Torso Killer discussion from Millwood Thread

[Fisherman]

Oh, I hadn't realized you have come around to accept that the dismemberment and scattering was practical in nature. Up until now I have been under the impression you believed the torso killer(s) had a desire to dismember.



The disjointing of the torso victims was done white a high level of skill, noted by the doctors at the time. The cuts were clean, and clearly done by someone with the skills of a butcher most likely, according to the medical reports by doctors who actually examined the injuries. Therefore, the torso killer was someone who had the skill to disjoint, whether it be arms, legs, or necks. Decapitation by knife would be in their skill set as demonstrated by the totality of the skill demonstrated. Use of a saw would just be easier if it was available.



Well, I guess that makes us even as I think you're completely off base thinking the torso killer's evidenced skills at disarticulation and separation of joints pre Sept 89 somehow vanishes when it comes to neck bones. That doesn't fit with the evidence, and I can't understand how it's all supposed to logically hold together - he's got the skills to disjoint legs and arms cleanly and shows evidence of having a high proficiency, but move up the body above the shoulders and - poof - don't know how anymore? What, did he skip that class? It has too many twists and turns of argument trying to stuff the evidence into the theory to be credible.



Sorry, but the correct answer is "yes there is- they can disjoint every other limb just fine, they have shown high skills with their use of the knife and how to break down a body. It's easier with a saw, so if you got one at hand, use it. But every last bit of evidence we have with regards to the skills available to the torso killer(s) points to someone who had the skill to disjoint the neck/spine and decapitate with a knife if they so chose. JtR "so chose" to try, and JtR failed. The torso killer would not have. They are not the same person.



No, JtR was not universally thought to have high skills with the knife. Dr. Bond, who performed the autopsy on Kelly and read the case notes on the other cases states "In each case the mutilation was inflicted by a person who had no scientific nor anatomical knowledge. In my opinion he does not even possess the technical knowledge of a butcher or horse slaughterer or any person accustomed to cut up dead animals." Dr. Phillips saw no skill in the Eddowes case and thought her by a different killer, though did see skill of some level in the case of Nichols, Chapman, and Kelly. With JtR, basically, opinion was highly varied, with the torso killer(s) it appears universally agreed upon. Again, different levels of skills being shown, with the torso killer(s) having the higher demonstrable skill set; ergo, not the same person.

I can't help it, the two series won't fit together, it's like one is a corner piece to a jigsaw and the other a duck.

- Jeff

Most of my answers to this - including how I am not predisposing that the killer had an urge to dismember as such - can be found in my previous post.

No, a killer who can take off an arm or a leg cannot necessarily take off a head, the processes are different. Arms and legs are about laying the joint free and twisting the limb out of its socket and there is no socket in the neck.
Hebbert very clearly saw the Pinchin Street decapitation as an example of progress in skill on the killers behalf. Whether you accept this or not, it remains that neither series involved decapitation by knife until September 1889. Consequently, there can be no justified claim that the torso killer would have known how to do it. Hebbert knew quite well that the torso killer was a competent dismemberer by way of disjointing and disarticulating. Regardless of this, he pointed the decapitation of the Pinchin Street victims out as a stepped up skill level on behalf of the killer. It would - oddly enough - seem he was not as aware as you are about how dismemberments of different body parts are all the same?
I donīt think he would have taken kindly to your attempt on irony and missed classes. I instead think he knew what he was talking about - much more so than you do, actually.

You also twisted my claim that both men were deemed highly skilled with the knife by medicos into how I would have said that all doctors universally agreed. You really should not do that. I said that there were medicos who were very impressed by this factor in both cases, and there were. In both series, the medicos expressed different levels of being impressed, so that's not anything strange. What IS strange is that there is a correlation on this issue too. Bring to sweep that under the carpet on your behalf leaves an unpleasant smell hanging in the air.

[Fisherman]

Letīs give Hebbert the final word on this, shall we?

"In the first two cases the vertebrae had been sawn through, in the third the sixth cervical vertebrae had been sawn through, but the dorsal and lumbar vertebrae were separated by cutting through the intervertebral substance and in the fourth the intervertebral substance in the neck was cut, showing that the man was aware of the projecting arterial lip on the under surface of the vertebra, and SUGGESTING THAT HE WAS BECOMING MORE EXPERT IN HIS WORK..."

It took him three victims to find out how to get around that arterial lip. In the first two cases he simply sawed right through the spine, in case number three he discovered while sawing that there was a way to do it by knife, and in the fourth he utilized his newfound insights.

So no, Jeff, all joints are not the same, and no, if you can disarticulate a knee or an elbow, it does not follow that you can disarticulate a head.

[JeffHamm]

Most of my answers to this - including how I am not predisposing that the killer had an urge to dismember as such - can be found in my previous post.

No, a killer who can take off an arm or a leg cannot necessarily take off a head, the processes are different. Arms and legs are about laying the joint free and twisting the limb out of its socket and there is no socket in the neck.
Hebbert very clearly saw the Pinchin Street decapitation as an example of progress in skill on the killers behalf. Whether you accept this or not, it remains that neither series involved decapitation by knife until September 1889. Consequently, there can be no justified claim that the torso killer would have known how to do it. Hebbert knew quite well that the torso killer was a competent dismemberer by way of disjointing and disarticulating. Regardless of this, he pointed the decapitation of the Pinchin Street victims out as a stepped up skill level on behalf of the killer. It would - oddly enough - seem he was not as aware as you are about how dismemberments of different body parts are all the same?
I donīt think he would have taken kindly to your attempt on irony and missed classes. I instead think he knew what he was talking about - much more so than you do, actually.

You also twisted my claim that both men were deemed highly skilled with the knife by medicos into how I would have said that all doctors universally agreed. You really should not do that. I said that there were medicos who were very impressed by this factor in both cases, and there were. In both series, the medicos expressed different levels of being impressed, so that's not anything strange. What IS strange is that there is a correlation on this issue too. Bring to sweep that under the carpet on your behalf leaves an unpleasant smell hanging in the air.

Butcher's, slaughtermen, etc, would have the skills to disjoint as cleanly as the torso killer did, and in their training and job experience, they also learn how to disjoint spines and necks. The torso killer shows a lot of evidence of knowing how to break down a carcass. They show evidence of a skill set that would include disjointing a neck - JtR does not show anything like that level of skill.

I was using the variable description of skill by the medico's to point to evidence that JtR's skill level differed from that of the torso killer(s), where they universally agreed on high skills shown. I wasn't twisting your claim in any way, I was providing evidence against the claim being presented as evidence for the same person. Yes, there was discussion of skill in both series, but no, the discussed skill levels are not of an equal footing.

Personally, I don't see anything of substance that connects these two series.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Letīs give Hebbert the final word on this, shall we?

"In the first two cases the vertebrae had been sawn through, in the third the sixth cervical vertebrae had been sawn through, but the dorsal and lumbar vertebrae were separated by cutting through the intervertebral substance and in the fourth the intervertebral substance in the neck was cut, showing that the man was aware of the projecting arterial lip on the under surface of the vertebra, and SUGGESTING THAT HE WAS BECOMING MORE EXPERT IN HIS WORK..."

It took him three victims to find out how to get around that arterial lip. In the first two cases he simply sawed right through the spine, in case number three he discovered while sawing that there was a way to do it by knife, and in the fourth he utilized his newfound insights.

So no, Jeff, all joints are not the same, and no, if you can disarticulate a knee or an elbow, it does not follow that you can disarticulate a head.

Sigh. Someone who was only learning their way around cutting up a body wouldn't have been able to do the clean disjointing that they did. The torso killer knows what they are doing, and if they've got a saw, they know that will make it easier. JtR apparently didn't know that, and gave it a go because? Why? He doesn't have the same skills or knowledge as the torso killer.

They are not the same person, they do different things as a result - one doesn't know enough to avoid giving it a go, the other has a saw on hand to make it easier, but can do it if they don't have the saw available. How this looks at all like the same person is beyond me, they are clearly different people involved in the two series.

- Jeff

[Fisherman]

Butcher's, slaughtermen, etc, would have the skills to disjoint as cleanly as the torso killer did, and in their training and job experience, they also learn how to disjoint spines and necks. The torso killer shows a lot of evidence of knowing how to break down a carcass. They show evidence of a skill set that would include disjointing a neck - JtR does not show anything like that level of skill.

I was using the variable description of skill by the medico's to point to evidence that JtR's skill level differed from that of the torso killer(s), where they universally agreed on high skills shown. I wasn't twisting your claim in any way, I was providing evidence against the claim being presented as evidence for the same person. Yes, there was discussion of skill in both series, but no, the discussed skill levels are not of an equal footing.

Personally, I don't see anything of substance that connects these two series.

- Jeff

But who says we must be talking about a butcher? Read what Hebbert said, and hopefully you will understand that there WAS a learning process involved for the killer when it came to dismembering heads!

If you donīt think taking out uteri and hearts and cutting away abdominal walls, stealing rings and cutting out colon sections and cutting from ribs to pubes is "of substance to connect these two series", I'm fine with that. We are all entitled to look at the evidence and conclude from that. If you think all of the above are very trivial and common things, entirely likely to surface within two serial killers at work in the same town and time, I cannot do more than disagree - they are not and they never were.

I'm off for now. I need a breath of fresh air.

Just a final reflection:

"The torso killer knows what they are doing, and if they've got a saw, they know that will make it easier."

He HAD a saw in case three, but nevertheless used a knife too. Why, if a saw "made it easier"? Why, Jeff? And why did he not use that saw in the fourth case at all? Had it somehow gone missing that day?

Your reasoning would sink an ocean liner, being as full of holes as it is. But it seems you donīt care. If the square peg does not fit in the round hole, go get the sledgehammer.

[Joshua Rogan]

Not really. It's only a police opinion, and unless they were experts in fluid dynamics it can hardly be taken as fact.

Well, the Thames police would be very familiar I suspect with the behaviour of bodies and other floating objects in their river. Plus there are press reports saying that they carried out experiments to confirm if it was possible. And I'm sure there was a noticable affect on later pieces which had been in the water for longer when compared to the first pieces fished out.
But yes, essentially, I think they could only say it was likely rather than definite that all the pieces were deposited at the same time.

The number of relatively small, discrete body parts does make me wonder if the killer might have made several trips on the same night to deposit them in the river - If he had access to transport, there seems little practical need to divide the body into such easily carried parcels.

[Kattrup]

Letīs give Hebbert the final word on this, shall we?

"In the first two cases the vertebrae had been sawn through, in the third the sixth cervical vertebrae had been sawn through, but the dorsal and lumbar vertebrae were separated by cutting through the intervertebral substance and in the fourth the intervertebral substance in the neck was cut, showing that the man was aware of the projecting arterial lip on the under surface of the vertebra, and SUGGESTING THAT HE WAS BECOMING MORE EXPERT IN HIS WORK..."

We’ll give him the final word when he agrees with us, but when he states (in agreement with senior police) that the torso killings were not the work of the ripper, Hebbert reverts to an unreliable pseudoscientist:

The source for the cuts preceding the disemboweling is Hebberts study of the four torso cases inbetween 1887-89,called An exercise in forensic medicine. Hebbert, by the way, also said that he did not think the Ripper and the Torso killer were one and the same. He offered that view in a work where he then proceeded to confess to be a believer in criminal anthropology.

One has to be aware of these matters when assessing the cases, Bolo!

How do you decide when to trust Dr. Hebbert and when not?

[Sam Flynn]

The number of relatively small, discrete body parts does make me wonder if the killer might have made several trips on the same night to deposit them in the river - If he had access to transport, there seems little practical need to divide the body into such easily carried parcels.

I totally agree.

And I'm sure there was a noticable affect on later pieces which had been in the water for longer when compared to the first pieces fished out.

It depends how much "later" we're talking about. Dumping individual pieces within (say) an hour of each other might have had the same effect as dumping all of them at once. The body parts weren't found in exactly the same locations, after all.

[Abby Normal]

Yes, particularly in the skill required. JtR did not have the skill to decapitate, and showed no inclination to disjoint parts of the body - hack, remove internals, and deflesh crudely, yes, but section or dismembe no. The torso killer(s?) did, and had the skills to do it. Since the argument put forth has been that the torso killer(s?) had a desire / need to dismember, but didn't for the outdoor murders because of lack of time (apparently) but the whole committing of the outdoor murders fails in logic - if the need / desire is to dismember and you have a place to do that, where you demonstrate skill and fine precision work, then you are someone with the skill knowledge to realize you don't have time for your special time in the street. Why go berserk in the street, where there's no time to dismember, no time for the careful precise artwork, and no chance to throw limbs and things into the river so they can be assured to be found (apparently)? Why does the torso killer(s) become such a completely different character in terms of demonstrable skills and desires reflected through behavior? - simple, because they are a different character, they are not one in the same as the torso killer.

That's the only conclusion I keep coming back to.

- Jeff

because the torsorippers main motivation was post mortem mutilation. cutting up a females body. the dismemberment was for practical AND psychological reasons. when he killed in his chop shop he could do it all, when he killed in the street he could only do eviscirations. as weve said a hundred times before, you cant easily stuff a saw in your pocket nor a human head or limb. so he gave up dismemberment in the street killings, yet could still post mortem mutilate by eviscerating! Plus since the street murders dosnt involve having to dismember in ease of removing the victim from your house, there goes the practical need of it. Its not rocket science-I don't understand why so many people are having trouble grasping the concept. you may not agree with it, but the concept and logic is pretty straight forward.

[Abby Normal]

Well, the Thames police would be very familiar I suspect with the behaviour of bodies and other floating objects in their river. Plus there are press reports saying that they carried out experiments to confirm if it was possible. And I'm sure there was a noticable affect on later pieces which had been in the water for longer when compared to the first pieces fished out.
But yes, essentially, I think they could only say it was likely rather than definite that all the pieces were deposited at the same time.

The number of relatively small, discrete body parts does make me wonder if the killer might have made several trips on the same night to deposit them in the river - If he had access to transport, there seems little practical need to divide the body into such easily carried parcels.

unless of course-cutting up into small discreet parts were part of his ritual/fantasy/sig-kind of like how Kelly had flaps of flesh removed from her stomach, thighs and breast removed.

[Fisherman]

We’ll give him the final word when he agrees with us, but when he states (in agreement with senior police) that the torso killings were not the work of the ripper, Hebbert reverts to an unreliable pseudoscientist:

How do you decide when to trust Dr. Hebbert and when not?

What a very good question, Kattrup! It provides me with the opportunity to clarify things a bit.

Of course, once a question like this is asked on a discussion forum, it could imply that the person (in this case me) who trusts a source on one matter but not on another, is being dishonest and cherrypicking to suit his own thinking.

Of course, given your moral stature, your discerning thinking and - not least - your affection for me, that is not an option in this case. More likely, you are simply curious about how these things work, right?

So let me explain!

To begin with, contrary to what is implied by the question Kattrup asks, one should never work from the assumption that once a source has been proven right on one thing, it must be right on all other matters too.

Let's say that I know that it has rained all day in my home town. If somebody should then say that it rained in the morning in my hometown, I would know that the information given was true.
We would therefore have a reliable source.

But what happens when that same source goes on to say that the sun shone all afternoon in my hometown? Well, we suddenly know that the information given is wrong.

So what happens if we trust the source anyway, since we know from experience that it was correct on the first information given? Well, we will believe in something that is not true, that's what happens.

That is lesson one: Always check the veracity of information given by its contents, not by earlier recorded veracity on behalf of the information source.

Now, more specifically, what happened in the Hebbert case? Why did I trust him on one matter while I doubted another one?

To begin with, we must realize that Charles Hebbert was a professional medico, and an acclaimed such - he was good, quite simply. Knew his profession, his stuff.

That was what made me believe him when he said that there was a progression in how the torso killer took on the problem of severing the head from the body. If he had only said that much, I would have believed him, actually - but as luck would have it, he actually described in great detail WHY he saw a progression. Empirical data was listed that reinforced greatly what he said, and I found no reason at all to believe that he made the data up, and so there was no reason not to believe what he said.

Then there was the matter of him not thinking that it was the same killer in both series, and that is another matter. This he did not support with empirical data in the same way as he had with the decapitation. And this is where we run into problems in the shape of time having passed since the era in which Hebbert lived. Much as he was a skilled and professional man in his time, his time sadly also had an influence on him - and his contemporaries - that was not good. This was an era when criminal anthropology ruled the day, and although we consider it mumbo-jumbo today, back then it was looked upon as science. If we take a look at Vincenzo Verzeni, for example, he was - rightfully - convicted of two horrific murders of a character that involved sexuality, eviscerations and dismemberment. The problem was that it was believed that there were physical tell-tale signs in Verzenis physiognomy that were consistent with being a rapist and sexual murderer. Namely he was hung like a horse and had a thick neck.
This type of misconceptions were shared by Hebbert, who made that abundantly clear in his work "Criminology" (I hope I remember the title correctly).

It is understandable that he thought it was correct to think along these lines. Much work had gone into making connections between physiology and crime, and it was generally believed - and thought proven - that such characteristics were inherited, wherefore there was a belief in a criminal class that was unable to stay away from crime.

However, this has long since been disproven, and what was science and knowledge back then is a true joke today. But it all helps to outline why I can believe Hebbert in some instances while I disbelieve him in others - when he asserts something that is grounded on long since disproven ideological stances, it is the sound thing to do.

Doctors like Hebbert typified criminals, and worked from the presumption that they were all under a genetical influence that governed what they did. And the contemporary idea about a dismemberment killer was that he dismembered for reasons of hiding the identity and/or the whole body from detection. What was not known - although some psychologists were beginning to break ground in the field - was that dismemberment could be something that represented an urge within the killer to cut into human flesh. This kind of beast was new and largely unknown when the torso killer made his entrance. Consequently, the link between the torso killings and the Ripper ditto was predestined not to be made.

In the light of this, there is ample reason to question Hebberts ability to form a correct picture of whether the two series could be connected or not.

As is so often the case, reality sometimes imposes a greater need to think twice than what sometimes seems to be called for. And thinking twice is asking oneself on TWO occasions "Is this correct" if we are provided with two pieces of information. Making the assumption that a source that is correct once will always be correct forthwith is at worst being sloppy and incorrect.

Of course, what we cannot do is to regard it as proven the Hebbert must have been wrong in his assumption of two killers. All we can say is that he seems to have based his guess on faulty and/or insufficient "knowledge", and that this very much increases the risk that he would get it wrong - contrary to when he commented on the progression linked to the decapitations the torso killer carried out.

There, Kattrup - that should provide you with a sufficient background to why I -and most people - are wary not to oversimplify matters. If you have any further questions about all of this, do not hesitate to ask. I'm always here, I aim to clarify and to please, and when I can do both things simultaneously, nobody's merrier than me! Thank you for giving me the opportunity to elaborate on this.

[bolo]

Hi Joshua,

I don't know why you keep mentioning the eyelashes Fish...how would you flay a skull without taking the eyelashes?

And the Lancet's description of the removal hardly sounds like a meticulous job;

"The scalp and skin of the face were probably next removed by making, a longitudinal incision through the scalp at the top of the head and a horizontal incision behind. The skin and peri-cranial tissues were then forcibly drawn forward and the skull thus laid bare, occasional touches of the knife being necessary to remove the skin of the face. Where the integument was thin or firmly adherent to the subjacent tissues, it was "buttonholed," and large portions thus remained attached to the bones. The face has in this manner - accidentally, perhaps rather than purposely - been rendered incapable of identification. The upper part of the nose is absent, as well as the inner part of the right cheek and the lower lip and chin, all of which would have required some time for their complete removal.

thanks for posting the description, you are right, this does not sound like a meticulous job at all to me. Still, it did the trick to prevent ID, and that most probably was the whole purpose of this butchery.

The more I read about the cases, the less likely the one-man-killed-them-all theory becomes in my mind.

Fisherman,

you said that a heart is easy to cut with a sharp knife. This may be true if you have it lying in front of you on a plate but we were talking about sawing a body into smaller bits, and trying to saw through a heart that still sits in the chest is a whole 'nother story.

Same goes for the lungs. Relatively easy to cut through with a scalpel or sharp thin-bladed knife but a jagged saw won't go through it like butter, no way.

In the light of this, there is ample reason to question Hebberts ability to form a correct picture of whether the two series could be connected or not.

Hebbert, Bond et al. were there and worked on the actual bodies or body parts of the actual victims, I would not want to doubt their opinions and especially avoid it when I'm forming a theory because this mostly leads to dead ends. At a certain point, I often find myself in a situation where the theory only works if I ignore the statements of contemporary professionals or disregard a generally accepted line of events, and that's not a good basis in my opinion, except when new evidence is available.

Regards,

Boris

[Fisherman]

Hi Joshua,



thanks for posting the description, you are right, this does not sound like a meticulous job at all to me. Still, it did the trick to prevent ID, and that most probably was the whole purpose of this butchery.

The more I read about the cases, the less likely the one-man-killed-them-all theory becomes in my mind.

Fisherman,

you said that a heart is easy to cut with a sharp knife. This may be true if you have it lying in front of you on a plate but we were talking about sawing a body into smaller bits, and trying to saw through a heart that still sits in the chest is a whole 'nother story.

Same goes for the lungs. Relatively easy to cut through with a scalpel or sharp thin-bladed knife but a jagged saw won't go through it like butter, no way.



Hebbert, Bond et al. were there and worked on the actual bodies or body parts of the actual victims, I would not want to doubt their opinions and especially avoid it when I'm forming a theory because this mostly leads to dead ends. At a certain point, I often find myself in a situation where the theory only works if I ignore the statements of contemporary professionals or disregard a generally accepted line of events, and that's not a good basis in my opinion, except when new evidence is available.

Regards,

Boris

A fine-toothed saw will go through bone, Bolo - which was why the killer employed it. Thinking that a saw that passes through bone will not be able to pass through a lung or a heart is wrong, for understandable reasons.
The whole reason this was brought up was because you suggested that the killer was thinking "Hmmm, let's see, uteri, hearts and lungs are tough, so maybe I need to take them out before I divide the body up?" I find that suggestion a very bad one. The heart would not come into play at the level the killer cut, and the same goes for the uterus. There was therefore never any need at all to take them out to facilitate cutting, and - not least - the much more logical suggestion is that they were taken out because the killer desired to do so, in the exact same way that the Ripper did. And the lungs would have been taken out to allow access for him to reach the heart, just as Kellys lung was torn to allow for the same process. Deny away, but there you are.

You are ever so welcome to accept the views the contemporary doctors held on account on believing in criminal anthropology and not being aware of the psychology of a serial eviscerator the way we are today. You are even welcome to try and spread the dung-like picture that I am disregarding the doctors to make things suit my theory, and to try and create a picture of how your thinking is superior since it is supported by what doctors believed to be true 131 years ago. Be my guest! Why, you can even join ranks with our learned Danish friend and try to peddle the idea that somebody who believes one thing a source claims, must also believe ALL things the same source says, and that it would be unethical not to do so. It will make you join ranks with Hebbert, who thought that long fingers were a sign of pickpocketing urges, but hey, maybe nobody notices and you can get away with it.

The best of luck with that venture, Bolo - you will need it.

[JeffHamm]

because the torsorippers main motivation was post mortem mutilation. cutting up a females body. the dismemberment was for practical AND psychological reasons. when he killed in his chop shop he could do it all, when he killed in the street he could only do eviscirations. as weve said a hundred times before, you cant easily stuff a saw in your pocket nor a human head or limb. so he gave up dismemberment in the street killings, yet could still post mortem mutilate by eviscerating! Plus since the street murders dosnt involve having to dismember in ease of removing the victim from your house, there goes the practical need of it. Its not rocket science-I don't understand why so many people are having trouble grasping the concept. you may not agree with it, but the concept and logic is pretty straight forward.

I guess because the mutilations that the torso killer does don't look like JtR mutilations. For example, the torso limbs are clean cuts removing limbs, there are not large chunks of flesh gouged off like JtR did with Kelly's upper leg. It's not just that JtR tried and failed to do something the torso killer(s) appear to have the skill to do, the torso killer(s) do not do what JtR does, even if they add the extra step of dismembering for ease of transport later. I can't see "JtR + dismemberment" in the torso cases, which is now what is being argued for.

The two series of crimes do not look the same no matter how hard I squint. I don't see any similarities beyond generalities that are common to many offenses, or similarities that arise simply because we have a mutilator and a dismemberer to compare, once you get beyond the superficial similarities, the offenses no longer look simlar. Everything points to JtR not being the torso killer.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

But who says we must be talking about a butcher? Read what Hebbert said, and hopefully you will understand that there WAS a learning process involved for the killer when it came to dismembering heads!

If you donīt think taking out uteri and hearts and cutting away abdominal walls, stealing rings and cutting out colon sections and cutting from ribs to pubes is "of substance to connect these two series", I'm fine with that. We are all entitled to look at the evidence and conclude from that. If you think all of the above are very trivial and common things, entirely likely to surface within two serial killers at work in the same town and time, I cannot do more than disagree - they are not and they never were.

I'm off for now. I need a breath of fresh air.

Just a final reflection:

"The torso killer knows what they are doing, and if they've got a saw, they know that will make it easier."

He HAD a saw in case three, but nevertheless used a knife too. Why, if a saw "made it easier"? Why, Jeff? And why did he not use that saw in the fourth case at all? Had it somehow gone missing that day?

Your reasoning would sink an ocean liner, being as full of holes as it is. But it seems you donīt care. If the square peg does not fit in the round hole, go get the sledgehammer.

Ok, let me put it this way, if we have an offender who demonstrates skill and expertise in disjointings and knife work to a level that points to an individual who has the skills to decapitate with a knife, then if that individual uses a saw that does not mean they could not have done it with a knife, they just chose to use the saw. They are free, on another occasion to make the same or different choice (presuming it's even the same person involved in the two cases).

As pointed out in a previous post you pick and choose your reliance on Hebbert based upon whether or not Hebbert agree's with what you believe. I will, however, point out that Hebbert, your pro-offered expect, had concluded JtR and the Torso killer were not the same individual.

You can't have it both ways, unless, of course, you simply want to punch more holes in your sinking ship.

- Jeff