How Many Victims Were There?

[Michael W Richards]

...or that the same person (or two) was involved in all the cases. I'm pretty sure that Pinchin Street, at least, was not the work of the same person(s) responsible for the West End torsos.

Don't suggest yet another serial killer Sam, youll fluster a bunch of narrowminded folks here.

[Fisherman]

...or that the same person (or two) was involved in all the cases. I'm pretty sure that Pinchin Street, at least, was not the work of the same person(s) responsible for the West End torsos.

Making you a better and more accomplished judge of the matter than Hebbert, who examined the wounds and cuts and who never for a second hesitated to say that they were the work of the same man in all four 1887-1889 cases.

And which point is it you make to clinch your case? That the victim had not had her arms taken off!

PS. Interestingly, Phillips (the old numbnut) also stated that there were great similarities between the cuts to Kellys neck and those to the neck of the Pinchin Street victim. It may well be that both medicos are a fair cut above you.

[Michael W Richards]

The evidence also discloses that she was arrested for soliciting sex while still staying in Sweden. And that she had her neck deeply cut in St Georges.

She petitioned to have herself removed from the active streetwalkers list kept by the authorities in Goteborg, successfully. A rare feat...and one that could only be accomplished with proof of legitimate work offers. And she had lots of legitimate jobs after that...so...her history has nothing to support your claims about what she might have been doing there that night. The single cut did not sever both major arteries in her throat, both of the priors had 2 throat cuts down to their spines, and they cut all major throat vessels.

[Sam Flynn]

Do we have any way of being certain that the killer and the dismemberer were one and the same? If not then we should ban the phrase Torso Killer. All that we know is that these women died and that someone dismembered them. We cannot be certain that these two acts were committed by the same person.

...or that the same person (or two) was involved in all the cases. I'm pretty sure that Pinchin Street, at least, was not the work of the same person(s) responsible for the West End torsos.

[Fisherman]

Lets stick with what the evidence says, like in Liz's case. It says she was murdered. That's it.

The evidence also discloses that she was arrested for soliciting sex while still staying in Sweden. And that she had her neck deeply cut in St Georges.

[Michael W Richards]

In the Stride case, the contemporary police and most students of the case today believe that the killer would have eviscerated and mutilated her if he had not been disturbed. (No evidence at all to that effect.) And the semantics sources (intelligibly) reason that this was why he went after Eddowes on the same night. (Without any substantive connection between the 2 murders and 1 killer.) Kelly was mutilated, extensively so, and eviscerated, so I cannot see your point there. ( My point was Abdominally Focused PM Mutilations, which Ive repeated many times.) Tabram, the implements may have been wrong, simple as that.(a throat can be cut, and was often cut, using simple knives like pen knives) But she DID sustain a cut to her vulva,(likely the result of a stab), something that looks like mutilation. to me. Smith, I don't think she was a Ripper victim in the first place.

Lets stick with what the evidence says, like in Liz's case. It says she was murdered. That's it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If I may make a remark here, Abby, I think that we should ban the word "superficial". It implies that we know the full story, and that the differences only SEEM to be real differences whereas they are not.

the reason that I want a ban here is not really your using the word - it is instead the fact that Gareth has used it on numerous occasions, applying it to the similarities that he says are superficial only.

That would mean that we can take it as a fact that once we look deeper into the similarities, we will find that they are not REAL similarities, they only SEEM to be. Of course, Gareth cannot possibly know this, nor can anybody else do so. We do not have the answers. But the sheer amount of very rare similarities speaks a clear and unequivocal language.

Anyway, that's why I want the word stricken of the to do-list.

Otherwise, I agree with you, and I suspect in the not very far away future we will ALL agree that there was just the one killer. It is an inevitable shift off paradigms, given the quality and wealth of the evidence for a common originator. Today, this will be vehemently denied by many, since old habits die hard. Tomorrow it will have changed a little bit and in days to come, logic will prevail. That is my conviction, and I will do my foremost to help the process along.

Do we have any way of being certain that the killer and the dismemberer were one and the same? If not then we should ban the phrase Torso Killer. All that we know is that these women died and that someone dismembered them. We cannot be certain that these two acts were committed by the same person.

[Herlock Sholmes]

No, Herlock, they would not. They would instead work from the assumption of a single killer who sometimes dismembered, the way a number of serial killers has done over the years.

Its a flagrant lie to claim that the murders are dissimilar "in every way". They are nothing of the sort, but you like to inflame, methinks?

And the screwdriver example proves a whole deal, I'm afraid - albeit what it proves is not to your taste.

You are of course correct Fish. It was an exaggeration for me to have said in every way. I should have said the in most ways.

[Fisherman]

The ONLY victims that we know were soliciting at the time they met their killer are C1 and C2, any other inclusions are speculative and harmful to the search for the truth. Like lumping murders together that obviously do not match in very significant ways.

They all had a record of prostitution, so the suggestion that they were prostituting themselves on the nights of their murders is and remains a very good one.

[Fisherman]

As I pointed out, there are indications within the physical and circumstantial evidence in the cases of Polly and Annie that the killer sought to mutilate their abdomens after he cuts their throats. Ergo, their death was not the core objective, the PM mutilations were.

That is exactly my view too, although I would warn very much against thinking that eviscerations was the sole and ultimate goal. As I say, it was probably about cutting in a more general sense.

In the case of the Torsos, contrary to what you accused me of, I just pointed out that their are no such indications.

Eh - Jackson had her uterus plucked out together with her heart and lungs. If that is not an example of an intention to mutilate and eviscerate, then I don't know what is.

Nor are there in Liz Strides murder. Or Marys murder. Or Marthas. Or Emmas. Yet you want everyone to buy into your belief that the geographical and historical similarities override all the basic differences.

In the Stride case, the contemporary police and most students of the case today believe that the killer would have eviscerated and mutilated her if he had not been disturbed. And the semantics sources (intelligibly) reason that this was why he went after Eddowes on the same night. Kelly was mutilated, extensively so, and eviscerated, so I cannot see your point there. Tabram, the implements may have been wrong, simple as that. But she DID sustain a cut to her vulva, something that looks like mutilation. to me. Smith, I don't think she was a Ripper victim in the first place.

[Michael W Richards]

hi hs
are they really that dissimilar though? a post mortem type serial killer who likes to kill and cut up prostitutes

The ONLY victims that we know were soliciting at the time they met their killer are C1 and C2, any other inclusions are speculative and harmful to the search for the truth. Like lumping murders together that obviously do not match in very significant ways.

[Fisherman]

I pretty much agree-too many (rare) similarities. that far out weight the superficial differences.

If I may make a remark here, Abby, I think that we should ban the word "superficial". It implies that we know the full story, and that the differences only SEEM to be real differences whereas they are not.

the reason that I want a ban here is not really your using the word - it is instead the fact that Gareth has used it on numerous occasions, applying it to the similarities that he says are superficial only.

That would mean that we can take it as a fact that once we look deeper into the similarities, we will find that they are not REAL similarities, they only SEEM to be. Of course, Gareth cannot possibly know this, nor can anybody else do so. We do not have the answers. But the sheer amount of very rare similarities speaks a clear and unequivocal language.

Anyway, that's why I want the word stricken of the to do-list.

Otherwise, I agree with you, and I suspect in the not very far away future we will ALL agree that there was just the one killer. It is an inevitable shift off paradigms, given the quality and wealth of the evidence for a common originator. Today, this will be vehemently denied by many, since old habits die hard. Tomorrow it will have changed a little bit and in days to come, logic will prevail. That is my conviction, and I will do my foremost to help the process along.

[Michael W Richards]

Once again, which crystal ball did you use to decide that the Ripper and the Torso killer had different motivations? How, Michael, do you suppose to prove it? It is nothing but a hunch on your behalf, my friend. Nothing!

As I pointed out, there are indications within the physical and circumstantial evidence in the cases of Polly and Annie that the killer sought to mutilate their abdomens after he cuts their throats. Ergo, their death was not the core objective, the PM mutilations were. In the case of the Torsos, contrary to what you accused me of, I just pointed out that their are no such indications. Nor are there in Liz Strides murder. Or Marys murder. Or Marthas. Or Emmas. Yet you want everyone to buy into your belief that the geographical and historical similarities override all the basic differences.

And if you don't see a huge difference between a single throat cut and disemboweling, or murders without dismemberment with ones that do have it, that's your perception that is the problem.

[Abby Normal]

Yes. There are two handfuls of rare, extremely rare or even rarer inclusions that traverse both series, and that cannot possibly be two handfuls of coincidences.

I pretty much agree-too many (rare) similarities. that far out weight the superficial differences.

[Fisherman]

hi fish
the more I learn of the torsos the more I think the ripper and he are the same man:
The 1884 Tottenham one most recently with her face mutilated like eddowes and the way it was dumped rather audaciously and publicly.

I knew of it but didn't realize the facial mutilations-again extremely rare for a serial killer to do.

Yes. There are two handfuls of rare, extremely rare or even rarer inclusions that traverse both series, and that cannot possibly be two handfuls of coincidences.