Same motive = same killer

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: Not really, Fish. The Pinchin Street torso could very probably have been the work of a different killer or killers, based in the east. I see about as much sense in an East End dweller heading to Battersea to dump a body as I see in a Battersea dweller travelling to one of the shadiest parts of the East End to do the same.

And the conclusion to draw from this is that if it really DID happen, it would put you to shame trying to understand what happened. And you DO speak for the killer/s involved in the torso business being anxious to hide their deeds from being made by the police, don´t you?

I have no problems myself accepting that the killer (this time I add no extra s) made it his business to impress upon the world what he was about, and to my mind, the best way he could achieve that was to choose different dumping spots, some of them very spectacular, and to float the parts in the Thames on the surface, stranding along the epicenter of power in the world of those days.

I find it especially unlikely when one considers that, for most of that distance (approx 6.5 miles), one would be passing a number of bridges over the Thames; I make it ten in all. Why not get rid of the incriminating cargo there? If bridges aren't mandatory, then we have the Thames snaking its way between East and West, into which body parts could have been thrown at any time when no-one was around. If neither bridges nor the river are mandatory, there surely must have been abandoned buildings, canals, sewers, deserted side-streets, railway arches (etc) between Battersea and the East End, without the perpetrator having to venture all the way into the heart of the Whitechapel maze to dump a body. (Naturally, the argument works in reverse for an East End based killer heading all the way to Battersea.)

I don´t think he had to make much of a journey at all. I think he was based in the East End. But he was also well aware of how much more of an impact it would make to allow his body parts to strand in central London, whereas letting them float ashore in the East End would not bother the ones ruling London much. That´s how I see it, and how it makes sense to me.
If it was a rational killer altogether, he would have travelled EAST of London, and weighed down the parts there, and nobody would be any the wiser. Instead he did the exact opposite, and we either learn something from that or we stay uninformed.

Why change from being a bridge- and/or-river-dumper to a railway-arch dumper just on this one occasion? Why commute all the way to Pinchin Street, or all the way to Battersea, when there were umpteen potential dump-sites on the way? It doesn't add up.

Of course it doesn´t! Not if we want criminology served in gruel form, it doesn´t - no chewing needed at all. Once we move on to sturdier meals, though, we can see all the connections.

My money's on the Pinchin Street perpetrator(s) being different from the others.

Prepare to loose that money, Gareth. This boy did a cutting job on the torso that gave away a very great likeness with the work done on Kelly. Furthermore, he disarticulated limbs every bit as neatly as the case was with the 1873 victim, the Rainham victim, The Whitehall victim and Liz Jackson. Furthermore, he cut the abdomen open with one long rip, fifteen inches. He fits in with BOTH series, surprise, surprise! And he dumped the torso in Pinchin Street, where the best suspect to date once lived.

Chin up. Gruel is cheap.

[Fisherman]

... and that´s my contribution for today. Off to bed now!

[Abby Normal]

If that's the case, he seems to have sprayed most of his scent in South West London, and he doesn't seem to have made a good job of polluting the city either, with the bulk of the body parts and torsos being found very much to the West of Whitechapel. It certainly looks to me that we have at least two perpetrators at work, only one of whom was based in the East End.

well that would make three post mortem mutilating body part removing killers operating in the same time frame in the same general location.

to me that's way less likely than one who has some weird way of distributing the parts.

[Sam Flynn]

well that would make three post mortem mutilating body part removing killers operating in the same time frame in the same general location.

I see two general locations here, Abby, and let's not forget that the Pinchin Street killer could easily have removed the victim's arms, but failed to do so. This is despite the fact that the body would seem to have been in the killer's possession for some time, owing to the fact that it was already in a state of putrefaction when found. Why would the arms have been cut off in all the other cases, but not this one? To me, the geography, the manner of dismemberment, the degree of dismemberment and the choice of dump-site all point to different perpetrators at work.

As to time-frame, there were only two torso murders in 1889. Elizabeth Jackson was a West London prostitute and her remains were found in the Thames in West London. The other, of course, was the Pinchin Street torso, which was firmly rooted in the East End.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: I see two general locations here, Abby, and let's not forget that the Pinchin Street killer could easily have removed the victim's arms, but failed to do so. This is despite the fact that the body would seem to have been in the killer's possession for some time, owing to the fact that it was already in a state of putrefaction when found. Why would the arms have been cut off in all the other cases, but not this one?

Why would the right leg of Jackson be severed in two parts whereas the left was not? Why would the right arm of the 1873 victim be severed in two when the left arm was left intact? Why would Jackson right hand be taken off when the left was not? Why did the killer dismember at the knees and elbows in 1873, whereas he used a saw to take the thighs and shoulders off?

Because, I would suggest, these dismemberments served another purpose than simply cutting up for disposal. Because, I would suggest, the killer CHOSE not to cut his victims up in the six "ordinary" parts. Because, I would suggest, the dismemberment satisfied a ritualistically influenced paraphilia with the killer.

To me, the geography, the manner of dismemberment, the degree of dismemberment and the choice of dump-site all point to different perpetrators at work.

Different perpetrators, who all suffered from the idea that they should not cut their bodies up the way that is normally done, who all were skilled disarticulators, who all abstained from inflicting physical torture on their victims, who all cut their victims up in close connection to death, who all had an interest in opening up the abdominal cavities of their victims , who all used London to find their prey and who all were active in the late Victorian era.

As to time-frame, there were only two torso murders in 1889. Elizabeth Jackson was a West London prostitute and her remains were found in the Thames in West London. The other, of course, was the Pinchin Street torso, which was firmly rooted in the East End.

None of the parts found after these women were found where the women were slain. Meaning, of course, that they may well have been killed in the exact same location, and then transported to different places afterwards. Indeed, we KNOW that Jacksons body was dumped in various places, so what´s to say that the missing legs and head of the Pinchin Street woman were not dumped in Battersea? There is absolutely nothing that stands in the way for the suggestion, given that we are looking at a series of murders where transportation and varying dumping places and -times belonged to the factors that were noted as particularly peculiar.

[Fisherman]

As an addition, when there is a large number of homicides committed in an area, significantly raising the number or such events over the normal level, the prudent question to answer for the police is whether these deeds have any common factors, and so can have been committed by the same person.
If there are such commonalities, then the assumption must be that we are indeed dealing with just the one killer, instead of many killers.
The more commonalities, the greater the chance of a single killer, the less commonalities, the smaller that chance is.
Type of weapon used, MO, signature and area of offending will be the more important factors in establishing how many killers lie behind the raised homicide level.
In our case, the type of weapon used is cutting weapons, the MO cannot be fully established but seemingly involves taking prostitutes to secluded places and kill them quickly, after which post-mortem mutilations are added, the signature seems to be post-mortem mutilation and the areaa of offending can only be established for the Ripper series, whereas it remains unknown which location was used in the Torso series.

To add to this, there are also examples of the same very rare cutting of abdominal flaps in both series.

The only resonable thing to do is to work from the presumption that one killer only lies behind all of these killings.

Traditional Ripperology has done all of this completely backwards, and has therefore severely hampered the development of the investigation and research into the murders for more than a century.

[Trevor Marriott]

Other explanations

Why would the right leg of Jackson be severed in two parts whereas the left was not? Why would the right arm of the 1873 victim be severed in two when the left arm was left intact? Why would Jackson right hand be taken off when the left was not? Why did the killer dismember at the knees and elbows in 1873, whereas he used a saw to take the thighs and shoulders off?

Because, I would suggest, these dismemberments served another purpose than simply cutting up for disposal. Because, I would suggest, the killer CHOSE not to cut his victims up in the six "ordinary" parts. Because, I would suggest, the dismemberment satisfied a ritualistically influenced paraphilia with the killer.

In answer to your comments above. There are other plausible explanations.

1. The use of a saw would be be a much quicker way of dismembering limbs. Perhaps the dismemberer realised this after first using a knife. Also was the use of a saw noted in any of the other torsos, from memory I dont think it was.

2. The fact that these limbs were found at different locations might suggest that the person disposing of these was not able to dispose of them all at the same time because of the number of packages there were, and may well have varied the locations where they were actually disposed of.

3. You keep suggesting that JTR and the Torsos were the work of the same hand and you seek to heavily rely on the 1873 Torso. Thats 15 years before the Ripper murders. So why do we not have Ripper like murders in that same time frame? I think you need to forget the 1873 Torso.

It is unbelievable to think that every torso or body part fished out of the thames got there as a result of a murder being committed.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

1. The use of a saw would be be a much quicker way of dismembering limbs. Perhaps the dismemberer realised this after first using a knife. Also was the use of a saw noted in any of the other torsos, from memory I dont think it was.

Don´t use your memory, Trevor, use the facts - a sharp knife and a fine-toothed saw was employed in all of the torso cases, according to the medicos.
If the killer inititally tried the knife on the 1873 victim, disarticulating the limbs very neatly, and then arrived at the conclusion that a saw is more efficient, would you not say that it was strange that he afterwards abandoned the idea of sawing the bones off, and went back to disarticulation...?

2. The fact that these limbs were found at different locations might suggest that the person disposing of these was not able to dispose of them all at the same time because of the number of packages there were, and may well have varied the locations where they were actually disposed of.

It might suggest that he had a bet with his granny that he would use these places for dumping the parts. It "might" suggest a whole lot. But the fact of the matter is that a man pressed for time and desperate to dump a torso, would NOT find his way down to the deepest cellar vaults of the New Scotland Yard to do so, scaling walls and subjecting himself to danger in the process.

3. You keep suggesting that JTR and the Torsos were the work of the same hand and you seek to heavily rely on the 1873 Torso. Thats 15 years before the Ripper murders. So why do we not have Ripper like murders in that same time frame? I think you need to forget the 1873 Torso.

Dahmer was inactive for nine years after his first murder, until he started killing again. Shall we forget about his first victim, Trevor? And in Dahmers case, we KNOW what he did during those nine years. How do we know that the Ripper/Torso killer did NOT kill during this time?

It is unbelievable to think that every torso or body part fished out of the thames got there as a result of a murder being committed.

Yes, just as it was unbelievable that every body fished out of the Green River during the eighties, dozens of them, would be a murder victim. It´s not statistically fair, is it?

By the way, Trevor, are you not the one who says it is time to break up the old ways in Ripperology? I am doing just that, and here you are, speaking for returning to the oldschool thinking...?

[Michael W Richards]

Traditional Ripperology has done all of this completely backwards, and has therefore severely hampered the development of the investigation and research into the murders for more than a century.

That's a slippery slope for you Fisherman, because traditional Ripperology starts with a premise and a suspect and tries to string a story together. How is that different from what you've been doing?

This thread is about Motives, something that in these cases has been presumed for decades, and I'm with you in that the traditional approaches should be reexamined for their value thus far. I believe that many, many violent crimes are solved by gaining understanding of the root cause, which the evidence supports. In the case of the Canonical Five assumed series there appears to have been murders where the killer and victim knew each other. There seems to be connective material between some victims themselves. There is evidence that 2 of the women had only just ended relationships, and we see evidence in one case that contradicts the stories about the closeness and nature of their relationship. 2 of the women admitted to confidants about being out soliciting at the time of their murders.

There are varying degrees of damage inflicted from one victim to the next, with only the first 2 in the supposed series being eerily similar and with what we know were similar acquisition methods and victim profiles. These 2 cases have evidence that strongly suggests the same killer, and that he prowled looking for an opportunity to prey on weak sheep. His motive was that he was insane.

That leaves us with three...2 as I mentioned who had just left long standing relationships, and 1 that seems to behave much differently than she is portrayed as part of a couple with John. Mostly by John himself.

Isnt the presence of circumstantial evidence enough to cause someone pause when they are marrying up wound patterns to string together their series theories.

I think the thread is a great question...and one that none of us really have any grasp of. We don't know all the Motives, we can make good guesses at some, but to compare apples and oranges you need apples.

[Fisherman]

Michael W Richards: That's a slippery slope for you Fisherman, because traditional Ripperology starts with a premise and a suspect and tries to string a story together. How is that different from what you've been doing?

To begin with, what I am saying is that Ripperology has missed out on how an identification job is done when it comes to a number of murder cases. Ripperology has bought the old canard of how dismemberment murders are always practical matters, aiming at obscuring the deeds.

To carry on, it is your suggestion that I have started with a suspect and tried to string a theory together, but the fact of the matter is that I had no suspect the first thirty years I did Ripperology. So far from beginning in the suspect end, I actually started in the fact gathering end and THEN I noticed that the facts fit a suspect, once I was pointed to Lechmere by Edward Stow. I then looked closer on the specific circumstances of the Nichols case, and could see how Lechmere fits the bill amazingly well.

As far as I can see, the only slippery thing here is your suggestion, that is just as backwards as Ripperology´s take on dismemberment, Mike. You really should know that I was not born a Lechmereian!

This thread is about Motives, something that in these cases has been presumed for decades, and I'm with you in that the traditional approaches should be reexamined for their value thus far.

Yeah, well ... I stated in the beginning of the thread that it was not really aptly named. A better name would be "Same inspiration grounds - same killer".

I believe that many, many violent crimes are solved by gaining understanding of the root cause, which the evidence supports.

Agreed.

In the case of the Canonical Five assumed series there appears to have been murders where the killer and victim knew each other.

No, I personally don´t think so. The cutting of the faces and the massive violence boils down to that inspiration ground I am talking about.

There seems to be connective material between some victims themselves. There is evidence that 2 of the women had only just ended relationships, and we see evidence in one case that contradicts the stories about the closeness and nature of their relationship. 2 of the women admitted to confidants about being out soliciting at the time of their murders.

There are varying degrees of damage inflicted from one victim to the next, with only the first 2 in the supposed series being eerily similar and with what we know were similar acquisition methods and victim profiles. These 2 cases have evidence that strongly suggests the same killer, and that he prowled looking for an opportunity to prey on weak sheep. His motive was that he was insane.

That leaves us with three...2 as I mentioned who had just left long standing relationships, and 1 that seems to behave much differently than she is portrayed as part of a couple with John. Mostly by John himself.

Isnt the presence of circumstantial evidence enough to cause someone pause when they are marrying up wound patterns to string together their series theories.

I think the thread is a great question...and one that none of us really have any grasp of. We don't know all the Motives, we can make good guesses at some, but to compare apples and oranges you need apples.

Out of the canonical cases and the torso cases 1873, 1887, 1888 and 1889, I think that Stride can very well be discussed as possibly not belonging to the group. The reason being that she never suffered enough damage to make the call. Otherwise, I am quite content that all of the rest are connected and had the same originator.

[Harry D]

As an addition, when there is a large number of homicides committed in an area, significantly raising the number or such events over the normal level, the prudent question to answer for the police is whether these deeds have any common factors, and so can have been committed by the same person.
If there are such commonalities, then the assumption must be that we are indeed dealing with just the one killer, instead of many killers.
The more commonalities, the greater the chance of a single killer, the less commonalities, the smaller that chance is.
Type of weapon used, MO, signature and area of offending will be the more important factors in establishing how many killers lie behind the raised homicide level.
In our case, the type of weapon used is cutting weapons, the MO cannot be fully established but seemingly involves taking prostitutes to secluded places and kill them quickly, after which post-mortem mutilations are added, the signature seems to be post-mortem mutilation and the areaa of offending can only be established for the Ripper series, whereas it remains unknown which location was used in the Torso series.

To add to this, there are also examples of the same very rare cutting of abdominal flaps in both series.

The only resonable thing to do is to work from the presumption that one killer only lies behind all of these killings.

Traditional Ripperology has done all of this completely backwards, and has therefore severely hampered the development of the investigation and research into the murders for more than a century.

The murder of Alice McKenzie sandwiched between the two Torsos found in 1889 is what does it for me. It's one thing to have several murders in the same city but that sort of overlap has to be more than a coincidence.

[Sam Flynn]

The murder of Alice McKenzie sandwiched between the two Torsos found in 1889 is what does it for me. It's one thing to have several murders in the same city but that sort of overlap has to be more than a coincidence.

No, it doesn't. There are many people who don't ascribe McKenzie's murder to the Ripper because of differences of detail between what happened to her and the "canonical" JTR evisceration victims, and there are even greater dissimilarities between McKenzie and the torso cases.

Never mind the timings, never mind the overlaps, just look at what actually happened to her. Other murder series have overlapped with one another, and/or have coincided with "singleton" murders, without the same perpetrators being involved.

[Harry D]

No, it doesn't. There are many people who don't ascribe McKenzie's murder to the Ripper because of differences of detail between what happened to her and the "canonical" JTR evisceration victims, and there are even greater dissimilarities between McKenzie and the torso cases.

Never mind the timings, never mind the overlaps, just look at what actually happened to her. Other murder series have overlapped with one another, and/or have coincided with "singleton" murders, without the same perpetrators being involved.

There are enough signature elements of McKenzie's murder to attribute it to the Ripper, even if it's far from conclusive. There were no known Torso cases since Sept 1888 and no known Ripper cases since Nov the same year. All of a sudden, within the space of three months we have two more Torso cases and a Ripper-esque murder? But there's no correlation between the two?

[Sam Flynn]

All of a sudden, within the space of three months we have two more Torso cases and a Ripper-esque murder? But there's no correlation between the two?

I don't even read much significance into the coincidence of Eddowes and Stride being killed on the same night, slap bang in the middle of the Autumn of Terror, so I'm unlikely to be swayed by McKenzie and the very, very different torso series.

[Abby Normal]

There are enough signature elements of McKenzie's murder to attribute it to the Ripper, even if it's far from conclusive. There were no known Torso cases since Sept 1888 and no known Ripper cases since Nov the same year. All of a sudden, within the space of three months we have two more Torso cases and a Ripper-esque murder? But there's no correlation between the two?

yup-bingo Harry.
add to that that both series end after pinchin and McKenzie. both series end at the same time.
another coincidence?