Same motive = same killer

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: From a dispassionate perspective

... all of a sudden ...

, what we appear to have is a number of murders in which the perpetrator(s) want to get shot of the bodies...

The operative word being "appear". And that is the problem that has always meant a huge risk whenever a killer who is not adjusting to the general pattern is at work. We tend to say "Oh, another one of those!" without looking any deeper.
And if there was ever a poster who ALWAYS preferred the middle-of-the-road solution to a crime, Gareth, Iīd say you are the one.

It means that when you say "nothing extra to see here", you will be correct many more times than you will be wrong.

Sadly, this is one of those times when there IS something VERY extra to be seen - and therefore, you will get it wrong.

...and the manner in which they do so is neither without precedent nor paraphillic.

There are the fewest precedents, if any that I know of. It is NOT a case of trivial dumping of body parts, but instead a deed that involves a specific paraphilia. There are a few comparisons within the ranks of later murders, but they are rare.

It's almost certainly a practical solution to the problem of disposing of evidence, as most of these cases are.

Yes, going by statistics it will "almost certainly" be just that. Because, as you say, most of these cases are.

So why wouldnīt this case be? Surely, it is all about statistics?

Well, the signs are there, and you have had them pointed out to you: this killer did NOT go about his dumping the way other killers have. I have told you, Abby has told you, Mei Trow has told you - but to no avail at all.

You donīt care about that. Nothing to see here. Why would these differences actually mean something?

Well, Gareth, thatīs where I have an answer and you donīt. So I guess you shall have to keep calling me supersleuth in an effort to make me look ridiculous and suffering from illusions of grandeur.

Thatīs just fine by me.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

That's embarrassing Fish. I apologise for that useless post. My only excuse is that my dad's in hospital at the moment and so making posts in between visits and without thinking them through can lead to drivel! I'll withdraw until I can focus on the subject.

[Abby Normal]

That's embarrassing Fish. I apologise for that useless post. My only excuse is that my dad's in hospital at the moment and so making posts in between visits and without thinking them through can lead to drivel! I'll withdraw until I can focus on the subject.

Best of luck for your pops HS.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Best of luck for your pops HS.

I appreciate that Abby

[harry]

Fisherman.

Why would the differences mean something? You say you know.Is it because of what the TK was?

[Fisherman]

That's embarrassing Fish. I apologise for that useless post. My only excuse is that my dad's in hospital at the moment and so making posts in between visits and without thinking them through can lead to drivel! I'll withdraw until I can focus on the subject.

Thereīs no need for you to be embarrassed, Herlock. To begin with, I am quite aware that you have a good grasp of the case we are discussing, and to carry on, far from being embarrassed you should be proud of yourself for focusing on the right things. The best of luck with you dad!

[Fisherman]

Fisherman.

Why would the differences mean something? You say you know.Is it because of what the TK was?

I am saying that I BELIEVE I know, Harry. The base for this lies in similarities between the two series. And these similarities point to a common source of inspiration for the deeds, manifesting itself in certain traits, some of them common, some not.

If there had been absolute proof, you would have seen it by now. But as long as there is not, I am so very aware of how the Ripperological community treats theories that I am not yet willing to disclose my thinking to the full. And I am still picking up on new bits and bobs as I go along, so with every day, my conviction is growing stronger.

The moment I feel I need someone to tell me that I am deluded, whacky, looking for a payday or just plain dumb, I promise I will post my take on things.

[Zena]

I am saying that I BELIEVE I know, Harry. The base for this lies in similarities between the two series. And these similarities point to a common source of inspiration for the deeds, manifesting itself in certain traits, some of them common, some not.

If there had been absolute proof, you would have seen it by now. But as long as there is not, I am so very aware of how the Ripperological community treats theories that I am not yet willing to disclose my thinking to the full. And I am still picking up on new bits and bobs as I go along, so with every day, my conviction is growing stronger.

The moment I feel I need someone to tell me that I am deluded, whacky, looking for a payday or just plain dumb, I promise I will post my take on things.

Ok, a shot in the dark...

Abby Normal asked (either on this thread or the Ruth Jenkins thread; sorry, but I've forgotten which one now) if your thinking was Frankenstein and you said no.

Along the same lines, but somewhat different... Does the source of inspiration have to do with those models of women with removable anatomical parts? Sorry, memory fails me again because I can't remember what they're called. I hope you know what I'm talking about. Was the Ripper/TK building them out of real women, having to replace parts as they deteriorated? For his own and/or others' amusement or pleasure?

This is the only other thing I can think of because a female Frankenstein's monster--not that I thought he was going to try to bring it to life--was my first thought. If he neatly disjointed some joints (I think it was elbows and knees?) but not others (shoulders and hips?) then perhaps he only needed those particular joints to be articulated to "pose"? And the abdomen cut away in large flaps for the viewing of internal organs?

I dunno. I think I'm rambling now.

[harry]

Fishermann,
In post 646,you appear to indicare you do know.
In answer to a post above,perhaps the moment has arrived?

[Fisherman]

Fishermann,
In post 646,you appear to indicare you do know.
In answer to a post above,perhaps the moment has arrived?

I THINK I know, thatīs for certain. You - or anybody else - may think I donīt. But I reserve myself the right to expand on it when I want to, Harry.

[Fisherman]

Ok, a shot in the dark...

Abby Normal asked (either on this thread or the Ruth Jenkins thread; sorry, but I've forgotten which one now) if your thinking was Frankenstein and you said no.

Along the same lines, but somewhat different... Does the source of inspiration have to do with those models of women with removable anatomical parts? Sorry, memory fails me again because I can't remember what they're called. I hope you know what I'm talking about. Was the Ripper/TK building them out of real women, having to replace parts as they deteriorated? For his own and/or others' amusement or pleasure?

This is the only other thing I can think of because a female Frankenstein's monster--not that I thought he was going to try to bring it to life--was my first thought. If he neatly disjointed some joints (I think it was elbows and knees?) but not others (shoulders and hips?) then perhaps he only needed those particular joints to be articulated to "pose"? And the abdomen cut away in large flaps for the viewing of internal organs?

I dunno. I think I'm rambling now.

Some interesting thoughts there, Zena. They have been worded before, by for example A P Wolf and Mike Hawley, so if this is a line you want to look further at, I encourage you to take a look at their work. The term you are looking for, by the way, is "Anatomical Venuses".

My idea is a little different from your thinking, Iīll say that much.

[Zena]

Some interesting thoughts there, Zena. They have been worded before, by for example A P Wolf and Mike Hawley, so if this is a line you want to look further at, I encourage you to take a look at their work. The term you are looking for, by the way, is "Anatomical Venuses".

Yes, Anatomical Venus. I remember there was a thread about that sometime ago, but I hadn't given it any more thought until recently.

My idea is a little different from your thinking, Iīll say that much.

If not Frankenstein's monster or an Anatomical Venus, then you've stumped me! I look forward to when you're ready to reveal your theory.

[Elamarna]

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.

That's a matter of opinion. The timing of the placement I mean.


Steve

[Elamarna]

Best of luck for your pops HS.

Same from me



Steve

[Fisherman]

That's a matter of opinion. The timing of the placement I mean.


Steve

Yes, there is certainly no established itinerary - but the contemporary view was that the leg and arm was dumped beforehand (excuse the appalling pun...!)