The case evidence and its implications

[Fisherman]

Hi Joshua,



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.

And it tells me that to know this, the killer must have aquired that knowledge beforehand. Meaning that he would have aimed at this dumping site from the outset. Otherwise, it was a risky fluke.

[Fisherman]

Carrying a dead corpse around town is risky no matter where you are. No?

For me it isn't really the risk of detection in the Whitehall case. It was how difficult it seems to have been to enter that particular vault of the basement. It required knowledge to get there. Especially in a dark environment and it was usually dark in that vault even in the day.

YES! This is the true problem for those who say that he just got nervous and decided to throw the torso and leg away as quickly as he could. There is a long, dark journey involved!

[Fisherman]

That's interesting in itself, and may point to different perpetrators for either or both those particular cases, compared to the other bodies which were, and/or had to be, disposed of more quickly.

No, no, no, no - Hebbert was adamant that the damage done in all four cases was "in almost every respect" similar. That stands, I´m afraid.

[Fisherman]

Bingo Sam. This is something that must be accepted, and when you do, it makes for smaller numbers of victims we could easily associate with one another. To address Fisherman, if you are looking for a concession that organs missing from both sets of victims is similar, then yes, I would agree. But in the case of the Torso's, its highly likely that they were just displaced as a result of the sectioning, there are no indications that these were sought after in those cases. There are in some of the alleged JtR cases.

What Sam stated simply is the truth, the amount of unsolved murders during that period and the differences within those cases strongly indicates that more than one person committed them. That means that when you try to find similarities with Canonicals you may well find some, but that doesn't then translate to the same hand at work. Why? Why do these happen in the first place, once you look for motives rather than wound patterns youll see what I mean.

Eh - the Ripper not unique? The Torso killer not unique?

If so, which serial killer is...?

And no, Michael, the heart and lungs had no reason at all to accidentally plop out from the Rainham victim and Jackson. The thorax was eviscerated in both cases, whereas no other organs were lost - but for Jacksons uterus (that after having accidentally plopped out was packed together with the cord and placenta within two flaps of abdominal flesh and floated down the Thames).

Maybe bingo isn´t your game, Michael?

[bolo]

Hi Fisherman,

the similarities between some of the injuries the victims received in the Ripper and Torso cases may be striking but you seem to keep omitting the rather methodical approach of Torsoman vs. the daring outdoor killing of the Ripper. I think that is one of the main differences that should always be taken into consideration when trying to match the cases.

Regards,

Boris

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Fisherman,

the similarities between some of the injuries the victims received in the Ripper and Torso cases may be striking

They can only be said to be similar if one over-generalises one's definitions and ignores the details of the wounds. Beware of the fisherman's bait!

you seem to keep omitting the rather methodical approach of Torsoman vs. the daring outdoor killing of the Ripper

You're right enough there. Even when we're not talking about the injuries, we must take such details on board.

[Michael W Richards]

Eh - the Ripper not unique? The Torso killer not unique?

If so, which serial killer is...?

And no, Michael, the heart and lungs had no reason at all to accidentally plop out from the Rainham victim and Jackson. The thorax was eviscerated in both cases, whereas no other organs were lost - but for Jacksons uterus (that after having accidentally plopped out was packed together with the cord and placenta within two flaps of abdominal flesh and floated down the Thames).

Maybe bingo isn´t your game, Michael?

I guess you lost the context and in doing so, the point. 13 Cases of Women being murdered during the period in question in the unsolved Files. 5 broadly assumed to be by one man. 8 murders left. 2 Torso murders. 6 left...and that includes Alice. Alice is murdered in much the same fashion as the Canonical Group members that include abdominal mutilations post mortem. That means, if correct......drumroll...that the Ripper murder style was not unique to JtR.

As was just pointed out again, the major and fundamental differences in these murders, (Torso/C5) suggest more than 1 killer.

Im good with Bingo too Fisherman,...and evidently far superior to you with Connect the Dots and Round Peg-Round Hole principles.

[John G]

My argument is that once we know that a killer has eviscerated one victim, is it not likely if another of his victims is missing organs, that these organs have been taken out by the killer?

Jacksons heart and lungs were taken out.

The Rainham victim, cut up in a similar fashion to Jackson, also had the heart and lungs missing.

Is not therefore the logical explanation to this fact that the killer had taken them out? Is it not a more probable thing, given what we know happened in the Jackson case, than a case of the organs having gone lost on their own account?

That is my argument. If you need it further explained, just say so.

Hi Fisherman,

I'll respond to your earlier reply when I have more time. But I just wanted to clear up an important point. Joshua and Kattrup have argued that the Whitehall victim had no body parts missing. Well, if that's the case, why did Dr Hebbert say "the lower parts are absent as well as the pelvic viscera"? And the pelvic viscera would have included the organs of regeneration, i.e. vagina, uterus: see http://vanat.cvm.umn.edu/lut/pages/f...ceraColor.html. And didn't Dr Bond, at the inquest, state the uterus was absent?

[Fisherman]

I will answer tomorrow. Today is a day in memory of Martin Fido.

[John G]

I will answer tomorrow. Today is a day in memory of Martin Fido.

No problem, Fish. Rest in peace Martin Fido.

[bolo]

Hi Sam,

They can only be said to be similar if one over-generalises one's definitions and ignores the details of the wounds. Beware of the fisherman's bait!You're right enough there. Even when we're not talking about the injuries, we must take such details on board.

the devil is in the detail, just take the decapitations in the Torso cases and the almost-decapitation(s) in the Ripper cases for example. One could say that, in view of a possible increase in skill in the Torso series, the combined murderer was unable to decapitate the victims with just his knife before 1889, which is why he only cut the necks of all Canonicals but Liz down to the vertebrae but not through them. However, in Kelly's case, the killer had ample time on his hands and doubtlessly would have succeeded in taking the head off even without special skills had he decided to do so but he did not and instead focussed on extended butchery and organ removal.

Then there is the matter of the cause of death of the Torso victims. Hebbert was unable to tell in some cases which in my opinion poses a serious problem if one wants to link the Torso and Ripper murders. The Ripper victims were killed by deep cuts to the throat which links at least four of them (Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes, Kelly) to the series. This may have been the cause of death as well in the Torso series but since there is no way to prove it, there will always be reasonable doubts about a common ownership.

I'm not saying this because I don't want the two series to be linked to the same man, I just think the available facts do not allow it just yet.

Regards,

Boris

[Abby Normal]

Hi Fisherman,

I'll respond to your earlier reply when I have more time. But I just wanted to clear up an important point. Joshua and Kattrup have argued that the Whitehall victim had no body parts missing. Well, if that's the case, why did Dr Hebbert say "the lower parts are absent as well as the pelvic viscera"? And the pelvic viscera would have included the organs of regeneration, i.e. vagina, uterus: see http://vanat.cvm.umn.edu/lut/pages/f...ceraColor.html. And didn't Dr Bond, at the inquest, state the uterus was absent?

hi johnG
yes he did. but JR and Kattrup made the very valid point that since the entire part of the lower torso was missing (and never recovered) then that explains the drs statement. IE those organs were described as missing because they are basically part of that part of the torso that was missing. However, I do find it odd then that the dr specifically stated that the uterus was absent in this wording, especially since hes says that while describing the organs that were present:

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.


It reminds me of how the dr. described Mary Kelly's missing organ-the heart was absent.

[Sam Flynn]

Of course, "absent" just means "missing" and, along with the word "missing" itself, it's by far the most common word we use to describe something that's... um, missing/abasent.

[John G]

hi johnG
yes he did. but JR and Kattrup made the very valid point that since the entire part of the lower torso was missing (and never recovered) then that explains the drs statement. IE those organs were described as missing because they are basically part of that part of the torso that was missing. However, I do find it odd then that the dr specifically stated that the uterus was absent in this wording, especially since hes says that while describing the organs that were present:

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.


It reminds me of how the dr. described Mary Kelly's missing organ-the heart was absent.

Hi Abby,

Excellent post. As you know I don't subscribe to the theory that Torso Man and JtR were one and the same. However, I'm no where near as confident as I once was, and it would be absurd to say that Fish doesn't advocate a reasonable argument.

Thus,I once argued for that Torso Man was a defensive dismeberer, but I no longer believe this is a tenable argument: Defensive/offensive, like Anthony Hardy, The Camden Ripper is much more realistic.

Thus, a defensive dismemberer is motivated to"dispose of the body and to do so as expeditious a manner as possible." (Rutty, et al. 2017) THis is by far the most common form of dismemberment: approximately 82% of UK cases (Rutty et al. 2017); 74% of Polish cases (Konopke et al. 2007; 61.5% of Finish cases (Hakkanen-Nyholm et al. 2009; 45% of Swedish cases (Rajs et al. 1998; and 39% of cases reported in Hamburg (Puschel and Koops, 1987.

In contrast offensive dismemberment often arises from "sexual gratification or the sadistic pleasure of inflicting pain on the living or injury on the dead. This type of dismemberment often involves mutilation of the sexual regions of the body, and is rare. In this situation, dismemberment may be the primary purpose of murder. (Rutty)

Now, how is disposing of a Torso in what was the absolute labyrinth of the police's new headquarters disposing of the body in "as expeditious a manner as possible?"

Moreover, if the Whitehall Torso murderer was as defensive dismemberer we would have to accept that, by an amazing coincidence, he deposits most of the remains in a location where they're very easily, and quickly, discovered. Whereas the pelvic viscera, the organs of regeneration, just the parts of the body that you would expect a lust murderer like JtR (or it's equivalent, an offensive dismemberer) are hidden so successfully that is they haven't been found in 132 years. And you can't, of course, argue that they would have been retained by the perpetrator, because that's not what a defensive dismemberer would do!

[John G]

Of course, "absent" just means "missing" and, along with the word "missing" itself, it's by far the most common word we use to describe something that's... um, missing/abasent.

Yes, but don't forget that both Chapman's and Eddowes uteri were also "missing"!