Same motive = same killer

[Fisherman]

The point that I was heading toward Fish, and you had possibly already guessed it, was this.

You had 2 series of murders which, interns of time, overlapped. 2 very distinct MO’s. This isn’t a killer that strangles 2, then shoots one, then cuts the throat of one , then shoots 2 etc, etc. It also isn’t one that goes from Ripper-style for the WM to TK-style ‘reduced risk’ for the TK murders. It gives the impression of 2 very different types of killing (I’m ignoring the mutilations for this point Fish.)

And so what I’m asking is are there any examples of a serial killer who through this ‘career’ used 2 interchangeable and very identifiable MO’s (so identifiable are they that for years everyone was convinced that they were the work of two men?)

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ouch - thatīs a tough one. There is no listing as such, and so I can only name examples that come to mind.

But the question you ask is just as relevant as the question I ask, Herlock. And I am not paranoid enough to think you are trying to catch me out!

I believe the killer you remember was a serialist who dismembered some victims while others were left with an intact body. I think it was a Japanese guy.

The Golden state killer went from rape to murder, and the different jurisdictions searched for different perps. Of course, the mo was the same, more or less, but there is nevertheless a difference.

Peter Kürten had the Duesseldorf police looking for three or four killers, one who strangled, one who killed with a pair of scissors, one who bashed peoples heads in and so on.

William Heirens, the "Lipstick killer" had three victims. A middle-aged woman was stabbed to death, a divorced woman was shot - and his third victim was a six-year old girl, who Heirens strangled if I remember correctly - and then dismembered and tucked away the parts in different places.

Paul Bernardo killed sometimes on a whim, while he other times stalked victims carefully. Some victims were dismembered, some not.

David Berkowitz, "The Son of Sam", started out as a stabber, but changed to shooting since he found the knife approach too messy and difficult.

The Zodiac attacked and killed by Lake Baryessa by knife, out in the open - and he killed a taxi driver inside a large city, in his cab - by means of shooting him with a gun.

"The Grim Sleeper", Lonnie Franklin, shot a handful of women, while he strangled another handful. He made a 14 year hiatus in the midst of things. And one victim was a man!

Cedrik Maake, who killed nigh on 30 victims, bashed the heads of his victims in with a rock on a number of occasions, and shot people sitting in their cars on others.

Paul John Knowles killed a couple of sisters, seven and eleven years of age, by strangling them. He had around 20 victims, but claimed there were more. He killed a 65 year old woman by strangling her. He killed couples. He killed single men. He sometimes smothered or stragled, and sometimes shot his victims.

Carl Panzram shot six men to death on a hunting expedition and fed them to crocodiles. On another occasion he raped a man and beat him to death with a rock.

I could probably come up with a lot more if I tried, but I donīt think it is necessary.

One problem that arises with this question is that I am certain - but cannot prove it - that there are numerous serial killers who have changed their MO:s in so successfull a manner as to manage to stay uncaught. The net is full of such speculations, and I think they are sound speculations. Any potential serial killer has access to many sources where he can read about the disadvantages of keeping to one MO only. Basically, we teach aspiring serial killers how to stay uncaught: Do not give away any signature, change your MO and move inbetween states or countries, and you will be fine. It would be very odd if nobody with a murderous mindset has realized the benefits of going about things like this.

Staying within a confined area and providing the police with signature elements of a very unusual character is giving away that thereīs a serialist on the prowl. The victorians were not aware of this mechanism. They did not discuss MO:s in relation to killings because serial murder was not a problem that was common enough to have been studied at the time. To me, this is the reason that they opted for two killers - lacking experience. This same lack of experience made them think that the Torso killer was a practically minded man, for the simple reason that all the dismemberments they knew of WERE practically governed body partings.

If they had had the knowledge that there are people with a paraphilia that urges them to take bodies apart for the joy of it, they would have opted for one killer. I have no doubt about that. And Phillips would probably have gone "Oh, that explains why the cuts to the necks of Kelly and the Pinchin Street woman were so very similar. I always thought that was a very remarkable coincidence!"

Phillips, as the rest of the medicos and police at the time, were caught behind a door that made it impossible to imagine the kind of killer we are discussing. Unlock that door and the solution becomes very easy to see.

The point that I was heading toward Fish, and you had possibly already guessed it, was this.

You had 2 series of murders which, interns of time, overlapped. 2 very distinct MO’s. This isn’t a killer that strangles 2, then shoots one, then cuts the throat of one , then shoots 2 etc, etc. It also isn’t one that goes from Ripper-style for the WM to TK-style ‘reduced risk’ for the TK murders. It gives the impression of 2 very different types of killing (I’m ignoring the mutilations for this point Fish.)

And so what I’m asking is are there any examples of a serial killer who through this ‘career’ used 2 interchangeable and very identifiable MO’s (so identifiable are they that for years everyone was convinced that they were the work of two men?)

[Fisherman]

Fisherma,
You explain to me an attack on you in my last post.Grow up,and that remark is personnel but not insulting.So go ahead,report.

What I said stands - you made a personal attack on me in a post of yours (calling somebody "idiot" amounts to precisely that - from your post 3754: "Well I read post 3717 and reference to a Banbury schoolclass.Still trying to figure out the idiotcy behind their mention.Perhaps it's the idiot who introduced them that's at fault").

If it is repeated, I will report you. I hope that it is NOT repeated, and that you may post in a better tone, in which case the problem will be gone.

I have no wish to report you, which is why I refrain from doing so for now. Itīs up to you how we proceed, Harry. As I said, you may call any of my posts preposterous or dumb, and that should be a sufficient tool. It is for the rest of us.

[harry]

Fisherma,
You explain to me an attack on you in my last post.Grow up,and that remark is personnel but not insulting.So go ahead,report.

[Fisherman]

Hereīs another idea that may suit you, Gareth.

How about we do it your way? When you ask me something, I am only allowed to answer with a "yes" or a "no", and then I must add no "deflections".

But it will come with a price - we should BOTH accept this method of doing things!

You may begin, and you will have your answer. But then it is my time to ask you a question, that can only be answered with either a "yes" or a "no" - not a single other word added, no "deflections", no objections, no additions whatsoever.

To ensure that we are honest in our answers, letīs also add that we may on three (3) occasions, no more, no less, question the "yes" or "no" we get as an answer. For example, if you ask "Can you prove that there was just one killer?" and I answer "yes", then you may use one out of three opportunities to say "Okay, so prove it!" - and you will disclose me as having been dishonest.

How does that sound to you? Surely, you are not afraid to enter into this little "quid-pro-quo" exercise, as Hannibal Lecter would have put it? Moreover, it is in your own vein, it answers perfectly to the demands you raised two posts back!

What do you say? Iīm up for it, and it should clear away a few things that have been asking to get cleared away for the longest now.

Five questions each, how about that? Or more? You begin!

[Fisherman]

... and then went on to other topics which formed the bulk of your post. The answer to the question should have been a simple "yes", instead of which you responded with a "yes, but...", before going off on a tangent. That diversionary tactic did not fool me.

Gareth, what do you think a discussion is? One where you dictate that you opponents are only allowed to agree with you? But NOT to offer their own thoughts?

Has it not dawned on you that these are discussion boards, where it is up to each and every parttaker to make their own arguments as best as they see fit?

Does that frustrate you?

Shall we use your method? What about if I ask "Is it possible that the necks and throats of the victims were cut in the same way and for the same reason in both series?" - and then you are only supposed to answer that without adding any of your own thoughts?

Try it, please! So far, you have not even answered that question. Maybe the time has come now? And no deflections, please!

[Fisherman]

"Besides, the removal of the abdominal wall is not present with Nielsen. So itīs two out of three only"

The removal of the abdominal wall only happened ONCE, and then only in two relatively modest strips of flesh, in the ENTIRE torso series. It is NOT a common feature, and can therefore be dismissed as a diagnostic criterion.

No, it cannot be dismissed at all. And the reason for that is that it corresponds with two other instances of the same thing in another murder series - the abdominal wall being taken away in large flaps.
As has been established before, much as you prefer to think it was a case of "two modest strips" in Jacksons case, a number of other posters think something radically different.

So the three parameters stand, and it also stands that I donīt think there are any other cases where we can see it than in Kelly and Jackson.

An inclusion does not have to be represented in all or many victims before it can be used for a comparison with other murders, ascribed to different killers. If it had been a case of Jackson having had the note "Wise up!" written on her eyelids, and Kelly and Chaman having the same note on THEIR eyelids, would you say that we could dismiss the Jackson note since no other torso victim had it?

I somehow donīt think so. And I would not recommend saying "that is a different matter", because in terms of principles, it is not a different matter at all. What is there is there, and it totally counts in a comparison.

What you are pointing to is how the taking away of the abdominal flesh is not typical for the torso series. That is so - but in a comparison between murder series, we should not include only parameters that are there in all cases or the majority of them. The reason for that should be easy to see when you ponder the "Wise up!" example.

[Sam Flynn]

In what way am I "deflecting away" from that? I thought I wrote "Yes, there ARE cases like that" in the beginning of the post

... and then went on to other topics which formed the bulk of your post. The answer to the question should have been a simple "yes", instead of which you responded with a "yes, but...", before going off on a tangent. That diversionary tactic did not fool me.

[Sam Flynn]

"Besides, the removal of the abdominal wall is not present with Nielsen. So itīs two out of three only"

The removal of the abdominal wall only happened ONCE, and then only in two relatively modest strips of flesh, in the ENTIRE torso series. It is NOT a common feature, and can therefore be dismissed as a diagnostic criterion.

[Fisherman]

Stop deflecting away from the main point, namely that it is a fact that some dismemberment killers DO remove thoracic and/or abdominal organs, and for very practical reasons.

In what way am I "deflecting away" from that? I thought I wrote "Yes, there ARE cases like that" in the beginning of the post you are quoting?

Or do you mean that since there are such cases, I am not allowed to point out that practical reasons are not the only reasons for taking out organs? I think that eviscerations are mainly led on by urges and not by practicalities, and I think that very much belongs to the discussion.

I really donīt understand how you are reasoning here, Gareth. Can you please explain?

[Sam Flynn]

Yes, there ARE cases like that - but you have to admit that they are extremely rare. When was there ever TWO such killers on the loose in the same town and time period? There is almost never even one!

Besides, the removal of the abdominal wall is not present with Nielsen. So itīs two out of three only.

And that is enough to make for a killer so rare that he will become front page news when he does appear. And itīs always a "he", never a "them" when it happens.

The idea of two killers in "our" case is statistically freakish. It just does not make any sense at all. Maybe the greatest disservice previous generations have ever made about the Ripper case is to write history from the idea of two killers. It has cemented the idea in most peopleīs brains, and it wonīt go away, although all logic speaks against the suggestion.

Stop deflecting away from the main point, namely that it is a fact that some dismemberment killers DO remove thoracic and/or abdominal organs, and for very practical reasons.

[Fisherman]

Just out of curiosity Fish how many examples are there of serial killers having 2 methods? By that of course i mean the example here (imo) Jack killed in the street, skirt up etc and the TK killed probably indoors, dismemberment, distribution of parts. Before you say it, yes i know that you favour ‘similarities’ but you will accept these differences exist. Im not talking about killers who might have 4 or 5 different methods/weapons etc but killers that have 2 very distinct methods?
And no, im not trying to be clever and catch you out here because i recall you might have mentioned one once. I just wondered out of interest how often this had occurred in crime history?

Ouch - thatīs a tough one. There is no listing as such, and so I can only name examples that come to mind.

But the question you ask is just as relevant as the question I ask, Herlock. And I am not paranoid enough to think you are trying to catch me out!

I believe the killer you remember was a serialist who dismembered some victims while others were left with an intact body. I think it was a Japanese guy.

The Golden state killer went from rape to murder, and the different jurisdictions searched for different perps. Of course, the mo was the same, more or less, but there is nevertheless a difference.

Peter Kürten had the Duesseldorf police looking for three or four killers, one who strangled, one who killed with a pair of scissors, one who bashed peoples heads in and so on.

William Heirens, the "Lipstick killer" had three victims. A middle-aged woman was stabbed to death, a divorced woman was shot - and his third victim was a six-year old girl, who Heirens strangled if I remember correctly - and then dismembered and tucked away the parts in different places.

Paul Bernardo killed sometimes on a whim, while he other times stalked victims carefully. Some victims were dismembered, some not.

David Berkowitz, "The Son of Sam", started out as a stabber, but changed to shooting since he found the knife approach too messy and difficult.

The Zodiac attacked and killed by Lake Baryessa by knife, out in the open - and he killed a taxi driver inside a large city, in his cab - by means of shooting him with a gun.

"The Grim Sleeper", Lonnie Franklin, shot a handful of women, while he strangled another handful. He made a 14 year hiatus in the midst of things. And one victim was a man!

Cedrik Maake, who killed nigh on 30 victims, bashed the heads of his victims in with a rock on a number of occasions, and shot people sitting in their cars on others.

Paul John Knowles killed a couple of sisters, seven and eleven years of age, by strangling them. He had around 20 victims, but claimed there were more. He killed a 65 year old woman by strangling her. He killed couples. He killed single men. He sometimes smothered or stragled, and sometimes shot his victims.

Carl Panzram shot six men to death on a hunting expedition and fed them to crocodiles. On another occasion he raped a man and beat him to death with a rock.

I could probably come up with a lot more if I tried, but I donīt think it is necessary.

One problem that arises with this question is that I am certain - but cannot prove it - that there are numerous serial killers who have changed their MO:s in so successfull a manner as to manage to stay uncaught. The net is full of such speculations, and I think they are sound speculations. Any potential serial killer has access to many sources where he can read about the disadvantages of keeping to one MO only. Basically, we teach aspiring serial killers how to stay uncaught: Do not give away any signature, change your MO and move inbetween states or countries, and you will be fine. It would be very odd if nobody with a murderous mindset has realized the benefits of going about things like this.

Staying within a confined area and providing the police with signature elements of a very unusual character is giving away that thereīs a serialist on the prowl. The victorians were not aware of this mechanism. They did not discuss MO:s in relation to killings because serial murder was not a problem that was common enough to have been studied at the time. To me, this is the reason that they opted for two killers - lacking experience. This same lack of experience made them think that the Torso killer was a practically minded man, for the simple reason that all the dismemberments they knew of WERE practically governed body partings.

If they had had the knowledge that there are people with a paraphilia that urges them to take bodies apart for the joy of it, they would have opted for one killer. I have no doubt about that. And Phillips would probably have gone "Oh, that explains why the cuts to the necks of Kelly and the Pinchin Street woman were so very similar. I always thought that was a very remarkable coincidence!"

Phillips, as the rest of the medicos and police at the time, were caught behind a door that made it impossible to imagine the kind of killer we are discussing. Unlock that door and the solution becomes very easy to see.

[Fisherman]

I know the rules very well Fisherman,and I have applied them to other posters.
I make exeption to you,because of your frequent insults to myself and other posters.You can give but not take as your last post to me shows.Get a backbone.
While I may make little contribution to the solution of the thread,your puny efforts make even less impact. Way more posts than myself,and you are not even off the starting block.I am quite sure that my evaluation of two killers is far more acceptable than your choice of one,so I am ahead of you,and at your rate you will never catch up.But keep trying lad,you make for a good laugh.

I have no idea who you are and what you are about. I only know that your efforts in Ripperology are not always up to scratch. Pointing that out is not a personal insult, and personal insults are strictly forbidden.

If you do it again, I will report the post and you will have to answer for it.

You are most welcome to criticize my posts, but not me. I myself have no problems using that tool to full effect. If it is not sufficient for you, that is your problem. It does not change the rules of the boards, though. And we must all abide by the rules, you included.

[harry]

I know the rules very well Fisherman,and I have applied them to other posters.
I make exeption to you,because of your frequent insults to myself and other posters.You can give but not take as your last post to me shows.Get a backbone.
While I may make little contribution to the solution of the thread,your puny efforts make even less impact. Way more posts than myself,and you are not even off the starting block.I am quite sure that my evaluation of two killers is far more acceptable than your choice of one,so I am ahead of you,and at your rate you will never catch up.But keep trying lad,you make for a good laugh.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just out of curiosity Fish how many examples are there of serial killers having 2 methods? By that of course i mean the example here (imo) Jack killed in the street, skirt up etc and the TK killed probably indoors, dismemberment, distribution of parts. Before you say it, yes i know that you favour ‘similarities’ but you will accept these differences exist. Im not talking about killers who might have 4 or 5 different methods/weapons etc but killers that have 2 very distinct methods?
And no, im not trying to be clever and catch you out here because i recall you might have mentioned one once. I just wondered out of interest how often this had occurred in crime history?