Same motive = same killer

[Fisherman]

Some who does not agree with you is now termed a "loser"? In what sense is that term applicable?

The fact is the debate has not moved 1 inch since this thread started. In that respect the only loser is research and truth.

Your comments are offensive, and I see none aimed at you.
I respect you opinion, even if I think it is wrong, I do not belittle those who disagree with me.

I find it kind of sad, but I am not unduly surprised.


Steve

No, Steve, those who disagree with me are not necessarily losers. But in this case I think they are.
I am certain that the cases had the same originator. Therefore it applies that I am equally certain that those who disagree are wrong and losers of this particular debate. Logically, I can take no other stance.

The only offensive behaviour out here is grounded in flat out denying the obvious, changing goalposts and trying to replace a sound debate (and a debate can be sound regardless if I win it or not - I thought I´d sort that out before you ask) with empty semantics.

I am not too surprised about that either, though.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Interesting question?

Are you talking about why 2 in total , that's one JtR and one TO? Or why I wonder if the TK in the late 80s was more than one?

I will assume the former for now as the answer is shorter.

I see nothing to my mind which specifically links the two series of murders, lots of superficial, to me, similarities. However there are only a limited number of ways of opening up a body and the possability that 2 seperate killers would end with methods that are SUPERFICIALLY similar is to me very real.
And you must realise I don't really hold with the argue, that because something has not happened before it is unlikely to occur, 2 killers, similar methods in same part of country.

To me such actually gives the opposite likely outcome, because it hasn't happened it will do soon.


Steve

Well put Steve. The emboldened area is the point that I can never get (that and an allergy against coincidences.)

[Abby Normal]

Abby How did I insult you?

I said the list lacked detail and to that extent was simplistic. To refer to your points as headlines was not insulting, they could well be used as sub headings for an indeoth discussion.

If undid not see similarities I would say so, but I have not.
I have takes and written of similarities just that I do not see those has being significant.

I am not sure what it is I have said you have taken offence at, but I am most sorry that you have.
No insultvhas been thrown at you that I can see, I have reread what I posted, and I still can see nothing which could be seen as such. Obviously you have and for that I unreservedly apologise. No offence was intended please beleive me.


Steve

as usual, a gracious gentlemen.

no worries. if you said you didn't mean it to be insulting then I take you for your word. no apology needed. sorry if I was being too sensitive.

you've also admitted that their are similarities which is all I was asking and I did see that you did say that.

now back to a more detailed debate on whether those similarities are significant or not! : )

[Fisherman]

Which it demonstrably was. It was either a journalistic or editorial error or else a euphemism, as I also suggested. There was no "lower part of a woman's abdomen cut in two" in that parcel, you can rest assured of that, because the lower part of Jackson's abdomen was neither detached nor cut in two. Two pieces were cut out of the flesh of the lower abdomen, and her labia and mons veneris were divided in the process, but neither of these are the same as the "lower part of her abdomen", as the paper erroneously said.

You know that what the journalists wwee speaking of was the abdominal wall - the part to which we often point and say "abdomen".

I know the exact same thing.

There can be no mistake about what was meant by the journalists - the abdominal wall.

The whole idea of discounting that the whole of the lower belly wall was present in those two flaps is beyond ridiculous. Thinking that ALL journalists misreported the errand is even more ridiculous.

Sorry, Gareth, but that is the simple truth.

[Trevor Marriott]

True, it doesn't matter much if we are solely recognizing that the killer had desires. But I've been working a rationale for the cretin.
In Chapman's case, the rationale may be: to get to the uterus, the intestines have to be removed; to get to the intestines, the abdominal wall had to be removed. Annie may have had a larger belly, so more of her wall had to be removed in order to facilitate the intestine removal. Catherine was a thin woman, so he only had to "unzip" her; and, with the time he saved by not having to remove excess belly from her body, he could have been mutilating her face.
In Jackson's case, it appears as though the foetus was the objective. If she were laying on her back and had a baby-bump in her belly, her killer may have found that all he needed to do was cut a bisected "triangle-of-sorts" in her lower abdomen in order to reach the uterus; but, he still cut high enough so that he could remove the umbilicus too.

For your information the intestines do not have to be removed to get to the uterus. Your post is nothing more than your opinions, as is the case with many on here who are desperate to make the pieces fit towards two killers. None of you are medical experts, yet we see medical opinions by the bus load on this thread from arcmchair medical experts. Yes the real medical experts and what they say are not taken notice of.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

True, it doesn't matter much if we are solely recognizing that the killer had desires. But I've been working a rationale for the cretin.
In Chapman's case, the rationale may be: to get to the uterus, the intestines have to be removed; to get to the intestines, the abdominal wall had to be removed. Annie may have had a larger belly, so more of her wall had to be removed in order to facilitate the intestine removal. Catherine was a thin woman, so he only had to "unzip" her; and, with the time he saved by not having to remove excess belly from her body, he could have been mutilating her face.
In Jackson's case, it appears as though the foetus was the objective. If she were laying on her back and had a baby-bump in her belly, her killer may have found that all he needed to do was cut a bisected "triangle-of-sorts" in her lower abdomen in order to reach the uterus; but, he still cut high enough so that he could remove the umbilicus too.

Without wanting to sound to discouraging, that is more of the "interpretations". The abdominal wall WAS cut away in all three cases, the uteri were taken in all three cases, we don´t know how it looked in all three cases - and so we work with what we KNOW only.

That is the take I have been defending all the time.

How likely is it that two serialists roamed the London streets in 1887-89?

How likely is it that they both targetted prostitutes?

How likely is it that they both cut the necks of their victims?

How likely is it that they both opened up the abdomens of their victims?

How likely is it that they both took out the uteri from their victims?

How likely is it that they both toook out the heart and lungs from their victims?

How likely is it that they both cut away the abdominal walls from their victims in large flaps?

If we isolate just the one matter, we can always come up with alternative explanations. Always! The human propensity for thinking up alternative scenarios, likely or unlikely, is unrivalled.

But there is no practical chance that there were alternative reasons for ALL these matters! Discussing it as a genuine possibility is to loose touch with reality, at least to my mind.

[Elamarna]

as usual, a gracious gentlemen.

no worries. if you said you didn't mean it to be insulting then I take you for your word. no apology needed. sorry if I was being too sensitive.

you've also admitted that their are similarities which is all I was asking and I did see that you did say that.

now back to a more detailed debate on whether those similarities are significant or not! : )

Thank you Abby.

STEVE

[Sam Flynn]

On Chapman, from the medical report: "The abdomen had been entirely laid open".

Naughty, naughty, Fish. That's not from "the medical report", as if you were quoting from an official source, but from an editorial in the Lancet. This rather sensationalising piece of purple prose has, in its time, opened up several ripperological cans of worms, such as the (almost certainly mythical) idea that Chapman's organs were secured with "one sweep of the knife", all too often misattributed as a quote from Bagster Phillips. There's every reason to believe that this reference is yet another example of that tendency to over-dramatisation.

Oh, and the full quote, reads "It appears that the abdomen had been entirely laid open".

"It appears that..."? Really?

This is no first-hand account, and certainly not "THE medical report" as you, wittingly or unwittingly, would have had some of us believe.

And Jacksons lost abdomen may well have been pretty much most of the abdominal wall too

There's nothing in Hebbert that remotely supports that suggestion.

[Abby Normal]

Ill go more in depth here with the similarities I listed, and possible significance:

In both series women were victims.

when comparing cases, I think victimology is significant. as is the history of serial killers re the victimology.
The victimology is the same, if not very similar. The victims were all adult women, of a certain class(lower class-for lack of better word). I would also venture to go so far as to say that they were all probably prostitutes. The ripper victims certainly were. and a case has been made that Jackson was. I think that part of the reason that most of the torso victims were not identified is because they were probably poor, homeless unfortunates. I have to bring up MO here in how the victims were lured to a place where the murders and dismemberment took place. since medical procedures, like abortions, have been conclusively ruled out IMHO, one can infer they were lured to the killers abode through a ruse of some sort. work, money prostitution act? Either way, a ruse was used, as in the ripper cases, and probably through an act of prostitution.

History of serial killers show that the majority of serial killers stick to same victimology. in both cases, its a adult women of a certain class. Neither varied by having male victims, or children or even women of a young age. even serial killers who target women in general in the past have strayed significantly in the age of there victims. many, including bundy, the Goldenstate killer, the nighstalker, have varied their attacks to include young women, teenage girls, very young girls, pre pubescent and even old women. Yet both torso and ripper series, in regards to age, targeted women in a definite range.

In both series a knife was the primary weapon.

I find this highly significant. all victims of both series the primary tool of destruction is the knife. Not a club, blunt force trauma, not only strangulation (bare hands), or ligatures used, nor an object found at the scene. a knife. Same Serial killers in history use different methods of killing, mutilation etc. something found at the scene. or by variation stabbing, shooting, beating, strangling-same serial killer different weapons. That both used primarily the knife to me is very important.

also, Dennis Rader, BTK, whos primary paraphilia/MO was binding, strangulation with rope, stated- it was all about the rope. To me in both series, it was all about the knife. and what it could do to the female body.

In both series there was extensive post mortem mutilation.

Both series involved post mortem mutilation. Highly significant IMHO. No torture was evident in either series. no overt sexual assault. All the focus on the victim seems to be after death. The post mortem serial killer is very rare. the post mortem serial killer who engages in no sexual activity with the body is rarer still. In neither series is there any indication that either killer fell in any other of the many serial killer types. They were both post mortem serial killers only seemingly interested in post mortem mutilation.

In both series the neck was cut.

all the victims had there neck cut. to various degrees yes, but necks cut nonethe less. In the ripper victims it seems to be to insure swift and silent death. In the torso case we don't know since they were all eventually decapitated, but at the very least that there necks weren't cut first to cause death isnt ruled out.

There also could be a practical reason though. That's to help bleed the victim out. and since both series there was extensive cutting, perhaps this was done to help lesson the amount of blood the killer got on himself and or to make easier the cutting up/into of bodies.


In both series the abdomen was targeted.

In both series the abdomen, and what lay directly beneath was targeted. IMHO there seems to be a focus on this area. Its a least common denominator of both the series that we are sure of. In all the victims of both the torso series and the ripper series there is extensive damage to the abdomen and the internal organs directly beneath. was there a sexual curiosity? Curiosity of reproductive organs? uterus removed in both series, Jackson had her foetus removed. I think this area has special significance for the killer in both series.

In both series body parts were separated and removed.

In both series the killer cut away,removed and separated and or took away both external and internal body parts. In both series these parts seem to have special significance for the killer. What did he want them for? that's up for further debate, for sure, but in both series there seems to be parts he wanted to keep, and parts he didn't. Any way, both internal and external parts and their removal/seperation were important for the killer in both series.

In both series internal organs were removed.

Very similar to above admittedly, but that specifically internal organs were removed is historically significant in this case. I have mentioned in the past that I have seen an FBI statistical report that listed serial killers by paraphilia or what was done to the victims. The last and most rarest was removal of internal organs. That there were two serial killers that were cutting into and removing internal organs IMHO seems too much of a coincidence. Post mortem serial killers who remove internal organs is the rarest type of serial killer and both did.


In both series the stomach flesh was removed with a knife in large sections.

I think this is probably the most specific of the similarities between the series and one of the main reasons that should link them. A lot of ongoing debate is being said on this already here and I don't really need to go into it. Ill let the more knowledgeable posters continue to do so. On the face of it though for me that both involved the cutting away of the sections of flesh of the stomach to gain access to the inside of the body is very significant.


In both series they overlapped in the same city.

Both series occurred in the same city. Indeed even more detailed than that, both series were in an area of only several miles circumference. Easy walking distance and even easier by cart. or boat. Add to that the pinchin torso was found in the immediate area of the ripper murders. Granted the torsos were mainly focused to the west of the ripper murders, but could easily be explained by the possibility that the torso victims were when the killer had access to a murder house in the west but he lived in the east near the ripper murders. The proximity of both series in location should be significant.

In both series they overlapped in time.

This is important. one didn't start after the other was finished. the ripper series started while the torso series was going on. this can be easily ascribed to a change in MO do to circumstances or even an escalation by the killer. The history of serial killers show that the same killer can change MO drastically, depending on their personal circumstances and desire.

Yes the torso series started much earlier than the ripper series but if even if you allow for the 70s torsos to be included, two decades of activity for serial killers is not rare at all.

I think most significantly in terms of time frames, and I think is often overlooked is that both series end at roughly the same time. Both series end in latter half of 89 with McKenzie and Pinchon. Indicative of one killer who had something change drastically in their life that caused the stoppage of the murders.

[Elamarna]

Ill go more in depth here with the similarities I listed, and possible significance:

In both series women were victims.

when comparing cases, I think victimology is significant. as is the history of serial killers re the victimology.
The victimology is the same, if not very similar. The victims were all adult women, of a certain class(lower class-for lack of better word). I would also venture to go so far as to say that they were all probably prostitutes. The ripper victims certainly were. and a case has been made that Jackson was. I think that part of the reason that most of the torso victims were not identified is because they were probably poor, homeless unfortunates. I have to bring up MO here in how the victims were lured to a place where the murders and dismemberment took place. since medical procedures, like abortions, have been conclusively ruled out IMHO, one can infer they were lured to the killers abode through a ruse of some sort. work, money prostitution act? Either way, a ruse was used, as in the ripper cases, and probably through an act of prostitution.

History of serial killers show that the majority of serial killers stick to same victimology. in both cases, its a adult women of a certain class. Neither varied by having male victims, or children or even women of a young age. even serial killers who target women in general in the past have strayed significantly in the age of there victims. many, including bundy, the Goldenstate killer, the nighstalker, have varied their attacks to include young women, teenage girls, very young girls, pre pubescent and even old women. Yet both torso and ripper series, in regards to age, targeted women in a definite range.

In both series a knife was the primary weapon.

I find this highly significant. all victims of both series the primary tool of destruction is the knife. Not a club, blunt force trauma, not only strangulation (bare hands), or ligatures used, nor an object found at the scene. a knife. Same Serial killers in history use different methods of killing, mutilation etc. something found at the scene. or by variation stabbing, shooting, beating, strangling-same serial killer different weapons. That both used primarily the knife to me is very important.

also, Dennis Rader, BTK, whos primary paraphilia/MO was binding, strangulation with rope, stated- it was all about the rope. To me in both series, it was all about the knife. and what it could do to the female body.

In both series there was extensive post mortem mutilation.

Both series involved post mortem mutilation. Highly significant IMHO. No torture was evident in either series. no overt sexual assault. All the focus on the victim seems to be after death. The post mortem serial killer is very rare. the post mortem serial killer who engages in no sexual activity with the body is rarer still. In neither series is there any indication that either killer fell in any other of the many serial killer types. They were both post mortem serial killers only seemingly interested in post mortem mutilation.

In both series the neck was cut.

all the victims had there neck cut. to various degrees yes, but necks cut nonethe less. In the ripper victims it seems to be to insure swift and silent death. In the torso case we don't know since they were all eventually decapitated, but at the very least that there necks weren't cut first to cause death isnt ruled out.

There also could be a practical reason though. That's to help bleed the victim out. and since both series there was extensive cutting, perhaps this was done to help lesson the amount of blood the killer got on himself and or to make easier the cutting up/into of bodies.


In both series the abdomen was targeted.

In both series the abdomen, and what lay directly beneath was targeted. IMHO there seems to be a focus on this area. Its a least common denominator of both the series that we are sure of. In all the victims of both the torso series and the ripper series there is extensive damage to the abdomen and the internal organs directly beneath. was there a sexual curiosity? Curiosity of reproductive organs? uterus removed in both series, Jackson had her foetus removed. I think this area has special significance for the killer in both series.

In both series body parts were separated and removed.

In both series the killer cut away,removed and separated and or took away both external and internal body parts. In both series these parts seem to have special significance for the killer. What did he want them for? that's up for further debate, for sure, but in both series there seems to be parts he wanted to keep, and parts he didn't. Any way, both internal and external parts and their removal/seperation were important for the killer in both series.

In both series internal organs were removed.

Very similar to above admittedly, but that specifically internal organs were removed is historically significant in this case. I have mentioned in the past that I have seen an FBI statistical report that listed serial killers by paraphilia or what was done to the victims. The last and most rarest was removal of internal organs. That there were two serial killers that were cutting into and removing internal organs IMHO seems too much of a coincidence. Post mortem serial killers who remove internal organs is the rarest type of serial killer and both did.


In both series the stomach flesh was removed with a knife in large sections.

I think this is probably the most specific of the similarities between the series and one of the main reasons that should link them. A lot of ongoing debate is being said on this already here and I don't really need to go into it. Ill let the more knowledgeable posters continue to do so. On the face of it though for me that both involved the cutting away of the sections of flesh of the stomach to gain access to the inside of the body is very significant.


In both series they overlapped in the same city.

Both series occurred in the same city. Indeed even more detailed than that, both series were in an area of only several miles circumference. Easy walking distance and even easier by cart. or boat. Add to that the pinchin torso was found in the immediate area of the ripper murders. Granted the torsos were mainly focused to the west of the ripper murders, but could easily be explained by the possibility that the torso victims were when the killer had access to a murder house in the west but he lived in the east near the ripper murders. The proximity of both series in location should be significant.

In both series they overlapped in time.

This is important. one didn't start after the other was finished. the ripper series started while the torso series was going on. this can be easily ascribed to a change in MO do to circumstances or even an escalation by the killer. The history of serial killers show that the same killer can change MO drastically, depending on their personal circumstances and desire.

Yes the torso series started much earlier than the ripper series but if even if you allow for the 70s torsos to be included, several decades of activity for serial killers is not rare at all.

I think most significantly in terms of time frames, and I think is often overlooked is that both series end at roughly the same time. Both series end in latter half of 89 with McKenzie and Pinchon. Indicative of one killer who had something change drastically in their life that caused the stoppage of the murders.

That's very interesting Abby, I will get back to you probably tomorrow with a set of replies, I may even agree on some.



Steve

[Sam Flynn]

That's very interesting Abby, I will get back to you probably tomorrow with a set of replies

I look forward to that, Steve. I was going to address Abby's points myself, but hopefully you'll save me the effort

[Abby Normal]

That's very interesting Abby, I will get back to you probably tomorrow with a set of replies, I may even agree on some.



Steve

Uh oh. Im getting nervous. LOL-thanks El. Looking forward to it.

[Abby Normal]

That's very interesting Abby, I will get back to you probably tomorrow with a set of replies, I may even agree on some.



Steve

Hi Again El
I just wanted to add that there is a lot of interpretation, subjectivity and pure speculation on my part in the long post, which is what I intended and what I look forward to seeing in any responses.

I should have said that in the post and would have gone back and edited/added but the time ran out for editing.

[Robert St Devil]

For your information the intestines do not have to be removed to get to the uterus. Your post is nothing more than your opinions, as is the case with many on here who are desperate to make the pieces fit towards two killers. None of you are medical experts, yet we see medical opinions by the bus load on this thread from arcmchair medical experts. Yes the real medical experts and what they say are not taken notice of.
www.trevormarriott.co.uk

That's fair if you don't care for my opinion. I, in turn,never put much stock in your opinion that intestines spring from the body like a toy from a wind-up box; it didn't seem like a solid medical opinion even by 19th century standards. Just considering that clearing-out her intestines may have created more working-space to perform his dissection, is all.

You must have read through my post too fast if you came away with an opinion I'm supporting 2 killers. I see subtle similarities beyond those mentioned here (the missing wedding ring, the cut extending to her backside, &c.). Plus, it's not like either killer couldn't perform the other man's crimes; Jack the Ripper could dissect and avoid detection just as well as the Torso Killer and vice versa.

[Fisherman]

Naughty, naughty, Fish. That's not from "the medical report", as if you were quoting from an official source, but from an editorial in the Lancet. This rather sensationalising piece of purple prose has, in its time, opened up several ripperological cans of worms, such as the (almost certainly mythical) idea that Chapman's organs were secured with "one sweep of the knife", all too often misattributed as a quote from Bagster Phillips. There's every reason to believe that this reference is yet another example of that tendency to over-dramatisation.

Oh, and the full quote, reads "It appears that the abdomen had been entirely laid open".

"It appears that..."? Really?

This is no first-hand account, and certainly not "THE medical report" as you, wittingly or unwittingly, would have had some of us believe.There's nothing in Hebbert that remotely supports that suggestion.

If you can prove that Chapmans abdomen was not more or less entirely laid open, then do so. Otherwise it is only more of the same "interpreting" that you must resort to before you can speak for two killers.

If you can prove that Jacksons abdomen was not more or less entirely laid open, then do so. Otherwise it is only more of the same "interpreting" that you must resort to before you can speak of two killers.

As long as we only have the knowledge that both womens abdomens were opened up - as was Kellys -with the abdominal wall being cut away in large flaps, all we can say is that a connection is indefinitely more likely tha any two killer scenario.

You see, whenever you get all hot about your own conjured up stories, far-fetched fantasies and lofty suppositions about journalists meaning A but saying B, we will always return to the simple facts. That is a promise.