Same motive = same killer

[Abby Normal]

I think both series were rather equal in that sense, the Ripper killings being more reported on in the press. But when the Pinchin Street victim was found, there was an outcry in the press that equalled that of the canonical outcries.

Scatering the parts of a victim all over town stretches the fear very wide. If it had been stated by the police and press that it was just the one killer, I have little doubt that the torso deeds would have gotten the same publicity as the Ripper deeds. And evoked just as much fear.

The idea that nobody was disturbed or outraged by dead women being dismembered and floated down the river is not correct. It IS correct, however, to once again point to how dismemerment led the police to automatically speak of a logical, planning and careful person who dismembered on account of practical considerations.

Take that out of the equation, and a monster is born. That monster was never given birth by the police and press. Therefore, this killer was regarded as less of a bogeyman. Which was wrong.

HI Fish
spreading fear. I like it. hadn't thought of that before.

[Fisherman]

One for Gareth:

You said that it was "potentially misleading" to say that the Ripper cut necks. Then you took away the "potentially".

Am I correct in thinking that the "misleading" you fear that readers will be exposed to, is one of having the Rippers and the Torso mans victims described as both having suffered the same damage when it may well be that they did not?

If so, try to imagine that there was just the one killer. Try to imagine that this killer cut the necks of the victims in a similar way in BOTH series.

What happens if we then make it our aim to say that the Ripper cut throats whereas the Torso man cut necks? Well, what happens is that we will mislead if we make it look as if the two series did not involve the same type of cutting.

So it works both ways, I´m afraid. And in the end, even if we have the best of intentions and feel that we must safeguard the readers from any idea that the Ripper and the Torso man both cut necks, it beomes a tad silly to make that effort considering that we all know very well that both series mainly involve cases where the neck WAS cut all the way down to the bone or beyond.

To claim that the throats only were cut in the Ripper series would not dovetail very well with the truth, would it?

[Sam Flynn]

I am still waiting for Gareths explanation as to why 99,9999 per cent of the posters on Google got the neck/throat thing wrong, when "we" have always known that the throat was the Rippers true aim

Just as you tried to blur the boundaries by redefining the English language with respect to the Lechmere evidence (e.g. "he was found close to a freshly-killed victim" etc), you're trying the same trick here. Saying, over and over again, that the Ripper's victims died from "cut necks" just so that you can link them to the torso victims whose necks were indeed cut... because they'd had their bloody heads chopped off! That's nothing remotely like the Ripper victims' cut THROATS, and well you know it.

Sod Google. I've been studying this case for well over a decade, and read countless books and articles on the subject. We have always said, and read, that the Ripper victims died of cut throats - because that happens to be true. We do not talk or read about "cut necks" until your recent repeated attempts at planting that inaccurate and misleading meme into people's minds. Well, it ain't gonna work.

[Herlock Sholmes]

HI HS
I'm not sure why you and others are having such a difficult time with this. If there are a lot of examples where two serial killers with the same MO/sig(post mortem mutilation, removal of body parts etc) are operating in the same town at the same time, then it really hurts the argument that these were the same man.

If the opposite is true, which it apparently is, then it helps the case they were the same man.

now add in the fact that this was in the latter part of 1888 when there were hardly any serial killers around compared with today, and it increases the chances significantly.

My only issue Abby is with over-confidence. The fact that a certain set of cicumstances ‘might’ not have occurred before doesnt bother me at all. It cant be used to say that something couldnt have happened. It might make it appear unlikely but thats all.

Add that to the fact that the similarities appear to be at least ‘debatable.’ Now i have disagreed with Fish many times on other threads but i do respect his opinions and his knowledge. But i would also say that i respect the opinions of Gareth and Steve (and yourself of course Abby ) And so differences of opinion do exist. Its not black and white.

So when i add the above 2 paragraphs to what we know of the Ripper murders (whether 4, 5 or 6 victims) in that there appeared to be an increasing level of violence, committed on largely middle-aged prostitutes, whose bodies (apart from Kelly) were left in the streets, not dismembered, over a period of only 2 months and all within a few streets of each other i cant help a level of confidence that these were a series of murders and that the Torso Murders are more unlikely than likely to be connected.

[Darryl Kenyon]

So we can speculate on why Torso man didn't throw all the body parts in the river, and try and read his mind on why a part was left in a bush etc. But we can't speculate on why if he was after max shock value, why didn't he send any parts to the police etc with answers like We can't read a killers mind. But isn't that what people are trying to do when answering questions about why wheren't all the parts thrown in the river ?

[Abby Normal]

My only issue Abby is with over-confidence. The fact that a certain set of cicumstances ‘might’ not have occurred before doesnt bother me at all. It cant be used to say that something couldnt have happened. It might make it appear unlikely but thats all.

Add that to the fact that the similarities appear to be at least ‘debatable.’ Now i have disagreed with Fish many times on other threads but i do respect his opinions and his knowledge. But i would also say that i respect the opinions of Gareth and Steve (and yourself of course Abby ) And so differences of opinion do exist. Its not black and white.

So when i add the above 2 paragraphs to what we know of the Ripper murders (whether 4, 5 or 6 victims) in that there appeared to be an increasing level of violence, committed on largely middle-aged prostitutes, whose bodies (apart from Kelly) were left in the streets, not dismembered, over a period of only 2 months and all within a few streets of each other i cant help a level of confidence that these were a series of murders and that the Torso Murders are more unlikely than likely to be connected.

Thanks HS

I cant really argue with that

[Fisherman]

My only issue Abby is with over-confidence. The fact that a certain set of cicumstances ‘might’ not have occurred before doesnt bother me at all. It cant be used to say that something couldnt have happened. It might make it appear unlikely but thats all.

Add that to the fact that the similarities appear to be at least ‘debatable.’ Now i have disagreed with Fish many times on other threads but i do respect his opinions and his knowledge. But i would also say that i respect the opinions of Gareth and Steve (and yourself of course Abby ) And so differences of opinion do exist. Its not black and white.

So when i add the above 2 paragraphs to what we know of the Ripper murders (whether 4, 5 or 6 victims) in that there appeared to be an increasing level of violence, committed on largely middle-aged prostitutes, whose bodies (apart from Kelly) were left in the streets, not dismembered, over a period of only 2 months and all within a few streets of each other i cant help a level of confidence that these were a series of murders and that the Torso Murders are more unlikely than likely to be connected.

Once more, Herlock, I am not involving all of the victims in both series in my reasoning. There are connections between the cases, all of them, but they are sometimes flimsy and tenuous.
That of course means that if we bring all of the cases into the equation, the case for a single killer becomes weaker. That goes without saying.

I have throughout taken great care to say that I base my take on things on the three cases Chapman/Kelly/Jackson. I am saying that these three were almost certainly cases with a common killer, and I will stand by that. Therefore the other cases are likely to belong to the common series too, but they are not as close in character and there is not as many commonalities.

Then again, I could have chosen the axis of the Rainham victim and Kelly, and I would get an opened up abdomen, a cut neck, and lungs and heart taken away in both cases. That too would form a very strong case for a common killer, strong enough to be incredibly more likely than two killers.

You say that anything can happen, and that it bothers you not in the slightest that there are no parallels to the triumvirate and the common damage caused there.
I can only say that it is an uniformed view and one that does not take all we know about serial killers into account, blithely throwing that information overboard.

I can see how it is appealing to do so, since it clears away all your trouble in a single flash. But it is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Every time there has been similarities like these ones - and far less odd similarities, I can say - it has been reasoned that a single killer has been responsible. And every time this has been correct.

Of course we can say "It´s probably not correct this time though - there has to be a first time for everything, so why not now?", but it would be trading the factual world for wishful thinking.

We can of course speak of having different opinions, but that does not change the case facts one millimeter. They are what they are, and that is not the subject of opinions.

Sorry, but that´s how it works. It has nothing whatsoever to do with my level of confidence but everything to do with empirical facts.

You are actually speaking not for how there is at least a narrow possibility of two killers, but instead merrily suggesting that it would actually be more likely than just the one killer. That is sheer folly, I cannot put it otherwise.

Three prostitutes are killed in the same city within a nine month period, they are not subjected to physical torture, they have their necks cut, they have their abdomens cut open, they have their uteri taken out and they have their abdominal walls cut away in large flaps - and you find it more likely with two killers finding these measures useful than just the one killer?

This is why I often find Ripperology too steep a mountain to climb. The laws of nature along with the case facts are cast aside in favour of personal musings and interpretations that are in total conflict with all empirical work that has been done on this subject. And when I point this out, I am called overconfident???

It won´t do, It really, really won´t do at all. What there is space for is a once in history freak coincidence of two killers simultaneously and in the same city just happening to carbon copy each others choices of how to kill, mutilate and eviscerate prostitutes. A totally and utterly freakish coincidence, involving two eviscerators, the rarest creatures of them all.

That is it. Nothing else.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Once more, Herlock, I am not involving all of the victims in both series in my reasoning. There are connections between the cases, all of them, but they are sometimes flimsy and tenuous.
That of course means that if we bring all of the cases into the equation, the case for a single killer becomes weaker. That goes without saying.

I have throughout taken great care to say that I base my take on things on the three cases Chapman/Kelly/Jackson. I am saying that these three were almost certainly cases with a common killer, and I will stand by that. Therefore the other cases are likely to belong to the common series too, but they are not as close in character and there is not as many commonalities.

And so on the basis of the details of one crime you are willing to lump in the flimsy and tenuous ones?

Then again, I could have chosen the axis of the Rainham victim and Kelly, and I would get an opened up abdomen, a cut neck, and lungs and heart taken away in both cases. That too would form a very strong case for a common killer, strong enough to be incredibly more likely than two killers.

You say that anything can happen, and that it bothers you not in the slightest that there are no parallels to the triumvirate and the common damage caused there.
I can only say that it is an uniformed view and one that does not take all we know about serial killers into account, blithely throwing that information overboard.

I might be ‘uninformed’ Fish (and thank you for pointing it out by the way) but im not blithely throwing anything away. What im saying is that it cannot be impossible that 2 killers seeking to cause damage to the abdominal area might have caused similar injuries. And when you consider the differences between Ripper and Torso this might be said to show that. (Not by you obviously)

I can see how it is appealing to do so, since it clears away all your trouble in a single flash. But it is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Every time there has been similarities like these ones - and far less odd similarities, I can say - it has been reasoned that a single killer has been responsible. And every time this has been correct.

I have no ‘trouble’ to throw away Fish. I have no bias here. Two killers or one bothers me not one jot.

Also, i have to say it Fish in regard to the above paragraph, have you analysed every murder or murder series in the history of crime to be able to state that with such confidence?

Of course we can say "It´s probably not correct this time though - there has to be a first time for everything, so why not now?", but it would be trading the factual world for wishful thinking.

No Fish, its stating an inarguable fact.

We can of course speak of having different opinions, but that does not change the case facts one millimeter. They are what they are, and that is not the subject of opinions.

And they are subject to interpretation. Differently by different people.

Sorry, but that´s how it works. It has nothing whatsoever to do with my level of confidence but everything to do with empirical facts.

Then why do people disagree with you on this Fish (not all of course?) You have three options a) they see the ‘facts’ but interpret them differently to you b) they arent as clever as you and they just dont understand the facts or c) they have an agenda which causes them to be biased.

You are actually speaking not for how there is at least a narrow possibility of two killers, but instead merrily suggesting that it would actually be more likely than just the one killer. That is sheer folly, I cannot put it otherwise.

No im not Fish. I believe that ive already said that i cant say that its impossible that there is any crossover. What im saying is that the ‘ripper’ series and the ‘torso’ series are so different in terms of where the women were killed, and over such a short time period and where the bodies where left (not to mention the increasing ferocity in the ripper series) that it points to two killers (for me and others at least.) What im also saying is that its not even approaching certainty that there was a crossover.

Three prostitutes are killed in the same city within a nine month period, they are not subjected to physical torture, they have their necks cut, they have their abdomens cut open, they have their uteri taken out and they have their abdominal walls cut away in large flaps - and you find it more likely with two killers finding these measures useful than just the one killer?

When 2 East End prostitutes are killed within the space of 2 months within a few streets of each other, in a series that shows ever increasing ferocity then a West End prostitute is pulled out of the Thames 7 months later and in bits yes, strangely I do tend to see dissimilarities.

This is why I often find Ripperology too steep a mountain to climb. The laws of nature along with the case facts are cast aside in favour of personal musings and interpretations that are in total conflict with all empirical work that has been done on this subject. And when I point this out, I am called overconfident???

And when people disagree with you they are disdainfully accused of being ‘uninformed.’ To accuse others of bias is a little rich I’m afraid.

It won´t do, It really, really won´t do at all. What there is space for is a once in history freak coincidence of two killers simultaneously and in the same city just happening to carbon copy each others choices of how to kill, mutilate and eviscerate prostitutes. A totally and utterly freakish coincidence, involving two eviscerators, the rarest creatures of them all.

A cut out uterus and a few abdominal hacks in common is hardly freakish.

That is it. Nothing else.

Deja-vu. Disagree with Fish at your peril. Same old tone I’m afraid.

[harry]

Fisherman,
You forgot? to add one important detail.
In the UK,it (Beyond reasonable doubt) is a value higher than the balance of probabilities.
Strange you do not now wish to discuss that value,seeing as you were the poster that introduced it,and who also claims your suspect meets those values.
W here is the proof that he does? Remember,you also claimed,that although your suspect would meet the Prima facia test in the ripper killings,he would not
meet the requirements of guilt in a trial.
Now you claim he is guilty beyond reasonable doubt in two sets of crimes.
What else are you going to lumber him with?

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,
You forgot? to add one important detail.
In the UK,it (Beyond reasonable doubt) is a value higher than the balance of probabilities.
Strange you do not now wish to discuss that value,seeing as you were the poster that introduced it,and who also claims your suspect meets those values.
W here is the proof that he does? Remember,you also claimed,that although your suspect would meet the Prima facia test in the ripper killings,he would not
meet the requirements of guilt in a trial.
Now you claim he is guilty beyond reasonable doubt in two sets of crimes.
What else are you going to lumber him with?

"Strange that you do not wish to discuss that value..."

What? When did I say that I do not want to discuss it? Don´t invent such falsitites on my behalf, please.

I know quite well that "beyond reasonable doubt" is stronger than "balance of probabilities". What I am saying is that if two bodies that display cut necks, opened up abdomens, taken out uteri and the abdominal having been cut away in large flaps are found in a limited amount of time and in the same geographical area and proven to be the work of an identified serial killer, then any other body with that very specific damage found in the same area and time space will be regarded as the same killers work - beyond reasonable doubt - by any jury worth it´s salt. The alternatives are two: that somebody takes a liking to the murders and emulates them in a killing of his own on the same territory and in the same time space, or that two evicerating and mutilating killers are at large in the same town and time, and not only that - they just happen to copy each others work by chance.

I am quite aware that somebody will now go "But yo don´t know that the murders are copies, they may have cut abdominal flaps in different manners!"

The truth is that we don´t know either way, and so I am going by the act only, not on it´s appearance.

Cut necks are cut necks, opened up abdomens are opened up abdomens, taken uteri are taken uteri and cut away abdominal wall flaps are cut away abdominal wall flaps.

Now, make it your business not to go around saying that it´s "strange" that I will not do this or that or dance to your pipe. There is nothing at all strange in what I say, the only strange thing is that it is fought with such fervour.

[Fisherman]

Deja-vu. Disagree with Fish at your peril. Same old tone I’m afraid.

If you are hoping for me to "come around" and echo your take on the business, you must prepare for the longest of waiting sessions, Herlock. So far, I have seen nothing at all to change my mind. All I hear is "It COULD have been like this, and it COULD have been like that, and to hell with the fact that it almost certainly was not".

I don´t know that it is a peril to have that kind of assessment challenged. I would have thought it was necessary.

But once I tell you this, you are complaining about my "tone".

So be it. What else can I say?

I will respond to two of your points.

"And so on the basis of the details of one crime you are willing to lump in the flimsy and tenuous ones?"

It seems you are having a problem understading what I am saying. I am speaking about THREE cases with very far-reacing similarities, and I am saying that there three are almost certainly the work of the same hand. They involve elelents of something that is quite rare - mutilation and evisceration.
Two of the murders are ties to a series known as the Ripper series, and there are three more murders in that series if we go by the canonical definition. One of them was a mutilation and evisceration murder, and so it is extremely likely that it belongs to the tally. One was a mutilation murder that seems to have been abandoned before any evisceration could be made. The abdomen had been opened up, though, and so there is every reason to say that this murder is also very, very likely to belong to the series. The last murder was one where the neck was cut only, and so it is much less certain to belong to the series. But given that the victimology was the same, the cutting of the neck was involved and geography and time correlated, it is nevertheless likely that it belongs too.
Similarly in the torso series there are damages that make these victims likely to belong to the overal series too, ranging from the Rainham victim (extremely likely) down to the 1874 victim (not as likely but nevertheless likely).

We either accept this or we add an unknown number of killers willing and wanting to dismember, mutilate and eviscerate.

This is very easy to understand, and just about every student of these cases have ascribed the victims as belonging to either series.

But now you see a chance to use my wording "flimsy and tenuous" as implicating that I am willing to decide on flimsy and tenuus grounds. It is a semantical bestiality that has no place in a serious discussion.

Next. "A cut out uterus and a few abdominal hacks in common is hardly freakish."

People who cut out uteri are the ones who are perhaps best suited to define what freakishness is about, Herlock. You seem to think it is an everyday matter and not freakish at all, but let me correct you on that point - it is as freakish as it gets. This is recognized by every serious student of criminology, and there is a reason for it. The ones responsible have gone down in the annals of crime as freaks for a very good reason. Try and see how many you can name!
Plus let us not magically transform the cutting away of the abdominal wall in large flaps into "a few abdominal hacks", please. It is something that we must avoid at every price, since it would be throwing out evidence that is absolutely vital. Anybody who has stabbed a person in the stomach has produced an "abdominal hack". There will be many thousand such people.
The ones who have cut away the abdominal wall - CUT away, not hacked away - can be counted on the fingers of just one hand. Even if you have had your thumb amputated.
It is the rarest of things, and it may well be the key to understading what the murders were all about.

But hey, let´s clear it away and call it abdminal hacking, why don´t we?

This is what I so dislike. We are trying to understand two series - or quite possibly just the one - of murders from late victorian London, and we know that we are dealing with somebody who left traces behind of a very disturbed and rare paraphilia.

And then you come along and in an effort to nullify the idea that it was probably the same killer on account of the rarity of the damages included in the series, you come up with the idea that it would be good if it could be accepted that there was nothing rare about the deeds at all. And accordingly you suggest that carving the uterus out of a womans body is nothing very special at all, and that our knowledge that three abdominal walls were cut away in large sections from murdered women should preferably be replaced with the idea that there was some random abdominal hacking.

Nothing to see here, folks, it´s just three everyday cases of common enough murder!

That is a level of discussion that should be marked with the text "poisonous", Herlock.

Sorry about the tone, mate.

[Sam Flynn]

Deja-vu. Disagree with Fish at your peril. Same old tone I’m afraid.

And he's still insisting on spreading his deliberately misleading trope that the Ripper's victims suffered from a "cut neck". I cut my neck at the barber's this morning, and it didn't go anywhere near my throat.

[Fisherman]

And he's still insisting on spreading his deliberately misleading trope that the Ripper's victims suffered from a "cut neck". I cut my neck at the barber's this morning, and it didn't go anywhere near my throat.

You have so far not answered my question about why 1 080 000 people on Google are "misleading" and only 2 are correct, Gareth. Nor have you disclosed who that other guy is.

It seems you have also advanced from "potentially misleading", over "misleading" to "deliberately misleading" (yes, I am one of the 1 080 000 people who you think got it wrong) - but you have not commented on the post where I point out that you may be misleading too. Please do so!

As an aside, I know that I cannot possibly be misleading since we know that the necks WERE cut in the Ripper series, and as I showed you only yesterday, the medicos said as much too, not even mentioning the word "throat" in some cases.

So you are wrong, but nevertheless intent on picking a fight and calling me things. Okay. You must decide for yourself what to do, I can only point out where it goes awry.

[Elamarna]

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

Christer
That's actually an assumption, possibly correct, based on poor reports, lack of recorded observations and the failure of Kirby to follow procedure and allow the body to be removed before and inspector arrived, and to allow the blood to be washed away before Spratling arrived and while still not fully light.
There is insufficient information to be sure there was no spurt at all.

It's very possibly correct as I say, but there is no way such can be stated as an established historical fact.

I will go further and say probably correct.
Just being pedantic, sorry




Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

You have so far not answered my question about why 1 080 000 people on Google are "misleading" and only 2 are correct, Gareth. Nor have you disclosed who that other guy is.

It seems you have also advanced from "potentially misleading", over "misleading" to "deliberately misleading" (yes, I am one of the 1 080 000 people who you think got it wrong) - but you have not commented on the post where I point out that you may be misleading too. Please do so!

As an aside, I know that I cannot possibly be misleading since we know that the necks WERE cut in the Ripper series, and as I showed you only yesterday, the medicos said as much too, not even mentioning the word "throat" in some cases.

So you are wrong, but nevertheless intent on picking a fight and calling me things. Okay. You must decide for yourself what to do, I can only point out where it goes awry.

Just a quick one as im on the way out. I may be wrong (and i usually am according to you) i cant recall you mentioning ‘neck cutting’ on the Lechmere threads? Why here