|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2567
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 26, 2005 - 1:42 pm: | 
|
Up till now I can only find the famous three ‘torso’ murder cases of 1888 and 1889.
The Scotland Yard torso of October 30th 1888.
The Thames Mystery torso of 4th June 1889.
The Pinchin Street torso of 10th September 1889.
However it must be noted that in two of the cases, many other body parts of women were found in the local areas, and although the police doctors attempted to fit the jig-sawed parts into an entire body, the efforts were by no means that convincing.
Two of the torso victims were known prostitutes, the third was thought to be a prostitute.
The police doctors and surgeons involved felt that there was a clear link in all three crimes because of the art and nature of the mutilations.
In all three cases all the body parts were never found.
What strikes me immediately about such torso murder and mutilation is that we can be absolutely sure that the original crime took place indoors, for we could hardly expect a killer to hang around Mitre Square for a few hours while he dissected and parcelled up the prostitute he had just brutally murdered.
This seems to indicate two very different types of crimes, both motivated by a desire to kill women for sure, but the street crimes of the Whitechapel Murderer appear as fast and furious action, whilst the torso murderer has all the time in the world.
Quick kill and flee, slow kill and stay.
Outdoors. Indoors.
Reading through the inquest reports in all three torso murders I am bound to say that I do see very clear elements in these murders which do apply directly to the mutilations that Mary Jane Kelly suffered.
We must note also that the torso victims were of an age range compatible with Mary Jane Kelly, but none of the other victims of the Whitechapel Murderer.
So here we have Mary Jane Kelly, sandwiched in time between two of the most famous torso murders in British history - carried out in the same local area - the age range of all the torso victims was MJK’s age range, and she was killed and mutilated indoors in a very slow criminal climate.
I think we talk two very different cook pots here. |
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 395
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, September 26, 2005 - 2:14 pm: |
|
Hi AP,
I have a lot to say here but all I have time to point out now is that Kelly was very mutilated but not dissected of extrematies and the Torso victims were dissected in that fashion but, beyond that, suffered few or no mutilations. There were also two additional torso murders although one is a little far out there in the time line. One the 1887 "Rainham Mystery" and the other questionable one in 1903.
Best wishes,
Stan |
Debra J. Arif
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dj
Post Number: 123
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, September 26, 2005 - 4:22 pm: |
|
Hi AP and Stan
Is this the Rainham mystery described below?
>>In July 1887, Mr. Bond was requested by the treasury to examine some remains found in various parts of London.......
All the portions were found either in the Thames or in the Regent's canal, and consisted of eight separate parts.<<
Is opening of the chest and removal of its contents, removal of intestines , removal of two strips of skin from abdomen and part of buttocks, incision in a womb and removal of a foetus, all performed on one person, not classed as mutilation?
Debra
|
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 396
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, September 26, 2005 - 5:29 pm: |
|
Hi Debra,
Yes, that would qualify as mutilation. I was addressing the three cases that AP cited. The 1903 case I know almost nothing about but I'm not very interested in it because it's too far out timewise. I believe a woman came forward claiming that the Rainham victim might be her daughter but I don't think she convinced anyone.
Best regards,
Stan |
Debra J. Arif
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dj
Post Number: 124
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, September 26, 2005 - 5:44 pm: |
|
Sorry Stan, I didn't make myself very clear in my post did I, it was done in a bit of a rush!
I am not trying to trip you up or anything, I am just very interested in these particular murders, and I am confused as to what qualifies as mutilation.
The first part of my post was a question on whether the reference I quoted was describing the Rainham Mystery, I wasn't sure what the 'official' name for that one was.
The second part of my post was describing the mutilations of Elizabeth Jackson, who I believe is the victim in the Thames Mystery? or were there two separate Thames Mysteries?
Debra |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2569
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 26, 2005 - 6:06 pm: |
|
Debra
I left the Rainham Mystery out of the equation because I read a report that stated that a woman was responsible for the murder and mutilation.
As regards the Thames Mystery... it is still a mystery. I think confusion may occur because of some similar crimes from canals, which I'm still looking at.
And Stan, I'm looking at post mortem mutilation and there is a lot of similarity between what happened to MJK and these crimes if you can roughly accept that the killer of MJK might have been stopped in his purpose as regards packaging.
|
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 398
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, September 26, 2005 - 6:15 pm: |
|
Hi Debra,
Yes, that is the Rainham case. That's a little more than I'd seen on Jackson before. I think there was a gash in the abdomen on "Pinchin Street" as well, if I remember correctly. In 1992, I wrote a magazine article about this series. I'm just going by memory here but I think the latter was tentively identified as Lydia Hart who'd disappeared but again nothing conclusive. Still, no disarticulation of Kelly like in these other cases nor "harvest" of the head.
Stan |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2570
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 26, 2005 - 6:31 pm: |
|
The Pinchin Street victim came minus her head and legs, she had 'a deep gash in the lower part of her stomach through which her bowels were protruding'.
And she was awfully close to home. |
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1030
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, September 26, 2005 - 7:22 pm: |
|
The time between these mutilation murders seems to be a reason there is so little mentioned of these three [ 10 months apart ]atrocious acts....
Good finds,A.P....as usual.
How Brown
Prop.
WWW.JTRForums.com
|
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 400
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, September 26, 2005 - 7:43 pm: |
|
Hi all,
As I recall, unlike the c5, there was never a cause of death determined in any of the torso cases. I'd suspect either strangulation or head trauma.
Stan |
Debra J. Arif
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dj
Post Number: 125
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, September 26, 2005 - 7:43 pm: |
|
This is the description of the gash on the Pinchin Street torso from the post mortem 11 sep 1889.
The skin and muscles of the abdomen had been cut by a vertical incision, running from
two inches below the ensiform cartilage downwards and ending on the left side of the external genitals, just opening the vagina, but not opening the peritoneal cavity.
|
Debra J. Arif
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dj
Post Number: 126
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, September 26, 2005 - 8:05 pm: |
|
Hi Stan
The cause of death was given in the case of the Pinchin Street torso as
>>The immediate cause of death was syncope, as shown by the condition of the heart, and the general
bloodlessness of the tissues would indicate hemorrhage as the cause of the syncope.<<
What that means in English I have no idea!
Debra |
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 401
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, September 26, 2005 - 9:55 pm: |
|
Hi all,
Has anyone heard any guesses on the identity of Whitehall victim? That's the only one that I've not known anybody to put a name to even as a theory.
Stan |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 909
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, September 26, 2005 - 10:46 pm: |
|
Hi Debra,
Syncope is fainting from lack of a supply of blood (and thus oxygen) to the brain. Hemorrhage means bleeding, often internally but probably more generally here. Doesn't sound too far off from the Ripper killings on that point anyway.
The torso killings are kind of interesting to me. I've never been quite clear on why they are so casually dismissed as potential Ripper victims by most people. But then I also think they aren't necessarily the work of a single serial killer, as others seem to expect (like the typical, "well, obviously there were at least two serial killers in the area at the time because of the torso killer" argument).
Bury, for example, did at least one torso-style killing, but then since he was executed for that he couldn't have done the later ones. That implies that people could do them as separate events. This kind of disposal is also fairly organized and obvious, and could be done by some sort of criminal gang or individuals as the necessity for a discrete disposal came up.
It's also possible that if the Ripper occasionally did have a private location he could use from time to time (but not all the time) that he may have used it and disposed of bodies more discretely. It's conceivable that one or more of the torsos were his work, especially if they were closer to him and couldn;t just be left out but had to be hacked up so as not to be identified as easily, or found at that particular location. Yes, that's a different MO, but MOs can and do change as needed, it's only the end goal or guiding desires of a killer that stay relatively stable.
There's a variety of possibilities here, though I would lean against the idea that MJK's killer was trying to dispose of her as another torso killing, largely because he spread her out into pieces, which would make disposal more difficult instead of easier. Even if we assume the parts would get wrapped up in bedsheet, moving bits to the table seem to go against even that possibility.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 937
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 2:14 am: |
|
AP
Much to think about as ever in your posts.
Is it not likely that the torso-murderer had a base from which he worked, where the women were killed and disected, and from which he could take the body parts to the places he left them?
We have, so far as I am aware, no reports to rooms akin to Millers Court being found. And to kill a woman as MJK was killed, would then mean the body parts had to be removed somehow AT ONCE - that would not have been easy in the case of MJK.
I do see considerable differences in detail here, and I am not sure that I am convinced that MJK was a victim of the torso-killer.
But much food for thought.
Phil |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 768
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 3:22 am: |
|
Good point, Phil.
That's the sort of point I wanted to make. I think it's more likely that the torso murderer(s) took the women to some private place he had and did not do his dirty work in his victims' homes (unless of course the killer was the husband), whilst Mary was butchered in her own room. That, and the nature of the mutilations are important differences IMHO.
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
- Clint Eastwood, in 'The Rookie' (1990)
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2573
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 1:55 pm: |
|
I too am not convinced that MJK was a victim of the Torso Murderer, however there do seem to be similar contradictions in firmly being convinced that MJK was a victim of the Whitechapel Murderer.
Firstly MJK’s murder makes more sense as a continuation rather than the end of a series as we usually view it.
The physical elements of the mutilation in MJK do not seriously vex me, as murder and mutilation do not follow strict and orderly patterns but rather a design of complete and utter chaos.
Just dwell on the case I posted recently where a young lady actually cleaved her baby right down the middle, and then shoved the left half of the body down a drain.
There is no logic, sense or purpose to what this young lady did, she was acting on impulses that none of us can ever understand.
Logically and sensibly, she should have dismembered the body and then reduced it to the smallest possible portions and then disposed of it. But no, she cut the poor thing exactly in half - which must have been a bloody and difficult task anyway - and then placed it in a situation where it was bound to be discovered.
The home or away dilemma is thoughtful.
But I think the bottom line here is that at least two of the Torso victims were prostitutes - and it seems likely the third victim was also a prostitute - so I would say that it would be more likely for a prostitute to take a client back to her room, rather than the other way around.
Obviously prostitutes who had no private room to take their clients back to would carry out their business on the open streets, just as every single victim of the Whitechapel Murderer did, apart from MJK - taking into account the fact that although murder was entirely possible in the common lodging houses of the area, severe body mutilation would not have been - therefore one assumes that the victims of the Torso Murderer had private rooms whilst the victims of the Whitechapel Murderer had shared lodgings, or none at all.
That is a stab in the dark. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 5067
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 2:23 pm: |
|
Hi AP
I liked the last line!
The problem I see with the torso murderer dismembering the bodies in the victims' own rooms, is that no one seems to have reported finding an empty room full of bloodstains.
Let's suppose that MJK was killed by the torso murderer. If he was interrupted by something or other, and had to leave before packaging the body, don't we have to assume that he also intended to dispose of the mattress, wash the partition and table top, and probably get Molly Weir in with a bucket of "Flash" as well?
Robert
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2574
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 3:43 pm: |
|
Yes, Robert, as ever you hit the whore over the head and she falls down the stairs.
I've rolled on my back but have yet to play dead. |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2581
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 4:13 am: |
|
Robert
if you scroll through 'The Murder of Dr.Cronin', June 13th 1889, first column, half way down, you'll find a very descriptive account of how an attempt might be made to clean up a room in which bloody murder took place. |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4062
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 4:30 am: |
|
Robert,
Although your point there is good, I would say that a murderer who dismember the corpse usually does it in the room where it happened, since dismembering usually is done in order to make the the body easier to dispose of.
AP,
Although your findings are as interesting as ever, and I know that you are just playing with ideas here, I seriously doubt that Mary Kelly is relevant for the Torso killing context.
Mary Kelly was mutilated in a very personal way, with extensive overkill unnecessary beyond any practical means. The torso women were probably, as most dismembered corpses, killed and then simply dismembered for practical reasons in order to make the bodies more suitable for transport and maybe also to make the victims harder to identify (although the latter is more relevant today).
I don't see them in the same category. But interesting nevertheless.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 5074
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 6:10 am: |
|
AP and Glenn
Hmm..I do tend to see the murder and dismemberment occurring in the killer's own room, but I suppose it's not impossible he could have tidied up a prostitute's room.
Robert |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2582
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 1:17 pm: |
|
I’m still not convinced, either way, Robert & Glenn.
There are definite indications in at least two of the ascribed Whitechapel Murders that a serious attempt was made to remove the head.
‘There was a great dissimilarity between this case (Stride) and Chapman’s. In the latter the neck was severed all round down to the vertebral column, the vertebral bone being enlarged with two sharp cuts, and there being an evident attempt to separate the bones…’
And:
‘The muscular structures appeared as though an attempt had been made to separate the bones of the neck.’
Dr. Phillips’ inquest testimony.
‘The tissues of the neck were severed all round down to the bone.’
Dr. Bonds’ police report on Mary Jane Kelly.
I find it difficult to equate such criminal surgery with a desire to simply mutilate, but can easily see such actions as an interrupted disposal motive, especially in the case of MJK where other mutilations to her body, particularly the limbs, do appear to be leading towards a disposal of the body.
Debra has already pointed out that at least in one case of the Torso Murders - that of Liz Jackson - very similar mutilating injuries as practised by the Whitechapel Murderer were carried out by the Torso Killer.
I reckon I’ve still got a tail to wag. |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2583
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 1:30 pm: |
|
And by the way, Robert, I found this testimony from a very bloody murder case in the LVP to be of some interest:
‘WILLIAM TUDDENHAM . I am apprenticed to the prisoner. On Wednesday, the 9th of March, between eleven and twelve o'clock, he told me I was to go with him to do a job, but I did not know when I went out where I was going- he took me to his mother's house, Lisbon-street, Dog-row; he knocked twice, and the second time the door seemed to open a little, and then he went in and called Mother! mother! - I was outside the door, about two feet from it, on the pavement; I could see into the room, and saw blood on the floor - he told me afterwards that it was blood; I should not have known it was blood - it was a yellowish cast;’
Yellow blood?
Whatever next?
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 5076
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 2:54 pm: |
|
Hi AP
Maybe she died of yellow fever!
The trouble with trying to ascribe the Chapman and Kelly murders to an interrupted torso killer, as I see it, is that he'd have had to be interrupted twice at exactly the same point, i.e. when he was about to sever the head. It seems a bit of a coincidence. I think that the killer of Nichols and Eddowes (and Stride if you count her) probably was interrupted, and for all we know he may have had to leave Chapman and Kelly before he was ready. But twice at the same point?
Robert |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2584
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 4:26 pm: |
|
Quite right, Robert, again you hit the whore on head and down those stairs she goes.
But somewhere, deep in the brandy of my brain, I do remember what you postulate exactly happening to a killer.
I think it was probably Ted Bundy or Sutcliffe, but I'll have to check.
My basic confusion with MJK and Chapman is the obvious attempt to remove the head.
This is not mutilation, but rather smoke and mirrors.
Why the disguise?
What was being hidden? |
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 407
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 6:11 pm: |
|
Hi all,
If Mary's killer had truly wanted to remove her head, he had plenty of time to do it. He had time to take off her arms and legs as well, had he so desired.
I once tried to come up with senario that the Torso Killer was the actual slayer of Stride but came up way short. Since the individual was interrupted before reaching his goal, I thought, then how do we know it couldn't have been either killer? The fact that Stride was an outdoor job put me off of that one. Torso needed more privacy.
Best wishes,
Stan |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4068
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 4:27 am: |
|
AP,
I would say that it is not 'obvious' that the killer tried to remove the head on Chapman (or Kelly). That is just a matter of speculation.
True, Chapman's head was nearly severed from the body but that in itself does not prove that that was the killer's intention.
Point taken, though, about the mutilations on one of the torsos (personally, I don't see any evidence, by the way, of that both torsos were 'made' by the same killer), but still, I would say this is quite singular and uncommon.
Decapitation and dismembering is a well-known approach in order for a killer to hide his crimes by making the body easier to get rid of, and to try to hide the victim's identity, and they are certainly not mutilated on grounds of sexual compulsion or personal hatred - it is a purely practical approach.
But I agree, it is interesting that the torso in question in this particular case contains evidence of both.
Of course, this could mean, that the torso killer in fact might have been a mutilating killer, who then - in addition - dismembered the body in order to hide the body.
But let me just remind you, that this clearly differs from Jack the Ripper, who seemed to have been very keen on leaving the bodies in open display, or at least didn't care if they were found or not. The torso killer(s) apparently wanted to hide his crimes.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Debra J. Arif
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dj
Post Number: 132
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 5:50 am: |
|
AP
>>I left the Rainham Mystery out of the equation because I read a report that stated that a woman was responsible for the murder and mutilation<<
Just reading back over the cases again I couldn't find mention of a woman in connection with the Rainham mystery, but there was two ' Thames mysteries' , an earlier one in 1873 in which a lady named Kate Webster stood trial.
She dismembered her victim , skinned her face and scalp, and as the right and left breasts were found separately it seems she removed the breasts of her victim too.
In the post mortem reports on the Rainham case and the Whitehall trunk ,the doctor's opinion was that the method of arm removal was precisely similar between the two cases and the trunk mutilation in every aspect was identical.
Both were carried out with a very sharp knife and a saw and both were attributed to possibly a hunter, butcher or slaughterman, as was Elizabeth Jackson's murder.
Debra |
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 332
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 12:54 pm: |
|
I find it very hard to believe that the mutilations to MJK were part of an interrupted disposal attempt.
Leaving aside for the moment that we have no reason to suspect there was an interruption, the mutilations that were made would in not facilitate disposal of the body. IMO, the majority of the mutilations would actually make disposal more difficult. If there was a simple attempt to remove the head and limbs I might be more convinced but the removal of the flesh from her lower body, removed breasts, etc just make for more (and wetter) pieces to dispose of and would be more difficult to manage than a trunk, head, and some limbs.
Instead we have extreme mutilations to the body that suggest that the aim was simply mutilation. The damage to the face and lower body would be time consuming, and pointless if the purpose was to dispose of the corpse. It certainly appears that an attempt may have been made to remove the head, but I think it's more likely that it would be to further mutilate the body and create a more appalling scene. As Glenn so rightly points out, Jack seemed to want his work to be seen, not hidden.
Best regards,
John |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2587
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 1:09 pm: |
|
Glenn & John
We should listen to what Debra is telling us here.
That is, in the case of the Torso Murder of Elizabeth Jackson there were certain mutilating injuries inflicted that had nothing to do with the disposal of the victim; and that those injuries show some similarity to the mutilations carried out by the Whitechapel Murderer on his accepted victims.
Now Debra has pulled another Torso Murder out of the Thames - earlier than the three I listed originally, and I wish now I had not ignored the case - which shows quite convincingly that a Torso Murderer can also be a mutilator who inflicts injuries not associated with a disposal motive… and those mutilations are extraordinarily similar to the mutilations carried out on MJK.
I think a re-think is required here.
My congratulations and thanks to Debra for this. |
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 409
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 1:19 pm: |
|
Hi all,
The killer had all kinds of time to remove the head if he was really all that interested in doing so. That action would have been much simpler than a lot of the other things he found time to do with Kelly.
Stan |
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 335
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 1:39 pm: |
|
AP,
I did read Debra's post with interest, and it's certainly possible that a mutilator could dispose of the corpse through dismemberment.
However Jack's MO was to kill, mutilate and leave the body where the killing occurred. There is nothing to suggest that he was attempting to dispose of the body in any way, and at least some reason to believe that he WANTED them to be found as there is evidence of posing in some of the cases.
Given that one of the cases where a potential attempt was made to remove the head was NOT in an area guaranteeing privacy, I find it hard to assume that Jack might have been inclined to dismember, wrap/box her up, and carry her off through the streets. Based on the precedent of that attempt, it seems likely to me that in MJK case he was simply continuing an escalating pattern of mutilation.
It's not impossible that it was in his mind, but given the evidence to date I would be strongly skeptical.
Best regards,
John |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4070
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 2:14 pm: |
|
AP,
Like John, I also read Debra's post with interest and I must admit that the 1873 case of Kate Webster is complete and startling news to me (thanks for that, Debra). It is interesting because it clearly shows, in contrast to what many believes, that more people than Jack the Ripper was capable of mutilating and skin a victim (although I personally doubt that MJK was a Ripper victim).
Although the purpose of dismembering a body generally is to make it easier to transport and get rid of, and also more difficult to identify (not to mention that they mostly are results of domestic killings but very seldom an approach used by serial killers), I DID in fact acknowledge that the Torso murderer(s) appear to have been a mutilator whom later may have dismembered the body/bodies (if it was the same killer) BUT for practical purpose. That is, a mixture of both (which is very uncommon). I DID see that possibility.
What you totally failed to address, and which was my whole point, was that the fact that the bodies were dismembered and not that openly displayed as in the cases of the victims of the Ripper, do indicate another type of killer. The Ripper didn't care about dismembering the bodies or hiding them. Therefore your logic here fails to convince me (for once).
As for Elisabeth Jackson, I fail to see her relevance since it is not proven or even a matter of common belief that her murder had anything to do with the Ripper in the first place.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on September 29, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2588
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 2:18 pm: |
|
Stan & John
If you study the thrusts of many of my posts on many different threads recently, you will see that I am attempting to encourage folk to look a little bit deeper and further than the usual.
Firstly it is entirely possible that savage mutilations might have been carried out on some of the victims in an hurried attempt to rob them off the valuables they concealed in their stays and aprons.
I have demonstrated such cases.
It is also entirely possible that some of the victims might have been firstly strangled with their ‘hanky’, and then pulled about by their apron, before any knife blows were struck.
Again I have demonstrated such cases.
Regarding mutilation, I am attempting to do the same thing, in that in a case of murder and mutilation where there seems a genuine desire to decapitate a victim… we must be very careful indeed.
As a for instance I am looking at a case at the moment where a mother brutally killed her youngest child and then cut the head off, leaving the poor child where everyone could see it, not hidden and as the child was dead no reason to decapitate it, then she rushed around her lodgings telling everyone she was insane and had killed her child.
At trial the canny judge asked her:
‘Why did you kill the youngest child?’
She replied:
‘Because it would be less bother.’
The woman had much older children.
Guilty. Death.
All is not what it seems.
Smoke and mirrors. |
Debra J. Arif
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dj
Post Number: 133
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 2:29 pm: |
|
I need to correct my earlier post re Kate Webster, the murder and mutilation she undertook was called 'The Barnes mystery' she murdered her employer and then tried 3 different ways of disposal, boiling, burning and then dumping in the river.
The Thames Mystery of 1873 was unsolved and the victim never identified, this is the case where the victims face was mutilated and breasts found separately.
Sorry about the mis-information but there was barely a comma separating the two cases in the book I am reading.
Debra |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4071
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 2:29 pm: |
|
AP,
If you, according to your first post on this interesting thread, are suggesting that the torso killer (or one of them) also may have been the killer of MJK, I can't say that that's impossible. As you say, the torso women were most certainly killed indoors and then transported to the place that they were found. However, in MJK:s case, the mutilations are very severe and as has been pointed out by other people here, if MJK:s killer really wanted to dismember her body or take off her head, he probably seems to have had suitable time to do so. But he didn't.
There exists loads of more modern mutilations cases where the throat has been cut to such an extent that the head is nearly severed from the body. This does not in any way prove that the purpose was deliberate decapitation or attempt of dismemberment. Force on the grounds of rage, for example, can just as well be a possible reason.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on September 29, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2589
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 2:31 pm: |
|
Glenn
You could always look at Ted Bundy again.
Here was a man who carefully concealed many of his victims up in the mountains, and then quickly evolved into a man who could burst into a girl’s dormitory and leave a row of battered corpses on very public display.
I always think that Ted’s outdoors-indoors behaviour is vital to our understanding of these crimes.
Outdoors he was in total control.
Indoors he was a maniac who couldn’t care less. |
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 336
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 3:04 pm: |
|
AP,
I don't think that Bundy was evolving so much as devolving.
At the time of the Chi Omega killings, and the kidnapping and murder of Kimberly Leach he was on the run after being convicted of kidnapping. He was driving a stolen car, had no safe haven and was no longer in control of the situation or himself. He had been a very controlled and careful killer, but his luck had run out.
Had he not been arrested for the kidnapping of Carol DaRaunch, he would very possibly continued his preferred pattern of kidnapping, and then killing in a remote place where he could spend time with the bodies of his victims.
Best regards,
John |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2593
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 5:42 pm: |
|
So John, different circumstances made Ted kill in a different way then.
As he was restricted by society in his singular aim, his killing behaviour became unpredictable and out of tune with his song.
He sort of became something he never intended to be. |
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 528
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 10:22 pm: |
|
Given that one torso was found dumped in a vault that was soon to become a section of the cellar of New Scotland Yard, I wonder how "hidden" it was intended to be. Not quite a public display, but...
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1032
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 10:41 pm: |
|
Mr.Hacker is correct. Bundy did devolve or unravel. At first,his tried and true patterns of murder did work....when the women were murdered according to his terms,they were serial killings.
Then at F.S.U. he went on a wanton rampage..like a spree killer. No control...Control being the key word.
One killer...two different "styles" or M.O.'s.
How Brown
Prop.
WWW.JTRForums.com
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2595
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 30, 2005 - 5:26 am: |
|
Debra
is this the volume you are reading?
'The Thames Torso Murders of Victorian London
R. Michael Gordon
ISBN 0-7864-1348-4
illustrations, appendices, bibliography, index
257pp. softcover 2002
$35
Available for immediate shipment
Description
The Thames Torso Murders have been overshadowed by Jack the Ripper and his crimes, but were just as brutal and gruesome. They began in 1887 in London’s East End, just north of the Thames River in Rainham, England. The killer took one victim that year, another in 1888, and two more in 1889. He resumed his crimes in 1902, taking his last victim south of the Thames and leaving her body in a pile of dismembered parts as he had done with most of his other victims.'
Interesting that he has five Torso Murder victims?
I did find a boy who had been decapitated and thrown in the Thames around the early 1900's.
Any info greatly appreciated. |
Debra J. Arif
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dj
Post Number: 134
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 30, 2005 - 5:47 am: |
|
AP
No, I am reading the published post mortems and forensic accounts, thrown in with a couple of criminology books that mention them, all written c 1900, I will send you a message!
I have lost count, five unsolved so far, not including the later one.
Debra |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2596
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 30, 2005 - 5:48 am: |
|
Also found this earlier post from David Taylor on the boards here:
'Posted on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 10:12 pm:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the 1902 torso murder, I assume this was the crime discovered in Salamanca Place, Lambeth, in the summer of that year? The author Elliott O'Donnell mentions it in his book 'Haunted Britain', published in 1948. He writes: It was said in the neighbourhood that people passing near the spot at night were terrified at hearing dreadful cries and groans, and seeing the headless figure of a woman rise from the ground and walk for some distance by their side.' |
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 338
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 30, 2005 - 8:43 am: |
|
AP,
I wouldn't say that different circumstances made him kill a different way. Bundy simply could not deal with his changed circumstances. He was unable to adapt to to them and, as Howard said, lost control. He went from being an extremely careful and organized killer to a very careless disorganized one.
Best regards,
John |
Debra J. Arif
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dj
Post Number: 135
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 30, 2005 - 11:11 am: |
|
AP
I have sent you a message, but listed below are the five unsolved ones I found.
1. Thames mystery 1873 5th Sept.
Portions found in mud off Battersea waterworks by Thames Police
portions found including head which was severely mutilated referenced in
Legal medicine. New York, 1882-1884. 335pp. Vol. 1 of 3, where it says scalp , face etc. skinned and breasts found separately, along with some other portions of the body.
This case is difficult to track down anywhere else, up until 1884 it was still unsolved and these were the details available, I am not sure if further progress or identification was made or not.
2.July 1887 ( Rainham mystery)
portions found in Thames or Regents canal
lungs heart and other thoracic viscera absent, most of small and large intestines missing
Incision made from the ensiform cartilage to the pubes
3.sept 16 1888
right arm found, trunk found in Whitehall
2 weeks later a leg and foot found
arm removal and torso mutilation showed similarity to 1887 case
4.Elizabeth Jackson 1889 ( mutilations as described on previous post, missing internal organs described as being 'removed' and not the usual ' absent' as in other cases)
5.1889 Pinchin Street
vertical incision from ensiform cartilage downwards ending on left side
of the external genitals, just opening the vagina but not opening the peritoneal cavity, 2 cuts to left wrist
(cause of death as described on previous post) thought to be linked to Whitehall case, and has similar mutilation to Rainham case.
Debra |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2597
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 30, 2005 - 1:26 pm: |
|
Thanks for the clarification, Debra, and thanks for your mail.
Some of the mutilating injuries on these Torso victims cannot be viewed as disposal mutilations.
And I still think that many of the mutilating injuries inflicted on MJK can be viewed as disposal mutilations.
Entirely possible to have a mix and match here.
I'm going to follow your choice of reading.
John
I think thee and me are making exactly the same point, that a killer can evolve and devolve during his killing career; and that outside influence can very much change his behaviour towards his victims.
And our view of his crimes. |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2602
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 30, 2005 - 6:03 pm: |
|
Debra
the 1873 case eludes a search because it was only a 'Suspected Murder' up till the 15th September 1873, but prior to that on the 8th, 9th, 10th, 13th & 15th September you will find an absolute wealth of detail which I am studying now.
When I first found the reports, I read them without the knowledge of the end-result - even though I knew it - and it does reward thus.
Sort of said to me that we must not assume anything about the killing of MJK until our understanding is better... much better. |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 877
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 30, 2005 - 8:49 pm: |
|
Hi all,
John, isn't it more likely that having gotten away with his murder spree for so long, Bundy just grew careless in contempt of the authorities?
Best wishes,
Jeff |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
