How Many Victims Were There?

[Michael W Richards]

I agree with Michael. We are dealing with different killers.

I almost fell out of my chair John....agreement? Can there be agreement on anything?

[APerno]

A lot of theorists see the killer as a firework that went on a bloody spree and then fizzled out. However, we know there are notorious serial killers who took prolonged breaks before killing again. Personally, I think the murders continued to at least 1889 with McKenzie and possibly the torsos. There could've also been much later murders which were the work of the Ripper.

What does offer some credence to that premise was the extent of the MJK slaying. Finally indoors he had the opportunity to satisfy whatever illness he was suffering from and was able to walk away from it for at least a while. You think about it, what could (in action) have been his next step? There really wasn't anything more he could do to a woman than what he did to Mary Kelly.

[Sam Flynn]

Finally indoors he had the opportunity to satisfy whatever illness he was suffering from and was able to walk away from it for at least a while.

Indeed, "finally indoors". What hope for the Pinchin Street victim, then? Oh, hang on a minute! She only sustained a superficial wound to her belly, and there were no wounds to her thorax or arms...

"Torsoripper" fans, take note.

[APerno]

Indeed, "finally indoors". What hope for the Pinchin Street victim, then? Oh, hang on a minute! She only sustained a superficial wound to her belly, and there were no wounds to her thorax or arms...

"Torsoripper" fans, take note.

When I was writing "finally indoors" I actually stopped and thought, 'do I have to write in a torso killer disclaimer'?

I am not complaining and I enjoyed that you used the post to break balls . . . as a regular lurker I can tell you over the past six months the torso killer-Ripper connection, here on Casebook, has grown so strong it seems to be creating a revisionist temperament, with all the murders and all the evidence getting parsed against the torso killings.

Wonder if that is good or bad? An new insight into the killer or just another rabbit hole?

[Harry D]

What does offer some credence to that premise was the extent of the MJK slaying. Finally indoors he had the opportunity to satisfy whatever illness he was suffering from and was able to walk away from it for at least a while. You think about it, what could (in action) have been his next step? There really wasn't anything more he could do to a woman than what he did to Mary Kelly.

That's the traditional narrative, isn't it? But do we know the killer's motivation?

[Abby Normal]

What does offer some credence to that premise was the extent of the MJK slaying. Finally indoors he had the opportunity to satisfy whatever illness he was suffering from and was able to walk away from it for at least a while. You think about it, what could (in action) have been his next step? There really wasn't anything more he could do to a woman than what he did to Mary Kelly.

Hi Ap
next step? do it again. the ripper apparently kept going with his attack on McKenzie-although the apparent lay off may have "satisfied" him for awhile.

torsoman (if your inclined to believe he was separate from the ripper) apparently also "indoors had the opportunity to satisfy whatever illness he was suffering from" with earlier victims and yet still kept going.

I don't think serial killers necessarily ever stop once they have achieved some final goal-if they ever really have one (although perhaps a case could be made for Kemper-although his explanation for stopping was more along the lines of getting burnt out/ it was all getting to out of control.)

[Abby Normal]

When I was writing "finally indoors" I actually stopped and thought, 'do I have to write in a torso killer disclaimer'?

I am not complaining and I enjoyed that you used the post to break balls . . . as a regular lurker I can tell you over the past six months the torso killer-Ripper connection, here on Casebook, has grown so strong it seems to be creating a revisionist temperament, with all the murders and all the evidence getting parsed against the torso killings.

Wonder if that is good or bad? An new insight into the killer or just another rabbit hole?

lol re torso killer disclaimer-I just saw this before I posted my last post-so yes apparently you do! ; )

[APerno]

Hi Ap
next step? do it again. the ripper apparently kept going with his attack on McKenzie-although the apparent lay off may have "satisfied" him for awhile.

torsoman (if your inclined to believe he was separate from the ripper) apparently also "indoors had the opportunity to satisfy whatever illness he was suffering from" with earlier victims and yet still kept going.

I don't think serial killers necessarily ever stop once they have achieved some final goal-if they ever really have one (although perhaps a case could be made for Kemper-although his explanation for stopping was more along the lines of getting burnt out/ it was all getting to out of control.)

That is what I was suggesting "for awhile" -- not that he would stop

Which incidentally (but not relevant) fits well with the torso killer (whoever he may have been, LOL) free to kill at leisure his murders are well spaced, over a prolonged period of time, suggesting that each event brought some (temporary) level of satisfaction.

During the 15 week period from Tabram to Kelly, Saucy Jacky seemed locked in a frenzy and then with MJK he reached some (temporary) satisfaction and was able to stay his hand for at least awhile.

To me the Ripper murders look to be what some profiliers (sp) call a disorganized, opportunist marauder, while the torso killer looks organized; well planned. So I am in the 'different murderer' camp.

BTW to me the C5 are Tabram in, Stride out.

[Michael W Richards]

Surely an act like mutilation in whatever form it takes isn't the main characteristic to use as a "link" from the alleged Ripper series to the Torsos, the way the mutilations were carried out...the focus, whether in public/private, whether done rapidly/leisurely, ….those are far more telling about the characteristics of the killer. The man who made Torsos and the men who killed and then mutilated the other women in the Unsolved Files were decidedly different.. characteristically.

Ive cited here in the past case where killers imitate actions of other killers, sometimes those initial acts themselves help instigate these subsequent murders, or some just influence.

[Abby Normal]

A man who attacks strangers and murders them and the disembowels them on the spot, leaving them to be found shortly thereafter with their identity roughly recognizable, is very different from a man that kidnaps a victim...(there is no evidence any Torso was taken away to be cut up already murdered), and over days and weeks kills them and takes them apart, disposing of some parts in the river, or in less than obvious locations, preventing any sure identification in the short run. Some Torsos we will never know for sure who they were.

The man who disemboweled in the streets could have been caught by any accidental passer by, cop or citizen, but the man who disarticulated could have worked a normal job, gone home to the family, and done some grisly work at a warehouse before retiring for the night. Once he had his victim stashed away somewhere private, he had all the time in the world with no police to breathe down his neck, or passer by to spoils his future plans. He also had no opportunity for the rush the street killer had, knowing that any minute he could be caught.

That rush may be on his hit list.

Hi MR

A

man who attacks strangers and murders them and the disembowels them on the spot, leaving them to be found shortly thereafter with their identity roughly recognizable, is very different from a man that kidnaps a victim...(there is no evidence any Torso was taken away to be cut up already murdered), and over days and weeks kills them and takes them apart, disposing of some parts in the river, or in less than obvious locations, preventing any sure identification in the short run. Some Torsos we will never know for sure who they were.

torsoman "kidnapped" his victims? umm don't think so. no evidence they were kidnapped at all. in all likelihood rused to a private secluded spot, more than likely his chop shop. killed quickly and they were cut up soon after death. no sign of torture. totally different than a kidnapper who abducts victims and keeps them alive to torture and sexually abused over the course of some time.

so seemingly both torsoman and the ripper used a ruse to get the victim where they wanted to quickly kill and mutilate .and apparent difference could be simple fact his chop shop not available yet the urge is still there.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi MR

[LEFT][COLOR=#000000][FONT=Verdana]A

torsoman "kidnapped" his victims? umm don't think so. no evidence they were kidnapped at all. in all likelihood rused to a private secluded spot, more than likely his chop shop. killed quickly and they were cut up soon after death. no sign of torture. totally different than a kidnapper who abducts victims and keeps them alive to torture and sexually abused over the course of some time.

so seemingly both torsoman and the ripper used a ruse to get the victim where they wanted to quickly kill and mutilate .and apparent difference could be simple fact his chop shop not available yet the urge is still there.

If he takes them somewhere with their consent, I agree, if he drugged them or rendered them unconscious, then I don't. Do you know whether he kept them alive for a day or 2 after taking them,... nope, you don't. He may well have kidnapped his victims. How long did Torsoman take killing and mutilating...don't know, but we do know that jack took very little time. Did he do any of this publicly? With the danger element present? Nope. Did he leave the bodies to be discovered shortly after he killed them? No. Did he keep any materials from the victims? don't know. But we know Jack took some away with him.

Jack the Ripper killed women he met as strangers on that same night, and in public. He wanted to obtain abdominal organs. He had to worked fast as a result, there is no indication that Torso man was in any hurry to accomplish his goals. Which were more in the disarticulation realm.

[Abby Normal]

If he takes them somewhere with their consent, I agree, if he drugged them or rendered them unconscious, then I don't. Do you know whether he kept them alive for a day or 2 after taking them,... nope, you don't. He may well have kidnapped his victims. How long did Torsoman take killing and mutilating...don't know, but we do know that jack took very little time. Did he do any of this publicly? With the danger element present? Nope. Did he leave the bodies to be discovered shortly after he killed them? No. Did he keep any materials from the victims? don't know. But we know Jack took some away with him.

Jack the Ripper killed women he met as strangers on that same night, and in public. He wanted to obtain abdominal organs. He had to worked fast as a result, there is no indication that Torso man was in any hurry to accomplish his goals. Which were more in the disarticulation realm.

which again could simply be explained by torsomans chop shop not being available but the urge was still there. If your killing in your own place-dismemberment is usually needed in ease of removal. If your killing on the street you don't need to worry about that and it takes more time/risk to dismember and you cant easily get away in public carrying limbs, torso or head can you?

the ripper was more than just internal organ removal.
the torsoman was more than just dismemberment.

they were BOTH about killing unfortunates and cutting them up, post mortem mutilation, removing organs, removing body parts, targeting the face, removing stomach flesh in flaps, leaving victims in shocking fashion, incredible ability to not be caught, rusing victims to get them where they wanted them, killing in the same general area and the same span and stopping at the same time.

[Michael W Richards]

which again could simply be explained by torsomans chop shop not being available but the urge was still there. If your killing in your own place-dismemberment is usually needed in ease of removal. If your killing on the street you don't need to worry about that and it takes more time/risk to dismember and you cant easily get away in public carrying limbs, torso or head can you?

the ripper was more than just internal organ removal.
the torsoman was more than just dismemberment.

they were BOTH about killing unfortunates and cutting them up, post mortem mutilation, removing organs, removing body parts, targeting the face, removing stomach flesh in flaps, leaving victims in shocking fashion, incredible ability to not be caught, rusing victims to get them where they wanted them, killing in the same general area and the same span and stopping at the same time.

So he takes, or as you suggest, kills a woman then wonders where he can safety take her to cut her limbs and head off? Or he doesn't kill until his "chop shop" is vacant? Is this his own place? If so, why wouldn't it be available at anytime he likes? The reason he takes them to a private place is for the very reason you mention, and since he may work with the dead body over days, its unlikely the space he uses would be available for anyone else to access...hence, 24 hour a day access to a lair...the reason Jack the Ripper NEVER MOVED 1 VICTIM from the spot he kills them on is much more simple...he didnt need privacy, or much time.

Jack the Ripper killed to obtain internal organs, read the synopsis on what the medical expert said about what was done to Annie and why...to obtain what he took. All he did was to take what he did. "There were no meaningless cuts". Torso man killed so he could dismember and disarticulate. He did so in private, over who knows how long. Then he disposed of the parts he didn't want, and in one case, he may have left it specifically and with purpose. You used the term Unfortunates, you normally claim they were all active prostitutes, so I see that as progress..., but on the other points...PM mutilation of the abdomen, not just PM mutilation....2 Canonicals had facial injuries... out of Five assumed victims, hardly a Feature of Ripper kills, being in the minority, only 1 Torso left in place, most parts discarded or washed up. Evidence says that Jack killed the first 2 women, unknown to him, who were actively soliciting at the time...there is no such credible evidence for any other Unsolved kill. The fact that we are talking about a crime ridden ghetto sort of deals with your "area" argument for violent attacks, and the Torso appeared years before the Ripper crimes even began, and continued beyond them.

[Fisherman]

So he takes, or as you suggest, kills a woman then wonders where he can safety take her to cut her limbs and head off? Or he doesn't kill until his "chop shop" is vacant? Is this his own place? If so, why wouldn't it be available at anytime he likes?

Do you have any idea how many potential answers there may be to that question, Michael?

My own idea is that there need not be any practical consideration behind the different choices of MO. I think he likely wanted to add killing in the street for the added shock value, but that he would no want to miss out on the more controlled killing/cutting since it was something he liked to do.

Any which way, neither possibility can be ruled out. And any which way, there WILL be an explanation, because there must be. It was the same killer, and therefore the solutions to these issues will be there. And trust me, they will be mundane and easy to understand.

[Sam Flynn]

We're not taking about "a crime ridden ghetto" in respect of Chelsea or Battersea, which was where the vast majority of the torso parts were dumped. It's a totally different part of London. Then or now, if Abby told a Battersea resident that they lived in "the same general area" as Whitechapel, they'd laugh out loud.