Originally posted by Fisherman
View Post
I would agree that the evidence suggests that both the torso killer and JtR aimed to produce shock value. In the case of JtR the victims were left in the open and on display. There's also evidence that their bodies were posed in a degrading manner, i.e. "he often left the victims' legs splayed and their genitalia exposed in a sexually degrading manner..." (Keppel, 2005). Of course, the way Kelly's body was left, with her organs on open display, suggests the ultimate in shock value.
The torso killer was obviously different in many respects. However, having taken the trouble to dismember the bodies, and hide their identity, he seemed to make little effort to prevent the body parts being discovered. Finding the remains of a corpse in Scotland Yard must have been shocking, for the police at least! The Pinchin Street torso was on open display and looked as if it might have been posed. And throwing parts of Liz Jackson into Sir Percy Shelly's garden must have been shocking for whoever made the discovery!
I've been thinking more about the Pinchin Street victim being intended as a parody or a perverse copycat, and whether there is any precedent: might not Ellen Bury have been intended as a copycat of the Whitchapel murders?
I can accept that serial killers sometimes deviate, or evolve their signatures. However, what I find hard to accept is a killer who alternates between two fundamentally different signatures.
Comment