Same motive = same killer

[Abby Normal]

She probably wasn't; her killer was a stabber, not a ripper. Even if she was, we still have to account for Smith, Coles, McKenzie, Mylett, etc.

You were talking about the significance of the perpetrators not being caught. I'm just pointing out that we can't read any significance into this, because several murderers weren't caught in the East End alone, in the space of only a couple of years.

In other words, "not being caught" is not good enough to link two series to one killer - if for no other reason than it reflects more on the competency of the police and the difficulty of policing at that time than it does on the abilities of the killers.

Unknown serial killers. Not unknown murders. Big difference, but nice try.

[Abby Normal]

Careful, Flynn - bunching all those names together and you're liable for throwing a 3rd serial killer in the mix: Jack Jr. the Jabber ha Abby caught on to my second question. I haven't considered mimicry yet; and yes, the questions were more speculative than statistical, I confess. It was asked two-fold: 1) the police never discovered a good lead or a solid clue; and 2) the killers (and their respective parties) never offered a good lead or solid clue over a series of unresolved [possible] murders. I get the one-offer who gets away with murder, but these were series of occurrences which should have increased some likelihood for detection. Instead we're left with this possibility of two serial killers who share the common characterstic of being clever, cunning, lucky s.o.b. who had complete control, not over only the murders but also anyone "in the know" from ever coming forward and bearing witness against him/her/them. If you and I are serial killers in London 88, what's the likelihood we both don't get caught because we're both super stealthy and we both can keep our family, friends & enemies from squaking/squealing?
The police seemed to be on their game; it wasn't taking them long to apprehend the guilty; eg. I don't remember it taking very long to determine who killed Jane Beadmore, few days I think. If her killer was mimicking Jack the Ripper, then he sucked at it because he got caught, which is what I would expect would happen in most cases of mimicry.

Spot on devil. I like the way you think.

[harry]

It is reported there were hundreds of arrests concerning the ripper murders.So hundreds of times when a reasonable belief existed that the killer had been caught.Wonder how many of those police also believed they were arresting the torso murderer.I mean,it is obvious they were one and the same.We are being told so,and not by a policeman either.

[Fisherman]

I'm not sure that huge efforts were put into tracking down the perpetrator(s) of the torso cases, Fish, as they were never remotely in the same league as the Ripper murders - whether in terms of public, police or press interest.

Apart from that, it remains the case that the killers of the non-canonical Whitechapel victims were never caught, and it's almost certain that not all of them fell to the Ripper's or the torso killers' hands.

Given that a number of people seem to have found it quite easy to get away with murder in those pre-bloodhound, pre-fingerprinting days, the fact that these particular killers were not apprehended can't be a significant factor at all.

It does not carry much weight, no - and I actually never said so. I said that it is a similarity inbetween the two series, nothing more. On the whole, I agree that it is a similarity into which no real substance can be read until we know WHY they stayed uncaught.
And I agree that the Ripper series involved significantly more police work, but as I am sure YOU will agree, some of it was directed to solve torso murders. Take, for example, the Pinchin Street murder - papers and police alike payed a lot of attention to "Another Whitechapel", as it was called. The Whitehall case and the Liz Jackson case also benefitted from this to a significant degree. It was only the Rainham case in the 1887-89 series that got much less coverage - from police and press alike.

[Fisherman]

What a ridiculous thing to say. How is it a similarity that neither killer was apprehended? By your logic any unsolved murder would be similar. Also the resources put into catching The Torso Killer were clearly not nearly as great as those put into catching Jack.

How is it a similarity that neither killer was apprehended? Well, you either get it immediately or you don´t get it at all.

Try this: If two killers both manage to stay uncaught, is that a

1. similarity, or a

2. dissimilarity inbetween them?

You write that by my logic, any unsolved murder would be similar. That, however, is not how the math is done. Staying uncaught does not alter the character of the deed.

But it is nevertheless a similarity inbetween ALL uncaught criminals, something that they share and have in common. Believe it or not.

In the cases we discuss, the similarity may or may not have significance. If the perpetrators were two and used the same tactic to stay uncaught, then it has a significance. If they did not employ the same tactics, then it has no real significance. If it was just the one killer, then that in itself helps to explain why neither (by the police) perceived perp was caught.

It´s a somewhat complicated matter, but let´s not overcomplicate it by claiming that how neither man got caught is not a similarity, John.

[Fisherman]

As an aside, I prefer to discuss the very revealing similarities like the abdominal flaps to having to discussing how the killers stayed uncaught.
The latter should be nothing that a quick point taken to the protocol.

The rest of the similarities is a whole different ballgame, though.

[Sam Flynn]

If the abdominal flaps had been cut in exactly the same way it might be interesting, but they weren't.

[Sam Flynn]

Unknown serial killers. Not unknown murders. Big difference, but nice try.

I can't see that there's any difference. Serial offenders or not, the fact is that they were never caught.

[Fisherman]

If the abdominal flaps had been cut in exactly the same way it might be interesting, but they weren't.

So, let´s see here - if the abdominal flaps were sixteen and a half inches long and nine and a half inches wide, then it "might" (let´s not get overenthusiastic here, shall we?) be interesting. Nothing more than that. Interesting, that´s all.

But if one flap was instead sixteen and a half inches long and ten inches wide, then they are not exactly the same, and they are decidedly uninteresting and - let´s face it - definitely not similar.

I think that is the wisest approach you can use. That way, the evidence will surely go away in a jiffy. Not.


Me, I am a lot different. I am saying that regardless of how the flaps looked, they are still a mindblowing similarity inbetween the series. Mindblowing, because this is something that is extremely rare REGARDLESS of the exact shape of the flaps.

Last, but not least, we do of course not know HOW the flaps looked. We don´t know if the three Kelly flaps were equally sized, whether there were flaps from Chapman and/or Jackson that were similar inbetween the two cases or similar to one or more of the Kelly flaps. In short, the sizes and shapes of the flaps from the three victims are not something that can be used to tell the deeds apart, since we have no idea what the looked like other than to a very limited extent.

We would do well to compare with other possible scenarios, like for example if three victims have their fingers clipped of with a garden pruner.

If such a thing happens, we can either say that it is a very unusual and odd similarity - or we can say that since we don´t know whether one, two or three inches of the fingers were clipped off, we should work from the idea that it is as likely with two or three killers as with just the one.

It would be stupid to do the latter. It would be Closeau stuff. It would be in conflict with all we know about useful detecting. It would be nuts, bonkers and ridiculous.

I can think of nobody who would be ignorant and/or intentionally misleading enough to suggest such a thing - and have a hope in hell to get away with it.

Can you?

[Sam Flynn]

I repeat for the umpteenth time that the flaps cut from Kelly's abdomen (three in number) laid her lower half entirely open from flank to flank. Those cut from Jackson (two in number) were nowhere near as extensive, despite the fact that her killer certainly had more time and privacy at their disposal.

[Fisherman]

I repeat for the umpteenth time that the flaps cut from Kelly's abdomen (three in number) laid her lower half entirely open from flank to flank. Those cut from Jackson (two in number) were nowhere near as extensive, despite the fact that her killer certainly had more time and privacy at their disposal.

Repeat away. As I say, it is THE PRACTICE as such that is telling here, and not the (unknown) shape of the flaps.

The idea that the more time a killer has, the larger flaps he will cut away from the abdomen is a very, very bad one (and I am being diplomatic here).

In my former example, would a killer with more time on his hands clip away longer parts of the fingers?
Would it point away from a common identity if the fingers were not clipped away in the exact same lenghts? Or if three fingers were clipped away in one case as opposed to four in the next?

Do you think the Yorkshire Ripper struck the same amount of hammer blows every time? To the exact same place on the skull? Do you imagine that Richard Cottingham opened up his victims bellies to the exact same degree every time? At the exact same place? There is no getting around this, Gareth. It will be exposed if you try. Like now.

Mary Kelly, Annie Chapman and Liz Jackson may all have had the larger parts of their abdominal walls taken away in flaps. Even if you could provide proof to the contrary - and you can´t - it would be obfuscating the evidence and it´s relevance to bring such a point up.
To come up with the ridiculous notion that if not all of them had all of their abdominal walls cut away, then we need not worry about a common originator is comedy stuff and unfit to publish on these boards, with the possible exception of the "pub talks" thread. Way into happy hour time.

[Fisherman]

What I will say is that IF the abdominal flaps had been exact copies of each other in the three cases at hand, not a millimeter telling them apart - which seems to be what you are asking for to take a mild interest in the matter - then there is not a chance in hell that the police would have failed to pick up on it.

So, in a sense, we can be very sure that the flaps were not exact copies, but instead differed to a smaller or lesser degree.

But the practice did not differ. And cutting away the abdominal wall in flaps is rarer than hen´s teeth.

[Sam Flynn]

Repeat away. As I say, it is THE PRACTICE as such that is telling here, and not the (unknown) shape of the flaps.

I didn't say anything about the shape of the flaps, only their number and extent. You can see the extent to which Kelly's abdomen was laid open from the photographs, and that in no way tallies with the descriptions we have of Jackson's comparatively modest wound.

The idea that the more time a killer has, the larger flaps he will cut away from the abdomen is a very, very bad one (and I am being diplomatic here).

Why? Kelly's killer did a very thorough job of emptying her abdomen, and cut three enormous slabs of flesh from her lower body to facilitate that process, doing so under time pressure. If Jackson's killer had had the same motivation, why wouldn't he have made his life easier by giving himself more room in which to operate? On the contrary, it seems that Jackson's killer only wanted to access her pregnant uterus, quite possibly motivated by a desire to avoid chopping through the foetus; be that as it may, he left her upper abdominal organs in situ (unlike Kelly), so only needed to cut away a relatively smaller amount of abdominal wall. The end-game was apparently very different in either case, and the specific means by which access was gained to the abdominal contents were not the same.

In my former example, would a killer with more time on his hands clip away longer parts of the fingers?

Your comparison is invalid. You can't get at a foetus by removing a woman's fingers.

Do you think the Yorkshire Ripper struck the same amount of hammer blows every time? To the exact same place on the skull?

Deliberate removal of panels of flesh in order to get at the contents of the abdomen is not the same as raining blows on a skull.

To come up with the ridiculous notion that if not all of them had all of their abdominal walls cut away, then we need not worry about a common originator is comedy stuff and unfit to publish on these boards

More insults. It's neither "ridiculous" nor "comedy stuff" - I've made perfectly reasonable, and valid, points. If we're looking for genuine patterns, then we simply must take into consideration the evidence across all the cases, and analyse it objectively.

[Sam Flynn]

And cutting away the abdominal wall in flaps is rarer than hen´s teeth.

Did you make that assertion up, or can you back up that assertion with facts? (And I don't mean Wikipedia.)

[Fisherman]

Did you make that assertion up, or can you back up that assertion with facts? (And I don't mean Wikipedia.)

There is - rather predictably - no statistics counting cut away abdominal walls, no. SO what one must do is to make a search oneself. which I have done.

I have found next to no examples.

This means that the ball lies in your court. If you can prove me wrong, then please do so.

We can get en route by acknowledging the facts from the Huffington post. Dismemberment- and/or mutilation murders (which is the type we are investigating) come at a rate of 1 per 500 homicides.

That means that they are very, very rare.

All you have to do next is to find out whether all dismemberment murders and/or mutilation murders involve a cutting away of the abdominal wall in flaps. If so, it is 1 per 500 murders that is the correct figure.

I would propose, however, that we are speaking of a very different figure. One of, perhaps, one in a million murders. Or less.

But it is up to you to prove that wrong. There is no hiding anymore, though, behind whacky suggestions about how the flaps must look exactly the same to count. Even Wikipedia will be aware of that.

Dear me!!