Same motive = same killer

[Abby Normal]

Hi Debs

But there is another scenario, just as plausible, that being that there perhaps was a combination of the two scenarios you mentioned.

After all the dismemberments were done to hide the identities. If these were prostitutes why would the killer want to hide their identities, why would he not simply leave them were they were murdered, as with the WM, and this is one major flaw in the theory that these torsos were the work of the same killer. Why the need to dismember in any event. Why risk getting caught disposing of the body parts? All point are against a serial torso killer.

The level of knife skill is something that is being over exaggerated on here by some, who have come up with their own assessment, based on them having no surgical experience whatsoever.

All this clap trap about being able to identify one butchers skills from one part of the country against one from another. I cannot see what butchery skills has to do with the dismembering its another false trail.

I refer to Dr Biggs yet again, and it is he who stated that much of Victorian doctors opinions given back then, can now be proved to have been nothing more than guesswork, yet people believed what they said back then, and is seem some still do today


"Another observation that is usually quoted in historical cases is that the 'quality' of the dismemberment somehow points towards a skilled individual. Whether this is medical / surgical / anatomical knowledge, or just prior experience of butchery / abattoir work varies, but the observation is often cited. I can see how it is tempting to jump to this conclusion, but I have to say that I would usually regard the quality of dissection as an indicator of a lack of prior knowledge or experience! Anyone who has taken the legs off a roast chicken can probably work out that the legs will come off a human with the right encouragement...

Dr Biggs - Jack the Ripper- The Real Truth http://www.trevormarriott.co.uk/jack-ripper-real-truth/

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor
I don’t think the dismemberment was done to hide the identies per se. It goes more to the SIG IMHO, or overlapping with MO for ease in moving.

Also you say why not leave where they were murdered. They were more than likely murdered in a private place of the killer where they were also mutilated and dismembered. So he couldn’t leave them where they were murdered, needless to say the smell in his place would have been unpleasant as well as risky, no?

[RockySullivan]

After all the dismemberments were done to hide the identities. If these were prostitutes why would the killer want to hide their identities, why would he not simply leave them were they were murdered, as with the WM, and this is one major flaw in the theory that these torsos were the work of the same killer. Why the need to dismember in any event. Why risk getting caught disposing of the body parts? All point are against a serial torso killer.

What? How? So...let's get this straight Trevor. If they were prostitutes then the killer wouldn't care about hiding their identities..(unless he knew them, or was seen with them, or their identities could point to him in anyway) then why would he have not just left them where they were murdered? Because they were killed inside, most likely in the killer's abode or someplace where he could kill, dismember and prepare a body for disposal safely. So how would he just leave the body where it was murdered now? Why risk getting caught dismembering and disposing when you can just leave the body where you killed it in your house or your work.

All point are against a serial torso killer.

right so because the killer used dismemberment to dispersal to prevent identification therefor these could not be murder victims? Is that your argument now?

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor
I don’t think the dismemberment was done to hide the identies per se. It goes more to the SIG IMHO, or overlapping with MO for ease in moving.

Also you say why not leave where they were murdered. They were more than likely murdered in a private place of the killer where they were also mutilated and dismembered. So he couldn’t leave them where they were murdered, needless to say the smell in his place would have been unpleasant as well as risky, no?

But if that had have been the case then that must point to the killer living . close, or having a place close to the Thames, because all the body parts could not have been disposed of in one go by one person, and the more time a person was walking around with parcelled up body parts for disposal or seen disposing of parcels in the Thames, made the likelihood of capture greater. So that theory really doesn't stand up to close scrutiny. Many known factors also dont point to the same place of disposal, which you would expect if the same killer and the killer lived near the Thames.

If it is suggested that the Pinchin St torso was part of a series where the torsos were dumped in the Thames, why did the killer hide the torso where he did? Surely if the killer of that victim had have been responsible for the other torsos, would he not dispose of that Pinchin St torso in the Thames? Much easier to dump it in the Thames than to dispose of it in Pinchin Street.

Equally had the Pinchin Street killer been responsible for the other torsos he could have disposed of the body parts in parcels of those victims at any secluded land based location, and not in the Thames. It is clear in my opinion that they are not connected.

And I say again for the umpteenth time that murder in the true sense cannot be proved in most of these torsos,despite the controversial coroners court verdicts, none of which in any event were able to show a specific cause of death to warrant wilful murder verdicts in several cases.

And the purpose of a coroners court was to determine a cause of death. In Victorian coroners courts when no specific cause of death could be ascertained the verdict was "found dead" which was in fact recorded against some of the torsos.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

What? How? So...let's get this straight Trevor. If they were prostitutes then the killer wouldn't care about hiding their identities..(unless he knew them, or was seen with them, or their identities could point to him in anyway) then why would he have not just left them where they were murdered? Because they were killed inside, most likely in the killer's abode or someplace where he could kill, dismember and prepare a body for disposal safely. So how would he just leave the body where it was murdered now? Why risk getting caught dismembering and disposing when you can just leave the body where you killed it in your house or your work. right so because the killer used dismemberment to dispersal to prevent identification therefor these could not be murder victims? Is that your argument now?

Did JTR dismember victims ? No
Did JTR attempt to hide their identities-No
Did JTR leave the bodies where they were killed- YES

If JTR killed the Torsos then why change his MO ?

My point is that the torsos were dismembered why was that ?
To Hide their identities

Why hide their identities if they were random killings did JTR try to hide their identities? No

And I say again for the umpteenth time that murder in the true sense cannot be proved in most of these torsos,despite the controversial coroners court verdicts, none of which in any event were able to show a specific cause of death to warrant wilful murder verdicts in several cases.

And the purpose of a coroners court was to determine a cause of death. In Victorian coroners courts when no specific cause of death could be ascertained the verdict was "found dead" which was in fact recorded against some of the torsos.

Yet we have those on here who still wont accept these facts and still keep rambling on about a serial killer at work, when there are other plausible explanations ruling out a serial killer.

You can only postulate a serial killer if a series of three or more murders can be connected by reason of a number of similar traits which cannot be identified with regards to the torsos.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

Did JTR dismember victims ? No
Did JTR attempt to hide their identities-No
Did JTR leave the bodies where they were killed- YES

If JTR killed the Torsos then why change his MO ?

Spot on.

My point is that the torsos were dismembered why was that ?
To Hide their identities

Probably - the heads were never found. Presumably to hide any trail that might lead back to the killer, and to delay/confound any police investigation.

[RockySullivan]

If it is suggested that the Pinchin St torso was part of a series where the torsos were dumped in the Thames, why did the killer hide the torso where he did? Surely if the killer of that victim had have been responsible for the other torsos, would he not dispose of that Pinchin St torso in the Thames? Much easier to dump it in the Thames than to dispose of it in Pinchin Street.

The Whitehall torso

But if that had have been the case then that must point to the killer living . close, or having a place close to the Thames, because all the body parts could not have been disposed of in one go by one person, and the more time a person was walking around with parcelled up body parts for disposal or seen disposing of parcels in the Thames, made the likelihood of capture greater. So that theory really doesn't stand up to close scrutiny. Many known factors also dont point to the same place of disposal, which you would expect if the same killer and the killer lived near the Thames.

How are you suggesting the parts were dumped?

[MrBarnett]

Hi Debs

But there is another scenario, just as plausible, that being that there perhaps was a combination of the two scenarios you mentioned.

After all the dismemberments were done to hide the identities. If these were prostitutes why would the killer want to hide their identities, why would he not simply leave them were they were murdered, as with the WM, and this is one major flaw in the theory that these torsos were the work of the same killer. Why the need to dismember in any event. Why risk getting caught disposing of the body parts? All point are against a serial torso killer.

The level of knife skill is something that is being over exaggerated on here by some, who have come up with their own assessment, based on them having no surgical experience whatsoever.

All this clap trap about being able to identify one butchers skills from one part of the country against one from another. I cannot see what butchery skills has to do with the dismembering its another false trail.

I refer to Dr Biggs yet again, and it is he who stated that much of Victorian doctors opinions given back then, can now be proved to have been nothing more than guesswork, yet people believed what they said back then, and is seem some still do today


"Another observation that is usually quoted in historical cases is that the 'quality' of the dismemberment somehow points towards a skilled individual. Whether this is medical / surgical / anatomical knowledge, or just prior experience of butchery / abattoir work varies, but the observation is often cited. I can see how it is tempting to jump to this conclusion, but I have to say that I would usually regard the quality of dissection as an indicator of a lack of prior knowledge or experience! Anyone who has taken the legs off a roast chicken can probably work out that the legs will come off a human with the right encouragement...

Dr Biggs - Jack the Ripper- The Real Truth http://www.trevormarriott.co.uk/jack-ripper-real-truth/

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Dr Biggs makes a very valid point.

As I understand it what he is saying is that very few surgeons would have been experienced in human joint disarticulation. Butchers or slaughtermen would have been more so in respect of food preparation, as would, presumably, chefs/cooks. But then anyone who'd often eaten chicken would also have had a familiarity with the mechanics of a fowl's joints which could have been drawn upon when disarticutaling an altogether different species.

[RockySullivan]

Did JTR dismember victims ? No
Did JTR attempt to hide their identities-No
Did JTR leave the bodies where they were killed- YES

If JTR killed the Torsos then why change his MO ?

but that doesn't mean the torsos weren't serial murders

[MrBarnett]

but that doesn't mean the torsos weren't serial murders

Who was JTR? Was he responsible for the Pinchin Street deposit?

[Abby Normal]

but that doesn't mean the torsos weren't serial murders

Hi rocky. Don’t worry they were, the only question that remains is if the torsos and the ripper series where the same.

And they, probably were too.

[Trevor Marriott]

but that doesn't mean the torsos weren't serial murders

You must realise, that if you cant prove a series of murders,(three or more) then you cant have a serial killer, its as simple as that.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

P.S. Don't worry about M.O. and all that bosh.

The MO is very important in determining whether or not all the murders were the work of the same hand. In the torso cases you cannot even conclusivley state the causes of death.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

The Whitehall torso
[was not dumped in the Thames]

But it was deposited in southwest London, where the majority of of the body parts were dumped in the river. Pinchin St was a major departure, and quite probably the work of another person or persons.

[Sam Flynn]

But it was deposited in southwest London, where the majority of of the body parts were dumped in the river.

And it's worth reflecting that the "Whitehall Mystery" torso was found almost literally a stone's throw away from the Thames itself, as the building under construction lay just off the Victoria Embankment:



The "Western Torso Killer", if I can call him/them that, seems to have had quite an attachment to the river.

[Harry D]

Did JTR dismember victims ? No
Did JTR attempt to hide their identities-No
Did JTR leave the bodies where they were killed- YES

If JTR killed the Torsos then why change his MO ?

This has already been answered, Trevor.

The Torso victims were most likely killed, mutilated & dismembered in a private premises. If the killer was denied access to this location, he might take to the streets to satiate his bloodlust. The Ripper victims were all killed on the spot, there was no need for dismemberment. The only other victim killed indoors (Mary Kelly) was extensively butchered, but again not dismembered because the killer had no need to dispose of the body parts as the murder occurred in the victim's home.