Same motive = same killer

[Abby Normal]

John G: The fact remains that JtR took two uteri from the crime scene, whereas the Torso perpetrator simply disposed of them.

You seem to forget Kelly, John? The killer left her uterus behind, and instead opted (quite possibly) for the heart. Both killers have a history of having had the opportunity to take organs they instead chose to leave behind, bot killer have a history of having cut out both sexual and -non-sexual organs.

In Jackson's case the main focus appears to have been the foetus -something that wasn't relevant in the C5 murders.

Just how do you know that? He took out the heart and loungs too - why were they not his focus? He carved away the abdominal wall - why were those parts not the focus? The simple fact is that we can´t say what his focus was - but I am glad you opt for the foetus, because that turns the dismemberment into an offensive dismemberment, something you have not admitted before.

In the Whitehall case we have a victim who was stored for several weeks, suggesting a radically different personality to JtR, who had no interest in spending time with his victims' corpses.

And this you know how? The Ripper may well have wanted to take his victims along with himself, but it was not practically doable. He DID however take a few parts along, pointing to the exact opposite of what you say.

Kelly may not have been a Ripper victim, especially considering the complete lack of skill that was apparent, coupled with the frenzied nature of the attack.

Kelly was a Ripper victim - the abdominal flaps put that beyond reasonable doubt.

Trow included the earlier Torso, and I accept there's a possibility, however, the huge time gap is relevant, and I don't believe they were eviscerated.

They did not have to be, if my hunch is correct. I think the killer had a large number of possible projects, and all of them answered to a ritualistic agenda. I am more or less certain that the removal of the face and the sawing off of the thighs and shoulders are part of the exact same agenda as was the removal of the uterus from Chapman, the taking away of the abdominal wall from Jackson and the cutting out of the colon piece from Eddowes. For example.
To my mind, there can be very little doubt that the same man was responsible, but since you seem to opt for the explanation that I think so only on account of a wish to point to Lechmere, I think you may be the wrong conversation partner on the topic. I merrily note that you accept the possibility of a link, and settle for that.

Moreover, it actually weakens your argument because then we workd have two serial killers operating over a 16 year period, not two years.

No, we would have ONE serial killer operating over 16 years. And we would have an faulty idea about TWO serial killers operating in the same year (1888). Whether it weakens my argument or not is for others to decide - what we have is what we have, and since there is a very clear link between Kelly and the 1873 torso (I regard them as the two most obvious cases when it comes to revealing the incentive of the killer), I am quite hapy to make the kind of call I do.

whats the link between the 1873 torso and Kelly?

[Joshua Rogan]

Inquest: The liver and stomach, kidneys and spleen were normal. The uterus was absent.

My anatomy isn't good but the pelvis is separated and Bond makes a specific reference to the uterus being absent.

The Morning Advertiser report is more complete;

"The lower part of the colon or large bowel and of the pelvic viscera were absent - that includes the uterus, bladder, and rectum"

[Abby Normal]

So why spend time with them and go to such lengths to dispose of their bodies? Surely there must have been something 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.

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.

I think torso ripper was marking his territory/polluting the city with his victims and parts. shocking the public and toying with the police so to say.

a secondary motivation to the post mortem mutilation and removal of parts.

[Abby Normal]

What if he didn't have permanent access to the premises?



Killing & mutilating outdoors, or in the victim's hovel, carried more pressure, perhaps?

more of thrill yup, and perhaps he wasn't happy with the lack of press he was getting with the torso body part distribution method-and well with the ripper victim method-lots of it!!

[Abby Normal]

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.

I'm sure there was a very plausible reason in the killers mind Sam

[Abby Normal]

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.

showing off his skill?

[Herlock Sholmes]

There are examples of serialists who sometimes dismember, sometimes not, yes.

But are there any examples of killers who have committed murders with such very different outcomes. And I don't mean one stabbed, two shot, three strangled for eg. I mean one set of murders where he leaves them where he killed them; on display. And simoultaneously a series where he kills indoors, dismembers, packages up and distributes at various locations?
This is the sticking point for me at this moment in time Fish.

[Fisherman]

I have commented, Fish. I commented that there are only so many ways one can cut open an abdomen.

That is another matter, and an abdomen can be opened up in many ways. But if you wish to leave my question unanswered, that´s fine by me.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: Not many people, though. It's even a bit of a side-show among nerdy ripperologists like you and me.

It is a very well known case, Gareth. Not by any means as known as the Ripper, but neverthless one that two books have been written about, both of them selling fairly well as I understand it. If you wish it to be a minor case and the killer a dumb and lazy one, then by all means...

Is it? There's a long history of torsos being dumped, and they're only sometimes part of a series.

The traditionally recognized series is what I am talking about, spanning from 1887 to 1889, and with the possible inclusion of 1873 and onwards. It comprises eviscerations, a cut away face, a torso placed in the vaults of the Scotland Yard, another one thrown into the house of a relative of Mary Shelly, knifework that put the killer not on par but beyond what a surgeon was able to do, a killer who distributed parts all over London, the same victim being dumped on various occasions and from various places.

Maybe I am easily impressed, but to me that makes for a very remarkable series of evisceration murders. It seems to me that your prime object has now become to say "no" to anything I say, regardless of what it is. Consequentially, you will doubtlessly deny that too.
ey

[Fisherman]

How can you say what motive is, or isn't, involved? For all you or anyone knows the torso victims were killed by one or more unknowns who then paid (or coerced) a shady butcher to dismember them for easier disposal.

In such a case, money would not be the killer/s incentive anyway, would it? But I of course agree that we do not know the motive/s for either series - I have a fair idea about the inspiration grounds behind what we see on the murder spots, but I am not anywhere near being sure about any motive.

[Sam Flynn]

That is another matter, and an abdomen can be opened up in many ways. But if you wish to leave my question unanswered, that´s fine by me.

I HAVE answered it. There are only so many ways to cut open an abdomen, so there's not much we can read into the "three flaps" method. I'll add to that by observing that we don't know what the shape or size of those flaps were. Even in the case of JTR, there was a difference: in Chapman's case, the flaps were cut from a limited area on the right side of the belly; in Kelly's case, the flaps were large and exposed the entire abdominal cavity.

[Sam Flynn]

Sam Flynn: Not many people, though. It's even a bit of a side-show among nerdy ripperologists like you and me.

[B]It is a very well known case, Gareth

It really isn't.

[Abby Normal]

I HAVE answered it. There are only so many ways to cut open an abdomen, so there's not much we can read into the "three flaps" method. I'll add to that by observing that we don't know what the shape or size of those flaps were. Even in the case of JTR, there was a difference: in Chapman's case, the flaps were cut from a limited area on the right side of the belly; in Kelly's case, the flaps were large and exposed the entire abdominal cavity.

Hi Sam
there are many different ways to open an abdomen-several even just by the ripper.

you could cut away in flaps, or make a zig zag incision, or make a big X or one big straight incision, or circle around etc.

the main thing for me, though, is that the killer in both series cut away at the abdomen at all with the purpose of getting inside. very very rare.

[Fisherman]

But are there any examples of killers who have committed murders with such very different outcomes. And I don't mean one stabbed, two shot, three strangled for eg. I mean one set of murders where he leaves them where he killed them; on display. And simoultaneously a series where he kills indoors, dismembers, packages up and distributes at various locations?
This is the sticking point for me at this moment in time Fish.

This is a unique set of murders and the circumstances surrounding them will consequentially also be unique. We need not look for a perfect parallel, since we won´t find such a thing.

What we can see is that there are other series with equally baffling circumstances. The Japanese child killer Miyazaki killed four little girls. The first and the last one, he dismembered and stored body parts from them in his lodgings. The two in the middle he simply strangled and dumped. Victim two was killed in the exact same spot as victim one, but he only retrieved the first girls body for dismembering and storing at home.
Victim three was strangled in his car and dumped. Victim four he also strangled in his car, but this time he dismembered the girl and dumped the remains in two different spots, wherafter he returned and retrived the parts and took them home and stored them.

So one killer who strangle little girls and dump them out in the woods, and one killer who strangles and dismembers his victims and store their body parts in his home? Or just the one killer, following distinctly different agendas, dismembering half of his victims and bringing them home, while discarding the others undismembered?

As I say, we will not find a perfect parallel to the Ripper/torso man. It also applies that we will find bo perfect parallel to Miyazaki. They are both examples, though, of dismemberment killers who use different locations to place their prey, leaving some where they are killed and going through a lot of trouble to find locations for the rest of the victims. And just like the Ripper/torso man, Miyazaki does not bother with some of the victims, but leaves them by the roadside undismembered, while others are dismembered and stored at home.

This is something that is much easier to overcome than the notion that two eviscerators in the same town at the same time would miraculously work to the eact same agenda on a number of matters, carving away the abdominal wall, cutting from ribs to pubes, taking away the abdominal wall, cutting out colon sections, stealing rings, taking out organs of both sexual and nin-sexual character.
That is a fingerprint, and as all fingerprints, it is unique.

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Abby,

Sure., you could cut a star pattern, a hexagon, etc, but practically speaking there are certain limits. I'd suggest these boil down to cutting a square slab, or cutting a limited number of segments/flaps. There's also a single vertical incision, but that wouldn't of itself lay the entire abdomen open (neither would cutting an X).