Same motive = same killer

[curious]

There was also another Torso murder that was predicted ahead of time. I can't remember the exact one but I posted the newspaper snippet awhile ago.

Predicted? Is there another thread I need to find time to read?

[Harry D]

Predicted? Is there another thread I need to find time to read?

I went through my post history and found it. It's from this very thread in fact:

Probably late to the game but here's another case of someone approaching the press with tale of a murder shortly before one of the torsos was discovered.

Sheffield Evening Telegraph
11 October 1888
AN EXTRAORDINARY STORY
An extraordinary story is going the round of journalistic circles in connection with the mysterious discovery on the Thames Embankment. It will be remembered that the woman's remains were found on the Monday afternoon of last week. The previous evening, however, a man went to most of the daily newspaper offices, saw the respective subeditors[?] and inquired if they had heard of a woman's body being discovered on the Embankment. The man evidently expected remuneration, but, in accordance with practice, was required to call again after inquiries had been made. Reporters were despatched in hot haste to Westminster, and calls were made at all the police stations and other likely quarters, but without result, no discovery of the kind reported having been made. In less than twenty-four hours the remains of the unknown woman were found between the Embankment and Whitehall at the spot previously described. If this reported discovery was a hoax, and a strange coincidence, it is very singular indeed. Moreover, the man who called at the newspaper offices did not call a second time.

[Fisherman]

Kindly desist from trotting out that inaccurate and misleading statement.

What you need to do to prove your point is to present OTHER cases where a serial killer has cut the neck, opened up the abdomen, taken out the uterus and taken away the abdominal wall in large sections from a victim.

I would much prefer for you to do that than to repeatedly question what I say with no evidence to back it up whatsoever.

Maybe you can find such a creature. I have not been able to do so. The point of the exercise is that even if there IS such a serial killer recorded, then he will be somebody who is more or less unique. And that begs the question how likely it is that TWO such rare beasts would overlap each other in Victorian London!

But don´t let me stand in the way. You just present the other examples, all of them, that you have of this type of killer. I am waiting, for the simple reason that I want to clear myself of your accusations and I want to underline how completely unlikely it would be if the Torso man and the Ripper were not one and the same man.

[curious]

Curious, we cannot have a discussion where you dismiss the fact that the Ripper carried a knofe as being indicative of a higher level of premeditation. It is, quite simply. The indication can be right or wrong, but taken on it´s own, that´s what it tells us.

And why are we discussing how the torso man must have been very strong? The Ripper was equally described as a very strong man, so how does that tell us thatb they were not the same man...?

Ah, Fisherman, how funny you are, thinking you set all the rules.

In my purse, I ALWAYS carry credit cards -- no matter where I'm going: to the school to take a walk, to the mountains fishing, visiting a friend in the hospital, shopping . . . it does not matter where I'm going, I always carry credit cards. It does not mean that I'm planning to use them. They are just there.

I happen to believe that in the Ripper era and on into the 1900s many people happened to carry knives, handkerchiefs and other items exactly the same way. Just because they did.

We were not discussing that the torso man had to be very strong. We were discussing the amount of physical work required for a torso murder that was not required for a ripper-style murder (or at least I was). I pointed out that your take on work and my take on work might be influenced by our respective sizes and possible physical conditions.

curious

[Harry D]

What you need to do to prove your point is to present OTHER cases where a serial killer has cut the neck, opened up the abdomen, taken out the uterus and taken away the abdominal wall in large sections from a victim.

The Whitehall victim was killed not long after Annie Chapman, the first in the series to lose her uterus. Perhaps the Torso killer did this to to deflect suspicion onto the Whitechapel murderer. But that wouldn't explain why it never happened again, assuming the Torsos were carried out by the same person.

[Fisherman]

Ah, Fisherman, how funny you are, thinking you set all the rules.

In my purse, I ALWAYS carry credit cards -- no matter where I'm going: to the school to take a walk, to the mountains fishing, visiting a friend in the hospital, shopping . . . it does not matter where I'm going, I always carry credit cards. It does not mean that I'm planning to use them. They are just there.

I happen to believe that in the Ripper era and on into the 1900s many people happened to carry knives, handkerchiefs and other items exactly the same way. Just because they did.

We were not discussing that the torso man had to be very strong. We were discussing the amount of physical work required for a torso murder that was not required for a ripper-style murder (or at least I was). I pointed out that your take on work and my take on work might be influenced by our respective sizes and possible physical conditions.

curious

I never said that we can conclude that the Ripper planned to use the knife. I said that the fact that he had a weapon as he took to the streets means that he is one step ahead of the Torso killer in terms of possible premeditation since we cannot prove that the latter did carry a weapon (probably not a saw, at least) on his person.
You may not have understood this, though. I am not making any rules, but I like people I debate with to follow the rules of logic. Not my logic.Logic.

The idea that there was a tremendeous much larger amount of "physical work" included in the Torso murders is not a very good one, I fear. There were arguably more steps involved, but I don´t think we can rule out that the Ripper would have been able to manage them too, if required. And to me, that is the salient question - and answer.

[curious]

I went through my post history and found it. It's from this very thread in fact:

Originally Posted by Harry D View Post
Probably late to the game but here's another case of someone approaching the press with tale of a murder shortly before one of the torsos was discovered.

Sheffield Evening Telegraph
11 October 1888
AN EXTRAORDINARY STORY
An extraordinary story is going the round of journalistic circles in connection with the mysterious discovery on the Thames Embankment. It will be remembered that the woman's remains were found on the Monday afternoon of last week. The previous evening, however, a man went to most of the daily newspaper offices, saw the respective subeditors[?] and inquired if they had heard of a woman's body being discovered on the Embankment. The man evidently expected remuneration, but, in accordance with practice, was required to call again after inquiries had been made. Reporters were despatched in hot haste to Westminster, and calls were made at all the police stations and other likely quarters, but without result, no discovery of the kind reported having been made. In less than twenty-four hours the remains of the unknown woman were found between the Embankment and Whitehall at the spot previously described. If this reported discovery was a hoax, and a strange coincidence, it is very singular indeed. Moreover, the man who called at the newspaper offices did not call a second time.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Speechless, here.

What do you think was happening?

curious

[Fisherman]

The Whitehall victim was killed not long after Annie Chapman, the first in the series to lose her uterus. Perhaps the Torso killer did this to to deflect suspicion onto the Whitechapel murderer. But that wouldn't explain why it never happened again, assuming the Torsos were carried out by the same person.

Correct. But since the Rainham victim was the first to loose her heart and lungs, it seems that the mimicking went the other way around in that case, with the Ripper mimicking the Torso man (Kelly lost a lung and her heart).

And Eddowes mimicked the 1884 torso, with the cut off nosetip.

If we have all the victims on record, that is the problem with copycat thinking: it goes in both directions, and so we need to accept that both men mimicked each other´s work. And as always, that cannot be excluded per se (nothing can) - but oh, is the solution with just the one killer simpler!!!

[curious]

I never said that we can conclude that the Ripper planned to use the knife. I said that the fact that he had a weapon as he took to the streets means that he is one step ahead of the Torso killer in terms of possible premeditation.
You may not have understood this, though. I am not making any rules, but I like people I debate with to follow the rules of logic. Not my logic.Logic.

The idea that there was a treemendeous much larger amount of "physical work" included in the Torso murders is not a very good one, I fear. There were arguably more steps involved, but I don´t think we can rule out that the Ripper would have been able to manage them too, if required. And to me, that is the salient question - and answer.

As I said -- hilarious!

"a higher level of premeditation"

Then, arguably, the torso-killer had a "higher level of premeditation" simply by keeping an equipped workshop . . . .

"I am not making any rules, but I like people I debate with to follow the rules of logic. Not my logic.Logic." so says you. I suspect the people are few in number who believe your logic is logical.

Again, you're changing . . . the pure amount of work -- indicated by more steps -- is much greater for a torso murder than a ripper-style murder.

But fear away as you wish today! Logic-icate away! I have projects I must get to.

It's been fun!

curious

[Fisherman]

As I said -- hilarious!

"a higher level of premeditation"

Then, arguably, the torso-killer had a "higher level of premeditation" simply by keeping an equipped workshop . . . .

"I am not making any rules, but I like people I debate with to follow the rules of logic. Not my logic.Logic." so says you. I suspect the people are few in number who believe your logic is logical.

Again, you're changing . . . the pure amount of work -- indicated by more steps -- is much greater for a torso murder than a ripper-style murder.

But fear away as you wish today! Logic-icate away! I have projects I must get to.

It's been fun!

curious

It does not matter how much you try to bend and twist things, Curious. If it can be proven that a person carried a knife, it involves a possible premeditation. If the person cannot be proven to have carried a knife, that implication goes away. The punishment will follow accordingly in a court of law.

So we need to differ on this point. And on another one: I don´think it has been fun at all. I rarely do when I am accused of misrepresenting a question of people who are the actual misrepresenters themselves.

[Abby Normal]

To add just a bit more to the Board of Works.

Tite Street is named after William Tite who was a member of the Metropolitan Board of Works, responsible for the construction of Chelsea Embankment to the south of Tite Street and some railway station buildings. (https://wikivisually.com/wiki/Tite_Street)

Tite street was also home of the Shelley estate, where Elizabeth Jackson's thigh was found in the garden of the estate wrapped in the pocket of a costermonger's apron. Tite street was built by the Board of Works to accommodate the construction of the Chelsea Embankment. The BOW had tight control over the architects building homes there. The architects were embroiled in disputes with Metropolitan Board of Works over their designs. The end result was a compromise.


Also, I mentioned earlier in the thread a man named William Wainwright. He was the brother of Henry Wainwright, murderer of Harriet Lane. Wainwright was also a member of the Metropolitan Board of Works.

Maybe someone was ticked off at the Board of Works?

Sorry I got off track. One thing led to another in my response to Curious about carbolic acid.

Very Interesting Jerry
could I ask you a huge favor? could you do a single post where you do one section with BOW connection for torsos and then a section with BOW connection for ripper all in one post so we can have both all together in one place/post??

also-is there any connection for your torso suspect wildbore and the ripper series?

fyi-I like your pissed off at BOW possibility for where torsos were left. Ive always felt there is some significance to dumping/displaying sites for torso man other than random just to get rid of or hide.

[Abby Normal]

I went through my post history and found it. It's from this very thread in fact:

Thanks harry!
is there any case where a murder was predicted in the ripper series?

[Abby Normal]

The torso victims ALSO had their throats cut, Gareth. What the Ripper victims died of, we do not know. It may have been from strangulation in f ex Nichols´ case. So don´t say I am fudging anything, please. I have acknowledged a hundred times that we MAY be speaking of different reasons for cutting the necks, but I have equally many times said that we don´t know, and that the medicos DID suggest that the cause of death may well have been the severing of the neck in some torso cases. Maybe you should replace the false accusations with the facts?



There was only one such case where this was proven. But the Whitehall victim also lacked the uterus, and that may just as well have been a case of the killer taking it as a case of her loosing it - whoops! - by coincidence. Plus the Rainham torso had the abdomen cut open all the way from the cut sternum down to the pelvis. Like you say when it suits you - let´s be precise.



Don´t make the mistake of predisposing that the killer would take the uterus out every time he had the chance to, Gareth. If that was the case, why did he not take Chapmans kidney/s? Why did he only cut two faces?
We do not know that he always had the same agenda, the same list of wishes. And only three, not four, of the canonicals had their uteri removed, by the way.
As I said, it may be a case of 60 per cent in the Ripper series and 50 in the Torso series. That is not much of a difference, is it?



THAT is how "deliberately fudging" looks. The flaps may well have been very similar in size.



Oh, for the shame! Try and prove that the flaps were large in Kellys case and small in the others - try to prove that they differed in any way, but for the number of them, and we can all see who is twisting the evidence.

Here´s my advice: Try fighting the facts instead of accusing me of twisting them. It´s harder, I know, but that is what it takes.

great post fish

how many of the torsos had a vertical cut to their abdomen?

[Sam Flynn]

I happen to believe that in the Ripper era and on into the 1900s many people happened to carry knives, handkerchiefs and other items exactly the same way. Just because they did.

Presumably the torso killer(s) didn't have to worry too much about carrying knives about with them. Because it's almost certain that the dismemberment occurred under cover, it's likely that the TK(s) stashed their implements of choice in their "workshop" (house, shed, whatever).

[Abby Normal]

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Speechless, here.

What do you think was happening?

curious

IMHO if these stories are true is that the killer was upping the thrill factor and or exhibiting his control.
he already had the victim/parts and already had an idea where he was going to dump.so again if this really happened I think it was torso man.

Ive been into the ONS case and he actually called the cops ahead of time and said he was going to strike on "watts avenue tonight". they took the call seriously staked out the street and sure enough in the middle of the night they see a masked man on a bike (the ONS was known to use a bike) gave chase but got away.