Sam Flynn: The first problem is that we don't know that there were two serial killers at work; the torso murders themselves could have been performed by one man, but they could have been committed by different individuals or even a syndicate.
The same goes for the Ripper killings, Iīm afraid - there can be no 100 per cent certainty. But you only mention the torso series as one where there could possibly be more than one perp?
The general consensus is that the 1887-1889 torso murders, at least, were the deeds of one man only. That is partially due to how these kinds of murders are extremely rare, wherefore we either have no such murders for the longest period, then we have a handful of killers with the same interest in killing, eviscerating and dumping, the same very clear skill when it comes to make a neat disarticulation, the same propensity to dump their victims in the Thames in parcels wrapped in cloth, the same odd habit to divide the torso in parts, the same idea that their prey should not be physically tortured, the same urge to divide the bodies up in parts in very close connection to the actual killing and the same drive to divide the dumping between river and dry land. And then, all of a sudden, they all stop killing and dumping. Simultaneously.
Alternatively, we have just the one killer.
Then there is the 1873 case, and that ties in perfectly with the others in many respects, although there was no wrapping in cloth, the body was divided into more parts and there was damage in this case that was lacking in the others. But it was a case where the cutting and disjointing was eerily foreboding of what was to come, and the victim had no torture marks plus she had been cut up in very close proximity to death, so there is ample reason to join her in.
So it is really not much of a problem at all, the way I see it.
The second problem is that, as Mike Richards has just pointed out, the behaviours vary widely, and there are major characteristics of the Ripper murders that are absent in the torso cases, and vice versa.
In every murder, no matter where it was commited, there are detils that are absolutely exclusive. No two murders are exactly the same. But if two women are killed by having their heads cut off with a samurai sword where the blade was strewn with salt, we should not take any differences in height of the cut on the neck as an indication of two killers.
Once there is rare and peculiar damage done, the suggestion of a single killer becomes by far the better one, no matter if there are other factors that differ.
There goes that problem - in my world, at least.
Third, even the perceived common traits are debatable.
To a degree, yes. We can go on for ever, for example, about how the shapes and sizes of the abdominal flaps can have differed, but we would be very stupid not to recognize the fact that the abdominal walls were taken away as an extremely crucial factor in determining who did it.
If a person is suffocated by pouring colour into his or her mouth while having his or her nose pinched closed, it does not matter a iot if the colour is red in one instance and blue in the other - it is the overall character of the deeds that give away the same killer as an inevitability.
So we do not have a problem with the flaps - we have what must be regarded as conclusive evidence that we are dealing with the same killer, not least since there are many more similarities to bolster the idea.
Can you see before your eyes one man in a Heneage Street flat who subdues and kills a woman, whereupon he cuts the abdomen open, ripping all the way from ribcage to uterus, removes the abdominal wall in two large, long panes and takes out the uterus. After this, he notices a ring on the finger of the victim and takes it for his own keeping. He then moves on to pull the lungs and heart out of the body, and then he leaves the body lying on the floor, while he fetches a saw and a knife. What will the victim look like as she lies on the floor? She will look very much like the work of the Ripper. She may even have had her neck slashed, we cannot know, but we DO know that the neck IS cut at some stage, in combination with decapitation.
Meanwhile, in nearby Flower and Dean Street, ANOTHER killer subdues ANOTHER woman, slashes her neck and cuts her abdomen open, ripping all the way from ribcage to uterus, removes the abdominal wall in three large panes and takes out the uterus. After this, he notices a ring on the finger of the victim and takes it for his own keeping. He then moves on to pull a kidney and part of a colon out of her body, and then he leaves the body lying in the street, and makes his escape.
Does this sound even remotely plausible to you? Is it the precursors of the Kray twins at work? Is the first man shouting through the open window, all the way to Flower and Dean Street "Now we cut the abdomen open, aaaaall the way down, donīt cheat now! And now we take the uterus out, one, two, three! And the ring, donīt forget to grab the ring!"?
To me, it sounds very much out of the question. And as I said before, you will not find one murder investigator by any other name than Marriott who would buy the idea. Promise!
Last edited by Fisherman : 10-12-2017 at 07:47 AM.