Same motive = same killer

[Fisherman]

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?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I don´t think that it has anything at all to do with what I am saying, Trevor. It can be suggested that all the murders, in both series alike, were by different hands, and it can be suggested that this can be supported to some degree by differences between the murders.

But I am saying that there are SIMILARITIES that are so specific and so many inbetween the Chapman, Kelly and Jackson murders that it must be accepted that these three victims were killed by the same man. From there we can all see that there are similaritites between Jackson, Kelly and Chapman and the OTHER victims, tying them more or less closely together overall.

The main issue is that we can say that it is beyond reasonable doubt that Kelly and Chapman from the Ripper series and Jackson from the Torso series were killed by the same man, and thus - regardless if Tabram, MacKenzie, Coles, the 1884 torso victim etcetera are victims of that same killer or not, we DO know that there was at least a serial killer at large who killed women from both series. My own thought is that once we accept this, we will probably be able to agree on how this killer slew Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes, Kelly, the Rainham victim, the Whitehall torso and Liz Jackson, and quite probably also Tabram, MacKenzie, the 1873 and 1874 torsos, the 1884 Tottenham torso and the Pinchin Street torso. Thirteen victims in all, that is, and possibly more.

That is what I am saying.

[Fisherman]

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.

Simplicity. Logic. Gotta love it.

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

There is no conclusive evidence that Jackson was murdered, and the same is said for some of the other torsos you seek to rely onto make your argument stand up.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

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.

You did the work for me, Abby. And yes, it was an appalling effort!

The simple truth is that there is not a single other example involving two serial killers in the same approximate location at the same overlapping time who have performed such similar mutilations with such rare inclusions as the cutting from sternum to pelvis, the taking out of inner organs of both a sexual and a non-sexual character and not least the taking away of the abdominal wall in large flaps.

One would have hoped that there would not be a single example of people who flatly denied the implications of it all, but "mundus vult decipi" as the Romans wisely put it. Old misconceptions die hard.

[Fisherman]

There is no conclusive evidence that Jackson was murdered, and the same is said for some of the other torsos you seek to rely onto make your argument stand up.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

All the evidence speaks for it, and it was deemed a murder at the inquest. My own conviction is that there can be no reasonable doubt whatsoever, plus the physical evidence ties the case to Chapman and Kelly who were decisively murdered.

Unless we are dealing with three particularly nasty instances of suicide, of course.

[Fisherman]

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

A classic example of goalpost moving.

Nobody has suggested that murders and/or serial murders cannot overlap.

What has been said is that serial mutilation/evisceration murders like the Chapman, Kelly and Jackson cases, with their very rare similarities, can and will not overlap with two or more responsible killers unless these killers form a killing squad with the intention of trying to fool the police into believing that there was just the one killer by adding very specific and unususal damages. And you may judge for yourself how likely THAT is!

We need to be specific, Gareth. That´s your own advice. And I am extremely specific.

[Sam Flynn]

Fisherman, there were outdoor evisceration murders (extreme and consistent in nature in the East End series), and then there were indoor dismemberments (in the largely West End series) that emphatically weren't evisceration murders. There were also non-evisceration and non-dismemberment murders, indoor and outdoor, in the East and West during the same epoch.

These murders are very different in character, and we're clearly NOT dealing with two series of "evisceration murders" at all. There's evisceration, there's dismemberment, and there's the others; there's no objective reason to link them at all.

[Sam Flynn]

There is no conclusive evidence that Jackson was murdered, and the same is said for some of the other torsos you seek to rely onto make your argument stand up.

Not that it stands up to serious scrutiny anyway.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman, there were outdoor evisceration murders (extreme and consistent in nature in the East End series), and then there were indoor dismemberments (in the largely West End series) that emphatically weren't evisceration murders. There were also non-evisceration and non-dismemberment murders, indoor and outdoor, in the East and West during the same epoch.

These murders are very different in character, and we're clearly NOT dealing with two series of "evisceration murders" at all. There's evisceration, there's dismemberment, and there's the others; there's no objective reason to link them at all.

The good thing about that post is that you are absolutely correct - there were many differences involved in both series of murders. Within them and inbetween them.

The bad thing about it is that this is neither here nor there when it comes to the argument I am making - that Chapman, Kelly and Jackson were killed by the same man.

It seems that you are making the argument that if not all murders in both the perceived series include an element of evisceration, then no two or more murders can be tied to each other on account of similarities inbetween these two or more murders.
I can only say that this is emphatically wrong.

As I say, if you want to believe that Chapman and Nichols were slain by the same man, then you need to realize that damagewise, Chapman and Jackson are much closer connected to each other.

Both had their necks cut.
Both had their abdomens ripped from sternum to pelvis.
Both had their uteri cut out.
Both had their abdominal walls cut away in large flaps.

Nichols only has two of these points on her record. She was not eviscerated, she did not have her abdominal wall taken away in flaps, and those damages are MUCH more rare than cuts to the neck and abdomen.

But to your mind, these extremely rare damages suddenly go away from any which victim that is subjected to dismemberment afterwards?

[Fisherman]

One thing that follows automatically with the acceptance of Chapman, Kelly and Jackson as being victims of the same killer, is the insight that - just as people protest - the murders do not look the same at all in many respects.

Just like Gareth points out, we are not dealing with two series of evisceration murders, case closed - we are dealing with what seems to be two strings or series of murders where some are evisceration murders whereas others are not, but instead dismemberment murders, sometimes with mutilation added but no eviscerations. And there are also murders where it may have been the case that they were meant to be evisceration murders, but there was not time for it (Stride, Nichols).

However, if we accept that for example the Pinchin Street torso was part of a series of murders involving the generally accepted torso murders, then we must accept that the killer in this instance never wished to eviscerate - if he did, then reasonably he would have had ample time and opportunity to do so.

In conclusion, before my suggestion that there was just the one killer can be accepted, we must try and get our heads around the notion that the killer simply did not have evisceration as an ultimate and unavoidable goal; it is not a given that he would eviscerate if he had the chance.

So what are we left with in such a case? We are left with a killer who wanted to cut into human flesh and who had a number of options that satisfied his paraphilia, eviscerations being one such option only. Sometimes he went for innards, other times he was happy to sever limbs only, on one occasion he focused on the face and cut it away with great dexterity. He sometimes cut the faces of his victims, but not every time. He sometimes took out organs but not every time. He sometimes severed limbs but not every time. He sometimes took out the heart, but not every time.

He procured bodies, he was not interested in the killing itself or any torture, his aim was to get control over the body, and then to perform different kinds of cutting work on it. He took great care to empty the bodies of blood as much as possible, getting rid of the messy part involved in handling bloody meat. When he had ample time, there is evidence that he even could hang the body up in a position so as to empty it totally before he went to work on it. Just like a butcher would do. He seemingly considered the bodies raw material for his work.

That is where the evidence leads me. I consider it proven beyond reasonable doubt that both series had the same originator, and once I do, the rest presents itself readily.

[Abby Normal]

One thing that follows automatically with the acceptance of Chapman, Kelly and Jackson as being victims of the same killer, is the insight that - just as people protest - the murders do not look the same at all in many respects.

Just like Gareth points out, we are not dealing with two series of evisceration murders, case closed - we are dealing with what seems to be two strings or series of murders where some are evisceration murders whereas others are not, but instead dismemberment murders, sometimes with mutilation added but no eviscerations. And there are also murders where it may have been the case that they were meant to be evisceration murders, but there was not time for it (Stride, Nichols).

However, if we accept that for example the Pinchin Street torso was part of a series of murders involving the generally accepted torso murders, then we must accept that the killer in this instance never wished to eviscerate - if he did, then reasonably he would have had ample time and opportunity to do so.

In conclusion, before my suggestion that there was just the one killer can be accepted, we must try and get our heads around the notion that the killer simply did not have evisceration as an ultimate and unavoidable goal; it is not a given that he would eviscerate if he had the chance.

So what are we left with in such a case? We are left with a killer who wanted to cut into human flesh and who had a number of options that satisfied his paraphilia, eviscerations being one such option only. Sometimes he went for innards, other times he was happy to sever limbs only, on one occasion he focused on the face and cut it away with great dexterity. He sometimes cut the faces of his victims, but not every time. He sometimes took out organs but not every time. He sometimes severed limbs but not every time. He sometimes took out the heart, but not every time.

He procured bodies, he was not interested in the killing itself or any torture, his aim was to get control over the body, and then to perform different kinds of cutting work on it. He took great care to empty the bodies of blood as much as possible, getting rid of the messy part involved in handling bloody meat. When he had ample time, there is evidence that he even could hang the body up in a position so as to empty it totally before he went to work on it. Just like a butcher would do. He seemingly considered the bodies raw material for his work.

That is where the evidence leads me. I consider it proven beyond reasonable doubt that both series had the same originator, and once I do, the rest presents itself readily.

good post fish
I agree with everything you post here.
except your last sentence-I just lean heavily they are the same man.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hypothetically, what if the Torso Killer’s particular Paraphillia was surgery/operations? What he he got sexual pleasure from laying his ‘patient’ out on a table, wearing the apparel of a surgeon, maybe even pretending that he was performing some vitally important experimentation for the benefit of mankind. When it’s over he had to dismember to dispose of the bodies?

We can’t know that this was or wasn’t the case. Just as we cant know whether Jack and TK were one and the same. Or that we can’t know exactly why Jack chose to kill, mainly middle-aged prostitues.

Two mutilating serial killers might be statistically unlikely but it can’t be anywhere near impossible. When we consider what might link Jack to his victims (whether 4, 5 or 6) the fact that they all lived within the same few streets must surely weigh heavily in favour of one killer. There is also the apparent escalation of the mutilations (apart from Stride of course, but we can at least come up with a plausible, possible explaination for that.)

If I recall correctly I think that Fish posted an example of a serial killer who used two widely varying methods (was he Japanese?) This though must surely be a statistical rarity?

I really can’t see how this issue can ever be resolved to the satisfaction of the majority (and yes, of course the majority aren’t always correct.) Fish is doing an excellent job of trying to show that TK and Jack were one and the same. He might be right. I can’t see it myself. And I’d venture to say (and willingly stand to be corrected) that the majority, probably even the overwhelming majority, wouldn’t be able to see it either.

[Sam Flynn]

Two mutilating serial killers might be statistically unlikely but it can’t be anywhere near impossible..

The Torso Killer(s) was NOT a "mutilating" murderer, but a "dismembering" murderer. Don't pander to Fisherman's inaccurate, misleading and over-generalised approach to language, please.

[Elamarna]

The main issue is that we can say that it is beyond reasonable doubt that Kelly and Chapman from the Ripper series and Jackson from the Torso series were killed by the same man, and thus - regardless if Tabram, MacKenzie, Coles, the 1884 torso victim etcetera are victims of that same killer or not, we DO know that there was at least a serial killer at large who killed women from both series. My own thought is that once we accept this, we will probably be able to agree on how this killer slew Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes, Kelly, the Rainham victim, the Whitehall torso and Liz Jackson, and quite probably also Tabram, MacKenzie, the 1873 and 1874 torsos, the 1884 Tottenham torso and the Pinchin Street torso. Thirteen victims in all, that is, and possibly more.

That is what I am saying.

Ahh nice to see nothing changes.

We CANNOT say that it is beyond reasonable doubt Christer, that is an opinion, for which your evidence is far from conclusive.

You could say we can make an argument they are by the same hand!

What we can say is that YOU and some others beleive it is; which is not the same thing at all.

Happy Easter by the way. Back to Bucks Row.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Ahh nice to see nothing changes.

We CANNOT say that it is beyond reasonable doubt Christer, that is an opinion, for which your evidence is far from conclusive.

You could say we can make an argument they are by the same hand!

What we can say is that YOU and some others beleive it is; which is not the same thing at all.

Happy Easter by the way. Back to Bucks Row.


Steve

Nope, Steve - we CAN say that it is beyond reasonable doubt that Chapman, Kelly and Jacksom were slayed by the same hand. That is how the term "reasonable doubt" functions - there is not conclusive factual evidence, but there can be no other solution.

That is way beyond "making an argument that they are by the same hand" - it is saying that they certainly WERE by the same hand, going on the evidence.

I have no doubt whatsoever that any jury would accept these matters as conclusive and quite enough to judge by. Many people have been sentenced on far less conclusive evidence.

Happy Easter to you too, Steve!