Torso Killer discussion from Millwood Thread

[Fisherman]

Thank you, I do have a further question: considering Hebbert's writing on the two killers, could you please elaborate on how his assessment is influenced to a disqualifying degree by criminal anthropology?

He writes:
My bolding.

I fail to see how criminal anthropology invalidates his opinion? (or that of bagster Philips, or Monro, for that matter). Could you explain?

Let's take the passage you kindly provided, and highlight a few other bits and bobs than the one you chose:

During the years 1887-1889, a series of murders was committe in London by unknown and unidentified assassins. The victims were thirteen women of the class of prostitutes. These outrages were done by more than one man, the post-mortem examination showing very clearly that in one series the motive was the destruction of the identity of the person, and concealment of the crime. In the second, savage and singularly purposeless mutilation. The examination also proved the difference in the skill and intention of the operator. In the first series, as I may put it, the women's bodies were skillfully divided into sections such as might be done by a butcher or a hunter, evidently for the purpose of easy carriage and distribution, as the different parts were found in various districts, some in Regent's Park, Chelsea, Battersea, Isle of Dogs, even, in one case, the vaults of new Scotland Yard. In the other series, the women were horribly and unmercifully mutilated. Even the internal organs had been removed and taken away. It was in the last series that the theory of satyriasis was strengthened by the post-mortem examinations."

So, my learned friend, we can see here that Hebbert claims to know the motive of the torso killer: concealment of the crime and destruction of the identity. I have already pointed out that this was something that Hebbert could not know. It is a guess, based on the scant psychological insights on the day, and indeed both efforts failed if so; Jackson was identified and just about every part of the bodies were found and could be out together.
The possibility of these murders being examples of a wish to cut up a person, an urge, was effectively not on the map 1888. This was a time of typifying crime, and a time of disallowing crimes "floating into" each other with blurred boundaries. A time, that is, of criminal anthropology.

Hebbert goes on to say that the purpose was to easily carry and distribute the parts, and he seemingly has a fair point. But he misses out on the very real possibility of how the killer may actually have liked dismembering the body and that the distribution may have had maximum terror as its aim. We know quite well that far from making the parts go away, this killer instead made them be found, just about all of them.

Hebbert says that the Ripper´s victims were "horribly and unmercifully" mutilated - making it seem as if the torso victims were kindly and mercifully dealt with. I think we all know that this is very misleading. Actually, neither of these killers were especially unmerciful, because they both killed swiftly, with no torture inflicted. It was - in both series, whaddayaknow! - a question of getting full and ultimate control over a body.

Finally, Hebbert - who knew quite well since he was the one who pointed it out - that the uterus and heart and lungs had been taken away from Jackson and that many organs lacked from other torso victims, tells us that the Ripper took out organs! Here, it is very easy to see how he allows preconceived contemporary notions of what tells a dismemberer apart from a mutilator and eviscerator to cloud his judgment.

This all is linked to how a criminal anthropologist thinks: he divides crimes into specific types, that specific criminals will engage in, normally leaving the boundaries uncrossed. If a pickpocket suddenly turns into a rapist, it would be odd in the extreme, because pickpockets have long fingers, not thick necks.

In conclusion, when Hebbert speaks of different skills and intentions, I think we may both realize that he is on extremely thin ice about the intention part. There can be no knowledge about it. I also think that what Hebbert points to when he speak of different skills, is that he identifies different sets of skills - one dismembered, one mutilated. The skill of the cutting work as such is not what he speaks of, we know that from how Phillips tells us that the cutting work on the necks of Kelly and the Pinchin Street victim was very similar.

[Fisherman]

A piece of the lower part of Kelly's right lung was broken. That's not going to give you easy access to the heart, as it's wedged between the "meat" of both lungs, further up than the bottom of the right lung alone. More than likely, the piece of lung was accidentally torn out by a "smash-and-grab" killer.

In the case of the torso, both the lungs and heart (which might have been kept together, as they're mentioned in the same breath) were completely taken out of the thorax. Different scenario entirely.

In both series, the reason for the removal/damage to the lungs may well lie in a wish to procure the heart. In the Kelly case, the kille HAD to reach in under the ribs; not so in the Jackson/Rainham cases, where the thorax had been severed.

[Fisherman]

In contrast to the Torso Killer, who seems to have been firmly based in the West... the Pinchin Street case excepted (probably a different torso killer, and not Jack the Ripper either).

The evolving skills in neck cutting evinced in the series firmly places the Pinchin Street victim in the torso series. The rest of the cutting was also "in all similar" to the other victims, as Hebbert puts it. I know that you do not want an EWast End dumping in the tally, since it f-cks up your wish to link the torso killer to the West, but let's not try and cherrypick in this obvious manner, Gareth.
The torso killer DUMPED his victims mainly - but not only - in the West. Where he was based is another matter.

[Fisherman]

Jeff Hamm: "You can't have it both ways..."

What Jeff means here is that I am not allowed to listen to Hebbert on one matter but not on another.

Jeff thinks that is cherrypicking and bad form.

How he himself chooses to believe Hebbert when he says that the series were unconnected, while he refuses to believe him on how the four victims of 1887-89 tell us that the torso man was unable to decapitate by knife until the last victim in the series is apparently another matter...

[Fisherman]

No - it doesn't fit with what happened to the bodies, where the crimes happened, and how the crimes happened.

Nothing preconceived at all. There's just no comparison.

No two bodies in the torso series suffered the same cutting. So "what happened to the bodies" cannot be used to tell them apart in this manner. They were dismemberment murders, all of them, and Hebbert linked them by saying that they were in all aspects very similar.

"Where the crimes happened" cannot be used either, because we do not KNOW where the crimes happened - we only know where the bodies were dumped. Plus all the four 87-89 bodies had anomalies in this regard - the Rainham victim is tied to Regents Canal, The Whitehall victim to Westminster, Jackson to Battersea and Chelsea and the Pinchin Street victim to St Georges in the East. So there goes that parameter!

Do we need to go into "How the crimes happened"? I mean, you have absolutely no idea how the four 87-89 crimes happened, let alone do you have something to point to that tells the Pinchin Street deed apart from the other three in that respect. So maybe we should avoid the inconvenience it would cause you to elaborate on it, and just settle for admitting on your behalf that you are trying to cherrypick where cherrypicking cannot be allowed?

[Sam Flynn]

No comparison between the pinchin torso and the others? Lol.

There's certainly no comparison between the Ripper victims and the torsos. As to the latter, a torso is a torso; there are only so many ways to cut off a head and limbs. With regard to limbs, why didn't the Pinchin Street perpetrator(s) remove the arms, when all the other torso victims lost theirs? So, no - there's little comparison between the Pinchin Street torso and the other torsos, even.

[Fisherman]

There's certainly no comparison between the Ripper victims and the torsos. As to the latter, a torso is a torso; there are only so many ways to cut off a head and limbs. With regard to limbs, why didn't the Pinchin Street perpetrator(s) remove the arms, when all the other torso victims lost theirs? So, no - there's little comparison between the Pinchin Street torso and the other torsos, even.

No, there is instead ample comparison, and Hebbert is the one who serves it up. He satisfied himself that the four 1887-89 victims fell prey to the same man. He said about the Jackson and Pinchin cases, that "in almost every respect they are similar to the first two cases", which effectively demolishes your claim that dismemberment can only be done in so many ways - there are instead lots and lots of parameters that can differ very much inbetween these cases. One such parameter, described in detail by Hebbert, is the way in which a head is severed from the body, and where Hebbert pointed to a consistent evolving on behalf of the killer of the four victims he looked at.

The fact that the arms were left on the body does not detract from how Hebbert unhesitatingly pointed to a common originator. There was a leg attached to the 1874 victim - does that mean that she fell prey to another killer, a third one? The "Leavaleg murderer"? So what should we call the Pinchin Street murderer? "The Handsoffthearms killer"? Or "The Cherrypicker"? You CAN do that if your arms are in place.

And "there is no comparison between the Ripper victims and the torsos", Gareth? Do I need to say it again? In BOTH series, uteri were taken out. In BOTH series, hearts were taken out. In BOTH series, abdominal walls were cut away. In BOTH series, rings were stolen. In BOTH series, sections of colons were cut out. In BOTH series, victims were ripped from sternum to pubes.

How are these things not similarities? How is it that they are not something that offers any comparisons whatsoever between victims from both series? Explain that to us, please!

[jerryd]

During the years 1887-1889, a series of murders was committe in London by unknown and unidentified assassins. The victims were thirteen women of the class of prostitutes. These outrages were done by more than one man, the post-mortem examination showing very clearly that in one series the motive was the destruction of the identity of the person, and concealment of the crime. In the second, savage and singularly purposeless mutilation. The examination also proved the difference in the skill and intention of the operator. In the first series, as I may put it, the women's bodies were skillfully divided into sections such as might be done by a butcher or a hunter, evidently for the purpose of easy carriage and distribution, as the different parts were found in various districts, some in Regent's Park, Chelsea, Battersea, Isle of Dogs, even, in one case, the vaults of new Scotland Yard. In the other series, the women were horribly and unmercifully mutilated. Even the internal organs had been removed and taken away.It was in the last series that the theory of satyriasis was strengthened by the post-mortem examinations."

This is interesting as Dr. Hebbert would later go on to state (in "A System of Legal Medicine") that if certain organs of Mary Kelly had been decomposed or not left in the room, even gender identification would have been difficult. Isn't that destruction of identity?

[bolo]

Hi all,

I've re-examined Hebbert's dissertations on the four torso murders of 1887/88/89 and took quick notes for each victim with emphasis on the skill level and methods, organs that had been removed, type of tools, personal data, dates the parts were found and the approximate time of death. The similarities between the torso cases are obvious, at least in terms of skill level and age group. There may be a progression or more efficient appliance of skill from the first to the last case.

The number of organs that had been removed was higher in the first case than the others. I'm linking this with the progression/appliance of skill, the murderer possibly found out that he did not have to remove certain organs to successfully dismember the bodies so he probably saved himself some time in the other cases. Since Hebbert says that the way the bodies were cut up and dismembered showed the skills of a butcher, slaughterer, horse-knacker or hunter, the perpertrator may have partly disembowelled the body of the first victim according to the standard procedures of his profession or comparable experience level.

In cases where a saw was used, the tool in question had a fine-toothed blade so it wasn't a crude wood saw as I initially thought (dunno where I got that from). A saw like that is capable of cutting through tissue, organs and bones when used carefully so I have to retract my assumption that organs were removed in order to make cutting up of the bodies easier.

I agree with Hebbert's opinion that the organ removal and dismembering were done to prevent identification and make the bodies easier to transport to the spots where they were thrown into the river or dumped at various locations on land. This also goes for the absence of the heads. I don't see any ritualistic significance here.

Although dump sites like the Shelley estate, the construction site of New Scotland Yard or Pinchin Street could have been deliberately chosen to mock the police or general public, the small number of these controversially discussed dumpings does not give me the impression of a killer who was keen on publicity.

As for the theory that the Ripper and torso killer were the same man, I have to say that I still fail to see the connection between the two series. The first torso case of 1887 already showed a relatively complete set of professionally learned or otherwise acquired skills that I can't see in the Ripper cases from Tabram to Nichols and access to tools like a very sharp knife and a saw as Hebbert mentioned (while Tabram was stabbed with a knife the size of a pen knife + dagger-style weapon and the knife in Nichols' case was only moderately sharp).

In the Chapman and Eddowes cases, the majority of the mutilations were done to get in possession of certain organs, coupled with an increase in violence (Kate's facial mutilations). Violence increased even more in Kelly's case whose body and parts thereof looked like they had been arranged for the highest possible shock value. The murderer also took her heart with him, maybe as some sort of trophy. No such thing as shock value in the torso cases as far as I can see.

With the exception of the first torso case from 1887, no particular organ removal took place, except for a bit of intestines here and there so I think it's safe to say that getting hold of organs was not what Torsoman wanted. He could have done so in other cases but obviously did not want to because he probably saw now practical need for it.

Even with the 187x and 1884 cases taken into consideration as well, my impression stays the same. Except for facial mutilations in the 1873 case, the similarities to the later Torso cases are there but not to the Ripper's. Facial mutilations in 1873? What does that tell us about the same type of injuries that did not occur before Eddowes in the Ripper cases? At the very least, it's difficult to match to the Ripper timeline of skill and interest progression.

It has been said that the probability of two or more disembowelling/dismembering serial killers at large in one area at the same time is very small. However, the modus operandi and psychological setup of each series are quite different - Methodical, thoughtful and keen on hindering ID in one series, practically orientated (Torsoman), swift, savage and regardless of ID in the other, out for organs (Ripper). So different, in fact, that I have no qualms about opting for two different men.

That's my revised take on it.

Regards,

Boris

[Kattrup]

So different, in fact, that I have no qualms about opting for two different men.

That's my revised take on it.

Regards,

Boris

well-reasoned and I og course agree, just wanted to add that the idea that the torsos were dumped for shock is still rather underwhelming since it’s not been shown that the Shelley estate was connected to the idea of Frankenstein, and the new SY building was originally meant for the national opera house and the papers on several occasions I believe referred to it as such. Meaning it’s a bit rich to claim a killer chose it to taunt the police. This of course besides the idea that throwing stuff in the river was a way of showcasing it, which also seems somewhat ill founded

[bolo]

well-reasoned and I og course agree, just wanted to add that the idea that the torsos were dumped for shock is still rather underwhelming since it’s not been shown that the Shelley estate was connected to the idea of Frankenstein, and the new SY building was originally meant for the national opera house and the papers on several occasions I believe referred to it as such. Meaning it’s a bit rich to claim a killer chose it to taunt the police. This of course besides the idea that throwing stuff in the river was a way of showcasing it, which also seems somewhat ill founded

The location of the Shelley estate close to the river and the circumstances of the dumping of a body part there look to me like an emergency drop, the kiler could have been disturbed while standing on the shore of the river and then went away with the part still in hand which he got rid of on the way on a spot where it couldn't have been seen on first sight.

I don't think that the killer wanted to taunt anyone but just get rid of the bodies.

[jerryd]

Even with the 187x and 1884 cases taken into consideration as well, my impression stays the same. Except for facial mutilations in the 1873 case, the similarities to the later Torso cases are there but not to the Ripper's. Facial mutilations in 1873? What does that tell us about the same type of injuries that did not occur before Eddowes in the Ripper cases? At the very least, it's difficult to match to the Ripper timeline of skill and interest progression.

Hi Boris,

There were facial mutilations in the 1884 case as well. In fact, they were somewhat similar to Catherine Eddowes, imho.

[Sam Flynn]

The location of the Shelley estate close to the river and the circumstances of the dumping of a body part there look to me like an emergency drop, the kiler could have been disturbed while standing on the shore of the river and then went away with the part still in hand which he got rid of on the way on a spot where it couldn't have been seen on first sight.

Indeed. It has all the feel of an emergency drop.

[JeffHamm]

Jeff Hamm: "You can't have it both ways..."

What Jeff means here is that I am not allowed to listen to Hebbert on one matter but not on another.

Jeff thinks that is cherrypicking and bad form.

How he himself chooses to believe Hebbert when he says that the series were unconnected, while he refuses to believe him on how the four victims of 1887-89 tell us that the torso man was unable to decapitate by knife until the last victim in the series is apparently another matter...

What Hebbert's conclusion about increasing skill once decapitation by knife was shown is that the minimum level of skill has just been evidenced to be higher then the minimum the evidence allows prior; it raised the bar in terms of skill one has to grant the torso killer(s). But, it doesn't mean that skill level was absent all along. However, given all of the other evidence of skill with breaking down a body, the evidence is also highly suggestive that the skill was there, and it is this last case that demonstrates it. The torso cases where a saw was used are an example of how the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". The difference is that with JtR we actually have "evidence of absence", he tried to decapitate with a knife, and failed - that is evidence of absence of the skill.

If you wish to interpret use of a saw as evidence of absence of the ability to do it with a knife, go ahead, but that is not a safe interpretation. While I could be argued to be stepping over the line as well (so fair call above on that), my step over the line is far smaller because it is based upon the rest of the skill shown by the torso killer(s) which can be argued, (as I have been doing), as evidence that the skill to decapitate with a knife is present despite them using a saw. That's the difference. I'm not rejecting him outright. He's just being a bit more conservative than I am, but we're not far off from each other.

- Jeff

[Abby Normal]

The location of the Shelley estate close to the river and the circumstances of the dumping of a body part there look to me like an emergency drop, the kiler could have been disturbed while standing on the shore of the river and then went away with the part still in hand which he got rid of on the way on a spot where it couldn't have been seen on first sight.

I don't think that the killer wanted to taunt anyone but just get rid of the bodies.

The difference in the different and widespread placing sites negate that idea IMHO in general. And spefically.. the killer had the river on his right side for a half a mile. He could have chucked it at any time. That it just happened to be in frankensteins garden at this so called emergency moment is too much of a coincidence for me.. especially since its the last part.