Same motive = same killer

[Fisherman]

We don’t really need parallels Fish. This could have been the first time that two such killers operated at around the same time. However unlikely, it can’t be impossible. History is also replete with improbable coincidences. And so I would look at it by saying that if the dissimilarities are so pronounced there has to be a chance of it being the case that there were two killers. We can’t rely on ‘well it’s very unlikely so it can’t be true.’

So I could say that is it impossible that, for eg, my ‘crazed doctor/experimenter/disposer’ existed at the same time as Jack? It can’t be.

Not impossible, Herlock. Just so incredibly improbable that no real weight needs to be given the suggestion of an almighty coincidence.

But I am fine with you realizing that it takes an almighty coincidence for two killers to have been at large.

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

Which do you personally link to the same individual?

Hi Jerry

I tend to thing the Torsos in the late 80s are linked to each other, I do not personally see a link to the ones from earlier, other than they were dismembered and on the whole disposed of in water.

Indeed I see the possability that those 80's cases were not the work of a single individual.

I am however unsure on the Whitehall case, I fail to be convinced of a link to Jackson, however I see a possible link to Pinchin Stree from Whitehall.

Are any linked to JtR?

I would never be so sure as to say not, but on probability I think not.

STEVE

[Elamarna]

If yu want to leave it, please be my guest. It IS a fact that the more unusual a damage, the less likely two killers become.

Claiming otherwise is "faux science".

Christer,
,it's not faux science, because the subject itself is not Science, it's opinion and therefore there are no certainties.

Dear old Pierre would probably have referred to it as a "human construct", which is far too simplistic.

Steve

[jerryd]

Hi Jerry

I tend to thing the Torsos in the late 80s are linked to each other, I do not personally see a link to the ones from earlier, other than they were dismembered and on the whole disposed of in water.

Indeed I see the possability that those 80's cases were not the work of a single individual.

I am however unsure on the Whitehall case, I fail to be convinced of a link to Jackson, however I see a possible link to Pinchin Stree from Whitehall.

Are any linked to JtR?

I would never be so sure as to say not, but on probability I think not.

STEVE

Thanks, Steve,

Dr. Hebbert had this to say about the Whitehall case.

"As will be gathered from the description, the arm in the second case had been cut from the trunk in a precisely similar manner to that in the first case; in fact, as soon as I saw the arm I was struck by the close resemblance of the modes of separation, and the mutilation of the trunk was in every respect identical."

That leaves very little doubt Dr. Hebbert thought the Rainham case and Whitehall case were linked.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Not impossible, Herlock. Just so incredibly improbable that no real weight needs to be given the suggestion of an almighty coincidence.

But I am fine with you realizing that it takes an almighty coincidence for two killers to have been at large.

Surely what you’re, in effect, saying there Fish is that coincidences do happen all the time but to suggest that this could have been such deserves no weight because of that very fact? Surely we can’t dismiss on such grounds?

Surely 2 serial killers have ‘overlapped’ in the past. It’s just that this time there are some similarities. And some pretty massive differences.

[John Wheat]

If The Torso Killer were one and the same why then were they no outdoor prostitute Ripper style murders between 1873 and 1888?

[Debra A]

Thanks JoshThat paints a picture of two long strips running up the midline of the abdomen, extending from the buttock to the umbilicus or just beyond, the two strips together perhaps being some 5" wide (which would encompass the mons veneris and labia majora as described).

If the killer had been cutting along the pelvic bone, the resultant pieces of flesh would have been much wider due to the broad, shallow nature of the female pelvis - more "slab-like" than "slip-like", I'd suggest. Besides, I'm sure Hebbert would have mentioned that the "slips" had extended as far as the pelvic bone, had this been the case.

Gareth, one thing to consider is that the newspapers who reported on the first parcel find at Horsleydown describe it as containing a uterus and placenta and variously an "abdomen", "the lower portion of a woman's body", "the lower part of a woman's abdomen, cut in two", and similarly worded descriptions.

As I have mentioned many many times before in trying to convince that the uterus was removed from the body; the bony pelvis was found in the Thames at a much later date than the Horsleydown parcel.

The lower portion of the vagina and the front of the bladder were still in the bony pelvis.
In the Horsleydown parcel, the uterus still had the upper part of the vagina attached to it and the other portion of the bladder, showing these had been cut through to remove the uterus entirely from the pelvis.

If Elizabeth's unborn child had been removed from her uterus and thin slips of skin removed to facilitate removal of the foetus from the uterus, and these both done to facilitate dismemberment as suggested; why then go on to remove the uterus as well? An empty uterus is not an obstacle to dismembering and disposing of a body is it?


I think it was Mei Trow who gave the impression that the lower portion of Elizabeth's trunk was found entire with the uterus still in the pelvic cavity, this in incorrect.

The portions of flesh from the abdomen and the uterus had an inquest conducted at Wapping by Wynne Baxter and opened on June 6th. There was no medical evidence heard at that time, just the witness evidence regarding the finding of the parcel and what its contents were. This inquest was eventually closed in favour of the other inquest that had been opened in a different district on the portions of the same body found there.

[Fisherman]

Depends how one views things Abby..

However I see little actual evidence ( and this may not be liked by some) to actually link all the Torso' s to the same individual. It more the majority are dumped in water, be that the Thames or canals. Now some will say, but they are all dismembered? Yes they are but over a very long period, I know some who subscribe to the single killer take the murders up to the turn of the 20th century. That's a very long period to be sure of a single hand.

Now I don't say that it is not possible there is a link to some of the Torsos but I am not at present convinced. And certainly not that murders from 1873( actuallyheard 72 used in conversation recently) to 1899 are linked.

Time hopefully, and research may give us a better idea.


Steve

For clarity´s sake, what I am saying is that Chapman (Sept 1888), Kelly (Nov 1888) and Jackson (June 1889) are inetricably linked, and must be regarded as the same man´s work on account of the similarities involved.

All of the other possible victims fit the bill to a smaller or larger degree, and the links can go in either direction. For example, the Rainham victim is very close in type to Jackson, both having had their abdomens ripped open all the way and both having lost lungs and heart and both having been dividen up in very similar parts.
But since the Rainham victim is not recorded as having had her abdominal wall removed in large flaps, she is not as clearly tied to the triumvirate above as she could have been.
Other victims have other links and ties, some firm, some loose. Altogether, though, all I will say is that Chapman, Kelly and Jackson prove beyond reasonable doubt that murders from both series were performed by the same man.
The easiest and most logical solution after that is that the very same man was also responsible for a good many more murders than the three core cases I speak of. It´s either that, or we had two or more killers running around with an interest in eviscerations/mutilations/dismemberment, and that is frankly a lot less likely than just the one killer.

[Elamarna]

Thanks, Steve,

Dr. Hebbert had this to say about the Whitehall case.

"As will be gathered from the description, the arm in the second case had been cut from the trunk in a precisely similar manner to that in the first case; in fact, as soon as I saw the arm I was struck by the close resemblance of the modes of separation, and the mutilation of the trunk was in every respect identical."

That leaves very little doubt Dr. Hebbert thought the Rainham case and Whitehall case were linked.

I see no need to disagree, I am still intrigued by the idea of more than a single individual involved in the later cases, so maybe same hand, but not working alone.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Hi Jerry

I tend to thing the Torsos in the late 80s are linked to each other, I do not personally see a link to the ones from earlier, other than they were dismembered and on the whole disposed of in water.
STEVE

You forget that there was mutilation beyond what is necessary for dismemberment present, that the limbs were disarticulated instead of sawn through in most cases and that the doctors all spoke of a skilled knifesman in all cases.

Beyond that, there is actually more, but that´s for another day.

[Elamarna]

For clarity´s sake, what I am saying is that Chapman (Sept 1888), Kelly (Nov 1888) and Jackson (June 1889) are inetricably linked, and must be regarded as the same man´s work on account of the similarities involved.

All of the other possible victims fit the bill to a smaller or larger degree, and the links can go in either direction. For example, the Rainham victim is very close in type to Jackson, both having had their abdomens ripped open all the way and both having lost lungs and heart and both having been dividen up in very similar parts.
But since the Rainham victim is not recorded as having had her abdominal wall removed in large flaps, she is not as clearly tied to the triumvirate above as she could have been.
Other victims have other links and ties, some firm, some loose. Altogether, though, all I will say is that Chapman, Kelly and Jackson prove beyond reasonable doubt that murders from both series were performed by the same man.
The easiest and most logical solution after that is that the very same man was also responsible for a good many more murders than the three core cases I speak of. It´s either that, or we had two or more killers running around with an interest in eviscerations/mutilations/dismemberment, and that is frankly a lot less likely than just the one killer.

And again for clarity I will say it's not "must" which implies certainly and fact, but "can" or "may" which does not deny the possability but acknowledges that it remains just that.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Christer,
,it's not faux science, because the subject itself is not Science, it's opinion and therefore there are no certainties.

Dear old Pierre would probably have referred to it as a "human construct", which is far too simplistic.

Steve

It is not quantifiable as such, but it is nevertheless a certainty that the more similarities there are and the more unusual they are, the greater the chance of a common killer.

If two women are strangled in Britain the same year, they MAY have the same killer.

If two women are strangled in Brixton the same week, both of them having had their uteri taken away and the abdominal wall removed, then that increases the likelihood of the same killer immensely, compared to the previous two cases.

It actually increases that likelihood to beyond the point of any reasonable doubt about that thing.

It is perhaps not science as such, but it is something that cannot be denied. Try, and we´ll see!

[Elamarna]

You forget that there was mutilation beyond what is necessary for dismemberment present, that the limbs were disarticulated instead of sawn through in most cases and that the doctors all spoke of a skilled knifesman in all cases.

Beyond that, there is actually more, but that´s for another day.

So you have said for a very long time.
I look forward at some stage to seeing the proposed link.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Surely what you’re, in effect, saying there Fish is that coincidences do happen all the time but to suggest that this could have been such deserves no weight because of that very fact? Surely we can’t dismiss on such grounds?

Surely 2 serial killers have ‘overlapped’ in the past. It’s just that this time there are some similarities. And some pretty massive differences.

Two killers have overlapped in the past.

Two serial killers have overlapped in the past.

No two serial killers have ever overlapped in the past, with so many and so unusual and specific damage done to their vctims as in the Torso/Ripper cases.

That´s how it works, Herlock. On the battlefield, thousands of people can be shot and killed by thousands of other people.

But when two victims on that battlefield have their abdomens ripped open entirely, their abdominal walls cut away in large sections, and lose the same inner organ by means of having it cut away, we can be sure of the same killer being responsible - or one killer imitating the deed somebody else did.

That is how murder investigations work in cases of multiple murder - what is looked for is similarities, in order to - if possible - tie two or more cases together.

Surely you must be aware of this?

[Fisherman]

And again for clarity I will say it's not "must" which implies certainly and fact, but "can" or "may" which does not deny the possability but acknowledges that it remains just that.


Steve

Sorry, but if you say that they must not be regarded as the same man´s work, you are wrong. You may well propose a gigantic fluke, but I would not recommend putting any sort of faith in it.

It is not a question of "can" or "may" - those are far too uncertain terms. It is a case of something that is beyond reasonable doubt, and that should rightfully be regarded as something that - short of the 8:th wonder of the world - is the truth.

Even if you are hellbent on allowing for that 8:th wonder of the world, Steve, surely you must admit that such a thing would be so much less credible as to be laughable.