I think I have found him.

[Debra A]

Thank you for that, but good as it is, it is only a paper excercise. There are many factors which may and could have occurred to alter those calculations.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I think John does a good job of explaining all the factors that would alter things but the main point is that body parts would travel on the tides. It makes much more sense that any collection of dismembered remains would have been dumped in the Thames as quickly as possible, and all at the same time and have 'travelled' to the spots they were discovered, rather than a killer placing them strategically at certain points?
The inland finds in the Jackson case; Battersea Park and Shelley Gardens are both very close to the Albert Bridge where it was believed Elizabeth's remains were thrown from. That's a small concentrated area.

With Rainham it was believed that the remains were originally all dumped around the Regent's Canal area.

Dave Gates once did some excellent maps of the torso finds.
The inland finds would be the most telling about how widespread an area was actually being used for dumping the different sets of remains I think.

[Debra A]

Thanks for that, Debra - I had not seen John Savage´s estimation before. Most interesting!

Yes, it was a very interesting assessment. It would have been great if John had looked at the other cases too, as he suggested he might at one time.
I don't know if it was obvious but John worked from historical data of the exact conditions and tide times recorded for the date of the dumping in June 1889.

[John G]

Here's an interesting assessment of how Elizabeth Jackson's body parts would have been carried by the Thames tides by someone with real knowledge of the subject, not just guessing - casebook and forums member, John Savage:

http://www.jtrforums.com/showpost.ph...8&postcount=17

Hello Debra,

Just out of interest, what do you think of Professor David Wilson's opinion that the Whitechapel murderer was disorganised, I.e because his activities were confined to the tiny Whitechapel District?

Of course, it could be strongly argued that a more organised killer would have expanded his range, especially with a massively increased police presence in Whitechapel and a public on high alert. Nor can it be satisfactorily argued that he was hampered by lack of transport; it would have requiee d a relatively short walk to switch activities to a neighbouring borough, and anyway locals were used to walking much longer distances than today: George Hutchinson claimed to have walked all the way from Romford.

Of course, in this respect the Torso perpetrator, assuming there was just one perpetrator, appears to be far more organised in this respect, with body parts showing up all over London and no evidence that the victims were selected from a single district; in fact, he have even acquired a boat. Okay, I know that some of the body parts could have been thrown into the Thames from the same area, but that doesn't fully explain, say, Whitehall, Pinchin Street, Tottenham.

[GUT]

The problem is when you become obsessed with a pet theory objectivity goes out of the window. I must admit that I've been guilty of this myself, however, now that I've attained the Casebook rank of Inspector I'm obviously far more sensible! Well, most if the time at least!

Whereas if I ever came up with a theory 'd love to see the weaknesses in it.

[Fisherman]

Yes, it was a very interesting assessment. It would have been great if John had looked at the other cases too, as he suggested he might at one time.
I don't know if it was obvious but John worked from historical data of the exact conditions and tide times recorded for the date of the dumping in June 1889.

It absolutely seems we are dealing with a killer who worked with quite a complex distribution of the body parts. Unscientific as it may be, do you have any idea or hunch why?
It is tempting to read in a desire to communicate in some shape of form, but which is the message? I can do this and you can´t stop me?
If so, that would have been just as evident if he dumped all the parts simultaneously at a place where he knew they would be found. Arguably, drifting them down the Thames would have carried a much larger risk of some or all of the parts not being found at all.
So this killer took greater risks than necessary when dumping the parts, while at the same time not securing as best as he could that the parts he dumped would be found (but for the parts dumped on dry land). To me, that speaks of a possible underlying motivation that remains undisclosed to us.

Are there any cases that seemingly offer some sort of parallel to this? Do you know?

[John G]

Whereas if I ever came up with a theory 'd love to see the weaknesses in it.

I'm sure it would be completely watertight, particularly if you engaged the renowned biologist Dr L to add scientific weight to the theory!

But in all seriousness I agree, it's surely the only way to be objective . Thus, unless you've got a book to sell it surely makes sense to consider a wider range of opinions, even if they're critical or even outright dismissive.At the very least it gives you the opportunity to see potential flaws in the theory, allowing for revision, refinement, or a total rewrite! In fact, that's why I've posted a theory to Debra, which I suspect she might tear to shreds!

[GUT]

I'm sure it would be completely watertight, particularly if you engaged the renowned biologist Dr L to add scientific weight to the theory!

But in all seriousness I agree, it's surely the only way to be objective . Thus, unless you've got a book to sell it surely makes sense to consider a wider range of opinions, even if they're critical or even outright dismissive.At the very least it gives you the opportunity to see potential flaws in the theory, allowing for revision, refinement, or a total rewrite! In fact, that's why I've posted a theory to Debra, which I suspect she might tear to shreds!

Even if I had a book to peddle. I'd want to nail it down.

I just don't get it when people get so upset at having weaknesses pointed out to them.

And boy do some of them get upset.

[belinda]

If it's an historical figure, then I'm out straight away.

In the overwhelming amount of cases, serial killers aren't famous people from history. They're the sort of everyday guy you'd pass in the street without batting an eyelid.

Absolutely. They are nobodies. That is why they kill.

[Debra A]

Hello Debra,

Just out of interest, what do you think of Professor David Wilson's opinion that the Whitechapel murderer was disorganised, I.e because his activities were confined to the tiny Whitechapel District?

Of course, it could be strongly argued that a more organised killer would have expanded his range, especially with a massively increased police presence in Whitechapel and a public on high alert. Nor can it be satisfactorily argued that he was hampered by lack of transport; it would have requiee d a relatively short walk to switch activities to a neighbouring borough, and anyway locals were used to walking much longer distances than today: George Hutchinson claimed to have walked all the way from Romford.

Of course, in this respect the Torso perpetrator, assuming there was just one perpetrator, appears to be far more organised in this respect, with body parts showing up all over London and no evidence that the victims were selected from a single district; in fact, he have even acquired a boat. Okay, I know that some of the body parts could have been thrown into the Thames from the same area, but that doesn't fully explain, say, Whitehall, Pinchin Street, Tottenham.

That is why I suggested the inland finds would be most useful in assessing how widespread the dump sites were, John. These sites alone are controlled by the perpetrator.
The problem is, no one agrees which of the torso cases are linked, if any, to one killer. If we exclude, say- the Tottenham case where a jury found the victim had died as the result of abortion, then we have less inland dump sites.
Only Elizabeth Jackson was identified in the torso case so it is impossible to establish where the victims were taken from, also.

[John G]

Oops! Duplicate post!

[Fisherman]

Even if I had a book to peddle. I'd want to nail it down.

I just don't get it when people get so upset at having weaknesses pointed out to them.

And boy do some of them get upset.

... and then there are those who like to have their theories scrutinized, but who dislike when it is said that there has been a complete debunking of them. Not because they cannot stand the idea of a complete debunking but because the alleged debunking was never there.

Criticism is ALWAYS a good thing - if it is fair and factually underpinned. If it is not, then it is NEVER a good thing. It really is that easy.

[belinda]

Hi everyone,



5.His background and knowledge makes him clearly capable of committing the murders and performing the mutilations and dismemberments.

8.He wasn´t interrupted efter killing Stride. He was just being very cautious.


Pierre

Dismemberments?

Cautious? Why should he become cautious with only one victim? Then proceed to be anything but a mere half hour later with Catharine Eddowes? Why did he need to exercise caution with Elisabeth Stride in particular?

[Sleuth1888]

Hi Pierre.

I've been very interested in following developments regarding your new theory.

One thing I would like to know is can your suspect be connected directly or indirectly to any of the Ripper or Torso murder victims during life? Did he know them?

[Trevor Marriott]

I think John does a good job of explaining all the factors that would alter things but the main point is that body parts would travel on the tides. It makes much more sense that any collection of dismembered remains would have been dumped in the Thames as quickly as possible, and all at the same time and have 'travelled' to the spots they were discovered, rather than a killer placing them strategically at certain points?
The inland finds in the Jackson case; Battersea Park and Shelley Gardens are both very close to the Albert Bridge where it was believed Elizabeth's remains were thrown from. That's a small concentrated area.

With Rainham it was believed that the remains were originally all dumped around the Regent's Canal area.

Dave Gates once did some excellent maps of the torso finds.
The inland finds would be the most telling about how widespread an area was actually being used for dumping the different sets of remains I think.

As I said a good paper exercise and to those whose theory it suits will applaud it. Others may not accept it so readily.

I will draw you attention to Amelia Dyer who was murdering babies in 1895 and parceling the bodies up and throwing them in the Thames around Reading. Following her arrest a search was made of the river nearby and six other parceled up murdered babies were found. So it doesn't necessaril follow that the tides will move objects along the water for some considerable distances.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Debra,

Just out of interest, what do you think of Professor David Wilson's opinion that the Whitechapel murderer was disorganised, I.e because his activities were confined to the tiny Whitechapel District?

Of course, it could be strongly argued that a more organised killer would have expanded his range, especially with a massively increased police presence in Whitechapel and a public on high alert. Nor can it be satisfactorily argued that he was hampered by lack of transport; it would have requiee d a relatively short walk to switch activities to a neighbouring borough, and anyway locals were used to walking much longer distances than today: George Hutchinson claimed to have walked all the way from Romford.

Of course, in this respect the Torso perpetrator, assuming there was just one perpetrator, appears to be far more organised in this respect, with body parts showing up all over London and no evidence that the victims were selected from a single district; in fact, he have even acquired a boat. Okay, I know that some of the body parts could have been thrown into the Thames from the same area, but that doesn't fully explain, say, Whitehall, Pinchin Street, Tottenham.

Hi John
Any opinion give by Prof Wilson, or any other profiler for that matter is nothing more than a stab in the dark, simply because one of the main reasons is that it cannot be positively ascertained that all the victims were killed by the same hand.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk