How Many Victims Were There?

[Fisherman]

Regardless of whom we suspect, it doesn't strike me as particularly likely that any East Ender in his early 20s would be into chopping up women and dumping their remains in Battersea and Putney.

Have a look historically at dismemberment killers who kill out of a wish to cut up bodies, Gareth. Luckily, it is not likely that ANYBODY would do such a thing. But some do, nevertheless.

Where he dumped the bodies will have nothing to do with how likely a 24 year old killer is or not. Maybe, though, you would find it more likely that such a man would dump a body in St Georges...?

[Fisherman]

I think Fisherman one must remember just how available the basic slaughterhouse/butcher skill set was in that area at the time. Much of what you mention is excising and how that was done was likely very similar from man to man. Little specific differences to be sure, but essentially using the same procedural methods. There are murders though within all these unsolved murders where the skill set and the target was much more refined and specific. The ultimate objectives more evident. The possible pool of Suspects more narrow. Co-mingling these with other butcher style murders, or simple throat cutting murders, muddies the water to the extent that clarity is impossible.

The common outcome when a body is dismembered is not one that will make seasoned medicos speculate about surgical insights, Michael. And no, not all people cut in the same way.

I say scrutinize the ones we can say with some certainty had a high probability of linkage by killer and find out why they happened. Use any answers you find when reviewing other cases. Its the key points that have to match, specific actions per se aren't the evidence that can link the killer, why the murders took place can.

Specific actions ALWAYS links murders, I'm afraid, whereas lofty speculations about the reasons for the killings rarely do - it is not until the killer is caught that such things are revealed.

The Torso murders were conducted differently, over a long span of time one might imagine, and the body parts do not have any recognizable attraction to the killer, one that is clearly present. They are discarded. In the cases I mention, the women are killed and mutilated quickly, the cutting is objective oriented, and the bodies are left to be discovered shortly after the deed, the women grotesquely displayed. This is one element of the killer that so many people ignore, his demonstrated desire to shock.

Kellys body parts were also discarded. They were left behind. So the two are on the same page in that respect. We know zilch about what happened to Chapmans uterus and Eddowes´organs, just as we know zilch about why he cut them out - although I have a hunch that I know the reason for it.
And once more, why would a torso placed in the vaults of Scotland Yard NOT shock? Why would floating body parts through the epicenter of the worlds largest metropolis NOT shock?
The ONLY difference that we are certain of inbetween the series is that one series involves dismemberment and dumping. That is it. Nothing else. We know not the mindset, we know not how the victims were procured etcetera. The many differences spoken of are brainghosts to 95 per cent.

[Fisherman]

Unfortunately, no homicide detective in the world would endorse your methods, Fish. It would be foolhardy in the extreme to eliminate a suspect in one murder case by bringing in other theoretical cases that may or may not be connected.

It's precisely why the police are hesitant to 'link' unsolved cases. It leads to false impressions and may give alibis to suspects that truly don't deserve them.

Just about every homicide detective in the world looks for physical and other commonalities inbetween victims, R J. I'm sure you know that too. And since there is every reason to link Jackson and the Pinchin Street torso to the Ripper murders for this exact reason, there is consequently every reason to discard Tumblety from being the combined killer too.

Is he the wealthy man you suspect left Yates´money behind, by the way? Am I stepping on a sore toe here? Just asking.

PS. I could add that in a lot of cases, much less significant similarities than those involved in the Ripper/Torso cases have had lots of homicide detectives work from an assumption of a serialist being on the loose. Take, for example, a town where five women are found strangled over a period of there months - that will inevitably lead to the suspicion of a serial killer on account of the police, unless there is evidence to the contrary. And strangulation is one of the commonest ways of killing!

Cutting people open, eviscerating and taking away the abdominal wall are all examples of VERY uncommon traits in murder cases.

PS. Just checked, and it seems you ARE a Tumbletonian. Well, easy come, easy go ... Nah, just joking, but I really don´t think he can possibly be our man. Regardless of whether you claim that it is "foolhardy" to rule him out or not.

[Abby Normal]

The 1887-89 victims, four of them, (Rainham, Whitehall, Jackson, Pinchin) were all examined by Charles Hebbert, who did not hesitate to say that they were cut up by the same person. The cutting work was quite similar in all respects.

Hebbert never saw the 1873 and 1874 victims, but we know that the 1873 victim was also very skillfully cut up and the joints were dismembered in that case too. There is also another reason, that I have so far chosen not to disclose, to accept that the 1873 victim was killed by the same man who killed Mary Kelly.

In all of the Ripper victims and torso victims we can see that there are no clear indications of any torture applied; there are no bite marks, no burn marks, no evidence of severe beatings. These are common inclusions in many cases, but here, it seems that the killer was first and foremost intent on gaining access to a dead body. After that, we know that the Ripper took out the uterus from Chapman, the uterus and the left kidney from Eddowes and all inner organs from Kelly. We also know that he cut away the abdominal wall or large parts of it in flaps from Chapman and Kelly.
The torso killer cut out the uterus and the heart and lungs from Jacksons body, and the heart and lungs were also missing from the Rainham victim, although the medicos did not establish how they had gone lost. There were also organs missing from the Whitehall torso, but whether they were taken away by the killer or if they went lost as collateral damage during the process of cutting and/or transporting the body was never established. My own take is that once we KNOW that he DID eviscerate Jackson, then the logical conclusion is that eviscerations lie behind all missing organs from the torso victims.

The clincher to my mind is the fact that the killer cut away the abdominal walls in flaps from some of his victims. As I wrote, this happened to two out of five victims in the Ripper series, Chapman and Kelly. But it ALSO happened to Liz Jackson in the Torso series - her eviscerated uterus was found floating in the Thames, the foetus having been removed from it (she was pregnant when killed), together with the chord and the placenta. All of these parts had been neatly packed up inside two large flaps of flesh from the abdomen. The flaps represented "the whole of the lower abdomen" according to what was written in the papers.

So either we have two or more killers at work in the late victorian London who were into procuring freshly killed bodies to eviscerate, and who were into taking away the abdominal walls from victims in large flaps, and who were described as very skilled with the knife and possibly surgically trained.

Or we have just the one.

To me, its an absolute no-brainer. Much as I think it would be fair to leave some learoom for the possibility that this was that moment when lightning struck twice at the same spot and time, I am perfectly aware that this is not in any shape or form even remotely likely to happen.

As an aside, I would like to add that I am of the meaning that the ultimate goal of the killer was NOT to eviscerate and take out organs. This was only one side of his urge, as far as I am considered. What I believe he was about would always involve cutting into the bodies of his victims, but not necessarily in order to get at the organs. As far as I am concerned, cutting the flesh from a face or taking away a limb could reflect what he was after just as well as any eviscerations. I recommend not to put too much trust in what is so often said about how he was after sexually oriented organs. A kidney is not sexually oriented, generally speaking, nor is a heart or the flesh of a face. But cutting away these things could well be linked to a very odd sexual orientation within a killer.

Now I predict that some posters (I can easily name them) will emerge from the woodwork and claim that I am nearly deranged and that I am twisting and lying. Which is why I recommend that you do not take their OR my word for granted. Instead, go to the sources and check whether what I am saying is true or not and then decide for yourself what to make of it!

great post fish
Pretty much agree wholeheartedly with everything youve written here. and as Jerry recently pointed out, the 1884 Tottenham torso also had the face cut up, similar to Kelly and eddowes.

question: how did lech acquire the cutting up skill that you reference the drs saying?

[Fisherman]

question: how did lech acquire the cutting up skill that you reference the drs saying?

First and foremost: Danny Rolling, the Gainesville Ripper, was also presumed to be a surgeon on account of how skilled his cutting work was. It turned out that he was a drifter with no medical cutting expertise at all!

Apparently, a person can cut with such determination and steadiness so as to be looked upon as medically skilled for very little reason. However, that does not detract from how the cuts to the victims in these series WERE looked upon as exceedingly skilled by some medicos. The accomplished knife work IS in place - but it may well be that it can be acquired by more than surgeons! A steady hand in combination with helping out with the cutting up of horse carcasses, dismembering them in the process, may perhaps have formed that skill in Lechmere´s case.
Or maybe he spent his spare time carving wood figurines, getting extremely skilled with the knife? The point is, we just don't know. If it was him, he was skilled with the knife, that's all we can say.

Let's also not forget that the skill hinted at by the medicos was never one of cutting along surgically established paths - it only alluded to the cutting as such, which was able, quick, clean and determined. No surgeon would do to a person what was done to the victims of these series!

[Abby Normal]

If you read my post to A Perno, you would see that I am saying that I don't think that eviscerations was the hallmark of the Ripper/Torso killer. It was cutting into a body. In that respect, Tabram fits the bill.
I of course agree that she deviates form the other victims to a significant degree, but she fits the bill in many other respects - the victimology is there, the geography is in place, the timing is correct, she was a prostitute, her death was a strangely silent one and so on.
She received 38 stabs and cuts to her body, all of them inflicted with a smallish knife such as a pen-knife. It seems to me that such a weapon would not be suited for any deep cutting and/or eviscerations. The finishing blow was by means of a dagger like, heavy implement, and that is not the type of weapon an eviscerator would opt for either.
I am thinking that this was perhaps not a planned deed, but instead a spur-of-the-moment slaying, perhaps led on by a sudden rage. Then the killer made use of whatever weapon he carried in himself or took from her to kill her.

One interesting perspective is how it is possible that he never actually intended to take his business to the streets, but once he killed Tabram and got lots of publicity, it may have encouraged him to go for a sideline. And since that sideline earned him a lot more publicity, he may have kept it up for that reason.

This is of course all guesswork, but guesswork is what we are left with. When it comes to Tabram, I would not go "Its not possible!" if it was proven that she was not a Ripper victim, the way I would with, say, Nichols, Chapman, Kelly, the 1873 victim, the Rainham victim and Jackson. There are and will always be levels involved. But overall, I find Tabram very likely belongs to the tally.

I hope that satisfies you.

again great post.
perhaps the torsoripper was out trolling for victims, perhaps planning on rusing them back to his chop shop when he met millwood. she wouldn't go back with him and or something didn't go as planned so he attacked her there. and if she wasn't his victim then perhaps ditto for tabram. or he came upon tabram napping and fulfilled his urge on the spot. perhaps he got a thrill as you say out of this new twist and continued with the ripper victims.

anyway im not married to tabram and or millwood as definite victims and they do kind of present a challenge in torso/ripper MO and sig series, as Harry D rightly points out.

but as I too think the torsorippers main motivation was a fascination with cutting up and into a female body --of what his knife (or saw) could do to the victims, millwood and tabram fit also.

[Abby Normal]

First and foremost: Danny Rolling, the Gainesville Ripper, was also presumed to be a surgeon on account of how skilled his cutting work was. It turned out that he was a drifter with no medical cutting expertise at all!

Apparently, a person can cut with such determination and steadiness so as to be looked upon as medically skilled for very little reason. However, that does not detract from how the cuts to the victims in these series WERE looked upon as exceedingly skilled by some medicos. The accomplished knife work IS in place - but it may well be that it can be acquired by more than surgeons! A steady hand in combination with helping out with the cutting up of horse carcasses, dismembering them in the process, may perhaps have formed that skill in Lechmere´s case.
Or maybe he spent his spare time carving wood figurines, getting extremely skilled with the knife? The point is, we just don't know. If it was him, he was skilled with the knife, that's all we can say.

Let's also not forget that the skill hinted at by the medicos was never one of cutting along surgically established paths - it only alluded to the cutting as such, which was able, quick, clean and determined. No surgeon would do to a person what was done to the victims of these series!

thanks. re horses-his mom was a cats meat seller correct? whats the earliest date you've found that she was engaged in that profession?

[Fisherman]

thanks. re horses-his mom was a cats meat seller correct? whats the earliest date you've found that she was engaged in that profession?

No, she was a horseflesh dealer, the difference being that cats meat sellers get cubes of meat from the horseflesh dealers. I believe this was recorded in an 1891 trade directory, but I am working from memory here, and memory can be a very frail thing...

At any rate, the Lechmeres of the East End seems to have developed into a family very much involved in the horse flesh/cats meat business. Where that development starts, I don't know. No-one does, as far as I can tell.

[Abby Normal]

No, she was a horseflesh dealer, the difference being that cats meat sellers get cubes of meat from the horseflesh dealers. I believe this was recorded in an 1891 trade directory, but I am working from memory here, and memory can be a very frail thing...

At any rate, the Lechmeres of the East End seems to have developed into a family very much involved in the horse flesh/cats meat business. Where that development starts, I don't know. No-one does, as far as I can tell.

got it-thanks fish

well if the family was in that business or similar and prior to 1891, which would seem likely, then one could see where lech may have acquired knife skills.

[etenguy]

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.

[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?

[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]

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?

[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]

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!