Same motive = same killer

[Fisherman]

Hi curious
Yup. I have a problem with it too. You might expect to see the ripper victims more overlap in area with the torso victims.

But what if his murder hole is to the west and he lives in the east?

Then that explains it all. And as I keep saying, finding possible explanations to these matters is never hard. It is much harder to explain the similarities as an unsignificant number of coincidences. To my mind, it cannot be done. Not nearly so.

[Abby Normal]

I would avoid falling into the trap of calling the abdominal flesh "strips", Abby - it is Gareths chosen option since the word was used. However, Hebbert ALSO describe them as "large flaps", EXACTLY the same wording that is used in Chapmans and Kellys case. In those cases, it may well be that the word "strips" could have applied equally. We simply don´t know.

In conclusion:

Jacksons removed abdominal meat is decribed as "large flaps" and as "strips".

Chapman and Kellys removed abdominal meat is only described as "large flaps", the exact same wording used about Jacksons removed abdominal meat in one of the passages by Hebbert.

As you know and have been adviced, we must be precise about these matters!

Thanks fish
To me That they had partitions, plural, of flesh cut away from there stomachs is what’s important to me. Flaps, strips, sections, panes, whatever.

But if the doctors used the exact term large flaps in all three cases than even the more similar, and yes.... precise!

[Abby Normal]

The Torso killer cut the abdomen of Jackson from sternum to pelvis, took out Jacksons uterus, the cord and the placenta, cut away the abdominal wall in sections and removed the lungs and the heart from the chest.

Since when is that not mutilating? Just how do you reason to turn that into mere dismembering?

The discussion will never become truthful as long as we are not able to accept simple facts. The above described facts are examples of a very extensive amount of mutilation and evisceration. As I said, for the longest, it was not known that this was the case, but once it has come out and been described, backed by Hebbert, it cannot be flatly denied.

By all means, say that you think there were two mutilators and eviscerators, if you feel like it. But don´t try to say that the Torso killer was not a mutilator and eviscerator. He was and it is a proven thing.

Exactly fish
To keep saying the torsos were only dismembered is simply not true!!

[Fisherman]

Thanks fish
To me That they had partitions, plural, of flesh cut away from there stomachs is what’s important to me. Flaps, strips, sections, panes, whatever.

But if the doctors used the exact term large flaps in all three cases than even the more similar, and yes.... precise!

Of course it is the matter that they all had sections of abdominal flesh removed that is important! Gareth suggests that the sections may have differed inbetween the victims, and the problem with that approach is dual:

1. There can be no knowing how the flaps looked, exactly. They may or may not have looked very similar.

2. No matter if they looked dissimilar - which they may or may not have done - we STILL have flaps of abdominal flesh removed from victims in both series. On the whole, if they were round in one case, triangular in case number two and square in case three, that is not something that points away from a common originator. It is the type of damage as such - removal of abdominal flesh in sections - that is the overruling oddity.

The long and the short of it is that pointing out that the flaps may - just may - have differed to some smaller or larger extent in size or shape is not something that takes away from the suggestion of a common originator. The suggestion that the flaps may have been very much alike carries just as much - or little - weight, and thereby erases the validity of the argument of possible deviations inbetween the flaps.

This is why I advice that we do not take it upon ourselves to try and interpret what the flaps were like. It simply serves no sound purpose if it is used to try and tell the series apart.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And yet, the explanation of an increasing boldness is so very readily at hand. It may also be that alcohol could have played a role.

How is that in any way unsurmountable...?

Hello Fish by the way. Long time no hear.

I’m not suggesting it’s impossible, and I certainly don’t know enough about the details of the Torso case to go into deeper debate, but from the limited stuff that I’ve read my opinion leans heavily toward:

The Ripper > mutilation due to compulsion/pleasure/satisfaction.

The Torso Killer > dismemberment for ease of disposal.

For me the differences outweigh any similarities.

Hey, I could be wrong though

[Fisherman]

Hello Fish by the way. Long time no hear.

I’m not suggesting it’s impossible, and I certainly don’t know enough about the details of the Torso case to go into deeper debate, but from the limited stuff that I’ve read my opinion leans heavily toward:

The Ripper > mutilation due to compulsion/pleasure/satisfaction.

The Torso Killer > dismemberment for ease of disposal.

For me the differences outweigh any similarities.

Hey, I could be wrong though

With all respect, Herlock, what you are doing here is guessing the mindsets of what you perceive as two killers.

You need to go about things the other way, if you ask me.

You have had the similarities listed. Just how do you explain them?

A little addition: if the torso killer simply wanted to dispose the bodies, why did he take out the lungs, the heart, the uterus, the cord and the placenta from Jacksons body? How is that facilitating disposal?
Why did he open up the abdomens of Jackson and the Rainham victim before cutting the torsos? How is that facilitating disposal?
Why did he meticulously cut the face away from the 1873 victim, eyelashes and lips included? How is that facilitating disposal?
Why did he pack the uterus from Jackson into the abdominal flaps, together with the cord and placenta, and tie it all together into a parcel before chucking it in the river? Why not just throw it in, no extras added? How is that facilitating disposal?

Why not do what most dismemberment killers do - divide the body in head, torso, legs and arms, six parts, and be done with it very quickly?

It is quite clear that the Torso killer was a mutilator and an eviscerator too. It was seemingly a part of his paraphilia, just as it seems to have been part of the Rippers paraphilia. Once we have a person who takes an interest in mutilating, we must accept that any cutting made into the body of a victim is likely tied to the paraphilia.

[Sam Flynn]

You have had the similarities listed. Just how do you explain them?

They need no explanation, other than that any similarities are in the eyes of the interpreter.

Here are the objective similarities:

The victims were women.
The victims were probably resident in London (we don't know for sure for all the torso victims).
The victims may have been casual or full-time prostitutes (we don't know for sure for all the torso victims).
The victims were probably all murdered (we don't know for sure for all the torso victims).
The murders happened between the 1870s and 1890s (but then, so did many others).

... the rest is pretty much a matter of opinion/imagination. Not much to go on, is it?

Please note that I'm not including evisceration, as this wasn't even a consistent feature within the torso series, never mind betweeen that series and the JTR murders.

[curious]

Hi curious
Yup. I have a problem with it too. You might expect to see the ripper victims more overlap in area with the torso victims.

But what if his murder hole is to the west and he lives in the east?

Abby, if that works for you, that's cool.

[Herlock Sholmes]

With all respect, Herlock, what you are doing here is guessing the mindsets of what you perceive as two killers.

You need to go about things the other way, if you ask me.

You have had the similarities listed. Just how do you explain them?

A little addition: if the torso killer simply wanted to dispose the bodies, why did he take out the lungs, the heart, the uterus, the cord and the placenta from Jacksons body? How is that facilitating disposal?
Why did he open up the abdomens of Jackson and the Rainham victim before cutting the torsos? How is that facilitating disposal?
Why did he meticulously cut the face away from the 1873 victim, eyelashes and lips included? How is that facilitating disposal?
Why did he pack the uterus from Jackson into the abdominal flaps, together with the cord and placenta, and tie it all together into a parcel before chucking it in the river? Why not just throw it in, no extras added? How is that facilitating disposal?

Why not do what most dismemberment killers do - divide the body in head, torso, legs and arms, six parts, and be done with it very quickly?

It is quite clear that the Torso killer was a mutilator and an eviscerator too. It was seemingly a part of his paraphilia, just as it seems to have been part of the Rippers paraphilia. Once we have a person who takes an interest in mutilating, we must accept that any cutting made into the body of a victim is likely tied to the paraphilia.

I know that this has been mentioned before but the ripper (apart from Kelly) killed outdoors. It was immediate; a there and then thing. The Torso Killer surely had more patience. He took his victim indoors to, one would assume, the same place. This might have been a distance from where he met his victim. It wasn’t an immediate ‘pounce.’ This makes the killings seem different to me. Then there’s dismemberment and the leaving of parts in different locations.

I could be wrong here Fish. We all could. But try as I might I can’t see the same guy here.

[Sam Flynn]

I know that this has been mentioned before but the ripper (apart from Kelly) killed outdoors. It was immediate; a there and then thing. The Torso Killer surely had more patience. He took his victim indoors to, one would assume, the same place. This might have been a distance from where he met his victim. It wasn’t an immediate ‘pounce.’

Spot-on, Herlock. There's an entirely different cadence and character apparent in both series.

[Abby Normal]

I know that this has been mentioned before but the ripper (apart from Kelly) killed outdoors. It was immediate; a there and then thing. The Torso Killer surely had more patience. He took his victim indoors to, one would assume, the same place. This might have been a distance from where he met his victim. It wasn’t an immediate ‘pounce.’ This makes the killings seem different to me. Then there’s dismemberment and the leaving of parts in different locations.

I could be wrong here Fish. We all could. But try as I might I can’t see the same guy here.

Hi Herlock
Actually, if you think about it bothe ripper and torso man use basically the same method to get the victims where he wants them. They’re just different places.

He’s rusing them to appear to be something he’s not and to go to some place secluded for something that’s not.

But in regards to your last sentence, no problem whatsoever, there are obvious differences. I just see more similarities.

You can’t see the same guy, I can’t see the same coincidences.

[Fisherman]

They need no explanation, other than that any similarities are in the eyes of the interpreter.

Here are the objective similarities:

The victims were women.
The victims were probably resident in London (we don't know for sure for all the torso victims).
The victims may have been casual or full-time prostitutes (we don't know for sure for all the torso victims).
The victims were probably all murdered (we don't know for sure for all the torso victims).
The murders happened between the 1870s and 1890s (but then, so did many others).

... the rest is pretty much a matter of opinion/imagination. Not much to go on, is it?

Please note that I'm not including evisceration, as this wasn't even a consistent feature within the torso series, never mind betweeen that series and the JTR murders.

So you consider it a "matter of opinion" whether Jackson, Kelly and Chapman all had large flaps of skin cut from their abdomens? And you regard it as an open question whether Jackson and the Rainham victim had their abdomens opened up all the way from chest to groin? When you are told that Jackson had her uterus removed from her body by the killer, you consider that a 50/50 possibility only? And we cannot know that Chapman, Kelly and Jackson prostituted themselves?
Well, if that is your stance, let´s just say that you are demonstrably wrong, and that there is absolute proof to confirm that.

Or is this an effort to try and say that ALL victims in BOTH series must have the same similarities before we can deduct anything? Is that you line of reasoning...?

And you think that since there is only absolute proof of evisceration in all cases, although there IS absolute proof of it in cases from both series,we can look away from it having any bearing at all? Is that so?
It would be a step up from your old misconception that the Torso killer was not an eviscerator, but it would still be a very odd and untenable stance.

I note that you do not answer my questions about how the flaps, the cut abdomens, the removed uteri all dovetail between the three cases I named, if it was not the same killer.

[Fisherman]

I know that this has been mentioned before but the ripper (apart from Kelly) killed outdoors. It was immediate; a there and then thing. The Torso Killer surely had more patience. He took his victim indoors to, one would assume, the same place. This might have been a distance from where he met his victim. It wasn’t an immediate ‘pounce.’ This makes the killings seem different to me. Then there’s dismemberment and the leaving of parts in different locations.

I could be wrong here Fish. We all could. But try as I might I can’t see the same guy here.

Actually, we cannot tell if the Torso man had more patience. All we know is that it seems he had a bolthole of some sort. How do we know that the Ripper would not have lured his victims into any Whitechapel bolthole of his - if he had had one? And as I said, how do we know that he did not follow the pattern of so many serilialists who have grown cocky and overconfident? You see, these are clear possibilities.

But you have not given me any answers to MY questions: How do you explain that both killers cut from sternum to pelvis, that both killers took out uteri, that both killers cut away large flaps of meat from the abdominal wall from their victims?
Was it collateral damage? Did it just turn out that way, by mere chance? Is that even remotely likely?

You see, Herlock, these questions are much harder to find answers to than your questions. Do you have any such answers?

[Fisherman]

Come to think of it, Gareth, you also dodged my other question: Seeing as Jackson and Chapman have more similarities than Chapman and Nichols have, why is it that you regard Chapman/Nichols as having been killed by the same man whereas Jackson and Chapman were killed by different men in your eyes?
What makes you so dead certain that the man who killed Nichols was the same man who killed Chapman?

[Fisherman]

And you think that since there is only absolute proof of evisceration in all cases, although there IS absolute proof of it in cases from both series,we can look away from it having any bearing at all? Is that so?

This should read:

And you think that since there is only absolute proof of evisceration in one torso case and three Ripper cases, although that means that there IS proof of evisceration in BOTH series, we can look away from it having any bearing at all since not all victims bear proof of evisceration? Is that so?