Same motive = same killer

[Joshua Rogan]

Yes, Abby. Whenever body parts began to turn up someone would claim it was a student prank and it would be reported in the press. Would people consider a prank by students at all if these remains had thought to have been disposed of 'discreetly' was what I was wondering about.

Hmmm. Wasn't the arm found at the Lambeth blind school initially reported to be part of a murder, but later declared to be a prank?

And how much more discrete can you get - those blind kids would never have spotted it!

[Sam Flynn]

Yes, Abby. Whenever body parts began to turn up someone would claim it was a student prank and it would be reported in the press. Would people consider a prank by students at all if these remains had thought to have been disposed of 'discreetly' was what I was wondering about.

Debs - as I explained, I did not say that the torso dumpings were discreet, but that this method of disposal was comparatively more discreet than the public eviscerations perpetrated by the Ripper. A perfectly reasonable statement to make.

Fisherman, either through a misunderstanding and/or through wilful misrepresentation, made it appear that I'd claimed that dumping body-parts in rivers is discreet in its own right, whereas I never made such a simplistic claim. I'd appreciate it, therefore, if folks didn't put the words "discreet" or "discreetly" in quotation marks, because it might make it look like I did.

[Abby Normal]

You continually minimise or deny the glaring differences between the Ripper and Torso cases and posit the equivalent of Ptolemaic epicycles to explain away anomalies that might threaten your view of the universe. That's what's "kind of sad" here, not anything I've posted.

Gentlemen, gentlemen. Please.

For what it’s worth I admit that there are obvious differences and obvious similarities.

I just lean to the similarities, and either side has no claim to the truth, we simply don’t know. This is a great and interesting thread, let’s not let it devolve into a mudslinging fight.

[Abby Normal]

Debs - as I explained, I did not say that the torso dumpings were discreet, but that this method of disposal was comparatively more discreet than the public eviscerations perpetrated by the Ripper. A perfectly reasonable statement to make.

Fisherman, either through a misunderstanding and/or through wilful misrepresentation, made it appear that I'd claimed that dumping body-parts in rivers is discreet in its own right, whereas I never made such a simplistic claim. I'd appreciate it, therefore, if folks didn't put the words "discreet" or "discreetly" in quotation marks, because it might make it look like I did.

Well then at least you admit then that torso man did not get rid of the bodies parts nearly as discreetly as he could?

[Debra A]

Debs - as I explained, I did not say that the torso dumpings were discreet, but that this method of disposal was comparatively more discreet than the public eviscerations perpetrated by the Ripper. A perfectly reasonable statement to make.

Fisherman, either through a misunderstanding and/or through wilful misrepresentation, made it appear that I'd claimed that dumping body-parts in rivers is discreet in its own right, whereas I never made such a simplistic claim. I'd appreciate it, therefore, if folks didn't put the words "discreet" or "discreetly" in quotation marks, because it might make it look like I did.

Apologies, Gareth. I've not been able to follow who said what to who, and when, as closely as I'd like...I blink and there's another half dozen posts!

[Joshua Rogan]

Funnily enough (or not) I've just accidentally watched a documentary about the murder of Gemma McCluskie. She was murdered by her brother during an argument, then dismembered and dumped in the Regent's Canal within 3 hours.
Was he trying to make a statement, or simply trying to cover up a crime?

[Joshua Rogan]

Apologies, Gareth. I've not been able to follow who said what to who, and when, as closely as I'd like...I blink and there's another half dozen posts!

Matchsticks are the answer!

[Abby Normal]

Funnily enough (or not) I've just accidentally watched a documentary about the murder of Gemma McCluskie. She was murdered by her brother during an argument, then dismembered and dumped in the Regent's Canal within 3 hours.
Was he trying to make a statement, or simply trying to cover up a crime?

In this case, with the limited info provided, honestly, I would say definitely trying to cover up a crime.

[Debra A]

Hmmm. Wasn't the arm found at the Lambeth blind school initially reported to be part of a murder, but later declared to be a prank?

And how much more discrete can you get - those blind kids would never have spotted it!

Yes, something like that, although a person could live after having an arm removed.

[jerryd]

Funnily enough (or not) I've just accidentally watched a documentary about the murder of Gemma McCluskie. She was murdered by her brother during an argument, then dismembered and dumped in the Regent's Canal within 3 hours.
Was he trying to make a statement, or simply trying to cover up a crime?

Thanks Joshua,

I just read the Wiki on that case; they found her head in the same stretch of the canal and two days later confirmed it was her. He didn't do a very good job covering it up.

[Joshua Rogan]

Thanks Joshua,

I just read the Wiki on that case; they found her head in the same stretch of the canal and two days later confirmed it was her. He didn't do a very good job covering it up.

Well, they have CCTV these days and DNA evidence. Even so it was 6 months before her head was found, by someone fishing.

Wasn't the Rainham torso also (partially) dumped in the Regent's Canal and not discovered for several months?

[Zena]

But once you were on the site, why would you not be able to find it? It was an open site, and anybody could work his way down there.
William Brown, the foreman, said that he believed that only someone who knew the site or had had it described in detail would be able to find the vault where the torso was found - but why would we surmise that the killer was looking for that particular vault? In through the open door and down we go - how hard can it be? The vault was not closed off or anything like that. Why would we reason that the killer must have had any knowledge at all about the vault as he approached the building, carrying the torso with himself? Why could he not just have reasoned "I´ll put it somewhere in the foundations"?

As you say, the precise site would not have been widely known at all in any detail, but once somebody stepped into the building, what would prevent that somebody of aquaintaing himself with it?

And no matter how hard it was to find or not - why would the Ripper of all men be less likely to find it than any other man, save those who worked there and the architect? And why would he belong to your perceived part of the Londoners who were unaware that the building was being erected?

I've read the rest of the thread and didn't see this mentioned anywhere. If I missed it, apologies. But why couldn't the killer simply have scouted the area in the nights before actually dumping the torso there? If he were trying to make a statement by dumping it at the Scotland Yard site and the place was a maze, it makes sense that he would have visited it beforehand, learned his way around, and chosen a place to put it before actually hauling the torso around on the off-chance he'd 1) find a good place to put it and 2) there weren't watchmen or others hanging around to see.

[Abby Normal]

I've read the rest of the thread and didn't see this mentioned anywhere. If I missed it, apologies. But why couldn't the killer simply have scouted the area in the nights before actually dumping the torso there? If he were trying to make a statement by dumping it at the Scotland Yard site and the place was a maze, it makes sense that he would have visited it beforehand, learned his way around, and chosen a place to put it before actually hauling the torso around on the off-chance he'd 1) find a good place to put it and 2) there weren't watchmen or others hanging around to see.

Winner winner chicken dinner

[Herlock Sholmes]

I've read the rest of the thread and didn't see this mentioned anywhere. If I missed it, apologies. But why couldn't the killer simply have scouted the area in the nights before actually dumping the torso there? If he were trying to make a statement by dumping it at the Scotland Yard site and the place was a maze, it makes sense that he would have visited it beforehand, learned his way around, and chosen a place to put it before actually hauling the torso around on the off-chance he'd 1) find a good place to put it and 2) there weren't watchmen or others hanging around to see.

Hi Zena,

Firstly, to be honest I think that Fish is making it sound a little easier than it probably was to get to where he dumped the body (underground/in the dark/tools and stuff lying around). I'm unsure but he may have had to go down a ladder carrying the parcel (in which case it would have probably been in near total darkness because even if he had a light with him how could he carry that and the parcel whilst negotiating a ladder.)
He could have reconnoitred the site as you suggested. The point that I make on this is that he could have disposed of that part in a thousand easier and less risky (risk of injury I mean) places. So why this site? For some reason I believe that the killer, whoever he was, had made up is mind that it had to be there. An obvious motive is to do with the police. A taunt perhaps? We can't know of course.

[Sam Flynn]

Apologies, Gareth. I've not been able to follow who said what to who, and when, as closely as I'd like...I blink and there's another half dozen posts!

I know, Debs, it's quite remarkable - still, it's good to see such a fruitful line of enquiry being opened up.