Torso Killer discussion from Millwood Thread

[Fisherman]

He didn't have a choice. Everyone knows weighing down bodies doesn't work

He had all sorts of choices, actually. Nobody stopped him from burying parts, for example. Or, for that matter from putting the parts in a sack together with a large stone. Contrary to what you seem to think, that works eminently, at least for a long time. And the buoyancy of the parts will go lost after having been submerged for some time.
So letīs not try and turn what he did into his only choice, shall we?

[RockySullivan]

Yes, I know that Haarmann "just wanted to dispose of the body parts" once the victims were dead. But I am still flummoxed about why you would think that has a bearing on the Torso killer? Because that is how all dismemberment killers feel about it?

It is not, I'm afraid. I have written numerous times before that dismemberment murders are divided up in three categories:

1. The dismemberment is about disabling identification.
2. The dismemberment is about getting rid of the parts and hiding the crime.

Haarmann, just like most dismembers, belong in these categories, mainly number 2. He joins ranks here with the most common dismembers - those who whack their viwes over the head in their homes, only to find that they have killed their spouses. Then they are faced with the problem of getting rid of the corpse, and after having kept it the tub for a week, they realize that it begins to smell and that the time has come. They dismember, but only after long and hard deliberations, they hate it, they often vomit when doing it and they are marked for life afterwards.

Does that sound like the Torso killer to you? A man who set about cutting his victims up IMMEDIATELY after death? A man who sliced them open from sternum to bow? Who sawed up the sternum in the Rainham case? Who plucked out a uterus, a heart or two, lungs, sections of the colon ...? 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? Is he somebody who seems to try and make the parts go away? Placing a torso in the vaults of the new Scotland Yard building?

This is where the third dismemberment killer type comes into the picture:

3. The dismemberment is about mental deviations within the killer, who WANTS to dismember and cut up.

The purpose of 1 & 2 is to hinder the investigation. The victims were either dismembered because they were killed indoors and had to be brought outside in pieces (in a densely populated where you can't make a body disappear) and then dumped one piece at a time or because the killer did not want the victims identified. It very well could be both. The Ripper killed the girls out in the street, cut up the bodies as he liked for a few minutes and then left them. When he's alone with Kelly and he doesn't have to dismember her to get her outside he doesn't cut her up because the dismemberment, cutting the joints, is purely functional. Now why are the heads never found?

[RockySullivan]

What has been said has not been about those issues at all. It has been about whether or not the killer wanted to have the parts found after he dumped them, and whether or not he wanted to send a message with the help of those parts.

He didn't have a choice. Everyone knows weighing down bodies doesn't work

[Fisherman]

Dispersing the remains in different locations to keep them from being put together.

Putting things together does not seem to be the strongest part of your reasoning, Rocky. The killer knew that the parts thrown in the river were found. He nevertheless kept feeding the Thames with those parts, and the doctors had no problems at all fitting them together - as was reported in the papers and as was common knowledge. So we can drop the idea that he would have tried to disenable joining the parts together.
A smak and a stone would have taken cafe of the problem. And he had access to sacks, as shown in the Pinchin street case. All people had, its not a very uncommon means of transporting things in, is it?

[Fisherman]

I used Haarmann as an example of a killer who just wanted to get rid of his victims once they were dead. He cut them to pieces and dumped the parts on various spots in his neighbourhood in order to make identification impossible. He also took out all organs and intestines and even cut the flesh from the bones, yet there was no significance to that other than house cleaning, even though a lot of work and thought had been put to it.

As far as I know, police and the medicos back in the LVP did never link the Ripper killings and the torso murders. Dr Bond who also examined four (?) of the Ripper victims attested some anatomic skill that had been shown in the torso cases which sounds similar to what he said about some Ripper cases but he obviously did not see his handiwork in the torso killings. I think this is a fact that cannot be ignored.

Whether or not the torso killer wanted the body parts to be found is open for debate in my eyes. What he pretty much succeeded in was hindering ID of the victims, many of whom are still unknown to this day. That's the whole point of dispersing body parts instead of leaving a dead body out in the open for everyone to see like the Ripper did. This also is where I have a problem with the torso killer - Ripper link, the style of display (if there was one in case of the torso killings) looks quite different to me.

I have to admit that throwing a leg over the fence of the Shelley estate or dumping parts in the cellar of the construction site of the NSY seems quite peculiar. This could point to planning but also some sort of desperation move because the killer got disturbed in his original plan of taking the parts to the river.

Still, I can't put the Ripper and torso puzzle pieces together at the present time. Despite some similarities, the differences between the two series of killings are quite obvious and I have great difficulties picturing a killer who in one case does his best to hinder ID and dumps the bodies of his victims in the Thames and then goes and massacres five or more women in what could be called high-risk situations and even leaves the disembowelled bodies behind for everyone to see, then when the time is right goes back to dismembering and dumping again... sorry, that just does not fly with me but I'm always open for new ideas so fire away, Fisherman.

Yes, I know that Haarmann "just wanted to dispose of the body parts" once the victims were dead. But I am still flummoxed about why you would think that has a bearing on the Torso killer? Because that is how all dismemberment killers feel about it?

It is not, I'm afraid. I have written numerous times before that dismemberment murders are divided up in three categories:

1. The dismemberment is about disabling identification.
2. The dismemberment is about getting rid of the parts and hiding the crime.

Haarmann, just like most dismembers, belong in these categories, mainly number 2. He joins ranks here with the most common dismembers - those who whack their viwes over the head in their homes, only to find that they have killed their spouses. Then they are faced with the problem of getting rid of the corpse, and after having kept it the tub for a week, they realize that it begins to smell and that the time has come. They dismember, but only after long and hard deliberations, they hate it, they often vomit when doing it and they are marked for life afterwards.

Does that sound like the Torso killer to you? A man who set about cutting his victims up IMMEDIATELY after death? A man who sliced them open from sternum to bow? Who sawed up the sternum in the Rainham case? Who plucked out a uterus, a heart or two, lungs, sections of the colon ...? 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? Is he somebody who seems to try and make the parts go away? Placing a torso in the vaults of the new Scotland Yard building?

This is where the third dismemberment killer type comes into the picture:

3. The dismemberment is about mental deviations within the killer, who WANTS to dismember and cut up.

It seems most people never read that long in the manual.

Back in 1888, this third type of perpetrator was not described in the literature. This is a large part of the explanation why the two series were not linked. We can see that the medicos commenting on it made the same mistake as many out here do today. They had better reason to do so, though. Phillips was one of the men who spoke about the torso killer as a man thinking practically. He was just as wrong then as may out here are today. And therefore, much as we should not ignore it per se, we should amend it.

Finally, as I keep saying - the dissimilarities go away when there are odd and rare similarities involved. It does not matter that one man dismembered and the other one didn't when we know that BOTH men cut abdominal walls away. All that means is that we must accept that there was a reason for that dissimilarity (and its easy enough to see why he didn't need to dismember the Ripper victims - they did not lead the police to his lair, whereas the others would if not taken care of. Problem solved.)

I listed around a dozen similarities. Do you really think they can ALL be coincidental, given the fact that there has never been two series involving eviscerators in the same geographical area anywhere on earth, anytime in history.

If it WAS to happen, why is it that when it does, both men take uteri out, both men take hearts out, both men cut abdominal walls away, both men are deemed very skilled with the knife, both men take rings from their victims, both men cut from sternum to pubes etcetera? Would it not be more expected if one eviscerator was careless and sloppy in his cutting and always only took out the uterus, did not take jewelry from his victims and only opened up the lower abdomen, whereas the other one was along "our" guidelines with the Ripper and the Torso man? How come they BOTH do it the same way?

Because they were doubtlessly the same man.

[Fisherman]

Environment. We've been through this so many times before. If the Ripper could have driven 40 miles out to the pine barrens to dump just the torso on a path off the road where it was found not long after by a women walking her dog he would have. It's about dumping the body parts successfully without having someone see you. The whole purpose of the dismemberment and subsequent dispersal was to not get caught. Mr. Hamm has it spot on.

Yes, it is about dumping the parts without having somebody see you. But to be fair, nobody has contested that.

Nor has it been claimed that the killer would have wanted to get caught, has it?

What has been said has not been about those issues at all. It has been about whether or not the killer wanted to have the parts found after he dumped them, and whether or not he wanted to send a message with the help of those parts.

It seems you are discussing something else than I do.

[Fisherman]

It would be nice if you could connect Lechmere with Shelley.

Yes, and with a whole score of other people too...

[The Macdonald Triad]

Iīll leave that for you to sort out, methinks. Itīs a joy to see that every angle is covered, at any rate!

It would be nice if you could connect Lechmere with Shelley.

[RockySullivan]

luv ya rocko but I disagree. theres plenty of places to dump, including where he did some of them-the river, parks etc.
why not just dump all in the river-its probably the easiest and most effective? why the bizarre dumping pattern?

it be like LISK dumping some parts on gilgo and oak beach but also tossing a part in Billy Joels back yard, leaving a torso on Suffolk ave and a torso in the town hall.

no, the LISK was very practical, and very good at hiding his crimes.

Dispersing the remains in different locations to keep them from being put together.

[RockySullivan]

If one killer succeeds in hiding body parts and the other fails miserably to do so, then it is anything but "exactly the same" thing, Rocky. In terms of the outcome, it is instead a question of polar opposites. And remind me, how many torsos did LISK put in cellar vaults, how many did he put in railway arches, outside houses, throw in gardens...?

Environment. We've been through this so many times before. If the Ripper could have driven 40 miles out to the pine barrens to dump just the torso on a path off the road where it was found not long after by a women walking her dog he would have. It's about dumping the body parts successfully without having someone see you. The whole purpose of the dismemberment and subsequent dispersal was to not get caught. Mr. Hamm has it spot on.

[bolo]

How does Fritz Haarmanns exploits tell us that the Torso killer must have been of the same ilk, though? Because Haarmann was unceremonious, how does it follow that the torso killer must have been unceremonious too? Its a logic I find hard to follow.
Very obviously, Haarmann CHOSE to do away with his body parts as efficiently as possible, but the Torso killer was anything but efficient in that respect - he seems to have failed miserably to fly under the radar, does he not? And you know what? I think that is what tells him very much apart from Haarmann in this respect - Haarmann genuinely wanted his parts not to be found, the Torso killer desired the exact opposite.

If the Torso killer and Jack were not one and the same then it is coincidental only that both men on one or more occasions:
took out uteri
took out hearts
took out lungs
cut away abdominal walls
stole rings from victims
cut from ribs to pubes
targetted prostitutes
avoided physical torture
were deemed very skilled by medicos
worked in the same town
worked in overlapping time periods

How anybody can accept such a mountain of coincidences is frankly beyond me. For your thinking to work, these points must all, each and every one of them, be purely coincidental. I'm sorry, but to me that's a fool's hope.

I liked the pun, though, so no need to apologize for it!

I used Haarmann as an example of a killer who just wanted to get rid of his victims once they were dead. He cut them to pieces and dumped the parts on various spots in his neighbourhood in order to make identification impossible. He also took out all organs and intestines and even cut the flesh from the bones, yet there was no significance to that other than house cleaning, even though a lot of work and thought had been put to it.

As far as I know, police and the medicos back in the LVP did never link the Ripper killings and the torso murders. Dr Bond who also examined four (?) of the Ripper victims attested some anatomic skill that had been shown in the torso cases which sounds similar to what he said about some Ripper cases but he obviously did not see his handiwork in the torso killings. I think this is a fact that cannot be ignored.

Whether or not the torso killer wanted the body parts to be found is open for debate in my eyes. What he pretty much succeeded in was hindering ID of the victims, many of whom are still unknown to this day. That's the whole point of dispersing body parts instead of leaving a dead body out in the open for everyone to see like the Ripper did. This also is where I have a problem with the torso killer - Ripper link, the style of display (if there was one in case of the torso killings) looks quite different to me.

I have to admit that throwing a leg over the fence of the Shelley estate or dumping parts in the cellar of the construction site of the NSY seems quite peculiar. This could point to planning but also some sort of desperation move because the killer got disturbed in his original plan of taking the parts to the river.

Still, I can't put the Ripper and torso puzzle pieces together at the present time. Despite some similarities, the differences between the two series of killings are quite obvious and I have great difficulties picturing a killer who in one case does his best to hinder ID and dumps the bodies of his victims in the Thames and then goes and massacres five or more women in what could be called high-risk situations and even leaves the disembowelled bodies behind for everyone to see, then when the time is right goes back to dismembering and dumping again... sorry, that just does not fly with me but I'm always open for new ideas so fire away, Fisherman.

[Abby Normal]

luv ya rocko but I disagree. theres plenty of places to dump, including where he did some of them-the river, parks etc.
why not just dump all in the river-its probably the easiest and most effective? why the bizarre dumping pattern?



it be like LISK dumping some parts on gilgo and oak beach but also tossing a part in Billy Joels back yard, leaving a torso on Suffolk ave and a torso in the town hall.

double post

[Abby Normal]

LISK dismembers and disperses the remains in different location, skull/extremities in one place, torso 40 miles way. It's exactly the same, dismemberment and dispersal to hinder identification/investigation, the only difference is the environment. He's in London, there's nowhere else to dump.

luv ya rocko but I disagree. theres plenty of places to dump, including where he did some of them-the river, parks etc.
why not just dump all in the river-its probably the easiest and most effective? why the bizarre dumping pattern?

it be like LISK dumping some parts on gilgo and oak beach but also tossing a part in Billy Joels back yard, leaving a torso on Suffolk ave and a torso in the town hall.

no, the LISK was very practical, and very good at hiding his crimes.

[Fisherman]

LISK dismembers and disperses the remains in different location, skull/extremities in one place, torso 40 miles way. It's exactly the same, dismemberment and dispersal to hinder identification/investigation, the only difference is the environment. He's in London, there's nowhere else to dump.

If one killer succeeds in hiding body parts and the other fails miserably to do so, then it is anything but "exactly the same" thing, Rocky. In terms of the outcome, it is instead a question of polar opposites. And remind me, how many torsos did LISK put in cellar vaults, how many did he put in railway arches, outside houses, throw in gardens...?

[Fisherman]

well what if he or whoever was keeping the torso in the vault hadn't got a chance to dump it yet?

Well, that puts us in a position where we need to believe that he had time to dump all the rest but not the leg and the torso. Since the dumping will have been done after office hours, one must assume that Wildbore - if him it was - had no problems making time for one or more nocturnal trips to the vault, but that once he was there, time somehow got away from him, and although he had the time to carry the rest out and fling it in the Thams, those two parts were beyond him. Regardless of how he would have had weeks to take care of it, if he didn't fancy doing it all in one sweep.
And then, after having done his damndest to get rid of the incriminating evidence, he decides to point it out for all to see?

Doesn't that suggestion belong to another thread out here? The one about silly suspects?

Now, don't think that I regard Wildbore as a silly suspect otherwise - its only with the above scenario that happens...