Same motive = same killer

[Kattrup]

I do have a question though if anyone knows.. did torso man use a knife or a saw when removing the heads?

In the four cases, the first three heads were separated with saw, fourth with knife.

[harry]

Fisherman,
Strange to me then,and I shall continue to use that description if I find it is so.
There is a similarity in the injuries to some of the victims.That's it as far as evidence goes,so circumstantial at the most.Yourself used the term 'Balance of probability'in comparing the two sets of crimes,so yes it is by your own reasoning,that your claims fall short of 'Beyond reasonable doubt.If you were aware of the difference in the value,then why persist? I do find that strange.

[jerryd]

In the four cases, the first three heads were separated with saw, fourth with knife.

Hi Kattrup.

I believe you are correct in saying what you did as far as the "final step" of removal of the head. However, prior to taking the heads completely off, the necks were noted by Dr. Hebbert of having several cuts or "incisions" (I think he uses both words) around the whole of the neck AND the vessels in the neck had clean cuts. To me it sounds as if the necks were cut around with a knife first, and then removed with a saw. Exception is the Pinchin torso as you pointed out. A knife was used to dis-articulate the head from the spine.

[Abby Normal]

In the four cases, the first three heads were separated with saw, fourth with knife.

Since you left out the use of a knife in the first three, I assume it’s because you don’t think it had anything to do with decapitating but with cause of death?

[Kattrup]

Hi Kattrup.

I believe you are correct in saying what you did as far as the "final step" of removal of the head. However, prior to taking the heads completely off, the necks were noted by Dr. Hebbert of having several cuts or "incisions" (I think he uses both words) around the whole of the neck AND the vessels in the neck had clean cuts. To me it sounds as if the necks were cut around with a knife first, and then removed with a saw. Exception is the Pinchin torso as you pointed out. A knife was used to dis-articulate the head from the spine.

Yes, the soft parts had been cut through with a knife.

Since you left out the use of a knife in the first three, I assume it’s because you don’t think it had anything to do with decapitating but with cause of death?

It certainly had something to do with decapitation, but it’s unknown whether it had anything to do with cause of death.

I didn’t leave it out for any particular reason, but posting from my phone at 2 a.m. I merely tried to be accurate but succinct. I also hastily assumed it was known a knife had been used to prepare the final separation, I apologize.

[Fisherman]

The problem that is tainting this debate lies in how some posters are saying that the reason the soft parts of the neck were severed in the Torso cases, was that the killer was in the process of dismembering the corpses, wanted to take the head off, and so he had to sever the soft parts of the neck and saw the spine off.

Is this true?

It is true that a practically directed dismemberment will habitually involve this exact operation - whether by saw or by knife, the head is taken off and the neck with the spine is severed in the process.

If this was what happened to the Torso vicims and if practical considerations was what lie behind it, then the Torso murders are not like the Ripper murders as regards this detail. That is beyond dispute.

However, just because we have a dismembered corpse, it does NOT follow automatically that the severed neck and spine has come about as part of a dispassionate measure after the victim died!

THIS, and this ONLY is where we must take very great care not to persuade ourselves into thinking that we know what happened.

We MUST ask ourselves: Could it be that the necks - once again, throats included - were cut by the killer while the victim was alive?

Could it be that the victims were subjected to the same type of cut that the Ripper victims were?

There is absolutely no way that this can be denied and ruled out. No way whatsoever.

Once we, all of us, realize this, there is only one way to prolong the debate if we want to battle on. And that is to ask the question "Is it more likely that it was a practicality only - or is more pointing to a Ripper style cut?"

Those who say that it is in all probability a practically governed cutting only, aiming to take the head off after death, have one advantage: We KNOW that these were dismemberment murders, and dismemberment killers regularly do this, with no passion involved at all.

Those who say that we need to accept that they can have been Ripper style cuts, have other things to point to: We KNOW that the Torso killer mutilated and eviscerated, and so it would seem that his reason for killing was a wish to do things to the body. And such murders are not practically led on murders. They are instead murders led on by a rare paraphilia. It does not matter that evisceration is a proven thing in one murder only. Once we see it, we know it is there within the killers psyche. And we do know that other victims can have been eviscerated too, just as we know that he at the very least mutilated more than one victim.
It is therefore reasonable to suggest that the killer may have regarded the dismemberment itself as something he enjoyed doing - part of the driving force, as it were.
We also have the point that Jerry makes - Hebbert says that prior to taking the heads completely off, the necks were noted as having several cuts or incisions around the whole of the neck and the vessels in the neck had clean cuts.
Jerry goes on to say "To me it sounds as if the necks were cut around with a knife first, and then removed with a saw".
This too is in line with how the Ripper cut his victims, and - crucially - we must accept that there is nothing at all standing in the way of the possibility that the cutting of the soft parts of the neck came about in the exact same fashion in both series. If Gareth thinks that the cuts to the Ripper victims´ neck area can and may only be described as "throat cuts", then that becomes immaterial as an argument against the one killer theory for the simple reason that the Torso victims may have been subjected to the exact same cutting.
The third thing speaking for the possibility of similar cuts is how there are many other points speaking for a common killer, not least the fact that both killers are proven to have taken away the abdominal walls of their victims in large flaps. This is an almighty connector since it is extremely rare, and if we accept that it points to a single killer, the we must also accept that the more probable thing is that this killer did not change his cutting technique inbetween series.

That is the long and the short of it. And I´ll be damned if I am going to accept to be called a devious liar for pointing it out.

[Sam Flynn]

Exception is the Pinchin torso as you pointed out. A knife was used to dis-articulate the head from the spine.

That being the case, it would appear that the only torso victim found in East London was disarticulated via a very different technique, and with a different, less efficient, tool than the others. Thus it is quite possible, if not rather likely, that a different perpetrator(s) was responsible for the Pinchin St case.

Why resort to detaching the head with a knife when an experienced operator would have known that a saw would do the job more effectively? Even an inexperienced person should have realised as much, so one can only presume that, unlike the other perpetrators, the Pinchin chappie(s) had no access to a more suitable implement.

[Fisherman]

I also hastily assumed it was known a knife had been used to prepare the final separation, I apologize.

See, Kattrup, this is where some posters, and you are one of them, are premature: You say that the use of the knife to the soft parts of the neck was a preparation for the final separation.

That is not in evidence, I´m afraid.

It is a totally logical consideration on your part, and most people will see the logic of it: If he wanted to take the head off, then he would reasonably first sever the soft parts of the neck, and then he would fetch his saw and finish the job.

The problem with all if this is that it neatly sweeps the question of motivation under the rug, and it all looks just like another practical dismemberment case. Any consideration of the cutting and severing - all of it - as part of a paraphilia is skipped over.

I am not saying that you are wrong. I THINK that you are, but I am much aware that I cannot prove it. And so it remains a possibility that it was a practicality only for the killer to take the head off, including the work needed to accomplish it.

But we must also consider the possibility that the killer commenced his onslaught on the Torso victims by grabbing them and slicing their throats deeply, just like the Ripper did. While they were alive. Just like the Ripper did.

And with that backdrop, the cut to the soft parts of the neck becomes something different than a preparation for taking the head off by severing the spine. With that backdrop, passion and paraphilia enter the scenario, and we have a case where the cut to the neck may have been an aim in itself, whereafter the subsequent severing of the spine could have been a practical measure (or something he enjoyed doing!), but the initial cut was NOT.

There is a third possibility too, actually - that the cutting of the soft parts of the neck was practical, but not tied to the severing of the spine other than in a secondary fashion. It goes like this:
The killer had a phantasy about mutilating and eviscerating, but his whole interest was focused on the abdominal cavity and the innards. So in order to get at the abdominal cavity, he cut the soft parts of the neck first, killing and bleedeing the victim off.
That makes the cutting of the soft parts a practicality, a means to an end.
Once he had had his fun, he needed to get rid of the body, and so he dismembered it, making the severing of the spien another practicality.

If you look at this possiblity, yo will see that it very closely resembles the motivation ground most people ascribe to the Ripper - and the dismemberment was only added since he needed to get rid of the body, a problem that did not come up when he killed in the open streets.

We can all take our picks and we may all be right whichever choice we make. I hope we may agree on this?

Personally, I think that there was a paraphilia at play, and that every part of the cutting, the dismemberments included, were things he did - at least to a degree - on account of the urge he had. The bodies are too differently cut up and too oddly cut up and cut up in too many pieces for them to be good representatives of the practical dismemberment division. But that´s just how I feel, of course. There is always a choice.

What there is NOT is any certainty that the Torso murder dismemberments were practical matters only.

[Fisherman]

That being the case, it would appear that the only torso victim found in East London was disarticulated via a very different technique, and with a different, less efficient, tool than the others. Thus it is quite possible, if not rather likely, that a different perpetrator(s) was responsible for the Pinchin St case.

Why resort to detaching the head with a knife when an experienced operator would have known that a saw would do the job more effectively? Even an inexperienced person should have realised as much, so one can only presume that, unlike the other perpetrators, the Pinchin chappie(s) had no access to a more suitable implement.

Turn it around, Gareth, if you will - maybe the killer had no access to a saw? Or maybe he WANTED to try to take the head off by knife?

Whatever applies, we know that Hebbert had little doubt that the same hand was at work in the Pinchin Street case too. Of Jackson and the Pinchin Street torso he wrote "In almost every respect they are similar to the first two cases, and appear to belong to a series of murders and dismemberment of the same hand".
He added "The mode of dismemberment and mutilation was in all similar, and showed very considerable skill in execution, and it is a fair presumption from the facts, that the same man committed all the four murders."

Hebbert was well aquainted with the difference you point to, but very apparently, it had no bearing whatsoever on how he judged the cases as the work of the same mutilator.

[Fisherman]

Here is a very interesting article on the topic of dismemberment and mutilation. I would suggest a particularly keen look at what is referred to as the third group mentioned here!

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/dr-raj-persaud/the-psychology-of-corpse-dismemberment_b_1577919.html

[Harry D]

The Ripper was targetting women on the backstreets or in their own rooms. Presumably, the throat-cutting was necessary to silence them quickly, ensure they were dead, facilitate exsanguination for the mutilations/excisions, or a combo of all three. Whereas the Torso victims were almost assuredly killed and dismembered in a private bolthole somewhere. If they were the same killer, would he need to adopt the same MO under different circumstances?

[Fisherman]

The Ripper was targetting women on the backstreets or in their own rooms. Presumably, the throat-cutting was necessary to silence them quickly, ensure they were dead, facilitate exsanguination for the mutilations/excisions, or a combo of all three. Whereas the Torso victims were almost assuredly killed and dismembered in a private bolthole somewhere. If they were the same killer, would he need to adopt the same MO under different circumstances?

Then again, of all the things serial killers with a paraphilia do - how many of them are things they need to do from a practical perspective?

In these two series, it can be reasoned (but we don´t know that it holds water) that the Torso killer was not pressed for time and did not have to risk being overheard, as opposed to the Ripper.

Therefore, I would say that the suggestion that appeals to me is the one with bleeding the victim. It was established in the 1873 case that there was not a drop of blood in the parts found, meaning that the killer would in all probability have hung the victim up in a position for exsanguination.

So that´s what I would go for. Any butcher or hunter is aquainted with it - the prey needs to be bled off, and that is easiest done by accessing the arteries and severing them.

[Fisherman]

Fish, my apologies for the neck/throat point. I couldnt recall you specifically using the phrase and as everyone ive eever spoken to talks of throat-cutting i made the wrong assumption in your case.

Forgot to respond to this: apologies accepted, of course!

[Sam Flynn]

Whereas the Torso victims were almost assuredly killed and dismembered in a private bolthole somewhere.

And not necessarily just a bolthole; it could have been done at home.

If they were the same killer, would he need to adopt the same MO under different circumstances?

The bigger question is, why didn't he eviscerate all the torso victims and harvest as many organs as he wished? Out of all the torso victims, only one had any organs removed, and even she got off lightly compared to most of JTR's victims.

[Fisherman]

And not necessarily just a bolthole; it could have been done at home.

Correct - all we can say is that he seems to have had a base somewhere in which he had a measure of seclusion.

The bigger question is, why didn't he eviscerate all the torso victims and harvest as many organs as he wished? Out of all the torso victims, only one had any organs removed, and even she got off lightly compared to most of JTR's victims.

No, Gareth, you are not being succinct enough here. Out of all the victims, we can only be CERTAIN that one had organs removed. It may well be that the Rainham victim (where the chest cavity was empty, the heart and lungs lacking) and the Whitehall victim (where we know that the uterus was lacking and it was said that organs - plural - were missing) also were eviscerated.
Therefore, to borrow a term from yourself, it is potentially misleading to say that only one torso victim had organs removed. We don´t know, quite simply. Agreed?

I don´t know why you say that Jackson "got off lightly" compared to most Ripper victims. She had her uterus taken, the foetus taken out, the heart and lungs removed, the abdominal wall cut away and she was chopped up into many pieces. It could well count for being worse than anything any Ripper victim was subjected to.

The more pertinent question is of course why all torso victims were not completely eviscerated, given that is seems that he had the opportunity to do so.
To me, the answer may well be "because he did not want to take out all organs every time".
We cannot presume to know the agenda of the Torso killer, and accordingly, we cannot decide that he would do this or do that if we are to believe that he was the Ripper. We don´t have any idea if the Ripper would always take out every organ either, given the opportunity.
There are many enough things that are similar inbetween the series to urge us to recognize it as a fact that there was probably only one killer.