Torso Killer discussion from Millwood Thread

[Joshua Rogan]

One more thing about the heart and whether he avoided to cut it or not, Bolo: The division of the trunk came nowhere near the heart in the two cases where hearts were lost, the Rainham case and the Jackson case.
So why would he take it out in order not to have to cut in it - when that was never going to happen anyway...?

Really?

[bolo]

The finds were recorded, of course. The times of the murders is harder to establish, very hard in the Whitehall case, f ex. Why do you ask?

I would like to compare the Ripper and Torsoman timelines to get a better picture of the sequence of events.

[bolo]

but on the more than one man idea-you really need to follow Jerry-I believe his idea is more than one man was responsible for BOTH series together. and hes found compelling evidence for that theory.

Thanks, the bits of info and maps Jerry posted so far are very intriguing indeed. I find most of what I've read about the Ripper and Torsoman being one person not very convincing so far, feels like pushing a square peg through a round hole.

[Fisherman]

Your disembowelling dismemberer Ripper must have been a pretty busy man then, Fisherman.

Which brings me to my question: Is there a timeline of the torso killings? I know there has been some research and I've also started compiling a makeshift timeline but it's quite difficult I must say.

The finds were recorded, of course. The times of the murders is harder to establish, very hard in the Whitehall case, f ex. Why do you ask?

[Fisherman]

One more thing about the heart and whether he avoided to cut it or not, Bolo: The division of the trunk came nowhere near the heart in the two cases where hearts were lost, the Rainham case and the Jackson case.
So why would he take it out in order not to have to cut in it - when that was never going to happen anyway...?

[Abby Normal]

Oh yes, there is. Take two recently slaughtered pigs, leave all organs, intestines, etc. in the body and try sawing it to bits with a standard tool, let's say a saw used for cutting wood. Apart from the fact that this will create a huge mess that not only is a nightmare to clean but also stinks to high heaven, it's extremly difficult to saw through (or cut through with a knife for that matter) certain organ tissue.

Now try the same with a pig that has been partly disembowelled at the spots you want to saw through and it will be much easier and way less messy.

So there could have been practical reasons for the organ removal in my opinion.



Heart, lungs and uterus are very sturdy and tough organs that are easier removed than cut through.

Again, I won't rule out the possibility that the killer was out for trophies, even though you obviously think I would. I just find the practical explanation more... uhm, practical.



See above - I don't categorically rule out the possibility that Torsoman also was after certain organs, things just ain't as clear cut for me as they obviously are for you. The practical reasons for the organ removal should still be taken into consideration here, because, unlike the Ripper cases, there actually ARE some.



The two-killer theory gets some more weight as soon as you conceptually accept the possibility of more than one killer at work at the same time in 1888, and be it just as an entertaining little mind game.

Imagine...

There's the Ripper, and there's some criminal organisation that does something to/with women of a certain class which more often than not ends up with the woman dying/getting killed. They need to quickly get rid of the bodies and try several ways of dumping and hiding them but end up with paying one or more people for cutting them up and dumping them into the Thames.

Your turn.

well then there money was not well spent-the parts were pretty much all found and they did a pretty strange job of it-- throwing a part into someones yard, a torso in an active contruction site and a torso in the middle of the road!

but on the more than one man idea-you really need to follow Jerry-I believe his idea is more than one man was responsible for BOTH series together. and hes found compelling evidence for that theory.

[bolo]

Your disembowelling dismemberer Ripper must have been a pretty busy man then, Fisherman.

Which brings me to my question: Is there a timeline of the torso killings? I know there has been some research and I've also started compiling a makeshift timeline but it's quite difficult I must say.

[Fisherman]

Oh yes, there is. Take two recently slaughtered pigs, leave all organs, intestines, etc. in the body and try sawing it to bits with a standard tool, let's say a saw used for cutting wood. Apart from the fact that this will create a huge mess that not only is a nightmare to clean but also stinks to high heaven, it's extremly difficult to saw through (or cut through with a knife for that matter) certain organ tissue.

Now try the same with a pig that has been partly disembowelled at the spots you want to saw through and it will be much easier and way less messy.

So there could have been practical reasons for the organ removal in my opinion.

Yes, of course there COULD have been practical reasons for the organ removal. Thereīs always "could". There could be a reason for why two killer just happen to cut away abdominal walls from victims in the same city and time. No matter what I point to, innumerable reasons COULD always be thought up for why there were seemingly many and far-reaching similarities.
I donīt regard that as a problem though, since it is you, not me, who must provide the so called alternative innocent explanations. I stick with the facts only: both men cut away abdominal walls, both men cut away uteri, both men... No suggestion about differing incentives can shake these facts.
And pigs or no pigs, dismemberment murders typically do NOT involve the taking out of organs. Then again, this is no typical dismemberer...

Heart, lungs and uterus are very sturdy and tough organs that are easier removed than cut through.

Nope. They are much easier to just saw or cut through then they are to remove. The heart is VERY awkwardly placed when it comes to removing it, for example - you must reach in under the ribs, take the lungs away and cut the pericardium open, plus you must cut the attachments and veins and arteries, a very fiddly job. And a sharp knife will slice through it like butter. A heart will not make the process of dismemberment more messy, and it will not get in the way. Typically, it will remain hidden deep inside the thorax and it will be left there by the dismemberer. So letīs not get too far adrift logically here, shall we?

Again, I won't rule out the possibility that the killer was out for trophies, even though you obviously think I would. I just find the practical explanation more... uhm, practical.

It IS more practical - but less likely to be true. And I donīt think the organs were taken as trophies, by the way. At least, that will probably not have been the true incentive for taking them out.

See above - I don't categorically rule out the possibility that Torsoman also was after certain organs, things just ain't as clear cut for me as they obviously are for you. The practical reasons for the organ removal should still be taken into consideration here, because, unlike the Ripper cases, there actually ARE some.

Done and dusted.

The two-killer theory gets some more weight as soon as you conceptually accept the possibility of more than one killer at work at the same time in 1888, and be it just as an entertaining little mind game.

Imagine...

There's the Ripper, and there's some criminal organisation that does something to/with women of a certain class which more often than not ends up with the woman dying/getting killed. They need to quickly get rid of the bodies and try several ways of dumping and hiding them but end up with paying one or more people for cutting them up and dumping them into the Thames.

Your turn.

So that payed off guy will meticulously cut away the face, including the eyelashes and lips, from one of the skulls? And he will take a torso an a leg to the New Scotland Yard building and descend into itīs cellar vaults with these items? And he will bundle up a uterus with the cord and placenta and wrap it all in two panes of abdominal flesh?

How practical!

[bolo]

I donīt think there is much of a practical reason to take organs out before dismembering a body, and indeed, the absolute majority of the dismemberment murders do not include such a thing.

Oh yes, there is. Take two recently slaughtered pigs, leave all organs, intestines, etc. in the body and try sawing it to bits with a standard tool, let's say a saw used for cutting wood. Apart from the fact that this will create a huge mess that not only is a nightmare to clean but also stinks to high heaven, it's extremly difficult to saw through (or cut through with a knife for that matter) certain organ tissue.

Now try the same with a pig that has been partly disembowelled at the spots you want to saw through and it will be much easier and way less messy.

So there could have been practical reasons for the organ removal in my opinion.

More importantly, why take out the uterus, the heart and the lungs, and leave the liver, the spleen, the stomach, the kidneys etcetera inside the body? What happens to the practicality angle when we consider that?

Heart, lungs and uterus are very sturdy and tough organs that are easier removed than cut through.

Again, I won't rule out the possibility that the killer was out for trophies, even though you obviously think I would. I just find the practical explanation more... uhm, practical.

Yes, it seems the killer who did away with the Ripper victims wanted to take out organs, but why would we predispose that the torso killer didnīt? Itīs stepping into a trap that has worked for 131 years now, to think that when the head is taken off, it MUST be a practical thing, when the inards are taken out it MUST be a practical thing.
It is forgetting about the third type of dismemberer I have described out here - the one who cuts because he WANTS and LIKES to cut. Such a man would be infinitely more likely to be an eviscerator too than the "ordinary" type 1 and 2 dismemberer.
As for the organ-harvesting suggestion, it is a VERY red herring, we can at least agree on that.

See above - I don't categorically rule out the possibility that Torsoman also was after certain organs, things just ain't as clear cut for me as they obviously are for you. The practical reasons for the organ removal should still be taken into consideration here, because, unlike the Ripper cases, there actually ARE some.

Yes, London was a very special town in 1888, It was also the largest town on earth back then. And it may well have spearheaded crime. But why is it that no other town, before or after (and today we have cities a hundred times larger than London was in 1888, many of them so crime-infested that they mnake victorian London look like a doll cabinet or a Kindergarten) have produced to simultaneously working eviscerating serial killers?
Because that kind of perpetrator is very, very, very rare. And when things are that rare, we should no expect them to occurr simultaneously in the same geographical area. It just does not happen. And if everything is put on itīs head and it DOES happen - no, there is absolutely no chance that two eviscerating serial killers would do the same utterly rare things to their victims. Not a chance. There can not be any reasonable doubt in this case, it is an open- and shut one.

You are welcome to your take, of course. There is no problem with that, aside from the fact that you are wrong.

The two-killer theory gets some more weight as soon as you conceptually accept the possibility of more than one killer at work at the same time in 1888, and be it just as an entertaining little mind game.

Imagine...

There's the Ripper, and there's some criminal organisation that does something to/with women of a certain class which more often than not ends up with the woman dying/getting killed. They need to quickly get rid of the bodies and try several ways of dumping and hiding them but end up with paying one or more people for cutting them up and dumping them into the Thames.

Your turn.

[Fisherman]

I thought you were a girl for some reason

Then you are wrong on that score too. Now, who would have thought THAT?

[Abby Normal]

I thought you were a girl for some reason

you too totally lost me after (the rather funny) holmes/Watson referencs!

[RockySullivan]

Maybe yours is bigger than mine. Who would have thought it?

I thought you were a girl for some reason

[Fisherman]

Who is making progress again?

Maybe yours is bigger than mine. Who would have thought it?

[Fisherman]

Okay, thanks for the correction.



I find it less important because there is a very practical reason to take out the organs before cutting and sawing a body into smaller parts with a view of of dumping them into a river while there was not in the Ripper killings; whoever killed Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly wanted to open their bodies, create havoc and take organs out, there was no practical aspect to it, except of course if you believe in the business-like organ harvesting theory but I think we both agree that it's a red herring.



London in the late 1880s wasn't just any old large city but one of the most important centres of metropolitan, industrial and social development in the world with a number of pecularities not found elsewhere. It was the spearhead of many a medical, technical or social revolution, so why not in terms of crime?

I donīt think there is much of a practical reason to take organs out before dismembering a body, and indeed, the absolute majority of the dismemberment murders do not include such a thing. More importantly, why take out the uterus, the heart and the lungs, and leave the liver, the spleen, the stomach, the kidneys etcetera inside the body? What happens to the practicality angle when we consider that?
Yes, it seems the killer who did away with the Ripper victims wanted to take out organs, but why would we predispose that the torso killer didnīt? Itīs stepping into a trap that has worked for 131 years now, to think that when the head is taken off, it MUST be a practical thing, when the inards are taken out it MUST be a practical thing.
It is forgetting about the third type of dismemberer I have described out here - the one who cuts because he WANTS and LIKES to cut. Such a man would be infinitely more likely to be an eviscerator too than the "ordinary" type 1 and 2 dismemberer.
As for the organ-harvesting suggestion, it is a VERY red herring, we can at least agree on that.

Yes, London was a very special town in 1888, It was also the largest town on earth back then. And it may well have spearheaded crime. But why is it that no other town, before or after (and today we have cities a hundred times larger than London was in 1888, many of them so crime-infested that they mnake victorian London look like a doll cabinet or a Kindergarten) have produced to simultaneously working eviscerating serial killers?
Because that kind of perpetrator is very, very, very rare. And when things are that rare, we should no expect them to occurr simultaneously in the same geographical area. It just does not happen. And if everything is put on itīs head and it DOES happen - no, there is absolutely no chance that two eviscerating serial killers would do the same utterly rare things to their victims. Not a chance. There can not be any reasonable doubt in this case, it is an open- and shut one.

You are welcome to your take, of course. There is no problem with that, aside from the fact that you are wrong.

[RockySullivan]

Who is making progress again?

06-10-2015, 05:04 AM: As for whether the torso murders as a whole were the work of the Ripper, I am on the fence

RockySullivan 10-07-2014, 02:21 PM: I find it somewhat of an absurd notion that two serial killers were targeting woman (both focused on prostitutes) and that two seperate killers where removing the uterus from victims in the same year. It's absolutely preposterous in my opinion and it's obvious to me torso was the ripper.