Same motive = same killer

[Fisherman]

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.

Agreed - "exhibiting" or something like that would be much more useful. If we only use the strict meaning of the word posing, we will miss a number of interesting matters.

[Fisherman]

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

You cynic, you. I bet you would have found that hard to tell Robert Ressler to his face, though...

Once we do not overinvest in the precarious art of profiling, it has a lot to offer. The problem with profiling is that we cannot judge how qualitative it is in a certain case if the perpetrator is not caught, and therefore it is impossible to know what value - if any - it has in searching for the Ripper/Torso man.

On the whole, though, if it didn´t have it´s advantages, I don´t think it would be allowed to grow the way it has. It advances knowledge on a general level, and that´s not half bad.

As for "our cases", it would be as foolish not to listen to what profilers have to say as it would be to make the assumption they will/must be right.

[Sam Flynn]

You cynis, you. I bet you would have found that hard to tell Robert Ressler to his face, though

Ressler I respect, but there are too many amateur (and professional) dabblers out there.

[Fisherman]

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

The third option?

Glad you - almost - asked, because this is where things become a bit more interesting!

The third option is that the killer did pose the victims -but NOT to evoke any reaction or feelings from those who found them, or from the surrounding society. There is a chance he posed them only for himself.

Dahmer did this, for example. And the reason we know this is that he photographed them, in positions that were quite explicit and that bore a sexual significance to him. After photographing them, he took them out of the positions and stored them. Or ate them. Or dismembered them and got rid of them.

And Dahmer had the probable common trait with the Ripper and the Torso man, that the kill was not what was important. He could actually be described as a rather meek guy, almost soft and timid. But he killed. And posed - for his own benefit.

There is a possibility that the Ripper also did this. That the explicit postures of the victims was just for his own benefit.
Similarly, the torso man could have done just the same - killed, posed, dismembered and discarded.

The scope is sometimes wider than it seems at first glance.

[Fisherman]

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".

No. But that does not equate that the killer could not have nourished a wish to show off what he had done. It´s the term "posing" that is too narrow to cover this possibility, just like Joshua has pointed out.

[Fisherman]

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.

It may be my fantasy playing tricks on me, but I somehow think that if the parts are weighted down and found on the bottom of the Thames, it is a lot less scary than what was the case with the Torso killer. There is - to me , at least, something decidedly spooky and scary with - as Gareth worded it - sushi converyor belt of body parts he produced.

The cut away face caused a whole deal of shock, that´s for sure. And so it should.

[Fisherman]

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.

What is more disturbing - an intact body or one cut up in little pieces? The killer may have had other priorities than simply to have the body found.

[RockySullivan]

killed, posed, dismembered and discarded.

More likely killed, mutilated, dismembered and discarded.

[Fisherman]

No more I promise; unless Christer says something I think needs Response.
Steve

Yes, and why would I do that?

[Fisherman]

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.

Can we please not claim that the Torso killer "did all he could to obliterate his victims identities"? He left clothing that belonged to the victims with the police, he floated a whole face that he could have hacked up in little pieces down the Thames, he did not weigh the body parts down, he placed a torso in New Scotland Yard, and another one in a railway arch, there was a burn scar on the 1873 victim etcetera.
These things are anything but consistent with a genuine wish to "obliterate identities".
Maybe he was too dumb to realize that these things meant risks, but we can nevertheless say that he did NOT do all he could to hide the identities. He COULD have thrown Jacksons clothing away - he did not. He COULD have cut the burn scar away - he did not. And so on.

[Fisherman]

More likely killed, mutilated, dismembered and discarded.

I´d be happy to debate with you, Rocky, if you can make the effort not to call me names. But you have to make that promise first.

[Sam Flynn]

Can we please not claim that the Torso killer "did all he could to obliterate his victims identities"? He left clothing that belonged to the victims with the police, he floated a whole face that he could have hacked up in little pieces down the Thames, he did not weigh the body parts down, he placed a torso in New Scotland Yard, and another one in a railway arch, there was a burn scar on the 1873 victim etcetera.

Every other torso murderer in history has probably done exactly the same sorts of things. Nothing special about the 1873 killer or the other(s) for that matter.

[Sam Flynn]

What is more disturbing - an intact body or one cut up in little pieces?

Which is easier to carry and scatter? An intact body or one cut up in pieces?

[Fisherman]

Which is easier to carry and scatter? An intact body or one cut up in pieces?

I would vote for the intact one when it comes to carrying - just fling it over your shoulder and that´s it.

If you have a bag, that changes things, though.

And it is of course easier to scatter a cut up body than a whole one, since whole bodies have to be cut up before you even can scatter them.

What this has to do with anything else, however, I don´t know.

[Fisherman]

Every other torso murderer in history has probably done exactly the same sorts of things. Nothing special about the 1873 killer or the other(s) for that matter.

Not sure what you are trying to say. Herloch claimed that the torso killer did all he could to obliterate the identities of his victims, and I told Herlock whay I disagree.

What this has to do with that discussion is well beyond me.

There was something VERY special about the man who killed the 1873 victim, however.

I´m off to bed now, hoping that you will join the actual discussion.