The case evidence and its implications

[Abby Normal]

That's more a reflection on the police than the killer. It was much easier in the days before proper, organised policing, databases and forensic science.

Besides, there were many unsolved murders in different parts of London during the decade or so that the torso murders occurred - and the three months in which the Ripper murders happened - so neither the Ripper nor the Torso Murderer(s) was unique.

unsolved serial murders?

[John G]

First: We should not claim to know that there were major differences in the way the mutilations of the abdominal walls was inflicted on the three Ripper/Torso victims. We don't, do we? Overall, there were differences, we all know that, but when it comes to the taking away of the abdominal walls, we simply do not know how much alike these mutilations were inbetween the cases. The only difference we are aware of is that Jackson had two flaps removed, that Kelly had three and that Chapman had four, with one gone missing in the latter case.
That in itself must be regarded as being of very much less importance than the sheer fact that the abdominal walls WERE taken away.

I have not said that the taking away of abdominal walls in flaps is unique to the Ripper/Torso cases - I have said that it is rarer than henīs teeth, and it is. If Napper did it, then he belongs to a very exclusive club with precious few members. It seems that Jeffrey Dahmer could be another one, and we have one cannibal listed as doing it too (for reasons of eating the abdominal wall - he was curious about how the different parts of a body tasted...), so there ARE examples. They are, though, rare in the extreme.

Couple that with the other similarities - the fewest serial killers cut up an abdomen at all, let alone from sternum to pubes, very few serial killers cut out uteri, even fewer cut out lungs and hearts. BOTH men did this in BOTH series, and so I am personally of the view that the suggestion of two such creatures roaming the London streets - supposedly with totally different agendas and mindsets and temperaments to boot! - is ridiculous.

Now, don't take that as an offense - I don't regard you as ridiculous, far from it - but the suggestion is so much over the top that it makes me wonder why anybody would latch onto it. It owes, I am sure, to a large degree to how history has been written. Which brings me to the question I want answered out here: Is it not logical to make the assumption that all organs that went lost in these murders were taken out by the killer, on account of how we KNOW that he took out lungs, heart and uterus from Jackson? Surely, that must be the logical assumption to make?

Any answers to that one? Or are people avoiding the question?

I would actually agree with a significant part of your argument here. For instance, there can be no doubt that evisceration murders are exceedingly rare, and murders involving the removal of the abdominal wall even rarer!

However, as you know, I have ultimately come to a different conclusion, although I'm now much less certain about this than I used to be, i.e. because I see the force in much of what you have argued.

You argue that the only real difference between Jackson, Chapman and Kelly is the number of pieces of skin removed from the abdominal wall. I would respectfully disagree. For example, in respect of Kelly we appear to have a killer hacking away in an absolute frenzy, slashing and cutting the body in all directions: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...0monro&f=false In other words, an act of aggressive mutilation in which the abdominal flaps were presumably just hacked out. In contrast, with Jackson we have two long irregular strips removed from the abdomen, without any sign of frenzy. Moreover, rather than retaining these pieces of skin as a trophy, or simply discarding them, he uses them to wrap up the organs of the reproductive system, I.e. uterus and ovaries, possibly for shock value. This is not what happens with Kelly. It therefore appears to me that any similarities are largely superficial.

And what of the differences between the C5 and Torso murders in respect of geographical profile, MO and signature. Well, in the former case we have a killer inflicting neck mutilations as part of his signature but, importantly, this does not extend to decapitation. Moreover, in the former case all but one of the murders were committed in the street, and none of the victims were abducted. Regarding geographical profile, the C5 were all killed within within an incredibly small area, around 1 square mile. The perpetrator didn't extent his range even when it would have benefited him to do so, i.e. because of a local population on high alert and a greatly increased police presence. "JtR" is an absolute classic example of a marauder; a perpetrator most likely lacking in transport and only prepared to target victims within a locality where he feels comfortable.

In sharp contrast, the Torso murderer decapitates all of his victims without exception, presumably to prevent identification and/or ritualistic purposes: none of the heads were discovered, so may have been retained by the perpetrator as trophies. All of the Torso victims must have been abducted or somehow inveigled to the murder/dismemberment site; none of JtR's victims were. All of the Torso victims were dismembered, either as an act of defensive dismemberment, or defensive/offensive. None of JtR's victims were. The bodies of all of the Torso victims were stored, in my opinion because the killer liked to spend time with the bodies. In the case of JtR, this signature element is completely absent. In respect of the Torso victims we have the scattering of body parts, "like pieces of a puzzle." This didn't happen with any of the C5. And, of course, all of the Torso victims were dismembered, none of the C5 were.

Regarding geographical profile, Torso Man must have been a commuter and must surely have had access to transport. JtR, it appears, was none of those things.

[bolo]

Hi Michael, Fisherman, all,

[...] theoretical observations won't negate the obvious differences. Some of which may be critical to the killers MO.

my thoughts as well. The differences outweigh the similarities for me at the moment but I'm always open for new evidence or a conclusive interpretation of existing evidence.

As we have settled in the other recent Torso thread, dismembering a victim may have had ritualistic importance for the killer but, as a by-product, also made it easier for someone without a cart to get rid of the parts by dumping them at various places so there also is a practical side to it. This is what makes it difficult for me to compare the Ripper and Torso cases because most of what happened to the bodies of the Torso victims could have been the result of practical considerations. I can't see a practical approach in the Ripper cases with the exception of the intestines that had been thrown over the shoulder of Annie and Kate, most probably to get them out of the way for the organ removal, but that's it.

The fact that some organs were missing in some Torso cases may point to a killer who wanted to get in their possession. However, they also may have fallen out of the body parts when they were lying in water/on land or were transported, taken out and dumped separately to save weight (and make things less messy), etc. Lots of variables here, not so in the Ripper cases. Here, everything was literally laid out for all to see and the absence of the organs only meant one thing: The the killer took them away for whatever reason. Can't say the same about the Torso cases, can you.

This points to different MOs, different mindsets and different goals, and maybe to different killers.

Regards,

Boris

[Abby Normal]

Allow me to, then.

Description of the Whitehall torso from A System of Legal Medicine;

"It comprises the thorax and upper part of the abdomen, the head having been separated at the sixth cervical vertebrae, and the pelvis and lower part of the abdomen at the fourth lumbar vertebrae."

In other words, the remains consisted only of the trunk from neck to waist. The lower abdomen, ie the pelvis and all it may (or may not) have contained had been cut away and was never found. Therefore it's no surprise that "the lower parts [of the colon] were absent, as were the pelvic viscera" (which would include the uterus). However, the heart, lungs, liver, spleen, kidneys, stomach and small intestines were all present, as you'd expect

So, no organs appear to have been removed from the remains found. There's not even any mention of a vertical cut from ribs to pubis, present in other cases.

Hi JR

Bond:

The substance of the heart was healthy, and there were indications that the woman had not died either of suffocation or of drowning. The liver and stomach, kidneys and spleen were normal. The uterus was absent.

in this context, isnt it apparent that hes including the uterus here because he would expect it to be there with the rest of the organs hes describing?

[Sam Flynn]

unsolved serial murders?

It makes any difference in this context. If someone kills someone without being caught, then he's no different to Jack the Ripper in that regard.

[John G]

I am often told that the Torso killer only took out organs from one victim, Liz Jackson. And that this would somehow and for some unfathomable reason point to how the Torso killer was actually not an eviscerator and mutilator. The idea, it would seem, is that he just happened to take a few odds and ends out of Jacksons body out of sheer mistake.

Now, the fact is that there were many parts missing from the Whitehall victim too, just as there were parts lacking in the Rainham case.

That means that these parts were either:

-Taken out by somebody, or

-Lost for other reasons.

If we look at the Whitehall and Rainham cases only, I am all for leaving that question open, regardless of whether the parts are more or less likely to have gone lost one way or the other. This will be affected by things like how the parts are attached in the body, where they were situated on the torso parts, how long the torso had been rotting away and under what conditions, how it was handled by the killer and so on. But I choose to leave that conundrum open.

However, once we KNOW for certain that Jackson had her uterus, heart and lungs actively removed by her killer, the weight of the evidence is shifted. Once we KNOW that this killer engaged in eviscerations, the far more likely thing must be that the organs lacking from the other victims were ALSO taken out by the killer.

This is to no small degree also colored by how the Rainham victim and Jackson have so many similarities. In both cases, the torso was divided up in three parts, and in both cases heart and lungs were lacking, in both cases a section of the colon was missing. The cases are very twin like in these parts, and the only difference that stands out is that one victim lost her uterus while the other did not. Otherwise, the cases are very much mirror reflections of each other.

Bearing that in mind, why would we NOT regard it as much more likely that the victims in the series who suffered organ loss all did so on account of eviscerations on behalf of the killer?

It is not proven, but the balance of probabilities tells us that it is the likely thing. And that is not how the torso murders have generally been looked upon! They have instead, on account of the lacking insights of the victorians, gone down in history as examples of classical dismemberment, where the killers sole intention was to hide the parts and obfuscate the ID of his victims. Actually, to the degree that Hebbert himself said that one thing that told the Ripper apart from the Torso killer was that the Ripper took organs out. As if the Torso killer didn't...!?

Changing this view is long, long overdue.

I don't think that the Torso Murderer was simply a defensive dismemberer, and I agree with your argument that he was, in all possibility, an eviscerator and mutilator. In other words, an offensive or offensive/defensive dismemberer, which is the same as a lust murderer. Which is what JtR was!

For example, if his actions were simply defensive, i.e. he was just trying not to get caught, why on earth did he remove two irregular strips of abdominal skin from Liz Jackson's body, and then bundle them up with the the organs of reproduction? Why retain the foetus?

And why would he be insane enough to deposit body parts in the police's own headquarters, taking an enormous risk by doing so, if his only motivation in dismembering and eviscerating the victim was not getting caught?

[Sam Flynn]

I agree with your argument that [torso killer] was, in all possibility, an eviscerator and mutilator.

Hello JG

Just on that point... how many torsos were eviscerated, and what purpose might those eviscerations have served?

Mutilation is a bit tricky, in that one can define just about any wounds to the flesh as a mutilation. I wouldn't, for example, classify the cutting off of a torso's limbs as "mutilation", nor would I say that Nichols, Chapman or Stride were "mutilated". Eddowes and Kelly - yes, in that they suffered multiple wounds to the flesh that had nothing to do with achieving their deaths or facilitating their evisceration.

With that preamble out of the way, and sticking to the Eddowes/Kelly sense, how many torsos were mutilated?

Now, the torso killer(s) might have eviscerated on occasion, they might have mutilated on occasion but (assuming TK is one man for the sake of argument) I wouldn't say he was "an" eviscerator and mutilator.

[bolo]

Hi John,

And why would he be insane enough to deposit body parts in the police's own headquarters, taking an enormous risk by doing so, if his only motivation in dismembering and eviscerating the victim was not getting caught?

NSY was under construction at that time. I think depositing a body part there at night or early morning wasn't any more risky than carrying them to the river or dropping them in a park.

[Joshua Rogan]

Hi JR

Bond:

The substance of the heart was healthy, and there were indications that the woman had not died either of suffocation or of drowning. The liver and stomach, kidneys and spleen were normal. The uterus was absent.

in this context, isnt it apparent that hes including the uterus here because he would expect it to be there with the rest of the organs hes describing?

I don't believe that tells the whole story. The Morning Advertiser 9 Oct is more detailed;

"The lower limbs and the pelvis had been removed by the fourth lumbar vertebrae being saw through by a series of long sweeping cuts...."

"...The lower part of the colon or large bowel and of the pelvic viscera were absent - that includes the uterus, bladder, and rectum"

[Kattrup]

Hi JR

Bond:

The substance of the heart was healthy, and there were indications that the woman had not died either of suffocation or of drowning. The liver and stomach, kidneys and spleen were normal. The uterus was absent.

in this context, isnt it apparent that hes including the uterus here because he would expect it to be there with the rest of the organs hes describing?

No, it's because the doctors used the uterus to determine whether a woman had given birth or not, so it would have been an important clue to her identity.

As Joshua Rogan has pointed out, the whitehall torso had no body parts missing. I am therefore not sure what Fisherman's argument is.

[John G]

Hi John,



NSY was under construction at that time. I think depositing a body part there at night or early morning wasn't any more risky than carrying them to the river or dropping them in a park.

Well I'm assuming that the construction site would have had security, otherwise methinks there would have been a substantial loss of building materials!

[John G]

Hello JG

Just on that point... how many torsos were eviscerated, and what purpose might those eviscerations have served?

Mutilation is a bit tricky, in that one can define just about any wounds to the flesh as a mutilation. I wouldn't, for example, classify the cutting off of a torso's limbs as "mutilation", nor would I say that Nichols, Chapman or Stride were "mutilated". Eddowes and Kelly - yes, in that they suffered multiple wounds to the flesh that had nothing to do with achieving their deaths or facilitating their evisceration.

With that preamble out of the way, and sticking to the Eddowes/Kelly sense, how many torsos were mutilated?

Now, the torso killer(s) might have eviscerated on occasion, they might have mutilated on occasion but (assuming TK is one man for the sake of argument) I wouldn't say he was "an" eviscerator and mutilator.

Hi Sam,

Well, Chapman's uterus was removed, and presumably retained by the killer as a trophy. Nichols wasn't eviscerated, but the subsequent murders could represent an escalation. I'm not convinced that Stride was a Ripper victim.

In respect of Liz Jackson, as you know two irregular strips of skin were removed and bundled together with organs of reproduction; and the foetus was never found. Personally, I can't see why that was done for purely defensive purposes.

I do, however, accept we need to be careful here. For instance, I've argued that the scattering of body parts was part of Torso's signature, assuming that there was a single perpetrator. However, for example, Robert Frisby, the accused, was categorized by Rutty and Black et al. (2017) as a defensive dismemberer, and his wife's body parts were found in the sea, a river and a golf course. Moreover, Nissan Ahmed's body parts, another case of defensive dismemberment, were found in woodlands, canal and reservoir. Caution is therefore required.

[bolo]

Well I'm assuming that the construction site would have had security, otherwise methinks there would have been a substantial loss of building materials!

Apart from the usual beats of the police, there may have been watchmen who had an eye on the site but I'm not familiar with the LVP customs in this respect so you may or may not have a point there.

Perhaps someone else could cast some light on this.

[Joshua Rogan]

Apart from the usual beats of the police, there may have been watchmen who had an eye on the site but I'm not familiar with the LVP customs in this respect so you may or may not have a point there.

Perhaps someone else could cast some light on this.

Reports vary, but either there was no watchman overnight, or Saturday (when it was thought the torso was deposited) was his night off.

[bolo]

Hi Joshua,

Reports vary, but either there was no watchman overnight, or Saturday (when it was thought the torso was deposited) was his night off.

thanks. This tells me that it would not have been extremly risky to hide a body part there, at least no more risky than some of the other dumpings.