How Many Victims Were There?

[Fisherman]

hi sam
I think you are thinking of the 1873 case. The 1884 Tottenham torsos head was recovered and she had facial mutilations-nose cut off and gashes to cheek, like eddowes.

Correct.

[Abby Normal]

She had her face removed. That's not the same the facial slashes inflicted on Eddowes or Kelly - and, in the latter case, the killer would have had plenty of time and privacy in which to "scalp" her face if he felt like it.

hi sam
I think you are thinking of the 1873 case. The 1884 Tottenham torsos head was recovered and she had facial mutilations-nose cut off and gashes to cheek, like eddowes.

[Sam Flynn]

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

She had her face removed. That's not the same the facial slashes inflicted on Eddowes or Kelly - and, in the latter case, the killer would have had plenty of time and privacy in which to "scalp" her face if he felt like it.

[Abby Normal]

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.

[Fisherman]

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

And who takes out hearts, uteri and colon sections and who cuts away abdominal walls in large sections. Its either one killer or the first example we have of eviscerating identical twins.

But to be honest, I think the discussion has reached the low-water level and lost its real relevance. Again.

[Fisherman]

You know the answer to the question Fish. Your point proves nothing. A better question would be to ask what the police would say to vastly different crimes with some similar knife work in a couple. They should say - well, as the crimes are so dissimilar in every way the likelihood of the similarities being coincidental are massively increased.

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.

[Abby Normal]

The victims of the Ripper went to a location of their own choosing whereas the Torso killer took his victims to a specific location of his own.

The victims of the ripper (apart from Kelly) were killed outdoors whereas it’s surely more likely that the Torso killer killed indoors or else he’d have the risk of transporting a corpse. (Yes Fish, unless he had the use of a cart. How much time out from work was he allowed though.)

The victims of the ripper were killed and mutilated where they were found whereas the victims of the Torso killer were not.

Dismembering is not posing. The rippers victims (apart from Stride of course) appear to have been posed.

The ripper knew for a fact that his victim would have been discovered and discovered quickly whereas the Torso Killers knew no such thing. Yes they were likely to be found at some point but this could have occurred weeks or months later. It’s even conceivable that some of the parts may never have been found. The ripper’s thrill was almost immediate.

The Torso Killer’s victims were dismembered whereas the ripper’s victims were not.


They couldn’t be a lot more dissimilar.

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

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, they could be a lot more dissimilar.

They could involve blunt force/sharp force.

They could involve men/women.

They could be strangulations/ eviscerations.

They could happen in London/Amsterdam.

And I can go on to list thousands of other possible dissimilarities inbetween them that were never there. Let's not be complete fools if we can avoid it. there are scores of similarities, many of them of a very odd and rare character. Stick with that, please, because those are the facts.

There is one difference and one difference only proven: the victims of the killers torso series were dismembered and dumped. Any other dissimilarity is a brainghost on behalf of its inventor, as I have already pointed out. Waky-waky!

Would you be as kind as to answer the question I asked Etenguy: Two murders are perpetrated, and in each case the victim is found with a red, a green and a blue screwdriver plunged into the chest of the victim. One of the victims is cut up in six parts.

What do you think the police will say?

A/ Look here, a dismemberment killer and a non-dismemberment killer have both decided to shove a green, a red and a blue screwdriver into the chest of a person!

or

B/ Well, well - it seems the screwdriver killer has turned to dismemberment now.

Please let me know how you look upon this enigma.

You know the answer to the question Fish. Your point proves nothing. A better question would be to ask what the police would say to vastly different crimes with some similar knife work in a couple. They should say - well, as the crimes are so dissimilar in every way the likelihood of the similarities being coincidental are massively increased.

[Fisherman]

The victims of the Ripper went to a location of their own choosing whereas the Torso killer took his victims to a specific location of his own.

The victims of the ripper (apart from Kelly) were killed outdoors whereas it’s surely more likely that the Torso killer killed indoors or else he’d have the risk of transporting a corpse. (Yes Fish, unless he had the use of a cart. How much time out from work was he allowed though.)

The victims of the ripper were killed and mutilated where they were found whereas the victims of the Torso killer were not.

Dismembering is not posing. The rippers victims (apart from Stride of course) appear to have been posed.

The ripper knew for a fact that his victim would have been discovered and discovered quickly whereas the Torso Killers knew no such thing. Yes they were likely to be found at some point but this could have occurred weeks or months later. It’s even conceivable that some of the parts may never have been found. The ripper’s thrill was almost immediate.

The Torso Killer’s victims were dismembered whereas the ripper’s victims were not.


They couldn’t be a lot more dissimilar.

Yes, they could be a lot more dissimilar.

They could involve blunt force/sharp force.

They could involve men/women.

They could be strangulations/ eviscerations.

They could happen in London/Amsterdam.

And I can go on to list thousands of other possible dissimilarities inbetween them that were never there. Let's not be complete fools if we can avoid it. there are scores of similarities, many of them of a very odd and rare character. Stick with that, please, because those are the facts.

There is one difference and one difference only proven: the victims of the killers torso series were dismembered and dumped. Any other dissimilarity is a brainghost on behalf of its inventor, as I have already pointed out. Waky-waky!

Would you be as kind as to answer the question I asked Etenguy: Two murders are perpetrated, and in each case the victim is found with a red, a green and a blue screwdriver plunged into the chest of the victim. One of the victims is cut up in six parts.

What do you think the police will say?

A/ Look here, a dismemberment killer and a non-dismemberment killer have both decided to shove a green, a red and a blue screwdriver into the chest of a person!

or

B/ Well, well - it seems the screwdriver killer has turned to dismemberment now.

Please let me know how you look upon this enigma.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Indeed - except these sets of crimes (torsos and ripper) were not hidden and they were each quite distinctive.

Quite distinctive? Let's assume that the Ripper conned his victims into believing he was a punter, took them to a safe spot and killed them. Lets´further assume that the Torso killer conned his victims into believing he was a punter, took them to a safe spot and killed them.

How are those two distinctively different crimes?

I repeat: the one and only difference we can be sure of is that the victims in one series were dismembered and dumped, whereas they were not in the other series - and that may owe to how the torso victims were killed in a bolthole that made it necessary to dismember them before removing them from there.

Otherwise, there is not a single point where the crimes must have differed in any material way from each other. If you disagree, please explain why.

The victims of the Ripper went to a location of their own choosing whereas the Torso killer took his victims to a specific location of his own.

The victims of the ripper (apart from Kelly) were killed outdoors whereas it’s surely more likely that the Torso killer killed indoors or else he’d have the risk of transporting a corpse. (Yes Fish, unless he had the use of a cart. How much time out from work was he allowed though.)

The victims of the ripper were killed and mutilated where they were found whereas the victims of the Torso killer were not.

Dismembering is not posing. The rippers victims (apart from Stride of course) appear to have been posed.

The ripper knew for a fact that his victim would have been discovered and discovered quickly whereas the Torso Killers knew no such thing. Yes they were likely to be found at some point but this could have occurred weeks or months later. It’s even conceivable that some of the parts may never have been found. The ripper’s thrill was almost immediate.

The Torso Killer’s victims were dismembered whereas the ripper’s victims were not.


They couldn’t be a lot more dissimilar.

[Fisherman]

That's about how I see it as well amigo. What I said to Fisherman included a piece about WHY any of the murders occurred, and how that outweighs any specific details on the scene, more specifically, the knife work.

So just how do we know why the murders occurred? More to the point, how do we know that they occurred for different reasons? Would we not need a crystal bowl to determine that, Michael? And do you have one?

Anyone with the basic skills of a butcher could have performed almost all of the Canonical Victims and some others within the Unsolved File, though I don't see that kind of knowledge required in the Torso murders.

Says you. There were medicos who disagreed. But regardless, what conclusions can we draw from how a limited knowledge about cutting was all it took, if that is so? That many people could be the killer? Right. But why would a number of people embark simultaneously on a carreer of eviscerations and mutilation?

What is done with a knife in each murder is therefore less revealing about anyone specific, instead it reveals a skill set that a fair amount of men would have in that area at the time. That points nowhere. It negates the value of additional circumstantial evidence that can be brought to the table as well.

Nope, nope and nope. What was done with that knife was to take out uteri, hearts and to cut away abdominal walls in sections. Although everybody theoretically Can do that, it applies that just about nobody DOES.

But the WHY in these cases does reveal something about some murders, and for the most part, they are apparently not based upon the same core motivation.

Read my lips: You-don´t-know. You-cant tell. You-are-speculating-and-that-won´t-do-as-evidence.

In the cases of the 2 Canonical Victims that are easiest to match with a single killer, the actions taken do not match the basic skill set, broader profile Suspect, but rather more specific and educated hands at work. They match each other in almost every major characteristic and category. And as to the WHY, it can only be concluded that the killer was intent on cutting into a female stranger he just met and then mutilating the abdomen and its internal structures and organs. A Mad killer. Jack the Ripper.

You speak of Nichols and Chapman. But Chapman and Kelly BOTH had their abdominal walls but away in flaps = same killer. Lis Jackson suffered the same fate = same killer. Rinham, Whitehall, Jackson and Pinchin displayed the exact same cutting techniques = same killer.

Look at some other Unsolved murders of that period, and see if you can make out that same objective in what is known about them? The evolving serial killer will kill to keep his secret in addition to the core motivator, but there almost always is an identifiable core motivator, which we know from serial killers that have been caught and studied. Many knew why they killed as well. They just couldn't will it away.

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!

[Michael W Richards]

I struggle with the suggestion that a torso killer from 1873 takes a 15 year break, then starts a very different type of killing spree in 1888 before returning to a torso killing spree. I note that Fisherman articulates similarities which indicates there might be a connection, but these are outweighed, IMHO, by the differences in the central attack characteristics. I believe we are a long way from establishing a killer connection between these sets of crimes.

That's about how I see it as well amigo. What I said to Fisherman included a piece about WHY any of the murders occurred, and how that outweighs any specific details on the scene, more specifically, the knife work. Anyone with the basic skills of a butcher could have performed almost all of the Canonical Victims and some others within the Unsolved File, though I don't see that kind of knowledge required in the Torso murders. What is done with a knife in each murder is therefore less revealing about anyone specific, instead it reveals a skill set that a fair amount of men would have in that area at the time. That points nowhere. It negates the value of additional circumstantial evidence that can be brought to the table as well.

But the WHY in these cases does reveal something about some murders, and for the most part, they are apparently not based upon the same core motivation. In the cases of the 2 Canonical Victims that are easiest to match with a single killer, the actions taken do not match the basic skill set, broader profile Suspect, but rather more specific and educated hands at work. They match each other in almost every major characteristic and category. And as to the WHY, it can only be concluded that the killer was intent on cutting into a female stranger he just met and then mutilating the abdomen and its internal structures and organs. A Mad killer. Jack the Ripper.

Look at some other Unsolved murders of that period, and see if you can make out that same objective in what is known about them? The evolving serial killer will kill to keep his secret in addition to the core motivator, but there almost always is an identifiable core motivator, which we know from serial killers that have been caught and studied. Many knew why they killed as well. They just couldn't will it away.

[Fisherman]

Hi Etenguy!

A long post, and I will answer the points you make to try and make you understand how I see things!

Indeed - except these sets of crimes (torsos and ripper) were not hidden and they were each quite distinctive.

Quite distinctive? Let's assume that the Ripper conned his victims into believing he was a punter, took them to a safe spot and killed them. Lets´further assume that the Torso killer conned his victims into believing he was a punter, took them to a safe spot and killed them.

How are those two distinctively different crimes?

I repeat: the one and only difference we can be sure of is that the victims in one series were dismembered and dumped, whereas they were not in the other series - and that may owe to how the torso victims were killed in a bolthole that made it necessary to dismember them before removing them from there.

Otherwise, there is not a single point where the crimes must have differed in any material way from each other. If you disagree, please explain why.

It is possible, of course, that if these crimes were all committed by one person we might discover a whole other set of murders that were committed in a different fashion, but there is not currently any evidence of this.

The absence of evidence is however not evidence of absence... But you are correct, there is no such evidence. And I would say that I would expect any unknown murders to involve cutting, mutilation and evisceration in various amounts, so IF there were such murders, then I assume the bodies were never found.

There is no arguement that a serial killer might have significant periods of inactivity.

Very true, as I pointed out.

Central attack characteristics is not a new term, I simply meant the words in plain English. And these characteristic differences are greater than solely dismemberment and dumpings. There are other characteristics which I believe are more distinctive and would argue against the same murderer, and they include:
* geography

...in wich case we do not know where the torso victims were contacted and where they were killed. For all we know, the killer may have found all of them in Bucks Row. The geography factor is therefore useless when it comes to placing the torso killer in one spot or another. Plus he dumped one body smack, bang in Ripper territory. And spread other parts all over other parts of London.

* ripper murders show no attempt to hide or dispose of the body, on the contrary the victims were posed and put on display for the public to see - torso murders were the opposite

No, they were not. The opposite would involve hiding the bodies away. Instead, just about all the parts of the bodies were found, pointing to a very clear possibility that the killer WANTED this to happen. Also, it is hard to pose an underarm, is it not? So we are dealing with very different opportunities on that score. But we CAN say that some of the parts seem to have been left to cause shock value, like the Whitehall torso and the part found into the Shelly estate, for example, ditto the Pinchin Street torso. And if you have a pile of arms and legs, what better way is there to adorn them with shock value than to float them through the largest metropolis in the world, floating ashore along the parliament building, the Scotland Yard building, the power centre of the victorian world, as it were? Once you have only parts to show, that is not half bad if you want attention!

* the ripper murders, to my mind, show an escalation in violence from Martha Tabram through to Mary Jane Kelly (if we accept that Stride was subject to an interuption - and I realise many do not consider Martha a ripper victim) - a growing confidence and a growing need for violence to sate the killer. This would not hold if earlier Torso murders had been committed by the same person.

How is not 39 stabs a full exhibition of violence? It is instead the gruesomeness of the deeds that escalates, not the amount of violence. And I believe that each Ripper murder must be regarded as one where the amount of violence inflicted is relative to the amounts of time and seclusion afforded by the slaying circumstances. If somebody had knocked on Kellys door when the killer took his knife out, we would have a different picture. I believe the need for violence was just as big in George Yard and Bucks Row as in Dorset Street, but in George Yard, the implements were not sufficient to eviscerate and in Bucks Row, Paul disturbed the killer.
There is also the fact to consider that once the killer decided to take his killings into the street, he may have been much more nervous on account of the risks involved (personally, I don´t think he was nervous at all, but I want to cover all possibilities).
In my world, this killer was a man who used dead bodies as material to "sculpt" in, if you like. In secluded surrounding and with time n his hands, he could be meticulous and careful, but once he took his murders to the street, he invited unknown factors a plenty, and that colored the outcome.

* the ripper murders showed no signs of trying to hide the identities of the victims nor dispersing body parts, unlike the torso murders, which showed signs of making a determined effort to dispose of the bodies (wrapping the body parts even) and hiding/destroying the heads of the victims to avoid identification.

Once more - I have pointed this out a thousand times - the torso killer left a name tag in clothing he disposed of together with a victim! He left moles and marks. He left a head in the Tottenham Court Road case. He did not weigh his parts down, he floated them - there you are, ladies and gents! - down the Thams or placed them in spots where they would inevitably be found. So he seems not to have been afraid of having his victims identities disclosed.
In the Ripper series, all the victims seemingly engaged in prostitution. In the Torso series, one victim only was ID:d - and she was a prostitute. Prostitutes are the basic prey for sexual serial killers on account of how they are often not sought for when disappearing and they are easily accessible - PLUS they can generally not be linked to their killers!!
It makes sense to assume that all the Torso victims were prostitutes. It makes sense to assume that this is another link between the series. It makes sense to assume that the only reason that the killer dismembered the victims was to enable him to remove them from a bolthole that COULD be linked to himself, whereas the victims could not.
These are factually and logically based assumptions, but I would personally add that I am convinced that a lot of the cutting - involving parts of the dismemberments owed to the psychopathology of the killer - he would have represented the third category of dismembers, this who cut up bodies on account of an urge to do so. That, however, does not preclude that there may have been a defensive element involved too - even if he cut because he liked it, he may have been acutely aware of the necessity not to have the victims linked too his person by way of the physical place where he did it being an address to which he was linked. So TWO, factors will have played a role, one offensive factor and one defensive, in the dismemberments and mutilations.
To exemplify what I mean, there can never have been a need to carefully cut the scalp and face away from the 1873 victim before dumping it. It would have taken considerable time and effort, whereas a practically guided killer would have taken a large stone and bashed the head in, and then he would have thrown it away.

* the later torso murders started in 1887, with the last in 1889 (although possiblility of later murders also) and so these overlapped with the 1888 ripper murders, but the ripper murders all occurred in a relatively short amount of time (depending on which victims are included as ripper murders) - a question arises as to why there would be a difference in the period in which the two sets of murders took place if the same killer.

We can only guess, I'm afraid. I believe the Ripper murders were to a degree about getting press coverage and invoking fear, whereas he was more content to have a lot of time and seclusion when cutting. That pans out well with how the Ripper thing seems to have been a later inclusion, much shorter in time, whereas what he REALLY wanted to do stretches over a lot longer period.

I do wonder also how you could dismember and behead a body without cuts to the neck and organs being disturbed.

You cannot. You HAVE to cut the neck to behead. That does not mean that the necks were NOT cut in the torso case, though, just as they were in the Ripper case. It only means that the spine was severed in the torso cases, which is what normally happens in dismemberment cases.

Also, I wondered about the mutilations to the face to which you refer - I had thought the heads were never found. So, I am not convinced that the list of similarities you provide are strange and rare similarities between the two sets of murders, but rather mostly a natural consequence of dismemberment.

The Tottenham Court Road case in 1884 was one where the head was found. The nose had been cut off, there was a gash in the cheek and mouth and the eyes had been cut out. Remember what happened to Eddowes´ face...?
And please - cut away abdominal walls are NOT a consequence of "normal" dismemberment. Nor are taken out uteri, taken out hearts, taken out colon sections. Nor are taken away rings.

Another statement you made was that the torso dismemberment and identity hiding may have been out of necessity. An obvious reason for such a necessity arising is that the victims could be linked to the killer in some way. This would suggest a very different victimology than for the ripper murders.

As I said before, this killer had no apparent problems with the identities being disclosed. His reason for dismemberment would arguably have been that the victims were killed in a locality to which he could be linked.

Of course, none of the above means it was definitely not the same killer, but the balance of probability in my estimation is that they were different types of murders committed by different people.

[/QUOTE]

...in which case you think it it perfectly reasonable to have two eviscerating serial killers in the same city and time period who both take out hearts, colon sections and uteri and who both cut away abdominal walls in large sections from their victims, who are both deemed very skilled with the knife by experienced medicos, who both prey on prostitutes, who both steal rings from their fingers, who both abstain from inflicting physical torture on their victims, who both mutilate faces and who both manage to stay uncaught.

Personally, I do not think that is anywhere near credible on any level. Its an open and shut case and for all the logical reasons. That's not to say that there is nothing strange about it - it IS strange to an extent, but the evidence is unequivocal and very, very clear. Sorry.

A send-off: Two victims are found dead, both of them with three screwdrivers, one red, one green and one blue, plunged into their chests. If one of these victims is found in six pieces, does that make it likely that there were two different killers? What rules the day, the screwdrivers or the dismemberment?

[etenguy]

Let´s begin by acknowledging that we have no idea whether the killer took a break (of ten years, not fifteen - there was a torso murder in 1884 too) or not - we can only say that he would have done so if the murders we have on record are the only ones he committed. But how would we know that? How can we guarantee that he did not kill in other fashions or perhaps hid away victims so as not to be found? The answer is that we cannot tell. Serial killers that stay uncaught must be looked upon as unfinished business.

Indeed - except these sets of crimes (torsos and ripper) were not hidden and they were each quite distinctive. It is possible, of course, that if these crimes were all committed by one person we might discover a whole other set of murders that were committed in a different fashion, but there is not currently any evidence of this.

Next - many serial killers have had long periods of inactivity. Rader did (fourteen years, I believe) and Dahmer did (there was a hiatus of a decade, I think, between his first and second victim). Others have done so too.

There is no arguement that a serial killer might have significant periods of inactivity.

"A very different type of killing spree"...? Really? Is it not true that the dismemberment and the ensuing dumpings are the only differences we can be sure of? And is it not true that this can owe to the torso murders being perpetrated in a locality that could be linked to the killer? If so, just how different are the series? It is two series involving eviscerations, organ taking, ripping from chest to groin, the taking of rings, killing prostitutes, cutting away abdominal walls in sections, exhibiting knife work that was deemed very skilled by various medicos, no explicit torture to the bodies, cuts to the necks, facial mutilations, cut out colon sections etcetera. Why not look at the plethora of strange and rare similarities instead of getting hung up on dismemberments that may have been sheer necessities in one series and not in the other?

What do you mean by "central attack characteristics", by the way? A new invention, methinks?

Central attack characteristics is not a new term, I simply meant the words in plain English. And these characteristic differences are greater than solely dismemberment and dumpings. There are other characteristics which I believe are more distinctive and would argue against the same murderer, and they include:
* geography
* ripper murders show no attempt to hide or dispose of the body, on the contrary the victims were posed and put on display for the public to see - torso murders were the opposite
* the ripper murders, to my mind, show an escalation in violence from Martha Tabram through to Mary Jane Kelly (if we accept that Stride was subject to an interuption - and I realise many do not consider Martha a ripper victim) - a growing confidence and a growing need for violence to sate the killer. This would not hold if earlier Torso murders had been committed by the same person.
* the ripper murders showed no signs of trying to hide the identities of the victims nor dispersing body parts, unlike the torso murders, which showed signs of making a determined effort to dispose of the bodies (wrapping the body parts even) and hiding/destroying the heads of the victims to avoid identification.
* the later torso murders started in 1887, with the last in 1889 (although possiblility of later murders also) and so these overlapped with the 1888 ripper murders, but the ripper murders all occurred in a relatively short amount of time (depending on which victims are included as ripper murders) - a question arises as to why there would be a difference in the period in which the two sets of murders took place if the same killer.

I do wonder also how you could dismember and behead a body without cuts to the neck and organs being disturbed. Also, I wondered about the mutilations to the face to which you refer - I had thought the heads were never found. So, I am not convinced that the list of similarities you provide are strange and rare similarities between the two sets of murders, but rather mostly a natural consequence of dismemberment.

Another statement you made was that the torso dismemberment and identity hiding may have been out of necessity. An obvious reason for such a necessity arising is that the victims could be linked to the killer in some way. This would suggest a very different victimology than for the ripper murders.

Of course, none of the above means it was definitely not the same killer, but the balance of probability in my estimation is that they were different types of murders committed by different people.

[Fisherman]

I struggle with the suggestion that a torso killer from 1873 takes a 15 year break, then starts a very different type of killing spree in 1888 before returning to a torso killing spree. I note that Fisherman articulates similarities which indicates there might be a connection, but these are outweighed, IMHO, by the differences in the central attack characteristics. I believe we are a long way from establishing a killer connection between these sets of crimes.

Let´s begin by acknowledging that we have no idea whether the killer took a break (of ten years, not fifteen - there was a torso murder in 1884 too) or not - we can only say that he would have done so if the murders we have on record are the only ones he committed. But how would we know that? How can we guarantee that he did not kill in other fashions or perhaps hid away victims so as not to be found? The answer is that we cannot tell. Serial killers that stay uncaught must be looked upon as unfinished business.

Next - many serial killers have had long periods of inactivity. Rader did (fourteen years, I believe) and Dahmer did (there was a hiatus of a decade, I think, between his first and second victim). Others have done so too.

"A very different type of killing spree"...? Really? Is it not true that the dismemberment and the ensuing dumpings are the only differences we can be sure of? And is it not true that this can owe to the torso murders being perpetrated in a locality that could be linked to the killer? If so, just how different are the series? It is two series involving eviscerations, organ taking, ripping from chest to groin, the taking of rings, killing prostitutes, cutting away abdominal walls in sections, exhibiting knife work that was deemed very skilled by various medicos, no explicit torture to the bodies, cuts to the necks, facial mutilations, cut out colon sections etcetera. Why not look at the plethora of strange and rare similarities instead of getting hung up on dismemberments that may have been sheer necessities in one series and not in the other?

What do you mean by "central attack characteristics", by the way? A new invention, methinks?