Same motive = same killer

[Sam Flynn]

To me, much as I am the first to acknowledge that one or more of the torso victims may not have been the victim/s of murder, I think that very much speaks for murder.

I tend to agree, although manslaughter in one or more of the cases can't be ruled out given the historical context. They were rough times, and women were treated roughly too.

Like I said, however, we just don't know how all these women were killed, whether they were murdered or not.

[Fisherman]

I tend to agree, although manslaughter in one or more of the cases can't be ruled out given the historical context. They were rough times, and women were treated roughly too.

Like I said, however, we just don't know how all these women were killed, whether they were murdered or not.

That´s correct. Overwhelming likelihoods do not certainties make.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Also the ‘unlikelihood’ of there being two killers should not give birth to certainty

[John Wheat]

I agree that this would be extremely unlikely to be true of them all, however it's not inconceivable that not every victim had been murdered. One or more could have been victims of manslaughter, and were disposed of in order to cover things up, which would incidentally be congruent with the idea that the heads were disposed of separately in order to delay or entirely prevent identification.

Be that as it may, even if they were all murdered, we don't know precisely how. A different method, or combination of methods, could have been used in each case and it is entirely possible that most/none of them were dispatched by having their throats slit. (And I mean throats, too.)

Hi Sam

I'm well aware we don't know how they were all killed. I personally think it unlikely that they were all murdered by having there throats slit. The evidence is simply not there. Also there is no way death by decapitation can be ruled out.

Cheers John

[John Wheat]

Also the ‘unlikelihood’ of there being two killers should not give birth to certainty

I have to agree Herlock. However 'unlikelihood' is far too strong a word. Considering the similarities between the Torso Murders of 1873, 1874 and 1884 bear many similarities to the later Torso Murders for the one killer theory to hold any credence then it needs to be accepted that the Torso murders ran for nearly 20 years the likelihood of another serial killer overlapping really is not that high at all. Also anyone who watched The Investigator the other evening will know that The Investigator mentioned towards the end of the programme that there were two serial killers operating in Scotland at a certain point in time. With the inference being they were targeting the same sort of victims.

[Sam Flynn]

However 'unlikelihood' is far too strong a word. Considering the similarities between the Torso Murders of 1873, 1874 and 1884 bear many similarities to the later Torso Murders for the one killer theory to hold any credence then it needs to be accepted that the Torso murders ran for nearly 20 years the likelihood of another serial killer overlapping really is not that high at all.

There are only a limited number of ways in which a corpse can be dismembered; indeed, victims are being carved up in very much the same way today as they were prior to the Torso Murders of the late 19th Century. Unless we are to believe that a time-traveller committed all such atrocities, it is very likely that different perpetrators were involved in most, if not all, of these cases.

[jerryd]

Wrong thread. Sorry

[Fisherman]

Also the ‘unlikelihood’ of there being two killers should not give birth to certainty

That is also correct - to a degree. As I keep saying, and as you no doubt will agree with, the more similarities there are inbetween two perceived series of murders, the less likely it will become that we have two killers. And the more unusual the similaritites are, the less likely it will become with two killers.

And even if it can always be stated that there remains a possibility of a freakish coincidence of two killers involving a large number of unusual similaritities, it must be acknowledged that there comes a time when we need to be realistic about such matters.

A useful term in these circumstances is the one speaking of "reasonable doubt". It allows courts of law to convict in cases where there is no conclusive technical evidence. To me, the case I speak of, the triumvirate Chapman, Kelly and Jackson, is a case where no reasonable doubt can be entertained about how many killers were involved.

Such matters can of course always be debated, but I don´t think that the most doubtful of posters can avoid admitting that the similarities involved are so far-reaching and unusual so as to mean that if thete were two killers, it would be utterly unexpected.

What it will take to disprove that, is an example of two serial killers in the same geographical area and at the same time, exhibiting a set of similarities as many and rare as the ones in our case.

When I say that there are no such examples, it is claimed that I am misleading. That is why I am now anticipating the evidence for this to be presented at long last. The highway killers have been suggested, Bonin, Eyler et al, but no effort has been made to point to any similarities within the circle of victims. And these killers varied in killing methods, one strangler, one shooter etcetera.

So please, lets at the very least get this point over and done with, proving me either right or wrong when I say that we are dealing with more similarities and more rare similarities than has ever been seen in the annals of crime when comparing serial killers from the same area and time.

I think I have the right to see the statement that I am wrong on this backed up with hard data.

[Fisherman]

There are only a limited number of ways in which a corpse can be dismembered; indeed, victims are being carved up in very much the same way today as they were prior to the Torso Murders of the late 19th Century. Unless we are to believe that a time-traveller committed all such atrocities, it is very likely that different perpetrators were involved in most, if not all, of these cases.

But that is totally wrong, is it not? A corpse can be divided into ANY number of parts, and be taken apart at ANY place of the limbs. The cutting can range from very smooth to very rough.

Most dismemberment victims are taken apart in similar fashions, owing to the fact that they are dismembered in order to dispose of the limbs. But when somebody is dismembered on account of an urge, this does not apply. Just look at the torso series, and you will have corpses where the torso was left whole and corpses where it was divided horisontally into three sections. In one case, it was divided horisontally in two sections and the upper was divided vertically once more, into two parts. And the right part of the vertically divided upper section had the breast section cut loose from it.

Discuss away, and suggest away, but do not loose track of the facts, Gareth!

[Sam Flynn]

But that is totally wrong, is it not? A corpse can be divided into ANY number of parts, and be taken apart at ANY place of the limbs. The cutting can range from very smooth to very rough.

Most dismemberment victims are taken apart in similar fashions, owing to the fact that they are dismembered in order to dispose of the limbs. But when somebody is dismembered on account of an urge, this does not apply. Just look at the torso series, and you will have corpses where the torso was left whole and corpses where it was divided horisontally into three sections. In one case, it was divided horisontally in two sections and the upper was divided vertically once more, into two parts. And the right part of the vertically divided upper section had the breast section cut loose from it.

Discuss away, and suggest away, but do not loose track of the facts, Gareth!

Yes, and I daresay a corpse can be sliced into a thousand goujons, too, but for most practical purposes the removal of head and limbs will suffice. People had been hung, drawn and quartered for centuries, after all, and that gruesome practice arose in a number of independent cultures for good, logistical reasons.

Not that a consistent "quartering" approach applied in every Torso case, anyway.

[Fisherman]

Yes, and I daresay a corpse can be sliced into a thousand goujons, too, but for most practical purposes the removal of head and limbs will suffice. People had been hung, drawn and quartered for centuries, after all, and that gruesome practice arose in a number of independent cultures for good, logistical reasons.

Not that a consistent "quartering" approach applied in every Torso case, anyway.

Not sure how this applies in the discussion? You said "There are only a limited number of ways in which a corpse can be dismembered", I proved you wrong - and now you say that "for most practical purposes the removal of the head and limbs will suffice"...?

Yes, for most practical reasons the removal of the limbs and head will suffice.
But how does that mean that you were correct in saying that there are only a limited number of ways in which a corpse can be dismembered?

I took care to point out - for the umpteenth time - in my former post that practically led on dismemberments will normally look much the same. I know that quite well. But I also pointed out that not all dismemberments are led on by practical reasons. And I pointed to how the Torso cases involve instances of dismemberment that differ wildly from removing the head and limbs only.

So as far a I can see, you have no point whatsoever here, Gareth. Unless you are going to claim that the only dismemberments in existence involve only a severing of the head and limbs? Or are you going to claim that we know that Jackson was a case of practical dismemberment only? If so, why was she cut open, why was her torso divided in three parts and why were her internal organs taken out? Why was her abdominal wall removed in large flaps?

How is that practically led on dismemberment?

[Sam Flynn]

OK, I should have said in full that "there are only so many ways in which a corpse can be cut up for the practical purpose of rendering them into torsos ". Jeez, we're talking about torso cases here, after all, not sushi cheffing.

[Herlock Sholmes]

“Yes, and I daresay a corpse can be sliced into a thousand goujons...”

~Gareth Lecter~

[Fisherman]

OK, I should have said in full that "there are only so many ways in which a corpse can be cut up for the practical purpose of rendering them into torsos ". Jeez, we're talking about torso cases here, after all, not sushi cheffing.

Yes, we are talking about the torso cases - and accordingly, there is every reason in the world NOT to believe that we are talking about the victims having been cut up for practical purposes only.

My own take on things is that the fact that practically led on dismemberment has very little place in this discussion to begin with. And to top that off, the underlying information I lean against when I say that there is in all probability only one killer involved, is information NOT about the dismemberment but instead about a number of mutilation types.

I would still want to see the underlying information YOU lean against when you deny what I say about these mutilations - that there has never been any other two cases of simultaneously working serial killers on the same general ground who have produced so many and unusual examples of mutilation as was the case with Chapman, Kelly and Jackson. Do you have anything to post to strengthen that take of yours?

[Herlock Sholmes]

That is also correct - to a degree. As I keep saying, and as you no doubt will agree with, the more similarities there are inbetween two perceived series of murders, the less likely it will become that we have two killers. And the more unusual the similaritites are, the less likely it will become with two killers.

And even if it can always be stated that there remains a possibility of a freakish coincidence of two killers involving a large number of unusual similaritities, it must be acknowledged that there comes a time when we need to be realistic about such matters.

A useful term in these circumstances is the one speaking of "reasonable doubt". It allows courts of law to convict in cases where there is no conclusive technical evidence. To me, the case I speak of, the triumvirate Chapman, Kelly and Jackson, is a case where no reasonable doubt can be entertained about how many killers were involved.

Such matters can of course always be debated, but I don´t think that the most doubtful of posters can avoid admitting that the similarities involved are so far-reaching and unusual so as to mean that if thete were two killers, it would be utterly unexpected.

What it will take to disprove that, is an example of two serial killers in the same geographical area and at the same time, exhibiting a set of similarities as many and rare as the ones in our case.

When I say that there are no such examples, it is claimed that I am misleading. That is why I am now anticipating the evidence for this to be presented at long last. The highway killers have been suggested, Bonin, Eyler et al, but no effort has been made to point to any similarities within the circle of victims. And these killers varied in killing methods, one strangler, one shooter etcetera.

So please, lets at the very least get this point over and done with, proving me either right or wrong when I say that we are dealing with more similarities and more rare similarities than has ever been seen in the annals of crime when comparing serial killers from the same area and time.

I think I have the right to see the statement that I am wrong on this backed up with hard data.

Fish, does it concern you at all that the ripper murders (canonical 5, or 4 or 6) didnt just take place in the same geographical area but within a very few streets of each other over the space of around 2 months? All prostitutes. All but one middle aged. All left ‘on display’ with no attempt made to hide or dispose of them.