Same motive = same killer

[Abby Normal]

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.

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).

Lol. Good one.

But seriously sam have you thought that scenario through? If he dumped the other parts in the river first why not then throw the thigh in then? If he threw the thigh in the bysshes (lol) first why not toss all of the rest?

[Abby Normal]

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

Now that was funny. You guys are on a roll!!! : )

[harry]

Fisherman,
In post 2871,you write about enough to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.
That is for the two sets of crimes,in a court of law?
Then in a later post you add why are you surprised.Surprised by what?
W hat is the legal definition of 'Beyond a reasonable doubt'.Yes I would be surprised your arguements would pass such a test.Had you left it at just reasonabe doubt,as you expressed in an earlier post,then i might have given it some thought.You go into the unknown in trying to convince.

[Darryl Kenyon]

If the Torso killer was looking for maximum shock value by displaying body parts all over town. Why not post a piece of the body to the newspapers, authorities etc AKA Lusk Kidney

[Fisherman]

“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.

Once more, what you need to do is to find parallel cases where as many and as odd inclusions were present within two series of serial killings in the same time and location.

There will always be differences. It is unavoidable. Chapman was killed in Hanbury Street, Nichols in Bucks Row, Chapman had her uterus taken, Nichols had not, Chapmans abdominal wall was cut away, Nichols´ was not, Chapman had been in a fight, Nichols had not, Chapman was very sick, Nichols was not, Chapmans neck spurted blood, Nichols´ didn´t...

I can go on for ages. There must be and will be differences.

There must however NOT be similarities.

Try as you might, differences do not play the pivotal role in determining the number of killers. The similarities do.

[Fisherman]

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 by this stage, he knew that he could rely on "the whims of the tide" to wash most of the body parts, if not all of them, ashore all over London.

[Fisherman]

“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?

Find out, Herlock. The more relevant matter, though, is to find out if the can give any example at all of anything coming even close to what we have inbetween two series of murders.

They can easily enough answer that.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,
In post 2871,you write about enough to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.
That is for the two sets of crimes,in a court of law?
Then in a later post you add why are you surprised.Surprised by what?
W hat is the legal definition of 'Beyond a reasonable doubt'.Yes I would be surprised your arguements would pass such a test.Had you left it at just reasonabe doubt,as you expressed in an earlier post,then i might have given it some thought.You go into the unknown in trying to convince.

You have apparently misunderstood my posts. See my answer to Joshua Rogan on the same matter, please.

[Fisherman]

If the Torso killer was looking for maximum shock value by displaying body parts all over town. Why not post a piece of the body to the newspapers, authorities etc AKA Lusk Kidney

Why not climb Big Ben and place a thigh on top of it?

Why not ditch a torso on the doorstep of Buckingham Palace?

Why not do this? Or that?

I don´t think that we should take it upon ourselves to try and define on behalf of the killer what would cause the largest shock value. We may do well to read the papers from the time and realize that the killer DID cause quite a commotion by acting as he did. Having the main artery through London giving up bits and pieces of bodies day after day does produce quite a shock too, you know. As does placing bodies in the cellar vaults of Scotland Yard. So let´s not dismiss the efforts made by the killer in this field.

As an aside, I can once again add that I myself am not certain that he was primarily after shock value, and that goes for both series. He MAY have been, and much speaks for it, but other interpretations may be closer to the truth. Perhaps it was part of his agenda - but a secondary part only.

[Sam Flynn]

Once more, what you need to do is to find parallel cases where as many and as odd inclusions were present within two series of serial killings in the same time and location.

In only ONE torso case (out of how many - 4? 5? 6?) was the abdomen accessed and an organ - singular - removed, and that very probably only because it was decided to extract a baby. Apart from this superficial fact, which never again appeared in the torso cases, there are no significant parallels between the two series at all.

Chapmans neck spurted blood, Nichols´ didn´t...

Chapman's throat, Fish. Her throat, like the throats of all the Ripper victims. Stop saying "neck" - it's inaccurate and potentially misleading.

[Sam Flynn]

And by this stage, he knew that he could rely on "the whims of the tide" to wash most of the body parts, if not all of them, ashore all over London.

He could rely on no such thing. They could have washed away to sea, for all he cared; I've little doubt that, as soon as he'd dumped the evidence, it was "mission accomplished" from his point of view.

[Sam Flynn]

Why not climb Big Ben and place a thigh on top of it?

Why not ditch a torso on the doorstep of Buckingham Palace?.

Why resort to ridiculous strawman examples? He could have left the body parts in open view in an ordinary street if he wanted to.

[Fisherman]

He could rely on no such thing. They could have washed away to sea, for all he cared; I've little doubt that, as soon as he'd dumped the evidence, it was "mission accomplished" from his point of view.

When Jackson was killed, he had floated a number of parts down the river already. In the 1873 case, the left foot and the skull was the only part that was not retrieved. In the Rainham case, the head and one part of the torso were the only parts not retrieved. The lower torso and the right leg was not retrieved in the Whitehall case, but they may have been buried like other parts were.

All in all, it seems the killer would have been quite aware that most of the parts thrown into the Thames would be washed ashore. Therefore, he may well have relied on this being the case for Jackson too. And lo and behold; if he did make the assumption, then he was proven right since all of her but for the head was washed up.

This of course hollows your argument "he could rely on no such thing" out more or less completely. Then again, what I think we must take to heart is that there could be no absolute certainty that the parts would be washed up and found. In that respect, I think you have a little something of a point when yo say that he did not care. I would, however, amend it to "he did not care if not all parts were found, but quite probably relied on how the bulk of them would be".

[Fisherman]

Why resort to ridiculous strawman examples? He could have left the body parts in open view in an ordinary street if he wanted to.

And how would that involve more shock value than having the parts washing ashore along the Thames? Surely, that must be the pertinent question?

What produces more effect? Having a dismembered body or simply a dead body found in an ordinary street - or having the body floating ashore here and there all over London at different times, being found by different people?

He effectively spread the horror over time and space by floating his parts down the river.

I don´t think that you should call my examples ridiculous, by the way. Darryl asked why the killer did not seek maximum shock value, and dumping a torso on the doorstep of Buckingham palace would do just that. If you want to ridicule somebody´s examples, then maybe you should not ridicule somebody who delivers a suggestion that involves exactly what was asked for.

[Fisherman]

In only ONE torso case (out of how many - 4? 5? 6?) was the abdomen accessed and an organ - singular - removed, and that very probably only because it was decided to extract a baby. Apart from this superficial fact, which never again appeared in the torso cases, there are no significant parallels between the two series at all.

Once again, you fail to recognize that the Whitehall torso ALSO lacked her uterus. Much as we cannot say for sure that it was taken out by the killer, the example with Jackson tells us that it is at least an extremely good guess.

With respect, you have absolutely no idea whether the killer took the uterus out on account of the pregnancy or not. That is putting the wagon before the horse, and we should not do that.

It is perfectly enough with Jackson to make the comparison, by the way. There must not be other examples - although there may be - of taken out uteri to call upon us to recognize the similarities. Furthermore, in the three cases I speak of, the extracted uterus is in each and every case also accompanied by a the abdominal wall being taken away in sections. That is an almighty coincidence - or not. Most likely not.

It´s all good and well to speculate away, although it is NOT good and well to claim that we know things that we cannot possibly know, like how you claim that the killer only took Jacksons uterus out because she was pregnant. Regardless of how thrilling it is to speculate it remains that once we boil things down to what we actually do know, all we are left with is that these three victims had their necks severed, their abdomens opened up, their uteri taken out and their abdominal walls cut away in large flaps.

Saying that these three victims are the only ones with built in similarities does not wash either. The Rainham victim had her abdomen cut open, like most Ripper victims. She had heart and lungs removed, like Kelly had. The Pinchin Street victim was cut in a manner that led Phillips to see large similarities, etcetera.

It really does not do your case any good not to acknowedge these matters. The picture you paint is one that deviates from and denies the facts, and that is never a good thing. There ARE significant parallels a plenty, and it is time we acknowledge that. Otherwise, we will stand in the way of a fair weighing of the case.

Chapman's throat, Fish. Her throat, like the throats of all the Ripper victims. Stop saying "neck" - it's inaccurate and potentially misleading.

It was neither neck or throat that spurted blood, actually - it was specifically the severed vessels. And they are situated not in the throat but in the neck. There is nothing misleading in using the term neck, just as there can be no knowing whether the killer aimed to cut necks or throats.