Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Torso Killer discussion from Millwood Thread

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

  • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

    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.
    I must have stared at the map of the torso/body parts findings for days now but except for the Shelley estate and NSY parts, I don't see any other particularly telling or special locations, it were either more or less secluded spots or the river.

    There would have been a wealth of options for the killer to really stir up some publicity but despite a relatively (compared to the Ripper cases) sparse press echo, he kept on doing what he did until 1889.

    Of course it's possible that the dumping had a special meaning for the killer.
    ~ All perils, specially malignant, are recurrent - Thomas De Quincey ~

    Comment


    • Originally posted by bolo View Post

      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.
      Hi bolo
      I concede that torsoman may have taken the heads off to prevent ID, but then why leave identifying features like clothes and tatoos, moles etc? why not do a better job at hiding the rest of the body?
      the heads have historically been the most important part of the body to post mortem mutilators in terms of their fantasy. Theyre usually the part they keep the longest and do the most stuff too and with. But when its time to get rid of (if they ever do get rid of it)Its also the part most likely to sink.

      I think we can safely assume that he dumped the bodies to get rid of them-get them out of his place.
      trying to prevent ID -maybe.
      trying to hide, or prevent discovery- no way.






      "Is all that we see or seem
      but a dream within a dream?"

      -Edgar Allan Poe


      "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
      quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

      -Frederick G. Abberline

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
        Hi bolo
        I concede that torsoman may have taken the heads off to prevent ID, but then why leave identifying features like clothes and tatoos, moles etc? why not do a better job at hiding the rest of the body?
        the heads have historically been the most important part of the body to post mortem mutilators in terms of their fantasy. Theyre usually the part they keep the longest and do the most stuff too and with. But when its time to get rid of (if they ever do get rid of it)Its also the part most likely to sink.

        I think we can safely assume that he dumped the bodies to get rid of them-get them out of his place.
        trying to prevent ID -maybe.
        trying to hide, or prevent discovery- no way.
        Given the time between the torso cases and the corresponding intervals of body part findings, the killer may have learned that completely preventing ID by chopping bodies to pieces is not possible but hindering ID is. He was successful with it, after all, because only one victim could be identified (Jackson), moles or not.

        Heads only sink if the brain is still intact and/or certain precautions have been taken to keep it down. When the brain starts decomposing, the gasses that appear in the process will may make the head rise again. That's why I don't think that the heads ended up in water but were either burned, buried or maybe even denuded of flesh and stored away.
        ~ All perils, specially malignant, are recurrent - Thomas De Quincey ~

        Comment


        • Originally posted by bolo View Post

          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.
          I know that you think that the torso killer did his best to hide what he did and to hinder identification of his victims. That is, in fact, the very basis for your take that he could not have been the Ripper. What I am saying is that one should perhaps not regard as a fact something that is questioned by what I believe is a majority of todays students of the cases.

          You now try to point to how you are flexible in your thinking, but it really does not work out for you. First you say that the killer may have done away with the heads, but "the fact that they never came to light is very telling" in your opinion.

          So maybe you are wrong, but since the heads wee not found that says you are in all probability right.

          If the heads were thrown in the Thames with the rest, why and how would they came to light - if they sank to the bottom? How is it "telling" us anything about any intention of the killer to hide the identities in such a case?

          A killer who wants what he has done to disappear from the knowledge of the world may well dismember a body, cart the parts to the Thames and throw them into the river. Once we are speaking of one victim and one victim only, that reasoning has a lot going for it. If the parts are then all washed ashore, it would be understandable if the killer stood at the shoreline and said "Wow - I didn't se that happening". It would be sound reasoning to suggest that he could have had the intention to sink the body into oblivion and the belief that it would work.

          But once the papers and people all over town starts to speak about how just about every part is instead found and fit together into evidence good enough to decide age, gender, hair color, weight, length etcetera of the victim, the option of suggesting a secretive killer become a non-option. And that is VERY much reinforced if that killer decides to place a significant number of the parts on dry land, not least if the chosen places are of the kind of character we are dealing with in these cases.

          You donīt buy that reasoning - fine. I can only say it so many times, and I think we have reached the limit now. I know I have.

          Comment


          • The sectioning of the bodies may well have more to do with ease of transport than any determined effort to disguise the victims identities. Often we see murderers choosing to do that just so they can dispose of the parts, sometimes leaving open the possibilities of later visitation. In these particular cases I believe dismemberment was at the outset a goal, and disposal and making the identities hard to trace were by products of the dismembering. Fundamentally different than leaving them in the street to be found shortly thereafter. That's one of the many fundamental differences between torso man...and I think there was just one or two...and Jack. The thrill is missing in the Torso murders. The work in the dark.. outdoors, where at any minute you might be caught...causing him to rush his work and thereby suggesting skills that are somewhat masked... "in the consequence of haste".

            I wonder if that killer was hoping to get caught. Maybe he really wanted to stop.
            Michael Richards

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
              The sectioning of the bodies may well have more to do with ease of transport than any determined effort to disguise the victims identities. Often we see murderers choosing to do that just so they can dispose of the parts, sometimes leaving open the possibilities of later visitation. In these particular cases I believe dismemberment was at the outset a goal, and disposal and making the identities hard to trace were by products of the dismembering. Fundamentally different than leaving them in the street to be found shortly thereafter. That's one of the many fundamental differences between torso man...and I think there was just one or two...and Jack. The thrill is missing in the Torso murders. The work in the dark.. outdoors, where at any minute you might be caught...causing him to rush his work and thereby suggesting skills that are somewhat masked... "in the consequence of haste".

              I wonder if that killer was hoping to get caught. Maybe he really wanted to stop.
              A really useful characterization there, Michael - the disposal of the parts and the difficulties it meant for ID purposes were by-products of the dismemberment as such. This is extremely important to remember; once somebody dismembers a victim, then REGARDLESS OF THE UNDERLYING REASONS FOR THAT DISMEMBERMENT, there will be the byproduct of body parts lying around.

              You write that there was no thrill in the torso murders, and I can see what you mean. But should we not leave it to the kiiller to say whether he found a thrill in the torso murders or not? Personally, I have little doubt that he did.
              However, the Ripper murders could hint at thrill seeking in the respect of killing in public. And that element is lacking in the torso murders, although the killer seems to have made his business public after the killing and dismemberment.

              My own thinking here is that I believe the combined killer uses both series to invoke fear and terror in society. I see both murder series as involving the killer shouting "Look what I can do, and you cannot do anything about it!"
              If that is correct, then the Ripper murders are perhaps just another facet, led on by how the torso murders did not get the kind of recognition and coverage he sought when killing away from the public and dumping the parts in their lap.

              Comment


              • Hi again, Fisherman

                (don't roll your eyes just yet!)

                Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                My own thinking here is that I believe the combined killer uses both series to invoke fear and terror in society. I see both murder series as involving the killer shouting "Look what I can do, and you cannot do anything about it!"
                If that is correct, then the Ripper murders are perhaps just another facet, led on by how the torso murders did not get the kind of recognition and coverage he sought when killing away from the public and dumping the parts in their lap.
                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.
                ~ All perils, specially malignant, are recurrent - Thomas De Quincey ~

                Comment


                • 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.
                  because he liked doing both. and maybe having something to do with the availability of his chop shop.
                  "Is all that we see or seem
                  but a dream within a dream?"

                  -Edgar Allan Poe


                  "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                  quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                  -Frederick G. Abberline

                  Comment


                  • 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.
                    ~ All perils, specially malignant, are recurrent - Thomas De Quincey ~

                    Comment


                    • 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.
                      "Is all that we see or seem
                      but a dream within a dream?"

                      -Edgar Allan Poe


                      "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                      quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                      -Frederick G. Abberline

                      Comment


                      • 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.

                        Comment


                        • 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


                          Comment


                          • 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.

                            Comment


                            • 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.
                              "Is all that we see or seem
                              but a dream within a dream?"

                              -Edgar Allan Poe


                              "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                              quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                              -Frederick G. Abberline

                              Comment


                              • 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.
                                "Is all that we see or seem
                                but a dream within a dream?"

                                -Edgar Allan Poe


                                "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                                quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                                -Frederick G. Abberline

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X