Same motive = same killer

[Harry D]

But he DID remove organs from the ones killed in private - Jackson lost her womb, her lungs and her heart. And the Whitehall torso was lacking organs, certainly the uterus. The Rainham victim was cut up through the sternum and all the way down, and her lungs and heart were missing.

Fish, I'm aware that organs were missing in other Torso cases, but be that as it may, the Pinchin St case still poses a problem when trying to establish a pattern of behaviour. In the canonical five series, the killer has a clear trajectory that becomes increasingly violent with each mark. 60% of the victims had their internal organs removed. When you interpolate the Torso series into this sequence, the killer's behaviour becomes erratic and inconsistent. Not that I'm saying this is irreconcilable but it's valid criticism of the theory.

[Abby Normal]

The lack of evisceration/excision in the Pinchin St torso is problematic for the one killer theory. Was the abdominal wound and disposal in Whitechapel an attempt to mislead the authorities into pinning this on the Ripper? Again, we don't know what mission the killer was on when he was removing organs and limbs, but why would he remove organs from street victims when there was less time and more pressure, and not ones killed in private?

Hi harry
Great question. IMHO it’s because removing both internal and external body parts were both part of his thing, and at certain times he was after different parts. But also that his certain circumstances might have also dictated what he could go after at different times.

What he was doing with the parts I have no idea.

[Fisherman]

Fish, I'm aware that organs were missing in other Torso cases, but be that as it may, the Pinchin St case still poses a problem when trying to establish a pattern of behaviour. In the canonical five series, the killer has a clear trajectory that becomes increasingly violent with each mark. 60% of the victims had their internal organs removed. When you interpolate the Torso series into this sequence, the killer's behaviour becomes erratic and inconsistent. Not that I'm saying this is irreconcilable but it's valid criticism of the theory.

The Ripper series only escalates in violence throughout if we rule out MacKenzie, Harry. Rule her IN and you have an amazing parallel. Erratic and inconsistent, just as you say.

At the end of the day, you are welcome to rule out as many as you want to in both series, should you feel like it - apart from Chapman, Kelly and Jackson. They very obviously fell prey to the same man.

If we have another, two other, three other or more killerrs responsible for the rest, well ... I donīt think so. But any argumentation working from other victims than "my" three stands a better chance of being correct.

Better. Not good, mind you.

[Sam Flynn]

-Look here, Sarge, thereīs two women lying dead out in the street. And they both have had their necks cut.

- Correction, constable. One of them has had her throat cut, and the other's head has been cut off. We police must be precise, you know. Wouldn't want to twist the evidence, would we?

- No, Sarge

- I mean, that's the way innocent people get hanged, and that'll never do.

-And look! Their abdomens have been opened up! They have had their wombs cut out, both of them!

- Hang on a minute, though. Here's three other women who have had their heads cut off, but their abdomens weren't opened up or their wombs cut out. In fact, the only things that were removed were their limbs.

- Where, here in Whitechapel?

- No, Sarge, eight miles away near Battersea.

- Well, what's that got to do with us?

- Nothing, Sarge

- Right. Now file your report and go home, there's a good lad

[Sam Flynn]

In the canonical five series, the killer has a clear trajectory that becomes increasingly violent with each mark. 60% of the victims had their internal organs removed.

And Nichols was probably headed that way, too, making it 80% of the victims. If one discounts Stride as a Ripper victim - and I do - it's getting on for 100%. Even if one includes Stride and accepts that the Ripper was interrupted, there's a fair chance that she'd have ended up the same way if Dymshitz hadn't turned up.

None of the Ripper victims was pregnant (ā la Jackson), and none of them had been sawn in half above the pelvis (ā la Whitehall). These two factors alone are sufficient to explain why their abdominal organs had been extracted - you can't have all those wobbly bits hanging out and sloshing around when you're carrying the torso to the dump-site. It gets very slippery, which makes the torso harder to handle and conceal.

None of these concerns applied to any of the Ripper victims, so the reason for disembowelling them seems to be fundamentally, and obviously, different.

[Abby Normal]

jerryd,
Was not me that said there was a doubt about the women being murdered,though I agree with the statement.The term I would use is unlawful death which cover other than murder,which is a precise term,(murder)and I am referring to what has been referred to as the torso victims.and in particular the statements of Doctor Hebbert.
Now if you read my arguments correctly ,you will also observe that I was specific in objecting to Fisherman's claim of 'Beyond reasonable doubt',and again was specific in reference as to whether a single killer was responsible.
As you refer to a Coroners Inquest,there can be no objection to it's verdict,but again if there had been a trial,no one can be certain as to what defence evidence and questioning might produce to negate the caronial verdict.
To be blunt no one can be sure that a murder verdict would be sustained against a known person.
Now to make it easier for Fisherman. What element determines a verdict of'Beyond reasonable doubt'
Perhaps you can help him jerryd.

Hi harry
umm many elements determine beyond reasonable doubt. its up to a jury decide whether those elements add up to beyond a reasonable doubt.

there is no trial for something like trying to establish if the same man killed all the same victims like what were doing. theres no suspect/charges so at this stage its up to investigators to determine this.

in this case fish is saying in his mind its beyond reasonable doubt that all the torsos were by the same hand. I think the confusion is fish is using the phrase here in the investigation phase as opposed to establishing guilt in a trial.

and in this sense I agree.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Okay. I will try again.

In every two murders that have been committed around the world throughout history, there have been factors that have differed. There will ALWAYS be differences. Always. It is a law of nature.

The alternative is that two exactly similar victims are killed in the exact same locality at the exact same time in the exact same way. That is physically impossible.

Ergo: There WILL be differences. There MUST be.

There must NOT be similarities, however. Some similarities may be run-of-the mill things: both killed in the same month. Both killed by knife. Both prostitutes.

These are things that will interest the police, but they do not make for a very safe case of the same identity.

But when the similarities are rare or extremely rare, then they DO make for such a case. And as I have shown, there has been 2 (two) eviscerating serial killers in Britain the last 218 years. Not in the same area. Not at the same time. Not killing in the same way. Not interested in the same sex.

But they DID both eviscerate.

That is how utterly uncommon these creatures are. So when you have them in the same city, at the same time, doing the same things and when those things are ridiculously rare, then - let me put is like this - screw the differences, Herlock. If they are not unsurmountable - and they are not in any shape or form - then they will have their explanations and they will NOT be of the same importance as the similarities.

Are you truly saying that you cannot understnad this? If two people are killed by having their hearts embrooidered with the Chelsea club emblem, but one of them is a woman and the other a man - should we then say that the major, major difference is enough to make it as unlikely with one killer as it is likely?

No.

The similarities rule the day, and have always done so.

I hope that we can come to some sort of understanding about this, because it is beginning to be very tiresome to explain. Sorry, but there you are.

PS. And it is not "any similarities", Herlock. Letīs be fair and admit that I have always said that the MORE and the MORE UNUSUAL similarities, the greater the risk of a common killer.
Both having toenails is NOT a clincher. Both having been eviscerated and having had their uteri and their abdominal walls taken away is, however.

Its becoming tiresome that you keep explaining the same thing Fish. Once and for all....i completely understand what you are saying.....and frankly i resent contantly being spoken to like stupid child.

What you need to understand is that i disagree with your final conclusion (like Sam and Steve who are also not idiots.) I dont think ill bother with this thread anymore. To use your word Fish, its very tiresome to be contantly spoken to by someone who takes the attitude of “look this is all obvious, ive decided so, why do stupid people keep disagreeing with me?”

Ill leave you all in Fishworld

[Sam Flynn]

But when the similarities are rare or extremely rare, then they DO make for such a case. And as I have shown, there has been 2 (two) eviscerating serial killers in Britain the last 218 years... That is how utterly uncommon these creatures are. So when you have them in the same city, at the same time, doing the same things and when those things are ridiculously rare

Firstly, Jack the Ripper was an eviscerating serial killer, true, and did so to the majority of his victims. The torso killer(s), however, was a dismemberer, who only eviscerated a minority of his victims, and the evisceration was almost certainly a secondary concern in both cases. Thus it is at least two, and probably more, very different "creatures" we're talking about, and they emphatically weren't "doing the same things". Nothing like it.

Secondly, these two (or more) creatures were operating in very different parts of the same city, and the timing is almost certainly a coincidence. When a series (like the torsos) spans nearly a decade and a half or more, it's bound to overlap with something else. Besides, apropos time, there was an entirely different tempo to both series, which again points to separate perpetrators.

Finally, your "argument from uncommonality" is, as I've previously said, a bit of an own goal. But I still won't tell you why.

Edit: By the way, how many cases of dismemberment were there in Britain during those 218 years?

[Pcdunn]

It just seems too convoluted/contrived for the "one true Torso Killer" to have gone "Oops! I've killed this one too far away from home, so I'll just have to make do with me knife". Far more likely that there was no "one true Torso Killer" and that Pinchin Street was the work of a different perpetrator than the others.

Agreed.

Why must all of the Ripper murders and all of the Torso Mysteries be the work of the same person? For all we know, perhaps Mary Kelly was killed by the Torsoman, as was Elizabeth Jackson, but the other canonical Ripper victims were killed by someone else.

[Sam Flynn]

For all we know, perhaps Mary Kelly was killed by the Torsoman, as was Elizabeth Jackson, but the other canonical Ripper victims were killed by someone else.

Not Jackson, who operated in Chelsea, not Whitechapel. Whilst I'm prepared to entertain the idea that Kelly fell to a different hand than the Canonical Four (I tend to exclude Stride), there are very few similarities between what happened to Kelly and and Jackson. Kelly did not, in my view, even remotely qualify as a candidate for the Torso Killer.

[harry]

Abby,
No, there is only one element to consider,not many,and it is the crucial one,but in a sense it covers many aspects of a case,and I have already named it.

[Fisherman]

Its becoming tiresome that you keep explaining the same thing Fish. Once and for all....i completely understand what you are saying.....and frankly i resent contantly being spoken to like stupid child.

What you need to understand is that i disagree with your final conclusion (like Sam and Steve who are also not idiots.) I dont think ill bother with this thread anymore. To use your word Fish, its very tiresome to be contantly spoken to by someone who takes the attitude of “look this is all obvious, ive decided so, why do stupid people keep disagreeing with me?”

Ill leave you all in Fishworld

You wrote:

"Why does one half of the ‘evidence’ appeare to trump everytime the other half?

I dont get it."

That means that you said that you do not understand how it works.

And now you are saying that it is tiresome that I explain the same old thing.

So why did you ask, if you did not want an explanation?

If you want to - and you DO want that, apparently - believe that differences can make similarities go away, ten be my guest. Itīs wrong, it is ignorant and it is factually impossible.

That does not make it something you are not entitled to believe in, though.

Just donīt ask me to explain things - only to complain about it when I do so.

[Fisherman]

- Correction, constable. One of them has had her throat cut, and the other's head has been cut off. We police must be precise, you know. Wouldn't want to twist the evidence, would we?

- No, Sarge

- I mean, that's the way innocent people get hanged, and that'll never do.
- Hang on a minute, though. Here's three other women who have had their heads cut off, but their abdomens weren't opened up or their wombs cut out. In fact, the only things that were removed were their limbs.

- Where, here in Whitechapel?

- No, Sarge, eight miles away near Battersea.

- Well, what's that got to do with us?

- Nothing, Sarge

- Right. Now file your report and go home, there's a good lad

Nope. Doesnīt work, Iīm afraid. Dissimilarities can never make similarities go away, as I just told Herlock.

[Fisherman]

And Nichols was probably headed that way, too, making it 80% of the victims. If one discounts Stride as a Ripper victim - and I do - it's getting on for 100%. Even if one includes Stride and accepts that the Ripper was interrupted, there's a fair chance that she'd have ended up the same way if Dymshitz hadn't turned up.

None of the Ripper victims was pregnant (ā la Jackson), and none of them had been sawn in half above the pelvis (ā la Whitehall). These two factors alone are sufficient to explain why their abdominal organs had been extracted - you can't have all those wobbly bits hanging out and sloshing around when you're carrying the torso to the dump-site. It gets very slippery, which makes the torso harder to handle and conceal.

None of these concerns applied to any of the Ripper victims, so the reason for disembowelling them seems to be fundamentally, and obviously, different.

"Thereīs a fair chance that..."

Okay. But what happens if it is not a game of fair chances, and you go by the facts only?

Plus how would it have changed the matter if Nochols had had organs removed?

That does not mean that other victims did NOT have breasts, buttocks, thighs, noses, abdominal flesh and so on removed - none of which are organs from the inside, are they?

Once again, eviscerating was NOT the one and only thing the Ripper was after. There is ironclad proof to the contrary. And there are notches to the spines of Chapman and Kelly.

[Fisherman]

Hi harry
umm many elements determine beyond reasonable doubt. its up to a jury decide whether those elements add up to beyond a reasonable doubt.

there is no trial for something like trying to establish if the same man killed all the same victims like what were doing. theres no suspect/charges so at this stage its up to investigators to determine this.

in this case fish is saying in his mind its beyond reasonable doubt that all the torsos were by the same hand. I think the confusion is fish is using the phrase here in the investigation phase as opposed to establishing guilt in a trial.

and in this sense I agree.

Correction - I am saying that I consider it beyond reasonable doubt that Chapman, Kely and Jackson were slain by the same man, and for two reasons:

1. Serial killing eviscerators come around at the rate of one per hundred years in Britain, so it would be extremely odd if TWO came around in the same city and at the same time, and
2. There were a lot of similarities inbetween these three victims; they were all prostitutes, they all had the soft part of their necks severed, they all had their abdomens opened up, they all had their uteri taken out and they all had their abdominal walls cut away in large flaps.

Case closed.