Same motive = same killer

[Herlock Sholmes]

All such errands have to be taken one by one, since there will be more or less reason to doubt things, depending on the quality of the evidence.

I am saying that there can be no reasonable doubt that the man who killed Chapman and Kelly also killed Jackson.

If you think otherwise,I am not much surprised. Thats easy to do. It´s much harder to defend it logically.

Chapman and Kelly were displayed. Jackson was distributed. A massive difference in my book im afraid.

[Harry D]

Chapman and Kelly were displayed. Jackson was distributed. A massive difference in my book im afraid.

Apart from Mary Kelly, all of the Ripper victims were killed outdoors because they didn't have their own lodgings. Jackson was most likely murdered on the killer's premises and couldn't be "displayed", unless you expect him to cart around a corpse looking for somewhere to dump it discreetly?

[Abby Normal]

Chapman and Kelly were displayed. Jackson was distributed. A massive difference in my book im afraid.

Hi HS
Kelly and chapman were left displayed, the way they ended up might just be a consequence of the mutilations-as in they were positioned in the easiest way for the killer to perform the mutilations and then left that way. So no overt "displaying"-although there was no attempt at hiding or covering up so I do think that the killer was also going for shock value.

Jackson was much more than just "distributed", and certainly more than just trying to get rid of or hide. parts where found in the river, but the torso was found left in the park on land. The clincher is the thigh thrown onto the shelley estate. the killer took considerable more time, effort and risk doing that when he could have just tossed that into the river like the rest.

at the very least torso man, and the ripper of course, were definitely not trying to hide the bodies/parts.

[Fisherman]

Chapman and Kelly were displayed. Jackson was distributed. A massive difference in my book im afraid.

There are differing ideas about whether Chapman and Kelly were displayed or not. Ask Gareth, and you will see what I am talking about.

Ask me, and I will agree - I think they were intentionally left in the positions in which they were found with the intent to display them. Whether for shock value of for something else is another matter.

I also think that Jackson was put on display, just as I think all the Torso victims were. I believe the killer wanted maximum attention, and that this was why he floated the parts through all of London, knowing quite well that they would not sink. And I think that Jacksons thigh was thrown into the garden of Mary Shelleys relative on account of the link to the Frankenstein´s monster novel. That is displaying too.

So to me, the exact same mechanism may well be at play in all three cases. If Jacksons dismembered body had been put in a sack and sunk with stones to the bottom of the Thames, it would have been another matter. But the damage done would still tie the cases together.

It should of course also be weighed in that it is kind of hard to put a dismembered body on display in the same manner as Chapmans and Kellys bodies were.

Once again, it is not about the differences, Herlock. It is about the similarities. Once we have them, all that can be said about the differences is that there will be explanations for them.

I have asked repeatedly for parallel examples, where so many and unusual similarities were in place with two serial killers in the same place and time. In fact, the damages are so special that I have a hard time believing that two serialists could have produced something in the same league regardless of time and geography.

You should set off some time to go through cases where the investigating detectives have uttered phrases like "At that stage, we knew we had a serial killer on our hands". Then have a look at what it was that had the detectives recognize this. Five victims in the same town, all strangled with their pantyhose. Three prostitutes, severely beaten and strangled to death in the same neighborhood. Such things are normally enough to make the call.

When you have severed necks, opened up abdomens, uteri taken out and abdominal walls removed in sections, you are playing in a very, very, very different league.

Once more - do not take my word for it. Ask those in the professional know. Please?

[Sam Flynn]

Chapman and Kelly were displayed.

In East London, within a few streets of each other, and on land.

Jackson was distributed.

In South West London, 8 miles away, and in water.

[Herlock Sholmes]

“Once again, it is not about the differences, Herlock. It is about the similarities. Once we have them, all that can be said about the differences is that there will be explanations for them.”

Or, once we have the drastic differences, all that can be said about any possible similarities is that there will be explainations for them. We just cant be certain of them at this point in time.

[Sam Flynn]

Apart from Mary Kelly, all of the Ripper victims were killed outdoors because they didn't have their own lodgings. Jackson was most likely murdered on the killer's premises and couldn't be "displayed"

She could easily have been, Harry. Instead of throwing her bits into the Thames at Battersea, he could have deliberately posed them in an obscene heap to be seen in full public view when the sun came up the next morning.

He could have displayed her, therefore, had he been thus inclined. But he did not, preferring to cover her with a river and abandon her body to the whims of the tide.

[Herlock Sholmes]

“Once more - do not take my word for it. Ask those in the professional know. Please?”

Are there professionals who will stand up, put their reputations on the line, and state categorically that these crimes were committed by the same man?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi HS
Kelly and chapman were left displayed, the way they ended up might just be a consequence of the mutilations-as in they were positioned in the easiest way for the killer to perform the mutilations and then left that way. So no overt "displaying"-although there was no attempt at hiding or covering up so I do think that the killer was also going for shock value.

Jackson was much more than just "distributed", and certainly more than just trying to get rid of or hide. parts where found in the river, but the torso was found left in the park on land. The clincher is the thigh thrown onto the shelley estate. the killer took considerable more time, effort and risk doing that when he could have just tossed that into the river like the rest.

at the very least torso man, and the ripper of course, were definitely not trying to hide the bodies/parts.

Hi Abby,

But if the ripper had an issue with prostitutes (and theres a fair chance of that) it could be suggested that he was displaying them as such; legs apart. The Torso Killer didnt appear to have that particular need. If the Ripper was making a point about prostitutes the Torso Killer wasnt. He would have had no way of knowing that the victims would ever even be identified or even be discovered. A leg here or an arm there would definitely have shock value but it sends no particular message. Whereas, to me at least, the Ripper murders appeared to be the work of someone making a point.

[Sam Flynn]

A leg here or an arm there would definitely have shock value

They'd have had even more shock value had they been placed on a public footpath or left on a park bench, instead of being thrown into shrubbery.

The clincher is the thigh thrown onto the shelley estate. the killer took considerable more time, effort and risk doing that when he could have just tossed that into the river like the rest.

I wouldn't be surprised if he was heading to the river to drop it in, but saw someone approaching and decided to get rid of it quickly. So into Shelley's bush it went... or should that be Shelley's bysshe? (poetic joke there).

[Herlock Sholmes]

“ or should that be Shelley's bysshe? “

Nice to see a bit of high brow humour Gareth

[Joshua Rogan]

Hi Abby,

But if the ripper had an issue with prostitutes (and theres a fair chance of that) it could be suggested that he was displaying them as such; legs apart. The Torso Killer didnt appear to have that particular need.

Not true, Herlock....sometimes Torsoman left the legs miles apart!

[Abby Normal]

In East London, within a few streets of each other, and on land.
In South West London, 8 miles away, and in water.

And on land in the park and on the Shelley estate. You keep conveniently leaving that part out.

[Abby Normal]

She could easily have been, Harry. Instead of throwing her bits into the Thames at Battersea, he could have deliberately posed them in an obscene heap to be seen in full public view when the sun came up the next morning.

He could have displayed her, therefore, had he been thus inclined. But he did not, preferring to cover her with a river and abandon her body to the whims of the tide.

And the torso on the land and the thigh on the Shelley estate. You keep leaving that out for some reason.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

But if the ripper had an issue with prostitutes (and theres a fair chance of that) it could be suggested that he was displaying them as such; legs apart. The Torso Killer didnt appear to have that particular need. If the Ripper was making a point about prostitutes the Torso Killer wasnt. He would have had no way of knowing that the victims would ever even be identified or even be discovered. A leg here or an arm there would definitely have shock value but it sends no particular message. Whereas, to me at least, the Ripper murders appeared to be the work of someone making a point.

Hi hs
Well after the first bits from the first torso that he threw in the river was discovered, he would then know that just tossing them in the river isn’t going to hide them, yet he kept doing it. You would think if the river tossing was to hide he would have learned his lesson and done something else, like weight them down, cut into smaller pieces etc, yet he didn’t.

All I’m saying is that I think for both, whether they were same man or not, there was more going on with the way he left/dumped them than just trying to conceal or hide, because in either it’s obvious he wasn’t.

Was it a mischievous game to him, did the places have some meaning to him, was he marking his territory, polluting the city, thumbing his nose at the police, trying to gain maximum Exposure?

I’m not sure but it’s obvious to me there is more to it than trying to hide and conceal or just get rid of.