Same motive = same killer

[Sam Flynn]

"Besides, the removal of the abdominal wall is not present with Nielsen. So it´s 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.

[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.

[Fisherman]

"Besides, the removal of the abdominal wall is not present with Nielsen. So it´s 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 don´t 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 don´t 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.

[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]

Here´s 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, let´s 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? I´m 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!

[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]

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. It´s 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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ouch - that´s 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 don´t 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 there´s 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]

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.

[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".




-

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.