Originally posted by Sam Flynn
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Same motive = same killer
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
-
Originally posted by Sam Flynn View PostBut he didn't decapitate Kelly, when he had every opportunity to do so. Furthermore, the JTR mutilations were hack jobs, whereas the torso disarticulations were very much cleaner. And, apart from the Pinchin St case, the vast majority of the torso body parts were almost certainly deposited far to the west of Whitechapel.
There is little evidence of a paraphilia at work in the torso murders, but every indication of practicality. JTR's modus operandi - killing and eviscerating in public - was about as impractical as it gets.
Were the torso victims dismembered to hinder identification?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sam Flynn View PostBut he didn't decapitate Kelly, when he had every opportunity to do so. Furthermore, the JTR mutilations were hack jobs, whereas the torso disarticulations were very much cleaner.Last edited by RockySullivan; 10-10-2017, 04:29 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Harry D View PostBut most of the Ripper victims were killed and mutilated on the spot, with limited visibility and the looming threat of a bobby around the next corner.Those factors would have an affect on the skill level perhaps, no?Certainly in contrast to a killer who was able to take his time within his own private, secure location.
It just doesn't add up.Kind regards, Sam Flynn
"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Comment
-
Originally posted by RockySullivan View PostHe didn't decapitate Kelly because the motive for dismemberment was disposal.
Why would one killer need to dispose of bodies on the one hand, while not caring a tinker's cuss about leaving his victims in situ on the other?
It just doesn't add up.Kind regards, Sam Flynn
"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sam Flynn View PostExactly. Like I say, impractical - unlike the Torso Murders.Indeed, but not to the extent of the absolute shambles the Ripper made of his victims.So why, after having perfected an undetectable and efficient means of "processing" victims offline, would this guy suddenly decide to risk his life by killing and eviscerating on the streets? (Not that he did much eviscerating offline, for that matter.)
It just doesn't add up.
Comment
-
Originally posted by RockySullivan View PostIt's actually really simple. He might have not been able to bring a victim to his lair that night.Realized it's a lot less work to do it on the spot? No body to cut up and get rid off. Signatures are not written in stoneLast edited by Sam Flynn; 10-10-2017, 04:52 AM.Kind regards, Sam Flynn
"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Comment
-
Originally posted by RockySullivan View PostIt's actually really simple. He might have not been able to bring a victim to his lair that night. Couldn't convince her to come back. Realized it's a lot less work to do it on the spot? No body to cut up and get rid off. Signatures are not written in stone
FYI. I think you meant to say MO. Disposal of body is part of MO.
The main SIG was post mortem mutilation and removal of body parts.
While SIG can change due to escalation of the fantasy,its rare, while change in MO is quite common with serial killers."Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"
-Edgar Allan Poe
"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."
-Frederick G. Abberline
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sam Flynn View PostCan't you see the amount of excuses and "what-ifs" one has to conjure up in order to force the "Clandestine West London body-part dumper" into the same shoes as the "Open-Air Terror of the East End"?"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"
-Edgar Allan Poe
"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."
-Frederick G. Abberline
Comment
-
Originally posted by John G View PostFisherman argues that there aren't any other examples of two evisceration murderers operating in the same city over a similar time frame. But he's wrong.
Thus, Fisherman believes that the earlier Torso murderer were by the same hand, so we must be dealing with a period of some 16 years-1873-1889-in the City of London.
Well now, Denis Nielsen was was a dismenberer and an eviscerator. And he was active in London in the late 1970s and early 1980s
Then we have Robert Napper, a serial killer who dismembered and eviscerated a victim in 1992...in London!
The torso man and the Ripper were active simultaneously, which is obviously what I am asking about.
Letīs say that we CAN find one (1) such case. What will that prove? That this type of killer is
A/extremely common, or
B/extremely uncommon?
I trust you can see the point I am making.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post^^
Good points, John. For my money the characteristics of the JTR evisceration murders, even the Whitechapel Murders as a whole, are so fundamentally different from the Torso Murders that there's little likelihood of their having been committed by the same person. Indeed, much like most researchers don't see one hand behind all the WMs, it's by no means a given that the TMs were a "series" in their own right.
Consequentially, our character assumptions about the originators of the crimes are misleading.
Comment
-
Originally posted by John G View PostThanks Sam. And there's also the possibility that the Whitechapel murders involved more than one person. For instance, there has to be some doubts about Kelly and Mackenzie.
And there's no doubt that Kelly was aggressively slashed to pieces by a killer who must have been in an absolute frenzy. And the Torso perpetrator(s) was most definitely not an aggressive dismenberer.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Harry D View PostCorrect me if I'm wrong, but it's Fisherman's assertion that the mutilations/organ removal were a shared paraphilia between JTR/Torso, and the dismemberment was mainly a practical matter. As the JTR victims were killed on the streets or in their own lodgings, this wasn't necessary.
Please donīt ask me to explain it, but there you are.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sam Flynn View PostBut he didn't decapitate Kelly, when he had every opportunity to do so. Furthermore, the JTR mutilations were hack jobs, whereas the torso disarticulations were very much cleaner. And, apart from the Pinchin St case, the vast majority of the torso body parts were almost certainly deposited far to the west of Whitechapel.
There is little evidence of a paraphilia at work in the torso murders, but every indication of practicality. JTR's modus operandi - killing and eviscerating in public - was about as impractical as it gets.
Have a search and see if you can find any other dismemberment killer who does this - saws limbs off in one spot and cuts and disjoints in other spots! It is a VERY confusing and extremely odd thing to do. Once we see such things, there will be a reason for them.
Furthermore, the very same man - in the shape of the Ripper - had absolutely no intention of decapitating Kelly, if I am correct. After having spent a lot of effort carving up her face, he would not want to take the head away from the exhibition.
The two killers exhibited the exact same paraphilia/inspiration ground if I am on the money. And although not unheard of, it is quite rare.Last edited by Fisherman; 10-10-2017, 06:05 AM.
Comment
Comment