Same motive = same killer

[Fisherman]

Sorry, Fish, but I don't follow all your posts. Life's too short, my nerves and blood pressure are too bad, and I find that your tone sometimes makes it feel like my head's exploding. I wouldn't want people to think that I'm ducking your questions - it's simply that I deliberately don't read every post you make. To answer your questions in this specific instance:

In the smallish geographical area that was South West London, I'd agree that there's a good possibility that the same perpetrator(s) was responsible. However, Pinchin Street was in the smallish geographical area of Whitechapel, quite far removed from Chelsea/Battersea, both in social and geographical terms. On that basis alone, never mind other factors, I'd say that it was more likely that the Pinchin Street case involved a different perpetrator(s).

"Never mind other factors"? I think that we MUST mind other factors, namely the character of the deed.
As I have already said, there is a more or less equal distance between St Pancras lock and Whitehall, and Pinchin Street and St Pancras lock.
So going on the geographical factor only, we must regard the Rainham deed as a separate one, with a different killer, going by your criteria.
Or are you saying that the killer would avoid the East for socioeconomic reasons?

Firstly, experts are not infallible, and even the best of them - as Hebbert assuredly was - are only offering opinions, and opinions are not facts. Secondly, there are only so many ways in which one can joint a piece of meat.

Nobody is saying that Hebbert was infallible. All I say is that he was less likely to be fallible on these matters than just about any other man on earth at the time.
And that is per se quite enough to respect his word as being in all probability correct. Unless you can point to where he got it wrong and why - and since you never saw the wounds like he did, that will simply not happen.
We both know that the factors you speak of - the absense of a saw and the attached arms and the location in the East, were not something that bothered Hebbert in the least.
So why do yo disagree with him on no added knowledge at all? Why do you make another interpretation than he did? How can you dismiss his knowledge and insights on the technical matters? On what grounds do you do such a thing - and claim it to be objective to boot?

One can joint a piece of meat in many, many ways. That is the sole reason that Hebbert says that it was the same man. If all cut meat joints gave away the same thing, Hebbert would not have been able to give that verdict. And that is not about "opinions" only - he relied on what he had carefully examined, taking in all the details there were.
His is a view based on facts and available information - it is instead your dismissal of him that is based on opinion only. Maybe we can agree on that?

It is all good and well to say that we have a hunch about something. And hunches are allowed to flie in the face of expert knowledge and statements.

What we may never do is to disregard the experts, loosely say that "they MAY have been wrong" (without giving any example at all about WHAT the experts would have gotten wrong and WHY) - and then call it "objectivity".

It is the exact opssosite of objectivity. It is subjectivity, based on gut feeling and not on the case facts.

Sorry, but there you are.

Regardless of your blood pressure problems and nerve ditto - things that I hope will clear up and go away! - I would ask of you to follow my posts closely, not least since you have taken the liberty to publically call me skewed and somebody who deliberatley misleads and twists the facts.
Saying such things and following them up with a lofty admittance that you donīt read my posts is not a tolerable thing.

I hope you can appreciate that.

[Harry D]

FYI, I would consider Mary Ann Austin's murder in 1901 a "one-off". Who knows, the Ripper may have struck again twelve years later but due to the time-lapse and the lack of murders that proceeded it, there's a strong chance it was an isolated incident. In contrast, because murders like Tabram, Mylett, Coles etc. happened during the Ripper spate, it's impossible to chalk them off as 'one-offs' purely on account of mo/sig.

[Abby Normal]

No, Abby.

When we allow the fact that the Pinchin Street torso had her arms intact to tell us that she was killed by another man, then is objectivity.
When we say that the 1874 torso had a leg attached, then it is subjectivity and insignificant.

Surely you can see that?

And when we allow the fact that the Pinchin Street torso was dumped out in the east to tell us that she was killed by another man, then itīs onjectivity.

When we the note that parts of the Rainham torso were dumped as far from Whitehall as Pinchin Street is distanced therefrom, itīs instead subjectivity and over generalization.

The worst thing about all of this is that it seems that Gareth does not even understand what he is doing.

Yes it seems his vehement pre conceived objection to the possibility that torsoman and the ripper might have been the same man is starting to cloud his judgement.

[Sam Flynn]

FYI, I would consider Mary Ann Austin's murder in 1901 a "one-off". Who knows, the Ripper may have struck again twelve years later but due to the time-lapse and the lack of murders that proceeded it, there's a strong chance it was an isolated incident. In contrast, because murders like Tabram, Mylett, Coles etc. happened during the Ripper spate, it's impossible to chalk them off as 'one-offs' purely on account of mo/sig.

I don't see the MO as a sufficiently strong diagnostic criterion; street-walkers have always been easy targets for violence, and knives were very commonly carried. In the specific cases I cited, I don't see that there's enough of the Ripper's signature in evidence to attribute the victims' deaths to him.

[Debra A]

... and I find their assumption that a surgeon or anatomist could not have done such a good job because they are not cutting as regularly as a hunter or butcher quite bizarre.[/I]"

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Just a quick one to say that what Hebbert actually mentioned in regard to doctors was that doctors weren't continually cutting through joints to remove limbs (they used other methods for limb removal) in their profession whereas butchers, hunters etc. were, so would likely be more skilled and efficient

[Joshua Rogan]

1879 Kate Webster dismemberment of Julia Thomas.

"I determined to do away with the body as best I could. I chopped the head from the body with the assistance of a razor which I used to cut through the flesh afterwards. I also used the meat saw and the carving knife to cut the body up with. I prepared the copper with water to boil the body to prevent identity; and as soon as I had succeeded in cutting it up I placed it in the copper and boiled it. I opened the stomach with the carving knife, and burned up as much of the parts as I could."

Thanks Jerry. What do you make of the sentance I've highlighted?

[Abby Normal]

Thanks Jerry. What do you make of the sentance I've highlighted?

HI JR
apparently she was cutting the body up into smaller parts to boil and burn to "do away with as best i could".

[jerryd]

Thanks Jerry. What do you make of the sentance I've highlighted?

Hi Joshua,

Not sure, yet. I'll have to think about that one, Joshua.

Are you implying it was part of the procedure in cutting up a body?

[Harry D]

I don't see the MO as a sufficiently strong diagnostic criterion; street-walkers have always been easy targets for violence, and knives were very commonly carried. In the specific cases I cited, I don't see that there's enough of the Ripper's signature in evidence to attribute the victims' deaths to him.

And that's fair enough, but knowing that serial killers can deviate and murder on a whim, I prefer to take the irritatingly agnostic view.

[Sam Flynn]

And that's fair enough, but knowing that serial killers can deviate and murder on a whim, I prefer to take the irritatingly agnostic view.

I guess that makes me an atheist, then, Harry

[Joshua Rogan]

Hi Joshua,

Not sure, yet. I'll have to think about that one, Joshua.

Are you implying it was part of the procedure in cutting up a body?

I don't think there would necessarily have been a set procedure for cutting up bodies (although perhaps, as Forbes Winslow thought, the way butchers joint animals in a consistent manner might be observable on a human corpse), but it does show that there was more than one post-mortem abdominal mutilator around at the time. And so possibly more than two.

[Abby Normal]

I don't think there would necessarily have been a set procedure for cutting up bodies (although perhaps, as Forbes Winslow thought, the way butchers joint animals in a consistent manner might be observable on a human corpse), but it does show that there was more than one post-mortem abdominal mutilator around at the time. And so possibly more than two.

yup absolutely
but we also KNOW that she was doing it for practical reasons, and specifically to cut the body into smaller parts to boil and burn.

and obviously that she wasnt the torso killer.

[Fisherman]

yup absolutely
but we also KNOW that she was doing it for practical reasons, and specifically to cut the body into smaller parts to boil and burn.

and obviously that she wasnt the torso killer.

On this note, I found a Wikipedia site about crime in Britain. Amongst other things, they have listed British serial killers. There were four of them in the 19:th century, three between 1900-1950, twelve between 1950 and 2000 and so far there have been two serial killers in Britain under the 21:st century.

I donīt know how reliable the list is (the Torso killer is not included - maybe the have him bundled up with the Ripper... ), but if it is anything to go by, then we have 21 serial killers over a period of 218 years, that is to say roughly one every ten years.

It is a background that is eminently suited to point out how unlikely it is that two serial killers would surface simultaneously and in the same city, both of them being mutilators and eviscerators, and both of them cutting away abdominal walls from their victims - for example.

The list can be found - together with a lot of other information - on the link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...United_Kingdom

[Fisherman]

A check in the archives for Sweden reveals that there has been seven serial killers here since 1900. Roughly one every twentieth year.

They are rare creatures - luckily.

[Fisherman]

Next check - out of the serial killers listed in Britain over the last 218 years, how many are proven eviscerators?

I may have missed something, but it seems that three serial killers only have engaged in proven eviscerations:
Jack the Ripper
The Torso killer
Dennis Nilsen

And two of them supposedly coexisted in the same town at the same time, inflicting many elements of the same type of damage on their victims.

I know that statistics are not always useful to lean against, but I still find this very telling.

Have I missed out on any other eviscerating serial killer in Britain? Can anybody help out?