A Human Tiger

[Fisherman]

It,s the overkill that makes me agree with most of your post, Fisherman. If he solely wanted the heart, there would be no reason to remove the thighs and calves; however, they are removed indicating, to me, that he had a [larger] idea in mind for this murder. It,s difficult to imagine that he would choose that very moment in her apartment to discover if he had the capability to remove those parts of her leg since time could be a factor. Nothing from the reports or photos indicate that he removed these parts clumsily, so i don,t imagine that he was novicely improvising along with her murder. Because of the overkill and lack of improvisation, it would seem that his idea had design.

The grey area of your post is the circumstances. If this is how he chose to fully murder, why continually pursue the street murder? The apartment murder was something he could have accomplished much earlier on. We know he has the capability after Annie Chapman,s murder. He could have designed similar opportunities at least two or three times.

Well, as you may be aware, I think that we are looking at the same killer for both the Ripper series and the Torso series. And the question you ask is even morepertiunent agaist that backdrop, since he would have been aware since 1873 that he could fulfil his ideas in a better fashion in a controlled environment and with time on his hands.

Arguably, if the Ripper and the torso man was one and the same, then street killings were sufficient to quench his thirst - at least if he was given a sufficient amount of time, something he may have hoped for/counted on.

It is nevertheless a reasonable question you ask - but since I feel more or less certain that we are dealing with just the one killer, there must be a solution to it.

[CommercialRoadWanderer]

What i see in the Miller's Court murder is...curiosity: the murder knows he can indulge himself, and so he decide to cut those part of the leg and the breasts. This is something new he can experience, and goes for it.

I don't know enough of the torso murder to say whetever he may have been one person with the ripper or not. My instinct would say no, however. Surely, if the Miller's Court murder would have want to go as far as to separate some limbs from of the victim's body as part of his fantasy, he could have done so. This is not to say that i'm sure that this is what the torso murder was doing, of course. As far as i'm concerned i don't even know if a torso murder really existed or not.

[Fisherman]

CommercialRoadWanderer: What i see in the Miller's Court murder is...curiosity: the murder knows he can indulge himself, and so he decide to cut those part of the leg and the breasts. This is something new he can experience, and goes for it.

Yes! Curiosity, and a will to explore! The cutting away of the flesh on the leg, for example, was not about inflicting damage, if I am correct; it was about cutting through the layers down to the bone and exposing it.

I don't know enough of the torso murder to say whetever he may have been one person with the ripper or not. My instinct would say no, however. Surely, if the Miller's Court murder would have want to go as far as to separate some limbs from of the victim's body as part of his fantasy, he could have done so. This is not to say that i'm sure that this is what the torso murder was doing, of course. As far as i'm concerned i don't even know if a torso murder really existed or not.

They were two of a kind. I will explain how in days to come.

[Robert St Devil]

Arguably, if the Ripper and the torso man was one and the same...

...Jack the Ripper would require a particular housing arrangement during September since he would still be in posession of the Whitehall victim,s torso for three or more weeks of the month.

> I could be convinced, Fisherman, that one are the same based off of the Whitehall victim. I can accept multiple killers operating within the same geography, but the appearance of two eccentric killers supposedly acting independent of each other during the same time is suspicious.

[CommercialRoadWanderer]

Another point is that the torso murders (if they are indeed murders) obviously point to a killer, or killers, that got a secluded space where to dispose of the victims in that way, which may suggest, too, that such murder care, to a degree, about hiding it's crimes.

I don't see that murder behaving like the ripper, leaving victims on the streets to be found almost immediatly, with all the associated risks for himself.

[Fisherman]

The Whitehall torso was said not to have been there until late in the process. Many of the workers were sure of this. If that holds true, then maybe the torso was deposited elsewhere first, but - to the killerīs frustration - not found. Whereupon he moved it to Whitehall.

Just a suggestion, of course, but we should keep in mind that there is no certainty that he kept the torso at his own quarters for the time leading up to itīs finding.

As for how the torso man would not have killed in the streets, I think we cannot know this. Maybe he was intent on not doing so, but stumbled over Nichols (operating from the assumption that she was the first open street victim, something of which we of course cannot be sure) and was very much aroused by the sudden insight that he could be able to cut her up and take organs away in the open street. It may have formed a sort of confirmation to him about a perceived superiority and immortality.

Much as people will pounce on me for suggesting that there will be a solution to these things, thinking I am pressing a square puzzle bit into a round hole, I donīt think there can be any realistic suggestion that these were different men. The abdominal walls, the colons, the taking away of organs, sexually and non-sexually related, the killing of prostitutes in the same town at the same approximate time - all of this is affirmative of the suggestion of one killer only. The issues of whether he dared/would kill in the streets is subordinate in this respect. We may never know the exact driving force behind that detail, but we can be reasonably certain that we are dealing with the same killer.

[CommercialRoadWanderer]

No, for me the differences in the M.O. of those murders come first than the similarities. And that's without considering the possibility that the torso murders are not even murders to begin with, but rather the consequence of someone that tried to get rid of a body which death may have involved something that it's not exactly a murder by a serial killer.

[Fisherman]

No, for me the differences in the M.O. of those murders come first than the similarities. And that's without considering the possibility that the torso murders are not even murders to begin with, but rather the consequence of someone that tried to get rid of a body which death may have involved something that it's not exactly a murder by a serial killer.

And which are the differences in M.O? Personally, I would say that we know very little about how the killer contacted/was contacted by his victims in each series, if there was a ruse involved and if it was the same ruse in both series, how the killer subdued his victims, how the torso killer killed his victims (was it the same method used by the Ripper?) and so on. That means that the M.O can be quite similar in many aspects in both series.
What we know is what the damages looked like on the various bodies (to a great extent), but that is not the same as the M.O., and the differences there may well be explained by the surronding circumstances.

To prioritize two killers, you must accept that all the similarities involved were purely coincidental. Is that even remotely likely? Personally, I think not. The abdominal flaps and the cutting away of sections of the colon is either very clear evidence that the killer was the same, or evidence that killer A reproduced what he heard killer B had done in one case, whereas killer B reproduced what he heard killer A had done in another case. Maybe somebody could make a fictional script involving such a thing, but in real life, it just does not happen. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

[CommercialRoadWanderer]

Oh well, since we are talking about that, there are some elements that may suggest that not even the C5 were killed by the same hand. Jumping straight to the conclusion that the ripper was indeed one, and even one with the torso murder, it's really too much for me.

It seems to me, moreover, that for you the "we don't know the full story" element is actually something that encourages you to go a bit too far with your hypothesis, rather than the opposite, which is what for me is almost natural. Well, there's nothing wrong in taking advantage of whatever you don't know to fill in with something you theorize, but over a certain degree (as with the "the ripper may have indulged a little dismemberment here and a little disembowelment there" idea) it's just not my cup of tea.

[Fisherman]

CommercialRoadWanderer: Oh well, since we are talking about that, there are some elements that may suggest that not even the C5 were killed by the same hand. Jumping straight to the conclusion that the ripper was indeed one, and even one with the torso murder, it's really too much for me.

Depends somewhat on the degree to which people are jumping to that conclusion. There can be no absolute certainty, but concluding that the most rational and logical solution is that we are dealing with one Ripper only is completely permissible to my mind - as long, that is, as we are discussing the cases where the victims had their abdomens ripped open. Tabram and Stride are two different cups of tea, although I count them in too.

The term "jumping to conclusions" is slightly derogatory when you speak of people who in many cases have spent decades of research and reading, by the way...

It seems to me, moreover, that for you the "we don't know the full story" element is actually something that encourages you to go a bit too far with your hypothesis, rather than the opposite, which is what for me is almost natural.

Now knowing is not knowing. Nobody is disputing that. But when not knowing is coupled with knowing that two murder series both involved the exact same, extremely rare elements, then it is anything but rash to point to a probable connection.

Well, there's nothing wrong in taking advantage of whatever you don't know to fill in with something you theorize, but over a certain degree (as with the "the ripper may have indulged a little dismemberment here and a little disembowelment there" idea) it's just not my cup of tea.

Tea comes in many flavours. So do serialists. Some of them dismember in one case but not in another. Some open up the abdomen in one case but not in an other. Ergo this MAY have applied to our cases too. After acknowledging that, we must look at the facts - are there commonalitites, similarities? And if there are, are there any common details that are rare or even extremely rare?

And there are such matters. How do you explain them? Mere coincidences?

[CommercialRoadWanderer]

If decades of research and readings gave you more elements to discuss about than the ones you are presenting here, then i will gladly read about those when and if you will provide them.

Then, what else i may say? For you the similarity of the abdominal wounds are something that is almost only explainable with the ripper and the torso murder being one person. For me, the possibility that the torso murders may have been perpetrated in a totally different situation or for different reasons is way too big to ignore.

[Robert St Devil]

rather the consequence of someone that tried to get rid of a body...

Apologies for th3 deadpan, RoadWanderer, but you are suggesting it took the offender over three weeks after her death to ,,figure out,, how to dispose of the torso. That,s an awfully long time! And, he does more than try to get rid of it, which is resolvable with a shovel. This offender successfully gets rid of the body in Scotland Yard. Overall, it doesn,t appear to be a random event.

I have doubts, Fisherman, that the WH torso was moved because it wasn,t found. Encounters with the deposited body parts is typically immediate or near so. Altho there is the report coming from the men who dug around the area in Whitehall basement where the other body parts were discovered. They stated that one area smelled as tho something had been buried there. My reservation about assuming it was the torso (dug up and deposited by the Thames killer) is how there were different decomposition rates between the parts. I wouldn,t know if it being wrapped in a parcel and buried could cause ,that,.

[Pierre]

CommercialRoadWanderer: Oh well, since we are talking about that, there are some elements that may suggest that not even the C5 were killed by the same hand. Jumping straight to the conclusion that the ripper was indeed one, and even one with the torso murder, it's really too much for me.

Depends somewhat on the degree to which people are jumping to that conclusion. There can be no absolute certainty, but concluding that the most rational and logical solution is that we are dealing with one Ripper only is completely permissible to my mind - as long, that is, as we are discussing the cases where the victims had their abdomens ripped open. Tabram and Stride are two different cups of tea, although I count them in too.

The term "jumping to conclusions" is slightly derogatory when you speak of people who in many cases have spent decades of research and reading, by the way...

It seems to me, moreover, that for you the "we don't know the full story" element is actually something that encourages you to go a bit too far with your hypothesis, rather than the opposite, which is what for me is almost natural.

Now knowing is not knowing. Nobody is disputing that. But when not knowing is coupled with knowing that two murder series both involved the exact same, extremely rare elements, then it is anything but rash to point to a probable connection.

Well, there's nothing wrong in taking advantage of whatever you don't know to fill in with something you theorize, but over a certain degree (as with the "the ripper may have indulged a little dismemberment here and a little disembowelment there" idea) it's just not my cup of tea.

Tea comes in many flavours. So do serialists. Some of them dismember in one case but not in another. Some open up the abdomen in one case but not in an other. Ergo this MAY have applied to our cases too. After acknowledging that, we must look at the facts - are there commonalitites, similarities? And if there are, are there any common details that are rare or even extremely rare?

And there are such matters. How do you explain them? Mere coincidences?

Yes, everyone knows that it is "possible". No one disputes it, I think. But possibility is not evidence. It is the beginning where you start to search for it.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

If decades of research and readings gave you more elements to discuss about than the ones you are presenting here, then i will gladly read about those when and if you will provide them.

Then, what else i may say? For you the similarity of the abdominal wounds are something that is almost only explainable with the ripper and the torso murder being one person. For me, the possibility that the torso murders may have been perpetrated in a totally different situation or for different reasons is way too big to ignore.

And to me that means almost nothing. The signature must be similar between the cases to a certain extent for an hypothesis about the same killer. But if it is, it does not mean that Mr X is the killer. Two things being similar does not indicate the specific Mr X. It only indicates a possibility for the same killer, which could be Mr Z or T, and the hypothesis is hypothetical and preliminary. So you should try and disprove the hypothesis and if you canīt you are stuck with your silly data pointing to a specific killer. How very annoying. And especially if you find several bits of data. Then you have a hard time trying to get rid of them. They pile up like a small collection. Very silly.

Regards, Pierre

[CommercialRoadWanderer]

And to me that means almost nothing. The signature must be similar between the cases to a certain extent for an hypothesis about the same killer. But if it is, it does not mean that Mr X is the killer. Two things being similar does not indicate the specific Mr X. It only indicates a possibility for the same killer, which could be Mr Z or T, and the hypothesis is hypothetical and preliminary. So you should try and disprove the hypothesis and if you canīt you are stuck with your silly data pointing to a specific killer. How very annoying. And especially if you find several bits of data. Then you have a hard time trying to get rid of them. They pile up like a small collection. Very silly.

Regards, Pierre

I don't think I got what you mean with your answer, but I don't have to disprove anything. I'm just telling you what I think, that does not mean that I have a case to defend because mine does not fit into yours or anything like that.

Currently I don't see the torso murder and the ripper as the same man. The least I can tell is that I will try to read more about the subject and eventually reconsider.