dismemberers as lust killers. Which is not true, because I question your points of an obligatory ritual in the dismemberment and the ownership of the crimes, not the possibility of lust killers who also dismember their victims.

Speaking of obligatory, I have troubles following you in regards to the practical or ritual question. A few pages back, you vehemently argued against a pragmatic approach to the dismemberment and dispersing/dumping of the bodies in favour of a ritual that especially involves sawing and dumping the parts in a way that they are found. Now you say that the killer did not decapitate or otherwise dismember Mary Kelly because there were no practical reasons to do so. Either I've misunderstood your point or you contradict your own arguments here. As I understand the importance of rituals for some serial killers, they're not something that can be switched on or off at will but HAVE to be followed or performed no matter what. This is why I don't think that Torsoman and the Ripper are the same person because one would have to switch from one mental disturbance or killer mindset to another, from fierce disembowelling and creating a shocking sight for everyone to see to the slow process of disembowelling, dismemberment and getting rid of the body parts by dropping most of them into the river, most probably over a prolonged period of time.

I would be thankful if you could clear this up for me, me head is starting to spin... (no, it's not the Vodka, honestly!!)...

I have to add that I like Abby's idea of a "chop shop" the killer (the Ripper?) may have had at his disposal for certain periods of time. Have to ponder on that a little more.

The doctors thought it was all practical. You think it is all practical. How is that not the same trap?

I think that the ritualistic behaviour this killer engaged in had to do with emulating. And what he emulated could look very different. Therefore, he would not do the same thing over and over again and to all victims. Compare, if you will, with somebody who wants to make a dead person look like an animal - depending on which animal he chooses, the result will look very different on each victim. He will try to give some victims horns and others he will give a trunk or wings or... That is how I am thinking, and that is why the victims were treated in different ways, if you ask me. He never switched off the ritual, but the ritual could be followed in more than one way.

Abbys idea is constructive, but personally, I can imagine that the Ripper killings were about something else than no useful premises available. I think it was a conscious choice to take the murders to the street, and I think it is coupled to narcissism.

And DO get off the vodka. Thereīs always whisky...!

[jerryd]

Why doesn't the killer disarticulate Mary Kelly?

Hi Rocky,

According to Dr. Phillips during the Pinchin torso inquest, he may have tried.

The CORONER

. - I should like to ask Dr. Phillips whether there is any similarity in the cutting off of the legs in this case and the one that was severed from the woman in Dorset-street? Dr. Phillips. - I have not noticed any sufficient similarity to convince me it was the person who committed both mutilations, but the division of the neck and attempt to disarticulate the bones of the spine are very similar to that which was effected in this case.

So either Phillips was mistaken or there was an attempt to disarticulate Mary Kellys spine.

[Fisherman]

Rocky, you post jewelry and tattoo pictures, and say that the victims with these items remained unidentified, and you make the point that only one out of the torso victims was identified regardless of how the killer left identification markers untouched.
Are you suggesting that these victims were left unidentified BECAUSE of these identification markers being present or are you saying that it does not matter if a killer leaved these things, because he can be certain that the bodies will remain unidentified just the same.

Itīs one of those two, apparently.

You DO know that Jackson was identified on account of things like these, do you not? And you DO realize that not erasing or removing or cutting away such identification markers come with a risk, do you not?

[bolo]

Where did I say that you said that dismemberers cannot be lust killers...? I said that the people back in 1888 thought so!

And of course dismemberment CAN be practical - it is even much more common than not. Nobody is disputing that. What I am saying is that the torso killer was in all probability primarily about a wish to cut up and eviscerate, and that the practical side of thin gs was secondary, something that came with the territory. If you think that is "getting us nowhere", thatīs your take on things, not mine. Ripperology as a whole is moving towards more and more acceptance of a common identity and a realization that the torso murders were about something else than practicality, and that is not only "getting somewhere" if you ask me - it is getting it right.

The killer did not have to dismember Kelly since there were no practical incentives for it, Bolo.

You said that I've stumbled into the same trap than the doctors who examined the body parts and torsi and did not rate dismemberers as lust killers. Which is not true, because I question your points of an obligatory ritual in the dismemberment and the ownership of the crimes, not the possibility of lust killers who also dismember their victims.

Speaking of obligatory, I have troubles following you in regards to the practical or ritual question. A few pages back, you vehemently argued against a pragmatic approach to the dismemberment and dispersing/dumping of the bodies in favour of a ritual that especially involves sawing and dumping the parts in a way that they are found. Now you say that the killer did not decapitate or otherwise dismember Mary Kelly because there were no practical reasons to do so. Either I've misunderstood your point or you contradict your own arguments here. As I understand the importance of rituals for some serial killers, they're not something that can be switched on or off at will but HAVE to be followed or performed no matter what. This is why I don't think that Torsoman and the Ripper are the same person because one would have to switch from one mental disturbance or killer mindset to another, from fierce disembowelling and creating a shocking sight for everyone to see to the slow process of disembowelling, dismemberment and getting rid of the body parts by dropping most of them into the river, most probably over a prolonged period of time.

I would be thankful if you could clear this up for me, me head is starting to spin... (no, it's not the Vodka, honestly!!)...

I have to add that I like Abby's idea of a "chop shop" the killer (the Ripper?) may have had at his disposal for certain periods of time. Have to ponder on that a little more.

[Fisherman]

Why doesn't the killer disarticulate Mary Kelly?

Primarily because he did not have to, if I am correct. There was no need to get rid of the body. Your follow-up question would be "So he only dismembers the torso victims for practical reasons! Got you!"
Alas, you have not got me at all.
To begin with, and as I have said numerous times before, I donīt think this combined killer wanted to do the exact same thing to all victims. I think there were many different things he could do to satisfy his agenda, his urges, his ritual or what we chose to call it. That is why we have different outcomes within the torso series.
What you try to launch here is the idea that if the exact same things did not happen to all victims, then it was not the same killer. If that is correct, we are dealing with a large number of killers - one per deed.
I think the torso killer was faced with a practical problem that he enjoyed solving, and that he used the parts to induce terror and make a point about what he perceived as superiority on his part. You would be amazed to know how common narcissism is within the serial killer ranks.

Now, we can either go another lap around the "you cannot prove it so it can be wrong" course, or we can be big boys and conduct a slightly more intelligible debate. Itīs your choice.

[RockySullivan]

And does he really sound like somebody who wanted to hide the ID of a victim - leaving her own clothing on, leaving moles and scars untouched on the body? Cutting a whole face away, with the eyelashes intact, even?

And yet only one Torso victim was identified....hmm

[RockySullivan]

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?

Why doesn't the killer disarticulate Mary Kelly?

[RockySullivan]

The 1874 victim had her head taken off together with her arms and one of the legs. That means that she was about as long as a corps as she had been while alive. The explanation that she was cut up to enable the killer to get her out of the lair unseen does not fit the bill here.

So that takes care of your first suggestion.

Jackson was left with her moles and scar intact, just as she was left with her own clothing on her body, clothing that was subsequently ID:s by an aquaintance of her.

So that takes care of your other suggestion.

Clearly, the killer was not all that interested in these suggestions of yours.

LISK victim Manorville '00 decapitated and her arms and one leg had been removed. Found in '11 40 m away along Ocean Parkway. Unidentified.

Peaches, named for her tattoo, whose torso was found in '97 and whose baby and extremities (minus the skull) were found along Ocean Parkway in '11, with distinctive gold jewelry, undentified.

Cherries, leg washed up on James Dolan property in '07. Dumped with her clothes in the suitcase, unidentified.

[Fisherman]

You can't show the killer wants to disarticulate/dismember because he only does it when he has to and when he has a chance to disarticulate Kelly he doesn't, because there was no reason to. Dismemberment/disarticulation is done when he has to, not because he wants to.

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?

[Fisherman]

So we finally agree now that the dismemberment was done for mere practical reasons and had no special meaning to the killer?

Eh - no. What I think - and God knows how it has escaped you! - is that at least part of the dismemberment was led on by an urge to cut up bodies. Perhaps he took pleasure in each and every cut, there can be no telling. But one good indicator may well be found in the 1873 victim where joints that are difficult to disjoint were disjointed while other joints that are relatively easy to disjoint were instead sawed through.

As I keep saying, there will have been a need to dispose of the parts arising in these cases. In that respect, we need to talk about practicalities, they were a fact. But I do not for a second believe that this killer was a parallel to the type of killer who kills with no element of sexual arousal or need for control over a body, and then moves on to dispose of the body parts for purely practical reasons. This was a man who opted for cutting out organs and who quite probably had an unsound wish to aquire dead bodies to cut into. And once we can see that, it suddenly becomes very problematic to simply write off the dismemberment he carried out as nothing but a practicality. He cut the face from a skull, for Godīs sake - who on earth with purely practical incentives would do such a thing? The elaborate and precise cutting it required is something I know of no parallel to.

So no, I do not for a second agree that the dismemberment was purely practical. Itīs another matter that we can suggest it -anything can be suggested, that is the nature of the beast. You, for example, suggested that the taking of the rings could have had an economic incentive, and yes it could. But for all the parameters that are similar, we can ALWAYS find up a possible explanation for why it happened. Even if I pile up a thousand similarities, you can always say "similarity 1 can be false because one killer may have done this and the other that" and then you can go on forever.
The salient matter is that once we cannot prove that the similarities had different incentives, THEY REMAIN SIMILARITIES! And they are many - a round dozen or so is what I listed, some of them rare in the extreme.

The conclusion can only be one. Could we be dealing with two killers? Theoretically, yes. Practically, though, we are on dry land saying that the odds for it are astronomical. I would easily accept a murder conviction of grounds like these, no qualms. And I am a stickler for justice, mind you!

[Fisherman]

Hence he assumes a knowing air.

You bet!

[Fisherman]

Kelly was not decapitated, so how could anyone, even Phillips, make a valid comparison between what happened to her and the headless Pinchin Street victim?

And still he did! One really must ask why, if you are correct.

Then again, I donīt think you are. The angle of the knife, the place chosen for beginning the cut, the force used, the degree to which the cutting was clean, the number of sawing movements of the hand there was per inch of the neck and so on - these are all parameters that can be directly compared, decapitation or no decapitation.

If it had not been thus, Phillips would not have been able to offer his professional view.

[Fisherman]

Where did I say that dismemberers cannot be Lustmörder? Of course they can but it still doesn't change the fact that bodies often get dismembered for practical reasons. The Medellin cartel did it, the Mafia does it, some LVP murderers did it, what's there to argue about. This is getting us nowhere.

Again I must ask: Why no dismemberment in Kelly's case? Why did the killer switch from dismembering (hindering ID) and back (not caring at all for ID or detection of the bodies)? I know that there are serial killers who used different weapons, chat-up lines, even different hunting grounds and methods of hiding/storing the bodies or parts thereof for each victim or a number of them within the series but in my opinion, there is a fundamental difference between disembowelling a body, cutting it in small(er) parts and dumping them in a river (or a dark cellar for that matter) and taking or following a woman to a more or less secluded spot, killing her with swift knife strikes against the throat, disembowelling her and just leaving the mess behind for everyone to see.

Thanks for the tip about Hebbert, will give his study a good read.

Where did I say that you said that dismemberers cannot be lust killers...? I said that the people back in 1888 thought so!

And of course dismemberment CAN be practical - it is even much more common than not. Nobody is disputing that. What I am saying is that the torso killer was in all probability primarily about a wish to cut up and eviscerate, and that the practical side of thin gs was secondary, something that came with the territory. If you think that is "getting us nowhere", thatīs your take on things, not mine. Ripperology as a whole is moving towards more and more acceptance of a common identity and a realization that the torso murders were about something else than practicality, and that is not only "getting somewhere" if you ask me - it is getting it right.

The killer did not have to dismember Kelly since there were no practical incentives for it, Bolo.

[RockySullivan]

There's another thing you didn't have to tell anybody out here. I think we all know quite well that dismemberment and eviscerations are not the same thing. Taking out the uterus, heart or lungs from a woman - which happened in both series - is eviscerations. Taking the limbs off - which only happened in one series - is dismemberment.

Dismemberment may well have been needed to enable the killer to get rid of corpses from his lair.

The Riopoer victims were not killed in the killers lair, they were killed out in the open streets.

And here, ta-daaa, comes the catchphrase: These victims therefore did not need to be dismembered! The killer did not have any need to get rid of them, m the way he did with the victims from the torso series.

And THAT is why Kellys head was still on the body, together with her arms and legs.

Where are the heads? Whereīs yours...? You really should have been able to work these things out by yourself, should you not?

If it is the Torso heads you are asking about, the answer has been provided a thousand times: If they were thrown in the river, they would sink. If they were not, then who knows? As given away by the 1873 victim and as implied by the Pinchin Street victim, the killer sometimes had a flair for doing things to the head. And I have a very good idea why that was. But guess what? I am not telling.

You can't show the killer wants to disarticulate/dismember because he only does it when he has to and when he has a chance to disarticulate Kelly he doesn't, because there was no reason to. Dismemberment/disarticulation is done when he has to, not because he wants to.

[bolo]

And here, ta-daaa, comes the catchphrase: These victims therefore did not need to be dismembered! The killer did not have any need to get rid of them, m the way he did with the victims from the torso series.

So we finally agree now that the dismemberment was done for mere practical reasons and had no special meaning to the killer?