Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Torso Killer discussion from Millwood Thread

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post

    Me too. Apparently the police said that the victim would have been much taller than the Barker's estimate of Emily's height of about 5'4", but according to Hebbert the doctors estimated the victim's height as 5' 3 1/3".
    Odd. Although there were others who also thought they knew the victim, as I recall.
    The phrase "The girl had been rescued from a wild life by a London missionary, but escaped from him two day's before the murder" doesn't exactly ring untrue in the context. Its the expected victimology if it was really Barker.

    Leave a comment:


  • Joshua Rogan
    replied
    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

    thanks JR
    im wondering why pinchin isn't known as Emily Barker then??
    Me too. Apparently the police said that the victim would have been much taller than the Barker's estimate of Emily's height of about 5'4", but according to Hebbert the doctors estimated the victim's height as 5' 3 1/3".
    Odd. Although there were others who also thought they knew the victim, as I recall.

    Leave a comment:


  • jerryd
    replied
    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

    thanks JR
    im wondering why pinchin isn't known as Emily Barker then??
    The police told Mr. Barker the dead woman would have been much taller (5'8") than Emily, who was 5'4" (IIRC). It turns out the police were wrong, Dr. Hebbert and Clarke state the height of the Pinchin torso woman was approx. 5'3".

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post

    Except that he did leave a chemise on the torso, and it was apparently identified by the woman who made it;

    Gloucester Citizen - Monday 30 September 1889
    THE WHITECHAPEL MURDER.
    "It is stated that the father and mother of the girl named Emily Barker, of Northampton, feel convinced that she was the victim of the Pinchin-street Whitechapel murder. The girl had been rescued from a wild life by a London missionary, but escaped from him two day's before the murder. The mother says she is satisfied as to the identity, and that she made the chemise which was found by the police. The mother also says her suspicions are confirmed by a mark on the finger. The Northampton police are in communication with the London police respecting the matter."
    thanks JR
    im wondering why pinchin isn't known as Emily Barker then??

    Leave a comment:


  • jerryd
    replied
    Originally posted by bolo View Post
    Hi Jerry,

    Did the clothes play a role as well?
    Hi bolo.

    Yes, the clothes were a major factor in identifying her. The L.E Fisher tag was tracked to her and Faircloth's trip together, and the fact witnesses had seen her in clothes that matched those the body parts were wrapped in.

    Leave a comment:


  • bolo
    replied
    Hi Jerry,

    interesting article indeed, thanks for posting. According to Hebbert's dissertation, Jackson was identified by some old injuries she received on one of her arms when she "fell onto a broken bottle" (don't remember the exact words). Did the clothes play a role as well?

    The Chelsea Dissector... intriguing nom de guerre, still does not roll off the tongue as nicely as Torsoman, if I may say so.

    Leave a comment:


  • Joshua Rogan
    replied
    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
    Well the author of this article certainly thinks the removal of heads to prevent ID was part of it, and that not leaving clothes with pinchin was a lesson learned. Which is entirely possible.
    Except that he did leave a chemise on the torso, and it was apparently identified by the woman who made it;

    Gloucester Citizen - Monday 30 September 1889
    THE WHITECHAPEL MURDER.
    "It is stated that the father and mother of the girl named Emily Barker, of Northampton, feel convinced that she was the victim of the Pinchin-street Whitechapel murder. The girl had been rescued from a wild life by a London missionary, but escaped from him two day's before the murder. The mother says she is satisfied as to the identity, and that she made the chemise which was found by the police. The mother also says her suspicions are confirmed by a mark on the finger. The Northampton police are in communication with the London police respecting the matter."

    Leave a comment:


  • jerryd
    replied
    This book is very interesting. The London Dissector. https://collections.nlm.nih.gov/book...ge/32/mode/2up

    In Chapter 1, the first sentence states, "In dissecting a subject, it is usual to begin with the Muscles of the Abdomen". It goes on to say, "An incision should be made through the integuments, from the sternum to the os pubis; and this should be crossed by another passing immediately below the umbilicus: dissect off the flaps, this will lay bare".....

    The rest of the book explains how a medical man would proceed to dissect the entire body. Muscles and all. From the little I have read so far, it seems some parts may be more difficult to remove due to multiple tendons, muscles, etc. I'll have to read more to get a good grasp on what this may mean in regard to the person dismembering bodies in London.

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

    My guess is that what he actually wanted to do was to get his victims into his lair, where he had all the time in the world to cut them the exact way he wanted to. I believe the Ripper deeds were much about publicity, about rubbing himself in the face of society, about creating a maximum terror, something the murders achieved. What they would not have achieved, though, would be to allow him the time to be precise and exact and indulge in the same way the torso murders offered those options. I believe this could also explain why he did not take his business from Torso land to Ripper country through and through - he needed the possibilities and that extra time the torso murders provided, and was not able/willing to give them up.
    In essence, I think the Ripper murders were perhaps less accurate a reflection of what he truly desired to do. The doubling in Ripper territory has a whiff of narcissism about it, if you ask me. He wanted recognition.

    Of course, this is a suggestion only, an explanation model if you will, and no certainty at all can be had. But it is how I think it makes sense.

    Can I roll my eyes now? No?
    Hi fish
    agree for the most part-but I would word it a little differently-I think the ripper victims are exactly what the Torsoripper wanted to do, given the differing circs.

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Originally posted by jerryd View Post
    I know we refer to the person dismembering bodies as "torsoman", "torsoripper", etc. He was actually given a name in the press. The Chelsea Dissector.

    The remarks in this article are interesting.

    Echo, Sept. 11, 1889

    awesome find Jerry!

    Well the author of this article certainly thinks the removal of heads to prevent ID was part of it, and that not leaving clothes with pinchin was a lesson learned. Which is entirely possible.

    but of course, having killed and mutilated these women in his own place, could lead the police back to him easier if the victims could be IDed, something he didn't have to worry about with the ripper victims.

    Leave a comment:


  • Patrick S
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post


    In essence, I think the Ripper murders were perhaps less accurate a reflection of what he truly desired to do.
    I think it's unlikely that the Whitechapel Murders weren't a "reflection of what (the killer) truly desired to do". I think the only way one can even suggest that idea is if one attempts to present the Whitechapel Murderer/Jack the Ripper and the Torso Killer as one and the same, which is your objective, and so be it. Variety is the spice of life, as they say. In my view, though, JtR, especially in the cases of Nichols, Chapman, Stride, and Eddowes took far too many chances and subjected himself to substantial risk for it not to have been what he "truly desired to do". As well, especially in the cases of Chapman, Eddowes, and (particularly) Kelly, the extent of the injuries were so severe that it would seem, in my opinion, that the killer was doing exactly what he "desired to do". In fact, taking into consideration the risks the killer took and extent of the injuries he inflicted upon his victims, it would seem to me that "desire" likely had very little to do with it. The killer was compelled to commit these crimes. He needed it. His physiology, his psychosis, his illness, whatever you want to call it, REQUIRED it of him.
    Last edited by Patrick S; 04-02-2019, 07:06 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • jerryd
    replied
    I know we refer to the person dismembering bodies as "torsoman", "torsoripper", etc. He was actually given a name in the press. The Chelsea Dissector.

    The remarks in this article are interesting.

    Echo, Sept. 11, 1889


    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by bolo View Post
    Hi again, Fisherman

    (don't roll your eyes just yet!)



    if there was a combined killer, why did he go back to torsos in 1889? He must have noticed that the Ripper-style killings created international attention while the torso cases were mostly local affairs in the papers.
    My guess is that what he actually wanted to do was to get his victims into his lair, where he had all the time in the world to cut them the exact way he wanted to. I believe the Ripper deeds were much about publicity, about rubbing himself in the face of society, about creating a maximum terror, something the murders achieved. What they would not have achieved, though, would be to allow him the time to be precise and exact and indulge in the same way the torso murders offered those options. I believe this could also explain why he did not take his business from Torso land to Ripper country through and through - he needed the possibilities and that extra time the torso murders provided, and was not able/willing to give them up.
    In essence, I think the Ripper murders were perhaps less accurate a reflection of what he truly desired to do. The doubling in Ripper territory has a whiff of narcissism about it, if you ask me. He wanted recognition.

    Of course, this is a suggestion only, an explanation model if you will, and no certainty at all can be had. But it is how I think it makes sense.

    Can I roll my eyes now? No?
    Last edited by Fisherman; 04-02-2019, 06:34 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Originally posted by bolo View Post

    Well, if publicity was what he wanted, it made no sense to go back to torsos, don't you think.
    I think publicity was secondary. He was primarily motivated by cutting up female bodies.

    Leave a comment:


  • bolo
    replied
    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

    because he liked doing both. and maybe having something to do with the availability of his chop shop.
    Well, if publicity was what he wanted, it made no sense to go back to torsos, don't you think.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X