Same motive = same killer

[Fisherman]

1. Complete conjecture - why not say the heads held a special significance for the Torso Killer? After all, he probably kept them, since they were never found. There does not seem to be any parts he particularly wanted to keep in the Torso cases, besides the heads, since everything else was found, although not everything was found from the same victim.

2. Rarity scales such as this are completely irrelevant. What happened, happened regardless of how rare or common it might be considered.flaps, slips, large, small - you see it as very significant, I see it as coincidental in cutting up a body containing a foetus - were there other flaps or slips cut off in the other torso cases? if not, then why attach such significance to them?
could be, but other factors should be considered: you yourself considered the victims to be lowerclass, so proximity to lowerclass neighbourhoods could be a factor.

3. I agree that the overlap in time 1887-89 is the main argument for considering a common origin for these crimes.

4. To recap: All your similarities above are not significant and do not show a link between the series....

Kattrup, I would like to bring up four of the points you made, but in a separete discussion. The reason being that I am intrigued by how you loftily can state things like these as it they were true. I have numbered the issues, and take them one by one.

1. You say that the torso killer (whom you luckily speak of as "he", and I agree that this is the logical thing to do since it was in all probability one person only, and a male) "probably kept the heads". However, a head thrown in water will sink on account of itīs density and weight. It is therefore going beyond what is viable to say that the killer probably kept the heads.
Furthermore, the 1873 case, which is for very logical reasons also tied into the series, had an inclusion of a face being cut off and thrown away. And the face constitutes part of the head. Plus the 1884 Tottenham torso was dumped with the head present.
But, as I say, even if we acceptonly the 1887-89 torsos, we cannot say which is more probable, that he kept the heads or discarded them.

2. Of course raritites play the greatest of roles in identifying serialists. Ridgway deposited pebbles in the vaginas of his victims, and the police was in no doubt whatsoever that this was definite proof of a link. And this holds true regarding any damage done, as long as it is present on two or more victims. Cigarette burn marks - no certain thing, but an indicator pointing to a link. Having been beaten - less of a certainty, but it willgo down a s ain indicator too, albeit a fainter one. The uterus having been taken - a very clear pointer since it is so rare. Pebbels inserted in the vagina - a certain indicator. The abdominal wall being cut away in large flaps - more or less the same, so rare that little reaslistic doubt can be entertained.
These things all predispose that we have a geographical commonality and a time commonality and that no copycats were at large. Apart from that, they cannot be contested when it comes to the overall usefulness.

3. The time overlap is of course not the most important factor for believing that it was the same originator. The damage is. Otherwise it would apply that regardless of the damage, a time overlap will always be the best pointer to the same killer. Not if we have a strangulation and a gunshot killing, though! But! IF the strangulation and the gunshot killing both involve the killer subsequently cutting the abdomen open by means of cutting away large flaps of meat from the abdominal wall and taking away the uterus, then the police will work from the assumption of a link - they will accept that it is the same killer.

4. Of course the damage listed shows a link between the series. I fail to see how you can even say such a thing. It is not as if Abby grabbed a number of cases out of thin air - he is speaking about cases that ARE linked in time, that ARE linked geographically and that ARE linked by means of similar types of damage having been done.
I presume that what you tried to say is that it cannot be regarded as having been conclusively proven that there is a real link, but that is another matter altogether. And as you know, my take is that the link is proven beyond reasonable doubt - it cannot realistically be a coincidence.

[Fisherman]

A short question:

If we work with a scenario where two women are found dead, both of them prostitutes, in the same city and in a nine month period, and if all we are told is that they have had their necks cut, their abdomens opened up, the abdomonal wall taken away in large flaps and their uteri removed - would anybody out here entertain the idea that it is more probable with two killers than one?

Now, add a third victim in the same city and time period, found after the two others. All we know about her is that she has had her neck cut, her abdomen opened up, her abdominal wall taken away in large flaps and her uterus removed - and she has been found in pieces, having been disarticulated.
Would anybody entertain the idea that it is more probale that she was killed by somebody else on account of the dismemberment? Or would we regard her a victim of the same killer, who was also dismembered?

That is all we need to answer to find out which is the more likely solution overall.

[Trevor Marriott]

A short question:

If we work with a scenario where two women are found dead, both of them prostitutes, in the same city and in a nine month period, and if all we are told is that they have had their necks cut, their abdomens opened up, the abdomonal wall taken away in large flaps and their uteri removed - would anybody out here entertain the idea that it is more probable with two killers than one?

Now, add a third victim in the same city and time period, found after the two others. All we know about her is that she has had her neck cut, her abdomen opened up, her abdominal wall taken away in large flaps and her uterus removed - and she has been found in pieces, having been disarticulated.
Would anybody entertain the idea that it is more probale that she was killed by somebody else on account of the dismemberment? Or would we regard her a victim of the same killer, who was also dismembered?

That is all we need to answer to find out which is the more likely solution overall.

But you are not able to conclusively prove that all the torsos had their throats/necks cut so that is where you fall down. In fact you keep being told that there is no direct evidence to back up a murder.

You also seem to want to ignore Dr Biggs when he say`s that with dismemberment of bodies carried out by different people, the end result might look the same because there are only so many ways a body can be dismembered. And if the dismemberment's have different characteristics that clearly points to different people doing the dismembering and not one as you suggest.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

But you are not able to conclusively prove that all the torsos had their throats/necks cut so that is where you fall down. In fact you keep being told that there is no direct evidence to back up a murder.

You also seem to want to ignore Dr Biggs when he say`s that with dismemberment of bodies carried out by different people, the end result might look the same because there are only so many ways a body can be dismembered. And if the dismemberment's have different characteristics that clearly points to different people doing the dismembering and not one as you suggest.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No, Trevor, I donīt fall down at all. We know perfectly well that the Torso victims all had their heads cut off, and cutting off a head without severing the neck is a difficult task indeed.
What we cannot know is whether it was a means of murder - something that was implied by the medicos - or whether it was merely part of dismemberment.
All we can say, as I have repeatedly stated, is that we know that the necks of the Torso victims were severed.

Not that I think that a victim of the paraphbilia represented by the killer we are dealing with must have the neck severed to fit into the series. As I understand things, the neck cutting was all about practicalities, mainly the one of bleeding off the victim and getting it ready for the cutting. In the 1873 case, it can be argued that the chain of events may have involved a killing two blows to the temple, a hanging up of the body and then an opening of the vessels in the neck. After that, the victim was taken down and the killer proceeded to cut the face away from the skull in a very meticulous manner, after which he went on to dismember the corpse into smallish parts. All of this done in a short period of time after death, short enough for the medicos to trace the muscle contraction giving it away.

I do not ignore Dr Biggs at all, furthermore. I think he is perfectly correct in saying that most dismemberment murders will look more or less the same - as long as the reason for dismembering is a practical one only. In such cases, we should expect six parts: head, torso and arms and legs.

But when dismemberment is carried out as a result of a deeply rooted psychological urge within the killer, we will get results that can differ a whole lot inbetween victims.
It is not practically necessary to cut way a face. It is not practically necessary to take out the uterus, hearts and lungs. It is not practically necessary to cut the abdomen open - and the abdominal wall away.
And the torso victims were cut in more pieces than necessary. The trunks of the Whitehall victim and Jackson were divided into three parts. The 1873 victim was cut in small pieces, but the 1874 one had a leg attached to the torso.

All of these victims are different inbetween them and individually instantly recognisable. Not a single one of them answer to the partition in six parts that Dr Biggs speaks about.

If you want to believe in Biggs, then you need to present him with all the cases and the case details, allowing for a fair judgment. So far, that seems never to have been done properly.

[Sam Flynn]

Cutting through the neck in order to remove a head is emphatically not the same as slitting someone's throat.

[Trevor Marriott]

No, Trevor, I donīt fall down at all. We know perfectly well that the Torso victims all had their heads cut off, and cutting off a head without severing the neck is a difficult task indeed.
What we cannot know is whether it was a means of murder - something that was implied by the medicos - or whether it was merely part of dismemberment.
All we can say, as I have repeatedly stated, is that we know that the necks of the Torso victims were severed.

Yes, but what for, to assist in the dismemberment, and hide the identity of the victim. there is no way on this earth that you can say the throats were cut !!!!!!!!!!

Not that I think that a victim of the paraphbilia represented by the killer we are dealing with must have the neck severed to fit into the series. As I understand things, the neck cutting was all about practicalities, mainly the one of bleeding off the victim and getting it ready for the cutting. In the 1873 case, it can be argued that the chain of events may have involved a killing two blows to the temple, a hanging up of the body and then an opening of the vessels in the neck. After that, the victim was taken down and the killer proceeded to cut the face away from the skull in a very meticulous manner, after which he went on to dismember the corpse into smallish parts. All of this done in a short period of time after death, short enough for the medicos to trace the muscle contraction giving it away.

Utter rubbish, you have been by Dr Biggs that time of death cannot be estimated based on observation alone.

I do not ignore Dr Biggs at all, furthermore. I think he is perfectly correct in saying that most dismemberment murders will look more or less the same - as long as the reason for dismembering is a practical one only. In such cases, we should expect six parts: head, torso and arms and legs.

But all the parts would seem to have either been deposited at diffrenet locations or at different times so you are never going to get all the parts turning up at the same time and in one place

But when dismemberment is carried out as a result of a deeply rooted psychological urge within the killer, we will get results that can differ a whole lot inbetween victims.

You cant look at a psychological profile when you dont even have a murder and when there are so many anomalies to deal with.


It is not practically necessary to cut way a face. It is not practically necessary to take out the uterus, hearts and lungs. It is not practically necessary to cut the abdomen open - and the abdominal wall away.
And the torso victims were cut in more pieces than necessary. The trunks of the Whitehall victim and Jackson were divided into three parts. The 1873 victim was cut in small pieces, but the 1874 one had a leg attached to the torso.

The cutting in many peices was to aid disposal

All of these victims are different inbetween them and individually instantly recognisable. Not a single one of them answer to the partition in six parts that Dr Biggs speaks about.

If you want to believe in Biggs, then you need to present him with all the cases and the case details, allowing for a fair judgment. So far, that seems never to have been done properly.

Thats your opinion but it would be because what he says doesnt fit well with your conclusions. I will say to you the same I have said to other posters who do not accept what he says, and that is send me your questions and I will put them to him. Lets put an end to this debacle once and for all

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[John Wheat]

Why would a killer who had killed sporadically indoors before depositing body parts. Suddenly kill outdoors with relatively short periods in between the murders?

[Jon Guy]

Why would a killer who had killed sporadically indoors before depositing body parts. Suddenly kill outdoors with relatively short periods in between the murders?

Lots of possible reasons but the obvious one is mental deterioration

[Sam Flynn]

Lots of possible reasons but the obvious one is mental deterioration

If so, it was a temporary aberration. He seems to have recovered and returned to leisurely indoor dismemberment and decapitation after the Autumn of Terror, never again to return to a flurry of outdoor eviscerations and slit throats.

[Fisherman]

Cutting through the neck in order to remove a head is emphatically not the same as slitting someone's throat.

No, it is not. Did anybody claim it was? Do I have to repeat that what I am saying is that we do not know HOW and WHY the necks of the torso victims were severed, but we DO know that they were and that the contemporary medicos voiced the opinion that this may well have been the cause of death?

We cannot blithely just assume that there were different reasons for cutting the necks of the Ripper victims and the Torso victims. There may have been and there may not have been, and therefore all we are left with is - once again, and forever if it is necessary - our knowledge that all victims had their necks severed.

And that must be weighed in, Iīm afraid. If we only know that there are two victims of murder present in a city, it will point loosely to the same killer. Once we know that both of them have had their necks severed, that means the likelihood of the same killer moves one step up the likelihood ladder. Admittedly, if one had the spine cut through while the other had not, it will make that step a bit shorter, but it WILL represent such a step anyway.

Iīm not too fond of having it hinted at that I believe that the torso murders and the Ripper murders were carbon copies overall - or when it comes to the cut necks. Please donīt do that, Gareth. What I am saying is that the similarities inbetween Chapman, Jackson and Kelly are per se quite enough to conclude that there was in all probability just the one killer. Not that The Rainham victim and Eddowes had their necks cut in the same fashion - which they may well have had, at least initially.

I hope you can see how it works now.

[Fisherman]

Thats your opinion but it would be because what he says doesnt fit well with your conclusions. I will say to you the same I have said to other posters who do not accept what he says, and that is send me your questions and I will put them to him. Lets put an end to this debacle once and for all

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Good!

Hereīs my question:

Dr Biggs! Are you of the opinion that dismemberment murder cases led on by a deeply rooted psychological urge within the killer to cut into a body are likely to produce other results than dismemberment cases where the sole reason for the dismemberment is a wish to conceal the identity of the victim or facilitate the disposal of the remains?

[Elamarna]

Abby
Having seen that Kattrup as responding, saying much of what I was intending to post, I decided in the interests of non repetition not to therefore post that reply.

I will however say that the time overlap in the late 80s does lend some weight to the possability of a connection, however that is far from conclusive in my opinion, and I accept it's only my opinion.

Steve

[Fisherman]

Abby
Having seen that Kattrup as responding, saying much of what I was intending to post, I decided in the interests of non repetition not to therefore post that reply.

I will however say that the time overlap in the late 80s does lend some weight to the possability of a connection, however that is far from conclusive in my opinion, and I accept it's only my opinion.

Steve

And now YOU are doing it too...? The time overlap is a mere secondary matter. If the deeds had not had so many commonalities, we would not be discussing a connection at all. THAT is where the true linking possibility lies.
Reasoning that the time issue is the clincher, we need to include any murder within that time span as linked, regardless of the character of the deed, and that would be utter folly.

[Jon Guy]

If so, it was a temporary aberration. He seems to have recovered and returned to leisurely indoor dismemberment and decapitation after the Autumn of Terror, never again to return to a flurry of outdoor eviscerations and slit throats.

Yes, possibly temporary.
East End favourites alcoholism and syphillis will do that

Of course, you`re forgetting the attack on McKenzie.

[Fisherman]

Just another example before I leave:

If there are three murders in the same geographical area, all of carying characters but within a month-long time span.

And if there are three murders, each of them five years apart and twentyfive miles apart, where the killer has taken out the liver and cut it into a star-shaped organ.

Which of the cases do you think are more likely to be linked?

I know what my money is on. And I know that it is the only sound bet. But Iīm interested to hear all opinions and reasoning.