Same motive = same killer

[Fisherman]

Surely the most obvious, and important, difference is that the ripper killed and mutilated 'there and then.' His method was to approach, engage, kill then mutilate. All part of one action. Why connect such different methods?

The torso man was perhaps about approach, engage, take home, kill then mutilate, Herlock. The true indicators of a shared identity lies in what happened to the victims. If both methods worked, why abstain from one of them?

If a killer cuts away the abominal wall in large panes, then that takes precedence over WHERE he does it, on the street or in a bolthole.

I also think there may be an element of narcissism involved - the posing of the victims in the Ripper series, as well as the bold dumping of the torsos looks like a cry for attention to me. And the Ripper series yielded more of that commodity.

Of course, Nichols was not posed, but ...

[Fisherman]

Once more, I´d like the discussion to focus on how it seems that serialists who have the aim to procure a body/bodies have a ritualistic agenda.

Are there examples to the opposite? Serialists who murder quickly and with no sadism in order to procure a body - and who have no ritualistic agenda at all?

Suggestions?

[Abby Normal]

Surely the most obvious, and important, difference is that the ripper killed and mutilated 'there and then.' His method was to approach, engage, kill then mutilate. All part of one action. Why connect such different methods?

Hi HS

the MO was actually probably very similar-rusing the victim to a place where he could kill them and do what he wanted to do and get what body parts he needed.

The sig is also basically the same-post mortem mutilation and removal of body parts.

The APPARENT difference between the two series is the dismemberment and disposal. But perhaps the torso victims were ones were he had access to a private place to carry out his fantasy and the ripper victims were ones were he didn't have access to his place and had to do it on the streets.

I mean just look at the similarities:
same time frame
same victimology
same location
post mortem mutilation
abdomen targeted
use of knife
body parts removed
probable ruse used to lure victims
unsolved
both ended same time
no overt attempt at hiding victims
specific similarities between Jackson, Kelly and chapman with large sections of skin flaps removed from abdomen.

and Fish has even more specific similarities.


I never even considered them related until I learned from Debra Arif that ALL the torso victims had post mortem mutilation to some extent.

[Fisherman]

Question:

If the very few examples we have of serialists who kill quickly in order to obtain access to a body all point to the killer having a ritualistic element behind his deeds - why would we not make the exact same assumption for Jack as well as for the torso killer?

[Sam Flynn]

If the very few examples we have of serialists who kill quickly in order to obtain access to a body all point to the killer having a ritualistic element behind his deeds - why would we not make the exact same assumption for Jack as well as for the torso killer?

You've made quite a number of assumptions there, Fish, not all of which we can be sure are true.

[John G]

Actually, John, I took great care not to say that they were. It applies that they may have come freely with the killer to his bolthole, and then they would not have been abducted at all. If we reason that Jack posed as a punter, then why would we not think that the torso killer may have done the same? "Hello, luv´, how about coming home with me and earning a shilling?"

Are most dismemberment victims abducted victims? I don´t think so. My guess is that there will be a fair amount of unpremeditated murders amongst them - spouses killing their viwes and realizing that they cannot carry them down the staircases on their shoulders, and so on.

I do see the logic of the suggestion and how you reason though, and yes, part of the dismemberment murders will be women who have been abducted/lured/persuaded to go with a killer to his bolthole, after which they have been subjected to sadism and ensuing murder and dismemberment.

I would not want to try and guess who the proportions are divided, though.

Do you agree that it seems that neither Jack nor the Torso killer will have been sadists?

Yes, I agree that it is very unlikely that either the Torso perpetrator or JtR were sadists.

In fact, you're probably aware that dismemberers are categorised as either offensive or defensive: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3322222
I very much regard the Torso peepetrator as a defensive dismemberer/mutilator.

[Fisherman]

You've made quite a number of assumptions there, Fish, not all of which we can be sure are true.

Yes, I have. And that is often so when I post - I follow an idea, and I ask for participation, suggestions ...

So far, the two serialists that have been brought forward are Dahmer and Gein. They both had ritualistic elements involved in their killing.

Do you have any examples of serialists who prioritised killing the victim quickly with the apparent idea of gaining access to the body afterwards, and who had no ritualistic aims involved?

Men like Sutcliffe are not what I am looking for - he was guided by his sexuality, but we don´t see any signs of that with the Ripper and/or the torso killer.

[Fisherman]

Yes, I agree that it is very unlikely that either the Torso perpetrator or JtR were sadists.

In fact, you're probably aware that dismemberers are categorised as either offensive or defensive: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3322222
I very much regard the Torso peepetrator as a defensive dismemberer/mutilator.

Why? Eviscerations are always tied to offensive dismemberment, and the torso victims were eviscerated.

So why? Defensive dismemberment is for facilitation of transport only. This man carved out the uterus of Jackson and packed it up in her own abdomonal wall, cut in two sections together with cord and placenta after having plucked her foetus out of the uterus. That is decisevely not defensive dismemberment. It´s the exact opposite.

[John G]

Why? Eviscerations are always tied to offensive dismemberment, and the torso victims were eviscerated.

So why? Defensive dismemberment is for facilitation of transport only. This man carved out the uterus of Jackson and packed it up in her own abdomonal wall, cut in two sections together with cord and placenta after having plucked her foetus out of the uterus. That is decisevely not defensive dismemberment. It´s the exact opposite.

I disagree. It was defensive dismemberment in the sense that the purpose of the mutilations were the disposal of the body parts-in the case of Jackson several body parts were found wrapped up in a parcel. However, concerning the fact that Jackson was pregnant, and the foetus was never recovered, I don't discount Debra's Gray's Anatomy theory.

In JtR' s case the main purpose of the eviscerations seems to be the targeting of body organs to be retained as trophies, especially the uterus. I would note that Jackson's uterus was disposed of by the perpetrator.

[Fisherman]

John G: I disagree. It was defensive dismemberment in the sense that the purpose of the mutilations were the disposal of the body parts-in the case of Jackson several body parts were found wrapped up in a parcel. However, concerning the fact that Jackson was pregnant, and the foetus was never recovered, I don't discount Debra's Gray's Anatomy theory.

I´m afraid that you cannot disagree. Eviscerations equal offensive dismemberment, and there were eviscerations, quite possibly so in many of the cases and definitely in some. That puts things beyond dispute.

In JtR' s case the main purpose of the eviscerations seems to be the targeting of body organs to be retained as trophies, especially the uterus. I would note that Jackson's uterus was disposed of by the perpetrator.

Kellys uterus was left by Jack. If he targetted the uteri for trophies, why leave it behind, John? What the Ripper did with the organs he took away we cannot know. There is nothing at all that tells us it was trophies. Instead, there is a letter with half a kidney inmplicating he ate what he took away - which equals ritual.
You seem to be missing out on a large number of essential points, John? And still you tell me that I include the earlier torsos only to implicate Lechmere. That´s not nice of you. A face cut away from the skull with even the eyelashes intact sounds a lot like ritualistic behaviour in my world.

[John G]

John G: I disagree. It was defensive dismemberment in the sense that the purpose of the mutilations were the disposal of the body parts-in the case of Jackson several body parts were found wrapped up in a parcel. However, concerning the fact that Jackson was pregnant, and the foetus was never recovered, I don't discount Debra's Gray's Anatomy theory.

I´m afraid that you cannot disagree. Eviscerations equal offensive dismemberment, and there were eviscerations, quite possibly so in many of the cases and definitely in some. That puts things beyond dispute.

In JtR' s case the main purpose of the eviscerations seems to be the targeting of body organs to be retained as trophies, especially the uterus. I would note that Jackson's uterus was disposed of by the perpetrator.

Kellys uterus was left by Jack. If he targetted the uteri for trophies, why leave it behind, John? What the Ripper did with the organs he took away we cannot know. There is nothing at all that tells us it was trophies. Instead, there is a letter with half a kidney inmplicating he ate what he took away - which equals ritual.
You seem to be missing out on a large number of essential points, John? And still you tell me that I include the earlier torsos only to implicate Lechmere. That´s not nice of you. A face cut away from the skull with even the eyelashes intact sounds a lot like ritualistic behaviour in my world.

Okay, you're probably aware that Debra has cited the forensic pathologist Guy Rutty in the past. So, these are his observations:

Defensive dismemberment is by far the most common-82% of cases in the UK. Aggressive dismemberment is the second most common, and this "can be referred to as overkill where the rage of the killer is manifest and is reflected in the the often haphazard nature of the dismemberment." (Rutty and Hainsworth, 2017.) This is obviously not the case with the Torso perpetrator, who exhibited a significant amount of skill (but certainly does apply to Kelly's murder.)

Offensive dismemberment is often motivated by sadistic pleasure, and often involves "mutilation of the sexual regions of the body, and it is rare." (Ibid)

This type of dismemberment is also not relevant to the Torso perpetrator.

You may also be interested in these observations: ""The body is commonly dismembered into six pieces...in addition to this, the chest and abdomen may be opened and eviscerated." Rutty and Hainsworth, 2017)

It therefore appears that evisceration in dismemberment cases isn't that rare.

[John G]

I will return to this thread when I have more time, but these are my initial observations.

The Torso perpetrator may well have abducted his victims, JtR didn't. The Torso perpetrator took extreme precautions to prevent his victim's from being identified-no head was ever recovered. JtR made no attempts to disguise the identity of his victims.

The Torso perpetrator used a storage site, and clearly liked spending time with the dead victims: The Whitehall Torso was stored for several weeks. JtR had a very different personality: He simply slaughtered women in the street and wasn't concerned with spending time with the victim.

The Torso perpetrator was a commuter killer,who must have had transport and a storage site: body parts were discovered all over London. JtR, on the other hand, was a marauder, who focused his activities within a remarkably small geographical area-around 1 square mile. In fact, even after a huge intense in the number of police officers dispatched to the Whitechapel area, he didn't extend his activities to a wider geographical area.

Overall this suggests that he only killed in an area where he was familiar, and that he didn't have transport or a storage facility.

Not a of the Torso victims were eviscerated. The Pinchin Street victim had a minor gash, however, at the inquest Dr Phillips opined that the "mutilation s were made for the purpose of disposing of the body."

And this was the observations of Assistant Commissioner Monro in a Home Office Report:

"In the present case, so far as the medical evidence goes there is a) nothing to show that death was caused by the cutting of the throat-b) There is no mutilation as in previous cases, although there is dismemberment. C) there is no evisceration-d) there is no removal of any of the organs of generation or intestinal. e) ...Here, where there was as in the previous case of murder in a house [Kelly], plenty of time at the disposal of the murderer, there is no sign of frenzied mutilation of the body, but of deliberate and skilful dismemberment with a view to removal."

He adds:

"But the body has been found in Whitechapel and there is a gash on the front part extending downwards to the organs of generation-and we have to account for these facts. I place little importance on the gash...The inner coating of the bowel is hardly touched, and the termination of the cut towards the vagina looks almost as if the knife had slipped, and as if the portion of the wound had been accidental. The whole of the wound looks as if the murderer had intended to make a cut preparatory to removing the intestines in the process of dismemberment, but then changed his mind. Had this been the work of the previous frenzied murderer [Kelly's killer] we may be tolerably sure that he would have continued with his hideous work in the way which he previously adopted. It may also be that the gash was inflicted to give rise to the impression that this case was the work of the Whitechapel murderer and direct attention away from the real assassin."

[Sam Flynn]

I will return to this thread when I have more time, but these are my initial observations.

If those are your initial observations, John, I look forward to reading more. At a high level, you've pretty much nailed it as far as I can see.

[jerryd]

The Torso perpetrator took extreme precautions to prevent his victim's from being identified-no head was ever recovered

Hi John,

Elizabeth Jackson was identified even after being cut up in pieces. It was the lack of "extreme precautions" that led to her identification. The killer left clothing attached that aided in her identification. Clothing was also used to try to identify the Whitehall victim. Material from her clothing was traced to a manufacturer in Bradford, IIRC.

[jerryd]

He simply slaughtered women in the street and wasn't concerned with spending time with the victim.

Do you think Mary Kelly was a JTR victim then?