Torso Killer discussion from Millwood Thread

[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?

[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!

[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]

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?

[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]

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]

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]

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 Ripperīs 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.

[Abby Normal]

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 comparison between the pinchin torso and the others? Lol.

[Sam Flynn]

Yes lets just add another killer to the scenario, ignoring all the evidence, the experts at the time and common sense just because it dosnt fit with some preconceived notion.

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.

[Abby Normal]

Ok, let me put it this way, if we have an offender who demonstrates skill and expertise in disjointings and knife work to a level that points to an individual who has the skills to decapitate with a knife, then if that individual uses a saw that does not mean they could not have done it with a knife, they just chose to use the saw. They are free, on another occasion to make the same or different choice (presuming it's even the same person involved in the two cases).

As pointed out in a previous post you pick and choose your reliance on Hebbert based upon whether or not Hebbert agree's with what you believe. I will, however, point out that Hebbert, your pro-offered expect, had concluded JtR and the Torso killer were not the same individual.

You can't have it both ways, unless, of course, you simply want to punch more holes in your sinking ship.


- Jeff

oh the ship is not sinking ham, that baby is full steam ahead!

[Abby Normal]

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).

Yes lets just add another killer to the scenario, ignoring all the evidence, the experts at the time and common sense just because it dosnt fit with some preconceived notion.

[Abby Normal]

Suddenly over a few months there is a killer cutting up women on the streets of Whitechapel who knows how to remove organs quickly in the dark. Where the hell do you think he came from?

Bingo rocky

[Abby Normal]

I guess because the mutilations that the torso killer does don't look like JtR mutilations. For example, the torso limbs are clean cuts removing limbs, there are not large chunks of flesh gouged off like JtR did with Kelly's upper leg. It's not just that JtR tried and failed to do something the torso killer(s) appear to have the skill to do, the torso killer(s) do not do what JtR does, even if they add the extra step of dismembering for ease of transport later. I can't see "JtR + dismemberment" in the torso cases, which is now what is being argued for.

The two series of crimes do not look the same no matter how hard I squint. I don't see any similarities beyond generalities that are common to many offenses, or similarities that arise simply because we have a mutilator and a dismemberer to compare, once you get beyond the superficial similarities, the offenses no longer look simlar. Everything points to JtR not being the torso killer.

- Jeff

Hi jeff
the torsomans mutilations dont look like the rippers? chunks of stomach flesh removed from jackson and chapman and kelly?
vertical gashes to the abdoman in both series. Internal organs removed in both series? External body parts cut off in both series?
I dont know much more similar you can get.

these two series are more like each other than many a serial killers differences between there own crimes!

you really need to get past the dismemberment thing.

[Sam Flynn]

I personally believe he came from the East End.

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).