Same motive = same killer

[Trevor Marriott]

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?

Maybe you should read the following article from another medical man which appears on JTR forums. It clearly flies in the face of one WM for all, and interestingly casts a doubt about all of the victims having their throats cut whilst on the ground.

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?p=343110#post343110

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

Hi Abby,

I think this is another problem that will ever be ‘solved’ to any satisfactory degree. I wonder what a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ poll would show?

I think that we all have a kind of ‘image’ of the ripper (if we don’t have a concrete suspect of course.) What kind of person he was. What his driving force was. How he would have behaved in certain situations for eg. This ‘image’ can influence our opinions on issues like the one debated here. I see the Ripper as someone who likes the thrill of killing in a public place. Like a lion stalking then pouncing on an antelope. I also think that placing them in a ‘sexual’ position was important to him. This is one of the reasons why I personally see two killers.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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?

I can’t answer those questions Fish. No one can at a distance of 130 years. But mutilation isn’t like handwriting. If two killers mutilate it’s pretty difficult, to say the least, to tell them apart unless there’s something really obvious, like one killer always removes the kidneys. And so we could have 2 mutilators or 1? So we surely have to think ‘are there any differences that we can investigate to examine possibility of there being more than one killer?’ In these two series of crimes there are in my opinion.

[Fisherman]

I can’t answer those questions Fish. No one can at a distance of 130 years. But mutilation isn’t like handwriting. If two killers mutilate it’s pretty difficult, to say the least, to tell them apart unless there’s something really obvious, like one killer always removes the kidneys. And so we could have 2 mutilators or 1? So we surely have to think ‘are there any differences that we can investigate to examine possibility of there being more than one killer?’ In these two series of crimes there are in my opinion.

Yes, there is, I agree about that - there are a few very glaring differences, and that is the exact reason that the idea of two killers have held fast for many years.

But! Just like you say, you cannot answer the questions I ask you. Nor do you need to - I have given you the two only options there are to explain the sinilaritites: It was either a case of 1/ collateral damage, in which case we must accept that the torso man just happened to cut out the uterus, the cord and the placenta as a fringe benefit as he chopped the body of Jackson up. Ad he happened to cut into the womb in the process, accidentally spilling out the foetus. Somewhere in the cutting process, he also managed to remove the heart and the lungs by accident.

I don´t know about you, but I´d say that we can exclude that possibility.

The other option left is that it was 2/ just a fluke thing that two serial killers evolved in Victorian London, both of them coincidentally targetting prostitutes and both of them having a record of cutting necks, opening up abdomens from sternum to bow, taking out lungs, taking out hearts, taking out uteri and cutting away abdominal walls in large flaps.

You say that of two killers mutilate, they will be different to tell apart. I am sorry, but no, that is not the case. Try comparing Charles Albright, who cut out the eyeballs from his victims, with William McDonald killers who cut the genitals away from his victims.
Are they hard to tell apart?

If, on the other hand, Albright had not cut away eyes, but instead genitals, then yes, he would have been hard to tell from William McDonald. However, Albright was active in the US in the 90:s and McDonald in Australia in the 60:s.

The men we speak of as they were two, were both active in London in the late 19:th century. And they both inflicted damage that was every bot as specific as the damage inflicted by Albright and McDonald.

Let´s assume that the US police in Albrights home town found a victim that had the eyes cut out in the 90:s. How would they reason? "All these mutilation deeds look the same - could be anybody who did it"?

Let´s assume that the police in McDonalds home town found a guy dead and with his genitals removed. How would they reason? "Damn it, these mutilation deeds are all so very much alike - one has to wonder if this has a connection to the other deeds where the gentials were cut off?"

I think we must agree on how they would never doubt that it was the same killer, Herlock.

And the same applies in every series of murders where there is damage done that is unusual and rare. And the rarer the damage is, the more certain the identification of just the one killer becomes.

If we have two murder victims, one in Brighton in 1989 and one in Rome in 1997, the one in Brighton having been pushed down a flight of stairs and the one in Rome having been shot between the eyes, then noone would connect them. And for eminent reasons.
But what happens if it is dicovered that both victims have had the words "another one for Mike" carved into their backs? And if we know that the Brighton police never disclosed this when it happened in 1989?

The more rare a similarity is and the more similarities there are, the lesser the chance of two killers. In our two cases, it is a given that there was just the one killer on account of this truth. The dismemberment and other differences have explanations.

[Sam Flynn]

If two killers mutilate it’s pretty difficult, to say the least, to tell them apart unless there’s something really obvious, like one killer always removes the kidneys.

As far as I can see, the torso killer(s) didn't consistently mutilate anyway, except inasmuch as chopping/sawing off limbs necessarily causes injury to the flesh. But injuring the flesh in the process of dismembering a body doesn't equate to "mutilation" in my book, anymore than someone who died after sustaining horrendous injuries during a car crash, or a fatal shotgun blast, can be said to have been the victim of a "mutilating" killer.

To blithely label the torso cases as mutilation murders is stretching a point way, way too far.

[Fisherman]

As far as I can see, the torso killer(s) didn't consistently mutilate anyway, except inasmuch as chopping/sawing off limbs necessarily causes injury to the flesh. But injuring the flesh in the process of dismembering a body doesn't equate to "mutilation" in my book, anymore than someone who died after sustaining horrendous injuries during a car crash, or a fatal shotgun blast, can be said to have been the victim of a "mutilating" killer.

To blithely label the torso cases as mutilation murders is stretching a point way, way too far.

What we must work from is the fact that dismemberment murders are divided into three categories, Gareth:

1. Dismembering is carried out a a means to hide the identity of the victim.

2. Dismemberment is carried out in order to facilitate transport of the body.

3. Dismemberment is carried out because the killer has a psychic disorder.

There are no other categories.

So! Once we know that there is evisceration involved, as was the case with Jackson, we can also conclude that this is a case of a psychic disorder lying behind it. This is of course regularly the case with evisceration murders; the killer suffers from a mental disorder and that is why he eviscerates.
The cutting away of the abdominal wall, the removal of heart and lungs and the long cut from sternum to pelvis, opening up the whole of the abdomen to the killers access is more of the same. There are parts taken out and away that need not be taken out to dismember a corpse.

All that remains to be said once we have understood this, is that we should not expect the other murders of the series to be about identity hiding or disposal only.

The fact of the matter is that the torso victims may have been subjected to eviscerations to a very large degree before being cut up - it is impossible to decide if the Whitehall torso lost the uterus as a result of evisceration or of coincidence. It is impossible to say if the Rainham victim was eviscerated or not - but there were parts missing.

It´s not as if the other torso victims, apart from Jackson, all speak against the idea of a mutilating and eviscerating killer. It is instead a fair bet that there was a lot of evisceration involved, as implicated by Jacksons torso, where we have clear and visible proof of mutilation/evisceration.

To "blithely" deny the evisceration/mutilation work of the torso killer is to set the facts aside in favour of an unconfirmed and baseless idea of the torso killer belonging to another category of dismemberment killers than was the case, as proven by the Jackson case.

The suggestion that he MAY not have "mutilated consistently" as you put it, is totally erased by the fact that we KNOW that the killer is a proven mutilator/eviscerator. What should this knowledge lead us to believe? That the Jackson mutilation/evisceration was just an isolated utbreak of a paraphilia otherwise not present? A one-off, to speak Maybrickish?

[Fisherman]

Maybe you should read the following article from another medical man which appears on JTR forums. It clearly flies in the face of one WM for all, and interestingly casts a doubt about all of the victims having their throats cut whilst on the ground.

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?p=343110#post343110

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You may have missed what we are discussing out here, Trevor? This is a discussion about whether the Ripper and the Torso killer were one and the same man.

Your link only discusses the canonical five, MacKenzie and Coles, and it is not conclusive in any way at all even on that score.

[Trevor Marriott]

You may have missed what we are discussing out here, Trevor? This is a discussion about whether the Ripper and the Torso killer were one and the same man.

Your link only discusses the canonical five, MacKenzie and Coles, and it is not conclusive in any way at all even on that score.

Is not you theory that the WM and the torso killer were one and the same, and responsible for all the murders in both categories ?

Doesn't have to be conclusive to create a doubt

and when that expert is discussing the canonical 5 doesn't he raise serious doubts about all of them being by the same hand, and all being killed whilst on the ground.

Or do you now concede that is not the case?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

and when that expert is discussing the canonical 5 doesn't he raise serious doubts about all of them being by the same hand, and all being killed whilst on the ground.

Trevor, lest we turn this thread into a discussion of whether the Canonical 5 victims were killed by the same hand, let's just say this:

Even if five entirely different killers committed the "Ripper" murders, not one of them was also the Torso Murderer(s), because every one of the Ripper murders - even that of Stride - was radically different from anything seen in the Torso series, and vice versa.

[Harry D]

Serial killers are rare. Serial killers overlapping in the same city, at the same time, even rarer. Serial killers who butcher and mutilate women overlapping in the same corner of London, at the same time? Incredible.

The Whitehall victim was murdered during the Ripper scare. The next two Torso victims are found within months of Alice McKenzie's killing. With the exception of the 1902 Lambeth torso and Frances Coles, the Torso & Ripper-esque cases ostensibly end in 1889. Now, we can argue until the cows come home what constitutes a Torso or Ripper murder but those are the salient facts.

[Sam Flynn]

Serial killers are rare. Serial killers overlapping in the same city, at the same time, even rarer

Even more grotesque serial murders than the JTR/torso ones have overlapped in the same city/area in modern times, they were remarkably similar, yet entirely independent perpetrators were responsible. Not that I'm saying that the JTR/torso murders were in any meaningful sense similar, when they were of an entirely different character - physically, temporally and geographically.

[John Wheat]

Even more grotesque serial murders than the JTR/torso ones have overlapped in the same city/area in modern times, they were remarkably similar, yet entirely independent perpetrators were responsible. Not that I'm saying that the JTR/torso murders were in any meaningful sense similar, when they were of an entirely different character - physically, temporally and geographically.

Hi Sam

I totally agree with what your saying and I've no doubt that Jack was an entirely different killer to the Torso killer but could you give examples of these other overlapping killer's. Firstly I'd find it interesting and secondly it might shut the minority up who believe that Jack and the Torso killer were one and the same.

Cheers John

[Sam Flynn]

I totally agree with what your saying and I've no doubt that Jack was an entirely different killer to the Torso killer but could you give examples of these other overlapping killer's.

Off the top of my head: Lawrence Bittaker & Roy Norris, William Bonin, Patrick Kearney, Randy Kraft (there may be others) were all serial killers who were active in California in the 1970s.

I would add that it's easy to see an "overlap" when one series takes place over several years, and one or more others pop up in the middle. Such was the case with the Torso Murders, the Ripper Murders and the Whitechapel Murders (i.e. those murders which took place in Whitechapel but weren't perpetrated by the Ripper or, for that matter, the Torso Murderer(s)), to say nothing of the serial poisoning murders of Dr Cream which took place during the same time-frame and in the "same location" (at least by the loose definition of "location" favoured by those who would link the Ripper murders with the Torso series).

It's patently obvious that murders (serial or otherwise) most certainly can, and do, overlap.

[Abby Normal]

Off the top of my head: Lawrence Bittaker & Roy Norris, William Bonin, Patrick Kearney, Randy Kraft (there may be others) were all serial killers who were active in California in the 1970s.

I would add that it's easy to see an "overlap" when one series takes place over several years, and one or more others pop up in the middle. Such was the case with the Torso Murders, the Ripper Murders and the Whitechapel Murders (i.e. those murders which took place in Whitechapel but weren't perpetrated by the Ripper or, for that matter, the Torso Murderer(s)), to say nothing of the serial poisoning murders of Dr Cream which took place during the same time-frame and in the "same location" (at least by the loose definition of "location" favoured by those who would link the Ripper murders with the Torso series).

It's patently obvious that murders (serial or otherwise) most certainly can, and do, overlap.

Well sam
If you were trying to make the point that serial killers with similar MO and sig overlap in time and place you’ve done a woefully bad job of trying to show it.

Dr. Neil cream was a poisoner. So he’s out.
Norris and bittaker: targeted females in 1979. So there out.
Kearney was gay SK -65-77 out
Bonin was a gay SK 79-80 out

So not only do they not “ overlap” in time and space they don’t even overlap in such obvious differences as male and female victims, location, or MO.

[John Wheat]

Off the top of my head: Lawrence Bittaker & Roy Norris, William Bonin, Patrick Kearney, Randy Kraft (there may be others) were all serial killers who were active in California in the 1970s.

I would add that it's easy to see an "overlap" when one series takes place over several years, and one or more others pop up in the middle. Such was the case with the Torso Murders, the Ripper Murders and the Whitechapel Murders (i.e. those murders which took place in Whitechapel but weren't perpetrated by the Ripper or, for that matter, the Torso Murderer(s)), to say nothing of the serial poisoning murders of Dr Cream which took place during the same time-frame and in the "same location" (at least by the loose definition of "location" favoured by those who would link the Ripper murders with the Torso series).

It's patently obvious that murders (serial or otherwise) most certainly can, and do, overlap.

Thanks Sam