Same motive = same killer

[Sam Flynn]

Some don't see this as relevant, I do.

Annie Chapman- murdered September 8th, 1888

Whitehall Torso- possibility murdered September 8th, 1888 (according to Dr. Neville)

Pinchin Torso- probably murdered September 8th, 1889

The pattern rather falls apart after that, though, doesn't it? Or is 9th November "close enough" to 8th November to cancel out the Double Event?

[Sam Flynn]

The urge is there, but the situation changes. so the killer adapts.

It seems to me, Abby, that when the situation changes, the theorist adapts.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If you have a torso only, Herlock, and if you want to reach a maximum shock value with it, what should you do? How about placing it in the middle of a district where an infamous killer had reigned supreme a year before, for everyone to see?

I agree Fish. And that's what whoever killed her could have intended. It doesn't mean that it was the same killer though.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Advanced state of decomposition? She was found on September 10th and probably murdered on September 8th. Yes, she showed signs of decomposition but I would hardly call it advanced.

How do you pose a victim without legs the way the some of the WM victims were posed? The fact that he deposited them where he did would be a way of posing, in my opinion.

Accepted Jerry. 'Advanced state' was a poor choice of words

My thinking is that if it was Jack and he wanted to pose her he wouldn't have cut her head and legs off. He'd have did as he did with the rest. Kill, mutilate then pose. This is why I feel it's a different killer. I agree with what Fish said though in that by dumping her in 'ripper' territory he could have been going for maximum shock/fear effect.

[Abby Normal]

Indeed, but we know one of them lived in Chelsea, not far from the "Battersea Triangle" which seems to be the origin of the majority of the jettisoned body parts from her, and other, cases.

Besides, where did he live? Or they - there could be more than one torso killer, and there quite probably was. Chances are that he/they lived not too far from the Battersea Triangle either.

Of course, those who would pin these murders on the Ripper will say that the Ripper commuted out of Whitechapel to dump the bodies, or commuted into Whitechapel if he fancied a temporary change of MO and start killing random women on the street with the police breathing down his neck.

Like I've said, it just doesn't add up.

HI Sam

Indeed, but we know one of them lived in Chelsea, not far from the "Battersea Triangle" which seems to be the origin of the majority of the jettisoned body parts from her, and other, cases.

I meant the ripper and or torso man. But who lived in Chelsea? Jackson?

Besides, where did he live? Or they - there could be more than one torso killer, and there quite probably was. Chances are that he/they lived not too far from the Battersea Triangle either.

Of course, those who would pin these murders on the Ripper will say that the Ripper commuted out of Whitechapel to dump the bodies, or commuted into Whitechapel if he fancied a temporary change of MO and start killing random women on the street with the police breathing down his neck.

I kind of like the second one. Torsoripper going into whitechapel.maybe it was getting to hot around his bolt hole (or he didn't have access to it) and he went a little distance away to try his luck?

[Abby Normal]

It seems to me, Abby, that when the situation changes, the theorist adapts.

LOL!!!! good one

[Abby Normal]

It was on September 8th that he announced a Jack the Ripper murder in Backchurch Lane (Pinchin torso) that actually didn't happen until September 10th. I say actually didn't happen, it did, but the body was discovered 2 days after his announcement.

very interesting

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi HS
full disclosure-I too have a problem with the difference in dismemberment and dumping/leaving of the bodies. both are tick marks against them being the same man IMHO.

however, we don't know where the killer/s lived nor how they got around do we? or where they worked,or where there bolt hole is.

did they work on a boat, have access to a cart?

Maybe they had a couple places of work? or a couple bolt holes. maybe worked in the west, lived closer to the east. maybe only had limited access to these places at certain times. or access to cart or boat at certain times?

The urge is there, but the situation changes. so the killer adapts.

Hi Abby,

Good points. I'm definately not saying that they couldn't have been committed by the same man. I could be totally wrong (hard to believe I know ). For me it's just that differences outweigh the similarities.

[Fisherman]

Indeed, but we know one of them lived in Chelsea, not far from the "Battersea Triangle" which seems to be the origin of the majority of the jettisoned body parts from her, and other, cases.

Besides, where did he live? Or they - there could be more than one torso killer, and there quite probably was. Chances are that he/they lived not too far from the Battersea Triangle either.

Of course, those who would pin these murders on the Ripper will say that the Ripper commuted out of Whitechapel to dump the bodies, or commuted into Whitechapel if he fancied a temporary change of MO and start killing random women on the street with the police breathing down his neck.

Like I've said, it just doesn't add up.

It is not "quite probable" that there was more than one torso killler - we have cases where there is very neat and skilled cutting, disjointing the limbs. That is far from common. We also have the fact that it seems that all the torso victims were cut up in close proximity to death, which is also an uncommon trait. It normally takes some time for a killer to work up the guts to dismember a victim, but here it seems the dismembering itself was part of the driving force for the killer.
So no, much as we cannot say that it MUST have been the same killer, it applies that it must be regarded as the overwhelming probability.

First you claim that there are very, very few similarities between the series, which is outright ridiculous. And now you say, out of the blue, that there quite probably were more than one torso killer.

Are you trying to trespass into Marriott territory, Gareth?

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

Good points. I'm definately not saying that they couldn't have been committed by the same man. I could be totally wrong (hard to believe I know ). For me it's just that differences outweigh the similarities.

thanks HS

for me the similarities outweigh the differences.
say la vee. : )

[Fisherman]

I agree Fish. And that's what whoever killed her could have intended. It doesn't mean that it was the same killer though.

Of course it doesn´t. The implications as such lie in other factors. But what I was after was to show how the efforts in both series may well have had the exact same aim: maximum shock value.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Of course it doesn´t. The implications as such lie in other factors. But what I was after was to show how the efforts in both series may well have had the exact same aim: maximum shock value.

Agreed Fish. The only thing against that is 'body parts in the Thames.' Not at all certain of being discovered?

[Sam Flynn]

what I was after was to show how the efforts in both series may well have had the exact same aim: maximum shock value.

I see rather the opposite in the torso cases, namely a practical disposal mechanism that bordered on the discreet; much like flushing one's waste down the toilet. In contrast, the Ripper murders were like having a crap on the dining table when your neighbour's popped in for a cup of tea.

[Fisherman]

Agreed Fish. The only thing against that is 'body parts in the Thames.' Not at all certain of being discovered?

He may well have known that body parts will float, apart from heads. Why else would he wrap the parts in cloth, if he believed it would sink? And if he did NOT know, he must have learnt, and he persisted in the practice.
My own hunch is that he was quite aware that the parcels would be found, and that he wrapped them in cloth in order for people to recognize them. A kind of partial signature, therefore.
It has also struck me that the parcels may have been dumped in the far west of London so that they would be presented to as many people as possible, floating through what was the power centre of the largest metropolis on earth.

If I am correct, it seems that he really took all the care in the world to get maximum shock value - and a lot of coverage.

The Ripper deeds were the pinnacle on that score - that was where he reached the maximum coverage. The combination is an appaling one - floating body parts past Whitehall, Scotland Yard and the parliament, effectively the rulers of the world at that stage, and adding killing people in the open streets to that.

This, at least, is what it looks like to me.

[Fisherman]

I see rather the opposite in the torso cases, namely a practical disposal mechanism that bordered on the discreet; much like flushing one's waste down the toilet. In contrast, the Ripper murders were like having a crap on the dining table when your neighbour's popped in for a cup of tea.

Yes, the discretion involved in placing a rotting torso in the cellar vaults of New Scotland Yard is particularly memorable. Not.

I cannot see how you can even try this line of reasoning, Gareth? If he wanted to be careful and discreet, he should have put the parts in a sack with forty pounds of stones in it, and that would be it. Nobody would have found it.

Instead he took great care to float the bodies, part by part, down a river that passed the power center of the western world. And the parts he kept out of the water, he placed in public places throughout London. There was not a part where he did not make a decent effort to have it found, the way I see it.

Bordered on the discreet? Geez...