Practicality or madness?

[Michael W Richards]

"The subjectively existing things are matters that individuals choose to think, like how Michael Richards thinks that my suggestion of a common killer is a crackpot suggestion. It is subjective in the meaning that it is his own take on things. Others may agree or disagree, but the deciding matter is that he and he alone can choose to abandon or uphold the idea. If he wakes up tomorrow and at long last realizes that I was probably right all along, or if evidence surfaces to prove me right, then he can erase his take and it will go away. Fortwith he will nurture another idea about it.

The collectively subjective existing things are things like the declaration of independence, Peugeot, the laws, the constitution etcetera. If Michael wakes up tomorrow and denies these matters, it will not matter, they will remain in "existence" because they are collectively accepted and one guy changing his mind about them will not make them go away."

Interesting that you chose to use me to further your own objectives Fisherman, in this case as the incorrect version of events of course.

Let me assuage any fears you may have in this regard, Ive seen or read nothing that would make me "wake up" tomorrow with a new perspective on your arguments, they are based on your subjective impressions you have about certain aspects that are found within some victims of 2 series. Should you discover actual evidence that supports the ideas, then Ill be happy to read them. But if the evidence is simply something you feel is important, not some factual discovery, then well still be here where we are today. The contemporary investigators almost uniformly dismissed the idea you put forward, and considering they were faced with the same questions and had better access to the documentation for all the cases, one would think recognition of heir perspectives might have deterred you from taking this path.

But you obviously choose to believe in things rather than trying to prove them, so I suppose their perspectives, like mine, have no value to you. Belief is a strong intoxicant. Perhaps suspension of that belief as a foundation for a theory might reveal just how unlikely said belief actually is.

You have all the contemporary investigators suggesting that the Ripper series and Torso seriess' were not connected, almost everyone who has studies the cases and who study the cases here... including me...agreeing with that conclusion. Not to say were all correct and your wrong, just that it would take evidence to change those perspectives, and your "hunches" don't constitute evidence.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Quite concur Fisherman, 'Sapiens' and 'Deus' are highly recommend reading. Really interesting, thought provoking and very accessible.

[Fisherman]

I am currently in the process of reading "Sapiens", by Yuval Noah Harari. It is the perhaps most eyeopening book I have ever read, and I throroughly recommend it to anybody with any sort of interest of understanding who we humans are, where we came from and how we became what we are.
Interestingly, Harari also writes something that has a huge bearing on our dispute about whether we have one or two killers. He writes that what tells us apart from the animals is first and foremost our ability to create myths. And myths are anything that does not objectively exist. For example, a tree in a forest objectively exists, but the American declaration of independence does not. A stone on the ground exists, but the car manufacturer Peugeot does not.

The explanation for this is how the tree and the stone will be there regardless of what we think about them - but the declaration of independence and Peugeot are inventions that are present only as inventions of human fantasy. Like the game of football. Like the laws. Like the constitution of any country. Like any country.

Hararai divides matters up in three categories, objectively existing things, subjectively existing things and collectively subjective existing things. The objectively existing things are not influenced by any idea, they are simply there and they do not go away should we not like them. The subjectively existing things are matters that individuals choose to think, like how Michael Richards thinks that my suggestion of a common killer is a crackpot suggestion. It is subjective in the meaning that it is his own take on things. Others may agree or disagree, but the deciding matter is that he and he alone can choose to abandon or uphold the idea. If he wakes up tomorrow and at long last realizes that I was probably right all along, or if evidence surfaces to prove me right, then he can erase his take and it will go away. Fortwith he will nurture another idea about it.
The collectively subjective existing things are things like the declaration of independence, Peugeot, the laws, the constitution etcetera. If Michael wakes up tomorrow and denies these matters, it will not matter, they will remain in "existence" because they are collectively accepted and one guy changing his mind about them will not make them go away. However, if everybody working with Peugeot stay home and noone replaces them, then Peugeot will disappear. If the americans as a collective denounce the declaration of independence, it will go away and be replaced with something else.

The concept is mindblowingly fresh and revealing. And, as I say, it applies to what we discuss.

How does it work in the errand of the lone killer versus the twin killer duo? Well, the objectively existing matters are the cuts to the abdomens, the taken out uteri, the stolen rings, the cut away abdominal flaps etcetera - the recorded evidence concerning the damage done.
The subjectively existing things are the ideas of differing mindsets behind the murder series, the suggestions of how the torso killer had a private abode, the notion that the Ripper went through a frenzy in Millers Court and a fair few other things. And being Ripperology, collectively subjective existing things are hard to come by.

Itīs the difference between basing our respective takes on facts as opposed to basing them on hunches, or as Harari would have worded it: myths.

It is a thoroughly worthwhile read, I can say that much. But of course, such a recommendation is a subjectively existing truth ...

[Michael W Richards]

I don't know about that.
If, say, Kelly instinctively brought her hands up to cover her face when attacked, the wounds visible on her left forearm are in just the place I'd expect her to sustain cuts from an attack aimed at her throat.
But, as Frank says, the lack of any blood flowing from them points more to them being post-mortem injuries, rather than defensive.
I think she had time for only the briefest of struggles.

I think that it was as you described Josh, and the the blood had gushed from her neck when she had her throat cut the first time. She reacts, flails, her face gets slashed and her arms get slashed while that goes on. It doesn't last long, and she is flipped from her right side and the right side of the bed to laying flat on its middle. Legs get parted, what there was of clothing gets dealt with, and it starts. Not single indication that when offered the opportunity to go as far as to disarticulate the body that it was seized. Ergo, the man in Marys room did not have any kind of compulsion to remove Marys head, arms or legs. He did however like to cut and slice flesh.

If you give Jack the Ripper an opportunity to kill in the middle of the night, in a semi secluded spot at that moment, you will expect to also see the body mutilated post mortem, the focus of those cuts being in and on the abdomen. After the double throat cuts of course.

If you give someone the venue they want, the semi seclusion, and a dead body to cut up, a Torso Maker for example, you would see arms, legs and/or head removal. Not that he would have to take it anywhere to dispose of discreetly, he could just leave it, but I would imagine that a Torso maker uses a variety of implements if he is taking hours or days doing the dissections in private, and Im skeptical that Marys killer brought anything more than a knife. Plus this would mean that the victim chose the location, not him,...but that's fine if your Jack the Ripper, he didn't choose the location because he couldn't be sure where the street walker would take him and he just stayed ready for the window of opportunity, wherever that was...or what he perceived as such. That was his game, pounce and cut, and the thrill and danger of it might well be a part of his satisfactions. For me the venue, the circumstances and the nature of the wounds seems to be a little too generalized for the Ripper, that's why for me despite the fact he takes the opportunity in room 13, he doesn't seem to be doing it in the same way, or for the same reasoning as in prior Ripper murders. Which, for me, are Polly, Annie and perhaps Kate.

Torso Man very probably had "his" own spot that he took them to, warehouse, workshop, back of a store....

Fundamental differences.

[Fisherman]

I cannot resist putting this gem out here, itīs from the other site and the guy behind it is Cris Malone:

"Picked up a hitchhiker. Seemed like a nice guy. After some conversation and a few miles he asked me if I wasn't afraid he might be a serial killer.
I said that the chances of two serial killers in the same car were unlikely."

[Fisherman]

I don't know about that.
If, say, Kelly instinctively brought her hands up to cover her face when attacked, the wounds visible on her left forearm are in just the place I'd expect her to sustain cuts from an attack aimed at her throat.
But, as Frank says, the lack of any blood flowing from them points more to them being post-mortem injuries, rather than defensive.
I think she had time for only the briefest of struggles.

My take on it is that most people who try to fend an attacker off will do so with the palms of their hands directed towards the assailant. And that results in defensive wounds on the inside of the forearms. Same thing if somebody wants to shield the face normally, they will do so palms out towards the danger.

That, of course is not something that can be guaranteed. George Foreman always turned the backs of his forearms towards his opponents in the ring, when covering up... And I am sure there may be those who try to protect themselves by turning the backsides of their arms towards the oncoming danger. Itīs just that I believe that it is less common.

I googled it and had a look at the pictures, and there are examples of both types, although there is an overweight for such wounds on the insides of the hands/forearms. Not very scientific, but there you are.

At the end of the day, it seems they were not defensive wounds in the first place, just as you (and Frank) point out.

I agree that whatever fight Kelly put up will likely have been but a short one, otherwise she would reasonably have made herself heard. However, I cannot see that she could not have inflicted some sort of damage on the killer, possibly resulting in him going to town on her body afterwards.

[Joshua Rogan]

When it comes to the arm wounds, I always had a hard time regarding them as being defensive wounds. They are in the wrong place to be defensive wounds; normally, such wounds end up on the inside of the lower arm, not on the outside. This makes them so much the more interesting, since they seem to have been inflicted with no practical reason at all. My own guess is that they go down to the bone.

I don't know about that.
If, say, Kelly instinctively brought her hands up to cover her face when attacked, the wounds visible on her left forearm are in just the place I'd expect her to sustain cuts from an attack aimed at her throat.
But, as Frank says, the lack of any blood flowing from them points more to them being post-mortem injuries, rather than defensive.
I think she had time for only the briefest of struggles.

[Fisherman]

Dr Bond's report of his post-mortem examination of Mary Jane Kelly's body reads among other things:
"The right thumb showed a small superficial incision about 1 in long, with extravasation of blood in the skin & there were several abrasions on the back of the hand moreover showing the same condition."

Wounds showing extravasation of blood in the skin means that they were inflicted while the person who received them was alive. As Dr Bond explicitly mentions extravasation in the case of these wounds only and in none of the others, this indicates that only these wounds were in fact inflicted while MJK was still alive. The wounds on the arms being bloodless (i.e. no blood having poured out of the wounds) support this notion. So, I don’t see any reason to believe that Mary Jane put up a fight with her assailant.

To me, all we can say is that Mary Kelly was reasonably aware about what happened since she was alive when she received that cut. Therefore, she may well have reacted to it by way of putting up some sort of fight. It is not all that hard to imagine, is it; the killer sneaks in, she awakes in her bed, sees him wielding a knife, puts her hand up in defense and gets that cut to the thumb in the process. She then puts her finger in his eye and cries "Oh, murder!", whereupon he puts his hand over her mouth, angles her head backwards and cuts her throat. Of course, that is only a suggestion, but I fail to see why it would not be a viable suggestion. And if so, as I said before, it may be part of the explanation to the more severe and atypical damage done to Kelly.
When it comes to the arm wounds, I always had a hard time regarding them as being defensive wounds. They are in the wrong place to be defensive wounds; normally, such wounds end up on the inside of the lower arm, not on the outside. This makes them so much the more interesting, since they seem to have been inflicted with no practical reason at all. My own guess is that they go down to the bone.


For one, it’s viable because what was done to Mary Jane Kelly corresponds with what Vernon Geberth says about what can be expected in such murders. Also, all that I read and saw about such murders corresponds with it; in many cases the breasts or nipples are cut off, the abdomen is cut open, the legs slashed and sometimes part of the vaginal area or abdomen cut away.

But we do not know that it IS a "such" murder, do we? Not do we know if the killers intention was always to produce "such" murders. The kind of murder you are referring to is a savage type of sexual attack with the intent to damage mainly the sexually oriented parts of the body, and I do NOT think myself that this was the case. If the element IS involved, then I believe it is only a partial explanation to what we see.
Now, Vernon Geberth; did he also say that "such" murders involve the taking out of inner organs in a manner that left them whole and seemingly undamaged? I bet he didnīt. Did he urge us to expect the kiler to fashion a makeshift pillow from a breast, two kidneys and the uterus and put it under the victims head? Hardly. Did he say that we should expect the face to have been more or less cut away in "such" cases? Perhaps a bit more likely, but I still donīt think he did.
Ironically, I believe the reason that the Kelly murder has always been looked upon as the pinnacle of evil and the most gruesome sight a policeman could encounter, is that the killer took great care to style the body scene in minute detail. What looks like mayhem is a carefully executed exhibition, if you ask me. But that is another matter!

On many an occasion you've said that serial killers who dismember sometimes dismember and sometimes they don’t, but you’ve never claimed that they sometimes dismember and sometimes only mutilate in Ripper-style. I’m assuming that you haven’t because you haven’t come across any such example, because, otherwise, I’m sure you would have posted it.

First of all: before Charles Albright set about killing his three victims, nobody would hav come across a case where the eyeballs were skilfully removed from the victims. Each case is individual, and we cannot disallow any ingredients on account of their rarity. I donīt think there are many cases where the abdominal wall is removed in flaps, but here we suddenly have three cases, from two perceived series - Eureka!
You are correct in assuming that I have not come across any case where some victims were dismembered and others eviscerated only. You are equally correct that I would have mentioned it if I had. If we are to draw close, then why not take a look at the Kingsbury Run killer, active 1934-39? Most victims were dismembered and found in pieces. But in June of 1936, a victim was found with the body intact but for the head, that had been taken off. The body had, however, also been emptied of all itīs blood, like the 1873 torso victim. And in July of 1937, the killer had, around ten victims into the series, suddenly added a new element: he had gutted the abdomen and torn the heart out from that victim, a victim who was dismembered, by the way. The victim Edward Andrassy, found in September 1935, was found with the body completely intact - but beheaded and emasculated.
True, it is not the exact same - but the elements are there to a significant degree. And if we were to ask for ANOTHER killer who sometimes beheaded and emasculated, sometimes only dismembered and sometimes dismembered and eviscerated, we would find such a killer impossible to come by, I believe. The more severe and rare the damage, the more likely it becomes that it is very hard to find a parallel. Which is of course also the reason why Jackson and Chapman were arguably not killed by parallel killers with the same paraphilia of eviscerations and abdominal flap cutting - in the same town and time!

Nice pun, but, again, it’s not a gut feeling of mine to see Kelly as a sort of benchmark.

Good, then we agree on that!

Although I agree with your guess, why not? These secondary interests, if you will, are still what’s to be expected according to Geberth, as the face, breasts, thighs/legs, vagina and buttocks are the areas that are sexually appealing to men.

Because the damage furthest removed from the core interests of a killer are the ones least likely to appear on a victim, and that means that such a victim should not be put forward as the best representation of what the killer will do if given the chance. Plus when we only have one single example in a series of these damages, we cannot know what is the reason for them being present. It CAN be because they are typical for a killers fantasies, but it can equally be that they are the exact opposite - atypical, and that they have come about for other reasons than as part of a killers ideas - like for example on account of the killer having been kicked in the balls by the victim or had his eye damaged by the victim poking a finger in it.

In a way, I find the case a tad hard to argue, because I myself do not think that the extre damage, if you will, on Kelly was due to a kick in the balls. Just like you, I believe they point to an interest on the killerīs behalf. But since they are unique to Kelly in the series, I do not think we can allow ourselves to treat our common hunch in this case a a fact, nor can we predispose that the killer would always inflict these damages if he had the time.

He killed the others outside, so he couldn’t count on having much time with his victim and I have no problem imagining that he would leave after he did what interested him most and what was quite easily accessible under their skirts. I’m quite sure the Ripper didn’t want to get caught, so yes, he was probably spooked or actually disturbed by someone approaching.

It may be - but it would be a bit odd. Personally, I believe he had all the time in the world with Chapman, and that he inflicted all the damage he wanted to in that case. The taking of the rings seems to me to be something he did only after having satisfied himself with the knife, and that speaks to me of him having been finished when he took them. If he had been spooked and fled, I think we would have had the rings in place afterwards. He also took a woolen muffler from her, and that speaks the same language, as far as Iīm concerned.

Thanks, Christer!

Thank you, Frank.

[FrankO]

Why would we predispose that Kelly is the best and fullest representation of what the killer wanted to do, the quintessential Ripper deed? Because, you say, he had more time with her and more privacy, and so he could inflict the kind of damage that was representative to him.

One large problem with this reasoning - although not the largest one - is that we simply do not know WHY he did what he did to Kelly. We know that she had what can be interpreted as defensive damage to her arms, and we know that it seems she may have cried out "Murder!" at a remove in time that is consistent with when she may have died.
It therefore seems evident that she was aware what was happening to her and tried to fend the killer off.

So what rules out that she had some real success? Maybe she kicked him in the balls? Maybe she managed to have him cut, maybe she put her thumb in his eye and damaged it. And maybe, Frank, THAT is the reason why he cut into the flesh in so many places where he in the other deeds did not do so - because he was pissed. The point being that if this was the reason, then the Kelly murder becomes strictly atypical instead of typical.

Dr Bond's report of his post-mortem examination of Mary Jane Kelly's body reads among other things:
"The right thumb showed a small superficial incision about 1 in long, with extravasation of blood in the skin & there were several abrasions on the back of the hand moreover showing the same condition."

Wounds showing extravasation of blood in the skin means that they were inflicted while the person who received them was alive. As Dr Bond explicitly mentions extravasation in the case of these wounds only and in none of the others, this indicates that only these wounds were in fact inflicted while MJK was still alive. The wounds on the arms being bloodless (i.e. no blood having poured out of the wounds) support this notion. So, I don’t see any reason to believe that Mary Jane put up a fight with her assailant.

Which leads me over to the larger flaw in your reasoning: There are no other Ripper victims who suffered the kind of slashing, flesh stripping and breast removal that Kelly did, not in the torso series and not in the Ripper series. She is a one-off, to use a term that has done the rounds out here lately. She is, going on the damage done, actually the most atypical victim there is in the two series.
So how viable is it to use her as the benchmark?

For one, it’s viable because what was done to Mary Jane Kelly corresponds with what Vernon Geberth says about what can be expected in such murders. Also, all that I read and saw about such murders corresponds with it; in many cases the breasts or nipples are cut off, the abdomen is cut open, the legs slashed and sometimes part of the vaginal area or abdomen cut away.

On many an occasion you've said that serial killers who dismember sometimes dismember and sometimes they don’t, but you’ve never claimed that they sometimes dismember and sometimes only mutilate in Ripper-style. I’m assuming that you haven’t because you haven’t come across any such example, because, otherwise, I’m sure you would have posted it.

Now, we can either go on your gut feeling and use Kelly as the benchmark for a typical Ripper deed and the best comparison against the torso deeds

Nice pun, but, again, it’s not a gut feeling of mine to see Kelly as a sort of benchmark.

My own guess is that he very likely FIRST cut the neck of Kelly, THEN cut the abdomen open and took out organs and only FINALLY cut the breasts away and stripped the thighs. And if he did, that does not bode well for yoour aspirations.

Although I agree with your guess, why not? These secondary interests, if you will, are still what’s to be expected according to Geberth, as the face, breasts, thighs/legs, vagina and buttocks are the areas that are sexually appealing to men.

A further problem with suggesting Kelly as the quintessential Ripper deed is that it predisposes that the killer was disturbed or spooked in all other four canonical killings. Because if he was not, why would he not do a Kelly on them too?

He killed the others outside, so he couldn’t count on having much time with his victim and I have no problem imagining that he would leave after he did what interested him most and what was quite easily accessible under their skirts. I’m quite sure the Ripper didn’t want to get caught, so yes, he was probably spooked or actually disturbed by someone approaching.

By the way: "The same sort of appetite but with different accents", Frank? Letīs just say that the one thing proven is the appetite - the accents remain guesswork only. Elegantly phrased though it was.

Thanks, Christer!

[etenguy]

But I prefer to take the advice my son once gave me: Never lower yourself to levels where your opponent has the upper hand of yourself by way of experience.

I think it would be interesting to have a conversation with your son.

[Fisherman]

In actuality Fisherman its you who are trying to make round pegs (Ripper crimes) fit into square holes (Torsos) using what appears to be a bizarre conviction that 1 man must have done both.

That is nothing but your take on things - others agree with me, as you will know. Authors like Richard Whittington-Egan did. No, the problem is not that I have a conviction - it is that you fabricate facts. Once again: Why do you do that?

Which of course is nonsense, really.There is no evidence at all that these must be connected killings other than the hubris I mentioned before, and when you use 3 stomach flap removals to link 2 complete series, even though both series do not contain victims that all share those same injuries, it borders on....well, Id say crackpot theorizing. You've decided what was, ignore everything that says that isn't the reality, and now tell me when I point out the black whole that is your theory, Im resorting to fabrications? Huh?

You ARE resorting to fabrications. It is an established fact. You DID lead on that the killing sites and the intentions of the killer is established in the torso series. Iīm afraid that is not something that you can wriggle or insult your way out of. And I much prefer being a crackpot alongside Whittington-Egan than agreeing with your take on things. Other posters who have found the idea of a common killer quite plausible are crackpots like Debra Arif, Gary Barnett, etc - posters with a well established rumour of knowing what they talk about.
Funny, isnīt it, how your reasoning crumbles around you as we speak?

Use the first rebuttal above, I asked why a man would kill in the streets then have to drag a body somewhere private to disarticulate the bodies if he intended to disarticulate them in the first place.

I donīt remember you asking that question. What you wrote was instead this:

"Brief Opportunity is self explanatory, housing a body for days in a private secluded spot and working on taking it apart is not "brief". Speed kills and eviscerations in public access venues outdoors, by the very situation created, are."

... to which I answered:

But the circumstances are very different, Michael, and that alone may well explain the differences. If he chose to kill in the streets, then he was hardly likely to drag the prey home and store it.

So I was the one who spoke of why the Ripper was not likely to drag the bodies home and store them there.

Itīs a good thing that I am there to correct you when you get it wrong, is it not?

You then quote me:

Why would we predispose that he was "intent on working on a body in private", Michael? And you - charmingly - add: So Torso man didn't plan on spending time taking women apart "privately"? Are you on crack now, or have just recently done some?

My answer was in response to yet another of your fabrications: that we know that the torso killer was intent on working on a body in private. The actual fact is that we do not know where the killer cut up his victims. It seemingly was in a private abode, but other posters like Jerry Dunlop have suggested that the torso killer may actually have killed and cut in public spots.
Furthermore, the answer I gave you on the question was a lot longer than the snippet you chose to cut and paste:
"Why would we predispose that he was "intent on working on a body in private", Michael? If he was the sole killer, maybe he was intent on killing in the streets, and only killed the torso victims as second-rate murders? You see, we really are not at liberty to try and establish facts out of thin air. All we can do is to work with the actual facts that we have, and they point to a single killer, like it or not."
Since we have two separate series, we cannot know which his favoured intentions were, and Jerrys suggestion works well with a killer who primarily intended to kill in public spots.

In conclusion, you need to stay away from further fabrications; this last one did not help your cause one little bit.

I could of course add that I resent the trashy remark about me being on crack. If I had not found it so lacking in taste and so intellectually poor, I may well have commented extensively on it. But I prefer to take the advice my son once gave me: Never lower yourself to levels where your opponent has the upper hand of yourself by way of experience.

In fact, I think that will have to serve as my send-off to you. I really do not have any more time for the sad kind of posts you produce, and seeing as they do not further our knowledge in any way, instead opting for misrepresenting and fabricating, I think you are best left to yourself.

[Michael W Richards]

In actuality Fisherman its you who are trying to make round pegs (Ripper crimes) fit into square holes (Torsos) using what appears to be a bizarre conviction that 1 man must have done both. Which of course is nonsense, really.There is no evidence at all that these must be connected killings other than the hubris I mentioned before, and when you use 3 stomach flap removals to link 2 complete series, even though both series do not contain victims that all share those same injuries, it borders on....well, Id say crackpot theorizing. You've decided what was, ignore everything that says that isn't the reality, and now tell me when I point out the black whole that is your theory, Im resorting to fabrications? Huh?

Use the first rebuttal above, I asked why a man would kill in the streets then have to drag a body somewhere private to disarticulate the bodies if he intended to disarticulate them in the first place. Your answer began with "why

would we predispose that he was "intent on working on a body in private", Michael? So Torso man didn't plan on spending time taking women apart privately? Are you on crack now, or have just recently done some?

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=Michael W Richards;n730963]

Me: But the circumstances are very different, Michael, and that alone may well explain the differences. If he chose to kill in the streets, then he was hardly likely to drag the prey home and store it.

You: Im curious, why would someone intent on working on a body in private ever kill publicly in the street in the first place?

Why would we predispose that he was "intent on working on a body in private", Michael? If he was the sole killer, maybe he was intent on killing in the streets, and only killed the torso victims as second-rate murders? You see, we really are not at liberty to try and establish facts out of thin air. All we can do is to work eith the actual facts that we have, and they point to a single killer, like it or not.

Me: Similarly, if he already had the body at home, then he may have wanted to find the optimal time before he disposed of it. It can also be a case of not wanting to dispose of the body until as late as possible, ā la Dahmer, for example.

You: Ok, so that guy is the same man as the man who did his kill and mutilations within a very short span of time? When did he become patient I wonder.

When he could afford to, reasonably. It really isnīt rocket science, is it? If you kill in a secluded place, you have time. If you kill in public spots, you may not have time. A much better question is "can a killer commit what seems to be two somewhat different types of murders?" The Bundy example from my last post - and numerous other examples - answers that in the positive: yes, he can.

Me: Or a case of wanting to cause as much commotion and terror as possible by making as many dumpings as possible in as many places as possible.

You: So you contend that arms legs and heads were left somewhere to cause terror?

No, but I am saying that this may well have been so. I also provided other possibilities - without contending that all of them must be correct, mind you.

You: Or just the Torsos? How is a Torso dropped somewhere off the beaten path more terrorizing than a gutted victim laying in a public venue?

That will be a terribly subjective matter, Michael. I would have thought that neither type was pleasant to get in the way of. What I can say, is that I myself rate a complete face and scalp, eyelashes included, floating in the Thames as the number one horror object within the two series, but as I just pointed out, it is subjective and others may and are welcome to - disagree.

Me: Regardless of how people may think these matters unlikely, it remains that there WILL be an explanation that is a lot LESS unlikely than two simultaneously working eviscerators, doing the same things to their victims in the same city.

You: Oh, for sure there are simpler answers, ..but 1 man killing everyone in sight in a variety of manners, places and with differing intentions isn't it though.

I donīt think that anybody of sound disposition would come up with the nutty idea that a common killer killed "everyone in sight". If it was Lechmere - and it was, if I am correct - he certainly did not kill Mizen, Paul, his wife, his kids, the jury at the inquest and the coroner, nor did he kill the journalists at the inquest.
My contention is that the killer, regardless who it was, will have seen a good few more people than the ones he actually killed. Wouldnīt you agree? In fact, I have had to correct you before when you claimed on my behalf that I thought that the common killer I am proposing was responsible for "every murder in late victorian London".

A simple question: Why do you write things like these? They are very obviously wrong, intellectually insulting and downright senseless. So why?

If the man I am suggesting killed a round dozen women over a period of some sixteen years, it amounts to a victim per year. Compare that, if you will, to Luis Garavito (138 proven victims), Pedro Lopez (110 proven victims), Daniel Camargo Barbosa (72 proven victims), or perhaps the better known Gary Ridgway (49 proven victims), Andrei Chikatilo (53 proven victims), Willy Pickton (49 proven victims) or why not our killers countrymen Bruce Peter Lee (26 proven victims) and Peter Sutcliffe (13 proven victims). Please tell me what it is you find beyond the realms of possibility with a serial killer who has a dozen victims over a 16 year period, Michael?
Maybe the time has come to abandon at least that particular part of your agenda? Or?

PS: You do still not know where the torso killer killed his victims, so you may need to stay away from claiming that you do. I always find that is the better course to take when you do not have the facts at hand. Maybe you differ, though. You also have no clue as to the "intentions" of the deeds: they may have differed and they may have been the same.

Itīs a bit sad when you cannot make a case without resorting to fact fabrication, Michael.

[Michael W Richards]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;n730959]

But the circumstances are very different, Michael, and that alone may well explain the differences. If he chose to kill in the streets, then he was hardly likely to drag the prey home and store it.

Im curious, why would someone intent on working on a body in private ever kill publicly in the street in the first place?

Similarly, if he already had the body at home, then he may have wanted to find the optimal time before he disposed of it. It can also be a case of not wanting to dispose of the body until as late as possible, ā la Dahmer, for example.

Ok, so that guy is the same man as the man who did his kill and mutilations within a very short span of time? When did he become patient I wonder.

Or a case of wanting to cause as much commotion and terror as possible by making as many dumpings as possible in as many places as possible.

So you contend that arms legs and heads were left somewhere to cause terror? Or just the Torsos? How is a Torso dropped somewhere off the beaten path more terrorizing than a gutted victim laying in a public venue?

Regardless of how people may think these matters unlikely, it remains that there WILL be an explanation that is a lot LESS unlikely than two simultaneously working eviscerators, doing the same things to their victims in the same city.

Oh, for sure there are simpler answers, ..but 1 man killing everyone in sight in a variety of manners, places and with differing intentions isn't it though.

[Fisherman]

That's quite true Fisherman, any light at the end of the tunnel...

On the first point response, I would think a reasonable conclusion on the stomach flaps is that those specific murders might be linked by killer, not that the "series" are linked. The series totals 12 victims, how can 3 victims with similar injuries link 12 victims? Particularly since only 2 Canonicals have that type of injury.

To me, that is a question of further indicators. If you agree that the three flap murders are linked, then you have four cases, have you not? Since you think Chapman and Nichols are linked?
The rest is along the same line: I do not see two eviscerators as likely, therefore Eddowes and Kelly enter the pot. In the torso series, Rainham is a pretty parallel to Jackson, and Hebbert was adamant that the four cases were by the same hand. That takes us to eight cases, only doubting Stride - who must always remain an uncertain case. Personally, I am more in favour of including her than excluding her, and so I make it nine, although on admittedly flimsier grounds. The other cases I add, are the 1873 torso case, where I will not disclose my reason for feeling very certain about her, the 1874 case, which was at the time reasoned to be by the same killer as the one the year before, and Tabram. MacKenzie is also likely a "Ripper" victim. Thirteen in all.
In essence, I think there are so many common factors that guarantees that there were two discernable murder series - and further similarities that tell us that these series, regardless of how many victims they involved, actually had the same originator.
If we look at the Bundy murders, we may see another case of two series that had the same originator: the cleverly thought out ruses, with the plaster cast and the abducted and murdered girls, and the Florida series, where it seemed like a disorganized killer was on the loose. It is unusual, it is unexpected - but in no way unheard of.

Brief Opportunity is self explanatory, housing a body for days in a private secluded spot and working on taking it apart is not "brief". Speed kills and eviscerations in public access venues outdoors, by the very situation created, are.

But the circumstances are very different, Michael, and that alone may well explain the differences. If he chose to kill in the streets, then he was hardly likely to drag the prey home and store it. Similarly, if he already had the body at home, then he may have wanted to find the optimal time before he disposed of it. It can also be a case of not wanting to dispose of the body until as late as possible, ā la Dahmer, for example. Or a case of wanting to cause as much commotion and terror as possible by making as many dumpings as possible in as many places as possible.
Regardless of how people may think these matters unlikely, it remains that there WILL be an explanation that is a lot LESS unlikely than two simultaneously working eviscerators, doing the same things to their victims in the same city.