Jack the Ripper & The Torso Murders

[jerryd]

It is on this basis that we can conclude that the Torso killer desired for the victims to be discovered, and for it to create an element of shock value to the masses.

Hi RD.

I think the answer is much simpler than that. The fact that word got out to John Arnold that a body was going to be found in Backchurch Lane was an announcement in itself. With the same affair happening the day before the Whitehall torso was found, I'd say this person highly desired the bodies to be found, for whatever reason?

[The Rookie Detective]

If the Torso killer had intended for the victims to never be found...then they never would have been.

We would instead have been looking at a series of missing persons and that would gave never made the press, and the term "Torso Killer" would never had come to light.

When we look at the factual data regarding the locations where the Torso Killer chose to place/dump the victims, we can see that there is a deliberate intention for at least SOME of the body parts to be discovered.

To state that the Torso killer dumped all of the victims in the River Thames is also misleading; because while some body parts were indeed discovered in the river, other body parts from multiple victims were discovered in various land-based locations.

We have to understand the distinct difference between DISCOVERY and IDENTIFICATION.

The Torso Killer took the heads of his victims for many possible reasons, maybe to conceal, maybe as a token treasure, or maybe for some warped pleasure...

It is therefore fair to say that by taking the head, the killer intended for none of the victims ever to be identified.

However, by choosing to place some body parts in the park, under a railway arch, in a cellar etc...we can get an insight into the killer's mind in terms of their intent for the victims to be discovered.

And that's the difference right there.

A killer who intends to stop their victim ever being discovered and identified; lends itself to the concept of a defensive kill strategy, and perhaps a murder committed through impulse or a psychotic episode.

However, a killer like the Torso Killer, whilst intending to stop their victim ever being identified (by them taking the head), has every intent for their victim to be discovered, lending itself more to the realm of Pathological Psychopathy and an offensive kill strategy.
This is evidenced by the additional post-mortem injuries inflicted on their victims that surpass the basic need to conceal to evade capture (defensive strategy)

After all, what good is a psychopath, if they are never known for their work?

A psychopath's inherent narcissistic tendency means that they have a desire for the world to know what they have done; and to be attributed for their actions.

It is on this basis that we can conclude that the Torso killer desired for the victims to be discovered, and for it to create an element of shock value to the masses.


This is also why the case of Elizabeth Jackson is of utmost importance to the series as a whole.

She was the only Torso victim to ever be identified, and because of this we can perhaps determine that the killer made a mistake, in that while he wanted her body parts to be discovered, he did not want Jackson to ever be identified.


Once we can grasp the concept of the difference between Discovery and Identification, then we can better put things into context.


Of course, if we were to open our minds further and possibly incorporate the torso victim found dumped in 1902, in Salamanca Place, just outside the back of Doulton's factory, then we can ask why this time the killer left the head on top of the pile of other dissected body parts, ergo, the killer didn't take the head as a trophy.

What does that suggest about the mindset of the killer?

By leaving the head, the killer didn't seem too concerned about whether the victim would be identified this time around.

What's interesting is that in 1901, a year before the Salamanca torso, the Doulton's factory received Royal approval, and was soon to become what we know today as "Royal Doulton."

The torso was "Piled up, with the head placed on top" outside the back of the factory in a little alley called Salamanca Place.

The Doulton's factory at the time specialized in a lot of stonework/marble ware/stoneware etc...

This is rather coincidental in relation to the Pinchin St torso, which was of course left next to the Board of Works stone breakers yard.

The idea of the torso killer being a stone mason/marble mason, is something that runs as a (potential) link through the series.

Geographically speaking, the torso was dumped just a stone's throw from the River Thames, and so again, the waterways are another connection that runs through the sequence of murders.

Did the torso killer begin his murderous campaign circa 1870, and then continue as long as 1902 and beyond? i.e over a 32-year campaign?


RD

[Abby Normal]

Did he propose it before CallMeBill in 2018?

a post in creative writing that had all of seven responses that none including op mention anything about the torsos.

[Abby Normal]

Not to join in the argument, but for the sake of accuracy, that idea has been around for a long time, actually. At least one feminist writer speculated about anatomical Venus displays inspiring murderers of this type in a book in the late 1980s, and Mike Hawley had an article about in the Ripperologist several years ago, and Shirley Harrison mentioned anatomical museums in one of her books on Maybrick, claiming he once lived near one. Why Fisherman applied it to an East End cart driver is hard to say. What is the connection supposed to be?

did any of them apply it to torsoman? the connection being what i said in my post

[Fiver]

one of the most original being that a possible inspiration/ motive by torsoman was the anatomical venus displays in the local museums, which closed right around the time the first torso victims started to surface.

Did he propose it before CallMeBill in 2018?

[rjpalmer]

one of the most original being that a possible inspiration/ motive by torsoman was the anatomical venus displays in the local museums, which closed right around the time the first torso victims started to surface.

Not to join in the argument, but for the sake of accuracy, that idea has been around for a long time, actually. At least one feminist writer speculated about anatomical Venus displays inspiring murderers of this type in a book in the late 1980s, and Mike Hawley had an article about in the Ripperologist several years ago, and Shirley Harrison mentioned anatomical museums in one of her books on Maybrick, claiming he once lived near one. Why Fisherman applied it to an East End cart driver is hard to say. What is the connection supposed to be?

[Abby Normal]

That's only correct because you borrow myths from other people instead of creating your own myths.

Except perhaps for the Ley Line myth. Everything else seems to be borrowed from Von Stow or early TorsoRipper theorists.

not only is this incorrect on many levels, its a low blow by you and MR and very regrettable.

its an insulting misnomer to begin with, because fishs ideas is a theory or theories.you do know the difference between a myth and a theory I hope? And fish has come up with alot of original research and theory on his own.

one of the most original being that a possible inspiration/ motive by torsoman was the anatomical venus displays in the local museums, which closed right around the time the first torso victims started to surface.

[Fiver]

I have never tried to create any myth in any way relating the these cases. Claiming that is trying to create a myth.

That's only correct because you borrow myths from other people instead of creating your own myths.

Except perhaps for the Ley Line myth. Everything else seems to be borrowed from Von Stow or early TorsoRipper theorists.

[Fisherman]

Is this just a continuation of the Myth youre trying to create, or merely a Mythake.

The one myth there ever was, was that the Torso killer was another man than the Ripper.

I have never tried to create any myth in any way relating the these cases. Claiming that is trying to create a myth.

Try and discuss the factual matters instead, Michael. It lowers the blood pressure and makes for a much more useful debate.

[Michael W Richards]

That would only work with two killers, though - and there was just the one …

Is this just a continuation of the Myth youre trying to create, or merely a Mythake.

[Fisherman]

Hmmm...I may be influenced by too many episodes of "Criminal Minds," but what if leaving the Pinchin Torso in the Ripper's area was more of a *challenge* by the Torso Killer? Perhaps he resented the publicity JtR was getting in the papers?

That would only work with two killers, though - and there was just the one …

[Pcdunn]

Hmmm...I may be influenced by too many episodes of "Criminal Minds," but what if leaving the Pinchin Torso in the Ripper's area was more of a *challenge* by the Torso Killer? Perhaps he resented the publicity JtR was getting in the papers?

[Michael W Richards]

The Battersea dismemberment in 1873-74, the dismemberments of Tottenham and Bedford Square in 1884, the Rainham Mystery dismemberments in 1887, the Whitehall dismemberments in 1888, the Elizabeth Jackson dismemberment case in 1888, the Pinchin Street torso in 1889....these are similar crimes. It is possible since no-one was ever tried and convicted that some might have been by the same man or men. Or even woman/women, for that matter. Which would mean the killer continued to kill in the same fashion for years, predating and post dating the alleged Ripper murders.There are several other later cases, in 1886 in Paris, and in 1902 in London, that were also dismemberment crimes.

There are at least 2 very distinctive differences in these cases with the Jack the Ripper cases which prevented the contemporary investigators from suggesting a link, by killer, of these crimes. How the victims were killed, and how they were "disposed" of. The fact that the Ripper murders all occurred within 1 sq mile is very relevant to the comparisons, the fact that the investigators believed the Ripper either stopped, left, or died after the Kelly murder, making the alleged series less than 3 months in total length, is also relevant. The fact that Torso murders happened in London after the Ripper crimes is also revealing, in that, if one man or some men were responsible for the dismemberment killings, they continued to kill and dispose of their victims in the same manner.

The modern revisionist who tries to link these murders under 1 killer discards the opinions of contemporary investigators, the distinctive differences in how they were killed and how they were disposed of, and the fact that some of the dismemberment murders in London pre-date the Ripper style slayings by more than a decade. Serial killers as they are known today do change what they do at times, not necessarily because the killer desired to kill differently, but because they are trying to fool investigators into believing another killer was responsible. They do so because investigative techniques and methods, forensic science and CCTV have become sophisticated weapons in an investigative arsenal.

In London in the LVP they didnt have access to accurate blood typing, DNA testing, CCTV, even fingerprint analysis. Killers of that era had a very reasonable chance of evading capture because of those shortcomings. But that didnt prevent them from using comparative analysis, victim evidence, witness evidence or medical opinion. The fact that virtually none of the contemporary investigators believed that Jack the Rippper also committed dismemberment killings should be a cautionary tale to the modern revisionist theorizing. They were not without some evidence to assess, they had access to highly trained and accomplished medical experts, and most important, they actually saw the victims, saw the remains and spoke with the witnesses and experts. So in addition to the series being unlike in a few important features, they did have the first-hand evidence which they could, to a lesser degree than in Modern times, determine some facts.

They didnt see a link between the series, personally I think they are very different in areas that are key to assess the nature of the individual killer/killers, and anyone using only what is historically documented and publicly available would have to arrive at similar conclusions.

But then you have the outliers.......

[Fisherman]

More straw-manning on your part. I never even implied that you were suggesting that the killer wanted his name revealed.

You were saying that the killer did n thing to do to secure recognition. Since he did so in practice, I assumed you were thinking of his name. Nothing to see there.

You said the the killer wanted recognition for committing both series of crimes. Yet the killer did nothing to get that recognition. The Ripper is known today because of the letters. No dramatic postcards or letters were sent in the Torso Killer's name. No organs were mailed in the Torso Killer's name.

The killer left a hybrid in Pinchin Street: An obvious torso victim, but with the Ripper calling card on the abdomen and dumped in Ripper territory. To me, that. ay well be a claim of recognition. As for the Ripper letters and the kidney letter, if you can prove that they originated with the killer, you will have a slightly better point. But in no way a conclusive one. There were letters mentioning the torso victims. Oh, and no letter was signed in the killers name. Perhaps, but only perhaps, there were letters signed in the killers moniker. Which is a different thing, as you may appreciate.

The Ripper left his victims posed bodies where they were sure to be found in short order. The Torso Killer did not.

Are you at it again? The Ripper series involved victims slain in the open streets and left there.The torso victims were not. Why on earth would he carry them out in one piece from his bolthole and pose them in the streets? His victims were found, and there was never any question of whether or not they would be.

Remains were pitched into rivers and canals where they only surfaced once decomposition was far enough along and were found by pure chance.

Not at all. They apparently floated ashore quickly at times. The density of body parts allow for this. Not least will the strong currents of the Thames have helped the buoyancy. And regardless of this, it applies that once the killer knew that the parts of the Rainham victim floated ashore, he did not take precautions to stop that from happening by weighing the parts down. Therefore, it seems the killer was quite happy to have his parts found. And the placing of parts on dry land reinforces this.

Other parts were buried.

Two parts that we know of - and that may have been accidentally buried. None of the other parts were buried at all. And there were many of them, floating ashore.

Parts were hidden in shrubbery.

They were very easy to find, and were consequently found very quickly. One part was thrown over a fence, which is not "hiding" it, and another was placed in Battersea Gardens!

The most visible but was the Pinchin Street Torso which was found by pure chance shortly after it was deposited, when it could have lain there unnoticed for days.

If the killer wanted to hide the body, he did a lousy job. The torso was left in full view, and none of the rubbish lying around in the arches was used to cover it. There must have been a thousand better places and more to hide it - if that was what the killer wanted. And hiding a torso in the basement of the New Scotland Yard was perhaps not the smartest move either. These sites are much better suited to claim that then killer wanted the bodies to be found, then any feeble effort to try and claim that he hoped they would never be. Which is not shat you said, but what you inadvertently suggest.

The Ripper got the press and the Torso Killer was fine with being largely ignored.

I am not privy to the thoughts of this killer, and so I cannot say whether or not he was fine with having one series less written about than the other. But I am clever enough to understand that it offers up the possibility that the Ripper murders came about as a result of a will on behalf of the killer to gain more attention. That is a suggestion and it is not as if I do like you - claim to know what you can't know.

[Fisherman]

The Ripper clearly escaped detection by only a few minutes in the Nichols, Stride, and Eddowes cases. He took a lot more risks than the Torso Killer.

And is it an established fact that a serial killer will always take the same level of risk? Or can it be that he uses varying risk levels?

It is also described how the Torso parts were sometimes dumped in locations that would have been very risky to use. That must also be weighed in.

Serial killers should not exist, statistically speaking. But statistics are sadly not always reliable.