Torso Killer discussion from Millwood Thread

[Fisherman]

If not hidden, they weren't easily accessible. None of those body parts were left in the middle of a public right of way, the remaining parts were chucked into a fast-flowing river, and the heads were never found. That's different behaviour to that exhibited by the Ripper, to say nothing of the fact that the torso victims were evidently killed and dismembered elsewhere, before being transported to a dump-site. In contrast, all the Ripper victims where killed where their bodies were found.

And the fact that both killers on at least one occasion both:

took out uteri
took out hearts
took out lungs
cut away a section of the colon
cut away the abdominal wall in large flaps
took rings from the fingers of victims
cut from sternum to pubes
abstained from inflicting physical torture
were considered skilled with the knife by examining medicos
killed or dumped bodies in the same city, on one occasion even in the same district
worked simultaneously

... is nothing but a bunch of coincidences? Please, PLEASE answer that question with either a yes or no!

You seem to believe that no serial killer can use more than one way of going about his business. Do you need me to post examples to the contrary? If you believe that no serial killer can go between dismemberment and no dismemberment, do you want me to post examples to the contrary?

Is it unlikely that a serial killer will both dismember and not dismember and not dismember? Yes. So what does it take to reveal such a character? It takes proof that he used inclusions that overlapped inbetween the two series. And the more rare these inclusions are, the more certain we can be of a common originator.

Case solved.

[Sam Flynn]

Pinchin was hidden? jacksons leg thrown into the shelley yard hidden? Whitehall torso put in a construction site with dozens of workers about hidden?
sorry-no.

If not hidden, they weren't easily accessible. None of those body parts were left in the middle of a public right of way, the remaining parts were chucked into a fast-flowing river, and the heads were never found. That's different behaviour to that exhibited by the Ripper, to say nothing of the fact that the torso victims were evidently killed and dismembered elsewhere, before being transported to a dump-site. In contrast, all the Ripper victims where killed where their bodies were found.

[RockySullivan]

sounds like Jack learned a lesson from that face stretched out on the block.

[Fisherman]

Someone who wanted the persons face removed so they wouldn't be identified, obviously.

Do you agree that first taking the face off and then shredding it into tiny bits would have made the job a lot better if disenabling an ID was the aim?

Do you agree that the killer at this stage would in all probability have known that parts thrown in the river were likely to be found?

Do you agree that a cut away face makes identification much easier than one cut to shreds like in Kellys case?

Good. Then you agree that you are wrong and that there is nothing obvious at all about how disenabling an ID was the killers aim.

[Fisherman]

He's probably thinking of Annie Chapman and misremembering her as Mary Kelly. Again, however, I would point out that the Pinchin Street torso's head was clean off, so there was no arguably "attempted" disarticulation in her case; it was a "successful" one.

"Attempt" refers to Kelly, and Phillips goes on to say that the disarticulation was "effected" in the Pinchin Street case. And clearly, Phillips was able to compare where the cuts to the spine were in Kellys case to where the head was taken off in the Pinchin Street case, how the knife waws angled and so on. There is nothing strange about it, and Phillips words himself in a totally adequate manner.

[Fisherman]

My point is that serial killers will go through all the trouble of dismembering a victims and spread their remains far apart but then leave them with their clothes or identifying marks.

That is an extremely bad point. It would mean that they take great precautions not to have their victims identified, and then they leave means to identify them by anyway.

Apparently, YOU can have YOUR cake and eat it...?

[Fisherman]

you can't have your fish and eat it too.

Meaning you do not understand what I am talking about. Oh, alright.

[RockySullivan]

He cut the face from a skull, for Godīs sake - who on earth with purely practical incentives would do such a thing? The elaborate and precise cutting it required is something I know of no parallel to.

Someone who wanted the persons face removed so they wouldn't be identified, obviously.

[Abby Normal]

I still don't know how I should put the two series together in my mind. While I think that the Ripper wanted his victims to be found or at least did not care at all whether they were found or identified, Torsoman must have cared about identifiability enough to go the extra mile and chop up the bodies into easier-to-carry and harder-to-identify segments that got dumped in the river or hidden away. "Hidden" is the key word for me here, this just isn't Ripper-style for me.

About the word "parts" that you think I have slipped into the quote from Gerard's dissertation, this wasn't intentional, I just assumed that there were body parts involved as well. After re-reading the article and some others, I have to agree with you that it were mostly complete corpses that got washed ashore. I did not want to alter the facts to make a point.

Hi Bolo

While I think that the Ripper wanted his victims to be found or at least did not care at all whether they were found or identified, Torsoman must have cared about identifiability enough to go the extra mile and chop up the bodies into easier-to-carry and harder-to-identify segments that got dumped in the river or hidden away. "Hidden" is the key word for me here, this just isn't Ripper-style for me.

Pinchin was hidden? jacksons leg thrown into the shelley yard hidden? Whitehall torso put in a construction site with dozens of workers about hidden?
sorry-no.

And I agree with fish that the dismemberment is a practical AND a psychological matter. theres over lap there.

I still don't know how I should put the two series together in my mind

.

Imagine this-you have a serial killer who enjoys cutting up and into female bodies-a total post mortem type serial killer. He has his own chop shop a private place where he can indulge his utmost dark fantasies. maybe has a cart. he lures prostitutes back to this place, kills them, cuts them up, removes organs. god knows what he does with them now-but some "ritualistic" and or sexual element involved. maybe he keeps some parts a while longer than others, but the time comes when he has to get rid of them. he takes them out and throws them in the river. Theyre found. its in the press. this excites him too. he continues, but now hes starting to enjoy the dumping parts too and the excitement it creates. so he starts dumping in different places, places that might have special meaning to him. and as it progresses its also getting more weird and public. Perhaps the time comes he dosnt have access to his chop shop for whatever reason and or he really wants to up the thrill factor so he starts killing in public. He cant dismember with these, because its not practical to carry around a saw or stuff a head in his pocket, but he can still post mortem mutilate and take internal organs away. Now he really gets public/press excitement. and the whole time he still has female body parts as trophies to take home and play with. He continues to do both, as the mood and circumstances dictate and the series end the same time with pinchin and mckenzie for whatever reason.

[Sam Flynn]

I should like to ask Dr. Phillips whether there is any similarity in the cutting off of the legs in this case and the one that was severed from the woman in Dorset-street? Dr. Phillips. - I have not noticed any sufficient similarity to convince me it was the person who committed both mutilations, but the division of the neck and attempt to disarticulate the bones of the spine are very similar to that which was effected in this case.

So either Phillips was mistaken or there was an attempt to disarticulate Mary Kellys spine.

He's probably thinking of Annie Chapman and misremembering her as Mary Kelly. Again, however, I would point out that the Pinchin Street torso's head was clean off, so there was no arguably "attempted" disarticulation in her case; it was a "successful" one.

[RockySullivan]

Rocky, you post jewelry and tattoo pictures, and say that the victims with these items remained unidentified, and you make the point that only one out of the torso victims was identified regardless of how the killer left identification markers untouched.
Are you suggesting that these victims were left unidentified BECAUSE of these identification markers being present or are you saying that it does not matter if a killer leaved these things, because he can be certain that the bodies will remain unidentified just the same.

Itīs one of those two, apparently.

You DO know that Jackson was identified on account of things like these, do you not? And you DO realize that not erasing or removing or cutting away such identification markers come with a risk, do you not?

My point is that serial killers will go through all the trouble of dismembering a victims and spread their remains far apart but then leave them with their clothes or identifying marks.

[RockySullivan]

Hi Rocky,

According to Dr. Phillips during the Pinchin torso inquest, he may have tried.

The CORONER

. - I should like to ask Dr. Phillips whether there is any similarity in the cutting off of the legs in this case and the one that was severed from the woman in Dorset-street? Dr. Phillips. - I have not noticed any sufficient similarity to convince me it was the person who committed both mutilations, but the division of the neck and attempt to disarticulate the bones of the spine are very similar to that which was effected in this case.

So either Phillips was mistaken or there was an attempt to disarticulate Mary Kellys spine.

Good point, does the Ripper get the same kicks from the deep cuts to the throat/decapitation as he does cutting off the arms and legs?

[RockySullivan]

Primarily because he did not have to, if I am correct. There was no need to get rid of the body. Your follow-up question would be "So he only dismembers the torso victims for practical reasons! Got you!"
Alas, you have not got me at all.
To begin with, and as I have said numerous times before, I donīt think this combined killer wanted to do the exact same thing to all victims. I think there were many different things he could do to satisfy his agenda, his urges, his ritual or what we chose to call it. That is why we have different outcomes within the torso series.
What you try to launch here is the idea that if the exact same things did not happen to all victims, then it was not the same killer. If that is correct, we are dealing with a large number of killers - one per deed.
I think the torso killer was faced with a practical problem that he enjoyed solving, and that he used the parts to induce terror and make a point about what he perceived as superiority on his part. You would be amazed to know how common narcissism is within the serial killer ranks.

Now, we can either go another lap around the "you cannot prove it so it can be wrong" course, or we can be big boys and conduct a slightly more intelligible debate. Itīs your choice.

you can't have your fish and eat it too.

[Fisherman]

Iīm giving this a rest now. Who knows, maybe Iīll be back tomorrow.

[Fisherman]

Hi Rocky,

According to Dr. Phillips during the Pinchin torso inquest, he may have tried.

The CORONER

. - I should like to ask Dr. Phillips whether there is any similarity in the cutting off of the legs in this case and the one that was severed from the woman in Dorset-street? Dr. Phillips. - I have not noticed any sufficient similarity to convince me it was the person who committed both mutilations, but the division of the neck and attempt to disarticulate the bones of the spine are very similar to that which was effected in this case.

So either Phillips was mistaken or there was an attempt to disarticulate Mary Kellys spine.

Yes, thatīs true - and the progression Hebbert identified involved how the killer sawed off the heads in the first three instances of the 1887-89 murders, whereas he was able to take the head of by way of knife in the Pinchin Street case. That fits nicely, somehow - and it was what allowed Phillips to make a direct comparison, of course.

Not that Iīm in any way certain that the killer really wanted to take Kellys head off at all! I tend to think he wanted it in place.