Same motive = same killer

[Elamarna]

Well, you know, Trevor is the foremost proponent out here for the torso series perhaps not having been committed by one man only, and for the idea that there is no reason to regard the cases as murders.

He used to be, at least. It seems you may be taking over, by the looks of things.

That´s just fine by me. Each to his own.

Hi all

Just a quick comment here.

Have spent some time on the Whitehall case. I do wonder if more than one was involved in disposing of this body part, but see no reason to doubt dismemberment by same hand as other 80's Torsos.

And while one cannot be 100% conclusive that they were murdered, it must be very probably that they were, I see no evidence to suggest any other possible conclusion.




Steve

[Fisherman]

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?

How can we possibly know?

[Fisherman]

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.

To be fair, I don´t know how hard or easy it would be, since I have no idea about the environment and layout of the place.
Just like Zena says, it may be that the killer had scouted the premises before he brought the torso and other body parts there.
In the end, I am left with the same feeling as you - the killer had decided that he wanted to place the torso in the building for some reason, and he was willing to take huge risks and go through whatever difficulty to achieve it.

[Fisherman]

I like it, I admire the cut of your jib ladies and gents and so I shall respond!

Interesting thread, nothing has roused my interest so much in years. I like to think that there is indeed a possibility that these crimes are connected, but if you believe this to be the case, then I think you must also adhere to the possibility that the killer relied largely on circumstance.

The first thing that leapt to my mind was the possibility that some of these crimes were committed when the killer had both time and privacy, while with others, this was obviously not the case. Perhaps when he had a fixed abode, or when he was alone at his place of work, so that he had time to do as he wished. Perhaps the Ripper crimes were committed during times when he had no such luxury?

I do not think we should give too much thought to the 'random' dumping of body parts either, what seems random to us, may well be a part of the 'cunning' plan in a mind that we cannot comprehend. What Nilson said,“The corpse is the dirty platter after the feast”, is nearer to the mark in this case I think.

For decades we have all been the victims of circumstance, hardly looking beyond five unfortunate women who met their end in the grimy streets of the East End. But what if Jack predated 1888 in his nefarious work, what if the very nature of his crimes were, in fact, dictated by his circumstances at the time he killed?

That would, as you ladies and gentlemen have begun to realize, give us a very different breed of killer indeed. Very well done

Well, well! It´s been some time since I saw your name out here. I seem to remember that you pack rather a powerful punch argumentwise, so it´s good to see that you that you seem to like the paths opened up by the suggestion of a shared identity between the Ripper and the Torso man.

[Sam Flynn]

Well, you know, Trevor is the foremost proponent out here for the torso series perhaps not having been committed by one man

I wasn't aware of that, actually. I tend not to follow Trevor's posts too closely.

It seems you may be taking over, by the looks of things.

It's eminently feasible that there were different perpetrators between 1873 and 1889. Perhaps one of them - or a syndicate - were involved in more than one of the 1880 cases, and I'm not ruling that out. However, to assume from the outset that the same person was responsible for all of them is going about it the wrong way round.

[Sam Flynn]

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?

It's far more likely that it was the latter. Most dumpings of bodies are surely intended to cover up crimes, or at least to delay justice.

[Fisherman]

I wasn't aware of that, actually. I tend not to follow Trevor's posts too closely.
It's eminently feasible that there were different perpetrators between 1873 and 1889. Perhaps one of them - or a syndicate - were involved in more than one of the 1880 cases, and I'm not ruling that out. However, to assume from the outset that the same person was responsible for all of them is going about it the wrong way round.

Far from being eminently feasible, it is a possibility, nothing else. But that possibility is gainsaid by a number of factors that are consistent throughout the whole torso series: the very neat disarticulations, the lack of traces of physical torture, the commonality that all torso victims were cut up in close connection to death, the dumping procedures - and then there is the factor I am keeping from you, which very clearly points to a common inspiration ground. But even without that last factor, it must be said that we are dealing with one very special individual - or two or more individuals who were all very special in the exact same manner. The latter suggestion therefore becomes less credible.

To me, there can be little doubt that the killer was the same from 1873 on.

[Fisherman]

It's far more likely that it was the latter. Most dumpings of bodies are surely intended to cover up crimes, or at least to delay justice.

That is true, just a it is true that when we have two serialists in the same town, representing many common and peculiar traits in the way they do damage to their victims, they are to be expected to be the same man.

Logic is consistent in that manner.

[Jon Guy]

Were the body parts all dumped in the warmer months of the year ?
Were the body parts all about to turn when found ?

[Michael W Richards]

That is true, just a it is true that when we have two serialists in the same town, representing many common and peculiar traits in the way they do damage to their victims, they are to be expected to be the same man.

Logic is consistent in that manner.

Logic requires pattern and consistency, sequential occurrences. In these cases the behaviors can vary greatly, so its impractical to merely assume a routinely morphing murderer.

I think the crux is what Sam struck on, disposal of remains. Something unseen in the Canonicals, save for some organs. The display was part of the Ripper crimes, the shock value must have been something that was required or desired to complete the act.

If you look at the murder of Polly and Annie there seems to be little to suggest other than a random act of violence upon a stranger, with the ultimate objective being to mutilate the cooling remains. I think the taking of specific organs is a secondary goal. The Torsos were created out of sight and disposed of with some degree of stealth. Had no-one found any of the remains, excluding 1 torso perhaps, the killer likely would have been sated, and content to remain in the shadows. Jack needed the audience.

On the 1 torso perhaps placed, I feel its a political statement.

[Fisherman]

Michael W Richards: Logic requires pattern and consistency, sequential occurrences. In these cases the behaviors can vary greatly, so its impractical to merely assume a routinely morphing murderer.

Merely assume? The assumption is not grabbed out of thin air, Michael. And there is not much morphing as far as I can tell. There is more of similarities.

I think the crux is what Sam struck on, disposal of remains. Something unseen in the Canonicals, save for some organs.

Why, Michael, would we expect the Ripper to cut up his victims and scuttle off for the Thames? The victims were killed in spots that were unconnected to the killer, in all probability, and so there was no need for dumping them elsewhere.

The display was part of the Ripper crimes, the shock value must have been something that was required or desired to complete the act.

No, it must not, actually. It may well be that what the Ripper did, he did for himself only. And then he left it behind, gruesome as it was. There is no need to accept that the killer MUST have wanted to shock society, although he may have wanted to do so. Equally, he may have discovered that effect after having killed Nichols and - foremost - Chapman.

If you look at the murder of Polly and Annie there seems to be little to suggest other than a random act of violence upon a stranger, with the ultimate objective being to mutilate the cooling remains.

No, when I look at them, I see a desire to fulfil a ritual, something that was interrupted in Bucks Row, but much more fulfilled in Hanbury Street. The violence had a very clear meaning, and it is no coincidence that the scenes turned out the way they did.
That´s what I see, so we need to differ on the point until further notice.

I think the taking of specific organs is a secondary goal.

I think it was just as important to him as was the rest of the cutting. I don´t regard it as secondary, nor as primary - but instead just as part of it all.

The Torsos were created out of sight and disposed of with some degree of stealth.

The stealth only involved not getting detected, though - it did not comprise making the parts disappear. On the contrary, they were aimed to be found, in my view.

Had no-one found any of the remains, excluding 1 torso perhaps, the killer likely would have been sated, and content to remain in the shadows.

I disagree. The killer would have carried on to kill, the way I see it.

Jack needed the audience.

Neither man needed the audience, but both men embraced and welcomed the attention they were getting. If there was not another man on earth, they would both have had the urge to kill anyway.

On the 1 torso perhaps placed, I feel its a political statement.

I assume we are talking about the Whitehall torso? I don´t rule out the possibility that there were political implications, but we will find that impossibe to convert to any evidenced truth. It may equally have been - and I favour that explanation - a comment directed to the police only, but with the hope of the overall society becoming informed of the delivery of the message.

[Sam Flynn]

That is true, just as it is true that when we have two serialists in the same town, representing many common and peculiar traits in the way they do damage to their victims, they are to be expected to be the same man.

The first problem is that we don't know that there were two serial killers at work; the torso murders themselves could have been performed by one man, but they could have been committed by different individuals or even a syndicate.

The second problem is that, as Mike Richards has just pointed out, the behaviours vary widely, and there are major characteristics of the Ripper murders that are absent in the torso cases, and vice versa.

Third, even the perceived common traits are debatable.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: The first problem is that we don't know that there were two serial killers at work; the torso murders themselves could have been performed by one man, but they could have been committed by different individuals or even a syndicate.

The same goes for the Ripper killings, I´m afraid - there can be no 100 per cent certainty. But you only mention the torso series as one where there could possibly be more than one perp?

The general consensus is that the 1887-1889 torso murders, at least, were the deeds of one man only. That is partially due to how these kinds of murders are extremely rare, wherefore we either have no such murders for the longest period, then we have a handful of killers with the same interest in killing, eviscerating and dumping, the same very clear skill when it comes to make a neat disarticulation, the same propensity to dump their victims in the Thames in parcels wrapped in cloth, the same odd habit to divide the torso in parts, the same idea that their prey should not be physically tortured, the same urge to divide the bodies up in parts in very close connection to the actual killing and the same drive to divide the dumping between river and dry land. And then, all of a sudden, they all stop killing and dumping. Simultaneously.

Alternatively, we have just the one killer.

Then there is the 1873 case, and that ties in perfectly with the others in many respects, although there was no wrapping in cloth, the body was divided into more parts and there was damage in this case that was lacking in the others. But it was a case where the cutting and disjointing was eerily foreboding of what was to come, and the victim had no torture marks plus she had been cut up in very close proximity to death, so there is ample reason to join her in.

So it is really not much of a problem at all, the way I see it.


The second problem is that, as Mike Richards has just pointed out, the behaviours vary widely, and there are major characteristics of the Ripper murders that are absent in the torso cases, and vice versa.

In every murder, no matter where it was commited, there are detils that are absolutely exclusive. No two murders are exactly the same. But if two women are killed by having their heads cut off with a samurai sword where the blade was strewn with salt, we should not take any differences in height of the cut on the neck as an indication of two killers.

Once there is rare and peculiar damage done, the suggestion of a single killer becomes by far the better one, no matter if there are other factors that differ.

There goes that problem - in my world, at least.

Third, even the perceived common traits are debatable.

To a degree, yes. We can go on for ever, for example, about how the shapes and sizes of the abdominal flaps can have differed, but we would be very stupid not to recognize the fact that the abdominal walls were taken away as an extremely crucial factor in determining who did it.

If a person is suffocated by pouring colour into his or her mouth while having his or her nose pinched closed, it does not matter a iot if the colour is red in one instance and blue in the other - it is the overall character of the deeds that give away the same killer as an inevitability.

So we do not have a problem with the flaps - we have what must be regarded as conclusive evidence that we are dealing with the same killer, not least since there are many more similarities to bolster the idea.

Can you see before your eyes one man in a Heneage Street flat who subdues and kills a woman, whereupon he cuts the abdomen open, ripping all the way from ribcage to uterus, removes the abdominal wall in two large, long panes and takes out the uterus. After this, he notices a ring on the finger of the victim and takes it for his own keeping. He then moves on to pull the lungs and heart out of the body, and then he leaves the body lying on the floor, while he fetches a saw and a knife. What will the victim look like as she lies on the floor? She will look very much like the work of the Ripper. She may even have had her neck slashed, we cannot know, but we DO know that the neck IS cut at some stage, in combination with decapitation.

Meanwhile, in nearby Flower and Dean Street, ANOTHER killer subdues ANOTHER woman, slashes her neck and cuts her abdomen open, ripping all the way from ribcage to uterus, removes the abdominal wall in three large panes and takes out the uterus. After this, he notices a ring on the finger of the victim and takes it for his own keeping. He then moves on to pull a kidney and part of a colon out of her body, and then he leaves the body lying in the street, and makes his escape.

Does this sound even remotely plausible to you? Is it the precursors of the Kray twins at work? Is the first man shouting through the open window, all the way to Flower and Dean Street "Now we cut the abdomen open, aaaaall the way down, don´t cheat now! And now we take the uterus out, one, two, three! And the ring, don´t forget to grab the ring!"?

To me, it sounds very much out of the question. And as I said before, you will not find one murder investigator by any other name than Marriott who would buy the idea. Promise!

[Elamarna]

Sam

To a degree, yes. We can go on for ever, for example, about how the shapes and sizes of the abdominal flaps can have differed, but we would be very stupid not to recognize the fact that the abdominal walls were taken away as an extremely crucial factor in determining who did it.

If a person is suffocated by pouring colour into his or her mouth while having his or her nose pinched closed, it does not matter a iot if the colour is red in one instance and blue in the other - it is the overall character of the deeds that give away the same killer as an inevitability.

So we do not have a problem with the flaps - we have what must be regarded as conclusive evidence that we are dealing with the same killer, not least since there are many more similarities to bolster the idea.

Christer we still do not agree on this issue of "Flaps". I doubt unless there is new evidence we ever will.

So please don't claim it is "conclusive evidence" because for others it is not.
I know some posters I deeply respect agree with you, no matter.
Say that "you beleive it's conclusive" but at least aknowledge that others strongly disagree and that some of those views are not a knee jerk reaction.

Anyway we have debated this many times and I see no need to replay that over Ah a.
I find the thread good reading and it must be one of the fastest growing threads ever?


Steve

[Harry D]

Fisherman, Mr Richards doesn't even believe the Ripper series was the work of one killer, good luck convincing him that the same man did the Torsos!