The Paris Torso Mystery

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The Ripper mutilated the soft tissues of the torso. Torsoman severed the spines.

Taken together with the fact that the Torso killer dumped his victims' bodies without their heads - the head neither being attached to the body nor dumped in the vicinity of the body - how can the argument that the two series of murders were committed by the same person be sustained?

[Fiver]

you forgot:

same victimology
same time frame
same general location
all post mortem mutilation
no signs of torture
no signs of sexual abuse
midsection and face targeted
bodies/ parts displayed
internal and external parts removed
midsection flesh removed in flaps
posessions taken
ruse used to get victims to desired location
both series end at the same time

yes i would like to see more dismemberment in the ripper victims and evisceration in the torso victims to really seal the deal, but kelly and chapman were almost decapitated and all torso victims had post mortem mutilation above and beyond what was needed for dismemberment and disposal. im not totally sold like fish that they were the same man, but imho there is enough similarities, and RARE similarities, to make me lean pretty heavily that they were.

* We don't know the identities of most of the Torso victims, so we don't know if there is a common victimology.
* Not the same time frame. The Ripper was active for a few months. Torsoman was active for years, possibly decades.
* Not the same general location. The Ripper was active in a small part of East London. The Torsoman left bodies for miles up and down the Thames.
* We don't have the heads of the Torso victims, so we have no idea if the face was targeted. The Ripper mutilated the soft tissues of the torso. Torsoman severed the spines.
* The Torsoman did not pose the bodies or organs.
* The Ripper took organs and possessions as trophies. We have no idea if the Torsoman did.
* Clearly the Torsoman did not use a ruse to get the victims to the places he left their bodies. The Ripper may have used a ruse, but we can't be certain.
* The series of murders did not start or end at the same time.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

you seem to think that hiding the identity is always the reason for a decapitation. It is an 1880:s level understanding of the matter.

We are not dealing only with the reason for decapitation.

We are dealing with the reason why murderers dump headless bodies, with the heads entirely missing.

So far as I can see, you have offered no explanation for that.

Here are some cases in which the reason is quite obvious.




Casandra Nazario was convicted of the murder of Rachel Lerato Sebetlela, whose headless body was found in a public park.

The prosecution presented evidence that the murderess was acquainted with the victim's boyfriend prior to the murder, which took place at the victim's home.

(NBC Connecticut)



According to police, the accused [Pankaj Sharma] had executed the murder and cut off the head of the victim to fake his own murder, so the police would stop chasing him assuming him as dead.

The accused also cut off his fingertips.

(Hindustan Times)



They beheaded her, stuffed her headless body in a suitcase and flung it into the sea, believing that they had covered their tracks well, the police said. But Mintu Singh and his brother Chunchun forgot that Anjali Singh had a distinctive tattoo on her hand. It was this tattoo that helped the police identify her, and subsequently, arrest the brothers on the charges of murdering the 23-year-old.

(The Indian Express)



Headless body washes up on Marbella beach in Spain after string of gang related revenge killings

Battles between crime gangs involved in the drugs trade or human trafficking are often behind these sadistic killings, police said.

By removing a murder victim’s head and hands, criminals try to stop the police discovering the identity of the person because officers cannot trace dental records or fingerprints.

(iNews)

[Fisherman]

Thanks for taking the trouble to reply to my post in spite of your disinclination to do so, Christer.

Unfortunately, your point about cutting hair is not a valid one.

I was referring to the fact that it has been claimed that because hairdressers in those days had some medical knowledge, Kosminski may have had some himself.

I was not suggesting that knowing how to cut hair of itself would have given him that kind of knowledge.

As for the level at which you yourself argue, it has the disconcerting habit of belonging to the realm of speculation.

I would like to see you make a serious attempt at answering Fiver's point that the dumping of headless bodies points to an attempt to hide the identity of the victims.

And I am not feeling disinclined to debate with you.

What, after all, is the point of a forum if people are not prepared to debate with others?

I think we may be defining the point of a forum differently. To me, the point is to mutually try and forward an understanding for the topic debated.

If you were referring to how a hairdresser may have had medical knowledge, then what is the point of bringing it up? If that was the case, then hairdressers would have fit the point of possible such insights (although the point as such is not proven at all, as per Thomas Bond, so it is another one of all this exercises in futility). And equally, somebody who'd killed before, who associated with butchers and who was part of a horse flesh dealing family could of course also fit thet bill.

It is a complete waste of time to bring the "point" up. End of. It will get us absolutely nowhere. It is standard ripperology these days.

And you would like for me to answer Fivers point on decapitations and efforts to hide the identity of the victims...? I HAVE answered that point repeatedly, not least in my latest post to you - which you either never read or, perhaps more likely, never understood in the first place, given that you seem to think that hiding the identity is always the reason for a decapitation. It is an 1880:s level understanding of the matter.

And you make the sad, sad point that what I say is "speculation"? What else would it be? Ironclad fact? The fact that it is speculation is why I - contrary to your own practice - actually point it out.

This is frustratingly dumb, and I am out for now. I wish it was not so - but it is.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

It has nothing whatsoever to do wih Kosminski and haircutting. If he delivered meat to butchers, and at the same time was a member of a family that was deeply involved in the horse flesh business, there is every chance that he acquired an amount of training and insights about cutting and disarticulating.

Cutting hair is a VERY different matter, as I am sure you are able to understand if you put your mind to it.

If this is the level at which you are going to argue, I am feeling disinclined to debate with you.

Thanks for taking the trouble to reply to my post in spite of your disinclination to do so, Christer.

Unfortunately, your point about cutting hair is not a valid one.

I was referring to the fact that it has been claimed that because hairdressers in those days had some medical knowledge, Kosminski may have had some himself.

I was not suggesting that knowing how to cut hair of itself would have given him that kind of knowledge.

As for the level at which you yourself argue, it has the disconcerting habit of belonging to the realm of speculation.

I would like to see you make a serious attempt at answering Fiver's point that the dumping of headless bodies points to an attempt to hide the identity of the victims.

And I am not feeling disinclined to debate with you.

What, after all, is the point of a forum if people are not prepared to debate with others?

[Fisherman]

It looks to me as though that point is unanswerable.

There is no other conceivable explanation for the removal of the heads than to prevent identification.

That tells us all how much you know about aggressive dismemberment. I pointed earlier to Danny Rolling, a coed killer who decapitated one of his victims and put it on display for shock effect in her book shelve, a few yards only from where her body lay.

So Rolling took the head off - but was it about preventing identification? Well, obviously you must believe so!

Ted Bundy reportedly decapitated Georganne Hawkins, but he did so a fair few days after having left her body in the woods. Was that about preventing identification, when he returned to the body, or were there other reasons?

When Ed Kemper was ten years old, he killed and decapitated a cat. He then mounted the cat head on a spike. Was he after making the cat unidentifiable, or was there another driving force? Maybe there is a clue in how he went on to kill female students, decapitate them and perform irrumatio with the heads, who knows? He also had sex with bhis m others decapitated head before ripping out her larynx. He threw darts at the head. He left the body in his mothers home, with an exception for the larynx and cut away tongue that he threw in the garbage.
That's a poor effort to try and hide the identity of a victim, is it not?

Now that you know all of this - and there are more decapitators who made no effort at all to try and hide the identities of their victims - maybe you can conceive another explanation for decapitation than hiding the identity in the Thames Torso case too?

[Fisherman]

This looks very much like Kosminski, having been a hairdresser, knowing how to cut people's throats, or having worked in a hospital - for all we know, doing nothing more demanding than wheeling patients on trolleys - knowing all about anatomy, or Druitt, being the son of a doctor, having 'access' to all the knowledge he needed to do what the Whitechapel murderer did.

It does not stand up.

It has nothing whatsoever to do wih Kosminski and haircutting. If he delivered meat to butchers, and at the same time was a member of a family that was deeply involved in the horse flesh business, there is every chance that he acquired an amount of training and insights about cutting and disarticulating.

Cutting hair is a VERY different matter, as I am sure you are able to understand if you put your mind to it.

If this is the level at which you are going to argue, I am feeling disinclined to debate with you.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The Torsoman appears to have removed heads to prevent identification if the victims. The Ripper made no attempt to hide the identities of the victims.

This implies that the Torsoman had a connection to his victims, while the Ripper targeted strangers.

It looks to me as though that point is unanswerable.

There is no other conceivable explanation for the removal of the heads than to prevent identification.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

He also very likely delivered meat to butchers, where he may have picked up on how to go about it, pedagogically or manually.

This looks very much like Kosminski, having been a hairdresser, knowing how to cut people's throats, or having worked in a hospital - for all we know, doing nothing more demanding than wheeling patients on trolleys - knowing all about anatomy, or Druitt, being the son of a doctor, having 'access' to all the knowledge he needed to do what the Whitechapel murderer did.

It does not stand up.

[Abby Normal]

Agreed.

* Not the same location. The Ripper left bodies in a very small area. The Torso Killer left bodies for miles up and down the Thames.
* Not the same time frame. The Ripper operated for a few months. The Torso Killer operated for years if not decades. The series do not begin or end at the same time.
* Not the same type of mutilations. The Torso Killer's mutilations were functional to make it easier to transport the bodies.
* The Ripper strangled, then cut the victim's throats. We do not know how the Torso Killer murdered his victims.
* The Torso Killer cut his victims in two across the midsection. The Ripper frequently cut his victims abdomens, but not in any particular direction and did not cut them in two.
* Not the same 'disconnection'. The Ripper sliced up soft tissues. The Torso Killer separated the body into separate pieces by disarticulating it.
* Not the same targeted areas. The Ripper hacked up the torso and face. The Torso killer separated the body at the joints and across the spine.
* Definite missing organs for the Ripper. Possible missing organs for the Torso Killer, but they may just have been with parts that were not found.
* Some possessions were taken from the sites by the Ripper, probably as trophies. Possessions were not brought to the sites by the Torso Killer - we have no idea if the killer kept them or discarded them.
* The Ripper posed victims on their back, skirt hiked up, legs spread. The Torso Killer did not pose his victims.
* The Ripper killed his victims where the bodies were found. The Torso Killer did not - he transported parts of the bodies to multiple locations.
* The Torsoman appears to have removed heads to prevent identification if the victims. The Ripper made no attempt to hide the identities of the victims.

This implies that the Torsoman had a connection to his victims, while the Ripper targeted strangers.

The only actual similarities are:
* Used a knife.
* Unsolved.

you forgot:

same victimology
same time frame
same general location
all post mortem mutilation
no signs of torture
no signs of sexual abuse
midsection and face targeted
bodies/ parts displayed
internal and external parts removed
midsection flesh removed in flaps
posessions taken
ruse used to get victims to desired location
both series end at the same time

yes i would like to see more dismemberment in the ripper victims and evisceration in the torso victims to really seal the deal, but kelly and chapman were almost decapitated and all torso victims had post mortem mutilation above and beyond what was needed for dismemberment and disposal. im not totally sold like fish that they were the same man, but imho there is enough similarities, and RARE similarities, to make me lean pretty heavily that they were.

[Fisherman]

Agreed.

* Not the same location. The Ripper left bodies in a very small area. The Torso Killer left bodies for miles up and down the Thames.

The Torso killer left a body in Pinchin Street. And parts thrown in the Thames float, you know, to the rhythm of the tide. The places they were found do not tell us that the killer used miles on end of the river to throw them into it.

* Not the same time frame. The Ripper operated for a few months. The Torso Killer operated for years if not decades. The series do not begin or end at the same time.

The time frames were overlapping, and so that cannot rule out a connection.

* Not the same type of mutilations. The Torso Killer's mutilations were functional to make it easier to transport the bodies.

There were the same type of mutilations in any ways. Two torso victims had their abdomens opened up from pubes to ribs, one had her abdominal wall talen away in large panes, there was a uterus excised, there were throats slit.

* The Ripper strangled, then cut the victim's throats. We do not know how the Torso Killer murdered his victims.

And so we cannot say that it is a difference, can we?

* The Torso Killer cut his victims in two across the midsection. The Ripper frequently cut his victims abdomens, but not in any particular direction and did not cut them in two.

The Ripper had a knife to work with, and it was not until 1889 that the Torso killer severed a spine by way of knife. He otherwise always used a fine toothed saw to do that. Ergo, for that similarity to occur in the Ripper murders, the killer would have needed to carry a saw on his person. Both series involved cutting the abdomen open from pubes tp ribs, both involved cutting away the abdominal wall.

* Not the same 'disconnection'. The Ripper sliced up soft tissues. The Torso Killer separated the body into separate pieces by disarticulating it.

The saw, Fiver, the saw!

* Not the same targeted areas. The Ripper hacked up the torso and face. The Torso killer separated the body at the joints and across the spine.

Both series targetted the abdominal area, the groin area, and the neck area.

* Definite missing organs for the Ripper. Possible missing organs for the Torso Killer, but they may just have been with parts that were not found.

No - it is proven that the killer excised the uterus from Liz Jackson. It was then bundled up together with the placenta and wrapped up in the panes of abdominal flesh from the cut away abdominal wall, before being thrown into the Thames. That is not a possibly excised organ, it is a proven matter.

* Some possessions were taken from the sites by the Ripper, probably as trophies. Possessions were not brought to the sites by the Torso Killer - we have no idea if the killer kept them or discarded them.

I do not see what you are trying to say here. Possesions were taken from the Rippers victims? Are you speaking of organs or of Chapmans muffler or what? Then you say that the Torso killer did not bring possessions to the sites...? You are going to need to rephrase this, and then you will have your answer.

* The Ripper posed victims on their back, skirt hiked up, legs spread. The Torso Killer did not pose his victims.

How do you pose a dismembered body on her back with the legs spread? There are examples of serial killers who sometimes dismembered, sometimes not. It is not unheard of.

* The Ripper killed his victims where the bodies were found. The Torso Killer did not - he transported parts of the bodies to multiple locations.

And since when will serial killers say no if they cannot get then exact same circumstances every time? The torso killer likely had to remove the body parts after a murder to keep his bolthole clean of any signs, whereas there was no such need for the Ripper. only yesterday, I pointed to Donald Gaskins, who carried out one series of murders on people he knew, close to where he lived - and another, mobile series, where he drove along the coastline and picked up unknown women, and killed them. Different victim types, different approaches - same killer. And that is before we start talking about Peter Kürten.

* The Torsoman appears to have removed heads to prevent identification if the victims. The Ripper made no attempt to hide the identities of the victims.

Appears to? Not good enough. If it was aggressive dismemberment, and it likely was, since we have him mutilating too, then the heads were taken off for his sexual gratification. If he then threw the parts in the Thames, the heads would sink. He may have welcomed identification problems as a fringe benefit, but that is another matter than defensive dismemberment.

This implies that the Torsoman had a connection to his victims, while the Ripper targeted strangers.

Again, not good enough. I don't think it implies that he knew the victims at all before he killed them. One of us is right, and it is impossible to say which one it is.

The only actual similarities are:
* Used a knife.
* Unsolved.

Not at all - see the above. What links the two series are the many similarities of a many times extremely rare nature. Two sexual serial killers who eviscerate in the same time frame and geographical area is an unheard of phenomenon. These two series would be the only example worldwide and historically, if your hunch is correct. But I don't think it is. Because, not only would that require that there were two sexual serial killers who eviscerated in the same time and geographical area, it would also require that they both were -purely coincidentally - into:
-prostitute victims
-cutting the abdomen open all the way down
-excising uteri
-cutting away the abdominal walls from victims in large panes
-cutting throats
-stealing rings from their victims´ fingers
-being very skilled with the knife

The odds for all of these matters to coincide between the series are beyond astronomical. Therefore, they are not likely to indicate anything but a common cutter.

[Fisherman]

It's interesting to see you say that, because Hebbert's analysis rather conclusively rules out your favorite suspect, Charles Lechmere.

"The incisions were evidently made by design and were skilfuly performed, as by a man who had some knowledge of the position of joints and the readiest means pf separating limbs - such knowledge as a butcher or slaughterer would possess. They do not indicate a special anatomical knowledge of the human body." - Charles Hebbert

I will answer this briefly, and point out to you that Jon Menges has specifically asked us not to discuss Charles Lechmere on this thread.

The carman is not ruled out at all by the above. Hebbert is referring to the four "canonical" torso cases, and it may well be that he had acquired insights into these things before these murders happened. I beleive that the first murder we may be reasonably certain about is the 1873 Battersea murder, and there are other torso murders after that where he would have gotten practice. Equally, the family got involved the cats meat business at some unidentified stage, and so he may have gotten practice that way too. He also very likely delivered meat to butchers, where he may have picked up on how to go about it, pedagogically or manually.
I always find that when we don't know if something was there or not, that is not evidence either way.

And that effectively ends the Lechmere stuff on the thread. I, at least, will adjust to Jon Menges´ bid.

[Fiver]

Personally, I tend to believe that they are two different murderers. But that's just my opinion.

Agreed.

* Not the same location. The Ripper left bodies in a very small area. The Torso Killer left bodies for miles up and down the Thames.
* Not the same time frame. The Ripper operated for a few months. The Torso Killer operated for years if not decades. The series do not begin or end at the same time.
* Not the same type of mutilations. The Torso Killer's mutilations were functional to make it easier to transport the bodies.
* The Ripper strangled, then cut the victim's throats. We do not know how the Torso Killer murdered his victims.
* The Torso Killer cut his victims in two across the midsection. The Ripper frequently cut his victims abdomens, but not in any particular direction and did not cut them in two.
* Not the same 'disconnection'. The Ripper sliced up soft tissues. The Torso Killer separated the body into separate pieces by disarticulating it.
* Not the same targeted areas. The Ripper hacked up the torso and face. The Torso killer separated the body at the joints and across the spine.
* Definite missing organs for the Ripper. Possible missing organs for the Torso Killer, but they may just have been with parts that were not found.
* Some possessions were taken from the sites by the Ripper, probably as trophies. Possessions were not brought to the sites by the Torso Killer - we have no idea if the killer kept them or discarded them.
* The Ripper posed victims on their back, skirt hiked up, legs spread. The Torso Killer did not pose his victims.
* The Ripper killed his victims where the bodies were found. The Torso Killer did not - he transported parts of the bodies to multiple locations.
* The Torsoman appears to have removed heads to prevent identification if the victims. The Ripper made no attempt to hide the identities of the victims.

This implies that the Torsoman had a connection to his victims, while the Ripper targeted strangers.

The only actual similarities are:
* Used a knife.
* Unsolved.

[Fiver]

What you will find when reading up on the torsos, is that Charles Hebbert said that the four cases 1887-89 (Rainham, Whitehall, Jackson and Pinchin Street) were in every detail perfectly similar when it comes to the cutting employed. He was in no doubt whatsoever that they had the same originator. So if you take the Pinchin Street deed on board, I ´m afraid you will get stuck with the other three too, unless you can find a way around Hebbert. I can´t.!

It's interesting to see you say that, because Hebbert's analysis rather conclusively rules out your favorite suspect, Charles Lechmere.

"The incisions were evidently made by design and were skilfuly performed, as by a man who had some knowledge of the position of joints and the readiest means pf separating limbs - such knowledge as a butcher or slaughterer would possess. They do not indicate a special anatomical knowledge of the human body." - Charles Hebbert

[Fisherman]

If the Whitechapel and London Torso murders are really linked by a set of mind-blowing coincidences, why is it that so few writers are convinced of any connection?

You have mentioned the Pinchin Street case.

If that murder was committed by the Whitechapel Murderer, then why did he not mutilate the victim's genitals?

We cannot know - but we can speculate: the killer wanted recognition for being the originator of both series. That, I believe, is why she was a hybrid, if you will. A very apparent torso victim, dumped in Ripper territory with a shallow blueprint Ripper cut to the abdomen.

It even made the police speculate that it was a case of the Torso killer trying to emulate the the Rippers work!
That is a very much more unlikely explanation than the simple one of a common originator. But the victorian police was unaware of the concept of aggressive dismemberment, so they were hampered in their reasoning.

We don't have that obstacle.