Practicality or madness?

[Fisherman]

On the other hand, perhaps the deviation from the previous dump areas points away from this torso being part of a series?

Then again, Hebbert was very clear on how the cutting was the exact same in just about every respect.

[Fisherman]

I'm finding this very confusing, and I do think Christer's raised an important point. Thus, Dr Hebbert refers to quite a modest abdominal injury in respect of Rainham, at least in relationvto Jackson or Whitehall, where the Torso was bisected. But if that was the case, how could the heart and lungs be missing? Moreover, if we're dealing with an hedonistic killer, such as an offensive dismemberer, why leave the sexual organs alone whilst focussing on the heart and lungs?

The abdomen of the Rainham victim had been cut from sternum to groin before the torso was cut in three, John.

[Fisherman]

Precedent is very easy to cite in respect of an argument. Let me have a go. There's never been a serial killer who's alternated between dismemberment murders and JtR style street murders. There's never been a serial killer who's carried one type of murder within a tiny geographical area, whilst committing another type of murder over a much wider area.

Once again, the torso dumping sites do NOT represent a murder map, John. And the Ripper murder map is NOT a dumping site map. Think Rifkin!

And once again, there are examples of people who have dismembered only part of their victims.

At the end of the day, if we delve deep enough into detail, we will find that each serial killer is totally unique in some way.

[Fisherman]

Just took a look at a random year and how many murders happened in that year when a known serial killer operated. Like 1977. Some cases...

Bianchi, Berkowitz, Hillside Strangler, Ed Edwards, Oakland County Child Killer, Richard Chase, Roger Kibbe, Joe Franklin, Angelo Buono, Oklahoma Girl Scout murders, Thor Christiansen, Rodney Alcala, Lorne Acquin, Lorenzo Gilyard…….these are just some of the men and cases that involved multiple victims in just 1977, in some cases the prosecuted killer, and some, still Unsolved. Many other cases that were not connected remain unsolved from that year.

Maybe that was a banner year, maybe the unreported and unconnected murders might link more cases with some men above, or some other as yet unknown killer or killers.

Now, in 1888 I believe London was the most populous city in the world. Likely one of the most crowded too, at least the East End was. Does that bode well for a single killer theory involving different kinds of attacks and victims, some severe.. some barely fatal. I would imagine statistics say no.

Does ANY two of the series mentioned in your post involve similar rare inclusions like the taken away abdominal flesh, Michael? And once you have named these people, is there any reason to believe that there was an equally large amount os serial killers in London in 1888? Where are their victims, Michael?

[Abby Normal]

We're alao complicating matters when we throw more victims into the mix, particularly as McKenzie doesn't remotely resemble Jackson or Pinchin Street.

huh?
same victimology
same timeframe
same location
knife used
post mortem mutilation
verticle gash to midsection
unsolved

[Trevor Marriott]

Can you see why I ask my question, John? We KNOW that the thoracic organs were removed by the killer in Jacksons case. In the Rainham case, we only know that they were absent, and so they could either have been removed by the killer or they could have gone lost on their own account. So in one case we know, in the other, it is either or. Now, why would we not opt for the Rainham torso having been eviscerated once we are aware that this happened to Jackson??? Surely, that must be the only alternative that makes things dovetail with each other?

You cant prove Jackson was murdered !!!!!!!!!!!!

In fact you keep deliberately ignoring the fact that there are no identifiable causes of death to show the torsos were the subject of murder. So for the life of me I fail to see why you and others keep banging on about a serial torso killer

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Abby Normal]

The final torso being dumped in Ripper territory must bear some significance. The Thames Torso killer hadn't ventured that far east before. It was also close to the anniversary of Annie Chapman's murder. It would be rare enough for two gruesome serial killers to coexist in the same city, but once they overlapped in locality it becomes a game-changer imo.

yup. and that theres evidence pinchin torso was carried to the dump site, so if true torsoripper had a bolt hole within easy walking distance to ripper kills and its also a logical line of direction from there to failed attempt at berner and then to mitre square. Its also easy carting distance to the torso dump sites in the west.

[Abby Normal]

The abdomen of the Rainham victim had been cut from sternum to groin before the torso was cut in three, John.

hi fish
so we have pinchin and rainham with a vertical gash to the midsection. How many other of the torsos had this again?

[Abby Normal]

I think there's absolutely no question JtR was disorganised. And if you reject the FBI profiling method-they developed the organized/disorganized theory- what are you left with?

Thus, Nichols attacked and mutilated in the street at a time when people were leaving for work, so a high risk of being interrupted (Christer believes he was interrupted!) Highly disorganised behaviour, highlighting a perpetrator with virtually no self restraint.

Chapman: attacked in someone's back yard at a time when people were leaving for work, high risk of interruption, risk of being trapped as he was hemmed in on three sides. Highly disorganised behaviour.

Stride: if you believe she was a Ripper victim. Assaulted in front of two witnesses, very disorganised behaviour.

Eddowes: perpetrator seen by three witnesses, attacks victim in location regularly patrolled by two police officers. High risk of being caught. Highly disorganised behaviour.

Doesn't expand his territory from the tiny square mile he operated in, even with a greatly increased police presence and a public on high alert. Highly disorganised behaviour.

hi john

I think there's absolutely no question JtR was disorganised. And if you reject the FBI profiling method-they developed the organized/disorganized theory- what are you left with?

There DNA database-which is highly effective and 100% empirical. and I don't reject there profiling method-I just say take it with a grain of salt as its highly subjective. having lived through the beltway sniper series and how badly they jacked that profile up its obvious.

T

hus, Nichols attacked and mutilated in the street at a time when people were leaving for work, so a high risk of being interrupted (Christer believes he was interrupted!) Highly disorganised behaviour, highlighting a perpetrator with virtually no self restraint.

Chapman: attacked in someone's back yard at a time when people were leaving for work, high risk of interruption, risk of being trapped as he was hemmed in on three sides. Highly disorganised behaviour.

Stride: if you believe she was a Ripper victim. Assaulted in front of two witnesses, very disorganised behaviour.

Eddowes: perpetrator seen by three witnesses, attacks victim in location regularly patrolled by two police officers. High risk of being caught. Highly disorganised behaviour.

Doesn't expand his territory from the tiny square mile he operated in, even with a greatly increased police presence and a public on high alert. Highly disorganised behaviour.

[/QUOTE]

I think your confusing risk taking with being a trait of dis organized killer, but if that is the case then all serial killers are disorganized.

but I agree with you on stride-on that one though I chalk it up to he simply lost patience and his temper as it seems she was not going easily to a secluded place with him.

[Michael W Richards]

Does ANY two of the series mentioned in your post involve similar rare inclusions like the taken away abdominal flesh, Michael? And once you have named these people, is there any reason to believe that there was an equally large amount os serial killers in London in 1888? Where are their victims, Michael?

Ok then..exactly how many had specifically abdominal flesh taken away Fisherman, and exactly how many others that did not have that done do you seek to link with a single killer anyway? As to how many multiple killers were running about London at that time...well, theres Deeming, theres Jack, there is Torso making man, of just the victims left in the Unsolved files its not hard to imagine some were by multiple murderers...there are the terrorists that planned to kill large amounts of people,....

I suggest that Polly to Annie based on the evidence are almost certainly the work of one man. Because on the cumulative physical and circumstantial evidence. And the glaringly obvious similarities. Yes, I play it safer than you...but I also restrict my guesswork to something that can be justified using known and existing evidence. Not a simply a story about the most inconsistent multifaceted killer in history.

[Michael W Richards]

You cant prove Jackson was murdered !!!!!!!!!!!!

In fact you keep deliberately ignoring the fact that there are no identifiable causes of death to show the torsos were the subject of murder. So for the life of me I fail to see why you and others keep banging on about a serial torso killer

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Its the multiple events Trevor. Does the disarticulator just happen to find dead people to disarticulate? Does he buy dead bodies? Do we have any reason to suspect the women were not alive when he finds them? Does an undetermined cause of death rule out murder?

The higher probability is that the Disarticulator...think Ill call him that from now on...kills his victims.

[John G]

huh?
same victimology
same timeframe
same location
knife used
post mortem mutilation
verticle gash to midsection
unsolved

We don't know the identity of three out of the four Torso victims so not necessarily the same victimology. Location? Torso perpetrator active over a much wider area: see Frank's map. Knife used? William Bury used a knife, does that make him JtR? Torso perpetrator also used a saw. Mutilations are not consistent. However, I do believe the Torso perpetrator was probably an offensive dismemberer. Only one Torso victim is known to have been eviscerated by the perpetrator. Whitehall may have been, and Christer has raised an interesting point about Rainham.

[John G]

hi john



There DNA database-which is highly effective and 100% empirical. and I don't reject there profiling method-I just say take it with a grain of salt as its highly subjective. having lived through the beltway sniper series and how badly they jacked that profile up its obvious.

T

I think your confusing risk taking with being a trait of dis organized killer, but if that is the case then all serial killers are disorganized.

but I agree with you on stride-on that one though I chalk it up to he simply lost patience and his temper as it seems she was not going easily to a secluded place with him.[/QUOTE]

Hi Abby,

Yes, every serial killer takes a degee of risks. However, JtR was pretty much suicidal with his risk taking, which was absolutely extreme. Frankly, a miracle he wasn't caught: he just got lucky. In fact, if JtR was an example of an organized serial killer, I'd be interested to see what a disorganised one looks like!

[John G]

Once again, the torso dumping sites do NOT represent a murder map, John. And the Ripper murder map is NOT a dumping site map. Think Rifkin!

And once again, there are examples of people who have dismembered only part of their victims.

At the end of the day, if we delve deep enough into detail, we will find that each serial killer is totally unique in some way.

But I'm not aware of a case where a serial killer has alternated betwewn dismemberer and street killer, although sometimes there ha been a progression. I agree serial killers are unique.

[John G]

Can you see why I ask my question, John? We KNOW that the thoracic organs were removed by the killer in Jacksons case. In the Rainham case, we only know that they were absent, and so they could either have been removed by the killer or they could have gone lost on their own account. So in one case we know, in the other, it is either or. Now, why would we not opt for the Rainham torso having been eviscerated once we are aware that this happened to Jackson??? Surely, that must be the only alternative that makes things dovetail with each other?

Yes, I agree you've made an interesting point, which I will need to reflect on. I have a question: why would the heart and lungs be taken and not the pelvic organs, which of course should have been of primary interest to a hedonistic serial killer?