Same motive = same killer

[Sam Flynn]

Yes, we are talking about the torso cases - and accordingly, there is every reason in the world NOT to believe that we are talking about the victims having been cut up for practical purposes only

Isn't the eminently practical purpose of achieving greater portability enough? I see absolutely no grounds to suppose that there was any more reason than that.

I'm not going to answer the rest of your questions, BTW, as they have no bearing on this particular point.

[Sam Flynn]

Fish, does it concern you at all that the ripper murders didnt just take place in the same geographical area but within a very few streets of each other

Furthermore, streets whose epicentre was in a very specific part of London far removed from where the majority of the torso body parts had been dumped.

[Harry D]

Fish, does it concern you at all that the ripper murders (canonical 5, or 4 or 6) didnt just take place in the same geographical area but within a very few streets of each other over the space of around 2 months? All prostitutes. All but one middle aged. All left ‘on display’ with no attempt made to hide or dispose of them.

It's Fish's supposition that the killer lived in Whitechapel and committed one string of murders on his doorstep, whilst carrying out the Torsos from a bolthole further west. Presumably, he didn't have permanent access to the bolthole or his behaviour was escalating. The Torso victims had to be dumped because they weren't murdered on the spot, and there may have been something tying them to the killer. Even so, the Torso murderer(s) didn't go out of his way to hide his work. Quite the opposite in some cases.

[Joshua Rogan]

A useful term in these circumstances is the one speaking of "reasonable doubt". It allows courts of law to convict in cases where there is no conclusive technical evidence. To me, the case I speak of, the triumvirate Chapman, Kelly and Jackson, is a case where no reasonable doubt can be entertained about how many killers were involved.

This is patently untrue. You absolutely should not convict anyone if there's a reasonable doubt about their guilt. You cannot convict someone because of a reasonable doubt about their innocence; it's the prosecution who have to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
And it's the many differences between the two series which give rise to reasonable doubts about a shared perpetrator.

[Fisherman]

Fish, does it concern you at all that the ripper murders (canonical 5, or 4 or 6) didnt just take place in the same geographical area but within a very few streets of each other over the space of around 2 months? All prostitutes. All but one middle aged. All left ‘on display’ with no attempt made to hide or dispose of them.

Yes, it concerns me very much, not least since this is part of the reason that I believe that Lechmere was the Ripper, and that he hid the wounds on Nichols. I think the fewest are more concerend than I am about this.

However, what reason is there to believe that the Torso victims were not procured and/or dismembered and mutilated in the exact same area?

We don´t know, do we?

What if they were dismembered on the Broad Street depot premises? Once more, we don´t know.

What if they were transported to the western parts of London to optimize the dusplaying factor, by floating the parts down the river, through all of London? Why not dump them AFTER the city? If he had the transport? Once more, we just don´t know.

Prostitutes? Jackson was one. Middle-aged? The ages of the torso victims varied. And Kelly was 25.

The one thing that REALLY concerns me is that Chapman, Kelly and Jacson all had the same types of rare mutilation carried out on them. Does that not worry you, Herlock?

[Fisherman]

This is patently untrue. You absolutely should not convict anyone if there's a reasonable doubt about their guilt. You cannot convict someone because of a reasonable doubt about their innocence; it's the prosecution who have to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
And it's the many differences between the two series which give rise to reasonable doubts about a shared perpetrator.

I am not recommending that anybody is covicted if there is reasonable doubt, Joshua. On the contrary, if it there, then no conviction can be passed.

I am saying that to my mind, the shared similarities between Chapman, Kelly and Jackson is enough to convict BEYOND reasonable doubt.

[Fisherman]

Isn't the eminently practical purpose of achieving greater portability enough? I see absolutely no grounds to suppose that there was any more reason than that.

I'm not going to answer the rest of your questions, BTW, as they have no bearing on this particular point.

So Jacksons killer did not manage to carry the heart and the lungs inside the upper trunk part? He had to cut them away to manage?

The same with the uterus, I take it? Too heavy to carry within the lower trunk part?

And of course, the cutting away of the abdominal wall BEFORE he cut the trunk in three was also a practical consideration?

It does not wash, Gareth.

As for your last passage, I can only say that I take it to be an addmission that you cannot present any case at all that in any way compares to this one, where two serialists were involved.

Therfore, your criticism of my statement lacks every substance.

You - or anybody else - has every chance in the world to prove me wrong. Or you would have, if there was such a case. There is not. Fact.

[Fisherman]

Furthermore, streets whose epicentre was in a very specific part of London far removed from where the majority of the torso body parts had been dumped.

Yes, and of course we must work from the assumption that a killer who we know had access to transport would dump the bodies as close to his home as possible. For convenience.

And we must also accept that a killer who seems to have had shock value as a primary goal would not see the usefulness of dumping the body parts so as to float through the greatest metropolis on earth.

[Fisherman]

It's Fish's supposition that the killer lived in Whitechapel and committed one string of murders on his doorstep, whilst carrying out the Torsos from a bolthole further west. Presumably, he didn't have permanent access to the bolthole or his behaviour was escalating. The Torso victims had to be dumped because they weren't murdered on the spot, and there may have been something tying them to the killer. Even so, the Torso murderer(s) didn't go out of his way to hide his work. Quite the opposite in some cases.

I am actually thinking that the victims may well have been cut up in the East, and then transported to the western part for dumping. It would appear that the Pinchin Street victim was carried manually to the dumping site, and I think that it could well have come from Cable Street. If it was carried in a sack it would reasonably not have been carried all the way from the West.

[Sam Flynn]

And it's the many differences between the two series which give rise to reasonable doubts about a shared perpetrator.

And not just between the two series. There are material differences between what actually happened to Jackson and what happened to Chapman and Kelly, never mind all the others.

[Fisherman]

At this moment in time, we may outline the overall thinking of at least some of those who propose two killers:

It would be odd in the extreme if the Torso killer did not dump his victims´ bodies in the same district where the Ripper victims were left lying if the two were one and the same. It would actually be a near certainty that he would dump the dismemberment victims there too.

But it would not be very odd at all if these two killer inflicted the same types of very unusual mutilations on their victims.

One of these things is unsurmountable to understand, the other is not hard to explain at all.

I agree! But...

[Fisherman]

And not just between the two series. There are material differences between what actually happened to Jackson and what happened to Chapman and Kelly, never mind all the others.

Yes, as I say, Chapman and Jackson have much more mutual mutilation damage than Chapman and Nichols.

There will always be differences, Gareth, but they do not matter much if the similarities are close and odd enough.

[Sam Flynn]

I am actually thinking that the victims may well have been cut up in the East, and then transported to the western part for dumping.

That has to be one of the most desperate examples of procrustean reasoning you've ever come up with, Fish.

[Sam Flynn]

There will always be differences, Gareth, but they do not matter much if the similarities are close and odd enough.

... which they're not.

[Joshua Rogan]

I am not recommending that anybody is covicted if there is reasonable doubt, Joshua. On the contrary, if it there, then no conviction can be passed.

I am saying that to my mind, the shared similarities between Chapman, Kelly and Jackson is enough to convict BEYOND reasonable doubt.

That may have been what you meant to say, but what you actually said of "reasonable doubt" was "It allows courts of law to convict in cases where there is no conclusive technical evidence."

Which is nonsense.