Same motive = same killer

[Herlock Sholmes]

If I may?

My take on things is actually that the Ripper murders may have been sort of "Torso Murder Light" strikes. "Light" in the capacity that the killer at these instances would never be able to at will decide what he would do, how long time he would spend doing it, he would not be as meticulous etc; he simply would not have the time and he would not be able to fetch a saw and so on. Therefore, even if there is a very real possibility that the Ripper deeds exhilarated the killer, just as you suggest, I think that returning to the Torso style of killing had it´s advantages.

Is this an acceptable scenario for any other reason than its fits the Ripper/Torso link?

As for how you reason that the Torso killer was methodical and well prepared, I think we all have a tendency to reason like that - but I am not at all sure that it holds any water.
What if the Torso murders were all spur of the moment strikes? What if he went out with no intention to kill, stumbled over a woman who go the urge going and simply took it from there?

We can’t know for certain either way. So do we have someone who kills on the spur of the moment (and on that spur he either killed them there and then or takes them to a bolt-hole) Or someone who is methodical and patient (but he sometimes slips up and butchers in the street,) How elastic can our idea of the murderer/s get?

If this was so - and it could well have been - then the murders may have been very much aquainted to those of the Ripper series. Seeing a woman who arouses you, chatting her up "Hello dear, how about taking a walk with me?" - and when the "Torso lair" is within reach he takes the woman there, but when it is not, he strikes in the open street.

Others might agree Fish but it seems to me that your stretching things to fit.

There is no reason to think that it could not have gone down like that. Just as there is no reason to accept that these killers must have been of differing mindsets. That is something we add ourselves, and for understandable reasons.

Fish, why is this ‘scenario’ an acceptable possibility while others aren’t? Is it because it fits the Ripper/Torso connection?

What if the Ripper was someone who hated ‘morally evil’ prostitutes. That’s why he left them on display, skirts lifted, legs spread, in the streets (except for Kelly of course.) What if he felt that it was his ‘mission?’ Obviously I’m treading no new ground with this but that doesn’t stop it being a reasonable possibility. It fits the resulting murders. If that was the case then how could the Torso murders fit?

But once we realize that victims of both series suffered the same unusual damages to a very large degree, we may need to take that into account and look at the killers from a different perspective.

But we don’t seem to be able to accept the possible that unusual and ‘unlikely’ things happen.

Why is it that it can be claimed that ‘arguable similarities’ prove the same killer and yet when we talk about the more ‘obvious and proveable’ differences we can come up with any scenario to compensate for them? Just my thoughts, that’s all folks.

[Harry D]

Am I right that Elizabeth Jackson's unborn fetus was never recovered?

[Fisherman]

I can see some of the advantages the torso-style may have afforded the killer -- particularly the time to work at his leisure and to savor his moments. However, a torso killing required an incredible amount of work -- sheer hard manual labor -- and incredible risk.

---------------------------------

Perhaps the first time he might just have taken it from there. I have serious doubts he would not have organized himself after the massive undertaking of that first expedition. No, I think he would have learned and prepared, because he needed quite a list:

** He had to have a space.

** He had to have the tools necessary to inflict the damage: knife, saw, perhaps a hanging beam for the blood to drain; did he also need something to catch the blood? Tables, etc. to hold first the body, then the parts.

** He had to have a container in which to pack down the body parts (the size of the container might had been responsible for the smaller size of some of parts than of most dis-memberments). I'm thinking about the size of a hogshead. What do you see?

** He had to be able to obtain enough Lime/Carbolic Acid or whatever he used to cut down the smell. He had to cover the entire body. So, how was it purchased? Was it in a solid form that he mixed with water? How did it arrive? How did he learn to work with it in order not to harm himself? Does his use of it indicate a possible occupation for the killer?

**Then, the disposal . . . Imagine how that would had to have been accomplished. Can you see a man carrying a large, paper-wrapped parcel through the streets -- or did fish porters, etc. do that on a daily basis? Even so, would it not have been required that he be someone often seen hauling about big parcels?

** paper, string

** Would his own transportation have been a requirement for the torso killer?

I think the individual killings could have been spur of the moment -- HOWEVER certain things were required to be on hand in advance of even the first killing -- the space for example, and the tools -- OR the MEANS with which to purchase the tools.

He had to have access to quite a string of items to have ever accomplished the first killing, let alone multiple killings.

The torso-killer had to have some means . . . The Ripper was required to have only a knife.

curious

Yes, the Ripper was required to have a knife - meaning that his deeds are demonstrably more premeditated.

The Torso killer may not have had any weapon at all on hid person as he contacted or was contacted by his victims.

If the bolthole used by the torso man was a place where knives and saws were regularly used, then we can look away from it being any work or nuisance having to have these implements. They were in place, courtesy of the character of the locality.

Maybe the carbolic acid - which we don´t know that he used regularly - was also there on account of the same thing - it could have been used, perhaps, for desinfectig or cleaning the premises?

The disposal - it seems he sometimes cut into many pieces, and other times, he left a ful leg on the torso. This does not speak to me of any regular cutting schedule, but instead of different whims guiding it. Apparently, he could/would transport large pieces when he felt like it, so it seems that was not any problem.

Paper and string does not seem like something that would call upon much thinking or effort to get your hands on. Could have been present in many working spaces/localities.

All in all, I think we must be careful about ascribing all that much work and care and planning to the Torso killer - and so very little to the Ripper. The murders may have been totally similar in style on many levels.

[Fisherman]

Am I right that Elizabeth Jackson's unborn fetus was never recovered?

Yes, you are, Harry.

[Fisherman]

Why is it that it can be claimed that ‘arguable similarities’ prove the same killer and yet when we talk about the more ‘obvious and proveable’ differences we can come up with any scenario to compensate for them? Just my thoughts, that’s all folks.

Because, Herlock, differences will always be there - they were around in spades inbetween each and every case in both series. And differences will always be secondary, if the similarities are many and unusual in character.

Let me exemplify:

Let´s say that a woman and a man are killed, the woman in 1883, and the man in 1889. The woman is killed in Glasgow and the man in Torquay. The woman is stabbed to death and the man is strangled. The woman is 93 years old and the man 18. The woman is rich and the man is poor. The woman is killed in the street and the man in his home.

These are all differences that are very clear, and it seems there is no reason at all to make a link inbetween the cases.

Now, let´s say that there is one (1) similarity. Both victims have had their eyelids cut away and deposited in their nostrils.

We would in this case have five differences. And just the one similarity. And we would still be able to tell that it was with almost 100 per cent certainty the same killer, on account of the very explicit and odd thing that was done to the eyelids.

We could list a hundred more differences, actually, and it would not matter. Differences can never tie together, they can only tell apart - but they can NOT tell apart if there is a unique similarity involved.

So this is why the largest of collections of differences, real or perceived, are of no use in cases like these. We are dealing with three women who had their necks severed, their abdomens opened up, their uteri taken and their abdominal walls cut away in large flaps. Each and every one of these parameters are unusual, and the combination of them is way beyond any reasonable dismissal of the one killer suggestion.

Can you see the logic of this, Herlock? If you can, the answer is given: one killer. It is only if you claim that the combination of damages is a mundane and common one that we can start talking of a possibility of two killers.

[Harry D]

Yes, you are, Harry.

Morbid as it sounds, can't help wondering if the baby was subjected to any dissection or if he just dumped it?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Because, Herlock, differences will always be there - they were around in spades inbetween each and every case in both series. And differences will always be secondary, if the similarities are many and unusual in character.

Let me exemplify:

Let´s say that a woman and a man are killed, the woman in 1883, and the man in 1889. The woman is killed in Glasgow and the man in Torquay. The woman is stabbed to death and the man is strangled. The woman is 93 years old and the man 18. The woman is rich and the man is poor. The woman is killed in the street and the man in his home.

These are all differences that are very clear, and it seems there is no reason at all to make a link inbetween the cases.

Now, let´s say that there is one (1) similarity. Both victims have had their eyelids cut away and deposited in their nostrils.

We would in this case have five differences. And just the one similarity. And we would still be able to tell that it was with almost 100 per cent certainty the same killer, on account of the very explicit and odd thing that was done to the eyelids.

We could list a hundred more differences, actually, and it would not matter. Differences can never tie together, they can only tell apart - but they can NOT tell apart if there is a unique similarity involved.

So this is why the largest of collections of differences, real or perceived, are of no use in cases like these. We are dealing with three women who had their necks severed, their abdomens opened up, their uteri taken and their abdominal walls cut away in large flaps. Each and every one of these parameters are unusual, and the combination of them is way beyond any reasonable dismissal of the one killer suggestion.

Can you see the logic of this, Herlock? If you can, the answer is given: one killer. It is only if you claim that the combination of damages is a mundane and common one that we can start talking of a possibility of two killers.

You're hypothetical pair of murders exhibit a far more obvious and specific point of connection though (as obvious as the killer leaving a calling card.) Damage done like the damage to the walls of the abdomen are surely far less specific. Couldn't a removed uterus hint at a failed operation with the abdominal wall damage being done by the 'doctor' /killer to hide the fact?.
How many ways can someone damage the walls of an abdomen? Surely they would mostly involve 'flaps?'

You just seem so certain Fish. But if its so obvious why doesn't everyone, or even the majority, agree with you? Of course they could be wrong and you could be right. It doesn't point to it being as obvious as you appear to believe it to be though. Unless you are suggesting that everyone who disagrees has an ulterior motive for doing so? (I'm not suggesting that that's what you're implying by the way.) I just don't understand your level of confidence.

[Joshua Rogan]

Morbid as it sounds, can't help wondering if the baby was subjected to any dissection or if he just dumped it?

I believe a foetus of about the right age was pulled from the Thames, in a jar. But for some reason was discounted as being Jackson's.

[Fisherman]

You're hypothetical pair of murders exhibit a far more obvious and specific point of connection though (as obvious as the killer leaving a calling card.) Damage done like the damage to the walls of the abdomen are surely far less specific. Couldn't a removed uterus hint at a failed operation with the abdominal wall damage being done by the 'doctor' /killer to hide the fact?.
How many ways can someone damage the walls of an abdomen? Surely they would mostly involve 'flaps?'

You just seem so certain Fish. But if its so obvious why doesn't everyone, or even the majority, agree with you? Of course they could be wrong and you could be right. It doesn't point to it being as obvious as you appear to believe it to be though. Unless you are suggesting that everyone who disagrees has an ulterior motive for doing so? (I'm not suggesting that that's what you're implying by the way.) I just don't understand your level of confidence.

I kind of anticipated that you would speak of different levels of specificity, Herlock - but what I am after is the principle and that was what you asked for too: Similaritites can tie together, and dissimilarities cannot tell apart if these similaritites are specific enough. That is why I used as clear an example as possible. But overall, the four similarities listed in "our" cases would taken together weigh as much as the eyelid thing, at least to my mind.

But you argue that there is nothing much specific about killers who cut necks, open abdomens, take out uteri and cut away the abdominal wall in large sections?

I can only tell you that you are wrong.

As I keep saying, if you think that I am overconfident - ask those who have the expertise in errands like these.

If you think there are examples of serial killers in the same time and place with this level of similarities, or anything even remotely like it - dig them out.

It is that easy. Really.

[Fisherman]

Morbid as it sounds, can't help wondering if the baby was subjected to any dissection or if he just dumped it?

I couldn´t say, Harry. The question is a reasonable one. If the foetus had been found, we would know. Maybe it was never dumped and therefore never found...?

[Fisherman]

Off to bed now - big fishing day tomorrow! We have finally gotten decent temperatures over here, and that will wake the seatrout up, hopefully...

[Sam Flynn]

Why is it that it can be claimed that ‘arguable similarities’ prove the same killer and yet when we talk about the more ‘obvious and proveable’ differences we can come up with any scenario to compensate for them?

Odd that, isn't it?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I kind of anticipated that you would speak of different levels of specificity, Herlock - but what I am after is the principle and that was what you asked for too: Similaritites can tie together, and dissimilarities cannot tell apart if these similaritites are specific enough. That is why I used as clear an example as possible. But overall, the four similarities listed in "our" cases would taken together weigh as much as the eyelid thing, at least to my mind.

But you argue that there is nothing much specific about killers who cut necks, open abdomens, take out uteri and cut away the abdominal wall in large sections?

I can only tell you that you are wrong.

As I keep saying, if you think that I am overconfident - ask those who have the expertise in errands like these.

If you think there are examples of serial killers in the same time and place with this level of similarities, or anything even remotely like it - dig them out.

It is that easy. Really.

No it’s not.

Why do there have to be other examples to make something plausible? There is a first time for everything. What if it happened but hasn’t been recorded? If it’s that obvious why isn’t it taken as read that there was one killer? Why do intelligent, knowledgeable people like Sam and Steve for example disagree if it’s so obvious? If it’s so obvious they would agree. Or are you questioning their intelligence or integrity? I’ve never seen any reason to question either. Or an ex-copper like Trevor? I’m not saying that you can’t be right Fish but I just can’t understand why you will allow of no possibility of being wrong?

For me the Ripper series is a pretty obvious one therefore there’s likely to be another explaination for the Torso series. For me also, over-confidence is the curse of Ripper studies or indeed the study of any historical crimes (especially when they occurred 130 years ago.)

[Sam Flynn]

But you argue that there is nothing much specific about killers who cut necks, open abdomens, take out uteri and cut away the abdominal wall in large sections?

The Ripper victims died of cut throats, so stop deliberately fudging things in favour of your argument by over-generalising to "cut necks".

There was only one torso case where the abdomen was opened and the uterus removed. In contrast, 3 out of 4 of the Ripper's evisceration victims had their uteri removed, and under far less favourable conditions than those which the torso killer(s) enjoyed.

The only victim to have had the abdominal wall removed "in large sections" was Mary Kelly. None of the others did, by a country mile.

Stick to the facts, be objective, and stop twisting the evidence.

[curious]

Yes, the Ripper was required to have a knife - meaning that his deeds are demonstrably more premeditated.

Not really. Didn't many people simply carry a knife wherever they went? For eating, for protection? Both my parents always had a knife to hand, for use as a screwdriver, to slice an apple, cut a flower . . . There was no premeditation for murder in carrying a knife

The Torso killer may not have had any weapon at all on hid person as he contacted or was contacted by his victims.

If the bolthole used by the torso man was a place where knives and saws were regularly used, then we can look away from it being any work or nuisance having to have these implements. They were in place, courtesy of the character of the locality.

Ah, but unless it were his private workshop (and in that case, then he had to at some point assemble everything. If he already had the workshop outfitted, the tools in the workshop may even have inspired the actions he took for his first murder as he used what was available.) So, are you saying you think it was a work area used by more than the killer? Is that really what you're seeing? Him storing a body in an area used by other people?

Maybe the carbolic acid - which we don´t know that he used regularly - was also there on account of the same thing - it could have been used, perhaps, for desinfectig or cleaning the premises?

Then, does that perhaps point toward the killer's occupation?

The disposal - it seems he sometimes cut into many pieces, and other times, he left a ful leg on the torso. This does not speak to me of any regular cutting schedule, but instead of different whims guiding it. This speaks to me of different cutters and a different storage plan. Remember, the newspaper articles said the body parts seemed flattened and pressed down on each other. Which body came first? The one with the limb still attached, or the flattened pieces soaked in carbolic acid? Apparently, he could/would transport large pieces when he felt like it, so it seems that was not any problem. It may not be a problem you're interested in nor a problem the killer could not overcome, but for us looking at it, trying to re-construct the killers' actions, disposal is a huge part.

Paper and string does not seem like something that would call upon much thinking or effort to get your hands on. Could have been present in many working spaces/localities. so, he just steals from his employer? Paper and string would be an expense -- one way and another. Slight, but perhaps still out of the range of the men normally considered for JtR.

All in all, I think we must be careful about ascribing all that much work and care and planning to the Torso killer I think, all in all, that unless you are an enormous Scandinavian man, lifting dead-weight bodies and limbs around, positioning them, carving them, etc. is an incredible amount of work for the average person. Perhaps, I think that because I'm a short, out-of-condition woman. Are you positive you're not imbuing the killer with your own size and strength when you determine how much work might be involved? We have no idea what size or strength the killer was but it's not very likely he was much more than 5'7" tall, is it? - and so very little to the Ripper. The murders may have been totally similar in style on many levels.

or not at all