Same motive = same killer

[RockySullivan]

One thing that seems certain to me is that the Ripper was a street rat. He might have been spent a lot of time on street during the day. Like John Arnold, George Hutchinson, etc. Where did Lipski and his two employees sell umbrellas?

[Trevor Marriott]

One thing that seems certain to me is that the Ripper was a street rat. He might have been spent a lot of time on street during the day. Like John Arnold, George Hutchinson, etc. Where did Lipski and his two employees sell umbrellas?

Wherever they sold them they had some interesting customers !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FrankO]

I'm not sure if the low risk or high risk thing is even viable. Both took incredibly high risks.

Still, I think the Ripper clearly took higher risks than the one responsible for the torsos, but perhaps I should have worded it differently, Abby. However, I’m sure it’s an important difference.

The one responsible for the torsos was not just much more in control of himself than the Ripper in that he only killed once every couple of years (on average), he was also willing to take his time with each victim, to invest time in his murders. He was patient & elaborate, if you will, and thought out well how he would go about things. The Ripper murders have nothing of that in them.

This man could have killed and mutilated out in the streets like the Ripper and he could have done so every couple of weeks, but he chose not to. That he chose a very different approach should mean something and to me, at least, it does.

but regardless, serial killers MO changes, sometimes drastically, its well known.

But not from “patient & well thought out” to “a burst of quick fixes” and back to “patient & well thought out” again. That’s not well known at all, as far as I know.

need to really focus on the sig, which in both cases is mainly post mortem mutilation and removal of body parts.

If you can give me an example of one serial killer with approaches as different as “torso man” and the Ripper and with one interplaced in the other, I would probably agree with you on this, Abby.

All the best,
Frank

[Harry D]

You have to ask yourself this question, if there ever had been a serial killer, and he had lured these women to a private place where he committed murder, and then needed to dispose of the body by dismemberment, something that could have been done easily by removing arms legs,head, and the trunk. Why the need to cut open the abdomen? This make the disposable more complicated and
very messy.

Because that was part of the killer's paraphilia. For the Ripper & Torso killer(s) these mutilations fulfilled some fetishistic purpose. The Torso Killer slayed his victims in private, mutilated them and then disposed of the body parts accordingly, whereas the Ripper killed on the spot and left his victims splayed out on display. However, it appears that some of the torso parts were also left provocatively instead of discreetly dumped.

[Trevor Marriott]

Because that was part of the killer's paraphilia. For the Ripper & Torso killer(s) these mutilations fulfilled some fetishistic purpose. The Torso Killer slayed his victims in private, mutilated them and then disposed of the body parts accordingly, whereas the Ripper killed on the spot and left his victims splayed out on display. However, it appears that some of the torso parts were also left provocatively instead of discreetly dumped.

With all the ramblings about a serial killer, you have to accept that firstly, if you dont have 3 or more murders, which can be conclusively be linked by identifiable and common traits then you dont have a serial killer.

Secondly and most importantly before you can say you have a serial killer or a murderer, you have to show that deaths were as a result of murder. In most of these cases you cannot do that, and it beggars belief that despite being told this, here you all are still referring to them in the same old way.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Michael W Richards]

Agreed.
I don't see the torso killers working in this manner. In the days before fast private transport, forcibly dragging a woman off the street and transporting her on foot to her place of death would be a very impractical, and easily detectable, method of acquiring a victim. Difficult to imagine anyone getting away with that tactic once, let alone four times.

Hi Sam, this kind of scenario fits with a killer living alone, and perhaps luring the women back to his lair. I think in the first 2 Ripper cases at least, there is evidence the killer was led. I don't see the need for having a Jack the Ripper style killer living alone, in fact it would be far better for him to be living among a family. Many men had work at night that involved bloodying their clothing too.

[Fisherman]

I seems things have cooled of a little on the thread, which is good to note. So, leaving Tait aside, let´s take a look at something I always found a bit odd.

When the Pinchin Street torso was found, a chemise was also found, bloodied and dirty.

The chemise had been cut all th way up front and also from the neck lining down to the sleeve openings on both sides.

To me, this tells a very clear story: The victim was on her back as the chemise was cut, and the cutting made allowed the killer to expose the body completely. My personal guess is that the victim was dead at this stage.

However, the question I would like for you to comment on is why the victim was dressed in a chemise at this stage?

As far as I can tell, there are three working suggestions to answer the question:

1. The victim was staying with the killer, and had dressed in a chemise to go to bed.

2. The victim was abducted in the chemise from her own lodgings.

3. The killer supplied the chemise.

I don´t like the first suggestion, on account of how I regard the killer as a killer of strangers. This of course does not have to be true, but the fact that he dumped Jackson in her own, marked, clothes speaks to me of an indifference probably based on how he had no ties to the victim. For example.

I don´t like the second suggestion, on account of how it would be hard to abduct a woman alive without being noticed, plus such a thing would probably have been commented on in the press.

I do like the third explanation a lot because it goes hand in hand with my thinking about a ritualistic behaviour tied to the murders.

Any thoughts?

[Abby Normal]

I seems things have cooled of a little on the thread, which is good to note. So, leaving Tait aside, let´s take a look at something I always found a bit odd.

When the Pinchin Street torso was found, a chemise was also found, bloodied and dirty.

The chemise had been cut all th way up front and also from the neck lining down to the sleeve openings on both sides.

To me, this tells a very clear story: The victim was on her back as the chemise was cut, and the cutting made allowed the killer to expose the body completely. My personal guess is that the victim was dead at this stage.

However, the question I would like for you to comment on is why the victim was dressed in a chemise at this stage?

As far as I can tell, there are three working suggestions to answer the question:

1. The victim was staying with the killer, and had dressed in a chemise to go to bed.

2. The victim was abducted in the chemise from her own lodgings.

3. The killer supplied the chemise.

I don´t like the first suggestion, on account of how I regard the killer as a killer of strangers. This of course does not have to be true, but the fact that he dumped Jackson in her own, marked, clothes speaks to me of an indifference probably based on how he had no ties to the victim. For example.

I don´t like the second suggestion, on account of how it would be hard to abduct a woman alive without being noticed, plus such a thing would probably have been commented on in the press.

I do like the third explanation a lot because it goes hand in hand with my thinking about a ritualistic behaviour tied to the murders.

Any thoughts?

Hi fish
I think she was probably already wearing it when she went with him back to his place. Isn’t this the most likely scenario?

[Sam Flynn]

Hi fish
I think she was probably already wearing it when she went with him back to his place. Isn’t this the most likely scenario?

Yes, although it's equally likely that she lived with the killer and was the victim of a domestic crime. I see zero reason for reading anything ritualistic into this. Women wore chemises, and women died in them, whether by natural or unnatural means.

[Abby Normal]

Still, I think the Ripper clearly took higher risks than the one responsible for the torsos, but perhaps I should have worded it differently, Abby. However, I’m sure it’s an important difference.

The one responsible for the torsos was not just much more in control of himself than the Ripper in that he only killed once every couple of years (on average), he was also willing to take his time with each victim, to invest time in his murders. He was patient & elaborate, if you will, and thought out well how he would go about things. The Ripper murders have nothing of that in them.

This man could have killed and mutilated out in the streets like the Ripper and he could have done so every couple of weeks, but he chose not to. That he chose a very different approach should mean something and to me, at least, it does.But not from “patient & well thought out” to “a burst of quick fixes” and back to “patient & well thought out” again. That’s not well known at all, as far as I know.If you can give me an example of one serial killer with approaches as different as “torso man” and the Ripper and with one interplaced in the other, I would probably agree with you on this, Abby.

All the best,
Frank

Hi frank
Ok I understand what you mean. Well, to me I think they were both pretty patient and well thought out. Both involved rusing women into going to places where he could kill them and do his thing. Both involved him rusing the women into believing he was something that he was not.The ripper series may seem like burst of quick fixes, but IMHO I think he was kind of reaching a climax of self assurance and brazenesss as serial killers often do.
Then a cooling of period after the climax of climaxes with KELLY. Then the double encore with pinchin and Mackenzie. And then coincidently both series end at the same time!

And well just off the top of my head bundy had drastic change of bookended MOs. Started and ended with home invasion brutal attacks that bookend his rusing period. Completely different MOs going back and forth.

We shouldn’t get hung up on MO, or the time periods, they can change drastically. Focus on sig.

[Fisherman]

Hi fish
I think she was probably already wearing it when she went with him back to his place. Isn’t this the most likely scenario?

I would have thought that a chemise was nightwear? And even if it was not, if he saw to it that she was stripped of the other clothes, then why leave the chemise on...?

I find it intriguing.

[Fisherman]

Hi frank
Ok I understand what you mean. Well, to me I think they were both pretty patient and well thought out. Both involved rusing women into going to places where he could kill them and do his thing. Both involved him rusing the women into believing he was something that he was not.The ripper series may seem like burst of quick fixes, but IMHO I think he was kind of reaching a climax of self assurance and brazenesss as serial killers often do.
Then a cooling of period after the climax of climaxes with KELLY. Then the double encore with pinchin and Mackenzie. And then coincidently both series end at the same time!

And well just off the top of my head bundy had drastic change of bookended MOs. Started and ended with home invasion brutal attacks that bookend his rusing period. Completely different MOs going back and forth.

We shouldn’t get hung up on MO, or the time periods, they can change drastically. Focus on sig.

Yes! Focus on signature indeed! It always trumps MO. If a victim was found in a house, ten miles from the Green River and killed by a gunshot, but with a stone inserted into the vagina, would anybody seriously try and rule out a connection with the Green River killings?

I think not.

[Sam Flynn]

I would have thought that a chemise was nightwear?

Not necessarily, Fish; a chemise was basically an undergarment. It's perhaps only fairly recently that it has become primarily associated with nighttime activities, whether sleep or ooh-la-la.

And even if it was not, if he saw to it that she was stripped of the other clothes, then why leave the chemise on...?

Quite probably because that was all she was wearing when killed.

[Sam Flynn]

And well just off the top of my head bundy had drastic change of bookended MOs. Started and ended with home invasion brutal attacks that bookend his cruising period.

The invasion of other people's homes. I suspect very strongly that the Torso killer(s) had their own premises, so why resort - ever - to killing on the streets?

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: Not necessarily, Fish; a chemise was basically an undergarment. It's perhaps only fairly recently that it has become primarily associated with nighttime activities, whether sleep or ooh-la-la.

Not really, no - the victorians used long chemises as nightgowns. The activity involved beeing sleeping. It will depend on the character of the chemise, I guess.

Quite probably because that was all she was wearing when killed.

Yes, and that calls for the question why she was wearing a chemise when she was killed - a chemise the killer then cut up in an intricate manner, quite probably to expose the naked body.

Sounds like something that belongs to the interest sphere of the killer, although I would have thought it more likely to be something that was done when the victim was still alive.

Just thinking out loud here.