How Many Victims Were There?

[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]

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]

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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.