Same motive = same killer

[Abby Normal]

This is police thinking Trevor. If you can't prove it's a murder you stop and eat donuts.

LOL.now that's funny.

[RockySullivan]

The chemise found on her led them to believe to she was from a poorer class. Maybe she wasn't?

In all fairness she probably was.

[Sam Flynn]

The logical answer to the initial question must be "because the killer wanted the victim to wear a chemise".

The logical answer to all this must be "women often wore chemises".

Why cook up more mysteries?

[Sam Flynn]

seems like the similarities just keep coming...

cut throats, chemises.. what next?

Skin! The torso victims and the Ripper victims all had skin!

[Fisherman]

The logical answer to all this must be "women often wore chemises".

Why cook up more mysteries?

It has been suggested that the Torso killer put the Whitehall torso in the building of New Scotland yard in order to taunt the police.

The suggestion is a perfectly logical one.

Is it also "cooking up more mysteries", Gareth?

Many serial killers have had hangups of different kinds. If I suggest that Ted Bundy had a thing for women who resembled the fiancée who dumped him - is that cooking up more mysteries? If I say that Charles Albroght had a thing for eyes, is that cooking up more mysteries?

And if I say that I have a very possible factual reason for how the torso man may have wanted his victims to be clad in chemises, a factual reason that has seemingly eluded you so far, I can tell you that it has nothing to do with cooking up more mysteries. It is instead a suggestion based on a number of facts that point in the direction I am speaking about.

[RockySullivan]

Skin! The torso victims and the Ripper victims all had skin!

Not the 1873's Battersea victim, atleast not on her face

[Sam Flynn]

It has been suggested that the Torso killer put the Whitehall torso in the building of New Scotland yard in order to taunt the police.

The suggestion is a perfectly logical one.

Is it also "cooking up more mysteries", Gareth?

There's a world of difference between suggesting that a torso dumped on soon-to-be police premises might have been a taunt directed at the police, and suggesting that, because a torso was found wearing a chemise, her killer deliberately put it on her or made her wear it. The former suggestion may be logical, but the latter is little more than an exercise in wild, and lurid, speculation, especially when seen in the light of the fact that chemises were very common items of clothing at that time, and they weren't reserved for the boudoir.

What this boils down to, I suspect, is that you latched onto the word "chemise" believing that it was definitely an item of nightwear, which then led you to read some sort of kinky dimension into the murder, ultimately leading to the idea that the victim was forced to wear it by her killer for his own gratification.

NB: I'm really not having a dig at you, Fish, just trying to put myself into your mind and reverse-engineer your thought processes. I mean, if we can do that for Ripper or Torso suspects, why shouldn't we apply it to ourselves?

[RockySullivan]

Is it also "cooking up more mysteries", Gareth?

Yes perhaps

[Sam Flynn]

Not the 1873's Battersea victim, at least not on her face

I knew someone would say something like that

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: There's a world of difference between suggesting that a torso dumped on soon-to-be police premises might have been a taunt directed at the police, and suggesting that, because a torso was found wearing a chemise, her killer deliberately put it on her or made her wear it.

No, Gareth. There IS a difference - there will always be when we compare phenomenons with any uilt-in differences at all - but it is certainly not a "world of difference".

The former suggestion may be logical, but the latter is little more than an exercise in wild, and lurid, speculation, especially when seen in the light of the fact that chemises were very common items of clothing at that time, and they weren't reserved for the boudoir.

That "wild and lurid" speculation only applies until you have all the cards on hand. Once you have, it changes into a very logical and viable suggestion. And THAT is a world of difference.

What this boils down to, I suspect, is that you latched onto the word "chemise" believing that it was definitely an item of nightwear, which then led you to read some sort of kinky dimension into the murder, ultimately leading to the idea that the victim was forced to wear it by her killer for his own gratification.

Nope. Sorry. Has nothing to do with that. And ironically, that turns your idea into wild and lurid speculation. Who would have thought it?

NB: I'm really not having a dig at you, Fish, just trying to put myself into your mind and reverse-engineer your thought processes. I mean, if we can do that for Ripper or Torso suspects, why shouldn't we apply it to ourselves?

You lost me there. I never use chemises.

[Fisherman]

Yes perhaps

You know what applies if you want to debate with me, Rocky.

[Sam Flynn]

You lost me there. I never use chemises.

Another dream dies...

[Fisherman]

Another dream dies...

Sorry about that.

But honestly, were you really thinking that I for some reason simply grabbed the idea that the torso killer may have had a thing for chemises out of thin air...?

If so, that´s a bit worrying.

[RockySullivan]

Sorry about that.

But honestly, were you really thinking that I for some reason simply grabbed the idea that the torso killer may have had a thing for chemises out of thin air...?

If so, that´s a bit worrying.

I thought chemises were commonly worn by prostitutes

[RockySullivan]

You know what applies if you want to debate with me, Rocky.

Yes indeed, you will be twisting the truth to fit what you like.