Same motive = same killer

[Fisherman]

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

Thatīs just fine, Abby. To me, the damage is far too special and unusual to allow for two men. There has never been two such cases with such far-reaaching similarities, and thereīs a reason for that.

But I am quite aware that people must be allowed to take things in their own time, and as I say - thatīs just fine.

[Fisherman]

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.

The suggestion about the killer playing an imagined doctorīs role is not a bad one. It could be part of the explanation. I have another scenario outlined myself that fits the damage perfectly, but I like the way you think here anyway.

When you say we canīt know that there was just the one killer, I think that is wrong. I think we CAN know that - knowing as in concluding, not knowing as in having it on photo or in a written confession.

I donīt think the issue compares very well with the one of why the Ripper chose the victims he chose. On that score, there is absolutely no lead to follow, so we have to be content with speculation. But with the damage done to Chapman, Kelly and Jackson, no speculation is needed - the odds of two simultaneously working serialists doing the strange things that was done to these three victims are logically unsurmountable. It has never happened, and there is not even some sort of pale comparison. It just is not credible at all, and so we have no option but to accept that just the one killer was responsible. If we are to leave the door ajar, then we leave it ajar for the greatest fluke in criminal history.

The question about how many people out here would agree with me and how many would disagree is something I am not very interested in. There are too many vested interests here to enable something that resembles a fair judgment. You will find that Gareth denies that the Torso killer mutilated, for example.
I would prefer to put the question to murder investigators and profilers, and Iīd wager that not a single one of those people would invest a penny in the idea of two serialists. But I am equally sure that they all would say "Iīll be damned!" when they were told about the exact character of the two series - just as I am convinced that not one of them would think there were two killers, I donīt think that anyone of them would think that the solution with one killer would have been an expected one. It is NOT expected that a killer would carry out two series like these ones, with the inherent differences, and that would blow their minds. I know it blew mine.
Then again, none of them would turn a blind eye to the facts, and the facts tell us that there can be no other solution.

Thatīs how I see it. I think that the unique Ripper series, and the equally unique Torso series are in fact one series, and therefore a hundred times more unique.

Thanks, by the way, for your kind words on my efforts.

[Fisherman]

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.

The 1873 victim - the face cut away in one piece.

The Rainham victim - the abdomen opened up from sternum to pelvis.

Liz Jackson - the abdomen opened up from sternum to pelvis, the uterus removed together with the placenta and the cord, the heart and the lungs removed. Sections of flesh with subcutaneous tissue atteached removed from the abdominal wall.

The Pinchin Street victim - the abdomen ripped open with a 15 inch gash.

I donīt think Herlock needs much more to decisively conclude that the Torso killer mutilated. Nor do I think it is a question of my language. And dismemberers can be mutilators too - there is nothing standing in the way for such a thing, as a large number of historical examples have shown us. Dismemberment in itself can be part of a mutilation, it all hinges of the motivation of the cutting done.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The suggestion about the killer playing an imagined doctorīs role is not a bad one. It could be part of the explanation. I have another scenario outlined myself that fits the damage perfectly, but I like the way you think here anyway.

When you say we canīt know that there was just the one killer, I think that is wrong. I think we CAN know that - knowing as in concluding, not knowing as in having it on photo or in a written confession.

I donīt think the issue compares very well with the one of why the Ripper chose the victims he chose. On that score, there is absolutely no lead to follow, so we have to be content with speculation. But with the damage done to Chapman, Kelly and Jackson, no speculation is needed - the odds of two simultaneously working serialists doing the strange things that was done to these three victims are logically unsurmountable. It has never happened, and there is not even some sort of pale comparison. It just is not credible at all, and so we have no option but to accept that just the one killer was responsible. If we are to leave the door ajar, then we leave it ajar for the greatest fluke in criminal history.

The question about how many people out here would agree with me and how many would disagree is something I am not very interested in. There are too many vested interests here to enable something that resembles a fair judgment. You will find that Gareth denies that the Torso killer mutilated, for example.
I would prefer to put the question to murder investigators and profilers, and Iīd wager that not a single one of those people would invest a penny in the idea of two serialists. But I am equally sure that they all would say "Iīll be damned!" when they were told about the exact character of the two series - just as I am convinced that not one of them would think there were two killers, I donīt think that anyone of them would think that the solution with one killer would have been an expected one. It is NOT expected that a killer would carry out two series like these ones, with the inherent differences, and that would blow their minds. I know it blew mine.
Then again, none of them would turn a blind eye to the facts, and the facts tell us that there can be no other solution.

Thatīs how I see it. I think that the unique Ripper series, and the equally unique Torso series are in fact one series, and therefore a hundred times more unique.

Thanks, by the way, for your kind words on my efforts.

Hi Fish,

Surely then, if we can’t know the Ripper’s motive we can’t know the Torso Killers? And as the thread title is ‘same motive=same killer’ how can we arrive at a conclusion?

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish,

Surely then, if we can’t know the Ripper’s motive we can’t know the Torso Killers? And as the thread title is ‘same motive=same killer’ how can we arrive at a conclusion?

If you travel back to the beginning of the thread, you will find that I there say that the name was not a good one. I am not speaking of motive but of inspiration grounds.

And I do think that I know the exact inspiration grounds of the killer. It explains why the damage looked the way it did, furthermore.

As I have repeatedly said, I am not prepared to state what I think on this issue for now, though.

But that does not alter the fact that we have too may and too odd similarities inbetween Chapman, Kelly and Jackson for it not to be just one killer.

Iīm off to bed now. Goodnight, Herlock!

[Sam Flynn]

You will find that Gareth denies that the Torso killer mutilated, for example.

For clarity, I said that the Torso killer(s) can only be said to have "mutilated" to the extent that chopping/sawing someone's limbs and head off causes damage to the flesh. The Torso killer(s) can't be said to be a "mutilation murderer" anymore than someone who inflicts fatal bodily injuries during a hit-and-run incident, or who blasts someone at point-blank range with a shotgun. Whilst "mutilations" may occur as a result of such actions, they are entirely incidental.

[Fisherman]

For clarity, I said that the Torso killer(s) can only be said to have "mutilated" to the extent that chopping/sawing someone's limbs and head off causes damage to the flesh. The Torso killer(s) can't be said to be a "mutilation murderer" anymore than someone who inflicts fatal bodily injuries during a hit-and-run incident, or who blasts someone at point-blank range with a shotgun. Whilst "mutilations" may occur as a result of such actions, they are entirely incidental.

"For clarity, I said that the Torso killer(s) can only be said to have "mutilated" to the extent that chopping/sawing someone's limbs and head off causes damage to the flesh. "

For clarity, then please explain how chopping off the limbs from Liz Jackson and the Rainham victim caused cuts from ribs to pubes.

For clarity, please explain to me how chopping the limbs off the 1873 victim caused her face to be taken off the skull.

For clarity, tell me how chopping off Jacksons limbs involved two large flaps of meat from her abdominal wall getting cut off.

For clarity, explain why somebody who chops the limbs off a victim ends up with the heart and lungs from that victim being cut away.

For clarity, that does not wash.

For clarity, once we KNOW that the killer mutilated and eviscerated Jackson, the best guess becomes that the body parts that went missing from the Whitehall victim were ALSO the result of evisceration and mutilation - Jackson points out the direction.

For clarity, the same thing goes for the Rainham victime, where the hear and lungs were missing. Oddly that was the exact same thing that happened to Jackson, where we KNOW that these parts were removed purposefully.

Gareth, you are fighting a battle that was lost 130 years ago.

[John Wheat]

The main thrust of the C5 was mutilation with the exception of Liz Stride where Jack may have been interrupted whereas the main thrust of the Torso Murders was dismemberment. The C5 happened over a very short period whereas the Torso Murders over nearly 20 years. Therefore Jack the Ripper and The Torso Killer were two very different killers.

[Fisherman]

The main thrust of the C5 was mutilation with the exception of Liz Stride where Jack may have been interrupted whereas the main thrust of the Torso Murders was dismemberment. The C5 happened over a very short period whereas the Torso Murders over nearly 20 years. Therefore Jack the Ripper and The Torso Killer were two very different killers.

If you mean "driving force" when you say thrust, John, Iīm afraid that we cannot establish that at all. There are extensive damages beyond what is necessary for dismemberment in the torso cases, and it may well be that this was the aim and that the dismemberment was just done to dispose of the bodies afterwards. That is normally the running order. Nobody dismembers for joy and mutilate as an extra, but some mutilate and need to dispose of the parts afterwards.
My own take on things is that the dismemberment was an active deed, and part of the overall mutilation of the victims.
I am more onclined to agree that mutilation was the underlying reason for the C5 murders, but I think it essential to keep in mind that there may be varying reasons for a killer to mutilate. It can be about aggression directed towards the victim, with the intent to annihilate, but it can equally be about performing different mutilations on the body that carry specific implications for the killer.
What we CAN say about the series is that they are extremely similar on a number of counts, some of them extremely rare, and it therefore goes without saying that our best guess and a near certainty is that there was just the one killer. Or can you tell us how it came about that victims from both series had sexual and non-sexual organs taken out, how it came about that victims from both series had their abdominal walls removed in large flaps, how it came about that victims from both series had their abdomens ripped open from sternum to pelvis?
It is not rocket science to point out that there were far-reaching dissimilarities. We all know that and have known it for 130 years. But dissimilarities are of little interest once we have identified the same rare type of damage that inextricably link the cases together.
The only riddle that remains to be solved is WHY the dissimilarities were there. I bet the explanation will be a mundane one, though.

Now I think that we have had quite enough of people telling us that there were differences. It gets boring. Try and explain the similarities instead, in a way that allows for two killers.

[Elamarna]

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!

Thanks Christer,

It's certainly not beyond reasonable doubt. A shame that you are so insistent.

And that is not how reasonable doubt functions art all. However i have no intentent or interest in arguing on non factual points.

From all I can see, the situation has not evolved over the months and it's purely your interpretation which you constantly present, not as such; But as fact.

Of course there are other solutions, the fact that you are closed to such says all that needs to be said.

The THEORY is interesting, but obviously produced for 1 overriding reason.

Give some evidence and it may progress, but of course you can't as you said there is no conclusive evidence.

As I said nothing changes.

Back to formatting 500+ pages on a phone.


Steve

[Elamarna]

As I have repeatedly said, I am not prepared to state what I think on this issue for now, though.
!

Christer, just clarification.
Is it what you know, supported by factual evidence that is conclusive?

Or it it what you beleive to be the case, based not on conclusive fact, but on intreptation of far from clear or conclusive ?

Those are very different things, I am not asking what the issue is, just clarification on your process.



Steve

[John Wheat]

If you mean "driving force" when you say thrust, John, Iīm afraid that we cannot establish that at all. There are extensive damages beyond what is necessary for dismemberment in the torso cases, and it may well be that this was the aim and that the dismemberment was just done to dispose of the bodies afterwards. That is normally the running order. Nobody dismembers for joy and mutilate as an extra, but some mutilate and need to dispose of the parts afterwards.
My own take on things is that the dismemberment was an active deed, and part of the overall mutilation of the victims.
I am more onclined to agree that mutilation was the underlying reason for the C5 murders, but I think it essential to keep in mind that there may be varying reasons for a killer to mutilate. It can be about aggression directed towards the victim, with the intent to annihilate, but it can equally be about performing different mutilations on the body that carry specific implications for the killer.
What we CAN say about the series is that they are extremely similar on a number of counts, some of them extremely rare, and it therefore goes without saying that our best guess and a near certainty is that there was just the one killer. Or can you tell us how it came about that victims from both series had sexual and non-sexual organs taken out, how it came about that victims from both series had their abdominal walls removed in large flaps, how it came about that victims from both series had their abdomens ripped open from sternum to pelvis?
It is not rocket science to point out that there were far-reaching dissimilarities. We all know that and have known it for 130 years. But dissimilarities are of little interest once we have identified the same rare type of damage that inextricably link the cases together.
The only riddle that remains to be solved is WHY the dissimilarities were there. I bet the explanation will be a mundane one, though.

Now I think that we have had quite enough of people telling us that there were differences. It gets boring. Try and explain the similarities instead, in a way that allows for two killers.

No the two series are very different it just suits you to waffle on about supposed similarities. It gets boring when a minority of posters try to link two series of murders when there is no link to be found.

[Abby Normal]

If you mean "driving force" when you say thrust, John, Iīm afraid that we cannot establish that at all. There are extensive damages beyond what is necessary for dismemberment in the torso cases, and it may well be that this was the aim and that the dismemberment was just done to dispose of the bodies afterwards. That is normally the running order. Nobody dismembers for joy and mutilate as an extra, but some mutilate and need to dispose of the parts afterwards.
My own take on things is that the dismemberment was an active deed, and part of the overall mutilation of the victims.
I am more onclined to agree that mutilation was the underlying reason for the C5 murders, but I think it essential to keep in mind that there may be varying reasons for a killer to mutilate. It can be about aggression directed towards the victim, with the intent to annihilate, but it can equally be about performing different mutilations on the body that carry specific implications for the killer.
What we CAN say about the series is that they are extremely similar on a number of counts, some of them extremely rare, and it therefore goes without saying that our best guess and a near certainty is that there was just the one killer. Or can you tell us how it came about that victims from both series had sexual and non-sexual organs taken out, how it came about that victims from both series had their abdominal walls removed in large flaps, how it came about that victims from both series had their abdomens ripped open from sternum to pelvis?
It is not rocket science to point out that there were far-reaching dissimilarities. We all know that and have known it for 130 years. But dissimilarities are of little interest once we have identified the same rare type of damage that inextricably link the cases together.
The only riddle that remains to be solved is WHY the dissimilarities were there. I bet the explanation will be a mundane one, though.

Now I think that we have had quite enough of people telling us that there were differences. It gets boring. Try and explain the similarities instead, in a way that allows for two killers.

Hi Fish
I used to think that the dismemberment was just in ease in getting rid of the body from his murder hole, but now I'm not so sure.

I'm thinking more that it was part of his paraphilia.

as in-the torsorippers main motivation was the pleasure he experienced with what his knife could do, and the cutting up, mutilation and or dismemberment of the female body.

getting deeper than that though I'm less sure. was that where it ended? Or was he creating a Frankenstein monster, was he doing things with the parts ALA Gein? was he getting any sexual pleasure from it? cannibalism?

I think all these are also on the table, just not sure which ones.

thoughts, comments?

[Harry D]

No the two series are very different it just suits you to waffle on about supposed similarities. It gets boring when a minority of posters try to link two series of murders when there is no link to be found.

No one’s forcing you to read this thread. If you’re bored, go entertain yourself elsewhere.

I, for one, see a definite possibility that both series are connected and would love to see more research done on the matter.

[Elamarna]

No one’s forcing you to read this thread. If you’re bored, go entertain yourself elsewhere.

I, for one, see a definite possibility that both series are connected and would love to see more research done on the matter.

And that's the point Harry, it's possible; just as most stuff posted on here is, that is it cannot be definitively shown to be impossible.

What we have here a vague similarities in words used to describe wounds. That's it in a nutshell.

Christer claims he has more, bit until he is ready to release or discuss such we can only work on what we have, which is not very much if we are all honest.

Yes more research is needed, preferable by a research who does not have a suspect to fit to it, human nature does terrible things to normally reasonable and objective researchers.


We will for now just have to take the theory as it stands, and wait for at the very least Christer to give us what he believes is important on the matter..

However, we could knock any page but the first out of this thread and from an evidential point of view, it would not have an discernable effect at all.


Steve