Practicality or madness?

[etenguy]

Well done.

Actually, it was you mentioning Dahmer that brought it to mind (so thank you). Not an exact match but close I think.

[FrankO]

I kind of like this: You admit that the Ripper could have dumped his bodies anywhere, had he chosen to, which was the point I was making.

I’m afraid I have to disappoint you, Christer, because I didn’t admit that. And didn’t do so because I don’t see any reason to wonder whether the Ripper would have dumped his bodies in the area where he killed or elsewhere, simply because he didn’t and we can’t know what he would have done in whatever other situation than what actually happened. It’s no use.

Furthermore, you once again seem to say that what is your main objection against the idea of two killers is that you personaly believe that the series suggest "different mindsets", which is the exact kind of thing I have warned against - to believe that we can establish the mindsets behind the murders involved.

What I say is that we can at least be sure that they had different mindsets in the sense that they did different things or approached things quite differently. For whatever reason, the Ripper was willing to take much greater risks than Torso Man by mostly killing out in the streets and with much less time in-between victims, thereby having to count on much less time, light and attention for his victims and what he liked doing to them. Whether that was because Torso Man just wanted something different or they weren’t one and the same is another question, but they DID have different mindsets as far as I’m concerned. Since such a sudden change from Torso Man murders to Ripper-style murders (and back to Torso Man murders) is unknown, I’m inclined to go with the notion that they were 2 men. Or, at least, I have my reservations about believing it to be one and the same man.

Once we do such a thing, we tend to let it prevail over the factual evidence. When people of what we think are different mindsets do the exact same things, we may need to change our own mindset.

But they didn’t do the exact same things. As John has written, Jackson is the only one who – if we disregard the dismemberment for a moment – resembles to what the Ripper did to a degree, but if you put Kelly next to her, you see there’s still a very great deal of difference.

Lastly, you tell me that you would never say that the Ripper was purely disorganized. Great! I only brought the point up because you referred to Geberts works, where he says that people who kill other people on the spots where they find them and leave them lying there are very often disorganized. At that stage, I thought it would make for a much more complete picture to point to how there are reasons to beleive that the Ripper was NOT disorganized.

Indeed the Ripper was not purely disorganized. He took some precautions not to get buckled and was in control of himself enough not to raise any alarm bells or draw any attention to him, but in my opinion he sure wasn’t as organized as Torso Man.

[FrankO]

dosnt sound like the ripper to me at all. the ripper was anything but dis organized, just like the torsoman.

Torso man very likely took his victims to some private place, did what he liked to them without much, if any, chance of anybody witnessing him, he got cleaned up before he went out again and would not necessarily stand out carrying and transporting some bloodless bundles. Also, as long as the police didn’t discover the identity of his victims, there would be no witness who could possibly point a finger at him. Do you really think the Ripper left as little to fate as Torso Man did, Abby?

[Abby Normal]

Torso man very likely took his victims to some private place, did what he liked to them without much, if any, chance of anybody witnessing him, he got cleaned up before he went out again and would not necessarily stand out carrying and transporting some bloodless bundles. Also, as long as the police didn’t discover the identity of his victims, there would be no witness who could possibly point a finger at him. Do you really think the Ripper left as little to fate as Torso Man did, Abby?

hi franko
torso man took as much risk as the ripper imho. using his bolt hole to murder and cut up his victims was in a way just as risky as the ripper. being a place that could be tied to himself directly is something the ripper didnt have to worry about. someone could have seen him bring the victims to his place, someone could found incriminating evidence in his place, someone could have seen him leave the place with victim parts and he could have been seen or caught dumping parts in all the risky and public places he did. he was with the victims when they were alive for much longer than the ripper, he was with the dead bodies and the parts for much longer than the ripper and using his place exposed him to incredible risk as he would be directly tied to it. yes the ripper took incredible risk killing and mutilating in the street but so did torsoman using his own place. and as soon as the ripper had a chance to kill indoors with mary kelly, he took it.

[Fisherman]

Again Fisherman....how many eviscerations are there, and how many other victims do you group based on those kills.

Spoiler alert....3 canonicals were eviscerated. Just 3. Not a dozen victims, like you've espoused on other threads, and less that the accepted Canonical Group of Five. With 6-8 Murders left if the Unsolved file.

My point....if you want to focus on the evisceration murders then you better scale back your victim lists...dramatically.

Yes, three victims "only" were eviscerated out of the canonicals. And I have of course not espoused that a dozen victims were eviscerated. Please do not say things that there is no ground for.

Letīs begin with that point: Show us where I have spoken of a dozen evisceration victims falling prey - or admit that you were misleading. It is that simple. Put up or shut up, Michael.

Your problem, Michael, is that you seem to think that it is likelier with multiple killers than just the one when a series of murders play out. It is not.

If we get ten strangulations over a minth in an area where there is normally no murders, then the likely thing is that one (1) man has blown his top. Not ten men.

And that is when we have strangulations. Guess what happenes to the likelihoods when we have mutilation- and evisceration murders.

[Fisherman]

Clearly not the same town, or state even - but close enough we might consider it an area in which the killer would easily travel. I don't pretend this is an exact match to torso and ripper. situation - no two situations will be exactly the same.

Iīm afraid what I asked for was two serial killers who eviscerated in the same town or very restricted area, Etenguy. Once we start drawing on the benefits of modern transportation, we can easily fit together Eyler and Bonin by way of a flight ticket. Shouldnīt take that long to go from OīHare to California.
The murders we are looking at took place within walking distance, on the streets of the same city. That is what I require, not two series a hudnred or more kilometres apart.

Undoubtedly - just as there are between what we call the ripper murders and the torso murders.

The differences between Eyler and Dahmer are of a much more decisive character, though. The police will not make the mistake of believing that a killer who is very clearly motivated by a wish to torture and harm his victims will suddenly not add that ingredient when he travels from Indiana to Milwaukee, Etenguy. Eylers victims bore the hallmarks of a sadist - they were magled. There were burn marks, cuts, bruises - you name it. Such a killer comes for the pre-mortem phase, and is - by and large - not very rare in that respect. He killed out of hatred, whereas Dahmer killed out of love, and that difference is manifested in how the victims were treated.
You say that the eviscerations were the same. Can you strengthen that take on things? I have no idea myself, but I would not be surprised if Eyler tore the innards out while Dahmer carefullly cut them out. Do you actually know? If so, I would like to know too.

Well, I think dismembering and evisceration are pretty rare.

They are! And in that respect, it IS not very likely that we will have one dismembered/eviscerator in Indiana and another in Milwaukee in the same period. So to an extent, you have the beginning of a point. Then again, these terms, as rare as the matters they point to are, are generic. A killer can dismember in many ways and to many extents, just as he can eviscerate in many ways and to many extents.
Cutting away the abdominal flesh in large flaps is not a generic term, though. It is very specific, and that is where we arrive at a point in the errand where we have very clear evidence of a common killer being at work.
Dismembering is rare.
Eviscerating is many times rarer.
Cutting the abdominal wall away in large flaps is something that goes a long way beyond these things. It is a hallmark feature, and it effectively decides the matter.


I wasn't really trying - my memory was jogged when someone else mentioned Dahmer. I don't know how many similar situations we might find if we looked hard. Though I'm not sure it really matters. Because something is true in one situation, doesn't mean it will be true universally. So even if we found an identical matching situation to torso & ripper in another town at another time, it doesn't prove anything.

What it means when we have two series of murders involving eviscerations in the same city and time is that if there are significant similarities inbetween the series whereas there are no significant differences, we are dealing with the same killer. The odds for two killers doing the same - not generic but SPECIFIC - things are astronomical.

It depends on what you consider an odd inclusion. I think we do have a real comparison - not exactly the same but close. Where does that get us if I am right. Nowhere really - its still rare and they are separate situations which may or may not have the same explanation.

Iīm sorry, but there was never any chance that Eylers and Dahmers murders could be mistaken for each other. One is a torturing sadist, the other is not. I have pointes to this factor many times now as one of the more telling ones in the comparison I am making - we seemingly have two series of murders (that both involve eviscerations and specific matters like the taking away of abdominal walls in large flaps) where the motivation seems to have been to aquire dead bodies to cut into. In neither case is there any evidence of sadistic, physical torture having been applied (something that is regularly the case in abduction killings, something that people seem to think the Torso murders were) and that is a very poignant similarity.
In essence, I think your comparison is a hundred kilometers or more off the mark - you are happy with that, I am not.

[John G]

chase, mullins, Woodcock, hadden clark off the top of my head. bundy with the sorority attacks and if he was never caught they never would have connected these to him based on profile, since these were polar opposite to his usual highly organized MO, which just emphasizes how much a single serial killer can do things differently.

Bundy disorganised? In some respects. However, he lured his victims away, gaining their trust, sometimes feigning injury. And he then killed them in secluded locations! Sometimes he would break into dwellings. But he didn't murder anyone in the middle of the street, then spend time eviscerating them, during times when people where leaving for work in areas regularly patrolled by the police. And he wasn't crazy enough to focus his activities on the same tiny geographical area. Just emphasizes how incredibly disorganised JtR was.

[Fisherman]

I’m afraid I have to disappoint you, Christer, because I didn’t admit that. And didn’t do so because I don’t see any reason to wonder whether the Ripper would have dumped his bodies in the area where he killed or elsewhere, simply because he didn’t and we can’t know what he would have done in whatever other situation than what actually happened. It’s no use.

But you donīt disappoint me, Frank - you tell me that we cannot know what kind of area the Ripper would have dumped in, and that is my very point.

What I say is that we can at least be sure that they had different mindsets in the sense that they did different things or approached things quite differently.

Nope. We can say that the Torso murders involved other inclusions than the Ripper murders, but the mindset may have been the exact same - to find a woman to kill in order to aquire a body to cut into. The rest may be a question of mere practicality as hinted at in the heading of the thread.

For whatever reason, the Ripper was willing to take much greater risks than Torso Man by mostly killing out in the streets and with much less time in-between victims, thereby having to count on much less time, light and attention for his victims and what he liked doing to them.

I think it is the same killer adjusting to different circumstances. And so to me, it is not one killer being cautious and the other being daring. It is the same killer, and sometimes he kills in the streets, whether becasue he enjoys the thrill or because he wants more press coverage is anybodyīs guess. And yes, if you change the circumsances, you will work under varying conditions - but since there are so many similarities of so explicit character, the question is not one of whether he did do this or not. He did.
Once again, unconclusive differences are blown away by specific and rare/odd similarities. They prevail. Every time.
A case can be built for two killers - you do it, for example. But any such case will be wrong.


Whether that was because Torso Man just wanted something different or they weren’t one and the same is another question, but they DID have different mindsets as far as I’m concerned. Since such a sudden change from Torso Man murders to Ripper-style murders (and back to Torso Man murders) is unknown, I’m inclined to go with the notion that they were 2 men. Or, at least, I have my reservations about believing it to be one and the same man.

You cannot know their mindsets, Frank. You can guess, but guesswork is a poor thing to decide from. Hard evidence is much better.

But they didn’t do the exact same things. As John has written, Jackson is the only one who – if we disregard the dismemberment for a moment – resembles to what the Ripper did to a degree, but if you put Kelly next to her, you see there’s still a very great deal of difference.

Cutting away the abdominal wall in large flaps IS doing the exact same thing. Taking out uteri IS doing the exact same thing. Stealing rings from a victims fingers IS doing the exact same thing. No two murders are exact replicas, of course, but that was not what I said - I said the killers did the exact same things to their victims.
You should not put Kelly beside Jackson, by the way - you should put her beside the 1873 victim.

Indeed the Ripper was not purely disorganized. He took some precautions not to get buckled and was in control of himself enough not to raise any alarm bells or draw any attention to him, but in my opinion he sure wasn’t as organized as Torso Man.

That all works as a starting point, and indeed, it HAS been used as a starting point for 132 years now. During all that time, the very clear possibility that the series may have been branches on the exact same trunk has been left unregarded. And during all of that time, the best explanation for the abdominal wall taking has always been "Uuuuh, maybe that was just a coincidence..? Sort of?"
The day I join that club is the day Hell freezes over.

[Fisherman]

Bundy disorganised? In some respects. However, he lured his victims away, gaining their trust, sometimes feigning injury. And he then killed them in secluded locations! Sometimes he would break into dwellings. But he didn't murder anyone in the middle of the street, then spend time eviscerating them, during times when people where leaving for work in areas regularly patrolled by the police. And he wasn't crazy enough to focus his activities on the same tiny geographical area. Just emphasizes how incredibly disorganised JtR was.

A case like the Florida attack DOES look like a disorganized set of murders. A log was used to bash the skulls in, and that log was picked up outside the house, and so no premeditation was necessary. It looks like a case where the killer could not help himself, the way disorganized killers cannot do. He also took immense risks in continuing the attack on five women. So yes, it looks like a disorganized attack to me.

Otherwise, the typical Bundy murder was always one of great organization and premeditation. But I think Abby took care to point out that he was only speaking of the sorority attack.

[Fisherman]

It seems the major argument against a common killer seems to begin with "I feel in my gut that these men were very different..."

Whatever happened to evidence evaluation?

[John G]

It seems the major argument against a common killer seems to begin with "I feel in my gut that these men were very different..."

Whatever happened to evidence evaluation?

Hi Christer,

But as we have no hard forensic evidence fundamentally it's always going to come down to that.

Just to address some of your earlier points. one argument seems to be, "sometimes the perpetrator did this, sometimes he did that." But, although there are undoubtedly some similarities, which may indicate a link, dismiliarities do the opposite.

I acknowledge your argument about two eviscerators operating in tbe same town, buy my point in referring to Hardy/Sweeney is that unprecedented situations are not difficult to find-in this case two dismemberers operating in Camden, targeting prostitutes. And where is there another example of two serial killers operating or living in the same tiny district at the same time? But we don't conclude that George Chapman was JtR. And as Ive said many tines, where is there another example of a serial killer alternating between dismemberment murders and Jtr-style street slayings?

Regarding Rainham. From Debra's diagram, on the link provided by Jerry, the Torso was clearly bisected, like Whitehall. This is clearly unusual for a dismemberer, but it does sometimes happen. And we don't know the reason behind this. It could have been for easier transportation of the body parts, or to achieve shock value, i.e by dumping body parts in varoius locations. What we do know is that JtR never disarticulated or bisected a single victim. I also feel that the Torso perpetrator was significantly more skilled than JtR, who didn't even seem to develop his technique; I mean, look at the mess made of Kelly: is this evidence of a perpetrator who's becoming more experienced, more skilled?

Regarding possible evisceration of Rainham victim. There seems to be confusion as to which body parts were actually missing. Moreover, I really struggle witj the idea of an hedonistic serial killer living the sexual organs but retainibg the lungs! Although I do believe the Torso perpetrator was an offensive dismemberer.

I also believe the Torso Perpetrator must have had a relatively high level of organizational skills. For instance, by abducting victims, or luring them to his dismemberment site, without attracting witnesses; dumping body parts in various locations without attracting witnesses; accessing the cavernous police building vault; possibly storing a victim for several weeks; preventing identification of victims (with Jackson he was clearly unlucky, and may have got a little careless.) In contrast JtR was one of the most disorganised killers in history, making Ted Bundy seem like a criminal genius: see earlier post.

The geographical profiles are way out. The Torso perpetrator was active over a much wider area, and must have had transport; it therefore doesn't make the slightest bit of sense that a single perpetrator wouldn't have expanded his range for the riskier street murders, particularly with a local population on high alert and greatly increased police presence. And again, on the issue of precedence, no serial killer has ever acted this way: committing one type of crime-street murders-within a tiny area, and another type of crime-abductions and dismemberments, over a much wider area-probably because it doesn't make any sense.

[John G]

Here is a good thread for reference, John.

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread....ghlight=dorsal

Thanks Jerry. An excellent thread by the way!

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer,

But as we have no hard forensic evidence fundamentally it's always going to come down to that.

Sorry, John, but we DO have hard evidence. That is what the cut away abdominal walls, the taken out uteri and hearts and the cuts from pubes top sternum represents, as well as the taken rings and so on. That is hard evidence.

Just to address some of your earlier points. one argument seems to be, "sometimes the perpetrator did this, sometimes he did that." But, although there are undoubtedly some similarities, which may indicate a link, dismiliarities do the opposite.

No, that is not an argument of mine, it is an explanation. I am saying that ALTHOUGH the perpetrator sometimes did A and sometimes B, we still know that there are inslusions of similarities of a very rare and odd character, telling us that there will be an explanation for the killer varying inbetween A and B.

I acknowledge your argument about two eviscerators operating in tbe same town, buy my point in referring to Hardy/Sweeney is that unprecedented situations are not difficult to find-in this case two dismemberers operating in Camden, targeting prostitutes. And where is there another example of two serial killers operating or living in the same tiny district at the same time? But we don't conclude that George Chapman was JtR. And as Ive said many tines, where is there another example of a serial killer alternating between dismemberment murders and Jtr-style street slayings?

It IS difficult to find two eviscerating serial killers in the same geographic area/town, John. It is actually more than difficult, it is impossible, as far as we can tell. So donīt tell me itīs easy-peasy, please. You canīt do it.
And even IF you could do it, how are you going to go about finding two serial killers who eviscerate in the same area who ALSO did the same peculiar things to their victims?
Why not accept the reality of things, cold and unpleasant though it may feel?

Regarding Rainham. From Debra's diagram, on the link provided by Jerry, the Torso was clearly bisected, like Whitehall. This is clearly unusual for a dismemberer, but it does sometimes happen. And we don't know the reason behind this.

Like Whitehall? You mean like Jackson, they are much more alike.

It could have been for easier transportation of the body parts, or to achieve shock value, i.e by dumping body parts in varoius locations. What we do know is that JtR never disarticulated or bisected a single victim.

Yep, that is true. Plus, of course, we know that he never needed to transport any parts from the victims, because they were not killed in spots that could be linked to himself. Can you see how that is a very, very, very, very, VERY good argument for how the difference may have occurred?

I also feel that the Torso perpetrator was significantly more skilled than JtR, who didn't even seem to develop his technique; I mean, look at the mess made of Kelly: is this evidence of a perpetrator who's becoming more experienced, more skilled?

Again, the killer did NOT make a mess of Kelly. That is in all probability a figment of your imagination only. Instead, she was cut to fit a pattern and the killer took great care to follow through with it. Her eyes were seemingly left undamaged and there is not a shred of evidence pointing to any of the extracted organs having been damaged in any way. It seems they were deliberately and carefully cut out and placed around her body. As long as we cannot bring ourselves to understand the bearing of these things, we will always be at risk to never comprehend what the murders were about. As were indeed the contemporary policemen and medicos. Letīs not follow in their footsteps!

Regarding possible evisceration of Rainham victim. There seems to be confusion as to which body parts were actually missing. Moreover, I really struggle witj the idea of an hedonistic serial killer living the sexual organs but retainibg the lungs! Although I do believe the Torso perpetrator was an offensive dismemberer.

There is no confusion. The thoracic organs were lost, the pelvic ditto were not. Hebbert is exceedingly clear about it. And I know full well that you are struggling with the idea of a killer taking lungs and leaving the sexual organs, John - it is abundantly clear! So letīs look at the definition of what a hedonistic killer is!

"A hedonistic serial killer is the type you'd expect to see in a psychological thriller or horror movie. They take pleasure in killing and are capable of doing really heinous things to their victims. There are three subcategories of this type of killer: thrill, lust and comfort killers."

Now, why would we predispose that this killer took pleasure in killing? He seems to have wanted to get thet part over and done with as quickoly as possible, did he not?
And did he commit "heinous" acts against his victims? No, he did not torture them, but instead he killed them quickly.

Which type of hedonistic killer is it you identify here? Surely not a comfort killer, because the killer did not gain wealth from his strikes, it would seem; prostitutes are not the prey for such killers.

So it must have been either thrill or lust killing, right? And can I assume that you have decided on lust killing? If so, this is what the type is normally about:
"Sex is the primary motive of lust killers, whether or not the victims are dead, and fantasy plays a large role in their killings. Their sexual gratification depends on the amount of torture and mutilation they perform on their victims. The sexual serial murderer has a psychological need to have absolute control, dominance, and power over their victims, and the infliction of torture, pain, and ultimately death is used in an attempt to fulfill their need. They usually use weapons that require close contact with the victims, such as knives or hands. As lust killers continue with their murders, the time between killings decreases or the required level of stimulation increases, sometimes both."

But there ARE exceptions to the rule that lust killers are only about pre-mortem controlling, like Dahmer:

Dahmer once said, "Lust played a big part of it. Control and lust. Once it happened the first time, it just seemed like it had control of my life from there on in. The killing was just a means to an end. That was the least satisfactory part. I didn't enjoy doing that. That's why I tried to create living zombies with … acid and the drill." He further elaborated on this, also saying, "I wanted to see if it was possible to make—again, it sounds really gross—uh, zombies, people that would not have a will of their own, but would follow my instructions without resistance. So after that, I started using the drilling technique." He experimented with cannibalism to "ensure his victims would always be a part of him".

Here, we may begin to discern the contours of our man; an element of "magical thinking", if you will, enters the picture. The killer wants to control the dead bodies of his victims, and he wants them to represent something that is precious to himself.

Then there is the thrill killer, of course. We can find men like Coral Watts in that category. These are killers who wants to "up" the thrill when they kill, and that means that they can try all sorts of things as they move on. Watts killed by means of slashing, stabbing, hanging, drowning, asphyxiating, and strangling. Can you see how I would not have been surprised if he turned to eviscerations and dismemberment, just to try something new? However, Watts was all about the anticipation of what he could inflict on a victim, and so, when the victim died, it represented only trash to him. He had no interest in cutting into dead bodies, the way our guy did.
But we can see how the thrill element may make killers do very different things to their victims! A man like Watts would therefore be likely to escape detection as a serial killer, as long as he is able to change inbetween killing methods. The police would have a strangler, a knifer, a drowner, a hangman etcetera, and no reason to put two and two together when it comes to killing methods chosen.
But what happens if he cuts away the abdominal wall in large flaps from his victims?

It is only in these respects that the facts fit the suggestion of a hedonistic killer, John.

I also believe the Torso Perpetrator must have had a relatively high level of organizational skills.

Whereas you believe that the Ripper did not? So another "gut feeling"? Trumping the actual evidence, as it were?

For instance, by abducting victims, or luring them to his dismemberment site, without attracting witnesses; dumping body parts in various locations without attracting witnesses; accessing the cavernous police building vault; possibly storing a victim for several weeks; preventing identification of victims (with Jackson he was clearly unlucky, and may have got a little careless.) In contrast JtR was one of the most disorganised killers in history, making Ted Bundy seem like a criminal genius: see earlier post.

How do we know that the Ripper would not be able to abduct victims, if he chose to?

How do we know that he could not put on a ruse? It seems clear that he may have done so.

How do we know that he could not find his way into the vaults of New Scotland Yard?

How do we know that he would not be able to store a victim, should he want/need to?

And why would he prevent identification of victims that could not even be linked to him? Plus, of course, there is absolutely no clear evidence telling us that the Torso killer made any attempts in that direction.

Saying that the Ripper was one of the most disorganized killers in history is flaunting a total disregard of said history, Iīm afraid. There are many killers who have been much more disorganized, and that is acknowledged by anybody with a sound insight into the field. A probale ruse to get the victims out of the way is not a disorganized inclusion. Killing swiftly and silently in crowded surroundings without being found out is anything but disorganized. Seeing to it that no clue is left behind on the murder spots is not a disorganized trait. Leaving the murder scenes in time to stay uncaught and unseen is nbot disorganized.
The one good thing about your rather reckless statement is that it makes your reluctance to accept a common killer totally understandable - if we labour under such miscomprehension there is no way we are ever going to allow for any otter perspective than one based on faulty assumptions.

The geographical profiles are way out. The Torso perpetrator was active over a much wider area, and must have had transport; it therefore doesn't make the slightest bit of sense that a single perpetrator wouldn't have expanded his range for the riskier street murders, particularly with a local population on high alert and greatly increased police presence. And again, on the issue of precedence, no serial killer has ever acted this way: committing one type of crime-street murders-within a tiny area, and another type of crime-abductions and dismemberments, over a much wider area-probably because it doesn't make any sense.

The torso killer DUMPED BODIES over a larger area. The Ripper KILLED in a smaller area. But we cannot compare a dumping area to a murder area. Once again, think Rifkin! Itīs apples and pears, John.
Let me make it really easy:

If he Torso killer could find his victims in a small area, why would he travel extensively to do so?

If he wanted the parts to provide as few clues as possibel to where he found his victims, THEN he would have a reason to travel extensively!

Buck Ruxton killed his wife and maid in his own home in the 1930:s, in Lancaster where he worked as a doctor. Then he packed them into his car and drove them to SCOTLAND to dump them there. How on earth does that tell us that he looked for prey in Scotland?

[Michael W Richards]

Yes, three victims "only" were eviscerated out of the canonicals. And I have of course not espoused that a dozen victims were eviscerated. Please do not say things that there is no ground for.

Letīs begin with that point: Show us where I have spoken of a dozen evisceration victims falling prey - or admit that you were misleading. It is that simple. Put up or shut up, Michael.

Your problem, Michael, is that you seem to think that it is likelier with multiple killers than just the one when a series of murders play out. It is not.

If we get ten strangulations over a minth in an area where there is normally no murders, then the likely thing is that one (1) man has blown his top. Not ten men.

And that is when we have strangulations. Guess what happenes to the likelihoods when we have mutilation- and evisceration murders.

I think you either forgot or misunderstood the context of the eviscerations declaration to which I took issue Fisherman, you use that term when doing a broad comparative of the 2 distinctly individual series of murders, I surmise to demonstrate just how similar they actually are. I made you admit to the fact that its a very small number of eviscerations. It is not a definitive characteristic until it is. And as for the number of victims, you've lumped in enough, frequently enough, for me to use the word dozen cumulatively.

First off, the "series" label is just based on theory to begin with, technically we don't have any solved murders within either "series", and no smoking gun evidence against any one man or group. I pointed out on another thread that the murders of Polly then Annie are more accurately characterized as victims of a Spree killer, because that fits the evidence better than just part of a longer series. That shortest of all intervals between kills is significant, the ensuing gap is therefore significant, and might well signal the end of the Jack that spawned all this.

Things that happen that match things previously published....hardly a stone foundation for a "series" supposition.

My issue with some of your posts is that you presume far too much, you mislead by virtue of some statements, and you've insisted that its the rest of us that just don't get it.

The problem with building a case in order to support your own theory is that there is the tendency to play with the truth here and there, by omission or exaggeration, because there has to be a linear connection to your conclusions. Like starting the Jack the Ripper study searching for a man who killed 5 specific women in East London 130 odd years ago. Youll use only what supports that idea to build your case, ignorant of the fact that if your guess about how many women or which Five women is incorrect then the entire investigation is null and void, and will not provide any useful data.

There is an explanation for every murder in that file. Each individual case problem has answers, each murder can be understood. The key to this is a unbiased and objective investigation into all known aspects of the crimes.... individually. You, "with one sweep of the knife", just carve out a large number of these cases at once and look to see if you can find a quote or a mention that helps prove the case. I object to that kind of approach. Each is unique, and if they are tied to another it will be by something tangible and provable. Solve one case first, then re-visit the group idea.

The only murders I see as being almost certainly connected by killer if not yet proven are the first 2 Canonicals, which constitutes a Spree in Criminology, not a Series, and a series of disarticulation murders that may have begun a decade earlier. Those sets have everything you need really...very specific kinds of deeds, Rare. Unique. Anything that comes after could have been dramatically influenced by the prior, graphically published details of the earlier deeds. Which would appear to some as continuing activity by the same person but with an evolving MO, Signature and other characteristics. To be compared with the data in contemporary studies of Modern day serial killer interviews, of course.

Problem is, you first need a "series". Id suggest starting smaller.

[John G]

I've just looked at the linked thread provided by Jerry and it makes for an interesting read. Debra Arif quotes Dr Hebbert at length, and he states unequivocally that the Torso series and Whitechapel series are not linked. For instance, he highlights the fact that there were major differences of both skill and technique. For instance:

"These outrages were done by more than one man, the post-mortem examination showing very clearly that in one series the motive was the destruction of the identity of the person, and concealment of the crime. In the second, savage and singularly purposeless mutilation. The examination also proved the difference in skill and intention of the operator. In the first series, as I may put it, the women's bodies were skilfully divided into sections such as might be done by a butcher or a hunter, evidently for the purpose of easy carriage and distribution...in the other series, the women were horribly and unmercifully mutilated. Even the internal organs 2had been removed and taken away."

His comments on the Kelly murder, which he attended:

"A woman was killed in a room. After the most frightful mutliation and destruction of the body...There was nothimg to suggest any knowledge of anatomy or surgical skill. In fact, he had evidently attempted to remove the heart by cutting the ribs, and failing to do this, he had dragged it down through the midriff."

As Debra concludes: " Those 3 posts are very telling to me, with an eyewitness, medically trained who says there are major differences of skill and technique."