Same motive = same killer

[Harry D]

But 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.

But 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.

[RockySullivan]

But 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.

Was he going to dismember Kelly? If not then why would he decapitate her? I would imagine the way he's cutting the throat and the force he's using to do such damage in the ripper murders is because his experience is decapitation in the torso murders

Were the torso victims dismembered to hinder identification?

[RockySullivan]

But 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.

He didn't decapitate Kelly because the motive for dismemberment was disposal. Your second sentence just isn't accurate, the Ripper was removing the uterus in minutes in darkness in the middle of the street.

[Sam Flynn]

But 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.

Exactly. Like I say, impractical - unlike the Torso Murders.

Those factors would have an affect on the skill level perhaps, no?

Indeed, but not to the extent of the absolute shambles the Ripper made of his victims.

Certainly in contrast to a killer who was able to take his time within his own private, secure location.

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.

[Sam Flynn]

He didn't decapitate Kelly because the motive for dismemberment was disposal.

And the motive for disposal was.... what?

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.

[RockySullivan]

Exactly. 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.

It'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

[Sam Flynn]

It's actually really simple. He might have not been able to bring a victim to his lair that night.

Judging by the likely dump-sites, bringing an East End victim to his lair probably entailed a 12-mile trip to Battersea, Pimlico or Clapham. No wonder they refused

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

Can'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"?

[Abby Normal]

It'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

Hi rocky absolutely correct.

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,it’s rare, while change in MO is quite common with serial killers.

[Abby Normal]

Can'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"?

Not really Sam. All I see is a change in MO. And change in MO in serial killers is common.

[Sam Flynn]

Not really Sam. All I see is a change in MO.

And address, presumably.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman 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!

Napper was born in 1966. He was not active alongside Nielsen. There was - as you say - a decade inbetween their activity periods.
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.

[Fisherman]

^^

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.

But it is not about the perceived characters of the seriesī originators. It is about the damage done to the victims. It is consistent to such a high degree that we simply must be dealing with the one killer only.
Consequentially, our character assumptions about the originators of the crimes are misleading.

[Fisherman]

Thanks 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.

He is a proven offensive dismemberer, John, like it or not.

[Fisherman]

Correct 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.

This is basically correct, Harry. However, I would say that part of the dismemberment actually belonged to the paraphilia.

Please donīt ask me to explain it, but there you are.

[Fisherman]

But 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.

When you know what the torso killer did - and I think I know precisely that - you can actually tell the different cuts from each other as regards which of them represented the killers paraphilia. The cuts to the elbows and knees of the 1873 victim may well have been practical cuts only, for disposal. The ones to the thighs and shoulders were not. There is (of course) a reason for why he didīnt use the same method.

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.