Same motive = same killer

[RockySullivan]

But what happened to the torso victims before they were dismembered and dumped? They might have been repeatedly raped or otherwise abused for a considerable time before their killers' purposes were served - that's what often happens in these cases. That would be a vastly different motive to those of the Whitechapel murderers. (Notice that I'm using plurals.)

Yea I mean we don't know, what would have happened if the ripper victims were killed indoors like Mary Kelly? The torso victims were probably killed and then time was spent cutting them up like with kelly

[John G]

You go through all the trouble of dismembering, spreading her parts all over and you are very focused on her private parts but you don't notice the underwear has L.E. Fisher written in it?

Well, I don't think he would have expected the victim to have her name written in her underwear! Not that Fisher was her name anyway.

[John G]

You go through all the trouble of dismembering, spreading her parts all over and you are very focused on her private parts but you don't notice the underwear has L.E. Fisher written in it?

What do you mean by "very focussed on private parts?" I think he may well have been focused on the foetus but that's a different matter entirely.

[John G]

They both removed the uteri and we know where it ended up in only one case correct? Jackson's which was removed and then disposed of. We have no idea what happen with the rest. They could have all been disposed or the rest eaten. The Ripper and the Torso Killer are the same because in my opinion they have the same signature. The motive is they like the act of cutting women's innards. Two madmen who are specifically focused on killing women and cutting their uterus out. That's one killer. Ripper might have killed them on the street, cut it out right there and brought it home to play with it, eat some of it and then disposed of it.

But this is to ignore the fact that other body parts, including lungs, were removed from the Torso victims.

[John G]

Well, I DID say that I was happy to have you on the thread...! So here we have a renowned surgeon, who has reached the conclusion that the killer in both series must be the same. That is a great find, Jerry, and once again we have evidence telling us that the knifework is a very telling part in the business - just as I have been saying for the longest time.

Thank you for this!

So you're giving precedence to a doctor who didn't even examine any of the victims, over Drs Philips and Bond, who both saw Torso and JtR victims but did not think the same killer was responsible.

By the way, I disagree that all evisceration cases are offensive mutilations. In respect of the Torso cases we're dealing with dismemberment victims, who's body parts were removed as part of the disposal process.

[RockySullivan]

But this is to ignore the fact that other body parts, including lungs, were removed from the Torso victims.

What organs were removed from the Whitehall torso again ?

[RockySullivan]

What do you mean by "very focussed on private parts?" I think he may well have been focused on the foetus but that's a different matter entirely.

I mean he cut her all up. Thought he would've taken a close look at the undies. Perhaps thought LE Fisher would be a red herring but it backfired

[Herlock Sholmes]

Has there ever been another serial murderer who used 2 completely different methods of disposal/display? I mean 2 clear consistent methods?

1. Kills in the street (MJK apart) and leaves the bodies on display in a twisted sexual pose.
2. Kills indoors, dismembers with skill, packages the body parts, dumps them.

Couldn't the fact that body parts were missing from the Torso's possibly suggest that they were used for medical experimentation (seeing as the cuts were apparently so professionally done?)

At the moment, for me, the two differences that I mention above trump all else by a mile. I just don't see the same man.

[Harry D]

Fisherman, what are your thoughts on the 1902 Lambeth torso. Yay or nay?

[Sam Flynn]

But this is to ignore the fact that other body parts, including lungs, were removed from the Torso victims.

To say nothing of heads, arms and legs. Apropos which, Kelly's killer had every opportunity to dismember and decapitate her, but apparently chose not to. I think we can be confident in assuming as much because, although he almost decapitated her, the head remained resolutely attached to the body. Furthermore, the legs were defleshed to the knees, which would have been totally unnecessary if the intention had been to remove them. Indeed, a person sufficiently skilled and familiar with the clean disarticulations seen in the other torso murders would never have made such a botched attempt in the first place.

[Sam Flynn]

Has there ever been another serial murderer who used 2 completely different methods of disposal/display? I mean 2 clear consistent methods?

And, furthermore, having hit upon the infinitely "safer" and sure-fire method of dismemberment and disposal at leisure, why would he suddenly engage in a brief flurry of hugely risky open-air attacks?

[Harry D]

To say nothing of heads, arms and legs. Apropos which, Kelly's killer had every opportunity to dismember and decapitate her, but apparently chose not to. I think we can be confident in assuming as much because, although he almost decapitated her, the head remained resolutely attached to the body. Furthermore, the legs were defleshed to the knees, which would have been totally unnecessary if the intention had been to remove them. Indeed, a person sufficiently skilled and familiar with the clean disarticulations seen in the other torso murders would never have made such a botched attempt in the first place.

Decapitation/dismemberment are done to facilitate disposal and prevent identification. As Mary Kelly was murdered in her own lodgings, it wasn't necessary for the Torso Killer to do this.

[Sam Flynn]

Decapitation/dismemberment are done to facilitate disposal and prevent identification.

If the torso killers had their own premises (whether private residence or secure bolt-hole), why go to someone else's residence in the first place? Why take such a risk?

As Mary Kelly was murdered in her own lodgings, it wasn't necessary for the Torso Killer to do this.

That doesn't answer the second part of the problem, namely why someone so practised with the knife, as seen in the other torso murders, would make such a complete dog's-dinner of butchering Mary Kelly. (Or Eddowes, Chapman and Nichols for that matter.)

[Herlock Sholmes]

And, furthermore, having hit upon the infinitely "safer" and sure-fire method of dismemberment and disposal at leisure, why would he suddenly engage in a brief flurry of hugely risky open-air attacks?

This is the sticking point for me Gareth. It's just so different. The Torso Killings as I understand them so far (I'm still in the early stages of re-reading Trow) appear very 'clinical.' The Ripper killings were more 'frenzied.' As you point out, for the perpetrator, the Torso killings are also far less risky. Killing indoors, undisturbed etc. No chance of being caught in the act.
I'm open to be pursuaded on this but at the moment I can't come up with a plausible explaination for the differences.

[Fisherman]

John G: The fact remains that JtR took two uteri from the crime scene, whereas the Torso perpetrator simply disposed of them.

You seem to forget Kelly, John? The killer left her uterus behind, and instead opted (quite possibly) for the heart. Both killers have a history of having had the opportunity to take organs they instead chose to leave behind, bot killer have a history of having cut out both sexual and -non-sexual organs.

In Jackson's case the main focus appears to have been the foetus -something that wasn't relevant in the C5 murders.

Just how do you know that? He took out the heart and loungs too - why were they not his focus? He carved away the abdominal wall - why were those parts not the focus? The simple fact is that we can´t say what his focus was - but I am glad you opt for the foetus, because that turns the dismemberment into an offensive dismemberment, something you have not admitted before.

In the Whitehall case we have a victim who was stored for several weeks, suggesting a radically different personality to JtR, who had no interest in spending time with his victims' corpses.

And this you know how? The Ripper may well have wanted to take his victims along with himself, but it was not practically doable. He DID however take a few parts along, pointing to the exact opposite of what you say.

Kelly may not have been a Ripper victim, especially considering the complete lack of skill that was apparent, coupled with the frenzied nature of the attack.

Kelly was a Ripper victim - the abdominal flaps put that beyond reasonable doubt.

Trow included the earlier Torso, and I accept there's a possibility, however, the huge time gap is relevant, and I don't believe they were eviscerated.

They did not have to be, if my hunch is correct. I think the killer had a large number of possible projects, and all of them answered to a ritualistic agenda. I am more or less certain that the removal of the face and the sawing off of the thighs and shoulders are part of the exact same agenda as was the removal of the uterus from Chapman, the taking away of the abdominal wall from Jackson and the cutting out of the colon piece from Eddowes. For example.
To my mind, there can be very little doubt that the same man was responsible, but since you seem to opt for the explanation that I think so only on account of a wish to point to Lechmere, I think you may be the wrong conversation partner on the topic. I merrily note that you accept the possibility of a link, and settle for that.

Moreover, it actually weakens your argument because then we workd have two serial killers operating over a 16 year period, not two years.

No, we would have ONE serial killer operating over 16 years. And we would have an faulty idea about TWO serial killers operating in the same year (1888). Whether it weakens my argument or not is for others to decide - what we have is what we have, and since there is a very clear link between Kelly and the 1873 torso (I regard them as the two most obvious cases when it comes to revealing the incentive of the killer), I am quite hapy to make the kind of call I do.