Torso Killer discussion from Millwood Thread

[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]

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?

[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.

[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]

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

[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.

[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]

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?

[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]

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...!

[Fisherman]

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.

Yes, thatīs true - and the progression Hebbert identified involved how the killer sawed off the heads in the first three instances of the 1887-89 murders, whereas he was able to take the head of by way of knife in the Pinchin Street case. That fits nicely, somehow - and it was what allowed Phillips to make a direct comparison, of course.

Not that Iīm in any way certain that the killer really wanted to take Kellys head off at all! I tend to think he wanted it in place.

[Fisherman]

Iīm giving this a rest now. Who knows, maybe Iīll be back tomorrow.

[RockySullivan]

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.

you can't have your fish and eat it too.

[RockySullivan]

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.

Good point, does the Ripper get the same kicks from the deep cuts to the throat/decapitation as he does cutting off the arms and legs?

[RockySullivan]

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?

My point is that serial killers will go through all the trouble of dismembering a victims and spread their remains far apart but then leave them with their clothes or identifying marks.