Same motive = same killer

[Elamarna]

The Whitehall torso belonged to a group of torsos that were desribed as being very much akin to each other in terms of the cutting work done, Jackson being one of these torsos.

Jackson is of course tied to the Chapman and Kelly murders by the flap thing. And Chapman and Kelly are tied to ...

They are all interconnected.

So that begs the question "If Wildbore did not dump the other bodies on his own doorstep, then why did he do so with the Whitehall woman?"

You obviously missed my view that it might not be that person alone, and to be fair most of that is on JTR forums..
The fact remains if Jerry is correct in his idea, it rules out Lechmere.

The flaps again? They connect nothing because they are impricise terms. And comparison involves more than semantics!
Your view COULD be correct, HOWEVER it cannot be established as fact.
Now I know you disagree. So be it, healthy in my view of things.



Steve

[Michael W Richards]

The Whitehall torso belonged to a group of torsos that were desribed as being very much akin to each other in terms of the cutting work done, Jackson being one of these torsos.

Jackson is of course tied to the Chapman and Kelly murders by the flap thing. And Chapman and Kelly are tied to ...

They are all interconnected.

So that begs the question "If Wildbore did not dump the other bodies on his own doorstep, then why did he do so with the Whitehall woman?"

The Canonical murders that are the closest match in all the relevant categories are the first 2. They are connected by the known evidence, and by logic. The disparities from Annies murder to Mary are vast, choosing one minor element to match amongst the forest of contradictory evidence isn't a very compelling argument.

And we haven't even left the Canonicals yet..let alone tried to entertain a second series connected to an assumed series.

[Abby Normal]

The press also mentioned 'marine knowledge' in association with the plugging, yes you're right, Rocky. I forgot to mention that one in my reply to TM. As far as death on a boat goes, I sometimes wonder if Ginger Nell's claiming she gave warnings to Elizabeth Jackson wasn't more for effect but that's another story.
I don't think death on a barge or vessel is feasible. Elizabeth's body had two land site dumps but both were pretty close to the Thames and both were said to have been thrown because of broken bushes in the vicinity, but I doubt anyone could have thrown anything 200 yards in to Battersea Park unless from the Albert Bridge. But then they would need to have dumped the thigh found opposite in the Shelly house gardens before or after the that dump.

Hi Debra
Thanks for posting. While Ive always thought the ripper may have some link to water in terms of occupation (and thus the torsoripper) I'm leaning against any idea of killing or even transporting the body/parts via boat.

It seems it would be much more difficult to talk someone into getting on a boat with you, especially for prostitution purposes! And re transporting by boat? again, more difficult to get a body or parts onto a boat to then transport by water than just going straight from the murder house. Plus with body/parts found all over the place on land I think most reasonable explanation is the killer lured victims to his murder house, killed cut them up there, and then transported carrying in a sack or more likely some sort of cart, to the various places that had special meaning to him, which also included the river.

I have my radar up on Jerrys wildbore fellow for being viable person of interest in the torso series.

How old was he?

[Abby Normal]

You obviously missed my view that it might not be that person alone, and to be fair most of that is on JTR forums..
The fact remains if Jerry is correct in his idea, it rules out Lechmere.

The flaps again? They connect nothing because they are impricise terms. And comparison involves more than semantics!
Your view COULD be correct, HOWEVER it cannot be established as fact.
Now I know you disagree. So be it, healthy in my view of things.



Steve

Hi El
I think you and Sam are being abit too minimalistic regarding the flaps link.
regardless of shape or size, we have 3 cases where victims had this done with them, all with the seemingly intent on gaining access to the innards.

by this minimalistic reasoning you should be ruling out the c5 as linked because they had according to the minimalistic view, much more differences than the size or shape of flaps.

and please don't get into the argument that flaps are one of the many ways to acces innards-that's nit picky to the point of absurdity. theres many ways one could have done it and yet we have three cases where it was done the same (and just one) way.

and if you have a problem with the flaps-forget em then. At least even Sam and you admit it was done to gain access to internal organs, and that alone, given the rarity of even that, is enough to link them pretty strongly.

[Sam Flynn]

So that begs the question "If Wildbore did not dump the other bodies on his own doorstep, then why did he do so with the Whitehall woman?"

In most of the cases (apart from Pinchin St), it seems that body parts may well have been dumped in the Thames not too far away from Wildbore's home. He lived about half a mile from Wandsworth Bridge, and a little over a mile from Battersea Bridge. Not that I'm saying he dunnit, but someone living/working in the same area might well have.

Interestingly, Wandsworth Bridge was due to open in 1873, but the workers went on strike. Once the strike was resolved - after an Act of Parliament was passed, no less! - the bridge was officially opened in September 1873.

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: You obviously missed my view that it might not be that person alone, and to be fair most of that is on JTR forums..
The fact remains if Jerry is correct in his idea, it rules out Lechmere.

Yes. And if he is wrong, it does not. Not very revolutionary. Of course, we cannot exclude that Lechmere as a carman made some sort of delivery to the site, can we?

The flaps again? They connect nothing because they are impricise terms.

Imprecise, Steve. I appreciate that your phone is playing pranks on you, but you really need to amend it.
And as I keep saying, it does not matter one single bit that we don´t know the exact shape and size of the flaps - the practice to cut them away trumps that by far and away.
If you want another lenghty discussion on that, I´m game - otherwise you may need to settle for how we remain at different sides: I am on the correct one and you on the wrong one.

And comparison involves more than semantics!
Your view COULD be correct, HOWEVER it cannot be established as fact.

It could, actually - the three victims in these series DID have their abdominal walls taken away in flaps, fully or partly. Fact.
That is a very, very rare thing. Fact.
It must be the same killer. Not fact.
It points to the same killer. Fact.

Now I know you disagree. So be it, healthy in my view of things.

Gesundheit!

[Sam Flynn]

theres many ways one could have done it and yet we have three cases where it was done the same (and just one) way.

Not quite, Abby. Chapman's three flaps were gouged out of a limited area on her right hand side, Kelly's three flaps were extensive and exposed her entire abdomen. Jackson's two flaps, however, were described as "slips" (strips) of flesh and, as I've shown, the dictionary specifically defines slips/strips as long and narrow. So, there are differences not only in terms of number, but also in the manner of execution, in either case.

So there was not just one way, in short.

and if you have a problem with the flaps-forget em then

It was me, I believe, who first drew attention to the three flap method used to access Chapman's and Kelly's abdomen. I made much of it at the time, and was keen to promote the idea that there was some significance to be read into the fact. However, having thought it through, I jettisoned that view some time ago. The only significance I see in it now is that the killer had no fixed method for getting at what he wanted, and improvised different approaches on each occasion. I see no reason why any other improvising dissector should not come up with a similar method quite independently.

[Fisherman]

Michael W Richards: The Canonical murders that are the closest match in all the relevant categories are the first 2. They are connected by the known evidence, and by logic. The disparities from Annies murder to Mary are vast, choosing one minor element to match amongst the forest of contradictory evidence isn't a very compelling argument.

It DOES in this case, and that is on account of how there are very many OTHER elements that match. Prostitution, same general area, opened up abdomen, cut neck, organs taken out, damage to the face.
That is in itself a powerful enough list to make the connection a very probable one.
The flaps are the real clincher.

And we haven't even left the Canonicals yet..let alone tried to entertain a second series connected to an assumed series.

I have.

[Sam Flynn]

And re transporting by boat? again, more difficult to get a body or parts onto a boat to then transport by water than just going straight from the murder house.

Indeed. If you're going to take the body parts to your boat, and your boat is on the Thames, why not just chuck the parts in the Thames to begin with? Loading them onto the boat would seem to be a somewhat redundant step.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: In most of the cases (apart from Pinchin St), it seems that body parts may well have been dumped in the Thames not too far away from Wildbore's home. He lived about half a mile from Wandsworth Bridge, and a little over a mile from Battersea Bridge. Not that I'm saying he dunnit, but someone living/working in the same area might well have.

Half a mile or a mile is - as a great thinker use to put it - WORLDS apart from dumping a body in your on worksite, Gareth.

Interestingly, Wandsworth Bridge was due to open in 1873, but the workers went on strike. Once the strike was resolved - after an Act of Parliament was passed, no less! - the bridge was officially opened in September 1873.

Are you saying that the 1873 victim was thrown in from the bridge? Was it opened on the first of September?
I tend to think that bridge-dumping would be a business where you are easily seen and where there will be quite a splash when a part hits the surface of the river, so my guess is that the parts were floated from the shore, quite possibly from some jetty or something like that.

[Fisherman]

Indeed. If you're going to take the body parts to your boat, and your boat is on the Thames, why not just chuck the parts in the Thames to begin with? Loading them onto the boat would seem to be a somewhat redundant step.

Well, if the killer wanted to make certain that the parts ended up in the main stream of the river, it could be that he would consider a boat. It´s much the same as dumping from a bridge - you will get the parts away from the immediate proximity to the shoreline.
But overall, I tend to agree that a boat is less likely.

[Elamarna]

Elamarna: You obviously missed my view that it might not be that person alone, and to be fair most of that is on JTR forums..
The fact remains if Jerry is correct in his idea, it rules out Lechmere.

Yes. And if he is wrong, it does not. Not very revolutionary. Of course, we cannot exclude that Lechmere as a carman made some sort of delivery to the site, can we?

Equally there is no proof at all he did deliver there, and would not near Pickfords yards be more likely? Of course we cannot answer that.

The flaps again? They connect nothing because they are impricise terms.

Imprecise, Steve. I appreciate that your phone is playing pranks on you, but you really need to amend it.
And as I keep saying, it does not matter one single bit that we don´t know the exact shape and size of the flaps - the practice to cut them away trumps that by far and away.
If you want another lenghty discussion on that, I´m game - otherwise you may need to settle for how we remain at different sides: I am on the correct one and you on the wrong one.

I accept we are on different sides, but not that you are on the correct one. Flaps, sections in reality sections of body wall removed, no actual correlation between the various incidents or description, just jumping on a word and building a theory from it.
You maybe right, however I consider you are more probably up a creek without a paddle.

And comparison involves more than semantics!
Your view COULD be correct, HOWEVER it cannot be established as fact.

It could, actually - the three victims in these series DID have their abdominal walls taken away in flaps, fully or partly. Fact.
That is a very, very rare thing. Fact.
It must be the same killer. Not fact.
It points to the same killer. Fact.

Not without proof of similarity of cuts or portions removed

Now I know you disagree. So be it, healthy in my view of things.

Gesundheit!

Would you like an handkerchief my friend?



Steve

[Sam Flynn]

It could, actually - the three victims in these series DID have their abdominal walls taken away in flaps, fully or partly... That is a very, very rare thing. Fact.

Do we know that? Have descriptions of every evisceration/torso murder in history given us sufficient detail to reach such a conclusion? I don't think so.

It points to the same killer. Fact.

It could easily point to more than one person improvising a similar, but not identical, solution independently. I mean, given that different murderers throughout history have independently hit upon the idea of eviscerating, and/or sawing off arms, legs and heads, they can certainly come up with the idea of cutting open an abdomen in similar ways.

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: Equally there is no proof at all he did deliver there, and would not near Pickfords yards be more likely? Of course we cannot answer that.

... and therefore we cannot rule Lechmere out even if we look for somebody with a connection to the building site; he may have had such a connection through his work, quite simply. And Pickfords carmen did not cart goods to Pickfords depots only - they delivered to many a site all over London and beyond.

I accept we are on different sides, but not that you are on the correct one.

I know that, Steve. We simply disagree, and I am correct, thats all.

Flaps, sections in reality sections of body wall removed, no actual correlation between the various incidents or description, just jumping on a word and building a theory from it.

No, Steve. Any police force anywhere would jump just as much as I have and for equally logical reasons. It does not matter which peculiarity is common inbetween two or more murders, as long as they ARE peculiar they WILL form a foundation for an assumption of a common killer in cases like these.
That does not even have to be discussed.

You maybe right, however I consider you are more probably up a creek without a paddle.

I may be wrong on the orinitaror being the same - although it is not to be expected that I am. I am not wrong and have never been when it comes to how the assumption [U]must be made.

Not without proof of similarity of cuts or portions removed

Yes. These are facts REGARDLESS of how the flaps looked, as long as we know that they were all fairly large. A nitpicking besserwisser can make some sort of claim that Chapmans flaps were possibly miniscule, but BOTH Kellys and Jacksons were large - and there endeth your plea.

Would you like an handkerchief my friend?

Thanks, but save it. You will need it.

[Abby Normal]

Indeed. If you're going to take the body parts to your boat, and your boat is on the Thames, why not just chuck the parts in the Thames to begin with? Loading them onto the boat would seem to be a somewhat redundant step.

agree. very redundant