Same motive = same killer

[Herlock Sholmes]

A couple of points:

Firstly on your suggestion Fish that the killer might have had shared access to a building or possibly access to premises out of work hours. Its seems likely to me that the TK wouldnt have distributed the body parts on any kind of ‘milk run.’ More likely that they would have been distributed over a period of days which means that the bodies would have had to have been stored. This surely speaks against a shared premises or access to out-of-hours premises? Of course there is also the risk of leaving incriminating evidence to possibly be found by someone else with access to the building; blood, a small item of clothing or property; a leg( )

Secondly, i think i can say with confidence that no one seriously ascribes any significance to the locations of the ripper murders unless someone subscribes to some kind of black magic solution. The only suggested significance is that their proximity suggests one killer. The ripper killed where he was taken by his victim; it made no difference to him where it was as long as he had enough time and privacy to do what he wanted to do. How do we square this with the Whitehall Torso where the killer negotiated a veritable assualt course of dangers to place the Torso where it was found.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,
I've shown my ability to discuss the case.I'm prepared to discuss it further if you answer the questions I posed you.I am not going to repeat them,they are there in the thread.
I will however ask this.Your claim that it was a police belief that the two series were connected.Where is the proof?
The police belief,to my knowledge,held that there were only five murders that could be attributed to the ripper,and no beliefs that the ripper and torso cases were connected.
And let those that are responsible,decide whether or not I am in breach of rules.

Reporting you equals letting those responsible make that decision, Harry.

Any unrepeated questions will be left unanswered - if you truly want them answered, you need to ask them. I will not spend any time looking for them, but I will answer them if you do that job. You cannot hope to get to call me "idiot" AND have me doing your work for you.

There is however not a question that I will not answer. It is others who refuse to do so.

[harry]

Fisherman,
I've shown my ability to discuss the case.I'm prepared to discuss it further if you answer the questions I posed you.I am not going to repeat them,they are there in the thread.
I will however ask this.Your claim that it was a police belief that the two series were connected.Where is the proof?
The police belief,to my knowledge,held that there were only five murders that could be attributed to the ripper,and no beliefs that the ripper and torso cases were connected.
And let those that are responsible,decide whether or not I am in breach of rules.

[Fisherman]

Rainham torso separated in two places; across the abdomen and across the chest - intestines, lungs and heart removed.

Whitehall torso separated across abdomen only - intestines only removed.

Jackson torso separated by two horizontal cuts; across abdomen and across chest - intestines, enlarged uterus, heart and lungs removed.

Pinchin St torso left in one piece - no organs removed.

Is this evidence of the dismemberer showing a special interest in these organs, or were they removed when necessary because they were cut (or to avoid cutting them) as part of the process of reducing the torsos to more managable sized pieces?

Before anybody else says it, I may as well point out that it was only in the Jackson case that the term "removed" was used. The lacking organs were otherwise described as missing from the body.

Meaning that it may or may not be eviscerations in the Whitehall and Rainham cases.

I think it would be odd if the killer wanted managable pieces in terms of size and weigh in one case and then not in the next one. To me, these traits all look like conscious decisions on the killers behalf.

[Joshua Rogan]

Rainham torso separated in two places; across the abdomen and across the chest - intestines, lungs and heart removed.

Whitehall torso separated across abdomen only - intestines only removed.

Jackson torso separated by two horizontal cuts; across abdomen and across chest - intestines, enlarged uterus, heart and lungs removed.

Pinchin St torso left in one piece - no organs removed.

Is this evidence of the dismemberer showing a special interest in these organs, or were they removed when necessary because they were cut (or to avoid cutting them) as part of the process of reducing the torsos to more managable sized pieces?

[Fisherman]

If you don´t want to go first, here´s my first question:

Is it possible that the necks and throats were originally cut in the same way and for the same reason in both series, and that the severing of the spine was added as a later measure in the torso series?

Yes or no, plese, nothing more, not a syllable.

My chances of getting an answer to that one are about 0,000032 per cent, methinks.

Can anybody guess why?

[Fisherman]

No, Fish. The torso victims were decapitated, the Ripper victims had their throats cut - two very different acts.

Stop twisting the evidence to make it appear to fit your foregone conclusions.

I would like for you to put an end to the unworthy accusations of twisting evidence. There is no doubt whatsoever that all or most parts of the neck WERE severed in both series. Bond also used "the neck" - was he "teisteing the evidence"? Denying that the neck was cut, however, IS twisting evidence!!!

Now, let´s ask each other yes/no questions as I suggested yesterday,and we shall soon see what applies. Or do you realize what will happen if we do, Gareth?

My guess is that you wil say that the suggestion is childish or something like that; anything to flee.

Let´s see, shall we? You were the one who suggested it yourself, answering with a yes or a no only, so you should be happy about it!

[Sam Flynn]

where the killer cuts the neck (yes, Gareth!)

No, Fish. The torso victims were decapitated, the Ripper victims had their throats cut - two very different acts.

Stop twisting the evidence to make it appear to fit your foregone conclusions.

[Fisherman]

Herlock!

Let´s begin with four bits where you speak of likelihoods or perceived such ones.

1. I would suggest very likely because that is what he did in a series of murders which show every sign of being connected as a series. He did it because that was what he wanted or needed to do. This has to be the likeliest conclusion.

2. But again, as you often cite likelihoods, serial killers usually choose a similar MO (not always of course) but usually. So, for me, the likelihood is that he didnt change. Any suggestion that he did has to rely on ‘leaps’ to come up with a reason.

3.This is no big deal to you as a few possible similarities in 2 crimes are no big deal for me. Id say that if he wanted to dismember for pleasure its likelier that he would have wanted to do it in all the cases.

4. Again im only talking likelihood. Surely its likelier than someone killing at someone elses property where he might inadvertantly leave evidence to be found.

What I think we must be able to do, is to accept that what we think is the more likely thing may not have been the choice of the killer. It is not likely that people will cut up and mutilate each other, but that does not equate that it never happens. Take point 4, for example. If the killer was poor, had an urge to kill and if his only option to kill indoors was to use premises that others used too - would that prevent him from killing or would he use the means that were open to him? I think that such a thing cannot be ruled out at all, and indeed, there are examples where people have killed in such premises.

As I keep banging on about, once we realize that there were very far-reaching similarities inbetween the series, and that some similarities were extremely unusual matters, then we cannot weigh likelihoods the way you do. The time has come to instead look for impossibilities, if we want to dispell the one killer scenario.
COULD he have used premises that were not his own? Yes, of course he could, just as he could have used private ones.
COULD he dismember some and others not? Absolutely, there are examples (like Paul Bernardo) who show us that this is a reality.
It is not until we find something that makes a real obstacle instead of a perceived one that we can say that there were probably two killers.

Jack the Ripper got attention from his murders but not from a series that were considered unconnected. They were accredited to another.


COULD it be that he was so fond of having that extra time with the torso victims that he did not want to give them up in favour of more publicity causing murders? Yes, of course it could be like that. It is no obstacle!

But it can be considered unlikely as he would have used it all the time. Why kill on the streets at the risk of being caught. Any alternative scenario is mere speculation to make TK fit.


Here, you take things one step further - you say that any speculation that a killer could risk more at times can only be "mere speculation to make TK fit".
That kind of points me out as somebody tampering with the evidence.
There is no room for such a thing. What there is room for, is to say that if there was a TK, then he would be able to kill both indoors in what we think (but don´t know) was relative safety AND outdoors, involving a raised risk level.
What we then must ask ourselves is "Is such a thing possible? And are there other examples of killers who have avoided risk at some times and taken large risks on other occasions?" The answer is of course "yes" on both counts.
And what I am doing is not "fitting the evidence", but instead pointing out that there is no unsurmountable obstacle involved, and that means that the suggestion of TK cannot be discarded on this basis.
Obviously, I am always going to ask myself "Does this fit with the TK suggestion", but there is no other way of testing the theory. It is a sad day when it is said that such a thing equals "fitting the evidence".

The ‘little or no planning’ point is surely argued against by the fact that he was ever caught. We would have to ascribe a huge level of luck to him. Call me cynical Fish but this ‘poor, working class man with access to a place after closing time’ sounds very much like you-know-who?

I don´t think that he WAS somebody who planned poorly or not at all, Herlock. I only pointed out that it cannot be ruled out and that the age-old picture of the Torso killer is one we made ourselves, basing it on very little knowledge.
I think that the killer was a streetwise, cunning, totally unafraid killer who was able to improvise himself out of trouble if it came his way. I don´t think there was much pre-planning in either series, since I believe that both series were examples of killing strangers, more than likely (but not neccessarily) prostitutes in each case. I think that both series were also examples of opting for whoever came along, and then going about the business.
It is an extremely common scenario when we look at serialists killing prostitutes. There is no real planning when it comes to who gets targetted, but there may well be a path to follow once there is a victim procured.

I, and i suspect the majority, will disagree with you Fish and you cant put that all down to stubborness or bias. Its simply nowhere near as obvious that you are making this out to be. Unlikely things happen; coincidences happen. Basing a whole supposition on mutilations and knife-work in the case of two crimes compared with the vast differences is for me flimsy grounds.

In todays newspaper where I live, there was an article about how there has been five fires recently in the town of Eslöv (covering about four times the size of Whitechapel). The fires had all been set by somebody, and the first four occurred at dawn, so people spoke of "the dawn pyromaniac". The fifth occurred at dusk, and the police commented like this: "Although the timing is not the same, we find it hard to believe that there is no connection".

How many people have matches at home? How commmon is arson, compared to mutilation murders and dismemberments?

My question to you, Herlock, is this: Why do you suppose that the police say that they find it hard to believe that there is no connection? This is a question I would very much like you to answer!

When it comes to how many agree with me out here and how many do not, I can only once more point out that when Galileo said that the earth was round, NOBODY agreed. Some truths take time to implement.
As for bias out here, I would like to point out that it is a "truth" amongst many posters here that I am not to be trusted since I try to "fit the evidence" - you will recognize the wording, Herlock.
John Wheat, Mike Hawley, Trevor Marriott, Iconoclast (I think that´s the guy believing in Maybrick, right?), Wyatt Earp, Colin Bridewell (who roots for Cadosh) and a fair few others are not to be trusted either, being suspectologists. It is fair game to call all suspectologists "fitters of evidence", regardless of how well read up and honest they are: they are outcasts anyway.
Similarly, there are many, many out here with no suspect, but who have put their reputations at stake by saying that the case will never be solved, and many of these people will be biased in that direction - the puzzle must NOT be solved, because that will make them wrong.
Two weeks ago, Gareth Williams acknowledged for the first time that Liz Jacksons uterus was reasonably taken out by the killer, by answering a question from Debra Arif with the wording "It would appear so".
All the years leading up to this has seen him not acknowedging this! I find that remarkable beyond comprehension. We all know that her uterus was packed up together with the abdominal flaps, the cord and placenta and thrown in the Thames - and still somebody is so dead set on denying ANYTHING that may point to the torso killer being a mutilator and eviscerator, that he is ready to deny that the uterus was taken out...?!!
This is the level of "truth" that we are looking at out here, so I really don´t worry all that much about being disagreed with. I hope you can see why.

It is the same thing with Lechmere - out here. But look at the comments about the docu! A very large amount of people say that they are now content that the case is solved! I much prefer their judgment, and that of experts with no bias and no earlier interest in the case. Like Andy Griffiths, who told me in private that he thought we may well have found the solution to the case. It was very obvious that he was not expecting that.

I continue to see these two series as unconnected Fish. And i doubt if you will come anywhere near convincing anything like a majority or even a significant amount of people.

But you are still talking about people on the boards, Herlock! My thought is that a lot of people out here agree with me, but they do not voice it very much, since I take care of sticking my neck out. Certainly a fair few loudvoiced people disagree with me - but I think that they can look forward to a future where the world outside hardcore ripperology will regard it as a given that there was just one killer. If five fires in Eslöv are reasonably connected, then two murders in London (Jackson, Kelly) where the killer cuts the neck (yes, Gareth!), opens the abdomen, takes out the uterus, takes away the heart and cut away the abdominal wall in large flaps from two prostitutes cannot possibly be a case of unrelated murders. There is no way, absolutely no way whatsoever, around that.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman.
Do not raise your hopes too high.Do not threaten me.Do not give me cause to repeat,because I will do so if it is warranted.Some advice.Give up the stupid notion that Cross was both the ripper and the torso murderer.It's clouding your judgement,and by your rants,your mental state.Now that's an opinion,but based on good reasoning.

"Threaten"? Nobody is threatening you. I am saying that you will be reported if you do not stick to the rules of the boards, and that is not threatening. It cannot be to threaten somebody when you call upon him to follow the rules that we are all supposed to follow.

It is all very simple. If you have the ability argue about the case instead of about me personally, there is nothing to worry about. So no further remarks about my "mental state" will be allowed. Not a single one.

I hope you understand how it works now, because I do not want to explain it to you any further. If you could please return to a discussion about the errand and leave my person and my mental state and capabilities out it would serve everybody much better.

[harry]

Fisherman.
Do not raise your hopes too high.Do not threaten me.Do not give me cause to repeat,because I will do so if it is warranted.Some advice.Give up the stupid notion that Cross was both the ripper and the torso murderer.It's clouding your judgement,and by your rants,your mental state.Now that's an opinion,but based on good reasoning.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Many things are "possible". Every alternative explanation for the similarities that has been made is "possible". The more pertinent question must be whether it is likely.
How likely is it that the Ripper needed to kill out in the streets? How likely is it that he simply was opportunistic at times? How likely is it that it was a thrill, but not necessarily one that he MUST get?
Impossible to weigh, impossible to establish.

I would suggest very likely because that is what he did in a series of murders which show every sign of being connected as a series. He did it because that was what he wanted or needed to do. This has to be the likeliest conclusion.

Why would he change? Why did Heirens change? Why did Knowles dismember some and not others? Why do we not do things the same way every time? Because we like a change? Because we want to up the stakes?

But again, as you often cite likelihoods, serial killers usually choose a similar MO (not always of course) but usually. So, for me, the likelihood is that he didnt change. Any suggestion that he did has to rely on ‘leaps’ to come up with a reason.

Why did the Golden State killer move on to attacking couples instead of loine women? Because the papers challenged him to do so.
Serialists are often narcissists. Narcissists want attention. They are quite likely to move inbetween MO:s on that account.

Jack the Ripper got attention from his murders but not from a series that were considered unconnected. They were accredited to another.

I don´t think he killed indoors to be more safe. I think he did it to ensure more time to work on the body. On other occasions, he accepted the risk that he would be disturbed and forced to abort. It is no big deal to me. Think about it as having cake - you may want to have it all, but why say no to a bite of it?

This is no big deal to you as a few possible similarities in 2 crimes are no big deal for me. Id say that if he wanted to dismember for pleasure its likelier that he would have wanted to do it in all the cases.

My own guess is that he chose actively to kill in the streets with the Ripper victims. It could have been about the raised interest in the media, it could have been about the extra thrill or something else. But it cannot be excluded that he only ocasionally had access to a bolthole.

But it can be considered unlikely as he would have used it all the time. Why kill on the streets at the risk of being caught. Any alternative scenario is mere speculation to make TK fit.

Absolutely. It is not established. To me, the important thing is to keep in mind that it could have been the same mo. Too much has been inferred by posters about how the mo must have been different. That does not apply at all, and I am glad you agree about that.

I have to agree because we simply cannot know either way.

But Herlock, we cannot know that the torso killer was a man of means. What if he was a poor man who stole or copied a key to a warehouse or soemthig such that he could use at night, when it was empty? There are all sorts of possibilities. A worker could have access to the place he worked and use it at nighttime.
As I keep saying, we have a fixed picture of the torso killer, handed down to us by earlier generations: He was a practical, cool, planning killer with substantiable economical means and a bolthole.

Again im only talking likelihood. Surely its likelier than someone killing at someone elses property where he might inadvertantly leave evidence to be found.

But what if he was a poor, working class man with access to a place after closing time, a man who on occasion got the urge and roamed the streets, acting on impulse, with little or no planning, and who had an urge to eviscerate and mutilate and cut up women in pieces?

The ‘little or no planning’ point is surely argued against by the fact that he was ever caught. We would have to ascribe a huge level of luck to him. Call me cynical Fish but this ‘poor, working class man with access to a place after closing time’ sounds very much like you-know-who?

To me, these are things we cannot know. But we CAN know that it would be incredibly freakish if the similarities inbetween the series were coincidental, and so - as far as I´m concerned - we DO know that there was just the one killer. And that colours how I think about the differences and the surrounding circmstances. I ask myself whether these thigs can be overcome, and I find that they can easily be.

I, and i suspect the majority, will disagree with you Fish and you cant put that all down to stubborness or bias. Its simply nowhere near as obvious that you are making this out to be. Unlikely things happen; coincidences happen. Basing a whole supposition on mutilations and knife-work in the case of two crimes compared with the vast differences is for me flimsy grounds.

And to me, that is case firmly closed when it comes to the number of killers we are dealing with: One.

I continue to see these two series as unconnected Fish. And i doubt if you will come anywhere near convincing anything like a majority or even a significant amount of people.

[Fisherman]

But isnt it possible that the ripper killed in the way that he did (prostitutes, in the street, except for Kelly, left on display) for a specific reason; because its what he ‘needed’ to do? So why would he change, during the series, to murdering anonymously indoors followed by dismemberment and the distribution of body parts?

Many things are "possible". Every alternative explanation for the similarities that has been made is "possible". The more pertinent question must be whether it is likely.
How likely is it that the Ripper needed to kill out in the streets? How likely is it that he simply was opportunistic at times? How likely is it that it was a thrill, but not necessarily one that he MUST get?
Impossible to weigh, impossible to establish.
Why would he change? Why did Heirens change? Why did Knowles dismember some and not others? Why do we not do things the same way every time? Because we like a change? Because we want to up the stakes?
Why did the Golden State killer move on to attacking couples instead of loine women? Because the papers challenged him to do so.
Serialists are often narcissists. Narcissists want attention. They are quite likely to move inbetween MO:s on that account.

If its suggested that he murdered indoors for safety it makes no sense. Why for one murder would he not mind the risk of killing in the street then for the next he suddenly does mind? Then for the next he goes back to not minding again.

I don´t think he killed indoors to be more safe. I think he did it to ensure more time to work on the body. On other occasions, he accepted the risk that he would be disturbed and forced to abort. It is no big deal to me. Think about it as having cake - you may want to have it all, but why say no to a bite of it?

If its suggested that he didnt always have access to an indoor venue then surely this makes little sense. Did he have some kind of time-share private mortuary? And, as you said yourself, murdering indoors necessitates getting rid of the body for which dismemberment would help. And so this is the likeliest reason for the dismemberment rather than it being some kind of paraphilia. Also, if dismemberment formed some deep seated need within the our single killer surely the WM would have left him singularly unfulfilled?

My own guess is that he chose actively to kill in the streets with the Ripper victims. It could have been about the raised interest in the media, it could have been about the extra thrill or something else. But it cannot be excluded that he only ocasionally had access to a bolthole.

Of course, as you’ve said, we cannot know how TK got his victims to where he killed them. That he might have used the same method as Jack is entirely plausible of course. But we cannot know for certain. For example they might have gone with TK on the promise of some kind of medical treatment or even a promise of work.

Absolutely. It is not established. To me, the important thing is to keep in mind that it could have been the same mo. Too much has been inferred by posters about how the mo must have been different. That does not apply at all, and I am glad you agree about that.

It might be worth pondering how many average men would have a ‘safe space’ for killing and dismembering? Most working class men had enough trouble paying for their own property. The likelihood is that we would have to dismiss anyone poor enough to live in one room lodgings. Also anyone living in a house with family. Someone self-employed and with a workshop perhaps? Certainly a shared workspace would be unsuitable. Then again, why would their own property not be available to themselves at all times precipitating murder in the street?

These are the kinds of issues which lead me heavily against JackTor.

But Herlock, we cannot know that the torso killer was a man of means. What if he was a poor man who stole or copied a key to a warehouse or soemthig such that he could use at night, when it was empty? There are all sorts of possibilities. A worker could have access to the place he worked and use it at nighttime.
As I keep saying, we have a fixed picture of the torso killer, handed down to us by earlier generations: He was a practical, cool, planning killer with substantiable economical means and a bolthole.

But what if he was a poor, working class man with access to a place after closing time, a man who on occasion got the urge and roamed the streets, acting on impulse, with little or no planning, and who had an urge to eviscerate and mutilate and cut up women in pieces?

To me, these are things we cannot know. But we CAN know that it would be incredibly freakish if the similarities inbetween the series were coincidental, and so - as far as I´m concerned - we DO know that there was just the one killer. And that colours how I think about the differences and the surrounding circmstances. I ask myself whether these thigs can be overcome, and I find that they can easily be.

And to me, that is case firmly closed when it comes to the number of killers we are dealing with: One.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think I pointed to cases where the mo varied a lot, Herlock. It is not just a case of changing weapons if you kill on a whim in one case, with no dismemberment, and then stalk and kill and dismember in the next case, like Paul Bernardo did.

The main point that seems to have been forgotten here, though, is that there is no reason to think that the mo differed very much - or at all, even - inbetween the Ripper and the Torso killer.

They may both have sought out prostitutes.
They may both have cahtted prostitutes up and charmed them.
They may both have gonw with the prostitutes for the suggested proposition of payed for sex.
They may both have blitzed the victims when these thought that payed for sex was about to take place.
They may both have started out by overpowering and choking the victims, whereafter they cut their necks/throats to bleed them.
They may both have proceeded to dismantle the bodies afterwards.
In that process, they both took out organs and they both cut away abdominal walls, etc.

In the Ripper cases, the victims were slain out in the open, and so there was no reason to dispose of the body afterwards.

In the Torso cases, it seems the victims were killed in a bolthole of some sort, perhaps making it necessary to dismember the body to enable disposal of it afterwards.

If this was what happened, then it was the exact same mo.

But isnt it possible that the ripper killed in the way that he did (prostitutes, in the street, except for Kelly, left on display) for a specific reason; because its what he ‘needed’ to do? So why would he change, during the series, to murdering anonymously indoors followed by dismemberment and the distribution of body parts?

If its suggested that he murdered indoors for safety it makes no sense. Why for one murder would he not mind the risk of killing in the street then for the next he suddenly does mind? Then for the next he goes back to not minding again.

If its suggested that he didnt always have access to an indoor venue then surely this makes little sense. Did he have some kind of time-share private mortuary? And, as you said yourself, murdering indoors necessitates getting rid of the body for which dismemberment would help. And so this is the likeliest reason for the dismemberment rather than it being some kind of paraphilia. Also, if dismemberment formed some deep seated need within the our single killer surely the WM would have left him singularly unfulfilled?

Of course, as you’ve said, we cannot know how TK got his victims to where he killed them. That he might have used the same method as Jack is entirely plausible of course. But we cannot know for certain. For example they might have gone with TK on the promise of some kind of medical treatment or even a promise of work.

It might be worth pondering how many average men would have a ‘safe space’ for killing and dismembering? Most working class men had enough trouble paying for their own property. The likelihood is that we would have to dismiss anyone poor enough to live in one room lodgings. Also anyone living in a house with family. Someone self-employed and with a workshop perhaps? Certainly a shared workspace would be unsuitable. Then again, why would their own property not be available to themselves at all times precipitating murder in the street?

These are the kinds of issues which lead me heavily against JackTor.

[Varqm]

"the strange behaviour of john Arnold/leary."
Steve

Interesting.Yeah it's hard for me to believe he was the killer aside from Swanson's trust,He reported about a mutilated body to a newspaper,asked for a reward,left,did not get the money and still placed the torso in Pinchin St..So he must have heard it from somebody,if true from the 'commissionaire' in Fleet Street[Swanson] although initially a policeman in Whitechapel High Street or from somebody else unless one believes it was all a coincidence which I doubt cause the dumping site (Backchurch/Pinchin ) mentioned was precise.This points,probably,that a person or more ( maybe including john Arnold ) were tasked to dispose of the body and these people fumbled and word spread.IMO this points to something related to 'illegal business',not a serial killer.I have not heard a serial killer in something similar to the john Arnold/torso incident before where somebody was told of the killer's dumping site who then reports
to a newspaper.
.

John Arnold/leary must have done something repeatedly to earn the police's trust,

Swanson, "I have never heard of him being dishonest. That he could be in
any way connected with others or by himself in a murder is to me improbable".




-