Same motive = same killer

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: I'm suggesting that the killer didn't particularly care about such a risk, if he/they were even aware of it.

Yes, but you are not able to give an intelligible reason for WHY the killer would risk recklessness.

Like I said, most of the victims were likely of the poorer classes, and their clothing would have been fairly impersonal and generic, with a consequent low likelihood of identification.

Maybe the killer started out by asking this? ""The clothes you are wearing, my dear, can they in any way be traced back to you"?
Yeah, right.

The fact that only ONE victim was traced by her clothing would seem to support this view.

C-I-R-C-U-L-A-R!!!

The fact that she was possibly the last victim of the "Southwest London torso killer" might also be significant in that regard; identifying by clothing hadn't happened in the previous Southwest London murders, so why should the killer(s) have bothered removing the clothing in Jackson's case?

Because clothes are private matters that may offer a clue - and look what happened (yes, circular - I learnt from a master).
The best you can come up with is what you use - maybe he thought that there was not much of a risk involved.
It is neverthless lousy.

[Abby Normal]

Thanks for the various replies to dual m.o.'s.

I've had a quick look (Wiki, I don't know how reliable it is) and there doesn't seem to be the difference I was looking for.

Kurten seems to be just an erratic killer. The Boston Strangler seems to have a definate theme, strangling. Ted Bundy doesn't seem have the clear separation "Torso" and jtr have.



Hello Abby,

>>Not many. And I say that because you specifically say distinct, so I know what you are getting at.<<

"Distinct" was my word but not my deduction. That distinction belongs to Hebbert. As the only person we have access to, who closely examined both Torso and jtr victims, when he concluded they were "very clearly" the work of different people, I bow to his knowledge in the absence of any compelling data to the contary.

Hi strange


well if your looking for a single serial killer who has one series where it removal of internal organs and another with dismemberment then of course your not going to find anything that specific.

The fact remains though that both engaged in post mortem mutilation of their victims and that torso man did eviscerations like the ripper above and beyond what was needed for dismemberment. And as I said before, both most certainly used ruse method to ensnare their victims.

But the dismemberment is a big difference between the two and I can see why people get stuck on it.

[Fisherman]

Concealing the identity, you mean. That's probably the case in most such murders, even to this day.

Concealing BOTH matters, obviously. And yes, just as I say, and just as I am perfectly aware of, those have been the most obvious reasons throughout.

But we would be complete morons if we did not recognize

A/ That there are also dismemberments that are led on by paraphilia, and ...

B/ There are many signs that this was the case here.

I don´t want to be a complete moron. You?

[Fisherman]

I'm pleased to see that you've learned from your premature championing of the opinions of Lawson Tait.

I´m sad to see you haven´t. We still don´t know what Lawson Tait had to go on, so don´t try and fibble with the facts.

[Sam Flynn]

Sam Flynn: Which streets? The streets of Whitechapel or the streets of Southwest London? Oh, yes, I nearly forgot - there were no Ripper murders in Southwest London.

So we are back to mocking now? Okay.

Nothing in the least bit mocking about what I pointed out. It's a simple fact.

Sam Flynn: Leaving that aside, it's noteworthy that the one Ripper murder that took place indoors involved no dismemberment at all.

And it is noteworthy that a saw is rather a bulky implement to carry around.

Anyone resourceful enough to do what the torso murderer(s) did isn't going to be overly fazed by that, and a fair bit of disarticulation could have been achieved by means of a sharp, strong knife.

Besides, isn't it one plank of your argument that the killer had easy access to transport? If so, surely it would be easy enough to carry around whatever equipment he needed.

By the same token, the only torso victim found in Whitechapel was not eviscerated.

By what token, Gareth?

If the Pinchin Street killer had sufficient time and privacy to have cut off the victim's head and legs, why didn't he take the opportunity to indulge in a bit of evisceration while he was at it?

Could it be that, having decided to cut above the thorax and below the abdomen, he had no need to dump any organs out of the way?

[Sam Flynn]

And why in the world would anybody think that he was not relaying what Phillips said and thought?

Don't you know that journalists sometimes over-dramatise? Yes, even academic journals do.

That is entirely your proposition of how you would like to have history rewritten, and you have no evidence to make it work.

I do. That defining phrase, "obviously the work of an expert", only appears in The Lancet.

The Morning Advertiser:

"The removal of the abdominal wall indicated certain anatomical knowledge, as did the cutting in three portions of the abdominal wall, and the non cutting of the intestine. Also the way in which the womb was removed showed this in a more marked degree."

"Certain anatomical knowledge" is not the same thing as saying that it was "obviously the work of an expert". As to the non-cutting of the intestine, Phillips was in error in any case, by his own testimony. The colon was cut and part of the bladder suffered as well. There is no "expertise" here, not that Phillips definitely said as much.

Anatomical knowledge. The womb being the real clincher.

Knowing where the womb was? The man was clearly a genius.

There is living with the recorded material, and then there´s living in denial.

I'm not denying anything. I'm merely sticking to the facts.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: Nothing in the least bit mocking about what I pointed out. It's a simple fact.

Presented in a mocking tone. Let´s not play games shall we? If you are going to mock and scorn, I´m afraid you need to have the guts to stand for it too.

Anyone resourceful enough to do what the torso murderer(s) did isn't going to be overly fazed by that, and a fair bit of disarticulation could have been achieved by means of a sharp, strong knife.

So you have learnt a little something? That´s good - keep it up. Yes, disarticulation can be performed by a knife, as was the cutting off of the head of the Pinchin Street torso. You know the case where you believe that the killer seemed less knowledgeable? In fact, Hebbert says that not only is the case so close to the others of 87, 88 and 89, it is also the MOST skilful case of them all.
In Mary Kelly´s case, I am content to say that I don´t think the killer WANTED to take any of the limbs off - or the head. I think he followed a strict scheme, I don´t think there is frenzy on diosplay but instead a cool, calculated deed that was performed in a manner that the killer had thought out before he started to cut, and followed through as he did the cutting. Dismemberment did not enter those plans.

Besides, isn't it one plank of your argument that the killer had easy access to transport? If so, surely it would be easy enough to carry around whatever equipment he needed.

You may have missed it, but my argument involves the Ripper moving on foot. A carman´s foot, as it were.

If the Pinchin Street killer had sufficient time and privacy to have cut off the victim's head and legs, why didn't he take the opportunity to indulge in a bit of evisceration while he was at it?

Because what he did, did not have to involve evisceration. You can be reasonably sure that the killer had done exactly what he WANTED to do in each torso case, since we must work from the assumption that he had time and space to indulge in whatever he wanted to indulge in. What you see in Pinchin Street is therefore reasonably a finished product, not a half-arsed effort.

Could it be that, having decided to cut above the thorax and below the abdomen, he had no need to dump any organs out of the way?

Everything "could be". Nothing must be. It just is.

[Sam Flynn]

But we would be complete morons if we did not recognize

A/ That there are also dismemberments that are led on by paraphilia, and ...

B/ There are many signs that this was the case here.

I don´t want to be a complete moron. You?

I don't recognise the "many signs" that there was a paraphilia at work in the torso murders. One can speculate/imagine that there were, of course but, prima facie, there's every probability that the torso killer(s) committed murder/manslaughter and scattered the victims' remains for purely practical reasons.

[Sam Flynn]

Sam Flynn: Nothing in the least bit mocking about what I pointed out. It's a simple fact.

Presented in a mocking tone.

I didn't mock you personally in the least.

The streets of Whitechapel or the streets of Southwest London? Oh, yes, I nearly forgot - there were no Ripper murders in Southwest London.

A bit of tongue-in-cheek faux-naïveté, yes, but "mocking"? Don't think so.

And, I repeat, it was a simple fact.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: Don't you know that journalists sometimes over-dramatise? Yes, even academic journals do.

Oh, I know that better than most people. I also know that it takes evidence, not lofty specualtion, to prove it.

I do. That defining phrase, "obviously the work of an expert", only appears in The Lancet.

And that makes it untrue exactly how? Please note that the other papers were somewhat economic in the descriptions, saying that Phillips outlined things without expanding on HOW. The Lancet may well be perfectly correct, therefore.

"Certain anatomical knowledge" is not the same thing as saying that it was "obviously the work of an expert".

And even more so in the case of the womb - that SURPASSED "certain anatomical knowledge". And so Phillips could well have spoken of an expert - the evidence we have says he did. What evidence do you have to the contrary? That other papers left it out? Nice try, but no cigar.

As to the non-cutting of the intestine, Phillips was in error in any case, by his own testimony. The colon was cut and part of the bladder suffered as well.

Phillips was not in error. How do you know that the colin was cut, Gareth? Who told you? Obviously, Phillips is speaking of how the intestine was not cut in an area where a clumsy cutter would have done so.

There is no "expertise" here, not that Phillips definitely said as much.

You are of course making things up now. You are treating it as fact that he did not, although we have the Lancet telling us he did. It is a tactic that says a lot about your take on what truth is.

Knowing where the womb was? The man was clearly a genius.

As I said, the expertise lay in the knife work. So don´t put words in my mouth.

I'm not denying anything. I'm merely sticking to the facts.

No, you are conjuring up things and calling them facts. And I suspect there is more to come in the same genre, so I will just sit back and wait.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: I didn't mock you personally in the least.

Man up, Gareth. I never said you did. I said that you used a mocking tone. Mocking a persons ideas is not a very nice thing to do, especially not after having agreed that we should try and be nice. Some little honesty would be becoming.

A bit of tongue-in-cheek faux-naïveté, yes, but "mocking"? Don't think so.

And, I repeat, it was a simple fact.

Tongue in cheek? I suspect it stuck somewhere in the brain, possibly in the centre of describing things correctly. And now it seems it won´t willingly come out.

As I say, stand for what you produce out here, and don´t try and run away from whatever responsibilities you pick up along the way.

[Sam Flynn]

I´m sad to see you haven´t. We still don´t know what Lawson Tait had to go on, so don´t try and fibble with the facts.

Well, we know that he didn't examine any of the bodies, which your own research confirmed. But that didn't stop you resisting my pragmatic suggestion that his being based in Birmingham made it unlikely that he had seen them. If I was right about that, then I'd wager that my suggestion that he based his opinions on what he read in the media is correct as well. I'd also wager that his assertion that one could tell apart the techniques of a London/Dublin/Edinburgh butcher was based on little more than conjecture, too.

(PS: I bought Tait's biography recently. I haven't read it yet, but a quick skim through didn't unearth any references to the Ripper or torso murders. I'll let y'all know if that changes, once I've had a chance to read it properly.)

[Sam Flynn]

Sam Flynn: I didn't mock you personally in the least.

Man up, Gareth. I never said you did. I said that you used a mocking tone.

You evidently took it personally, but I didn't mean it personally - fact - so what's the problem?

[Abby Normal]

Don't you know that journalists sometimes over-dramatise? Yes, even academic journals do.I do. That defining phrase, "obviously the work of an expert", only appears in The Lancet.
"Certain anatomical knowledge" is not the same thing as saying that it was "obviously the work of an expert". As to the non-cutting of the intestine, Phillips was in error in any case, by his own testimony. The colon was cut and part of the bladder suffered as well. There is no "expertise" here, not that Phillips definitely said as much.
Knowing where the womb was? The man was clearly a genius.I'm not denying anything. I'm merely sticking to the facts.

Hi Sam
I believe that most modern experts in the medical field today believe that both the ripper and torso man had some kind of experience in the medical field and if not specifically that, then at least anatomical experience and or experience cutting up bodies.

Why didn’t he dismember bodies in the ripper series? He didn’t have to?He didn’t want to? And I I think everyone would agree that dismembering would involve too much work that could be done in the streets.

[Debra A]

There was apparently a well somewhere in the foundations which was searched for the rest of the torso. Could that be what you were thinking of?

It could be, JR, but I'll have another look when I get a chance.