torso maps

[Fisherman]

I think it is important not to work from a perceived fact telling us that the torso killer was not willing to take any risks. His reason for killing, eviscerating and dismembering in seclusion (which most of us accept he did, but which is not an established fact) may have been not a fear of getting caught but instead a desire not to be interrupted in his work.

If this was so, then the search for a killer who was able to jump inbetween risk levels is in vain.

Let´s assume that the killer had an urge to do things to the body, things that could be done very meticulously and exact, although it would take time and seclusion, but that could also be done more crudely and inexactly. If so, then he could perhaps at times take away some of the pressure by killing in the streets while the torso murders would be more fulfilling in the sense of being able to get the time to be meticulous and exact.

Regardless of what applies, I don´t think asking for parallels is going to be fruitful. So many serial killers are unparalleled in a number of respects, so we should not be dismissive of how such a man can be unique and lack "twins".

[John Wheat]

I think it is important not to work from a perceived fact telling us that the torso killer was not willing to take any risks. His reason for killing, eviscerating and dismembering in seclusion (which most of us accept he did, but which is not an established fact) may have been not a fear of getting caught but instead a desire not to be interrupted in his work.

If this was so, then the search for a killer who was able to jump inbetween risk levels is in vain.

Let´s assume that the killer had an urge to do things to the body, things that could be done very meticulously and exact, although it would take time and seclusion, but that could also be done more crudely and inexactly. If so, then he could perhaps at times take away some of the pressure by killing in the streets while the torso murders would be more fulfilling in the sense of being able to get the time to be meticulous and exact.

Regardless of what applies, I don´t think asking for parallels is going to be fruitful. So many serial killers are unparalleled in a number of respects, so we should not be dismissive of how such a man can be unique and lack "twins".

But you work from the incorrect idea that Lechmere was the Ripper and the Torso Killer making what you've stated a load of bull.

[Abby Normal]

I think it is important not to work from a perceived fact telling us that the torso killer was not willing to take any risks. His reason for killing, eviscerating and dismembering in seclusion (which most of us accept he did, but which is not an established fact) may have been not a fear of getting caught but instead a desire not to be interrupted in his work.

If this was so, then the search for a killer who was able to jump inbetween risk levels is in vain.

Let´s assume that the killer had an urge to do things to the body, things that could be done very meticulously and exact, although it would take time and seclusion, but that could also be done more crudely and inexactly. If so, then he could perhaps at times take away some of the pressure by killing in the streets while the torso murders would be more fulfilling in the sense of being able to get the time to be meticulous and exact.

Regardless of what applies, I don´t think asking for parallels is going to be fruitful. So many serial killers are unparalleled in a number of respects, so we should not be dismissive of how such a man can be unique and lack "twins".

I agree fish.

And this whole risk debate started when someone asked about the liklihood of a serial killer going from the low risk of torsoman to high risk of ripper killings.

So i provided examples os sks who did. But not that i think that the ripper killers were significantly higher risk (maybe a tad higher).

Anyway sks by nature take huge risks, the circs change but the urge us still there.

[RockySullivan]

I agree fish.

And this whole risk debate started when someone asked about the liklihood of a serial killer going from the low risk of torsoman to high risk of ripper killings.

So i provided examples os sks who did. But not that i think that the ripper killers were significantly higher risk (maybe a tad higher).

Anyway sks by nature take huge risks, the circs change but the urge us still there.

They were just different risks. The torso killer traded the risk being seen with the victim near the chopshop/seen dumping body parts for the risk of being caught red handed during an attack in the street at night. The big difference is the first method took days maybe weeks the later 15 minutes.

[FrankO]

Regardless of what applies, I don´t think asking for parallels is going to be fruitful.

Whether it is fruitful is another matter, Christer, but, as far as I’m concerned, it is a question very much in order simply because the 2 series are so very distinct as to risk level & frequency and as there’s no gap to speak of between them. If anybody can find two forensic/criminal psychologists worth their salt who say that this doesn’t mean a thing, then I’ll be satisfied.

Cheers,
Frank

[Fisherman]

Whether it is fruitful is another matter, Christer, but, as far as I’m concerned, it is a question very much in order simply because the 2 series are so very distinct as to risk level & frequency and as there’s no gap to speak of between them. If anybody can find two forensic/criminal psychologists worth their salt who say that this doesn’t mean a thing, then I’ll be satisfied.

Cheers,
Frank

As I just pointed out, what we identify as differing risk levels may have been related to completely different matters, and when it comes to frequency, no serial killer is a clockwork; things will occasionally surface that change the rhytm. There are numerous examples of weird rhytms when it comes to serialists. Until we can see the underlying implications, we cannot decide how logical or illogical a killing pattern is.

What will NOT happen, however, is that two serial killers in late victorian London will overlap in so many details, some of them very, very unusual. Uteri takers, heart takers, abdominal openers, prostitute killers, none of them sadists, both of them inflicting post kill damage and eviscerations and to top things off, both of them cutting away abdomens in large flaps, leaving the innards openly exposed to the eye.
That, Frank, is incredibly much less expected in my world than killing with different risk levels and in varying rhytms.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Surely if we have a killer who gets his victim to a premises (possibly even under the cover of darkness) kills her indoors, mutilates/dismembers over a period of time then proceeds, again over time, to distribute the parts to different locations, this speaks of a killer having deliberately set out to have complete control over the situation? And a killer with sole access to a property. Risk is of course inherent in any murder but the TK appears to be someone that wanted to keep this to an absolute minimum. Yes, as has been stated, he might have been seen in company with the victim. But he might have met them somewhere quite secluded, at night. He might have took her to his place and entered by the rear entrance (don’t say it Gareth ) Where is the massive risk of being caught dumping the body parts? Whoever did it wasn’t caught doing it? At night, backstreets, avoiding the police. This is surely not that difficult for a reasonably intelligent person who had arranged things to have as few risks as possible by parsing. It feels to me like it’s a planned, thought out operation.
Compare this with a man killing in the street. Mutilating in the street (apart from MJK of course.) Yes, they would have gone to secluded places, but there was still a greater risk of being interrupted. I don’t think the Ripper was a reckless risk taker but the level of risk that he took had to be considerably greater than those of the TK. There was no disposal of the body for the ripper. No attempt at removing the identity of the victim (although a case for that might be made in Kelly’s case.) The Ripper was a ‘there and then’ man. Displaying his handiwork. Raw, bloody and gory. Bodies displayed, skirts up, legs spread. TK killed indoors. Kept the bodies for a period of time. Dismembered then distributed. It’s difficult to see two more different killers.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Surely if we have a killer who gets his victim to a premises (possibly even under the cover of darkness) kills her indoors, mutilates/dismembers over a period of time then proceeds, again over time, to distribute the parts to different locations, this speaks of a killer having deliberately set out to have complete control over the situation? And a killer with sole access to a property. Risk is of course inherent in any murder but the TK appears to be someone that wanted to keep this to an absolute minimum. Yes, as has been stated, he might have been seen in company with the victim. But he might have met them somewhere quite secluded, at night. He might have took her to his place and entered by the rear entrance (don’t say it Gareth ) Where is the massive risk of being caught dumping the body parts? Whoever did it wasn’t caught doing it? At night, backstreets, avoiding the police. This is surely not that difficult for a reasonably intelligent person who had arranged things to have as few risks as possible by parsing. It feels to me like it’s a planned, thought out operation.
Compare this with a man killing in the street. Mutilating in the street (apart from MJK of course.) Yes, they would have gone to secluded places, but there was still a greater risk of being interrupted. I don’t think the Ripper was a reckless risk taker but the level of risk that he took had to be considerably greater than those of the TK. There was no disposal of the body for the ripper. No attempt at removing the identity of the victim (although a case for that might be made in Kelly’s case.) The Ripper was a ‘there and then’ man. Displaying his handiwork. Raw, bloody and gory. Bodies displayed, skirts up, legs spread. TK killed indoors. Kept the bodies for a period of time. Dismembered then distributed. It’s difficult to see two more different killers.

I don’t know where ‘parsing’ came from. It should be ‘planning.’

[Sam Flynn]

He might have took her to his place and entered by the rear entrance (don’t say it Gareth )

Well....

Nah, I'll take your advice, Herlock, and stay stumm

[RockySullivan]

What will NOT happen, however, is that two serial killers in late victorian London will overlap in so many details, some of them very, very unusual. Uteri takers, heart takers, abdominal openers, prostitute killers, none of them sadists, both of them inflicting post kill damage and eviscerations and to top things off, both of them cutting away abdomens in large flaps, leaving the innards openly exposed to the eye.
That, Frank, is incredibly much less expected in my world than killing with different risk levels and in varying rhytms.

& the whitehall victim killed within days of a ripper murder

[Fisherman]

Surely if we have a killer who gets his victim to a premises (possibly even under the cover of darkness) kills her indoors, mutilates/dismembers over a period of time then proceeds, again over time, to distribute the parts to different locations, this speaks of a killer having deliberately set out to have complete control over the situation? And a killer with sole access to a property. Risk is of course inherent in any murder but the TK appears to be someone that wanted to keep this to an absolute minimum. Yes, as has been stated, he might have been seen in company with the victim. But he might have met them somewhere quite secluded, at night. He might have took her to his place and entered by the rear entrance (don’t say it Gareth ) Where is the massive risk of being caught dumping the body parts? Whoever did it wasn’t caught doing it? At night, backstreets, avoiding the police. This is surely not that difficult for a reasonably intelligent person who had arranged things to have as few risks as possible by parsing. It feels to me like it’s a planned, thought out operation.

There are a number of unknown factors involved, Herlock, and I think we should not produce too many a fact until we have the whole picture. Undoubtdedly, the torso murdersare different from the Ripper murders in a number of respects, but since we know that they are similar in others, including some ver rare features, the only logical solution is to accept that there was a reason for the differences. And, as I said, if we had the whole picture, we would understand how the perceived differences came about.
There are many examples of serial killers not sticking to a locked mo. I earlier pointed to Heirens - first victim killed by knife, next victim shot and stabbed, both victims being mature women. And then the thirs victim was a six year old girl - who was strangled and (yes!) dismembered.

If you had the victims lined up, you would be telling me that I was an idiot if I said "the same killer", right? Heirens, as so many other serialists, acted on inner urges that he could not stop, and the result was a series that seems deeply illogical. But believe me, to Heirens it was totally logical.

The similarities are way too many and to great to allow for two killers in the Torso/Ripper series. I have no doubt whatsoever. A change in MO and risk levels is far less odd than two killers replicating some very odd and highly unusual details.

Compare this with a man killing in the street. Mutilating in the street (apart from MJK of course.) Yes, they would have gone to secluded places, but there was still a greater risk of being interrupted. I don’t think the Ripper was a reckless risk taker but the level of risk that he took had to be considerably greater than those of the TK. There was no disposal of the body for the ripper. No attempt at removing the identity of the victim (although a case for that might be made in Kelly’s case.) The Ripper was a ‘there and then’ man. Displaying his handiwork. Raw, bloody and gory. Bodies displayed, skirts up, legs spread. TK killed indoors. Kept the bodies for a period of time. Dismembered then distributed. It’s difficult to see two more different killers.

"Apart from MJK of course"? Why would we NOT account for how she was killed indoors? You can see for yourself that this parameter does not tell the two apart. Here, as in so many other instances, they overlap!
As for the risk level, we do not know that it was larger for the Ripper actualy, since we have no idea how much risk the torso murders included. If he killed and dismembered in the toilet of Westminster Abbey, then he took immense risks, arguably larger than the Ripper. Now, I don´t think that he DID kill and dismember there, but I think it is healthy not to proclaim as a fact that there was very little risk involved in the torso murders. We effecctively don´t know. We make an educated guess, and it may be totally wrong.

What rules the day is that even if we reason that the torso man took his victims to a deserted area where he know that he would, could and should not be seen, and even if he locked himself in a soundproof building, and even if he had early camera supervision showing him that nobody even came near the place, it still applies that what he did in there was the same thing that the Ripper did out in the streets in many a respect. So he bought along a calling card to that secure building, involving eviscerating, taking out a heart, taking out a uterus, cutting the whole abdomen open and taking the abdominal wall away in large flaps. Basically, when his victims were discarded, they were discarded with "Killed by the Ripper" stamped on their foreheads. No matter how large or small the risk involved was.

[Sam Flynn]

"The similarities are way too many and to great to allow for two killers in the Torso/Ripper series."

Really? I find the Pinchin Street case, at least, somewhat different to the others, in terms of execution and location.

[Fisherman]

"The similarities are way too many and to great to allow for two killers in the Torso/Ripper series."

Really? I find the Pinchin Street case, at least, somewhat different to the others, in terms of execution and location.

Yes, really. Each case is unique and has it´s own traits, but the overlap is very large, and the parts that overlap are sometimes extremely rare.

The Pinchin Street torso is not one of the victims that primarily suggests a connection, but it was a victim of the same hand as the Rainham and Whitehall victims and Liz Jackson as far as Hebbert could tell. And there WAS a 15 inch gash in the abdomen, reminiscent of what the Ripper victims suffered.

We can point to dissimilarities all day, but they will not make the similarities go away.

[Sam Flynn]

Yes, really. Each case is unique and has it´s own traits, but the overlap is very large

It's a bit tricky to overlap arms present with absent arms, and even trickier to overlap St George in the East with Battersea.

[Fisherman]

It's a bit tricky to overlap arms present with absent arms, and even trickier to overlap St George in the East with Battersea.

Yes indeed! It is far, far simpler to overlap Pinchin Street and Berner Street areawise as well as overlapping Jacksons missing heart and Kellys ditto, and the abdominal flaps from Jackson, Kelly and Chapman. For starters.

If you demand all details from all victims in two series to overlap precisely in every respect, then it will be hard to please you. But nobody in his right mind would demand such a thing, right?