Same motive = same killer

[Fisherman]

"And he misses out on how the Ripper did so much more when given the opportunity"

Like what? Disfiguring the face? Another thing which, for very obvious reasons, can not be claimed for the torso victims.

Really? I would have thought that the face of the 1873 victim was greatly disfigured, Gareth. But - and this is the main matter - I donīt think that the killer would have felt inclined to disfigure the face in all cases. Nor do I think that the killers aim was to disfigure the face per se. I donīt think he thought that he disfigured faces at all.
Once again - I think the killer wanted to disassemble women. Take them apart. In more than one fashion. Many different measures would have appealed to him. Which is why we cannot demand that the same exact type of damage must always be present, which it indeed never is.
One can choose to try and understand that and learn from it, or one loftily wave it away and call it irrelevant. I know what choice I make.

You really want to have your cake, don't you, Fish? When a torso has (some) organs extracted, it's because her killer was JTR. When a torso victim DOESN'T have any organs removed, it's because JTR was actually only interested in taking women apart!

Yours truly, Jack the Dismantler.

Thatīs you attributing ideas to me that I never had. Again. You need to stop that. The killer wanted to take women apart, if you ask me - and taking out organs is one of many aspects of doing that. Many of the things led on by this urge were duplicated inbetween victims, but new ideas entered the equation every now and then, some never to be repeated.
If you donīt like the concept, thatīs fine. If you are having trouble understanding how such a thing works, so be it. But donīt put words in my mouth.
Given your insights into the cases and you inability to accept facts that go against your ideas, that would spell disaster.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. I think it was all about disassembling women. The cutting and parting was more important than the organ taking, and the organ taking was not something the killer did because he wanted the organs, but instead because he liked the idea of the organs being removable.

And its perfectly reasonable to postulate the killers motives and driving forces. And so its perfectly reasonable for me, or anyone else, to postulate the rippers ‘driving force’ based on the known evidence.

I believe that it was important for the ripper to leave his victims where they would be found soon after. And more importantly that the victims were found recognisable as destroyed women/prostitutes and not strewn body parts.

Add this to the obvious facts that they were all (apart from Kelly) middle aged prostitutes. They were killed over a short 2 month period and within a few streets of each and that the severity of mutilations increased with each crime (apart from Stride of course) and the conclusion is a very reasonable one.

Ripper and Torso unconnected. Any coincidental similarities are just that.

[MrBarnett]

If there was just one killer, and his fixation with disassembly had developed prior to 1888, why might he not have attempted anything of the kind on Martha Tabram's body?

Even if, this being his first public killing, he felt at risk of discovery, he could have lopped off an ear or a finger quite easily.

[Fisherman]

And its perfectly reasonable to postulate the killers motives and driving forces. And so its perfectly reasonable for me, or anyone else, to postulate the rippers ‘driving force’ based on the known evidence.

I believe that it was important for the ripper to leave his victims where they would be found soon after. And more importantly that the victims were found recognisable as destroyed women/prostitutes and not strewn body parts.

Add this to the obvious facts that they were all (apart from Kelly) middle aged prostitutes. They were killed over a short 2 month period and within a few streets of each and that the severity of mutilations increased with each crime (apart from Stride of course) and the conclusion is a very reasonable one.

Ripper and Torso unconnected. Any coincidental similarities are just that.

There are too many and too specific similarities for them to be coincidental. Otherwise, your suggestion is just fine - we all have our own beliefs and pet theories.

[Fisherman]

If there was just one killer, and his fixation with disassembly had developed prior to 1888, why might he not have attempted anything of the kind on Martha Tabram's body?

Even if, this being his first public killing, he felt at risk of discovery, he could have lopped off and ear or a finger quite easily.

That is a great question, Gary - much better than many other questions asked out here nowadays.

I have no really good answer to it, only a suggestion:

I donīt think personally that Smith was a Ripper victim - but I think that Tabram quite possibly was.

If so, she is the first of the blitz victims killed in the open street.

Therefore, I reason that she may have been the result of an unplanned attack. After it, the killer may have realized that the great outdoors (well...) could work as arena for his more meticulous and focused work too.

Just a suggestion of course. Tabram deviates in many a way. I like her as a Ripper victim for the geographical and chronological connotations. But she would not fit the bill very well at all unless she was the first.

[Trevor Marriott]

Well, you DID say that it was probably a series of unwanted pregnancies, and that if it was not that, then it could have been about selling organs, did you not?

No, I never said that so please dont misquote me. What I said was that these deaths could have occurred as a result of some medical procedure with the intention of perhaps procuring an abortion. I said that if these women died as a result of anything connected to that, then it could have happened that the perpetrator could have realized that there was money to be made in selling some of the organs before dismembering and disposing of the body parts. I did not say that applied to every torso.

I would like to point out that you are mistaken when you say that I think it was about organ taking, by the way. I donīt think that at all - to my mind, that was secondary. Itīs Gareth who thinks the Ripper was about organ taking, not me. And he misses out on how the Ripper did so much more when given the opportunity.

Part of what you suggest does revolve around the removal of the organs, and I say again if it were one killer then we would expect to see an identical MO, and organs missing from all those you say were murdered by this one lone killer.

I think it was all about disassembling women. The cutting and parting was more important than the organ taking, and the organ taking was not something the killer did because he wanted the organs, but instead because he liked the idea of the organs being removable.

So sometimes there would be organ removal, on other occasions there would be the removal of a face, or the cutting off of the limbs or cutting the breasts off and so on. Organ removal was but a part of the many possibilities he had at hand.

Well if that isnt a typical journalistic cop out answer I dont know what is !

If you donīt understand me and have not even read my take on this - posted numerous times - then you should perhaps not try to make points from suggestions I have never made?

Your take changes, depending on what is put before you to negate your theory, as can be seen in this post

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

There are too many and too specific similarities for them to be coincidental. Otherwise, your suggestion is just fine - we all have our own beliefs and pet theories.

You are doing nothing more than interpreting them in a way that fits with your theory.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Therefore, I reason that she may have been the result of an unplanned attack. After it, the killer may have realized that the great outdoors (well...) could work as arena for his more meticulous and focused work too.

Just a suggestion of course. Tabram deviates in many a way. I like her as a Ripper victim for the geographical and chronological connotations. But she would not fit the bill very well at all unless she was the first.

How can you say it was an unplanned attack when her killer has obviously gone with her to a dark secluded spot inside a building in the early hours of the morning where he has proceeded to murder her in a frenzied attack, the same frenzy we then saw with Chapman Eddowes and Kelly in also quiet dark secluded spots.

In chronlogical terms it was the first, but he never took any organs from her, and he never took any organs from Nicholls the next victim, and if you count Stride he never took organs from her, and if Insp Reid and others are to be belived he never took organs from Kelly, which leaves Chapman and Eddowes who were the only two found missing organs at the post mortems.

So one killer or more than one? If one killer there is no distinct MO based on the evidence, so how you can try to link these victims or their killer/s to the torsos beggar belief.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

You are doing nothing more than interpreting them in a way that fits with your theory.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It is not a problem for me that the facts fit my theory, Trevor. It is what it is. I am open to the possibility that it was two killers. It would be a freak coincidence, of course, but I am all for not ruling out things even if they are quite unlikely to be true.

However, much as you may think it would have been becoming on my behalf to deny the obvious fact that the facts work very well with my theory, I am not that bashful and modest myself. I call things by their real names, and I am not ashamed of it.

If the facts had fit your theories, I am certain that you would have been pleased about that, Trevor, just as I feel pretty certain that you would have found it hard to clam up about it. You canīt even clam up about the many parts of theories that DONīT fit the facts!

[Fisherman]

How can you say it was an unplanned attack when her killer has obviously gone with her to a dark secluded spot inside a building in the early hours of the morning where he has proceeded to murder her in a frenzied attack, the same frenzy we then saw with Chapman Eddowes and Kelly in also quiet dark secluded spots.

If itīs the same frenzy, itīs the same killer - of course!

Nah, just joking. There was not necessarily any frenzy at all in these cases. A case can be made for both takes.

But over to your question! How could it be an unplanned killing when the killer followed Tabram into a secluded place in the early morning hours? Well, Trevor, many serialists are punters, and if he went with her to have sex he may well have been handed a sarcastic jibe from Tabram and exploded.
By the way, it is not a certain thing that Tabram led the way - but that is another question!
Byt the way 2 - I did not say it was an unplanned attack. I speculated that it MAY have been.

In chronlogical terms it was the first, but he never took any organs from her, and he never took any organs from Nicholls the next victim, and if you count Stride he never took organs from her, and if Insp Reid and others are to be belived he never took organs from Kelly, which leaves Chapman and Eddowes who were the only two found missing organs at the post mortems.
So one killer or more than one? If one killer there is no distinct MO based on the evidence, so how you can try to link these victims or their killer/s to the torsos beggar belief.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It all boils down to a little insight in combination with the facts, Trevor.

[Trevor Marriott]

If itīs the same frenzy, itīs the same killer - of course!

Nah, just joking. There was not necessarily any frenzy at all in these cases. A case can be made for both takes.

But over to your question! How could it be an unplanned killing when the killer followed Tabram into a secluded place in the early morning hours? Well, Trevor, many serialists are punters, and if he went with her to have sex he may well have been handed a sarcastic jibe from Tabram and exploded.
By the way, it is not a certain thing that Tabram led the way - but that is another question!
Byt the way 2 - I did not say it was an unplanned attack. I speculated that it MAY have been.



It all boils down to a little insight in combination with the facts, Trevor.

But its how the facts are interpreted, in biased or unbiased fashion ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[John Wheat]

The Torso Killer if he existed is clearly a separate killer to Jack the Ripper.

[Fisherman]

But its how the facts are interpreted, in biased or unbiased fashion ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Unbiased. Of course. As best as I can. In a manner, all people will be biased in how they prefer some scenarios as more probable than others, but that touches on philosophy.

However, I of course speak for the interpretation of just the one killer. And that is on account of two things:

1. There are already quite enough people speaking for the two killer solution, and

2. If the one killer solution is correct - and letīs be frank, everything speaks for it, more or less - then that is a revolution that should have arrived 130 years earlier.

But you can have a suspect and you can have a theory and nevertheless be truthful and factbased.

[Fisherman]

The Torso Killer if he existed is clearly a separate killer to Jack the Ripper.

No, John, but there are details withing the torso series that deviate from the Ripper ditto. However, that does not mean that the killers must be separate. Inded, if they ARE separate, they had an absolutely uncanny and otherwise unheard of talent of reproducing each othersī measures.

[John Wheat]

Inded, if they ARE separate, they had an absolutely uncanny and otherwise unheard of talent of reproducing each othersī measures.

That's just garbage it's totally untrue.