Torso Killer discussion from Millwood Thread

[bolo]

Hi Abby,

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.

Do you know where your favourite authors live? I don't, and I doubt the killer did as well. Since walking around with a body part is quite risky, it's difficult for me to imagine a killer who does just that to make a point (or play a dirty trick) by throwing it into Mary Shelley's front yard.

If the placement of the body parts in the torso series was done on purpose, what message do you think the killer wanted to get across?

[bolo]

Hi Jerry,

Hi Boris,

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

did not know that, thanks for the info. I've read in a press article that there still was some flesh left on the skull of the first 1884 finding but there was no mention of mutilations.

[jerryd]

Hi Jerry,



did not know that, thanks for the info. I've read in a press article that there still was some flesh left on the skull of the first 1884 finding but there was no mention of mutilations.

Boris,

Here is a press report I found awhile back.


East London Press,
November 8,1884

[Fisherman]

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

A few remarks:

- There is no evidence that the organs lacking form the Rainham victim were removed by the killer. What Hebbert says is that these organs were not present in the body, and that allows for the interpretation that they may have gone lost as a consequence of other things than a killer cutting them out. It is only in the Jackson case that Hebbert says "removed" about the heart and lungs, pointing a finger at the killer.
It may well be, of course, that the killer was responsible for all lacking organs, many of which were also lacking in the Whitehall case. It certainly is tempting to accuse the killer in the Rainham case, since the division of the torso is quite similar to that in the Jackson case, and the same organs are lacking in both cases, apart from the uterus in the Rainham case.

- Hebberts view about different originators is seemingly based on lacking insights into the underlying psychology of these types of crime, as well as a belief in criminal anthropology, so I would advice against over investing in that part. This is why In say that one not only could, but SHOULD ascribe different values to his judgment when we compare professional assessments of physical damage (where he would have been spot on) to amateurish guesswork based on lacking insights (where he may well be very much off).

-If you can see no similarities in the handiwork of these killers, it remains that they did the exact same things to their victims nevertheless. That is the salient point. We do not have the victims to study, and so we cannot say just how skilled or unskilled the perpetrators will have been. We only know that the medicos professed to having seen great skill in both series, plus we know that a killer like the Gainesville Ripper, Danny Rolling, was deemed a full-fledged surgeon by the medicos who looked at his handiwork. And was he? No, he was a drifter with no medical/anatomica/surgical experience at all. The problem is that once somebody shows an ability to dismember, to decapitate by knife (which was what Rolling accomplished, the rest of this deeds was simply a flurry of stabs, nothing more), there seems to be a risk that medicos yell "surgeon!" I don't think that neither series point to a surgeon at work, but that both series point to a very speedy cutter, who could produce long, clean and sweeping cuts, and who knew hot to disarticulate limbs but not heads (until September of 1889). The same man, therefore.

-You say that getting hold of organs seems not to have been what the torso killer wanted. Isn't that strange to say about somebody who intentionally cuts out a uterus a heart and a pair of lungs from a victim? Maybe what you mean is that it may not have been a general desire on his part? Then again there are organs lack ing from three out of the four 1887-89 victims, and the killer may well be the one that took them. That would mean he took organs from 75 per cent of his victims.
The Ripper did so in 60 per cent of HIS cases.
Maybe another revision is of the need, Bolo?

-Finally, we do not know - not you and not me - how the MO and the "psychological setup" looked in these series. Let's not pretend that we do, and let's admit that they may have been very much alike as well as very much alike.

[Fisherman]

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.

Is that the "psychological setup" you are speaking about as if it was a fact...?

[Fisherman]

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

Let's begin in the right end: It is not shameful to believe a source on one matter and not another. When we know for a fact that a view has been grounded on lacking or faulty insights, we MUST question its value.

The attitude only becomes a problem when we rely on somebody in one instance but not in another, and the type of information is similarly grounded. One such example would be those who accept that Killeen described the damage done to Tabram in a correct and professional fashion, but choose to believe that he got it wrong when he said that two weapons had been used.
He is competent, but he is not competent enough to describe a blade from the wounds he sees, that's the idea.
In that case, I say it is cherrypicking de luxe, and I don't approve of it one bit.

In Hebberts case, he was quite competent enough to describe the decapitation processes in the torso series, and we must accept what he says, because he saw it. When it comes to his beliefs about what made the originators of the two series tick, he is in deep water, because there was not psychological insight enough back then to form a full and true picture. We probably lack pieces today too, but we are much more advanced nevertheless.

Moving on, when you say that it is not a safe interpretation that the torso killer could not decapitate by way of knife, I would say that since we have Hebbert telling us that this is the implication, it would be much more unsafe to throw him under the bus and say that we could somehow conclude from the rest of the cutting the torso killer did that he must have been an accomplished decapitator too.
Hebbert saw the dismemberments, he saw how the limbs were disarticulated, he knew to a much, much larger degree than you and me how clean these disarticulations and cuts were - and regardless of this, he stated that the killer only learnt how to decapitate by knife in September of 1889. Why would not Hebbert realize that the killer must have been able to decapitate by knife, if it is as apparent as you want to believe?

Have you asked yourself that question?

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,



Do you know where your favourite authors live? I don't, and I doubt the killer did as well. Since walking around with a body part is quite risky, it's difficult for me to imagine a killer who does just that to make a point (or play a dirty trick) by throwing it into Mary Shelley's front yard.

If the placement of the body parts in the torso series was done on purpose, what message do you think the killer wanted to get across?

hi Bolo
Thanks! I haven't quite put my finger on it. It might have been for some kind of message, or it might have been for other reason, only known to the killer. Maybe he was "polluting" the city, or areas that had meaning to him, with the parts, or marking his territory something like that. If he was trying to send a message it might have been to taunt or shock the police/public/press and deriving some pleasure from the stir it caused. One things for sure, IMHO he was not just dumping random, or just to get rid off. and certainly not trying to hide.

[Joshua Rogan]

It may well be, of course, that the killer was responsible for all lacking organs, many of which were also lacking in the Whitehall case. It certainly is tempting to accuse the killer in the Rainham case, since the division of the torso is quite similar to that in the Jackson case, and the same organs are lacking in both cases, apart from the uterus in the Rainham case.

Then again there are organs lack ing from three out of the four 1887-89 victims, and the killer may well be the one that took them. That would mean he took organs from 75 per cent of his victims.

On the other hand, if the killer didn't take them, the percentage goes down to 25%.
I'm happy to acknowledge it's likely he did in the Rainham case, buy how many organs were missing from the recovered parts of the Whitehall torso?

-Finally, we do not know - not you and not me - how the MO and the "psychological setup" looked in these series. Let's not pretend that we do, and let's admit that they may have been very much alike as well as very much alike.

Hmmm. Seems we're left with "Holmgren's choice"!

[Joshua Rogan]

Do you know where your favourite authors live? I don't, and I doubt the killer did as well.

Or even where your favourite author's children live. Mary Shellley never lived in the house, she'd been dead for a good 20 years before it was even built by her son.

[Abby Normal]

Or even where your favourite author's children live. Mary Shellley never lived in the house, she'd been dead for a good 20 years before it was even built by her son.

hi JR and bolo
I don't know-someone adept at cutting up and dismembering bodies, and apparently had the sick fantasy to do so, just might have known where frankensteins garden was!

[Sam Flynn]

I don't know-someone adept at cutting up and dismembering bodies, and apparently had the sick fantasy to do so, just might have known where frankensteins garden was!

If it was that meaningful to him, he might have dumped more than a single body-part there on just one occasion.

[bolo]

- Hebberts view about different originators is seemingly based on lacking insights into the underlying psychology of these types of crime, as well as a belief in criminal anthropology, so I would advice against over investing in that part. This is why In say that one not only could, but SHOULD ascribe different values to his judgment when we compare professional assessments of physical damage (where he would have been spot on) to amateurish guesswork based on lacking insights (where he may well be very much off).

Dr Bond provided some documents/material for Hebbert for his dissertations on the 1887-89 torso killings and I'm sure there also was a personal exchange of information and professional opinion between the two. Both medicos may not have been familiar with modern criminology and psychology but I'm sure they knew similarities or differences in styles and injuries between two cases or series of cases when they saw them. That's why I hestitate to write Hebbert's verdict off at the moment.

-If you can see no similarities in the handiwork of these killers, it remains that they did the exact same things to their victims nevertheless. That is the salient point. We do not have the victims to study, and so we cannot say just how skilled or unskilled the perpetrators will have been. We only know that the medicos professed to having seen great skill in both series, plus we know that a killer like the Gainesville Ripper, Danny Rolling, was deemed a full-fledged surgeon by the medicos who looked at his handiwork. And was he? No, he was a drifter with no medical/anatomica/surgical experience at all. The problem is that once somebody shows an ability to dismember, to decapitate by knife (which was what Rolling accomplished, the rest of this deeds was simply a flurry of stabs, nothing more), there seems to be a risk that medicos yell "surgeon!" I don't think that neither series point to a surgeon at work, but that both series point to a very speedy cutter, who could produce long, clean and sweeping cuts, and who knew hot to disarticulate limbs but not heads (until September of 1889). The same man, therefore.

I can see the similarities but also the differences. I'm with Hebbert again in terms of the killer's handiwork who said that it showed no signs of a professional surgeon but someone who is used to cutting up and disembowelling animals in a quick and efficient way like a butcher or slaughterer, so no "surgeon!"-yelling medico in this case.

Only two of the Ripper cases are similar in skill to the torso killings in my opinion, Chapman and Eddowes. Tabram (if we count her in) was stabbed to death, Nichols was killed with a moderately sharp knife and only superficially mutilated, Stride was not mutilated, her throat cut was not as deep as in the other cases and probably done with a different weapon than the others, and Kelly was butchered to pieces in a way which let the divisional surgeon and the doctors differ in their opinions on the skill level of the murderer (from "some kill" to "no skill"). There also was no dismemberment in any of the Ripper cases.

-You say that getting hold of organs seems not to have been what the torso killer wanted. Isn't that strange to say about somebody who intentionally cuts out a uterus a heart and a pair of lungs from a victim? Maybe what you mean is that it may not have been a general desire on his part? Then again there are organs lack ing from three out of the four 1887-89 victims, and the killer may well be the one that took them. That would mean he took organs from 75 per cent of his victims.
The Ripper did so in 60 per cent of HIS cases.
Maybe another revision is of the need, Bolo?

I don't put as much importance on a possible organ removal in the torso cases as I do in the Ripper cases where getting hold of organs was a clear objective, at least in two, possibly three cases. Things ain't as clear-cut in the torso cases since there is not a lot of information as to what the killer did before he dismembered the bodies. In case of the Pinchin St. torso, the doctors said that her lower abdomen was badly mutilated but that's a bit thin to base something on.

The state of evidence in the torso cases points to a practical approach to dismemberment in my view, what happened before is difficult to say. Not so in the Ripper case, here, everything has been laid out by the killer for everyone to see.

-Finally, we do not know - not you and not me - how the MO and the "psychological setup" looked in these series. Let's not pretend that we do, and let's admit that they may have been very much alike as well as very much alike.

MO as in the line of events and the things the killer(s) did as we judge them by historical evidence, not MO as in the exact way the killer(s) went to work. Maybe I should have user a different term here.

Of course I don't know how the exact psychological setup looked like but the basic differences (hindering ID and hiding body parts vs. "al fresco killing") point to a very different way of doing things and thus to a different psyche. Of course that's just a layman's view.

[Fisherman]

Dr Bond provided some documents/material for Hebbert for his dissertations on the 1887-89 torso killings and I'm sure there also was a personal exchange of information and professional opinion between the two. Both medicos may not have been familiar with modern criminology and psychology but I'm sure they knew similarities or differences in styles and injuries between two cases or series of cases when they saw them. That's why I hestitate to write Hebbert's verdict off at the moment.



I can see the similarities but also the differences. I'm with Hebbert again in terms of the killer's handiwork who said that it showed no signs of a professional surgeon but someone who is used to cutting up and disembowelling animals in a quick and efficient way like a butcher or slaughterer, so no "surgeon!"-yelling medico in this case.

Only two of the Ripper cases are similar in skill to the torso killings in my opinion, Chapman and Eddowes. Tabram (if we count her in) was stabbed to death, Nichols was killed with a moderately sharp knife and only superficially mutilated, Stride was not mutilated, her throat cut was not as deep as in the other cases and probably done with a different weapon than the others, and Kelly was butchered to pieces in a way which let the divisional surgeon and the doctors differ in their opinions on the skill level of the murderer (from "some kill" to "no skill"). There also was no dismemberment in any of the Ripper cases.



I don't put as much importance on a possible organ removal in the torso cases as I do in the Ripper cases where getting hold of organs was a clear objective, at least in two, possibly three cases. Things ain't as clear-cut in the torso cases since there is not a lot of information as to what the killer did before he dismembered the bodies. In case of the Pinchin St. torso, the doctors said that her lower abdomen was badly mutilated but that's a bit thin to base something on.

The state of evidence in the torso cases points to a practical approach to dismemberment in my view, what happened before is difficult to say. Not so in the Ripper case, here, everything has been laid out by the killer for everyone to see.



MO as in the line of events and the things the killer(s) did as we judge them by historical evidence, not MO as in the exact way the killer(s) went to work. Maybe I should have user a different term here.

Of course I don't know how the exact psychological setup looked like but the basic differences (hindering ID and hiding body parts vs. "al fresco killing") point to a very different way of doing things and thus to a different psyche. Of course that's just a layman's view.

The end says it all - you still refer to the torso killer as somebody who tried to hide body parts (regardless of how they were all found, more or less) and somebody who tried to hinder ID (regardless of how he used the victims own clothing to dispose of her, moles, scars and all).
To you, taking away the head is not something that may point to hindering an ID - it is something that MUST be about hindering an ID.

On that headless note, I step out of the discussion for now. Got better things to do.

[Fisherman]

If it was that meaningful to him, he might have dumped more than a single body-part there on just one occasion.

Just when I thought the discussion could not get any dumber...? Of course he couldn't do that, Gareth - he would need to pile all the parts up in the vaults of New Scotland Yard, see, to prove his dislike for the police (a mere torso and a leg is not real evidence of that, it takes some arms, three heads and six lungs too) so there would be precious little left...

Dear, dear me.

[bolo]

The end says it all - you still refer to the torso killer as somebody who tried to hide body parts (regardless of how they were all found, more or less) and somebody who tried to hinder ID (regardless of how he used the victims own clothing to dispose of her, moles, scars and all).
To you, taking away the head is not something that may point to hindering an ID - it is something that MUST be about hindering an ID.

On that headless note, I step out of the discussion for now. Got better things to do.

I still refer to Torsoman as somebody who, at the very least, regarded hindering ID as one of the things that were important to him. I can't see this in the Ripper cases and find your corresponding arguments not very convincing. That's nothing personal, just a matter of different opinions.

Nowhere did I say that taking away the heads MUST to point to anything, it's just that the identity of a body without a head is more difficult to determine than with the head still in place, thus the killer may have done away with the heads (or kept them as trophies far all I care) but the fact that most of them never came to light is very telling in my opinion. The killer obviously did not want people to find them, so he did what? Yup, he hid them from public view in one way or another. I think that's not exactly an outlandish assumption.

Anyway, nice talking to you.