Same motive = same killer

[Sam Flynn]

You just said that the torso killer targetted the foetus in the Jackson case. How is that defensive dismemberment?

Perhaps he was worried that the baby's nose might give him away.

[Joshua Rogan]

Fishmere, sounds like you are forgetting that the uterus was also removed from the Whitehall torso, and that is the clincher.

Er...neither the pelvis nor it's contents were found, so how can that be a clincher?

[Fisherman]

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?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.)

In my world, the killer did not make a dog´s-dinner at all of Kelly. He did what I would have expected him to do, working from my take on what he was after. He created a scene that took some thinking and some work to do. Even the partly denuded thigh is perfectly in line with this.

If he had had all the time in the world, he could perhaps have produced the same thing in a neater way, but when time plays a role and when you are very enthusiastic about what you are doing, you can only reach so far.

The notion that Kelly is a crude killing and that the murder scene is an incomprehensible mayhem is totally off the mark. It is understandable that people will think it is, but it really is nothing of the sort. I don´t even think the killer was angry - I think he was fascinated and focused.

As I keep saying - when you understand why the elbow and knee joints were opened upmand disarticulated on the 1873 victim whereas the thighs and shoulders were sawed off, you will also understand what all of the killings were about in both series. They very clearly have the same inspiration ground.

The less clear killings in the so called C5 are Nichols and Stride, for the simple reason that the killer did not have time to finish his work. Eddowes was a fast enough affair, but he nevertheless gets further. Chapman is even clearer. But Kelly is the least diffuse and unclear case; it is the case where the intentions are very much on display.

[kjab3112]

Yes, I have. And that is often so when I post - I follow an idea, and I ask for participation, suggestions ...

So far, the two serialists that have been brought forward are Dahmer and Gein. They both had ritualistic elements involved in their killing.

Do you have any examples of serialists who prioritised killing the victim quickly with the apparent idea of gaining access to the body afterwards, and who had no ritualistic aims involved?

Men like Sutcliffe are not what I am looking for - he was guided by his sexuality, but we don´t see any signs of that with the Ripper and/or the torso killer.

Fisherman,

I offer Burke and Hare as an example, they primarily killed for greed.

Paul

[Fisherman]

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.

Why are not the abdominal flaps a sticking point for you, Herlock? Surely a very odd thing like that is much more telling than a killer using different stages to kill? How do you reason on them?

[Fisherman]

What very clear link "is" there?

It´s there for anybody to see, Gareth, although I will not elaborate on it. Like I say, try understanding why a killer who is very accustomed to and skilled at disjointing limbs would choose to cut open and disjoint the more difficult joints, whereas he would saw off the joints that would be easy to disjoint?

I am baffled that nobody seems to understand the relevance of this.

[Joshua Rogan]

That kind of removal of viscera is consistent with a defensive dismemberment - carving out the uterus without having to to enable disposal, is effectively not.

You said earlier that "Eviscerations equal offensive dismemberment". Are you now saying that's not true?

[Sam Flynn]

It´s there for anybody to see, Gareth, although I will not elaborate on it.

I don't know what you're referring to, Fish. Kindly be specific as to what this "clear link" is. If it were obvious, I'm sure I'd have spotted it.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: Well, yes, but - as I've observed with the "pizza slice" analogy - there are only so many ways to lay open the abdomen, and that the "three flap" approach could have been independently hit upon by any number of killers.

Techincally, yes. But you need to find ANY other killer who EVER did anything like this before your suggestion takes flight. Any killer could gouge the eye out from a vcitm, but it nevertheless was something that very clearly cried "Charles Albright" when it happened. No other serialist had ever done it, and so the solution to the riddle was obvious.
Afre you seriously suggesting that you find the idea of two killers cutting away abdomens in flaps more likely than just the one killer being at work?

I think I was the first person, many years ago, to draw attention to the "three flap" being a common factor in the Chapman and Kelly murders, and I kind of wish I'd kept my gob shut

Not a very good idea, and you know it. Plus Debs would suss it out sooner or later.

At any rate, I'm now less inclined to read much significance into this, especially in light of the fact that Eddowes' abdomen was opened more-or-less by a single incision, and that Nichols' abdomen had so many cuts that, had the killer taken it much further, we might have found four, five or more flaps being detached in her case.

I am sorry, but I really don´t see what you mean. That sometimes it turns out like this and other times like that and we should not read too much into it? If so, I vehemently disagree! We do not have a flap accidentally removed, we have Kellys and Chapmans abdominal walls being cut away in extenso. It is not a question of collateral damage, it is a very clear measure on behalf of the killer, and therefore an active choice. And at that, an active choice unheard of in other serial killer cases.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: So why spend time with them and go to such lengths to dispose of their bodies?

Who says he spent time "with" them? He seemingly stored the bodies for some time in some cases, but that may have been on account of him not having the opportunity to dispose of them. There is no telling.
The important thing to keep in mind is that there was no abuse or torture discernable. That means that this factor is out of play, and your suggestion of this motive is very hard to sustain.

Surely there must have been something going on.

Yes, of course there was something going on. He killed and he cut. And he cut in very close connetion to killing. That was went on. Nothing else need to have been going on.

Perhaps the abuse was verbal, and lasted over a long and unhappy relationship or marriage. Another common reason for disposing of anonymised murder victims.

Are you suggesting a series of husbands who tired of their viwes and decided to take them to places where they could say nasty things about them and then kill and eviscerate them, before dumping them?

Oh, and by the way, it's perfectly possible that they were tied up and used as a sex slave without any additional torture being necessary.

It is possible that they were forced to learn the Bhagavad Ghita by heart. Anything is "possible", but only some things are supported by the evidence.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: The main point to take away from that is that there are different reasons for removing organs.

Nilsen is not a viable example, since he needed to cut his victims up in miniscule parts to be able to flush them down his tioilet. What other reasons can you suggest for cutting out the uterus, if it was not part of an offensive dismemberment? What other possible explanations can there be?

It is by no means certain that Jack the Ripper had a particular "fixation" for the uterus, and that his real shtick had more to do with the thrill he got from cutting people open, period.

I fully agree, and I think that this WAS the case. Otherwise, why would we have a cut out kidney, cut out colons, a cut out spleen, a cut out liver, cut out hearts, lungs...? Of course it was about more than the uterus - the uterus is just another part of viscera.

We know for sure that he removed more than just the uterus from his victims and, when given sufficient privacy, he almost completely emptied the corpse of Mary Kelly. Assuming that the torso killers had even more time and privacy at their disposal, why did they content themselves with such a paltry haul of trophies when they could have taken so much more?

Exactly! It proves - beyond reasonable doubt - that a complete evisceration of the bodies was not necessary for the killer to achieve his aim. Bravo, both you and me - we have seen the light! In fact, NO EVISCERATION AT ALL was necessary, as per the Pinchin Street torso!
So the killer had another agenda. Other things in these murders satisfied that agenda. The cut away face and the sawed off limbs of the 1873 torso is part of that story, as are the removed abdominal walls of Chapman, Kelly and Jackson. The destroyed face of Kelly. The cut between the intercoastals on her ribcage. The colon piece of Eddowes. These are all examples of that agenda.
I am sometimes baffled by how the killer took some parts away with him, because I would not have expected it. Maybe it was to remember the deeds by, maybe he aimed to eat them, I can´t be sure.

[Fisherman]

Au contraire, it is an important point. Why a sudden flurry of incautious behaviour between 1887 and 1889, to say nothing of 1873? Why, for that matter, don't we even see a flurry of cautious behaviour between those dates - i.e. more torsos turning up? People are often puzzled (unnecessarily, I think) as to why JTR claimed so few canonical victims, but surely the same applies to "the" Torso Killer; indeed, the small tally of torso victims is even less impressive than JTR's, when one considers we're looking at a time-span of nearly 20 years. What a crap serial killer he was, assuming (a) he was one person; and (b) he was a he.

A crap serial killer? Given the interest in him, I think most people disagree.

We don´t know how many times he killed. If he was identical with the Ripper, we need to take note of how he was able to change what he did. That could well have an immense bearing on how he may have killed undetected in other fashions too.

There is of course the often forgotten 1884 case that may have been him. Other cases couod have gone unnoticed. Many of the parts of the victims were never found. In the Pinchin Street case, ONE part only was found. If he had ditched that with the rest, we would not know about this murder.

Once again, the solution lies in the similarities, not in agonizing over how there are dissimilarities. No two killers will cut away the abdomens in large flaps from their victims in the same town at the same time. It does not happen.

[Fisherman]

Perhaps he was worried that the baby's nose might give him away.

Well, I didn´t see that one coming.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,

I offer Burke and Hare as an example, they primarily killed for greed.

Paul

Yes, and they are not any useful comparisons for that reason. Monetary gain was not the motive in either of the series we are looking at. Nor did Burke and Hare anticipate access to the body - they sold it on.

But I note the effort, so thanks!

[Sam Flynn]

A crap serial killer? Given the interest in him, I think most people disagree.

The Torso Murders* would have been a mere footnote in history if it weren't for the Whitechapel Murders. I wouldn't imagine that too many people, outside the narrow field of ripperology, have even heard about them.


* I say "Torso Murders" but, of course, there's the possibility that one or more of them could have been cases of manslaughter.