Same motive = same killer

[Abby Normal]

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

don't knock yourself out. ; )

[Fisherman]

hey-lay off Ben!

Shoosh. Just look away for a sec, will you?

[Fisherman]

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.

To be honest, what you said was this:

"I see rather the opposite in the torso cases, namely a practical disposal mechanism that bordered on the discreet; much like flushing one's waste down the toilet."

No specific mentioning of the river dumpings there, Gareth. And he dumped parts in many other places.

If you donīt think that these other dumpings "bordered on the discreet", then we may finally be getting somewhere.

[Abby Normal]

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.

torso man was a wacky guy

[Elamarna]

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.

Hi Gareth,
I understand your view.
Unlikely I tend to agree, don't think that makes it implausible.

Steve

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: 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.

I made no such call or implication at all. I noted that it was common ground and it WAS common ground. The problem was that others spoke of Nilsen having made the bonfore in his backyard. I like to get things righ if I can.

They were attracted by the bonfire. Kids often are.

As are other people. You donīt have to be a kid to go look at a bonfire, you know.

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

Just as I never spoke of Hampsted Heath, thank you very much, I never said the spot was "very public" (no quotation marks required, since I never said it). It was public enough for people to be drawn to the bonfire and if three kids could come there, then so could all and sundry, Iīm afraid.
Now, please, PLEASE, donīt go claiming on my behalf that I said that all and sundry DID come and see it!
I am saying that no, Nilsen did not make the fire in his backyard, but instead on common ground, and that people arrived to stand by as the victims went up in smoke.

As far as I can see, that was the exact thing that happened.

[Fisherman]

torso man was a wacky guy

A fair enough observation. But if he wanted maximum attention for what he did, then it would be anything but whacky to float the parts through central London, where most of them would be (and indeed were) found.

Frustration is not a good thing to bring into a discussion, I think we may agree on that.

[Sam Flynn]

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

If the killers had wanted guaranteed recognition, they'd almost certainly have left the body parts in more prominent places, instead of dumping them in a river, chucking them in canals or stashing them in underground vaults and railway arches.

[Fisherman]

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.

Steve

Actually, the common view today is very much divided into two camps, championed by roughly the same amount of posters, I should think.

Ten years ago, the shared identity camp was off boundaries and nobody was allowed to enter it.

That is massive progress, and a very good sign of how sense is beginning to get the better of the somewhat stale old ideas.

[Sam Flynn]

torso man was a wacky guy

The torso men might have been wacky, but doesn't excuse OUR wacky reasoning.

[Debra A]

Just a thought-If the disposal was considered discreet at the time, would anyone have suggested it was a student 'prank'? Aren't pranks done for impact?

[Fisherman]

If the killers had wanted guaranteed recognition, they'd almost certainly have left the body parts in more prominent places, instead of dumping them in a river, chucking them in canals or stashing them in underground vaults and railway arches.

You seem to champion Trevors ideas? All that talk about killers and the former statement that we should not speak of murders since it is not a sure thing, I mean?

Anyway, what does the cellar vaults of the New Scotland Yard and the garden of Percy Shelley lack in prominence in your view? Is it not true that the world has been appalled by the audacity shown by the killer for more than a hundred years? Has it not always been looked at as truly remarkable?

If ALL the parts had been thrown into the Thames, you would still not have a good point - but a much better one.

But recognizing what this killer did, there is no way we are going to be able to rid ourselves of the very clearly implicated idea that the killer wanted recognition. Thatīs what has gone down in the history books, and for a good reason too.

If you donīt mind my saying so, I feel you are fighting a battle you cannot win. Telling me that you only meant the parts dumped in the Thames when you spoke of discretion goes some way to show you what I mean - apparently, you have realised that the sum of things does not add up to discretion at all.

And, as I have said repeatedly, if he wanted the parts thrown into the Thames to go lost unnoticed, he would quickly enough have realised that the scheme had backfired gloriously when 12 out of 13 parts of the 1873 torso were retrieved on their passage through central London - which is very, very understandable when you allow packages to be washed up along the shores of the largest metropolis in the world.

Once he know that didnīt work, how come this man, so much in favour of discretion, actually made the river dumping a reoccuring ritual where all of London got a fair chance to find one of his packages? When a journalist, sent out to write about the sensation, was actually rewarded in his task by finding a package of his very own?

Like Trow says- and has recorded for posterity - the very obvious purpose seems to have been to taunt and terrify. That is how logically reasoning people see it.

[Debra A]

Interesting stuff! Was any further work done to see if all the pieces were dumped at the same time, or a few bits a day over the course of the week?
Could we possibly trace the route taken? Assuming all pieces were dumped at the same time (more or less), could Torso man have simply strolled across Albert Bridge, occasionally lobbing a parcel from his wheelbarrow/costerbarrow/pickfords van over the side when nobody was about? If there was too much traffic (either road or river) he may have thrown parcels from the embankment, either into the river or the Shelley house.
Seems plausible enough?

The only outlier is the leg found at Wandsworth, which seems to have found it's way upstream....

Unfortunately, no, Josh. John mentioned other factors that would influence the pace and direction of other portions , including obstacles, wind direction buoyancy etc. I think it has been mentioned in the past that the upstream find may have been moved in a different direction by a vessel?


Hi Abby

[Fisherman]

The torso men might have been wacky, but doesn't excuse OUR wacky reasoning.

I need no excuse, Gareth. I am making perfectly viable points and you are making something of a spectacle of yourself. Which is kind of sad.

[Fisherman]

Just a thought-If the disposal was considered discreet at the time, would anyone have suggested it was a student 'prank'? Aren't pranks done for impact?

That would be the common view, yes.