Same motive = same killer

[Fisherman]

A thread for discussing whether the eviscerators in London 1888 were one or two men. Or more, for that matter...

[Fisherman]

Question:

Has there ever been any example of a town or region where two eviscerating serial killers have worked simultaneously?

[Fisherman]

Question:
It can be reasoned that the Torso killer took his victims to a bolthole where he had time and seclusion enough to kill and dismember them.

Serial killers taking victims to such places are regulary sexual sadists, as I understand it, and they are often abductors too.

The Torso killer, however, just like Jack, seems to have had no interest in the killing phase itself or in torture - he seems to have been preoccupied with what he could do to the body after death. The 1873 victim was said to have been cut up so close in time to death that it may be that the dismemberment was done in part when she was alive. She was then drained of blood (probaly therefore hung up and bled off) before she was dismembered.

How many killers can we name who were of this calibre? Who took victims to a bolthole, not to torture them, but to kill and cut them up? Any examples anyone can think of?

[Abby Normal]

as I posted on the other thread, both torso man and the ripper stopped at the same time--fall 1889.
another "coincidence" to ponder.

[Abby Normal]

Question:
It can be reasoned that the Torso killer took his victims to a bolthole where he had time and seclusion enough to kill and dismember them.

Serial killers taking victims to such places are regulary sexual sadists, as I understand it, and they are often abductors too.

The Torso killer, however, just like Jack, seems to have had no interest in the killing phase itself or in torture - he seems to have been preoccupied with what he could do to the body after death. The 1873 victim was said to have been cut up so close in time to death that it may be that the dismemberment was done in part when she was alive. She was then drained of blood (probaly therefore hung up and bled off) before she was dismembered.

How many killers can we name who were of this calibre? Who took victims to a bolthole, not to torture them, but to kill and cut them up? Any examples anyone can think of?

ed gein? Dahmer? although I think dhamer had some torture involved.

but your right very rare maybe only the Torso Ripper

[Fisherman]

Maybe we should, in order to keep Gareth happy, also ask whether there has even been any town where two pizza bakers have been plying their trade simultanelously...

[Fisherman]

ed gein? Dahmer? although I think dhamer had some torture involved.

but your right very rare maybe only the Torso Ripper

Dahmer drilled holes in the heads of his victims and poured acid into them. He is nevertheless probably a good comparison in many ways. Gein is also interesting in this context.

So we have two men, both regarded as well behaved and nice guys. Lets look at WHY they killed:

Dahmer: Because he did not want to loose sight of the men he took to bed, he always wanted them to remain close to him. So he ate parts of them and kept their skulls/penises in his fridge.

Gein: He wanted the hide of his female victims, to dress up in, transcending into womanhood.

Note how there is a ritual element present in both cases, just as I propose there was in the Ripper/Torso cases.

These are extremely rare creatures. My guess is that the Ripper/Torso killer had no wish to keep his victims close to his side, like Dahmer. Nor did he wish to dress in their hides.
Dahmer and Gein are both ritualistic to a large degree, but their rituals differ a lot. Both needed to kill to get access to bodies. That is the common denominator as regards the Ripper/Torso killer. But he represented a third branch on the ritualistic tree, if I am correct.

[Fisherman]

John G tells me that there is no connection between dismemberment killings and sadism.

The funny thing is that I have never said there was. I said that there was a connection between abduction killings and sadism.

[Harry D]

ed gein? Dahmer? although I think dhamer had some torture involved.

but your right very rare maybe only the Torso Ripper

But just because it's rare or even unprecedented doesn't mean that it's impossible or unlikely. There were a spate of vicious attacks and bloody murders throughout 1888/1889. Jane Beadmore & Ellen Bury were both mutilated, a young boy called John Gill was mutilated & dismembered, and I'm sure there's other cases I'm forgetting. They weren't all carried out by the same person.

[Fisherman]

But just because it's rare or even unprecedented doesn't mean that it's impossible or unlikely. There were a spate of vicious attacks and bloody murders throughout 1888/1889. Jane Beadmore & Ellen Bury were both mutilated, a young boy called John Gill was mutilated & dismembered, and I'm sure there's other cases I'm forgetting. They weren't all carried out by the same person.

If it is rare, it is possible but unlikely. If it is VERY rare, it is still possible, but VERY unlikely. That is the very definition of things, I believe.

Much of the serial killings you see today has itīs origin in the paper and media reports, I would say. I think that possibly the Ripper killings set off a series of deeds that took itīs inspiration from the East End murders. I happen to think that the Ellen Bury murder was inspired by the same thing, and that the killer (like possibly Beadmores killer) tried to deflect guilt onto the Ripper.

It does however not make these types of murders some sort of everyday business - they are extremely rare deeds. And the emulated efforts are normally not as severe as the Ripper deeds, they are faint echoes of them.

The progress weīve made on this thread so far is to identify killers who just kill in order to gain access to a body as ritualistically governed killers. Any view on that, Harry?

[John G]

John G tells me that there is no connection between dismemberment killings and sadism.

The funny thing is that I have never said there was. I said that there was a connection between abduction killings and sadism.

But surely you would accept that most dismemberment victims are abducted? The Torso victims certainly were. Anyway, I'll respond in more detail when time permits.

[Abby Normal]

But surely you would accept that most dismemberment victims are abducted? The Torso victims certainly were. Anyway, I'll respond in more detail when time permits.

abducted? as in forcibly taken to his place?

I highly doubt it. they were more than likely lured their, probably as a place for an act of prostitution with the killer, or maybe promise of work of some sort.
the only difference in this regard to the ripper was that it was the man who led the way. same basic ruse though.

[Fisherman]

But surely you would accept that most dismemberment victims are abducted? The Torso victims certainly were.

Actually, John, I took great care not to say that they were. It applies that they may have come freely with the killer to his bolthole, and then they would not have been abducted at all. If we reason that Jack posed as a punter, then why would we not think that the torso killer may have done the same? "Hello, luvī, how about coming home with me and earning a shilling?"

Are most dismemberment victims abducted victims? I donīt think so. My guess is that there will be a fair amount of unpremeditated murders amongst them - spouses killing their viwes and realizing that they cannot carry them down the staircases on their shoulders, and so on.

I do see the logic of the suggestion and how you reason though, and yes, part of the dismemberment murders will be women who have been abducted/lured/persuaded to go with a killer to his bolthole, after which they have been subjected to sadism and ensuing murder and dismemberment.

I would not want to try and guess who the proportions are divided, though.

Do you agree that it seems that neither Jack nor the Torso killer will have been sadists?

[Fisherman]

abducted? as in forcibly taken to his place?

I highly doubt it. they were more than likely lured their, probably as a place for an act of prostitution with the killer, or maybe promise of work of some sort.
the only difference in this regard to the ripper was that it was the man who led the way. same basic ruse though.

You beat me to it by a whole minute, Abby!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Surely the most obvious, and important, difference is that the ripper killed and mutilated 'there and then.' His method was to approach, engage, kill then mutilate. All part of one action. Why connect such different methods?