Torso Killer discussion from Millwood Thread

[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.

[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?

[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!

[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?

[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.

[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]

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...?

[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

[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?

[Fisherman]

No **** fishlock

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

Elementary, Rockson.

[RockySullivan]

Who is making progress again?

06-10-2015, 05:04 AM: As for whether the torso murders as a whole were the work of the Ripper, I am on the fence

RockySullivan 10-07-2014, 02:21 PM: I find it somewhat of an absurd notion that two serial killers were targeting woman (both focused on prostitutes) and that two seperate killers where removing the uterus from victims in the same year. It's absolutely preposterous in my opinion and it's obvious to me torso was the ripper.

[Fisherman]

Okay, thanks for the correction.



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.



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?

I donīt think there is much of a practical reason to take organs out before dismembering a body, and indeed, the absolute majority of the dismemberment murders do not include such a thing. More importantly, why take out the uterus, the heart and the lungs, and leave the liver, the spleen, the stomach, the kidneys etcetera inside the body? What happens to the practicality angle when we consider that?
Yes, it seems the killer who did away with the Ripper victims wanted to take out organs, but why would we predispose that the torso killer didnīt? Itīs stepping into a trap that has worked for 131 years now, to think that when the head is taken off, it MUST be a practical thing, when the inards are taken out it MUST be a practical thing.
It is forgetting about the third type of dismemberer I have described out here - the one who cuts because he WANTS and LIKES to cut. Such a man would be infinitely more likely to be an eviscerator too than the "ordinary" type 1 and 2 dismemberer.
As for the organ-harvesting suggestion, it is a VERY red herring, we can at least agree on that.

Yes, London was a very special town in 1888, It was also the largest town on earth back then. And it may well have spearheaded crime. But why is it that no other town, before or after (and today we have cities a hundred times larger than London was in 1888, many of them so crime-infested that they mnake victorian London look like a doll cabinet or a Kindergarten) have produced to simultaneously working eviscerating serial killers?
Because that kind of perpetrator is very, very, very rare. And when things are that rare, we should no expect them to occurr simultaneously in the same geographical area. It just does not happen. And if everything is put on itīs head and it DOES happen - no, there is absolutely no chance that two eviscerating serial killers would do the same utterly rare things to their victims. Not a chance. There can not be any reasonable doubt in this case, it is an open- and shut one.

You are welcome to your take, of course. There is no problem with that, aside from the fact that you are wrong.

[Fisherman]

Who is making progress again?

Maybe yours is bigger than mine. Who would have thought it?

[RockySullivan]

Maybe yours is bigger than mine. Who would have thought it?

I thought you were a girl for some reason

[Abby Normal]

I thought you were a girl for some reason

you too totally lost me after (the rather funny) holmes/Watson referencs!