Same motive = same killer

[Fisherman]

And the Condy's Fluid continued to mask the smell after the Whitehall torso was dumped to buy the killer more time still. I don't think it was used to preserve the parts so they would be found, but to mask the smell so they weren't for a few more days.

I think his focus was to preserve the torso for as long as possible. Think Dahmer, and you may see what I am getting at.

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer,
I corrected that a few posts later to "new facts".
Without new info we are just going over the very same arguments and few people's views are shifting at present.

Steve

To me, the most important insight of the whole thread is the idea that the killer may have dumped the parts from the western part of London for the reason that he wanted them to pass by central London and to maximize the odds for them being found.

I had never thought of that possibility before, and it has me very interested.

[Sam Flynn]

Nilsen did not burn the bodies in his backyard, but instead on common ground in direct proximity to his lodgings.

It was a strip of waste-land just beyond his garden fence, where neighbours had over time dumped junk like old furniture, some of which he used to build the bonfire.

[Fisherman]

It was a strip of waste-land just beyond his garden fence, where neighbours had over time dumped junk like old furniture, some of which he used to build the bonfire.

Exactly.

Are you trying to make some point here, or just describing the site?

[Sam Flynn]

To me, the most important insight of the whole thread is the idea that the killer may have dumped the parts from the western part of London for the reason that he wanted them to pass by central London and to maximize the odds for them being found.

You mean he went West past Battersea to drop the body parts, hoping that the river would take the on a grand tour to central London, so that they could be more easily found?!! If he'd wanted them easily found, he'd have left them in full view in public places, just like someone else I could mention.

[Sam Flynn]

Are you trying to make some point here, or just describing the site?

The point is that, whilst it could be fairly described as common land, it wasn't exactly Hampstead Heath or Wimbledon Common. It was a strip of waste land to the other side of his garden fence, where people periodically dumped broken furniture and other junk.

[Elamarna]

To me, the most important insight of the whole thread is the idea that the killer may have dumped the parts from the western part of London for the reason that he wanted them to pass by central London and to maximize the odds for them being found.

I had never thought of that possibility before, and it has me very interested.

Yes that is an interesting fact, not new but highlighted again,
Your suggestion is perfectly plausible; but so is the one that he was possibly living, killing and certainly disposing of the body parts there in West London with no other motive other than using near by locations for this.

Would be so easy to start debating this at length, but we need more evidence of some kind or we will just go round in circles.

Reading it all, in batches while I write up other thing
It's an interesting thread with some good ideas from all angles, if something new does come up then I may join in more.


Steve

[Fisherman]

You mean he went West past Battersea to drop the body parts, hoping that the river would take the on a grand tour to central London, so that they could be more easily found?!! If he'd wanted them easily found, he'd have left them in full view in public places, just like someone else I could mention.

I reserve the word "silly" for more appropriate occasions. Like if somebody should call the torso man discreet or something like that. Now THAT´S what I call really silly.

If somebody had suggested that Henry Lee Lucas made a point by dumping a victim outside the gates of a prison,would you call that silly too? If somebody told you that Albert di Salvo after having strangled one woman, filled a bathtub with water and dumped her body there, posed so that the buttocks reaached over the surface but the rest stayed underneath, would you thiink that silly to? And if you were told that di Salvos reply to the question why, was "I dunno, I just did it", would you regard that as silly too?

You see, in my world, serialists may have a meaning built into what they do. They may dump bodies and/or body parts to make a point. Was it silly of the Hillside stranglers to dispose of their bodies where they did, when they could easily have made them disappear instead?

You worded it eminently in a former post of yours. The killer produced something eerily reminiscent of a sushi conveyor belt, through the parts of central London.
Plus he DID leave parts in parks and cellar vaults and under railway arches.

I cannot think of a much more safe way to have your work acknowledged. Silly me.

[Sam Flynn]

Your suggestion is perfectly plausible

I don't see Fisherman's suggestion that the torso killers dumped bits of people in the Thames "to maximise the odds of their being found" or "wanted them to pass by central London" as being in the least bit plausible. They're utterly wacky.

[Fisherman]

The point is that, whilst it could be fairly described as common land, it wasn't exactly Hampstead Heath or Wimbledon Common. It was a strip of waste land to the other side of his garden fence, where people periodically dumped broken furniture and other junk.

I fail to see where I implicated that the ground he used was like Hampsted Heath or Wimbledon. But sure enough, there were three kids standing by the bonfire as the bodies turned to ash, so if you think it was a very private part, you may need to rethink that particular point.

[Abby Normal]

No, Gareth, there is no "almost certainly" involved in your suggestion. I think you will find that most people believe that it is a near certainty that the killer was looking for recognition of his work in some way, and that the dumping processes he used had that aim. Like, for instance, Mei Trow, who likely voices the common opinion on this score.

You are beginning to sound like Ben used to do.

hey-lay off Ben!

[Sam Flynn]

I reserve the word "silly" for more appropriate occasions. Like if somebody should call the torso man discreet or something like that. Now THAT´S what I call really silly.

I said that dumping bodies in a river is comparatively discreet compared to ripping bodies open and removing organs on a public street with the police breathing down your neck... a perfectly reasonable, and justifiable statement to make. Not "silly" in the least.

[Abby Normal]

Abby Normal: Fiiiiiishy??
you havnt responded to this yet. Am I getting warmer?

Winter´s coming, Abby...

did he want to use the parts he disjointed for something?

In 1873? No.

do we have a Frankenstein like thing going on here?

You know-Shelley estate thigh and all that???

No.

Ixnay on the Ottenray!

[Sam Flynn]

I fail to see where I implicated that the ground he used was like Hampsted Heath or Wimbledon.

You didn't. I just didn't want people getting the impression that, by your describing it as "common ground", you meant that it was a busy public area, which it wasn't.

But sure enough, there were three kids standing by the bonfire as the bodies turned to ash

They were attracted by the bonfire. Kids often are.

so if you think it was a very private part, you may need to rethink that particular point.

I don't, but if you believe it was "very public", it's you who needs to re-think.

[Fisherman]

I don't see Fisherman's suggestion that the torso killers dumped bits of people in the Thames "to maximise the odds of their being found" or "wanted them to pass by central London" as being in the least bit plausible. They're utterly wacky.

You may wish to allow people like Steve to make his own calls, Gareth. There comes a time when we are wrong every now and then, all of us. That insight is valuable to ponder every now and then, even if we feel frustrated and think that there is no way that we can be wrong.

We can, you know.