Same motive = same killer

[Fisherman]

Surely it's unlikely that Jack just 'got up and left' after the kill? Victims left in grotesque 'pornographic' poses (skirts up, legs apart etc)? This suggests that Jack was leaving a message, although we will probably never know exactly what it was

That is a dangerous piece of navigation. I think we tend to miss out of the THIRD possible answer to the question of posing the victims. The two obvious one are dominating the discussion totally:

1. He posed the victims to leave a message, possibly wanting to scare people.

2. He did probably not pose the victims at all, they lie as they fell. (Gareths take on things).

Why not look at the third option?

[Sox]

Surely it's unlikely that Jack just 'got up and left' after the kill? Victims left in grotesque 'pornographic' poses (skirts up, legs apart etc)? This suggests that Jack was leaving a message, although we will probably never know exactly what it was. We can make guesses though and I suspect that we wouldn't be far wrong. This was almost an instant shock/horror effect unlike the Torso murders. A part of his ritual if you like. To me, no matter what the similarities (wounds/incisions etc) this is a significant difference. Disposal vs display. TK dumps in the river, over fences, underground, park areas and Pinching Street. Parts in the river for eg may never have been found. There's no pattern like the one that we see in the ripper killings.
It's still not working for me this Torso/Ripper thing.

This obsession all FBI'ists have with 'posing' is just that, an obsession born of reading far too many blogs written by over qualified Harvard men. It's just as plausible that raised skirts were, actually, part of the process she went through having got her customer to the chosen spot. It's just as plausible that the position of the bodies were just how he left them when he was finished, and that after that last sweep of his knife he didn't give it another thought.

Just as plausible that a killer was just dumping body parts, not 'placing them according to some weird dark ritual he has in his head, or trying to be 'clever' and leaving messages. In the annals of crime not all killings or killers were born on a Holywood scriptwriters laptop.

[Joshua Rogan]

I totally agree, Sox. However, in defence of the FBI, I believe their definition of 'posing' includes any post-mortem movement of the body, for whatever purpose. They should have used another term, though.

[Sam Flynn]

This obsession all FBI'ists have with 'posing' is just that, an obsession born of reading far too many blogs written by over qualified Harvard men.

Or under-qualified FBI men who think that human behaviour follows some kind of recipe or immutable law.

not all killings or killers were born on a Holywood scriptwriters laptop.

Very well put.

[Joshua Rogan]

Why not look at the third option?

1. Yes
2. No
3.....Maybe?

[Sam Flynn]

2. He did probably not pose the victims at all, they lie as they fell

In the case of most of the torso body-parts, they'd end up wherever the river took them. No way could that be construed as "posing".

[Joshua Rogan]

Not to mention that, in some years, they were pulling an average of ten bodies a week from the Thames. Mostly acidental drownings and suicides, admittedly, but one more - even one in several pieces - probably wouldn't have had all that much shock value.

[Sam Flynn]

Not to mention that, in some years, they were pulling an average of ten bodies a week from the Thames. Mostly acidental drownings and suicides, admittedly, but one more - even one in several pieces - probably wouldn't have had all that much shock value.

Of course, those cut into pieces would have had less of a chance of being noticed by a casual passer-by. If anyone wanted to shock, it would have served their purpose far better to leave the body intact; at least that way it was more likely to be seen.

[Herlock Sholmes]

This obsession all FBI'ists have with 'posing' is just that, an obsession born of reading far too many blogs written by over qualified Harvard men. It's just as plausible that raised skirts were, actually, part of the process she went through having got her customer to the chosen spot. It's just as plausible that the position of the bodies were just how he left them when he was finished, and that after that last sweep of his knife he didn't give it another thought.

Just as plausible that a killer was just dumping body parts, not 'placing them according to some weird dark ritual he has in his head, or trying to be 'clever' and leaving messages. In the annals of crime not all killings or killers were born on a Holywood scriptwriters laptop.

Personally, I've never read any of the kind of blogs that you mention. I'm definately not an 'FBI'ist' either. I'm also extremely sceptical about the merits of profiling. I just look at the Ripper murders, believe it or not, as a normal bloke with an interest in the case. What I see are prostitutes murdered in the street (except MJK of course) their reproductive organs attacked with a knife, then they are left lying, skirt raised, legs apart.
When we combine the mutilations with the positions and locations of the bodies this, to me st least, speaks of a man who does what he does for a reason apart from just wanting to kill 'human beings.' He also wants people to see the results of his handiwork. Now we can theorise all day why he did what he did and who knows who will be correct. But, again just my personal opinion not influenced by the FBI or criminological blogs or books, the TK seems different to me and pretty obviously so. His primary concern appears to be 'getting rid' of the bodies. To make them as difficult to identify or to trace back to him as possible.
Perhaps, only perhaps, we might infer that there was some fact or facts about the TK's victims that might, even without modern scientific methods like DNA, have led to or pointed toward the killers identity or location. If that's so, then Jack had no such qualms.

[Elamarna]

Elamarna: The major issue with your suggestion I see is that there is no guarantee the parts disposed of in the River would be found.

The major issue I have with this objection of yours is that ALL the parts of the 1887, but for the right foot, were found and written about and - most probably - the talk of the town. Therefore, then killer will with a fair amount of certainty have been aware of this.7
Does it make him go for another way of disposal with the Rainham victim?
No.
Are the parts of the Rainham victim found?
Yes, but for the head, all of them are.

All accepted Christer, but it not a guarantee as I said, and it certainly does not support the idea of the parts being disposed of so to expose them to a greater audience

So much as it sounds like eminently clever reasoning to say that he would have banked on Old Father Thames to help him conceal what he was doing, the practical reality of the matter is another one altogether. The overwhelming probablility is that if he did not realize it beforehand, he got to know that parts floated down the Thames wrapped up in cloth WILL be found.
He could have moved the dumping site to the east of London with the Rainham victim and reduced that risk, but he did not. Instead he thew the legs in Regents Canal, where they would decisively NOT be flushed out to sea.

Again true, and again it does not support the idea of a greater exposure, the majority of body parts are still found in West London.

Yo cannot prove that he wanted to hide what he did. I cannot prove that he wanted to show off what he did, or at least did not care if the parts were found.

But I can make a very good case, superior to my mind, to the contrary suggestion.

I am not arguing that he wanted to hide the body parts, however the Whitehall case suggested he may have wanted to.
I would be more inclined to accept the view IF more parts had reached at least Central London, the fact that most are found in the West, suggests that he was not trying to show them off to London.
Maybe he did not care if they were found, so Long as they were not found near the dismemberment site.

The Whitehall Torso also appears to have been placed so that it may not have been found and it appears to have been fortuitous that it was FOUND so relatively quiçkly.

The Part thrown over into the Shelly garden could easily have been missed for sometime depending on where the part landed.

It could perhaps even be devoured by rats and never recognized for what it was. That was always a possibility, like it was that parts thrown in the river would go lost to an extent. Probably happened to some of them.
The sum of it all, however, would be more than enough to tell the Londoners about his deeds, that is beyond doubt. The Whitehall torso WOULD be found, most of the parts in the Thames WERE found, he could check that on his list, the Pinchin Street torso WOULD be found, the parts in Battersea Park WOULD be found and so on. The combined message would work perfectly, even if there were links missing in the chain.
It was never a set of crimes that stood even a miniscule chance of not being discovered.

The Whitehall Parts, remember there was more than one, could have not been found for years, , they were , but there was nothing to say they would be found quickly. Only the Pinchin street and Battersea Part parts were bound to be found to my mind. I do not however see any special attempt to highlight the murders to the public than any other murder which took place.

Only Pinchin Street shows a desire to allow the Body part to be easily seen and found.

Easily? Yes. But why would he prioritize an easy find? Why not enjoy them as ticking bombs? Or perhaps he felt sure that for example the Whitehall torso would be find on day one - the vault was full of tools, and somebody used those tools.
It is not possible to determine the mindset of the killer. But it is always possible to say "Maybe there is nothing there", Steve. You will be able to do that throughout, in the Torso case as well as the Ripper case.

Yes I have done a lot of work on the Whitehall case in particular, and it seems that there was every indication that the parts had been concealed, but thats another thread. If there was a desire to shock as suggested there were other areas of the site, where a find would be far more likely.

Given the dates, this may have been someone celebrating the anniversary of Chapman, or someone trying to suggest a link.

Who do you find the most likely man on earth to make such a celebration or try to create such a link? I know who I root for.

There are always sad souls who do celebrate murders, apart from the actual killer, and when I spoke of trying to create a link, I actually meant someone trying to paint a false lead to hide their identity, a completely different killer

present[/B] be weak.

As I said, one can always say "Probably nothing there". You sometimes excel at it, and I find it as improducitve as I find it necessary - it HAS to be said. But I would prefer a more open mindset in the discussion, a will to travel some place you seem never to have been and have a look.

Pardon, where are are talking about? A real place or a state of mind?
Open mindedness does not mean one just accepts ideas, it means one considers them without rejecting out of hand.
In this case you suggested the body parts were placed in the River to give a greater exposure to the population of London, having looked at the evidence on that point, such does not appear to be a strong suggestion given that most of the parts never reached Central London.
If the parts were distributed over a wider range I would be more willing to see it as a real possibility
I have seriously considering the suggestion, I don't agree with it, thats fine is it not?

Gareth tells me that the suggestion is whacky, and that´s so Gareth - far from reasoning "probably nothing there", he continually opts for "almost certainly nothing there".
I think that limits our thinking when that happens.

In all probability, Gareth will not have any problems admitting that the dumping of the torso in the New Scotland Yard may well have involved taunting the police. It is impossible to deny the possibility, even if we do not endorse it.

I agree there is a possibility, however I consider the actual placement argues against such, Pierre of course agree with you on this!,

And if we acknowledge the possibility that the killer dumped the torso in the New Scotland Yard to taunt the police, then how can it be whacky to suggest that he may have dumped the parts with the intent to float them past said police house, the parliament and the whole of that era´s ruling centre?

The fact is that it is not a whacky thing to suggest at all. It is suggesting that the killer was whacky. We need to be able to see that distinction, and recognize it as a possible thing. Once we do, we can see the outlines of a warped mind at work, and we may be looking at the reality. Not being able to prove it comes with the territory, but as long as these little details all form part of a cohesive and logical overall picture, the suggestions must be made and looked at.

The terms other posters use is up to them, I have not described the ideas as such.

I said before I consider it a plausible suggestion and I still do just; however there seems little to support the idea given at this moment, other than your belief that this was the objective of the killer.

Like I said, ...

And if that is how I see the case, that is it.
Do you really want me to agree to something I do not believe to be so?
If we propose Ideas, we must expect others will argue against them to be a real possibility.

I await the next step.


Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ahhh Steve and Fish debating in long posts. Now.....where have I seen that before

[Elamarna]

Ahhh Steve and Fish debating in long posts. Now.....where have I seen that before

No more I promise; unless Christer says something I think needs Response.
Too busy writingup. Start on Mizen scam next week I hope, blood evidence to follow soon after.


Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

If TK wanted the maximum effect from these body parts then we have to question the use of a river. This introduces an element of chance. If we knew of everything that's ever been dumped in the Thames what would be the percentage of them that were recovered?

This whole subject, while definately interesting, is a difficult one to debate because we know far less.

The TK did all he could to obliterate his victims identities whilst Jack did no such thing.

Jack wanted everyone to know 'what' these women were. TK didn't care.

Jack left them where he killed them. TK went to elaborate lengths to disperse them.

Different man for me.

[Herlock Sholmes]

No more I promise; unless Christer says something I think needs Response.
Too busy writingup. Start on Mizen scam next week I hope, blood evidence to follow soon after.


Steve

I'm not complaining Steve.

Don't work too hard and neglect the pub

[Sox]

I totally agree, Sox. However, in defence of the FBI, I believe their definition of 'posing' includes any post-mortem movement of the body, for whatever purpose. They should have used another term, though.

Quite Josh, I'm a supporter of a lot of FBI methods myself.