Practicality or madness?

[etenguy]

I guess I will have to settle for how you at the least do not fail entirely to see any similarities at all.

Thanks for your post.

That similarities exist is beyond argument, it is the extent of those similarities and the significance ascribed to them where we have different viewpoints. The same is true when we consider the differences. Though I still, on balance, believe the differences make the two series being committed by the same killer unlikely - I am more open to a single killer theory than when the thread started.

[FrankO]

is the long purple boundry leg extending to bottom left of the map show the limit where parts were found, or where authorities believe parts may have dumped-like off a bridge (and then possibly carried further off your purple boundry by the river)?

I see I have put the bottom left boundary a bridge too far to the west, Abby, as part of the lungs of the 1874 victim were found under an arch of Old Battersea Bridge and not the Wandsworth Bridge, where I actually put it.

[FrankO]

But that is totalt secondary to the similarities since both series played out in the same city and in overlapping times. It is only if we predispose that the Ripper could or would not access other areas that this becomes of interest. The inference of the collected evidence and knowledge is in favour of a single killer who chose to do the Ripper killings in a more confined area and time than what was the case for the torso killings.
That is not in any shape or form as big a deal as the fact that there are heaps of similarities inbetween the series, some of which are extremely rare. That does not go away because one series involves dumpings over a larger area than the Ripper killing area. To suggest such a thing would be ludicrous.

I wouldn't want to suggest anything that you would find ludicrous, Christer.

[FrankO]

Maybe that means that Rifkin was not the killer? Surely, he would dump the bodies in the same area where he lived, so that we could map him? Or?

What is suggested here is that we should make the exact same mistake as the police did about Rifkin. I for one am not willing to go along with that proposal. We have very clear indications of a common killer, and we have Rifkin to show us what happens if we choose to disregard those similarities in favour of believing that a killer cannot choose dumping grounds that are far wider than and removed from his killing grounds.

What actually is ludicrous, Christer, is to claim that I suggest that we should make the kind of mistake the police made in Rifkin's case. I have no idea how you read that all and more in my post #386. The map was just a reaction to some posts that were dealing with the question how large Torso Man's dumping ground actually was - of which one of yours was one. Some posters were, unrightly, talking about Rainham and other places where body parts were found, so, I found it interesting to plott the approximate area - as far as we can tell - on a map.

[FrankO]

I see I have put the bottom left boundary a bridge too far to the west, Abby, as part of the lungs of the 1874 victim...

Excuse me, that should be "as part of the lungs of the 1873 victim...

[John G]

We at least know that the area in which Torso Man moved with regards to his victims was much bigger than the Ripper's. Because I like to see what we're talking about and perhaps others do too, I've indicated the approximate area's on the map below.

Thanks for this. As I argued earlier, the Torso Perpetrator of 1887-1889, assuming there was a single perpetrator, operated within a relatively small geographical area if you take into consideration the closest proximity of the body parts. However, as your msp clearly illustrates, the area was still substantially larger than the tiny one square mile where the C5 victims were found. And what I don't understand is that if Torso and JtR were a single individual, why no JtR-style street murders within the much larger boundary where the Torso perpetrator was clearly active?

[John G]

Lets look at Joel Rifkin in this context. He picked up prostitutes, took them to his home and killed them there. Whereafter he typically dismembered them.

Then he drove them to far away places and dumped them. The places were so far apart that the police never connected them, and therefore they missed out on Rifkins presence.

So here we have a murder area that is living-room large, MUCH, MUCH SMALLER than the Ripper killing area. And we have dumping sites that are very far removed from the killing area.

Maybe that means that Rifkin was not the killer? Surely, he would dump the bodies in the same area where he lived, so that we could map him? Or?

What is suggested here is that we should make the exact same mistake as the police did about Rifkin. I for one am not willing to go along with that proposal. We have very clear indications of a common killer, and we have Rifkin to show us what happens if we choose to disregard those similarities in favour of believing that a killer cannot choose dumping grounds that are far wider than and removed from his killing grounds.

Having pointed this out, it is time for me to bid you goodnight - and wish you some fresh new insights for the upcoming day.

Yes, this is, of course, not untypical for a dismemberer-seeking to put some distance between the disposal site and the dismemberment site. However, I don't believe that the Torso perpetrator was completely influenced by such considerations, as both Whitehall and Pinchin Street, for instance, indicate an inclination to taunt the police and to draw attention to his handiwork.

[Fisherman]

Thanks for your post.

That similarities exist is beyond argument, it is the extent of those similarities and the significance ascribed to them where we have different viewpoints. The same is true when we consider the differences. Though I still, on balance, believe the differences make the two series being committed by the same killer unlikely - I am more open to a single killer theory than when the thread started.

The healing has begun!

[Fisherman]

What actually is ludicrous, Christer, is to claim that I suggest that we should make the kind of mistake the police made in Rifkin's case. I have no idea how you read that all and more in my post #386. The map was just a reaction to some posts that were dealing with the question how large Torso Man's dumping ground actually was - of which one of yours was one. Some posters were, unrightly, talking about Rainham and other places where body parts were found, so, I found it interesting to plott the approximate area - as far as we can tell - on a map.

A-ha. I thought you were championing the same view that f ex Gareth ascribes to. Glad to hear that is not the case. Of course, all information is of interest per se, but overall, it is quite enough to establish that these two series were committed in areas that can be covered from side to side by a walk of - what? An hour or two?
Once we have that information, we also know that if rare and odd murders take place in this area, with similar odd traits reoccurring...

What I am saying is that the "problem" as such is an easy one. Sorry if I offended you - if so, I apologize.

[Fisherman]

Thanks for this. As I argued earlier, the Torso Perpetrator of 1887-1889, assuming there was a single perpetrator, operated within a relatively small geographical area if you take into consideration the closest proximity of the body parts. However, as your msp clearly illustrates, the area was still substantially larger than the tiny one square mile where the C5 victims were found. And what I don't understand is that if Torso and JtR were a single individual, why no JtR-style street murders within the much larger boundary where the Torso perpetrator was clearly active?

The torso victims were not women who were killed and dismembered out in the open streets and left where they had been taken apart, John. They were likely killed in a safe abode, and therefore the circumstances adhering to their deaths were radically different from the ones prevailing in the Ripper series.
That is a very likely explanation to why the outcome differs.
The one viable question to my mind is why the killer was willing to abandon his safe abode for riskier killings, and that may have a number of different explanations, some of them not dramatic at all but instead very mundane:

- he may not always have had access to the safe abode
- he may have liked the challenge and sought for an extra thrill
- he may have desired more coverage in the press

These are all mundane enough explanations to what really is not much of an enigma if they apply.

But there can be no mundane explanation to why there was a heap of similarities inbetween the series! The ones for sale are:

- it was all about coincidences. A LOT of coincidences.

or

- They killers took turn copycatting each other.

None of these explanations are even close to any sort of credibility.

[Fisherman]

Yes, this is, of course, not untypical for a dismemberer-seeking to put some distance between the disposal site and the dismemberment site. However, I don't believe that the Torso perpetrator was completely influenced by such considerations, as both Whitehall and Pinchin Street, for instance, indicate an inclination to taunt the police and to draw attention to his handiwork.

I fully agree - what I point to is merely how a serial killer disposing of bodies may well correspond to the pattern required for a killer who may have had a very small killing area and nevertheless goes far abroad to get rid of the bodies. Ergo, the torso killer may have picked up his victims from within the red area marked out by Frank - but disposed of them in the purple area.

The problem that needs amending is the idea that the dumping area must in some way be connected to the murder area, as some people out here will try to lead on. We have had posters who have said that they are certain, more or less, that the killer must have resided in the Battersea area.

He must not. And thatīs why I used the Rifkin example.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

The one viable question to my mind is why the killer was willing to abandon his safe abode for riskier killings, and that may have a number of different explanations, some of them not dramatic at all but instead very mundane:

- he may not always have had access to the safe abode
- he may have liked the challenge and sought for an extra thrill
- he may have desired more coverage in the press

These are all mundane enough explanations to what really is not much of an enigma if they apply.

Same question I've wondered myself.
I can accept that if we're looking at one perpetrator, the differences are notable, the similarities striking and statistically unlikely. Why that individual would change from one pattern to another, could be as you say Fisherman, mundane. Other internal personal factors, who knows, why expect logical behaviour from someone capable of these crimes?
What I find most interesting though, why were both types of killing in evidence at the same time with Eddowes/Whitehall Torso?
If he didn't have his chop shop, that explains Eddowes, but creates a question as to Whitehall. The move to the street killings for shock effect and press coverage clearly worked, so why then dump a Torso in Scotland Yard? I can't help but think, if it's one and the same killer, would he be able to facilitate both types of murder at the same time? Or does it lean in favour of different killers? Suppose it depends on preferred suspects?

[Michael W Richards]

Yes, this is, of course, not untypical for a dismemberer-seeking to put some distance between the disposal site and the dismemberment site. However, I don't believe that the Torso perpetrator was completely influenced by such considerations, as both Whitehall and Pinchin Street, for instance, indicate an inclination to taunt the police and to draw attention to his handiwork.

Maybe an example of how some other eccentric killer type might have viewed this Ripper fellow, in that he was getting all the attention. Ahem....Torso man is still here, kind of thing. I believe that the climate and the tensions between local people and the police has to be factored in here, I think that is the reason for so many hoax letters. People taunted the cops. Maybe Torso Man did too. But Jacky boy just wanted his knife inside a warm dying womans abdomen, and maybe something from inside it. I don't see Jack doing any cat and mouse crap with the police, he could care less who was paying attention. Just as long as they didn't catch on.

I don't think Jack was making any statements per se, but Torso Man may have been.

[Fisherman]

Same question I've wondered myself.
I can accept that if we're looking at one perpetrator, the differences are notable, the similarities striking and statistically unlikely. Why that individual would change from one pattern to another, could be as you say Fisherman, mundane. Other internal personal factors, who knows, why expect logical behaviour from someone capable of these crimes?
What I find most interesting though, why were both types of killing in evidence at the same time with Eddowes/Whitehall Torso?
If he didn't have his chop shop, that explains Eddowes, but creates a question as to Whitehall. The move to the street killings for shock effect and press coverage clearly worked, so why then dump a Torso in Scotland Yard? I can't help but think, if it's one and the same killer, would he be able to facilitate both types of murder at the same time? Or does it lean in favour of different killers? Suppose it depends on preferred suspects?

The right arm from the Whitehall victim was found on September 11 1888, three days after Annie Chapman was murdered. It had recently been amputated, or so it was concluded.
Therefore, chronologically, the Whitehall victim died in close connection to the Chapman murder, and in much less close connection with the double event. The jury is still out on how long the torso in the Scotland Yard building had been in place when it was found.

You ask whether the killer would be able to facilitate both kinds of murders in close connection to each other. Why would we think they were two types of murders in the first place? We only know that some victims were dismembered while others were not. That does not make the murders different types. To me, they seem to be very much the same type, although committed under different circumstances. I see no reason why he could not commit them close in time as well as on very separate occasions.

The remark about letting preferred suspects govern your thinking, I will leave largely unanswered. Yes, a combined 1873 to 1889 killer fits my suspect. But that is not on account of anything else but the case facts.

[Fisherman]

Jacky boy just wanted his knife inside a warm dying womans abdomen, and maybe something from inside it.

Interestingly, the torso killer also put his knife inside a recently dead womans abdomen and took something from it.

Those are the facts.

Speculation about what the killer "wanted" in each murder is the exact opposite of a fact.