Same motive = same killer

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: Possibly, but not necessarily. Why take any chances? Why help the police in any way?

Possibly? Probably, if not certainly.

Why take any chances, you ask - but he wouldn´t take any chances by not hiding the identity of the victim if he killed strangers, would he? If that was the case, the police would be none the wiser about his identity if they had an ID. The only reason to try and ID a murder victim - apart from being able to bring the news to the family - is to allow for a search of the victims circle of aquaintances, friends, enemies or whatnot. The general idea is that somebody who knew the victim also killer her or him.
That does not apply with a killer of strangers.

So would it help the police if they got the ID? No. If nything, it would slow them down considerably, as they had to go through all the people in the vicinity of the victim to rule them out first.

The ONLY logical reason a killer can have for obliterating all the identification options with a victim (and the Torso killer did not do that) is to disenable to make out a connection between the killer and victim. I don´t think we should add a will to be obnoxious on the killers behalf.

Like I said, however, there was more than one benefit to disposing of the bodies in this way. It wasn't just about preventing identification,

... and indeed, the killer did not prioritize that matter, as we can see.

...although this certainly transpired to be true in all but one case,

...and far from speaking about getting lucky on the polices behalf, we may need to do so about the killer - there WERE marks and such that could have given away the ID:s of the other victims too - but if I am correct, he could not care less.

...but also about slowing down the investigation.

He did not have to worry about that, as I have shown you. Not, that is, if he was a killer of strangers. No investigtion will nail him in such a case, it is instead down to observations made that he has no influence over and/or traces left - and he left no traces that could lead to him, he only left traces that could lead to the victims´ identities.

There were also the very practical benefits of making the bodies more portable for transportation to the dump-sites and more easily concealed en route.

Alternatively, he cut to enjoy himself.

[Sam Flynn]

Alternatively, he cut to enjoy himself.

If a body has been cut up and the parts scattered over a wide area, with the majority being thrown into a river, then whoever did the cutting did so with the intention of making it easier to transport and get rid of.

Any "enjoyment", if such there was, would have been entirely secondary.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: If a body has been cut up and the parts scattered over a wide area, with the majority being thrown into a river, then whoever did the cutting did so with the intention of making it easier to transport and get rid of.

That, I´m afraid, is not necessarily the truth. I wish it was, since it would make things a lot simpler.
There is no doubt whatsoever that there are killers who have dismembered because they wanted to dismember. That was their primary intent, and their underlying motivation.
Once we have such a killer disposing of the parts, we can see that intention of the cutting had nothing at all to do with facilitating transport and getting rid of the parts.
To press your point, you must clear away this category of killer. And that cannot be done. Therefore, the conlusion can only be one - you are failing to understand the whole spectre involved in the dismemberment area. And as a consequence of this failure, you miss out.

Any "enjoyment", if such there was, would have been entirely secondary.

If the parapilia of the killer is what leads on the dismemberment, then we are dealing with something quite different than a mere matter of practicality. This is where you - once again - are missing out.

Have you heard or read about killers who dismember people on account of a wish to do so? Or have they passed you by totally unnoticed? Is dismemberment in your world always a purely practical measure with no possibility of being the reason or part of the reason for a murder?

[Sam Flynn]

If the parapilia of the killer is what leads on the dismemberment, then we are dealing with something quite different than a mere matter of practicality. This is where you - once again - are missing out.

I'm not missing out on anything. I don't see a "dismemberment paraphilia" at work here, not in the slightest. Most of the body parts were dropped into the Thames, and that's a big clue. Go figure.

Have you heard or read about killers who dismember people on account of a wish to do so? Or have they passed you by totally unnoticed?

And on that condescending/patronising note, I'll leave you to your super-sleuthing.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: I'm not missing out on anything. I don't see a "dismemberment paraphilia" at work here, not in the slightest. Most of the body parts were dropped into the Thames, and that's a big clue. Go figure.

I don´t have to. For I DO see the paraphilia, and you ARE missing out on it. To the degree that you are even bragging about it, even!
You are correct that it is a clue that most parts were dropped into the Thames. But you fail to realize WHY they were. You choose - as always - the simple solution. It is normally correct, but not this time.

And on that condescending/patronising note, I'll leave you to your super-sleuthing.

You don´t have to leave me to nothing. I am doing my own research and following the same track I have followed for years now, and it all points in the same direction.
You are leaving a number of things uncommented on. Why did the killer dump parts in Regents Canal, when he had the Thames to use? Surely, the parts would not have been washed to sea via the canal?
Why did he dump the legs and arms of the Whitehall victim first and keep the torso?
why did he meticulously cut away face and scalp in one piece in 1873 - and dump it in the Thames? Why not cut it off in smal pieces if he wanted to hide the identity and spend much less time and effort? You do realize that this points to how it was important to the killer to take the face off in one piece?
Why did he disjoint a the knees and elbows on that victim, but NOT at the thighs and shoulders?
Will there be perfectly rational explanations to that?

There is an explanation that covers all of this and gives it meaning, and that consistently fits with all the things we see as anomalies - the cut out colon part from Eddowes, the chemise found with the Pinchin Street torso, the fact that the eyes on Kelly seem to have survived the mayhem the face was subjected to with no apparent damage at all; they were there to photograph after the onslaught that left it impossible to tell flesh from cuts.

It all fits into the explanation I see. All of it. So telling me that there is no paraphilia only brings a smile to my face, Gareth.

Your
Supersleuth

[RockySullivan]

Don't get me wrong - I firmly believe that anonymisation was one of the things that the torso dumper was aiming at, but (a) I can't say for certain; and (b) I don't think it was the only benefit he/they was seeking to achieve by dismantling the body and disposing of it in that way. For me, it's sufficient to realise that the very act of chopping up the victim and dispersing her body parts would slow down the investigation and delay, if not completely thwart, any identification being made. This is clearly NOT something that Jack the Ripper was worried about in the slightest.

Sam don't you think this could be because The Ripper wasn't worried about the victims being traced back to him. The torso victims could have been people who knew or were somehow connected to him. He also could have been seen in public with them especially if he brought them back to his home, or chop shop. Obviously the Ripper took a risk being seen killing so I know it's not the strongest point but still think it's a possibility.

[RockySullivan]

Fish, if the killer wanted the parts found why did he bury the Whitehall parts? This has gone uncommented on by you I believe, since it doesn't fit in with your theory.

[Fisherman]

Fish, if the killer wanted the parts found why did he bury the Whitehall parts? This has gone uncommented on by you I believe, since it doesn't fit in with your theory.

I´m happy to answer once you either apologize for your former comments or promise not to do the same kind of thing again.

[Sam Flynn]

Sam don't you think this could be because The Ripper wasn't worried about the victims being traced back to him.

Indeed, and I don't believe that the Ripper's victims could have been traced back to him. The Ripper's biggest challenge was to avoid being caught in the act of murder, which was a very real danger given his method of eviscerating women in public. This was something that the torso murderers didn't have to worry about, of course.

[Fisherman]

Indeed, and I don't believe that the Ripper's victims could have been traced back to him. The Ripper's biggest challenge was to avoid being caught in the act of murder, which was a very real danger given his method of eviscerating women in the open street. This was something that the torso murderers didn't have to worry about, of course.

Then again , the Torso killer (one only) had to worry about being seen when dumping the body parts, something the Ripper did not have to do. Both series had their inherent risks.
And the Torso killer didn´t minimize that risk either - he reasonably dumped on many more occasions than he had to, and from new places every now and then.
I don´t think that the victims in either series could be traced back to the killer.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Sam Flynn: I'm not missing out on anything. I don't see a "dismemberment paraphilia" at work here, not in the slightest. Most of the body parts were dropped into the Thames, and that's a big clue. Go figure.

I don´t have to. For I DO see the paraphilia, and you ARE missing out on it. To the degree that you are even bragging about it, even!
You are correct that it is a clue that most parts were dropped into the Thames. But you fail to realize WHY they were. You choose - as always - the simple solution. It is normally correct, but not this time.

And on that condescending/patronising note, I'll leave you to your super-sleuthing.

You don´t have to leave me to nothing. I am doing my own research and following the same track I have followed for years now, and it all points in the same direction.
You are leaving a number of things uncommented on. Why did the killer dump parts in Regents Canal, when he had the Thames to use? Surely, the parts would not have been washed to sea via the canal?
Why did he dump the legs and arms of the Whitehall victim first and keep the torso?
why did he meticulously cut away face and scalp in one piece in 1873 - and dump it in the Thames? Why not cut it off in smal pieces if he wanted to hide the identity and spend much less time and effort? You do realize that this points to how it was important to the killer to take the face off in one piece?
Why did he disjoint a the knees and elbows on that victim, but NOT at the thighs and shoulders?
Will there be perfectly rational explanations to that?

There is an explanation that covers all of this and gives it meaning, and that consistently fits with all the things we see as anomalies - the cut out colon part from Eddowes, the chemise found with the Pinchin Street torso, the fact that the eyes on Kelly seem to have survived the mayhem the face was subjected to with no apparent damage at all; they were there to photograph after the onslaught that left it impossible to tell flesh from cuts.

It all fits into the explanation I see. All of it. So telling me that there is no paraphilia only brings a smile to my face, Gareth.

Your
Supersleuth

Hi Fish,

Just on the point that you made about the Whitehall victim. Surely you can't mean it when you ask why he kept the Torso? He must have gotten rid of it but it was never found. Say...in the Thames

[Sam Flynn]

Then again , the Torso killer (one only) had to worry about being seen when dumping the body parts, something the Ripper did not have to do. Both series had their inherent risks.

All the TKs needed - probably two, possibly more, but not one - was a quick look to make sure the coast was clear, then they were good to go. Even today, you could probably walk along the Thames yourself, in the early hours of the morning or the dead of night, and chuck stuff into the river with no chance of being noticed.

[Sam Flynn]

I don´t have to. For I DO see the paraphilia, and you ARE missing out on it.

From a dispassionate perspective, what we appear to have is a number of murders in which the perpetrator(s) want to get shot of the bodies, and the manner in which they do so is neither without precedent nor paraphillic. It's almost certainly a practical solution to the problem of disposing of evidence, as most of these cases are.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish,

Just on the point that you made about the Whitehall victim. Surely you can't mean it when you ask why he kept the Torso? He must have gotten rid of it but it was never found. Say...in the Thames

Eeehhh - the torso WAS found in the cellar vault. But things pointed to how the leg and arm being found buried there had been placed in the vault a lot earlier than the torso. If so, he FIRST placed the leg and arm there, and...exactly: kept the torso - for some time.

[Fisherman]

All the TKs needed - probably two, possibly more, but not one - was a quick look to make sure the coast was clear, then they were good to go. Even today, you could probably walk along the Thames yourself, in the early hours of the morning or the dead of night, and chuck stuff into the river with no chance of being noticed.

Surely you have noticed that people are mobile, Gareth? Even if they have not turned the corner when you take a peak, they may do so in the next second - just as you dump your parts.

Speaking about dumping, I recommend you dump the idea that there were multiple dismemberment killers at work, all of them able to neatly disarticulate, all of them abstaining from inflicting torture etcetera.
I promise I won´t look as you do it.