Same motive = same killer

[Abby Normal]

I meant for you to Google "thought experiment", Abby. I did produce an example - Kraft, Bonin and Kearney. But they weren't "eviscerators", so apparently that doesn't count; personally, I don't buy that.

Besides, I can play that game too. Perhaps you or Fisherman, or someone else can come up with an example of three independent serial killers who subjected their victims to the same horrors as Kraft, Bonin and Kearney, whilst operating in the same area at the same time.

Tricky, isn't it?

were not trying to play a game, Sam, which is something you seem not to be able to grasp. and I'm tired of repeating myself on it, so I wont.

and I don't need to google thought experiment either.

but if you want to google something try this:

"how to obfuscate when you don't have an answer"

never mind-your already an expert.

[Abby Normal]

As I said, there are hundreds of unsolved murders, involving physical abuse and strangulation, spread all over the USA. So no, it does not seem tricky at all. The authorities will probably be very confused about how many killers there are out there. If one of them had been an eviscerator, they would have been able to tell him apart from the rest, I am sure.

The bottom line, Gareth, is STILL that evisceration is a far, far more odd thing than beating up people (happens on an everyday basis in every large town every day), and strangling them (happens often in all countries around the world). Eviscerators com along only very rarely, many years may pass between then even in the US, I should think. Whereas killers who beat up and strangle seem to be produced Henry Ford style, on a conveyor belt.

Letīs not loose sight of that, is my advice. Your advice seems to be the polar opposite: Letīs try and make people think that all serial killers are equally special and odd.

They are not. Not even nearly so. I donīt think there is one eviscerator (regardless of HOW and WHY they eviscerate) in a hundred serial killers, but I am happy to stand corrected!

HI Fish
I know they are rare, but not sure if they are THAT rare! LOL.

and even though it goes against our argument, I am trying to find an example of two eviscerating serial killers working in the same time and place!! no luck so far!

[Fisherman]

HI Fish
I know they are rare, but not sure if they are THAT rare! LOL.

and even though it goes against our argument, I am trying to find an example of two eviscerating serial killers working in the same time and place!! no luck so far!

As I say, I am happy to stand corrected, Abby. There are hundreds and hundreds of serialists named, and the fewest of them have been into eviceration. I donīt think I am much off the mark - if at all.

[Abby Normal]

As I say, I am happy to stand corrected, Abby. There are hundreds and hundreds of serialists named, and the fewest of them have been into eviceration. I donīt think I am much off the mark - if at all.

you know I did see some statistics somewhere, perhaps by the FBI, that had listed percentages of serial killers listed by trait.

The last, and rarest by far, where ones who removed internal organs.

dam, I wish I could remember where I saw that!!

[Fisherman]

you know I did see some statistics somewhere, perhaps by the FBI, that had listed percentages of serial killers listed by trait.

The last, and rarest by far, where ones who removed internal organs.

dam, I wish I could remember where I saw that!!

Have a dig, Abby - I would positively love to see that. Iīve never heard of such a listing.

[RockySullivan]

I hope Debra A. doesn't mind me quoting her from the "Stinky Jack" thread on the other forum but it's relevant here.

Debs wrote:

"There was a manhole with sewer access in the chamber next to the vault the Whitehall torso was found in.
I also seem to recall that there was suggestion that the arm (belonging to the Whitehall torso) found in Sept in the Thames may have come through an overflow pipe of some sort." http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8862&page=74

So there was a manhole in the next vault?

[John Wheat]

you know I did see some statistics somewhere, perhaps by the FBI, that had listed percentages of serial killers listed by trait.

The last, and rarest by far, where ones who removed internal organs.

dam, I wish I could remember where I saw that!!

Rarer still though is those that change there MO which your asking us to believe by suggesting Jack and The Torso Killer were one and the same.

[Abby Normal]

Rarer still though is those that change there MO which your asking us to believe by suggesting Jack and The Torso Killer were one and the same.

Hi John.

Serial killers change their MO all the time. It’s actually quite common, and well known.


But I know what you mean and basically agree. The way the victims were left/ dumped is a big difference, and definitely IMHO points away from them being the same killer.

I would also remind you that if bury was the ripper he changed his MO drastically also with his last murder.

[John Wheat]

Hi John.

Serial killers change their MO all the time. It’s actually quite common, and well known.


But I know what you mean and basically agree. The way the victims were left/ dumped is a big difference, and definitely IMHO points away from them being the same killer.

I would also remind you that if bury was the ripper he changed his MO drastically also with his last murder.

Hi Abby

Well I would say that most serial killers MO evolves or devolves rather than changes drastically. An example of a drastic change in MO would be the Zodiac Killer.

Cheers John

[Fisherman]

Hi Abby

Well I would say that most serial killers MO evolves or devolves rather than changes drastically. An example of a drastic change in MO would be the Zodiac Killer.

Cheers John

As Abby says, there is nothing at all impossible about changing MO. But the thing about the suggested Rippertorso killer is that he seemingly changes BACK again with the later torso victims, and that is something that looks baffling on the surface of things.

I am not doubting that the murders were perpetrated by the same man, but I will merrily concede that we must accept something that seems rather unique.

Looking back in history, there is of course Peter Kürten, who changed inbetween different weapons, a hammer, a pair of scissors, strangulation, back and forth. It had the police believing that three different killers were working in Dusseldorf. So a killer can abandon a MO and revive it at a later stage.

What I am thinking about my favoured suspect, Charles Lechmere (and I know he is only the runner-up on your list, John ), is that his sudden break with his mother, geographically speaking, may have played a role in how he took his killings to the street - maybe once he felt that he was no longer supervised, so to speak, that boldened him...?

Anyway, as long as there is not an unbridgeable gap when it comes to the differences between the Ripper and the Torso man, they are reasonably the same man. Accepting two simultaneous eviscerators who took out various organs, some of them sexually oriented, some not, who cut between ribs and pubes, who killed without torturing and who took rings from their victims hands, is something that will always be a lot harder to do for me.

[Sam Flynn]

Accepting two simultaneous eviscerators who took out various organs, some of them sexually oriented, some not, who cut between ribs and pubes, who took rings from their victims hands

The torso killer(s) did that EVERY time, did he/they? No, he/they didn't. And, again, the torso killer was NOT an "eviscerator" - indeed, the ONE victim found in the East End wasn't eviscerated at all.

who killed without torturing

We don't know that.

[Abby Normal]

As Abby says, there is nothing at all impossible about changing MO. But the thing about the suggested Rippertorso killer is that he seemingly changes BACK again with the later torso victims, and that is something that looks baffling on the surface of things.

I am not doubting that the murders were perpetrated by the same man, but I will merrily concede that we must accept something that seems rather unique.

Looking back in history, there is of course Peter Kürten, who changed inbetween different weapons, a hammer, a pair of scissors, strangulation, back and forth. It had the police believing that three different killers were working in Dusseldorf. So a killer can abandon a MO and revive it at a later stage.

What I am thinking about my favoured suspect, Charles Lechmere (and I know he is only the runner-up on your list, John ), is that his sudden break with his mother, geographically speaking, may have played a role in how he took his killings to the street - maybe once he felt that he was no longer supervised, so to speak, that boldened him...?

Anyway, as long as there is not an unbridgeable gap when it comes to the differences between the Ripper and the Torso man, they are reasonably the same man. Accepting two simultaneous eviscerators who took out various organs, some of them sexually oriented, some not, who cut between ribs and pubes, who killed without torturing and who took rings from their victims hands, is something that will always be a lot harder to do for me.

Hi fish
Interesting point re lech and his mother. Can you please expound? Did he leave living with his mother right before the ripper murders or something?

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: The torso killer(s) did that EVERY time, did he/they? No, he/they didn't. And, again, the torso killer was NOT an "eviscerator" - indeed, the ONE victim found in the East End wasn't eviscerated at all.

Sorry, Gareth, but you have been proven wrong for the longest time n ow. The torso man took out the uterus from Jackson, and taking out inner organs is eviscerating. Once an eviscerator, always an eviscerator.
Plus, of course, heart and lungs were "removed" = eviscerating.

Other parts went missing too, and it was always going to be a good guess that this was the result of eviscerating too, since we know that this was something he did.

What a worthless thing to say, Gareth: "The torso killer was NOT an eviscerator". How totally uninformed and how totally at odds with the known facts. Denying it wonīt work. You can try the angle "we donīt know WHY he eviscerated", but the idea that he was not an eviscerator is a closed road.

We don't know that.

Thereīs no "we" here. There are a no real signs of any traditional torture at all, and that is something else you need to accept.
The torso victims were seemingly swiftly killed and then put to the knife, meaning that the signs are that the killer came for the cutting and the eviscerations, which puts him on par with his alter ego: The Ripper.

I can go on for ever telling the truth, and you can go on forever denying it. It wonīt change anything at all. Both series involve eviscerations. Both series involve bellies cut from ribs to pubes. Both series involve reproductive as well as other innards being removed. Both series involve theft of rings. These are facts, put on record by those fit to know.

You are left with how they differ on a number of things that may well have quite trivial explanations. When will you realize that?

[Fisherman]

Hi fish
Interesting point re lech and his mother. Can you please expound? Did he leave living with his mother right before the ripper murders or something?

He grew up living with his mother. And when he left his home, he always lived in close proximity to her, his own daughter staying with Maria Louisa. Then, in June of 1888, a few weeks before the Ripper murders started, he moved away from the surroundings where she lived, and took up lodgings in Doveton Street.

He may have felt that he at long last had escaped from her influence, thatīs what I am thinking.

If others say "psychobabble" or "bullshit", that does not change things at all. There is no proving what I suggest, but suggesting it is sound enough to my mind.

[Fisherman]

Gareth, unless you are already aware of it, the term used for taking out the inner organs during an autopsy is "evisceration".

Evisceration is NOT only ripping out organs during a murder - it is the technical term for taking out innards from a body.

Therefore, anybody who does this is eviscerating.

Ergo, it is a proven thing that the Ripper and the torso man alike eviscerated bodies to some extent. Neither man eviscerated all the victims in the series, but both did nevertheless involve eviscerating in their deeds.

Letīs not try and deny that. It would be rewriting history - and getting it wrong.