Same motive = same killer

[Sam Flynn]

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.

A blood-lust which, in the case of the Ripper, saw him dispatch four or five women in the space of three months. As for the torsos, we see what appears to be a maximum of four victims claimed over the space of two years. Why that sudden burst of multiple, outdoor, East London evisceration murders in the "Autumn of Terror"? The only torso murder that took place during the Autumn of Terror was the Whitehall Mystery, and that happened right in the heart of Southwest London, but there were no torso murders for about a year either side of that.

It looks very much to me that we have at least two killers, working to a different drum-beat, with very different methods, and very different stomping-grounds.

[RockySullivan]

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.

Quite probably not. Remember this is the last torso, and only 3 months of after Jackson. there could have been a reason it changed and we have no idea where or why or how the earlier victims were dumped west.

[RockySullivan]

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:

[ATTACH]18339[/ATTACH]

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

And so the embankment would be our biggest clue to the killer's identity. we also can assume he dumped the torso from the back, not through the front where he had to climb a ladder and then pull a string to get in? is that right?

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

Can you prove all the torsos were as a result of murder?- No you cant, nor can anyone else, so to suggest firstly that they were all murdered, and secondly by a serial killer is nothing but pure conjecture.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

Quite probably not. Remember this is the last torso, and only 3 months of after Jackson. there could have been a reason it changed and we have no idea where or why or how the earlier victims were dumped west.

The most likely reason by far is that the dumper(s) of the non-Pinchin Street torsos lived out West.

The Pinchin Street torso isn't just a change of location, either - although, in this connection alone, it's worth noting that the arches were about a mile inland from the Thames - but a change in method of dismemberment, too, in that both arms were still attached.

[RockySullivan]

Can you prove all the torsos were as a result of murder?- No you cant, nor can anyone else, so to suggest firstly that they were all murdered, and secondly by a serial killer is nothing but pure conjecture.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I predicted this post about 30 pages back but i'm not sure anyone cares about having this argument with you anymore. You can't prove the torsos weren't murdered either so I don't see how your position is any more solid. atleast our theory they were murdered is based on common sense

[RockySullivan]

The most likely reason by far is that the dumper(s) of the non-Pinchin Street torsos lived out West.

The Pinchin Street torso isn't just a change of location, either - although, in this connection alone, it's worth noting that the arches were about a mile inland from the Thames - but a change in method of dismemberment, too, in that both arms were still attached.

True but remember, Liz Jackson was the first torso victim identified. The killer may have felt the need to do things differently and there might have been other variables. It might not be right near the embankment but it's still the kind of place the torso killer would choose. It's the same time of the year as the Whitehall victim. and again the head is never found and the victim isn't identified. How many unidentified torso murders happened in London during this time period that are not included in the series? I would assume none?

[Sam Flynn]

The killer may have felt the need to do things differently and there might have been other variables.

Possibly, but leaving the arms attached is quite a departure from what had gone before, which seems to have been a cutting-up of victims into as many pieces as possible (both pairs of limbs included), so as to facilitate portability and/or a wider scatter.

It might not be right near the embankment but it's still the kind of place the torso killer would choose.

I'm sure there would have been plenty of suitable places closer to the Embankment than the Pinchin Street railway arches. If, as I suspect, the "main" torso killer(s) lived somewhere out towards Clapham/Battersea, then Pinchin Street doesn't srike me as a location that they would even know about, still less select for the purpose of dumping a body.

[Trevor Marriott]

I predicted this post about 30 pages back but i'm not sure anyone cares about having this argument with you anymore. You can't prove the torsos weren't murdered either so I don't see how your position is any more solid. atleast our theory they were murdered is based on common sense

My argument is based on facts, not wild speculative theories and conjecture, and it seems in your case the truth is hard to accept

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Harry D]

A blood-lust which, in the case of the Ripper, saw him dispatch four or five women in the space of three months. As for the torsos, we see what appears to be a maximum of four victims claimed over the space of two years. Why that sudden burst of multiple, outdoor, East London evisceration murders in the "Autumn of Terror"? The only torso murder that took place during the Autumn of Terror was the Whitehall Mystery, and that happened right in the heart of Southwest London, but there were no torso murders for about a year either side of that.

Peter Sutcliffe killed three women in four months, while others were killed almost a year apart. And I'm sure I can dig up other serialists with erratic murder patterns. If serial killers can have extended "cooling off” periods, then it stands to reason that they can also have periods of sudden increased activity.

[Sam Flynn]

Peter Sutcliffe killed three women in four months, while others were killed almost a year apart.

Yes, and he killed for many, many years without changing his method of killing - blunt object trauma to the victims' skulls in outdoor locations. He didn't switch to a short burst of indoor killing with dismemberments and then back to outdoor killing with no dismemberments.

If serial killers can have extended "cooling off” periods, then it stands to reason that they can also have periods of sudden increased activity.

Not just increased activity, but a completely different method of killing and choice of venue.

[RockySullivan]

Possibly, but leaving the arms attached is quite a departure from what had gone before, which seems to have been a cutting-up of victims into as many pieces as possible (both pairs of limbs included), so as to facilitate portability and/or a wider scatter.I'm sure there would have been plenty of suitable places closer to the Embankment than the Pinchin Street railway arches. If, as I suspect, the "main" torso killer(s) lived somewhere out towards Clapham/Battersea, then Pinchin Street doesn't srike me as a location that they would even know about, still less select for the purpose of dumping a body.

Yea I mean maybe she was killed near pinchin. Someone suggested the arms were left to lift the torso since it wasn't packaged. I believe she was dumped by cart so it couldn't have been too far. Everything about john Arnold does seem to indicate a conspiracy and that he lived across from Whitehall is a coincidence hard to brush off. I mean do you really think 3 months after Liz Jackson, there was a new torso killer in town, who not only dismembered, he also dumped the legs/skull in different place from the torso. It seems more likely it could be the same killer.

[RockySullivan]

My argument is based on facts, not wild speculative theories and conjecture, and it seems in your case the truth is hard to accept

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor, your "theory" is that it can't be proven the torso victims were murdered so therefore...what? Can you really prove that the Ripper victims didn't cut their own throat and had someone else do the rest?

You are telling me the idea that the torso victims were murder is "wild speculative theories and conjecture"?. Get a grip man

[Sam Flynn]

I mean do you really think 3 months after Liz Jackson, there was a new torso killer in town, who not only dismembered, he also dumped the legs/skull in different place from the torso.

I really do think it's possible, not least because there are only a finite number of ways in which one could get rid of a corpse. I don't read much into "not only dismembered... but also dumped parts in different places", because that tends to go with the territory when it comes to torso murders. The out-of-the-way location of the Pinchin Street arches suggests that whoever killed the victim lived locally, and was unlikely to be the potential serial killer who did for the other victims in Southwest London.

To my mind and going by the evidence, whether there was one or more torso murderers, they were very different beasts to Jack the Ripper.

[Joshua Rogan]

Everything about john Arnold does seem to indicate a conspiracy and that he lived across from Whitehall is a coincidence hard to brush off.

Funnily enough I just read this, from the Lancashire Evening Post, 16th Sept '89;

"It seems the remarkable story told of the visit paid by the man Leary to the London office of the New York Herald is not without parallel in connection with the revolting crimes which in the past 18 months have occurred in the metropolis. The Leary incident has recalled the fact that a few nights before the horrible discovery of the dead body of a murdered woman in one of the recesses of the basement of the new offices intended as the headquarters of the metropolitan police on the Victoria Embankment, a man answering the same description entered the office of the Morning Advertiser and stated that the remains of a woman were to be found in that spot. The man asked a fee for the information, but before this was paid a reporter was despatched to the buildings to ascertain, with the aid of the police, whether there was any foundation for the story. Search was made in vain as in Back Church-lane the other day, but a day or two afterwards the mutilated body of a female was discovered in the precise spot which had been indicated by the mysterious informant."