torso maps

[FrankO]

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.

My point is simply that there are 2 clearly distinguishable series, one suggesting a rather organised perpetrator and the other a rather unorganized murderer. In fact, the latter couldn’t have been much more unorganized if he wished to kill more than just one. I’m not saying that what is suggested MUST mean they are different men, but, as far as I’m concerned, since it’s not a common occurrence among serial killers and it suggests 2 different states of mind, it’s not something to step over as lightly as you and others do. To me, it at least casts some doubt over whether torso man and the Ripper are one and the same.

As you notice (and could have read in my earlier posts), I do NOT decide how logical or illogical a pattern is. I only note what I see in these series, combine that with what I know about serial killers and say that’s a reason for doubt.

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.

Ah, there’s that lumping together again. Again, lumping it together like that, it seems convincing, but, as I’ve explained before, when you put everything we know in chronological order and then compare every victim, the patterns of what was done to the victims of both series is much less convincing, certainly when you add the odd but clear change of rhythm & MO. At least to me, that is.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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 equally that as there were so many massive differences there might be a reason for the similarities. And, as I said, if we had the whole picture, we would understand how the perceived differences came about. They weren’t ‘perceived’ differences Fish they were actual differences.
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. I just dont find it unbelievable that two killers inflicting internal damage couldn’t replicate some injuries however ‘unlikely’ it may appear. Your viewpoint is that the ‘similarities’ trump all dissimilarities. But as far as I recall you only attribute those close similarities to one torso victim....Jackson? For me, this fact in itself reduces even further the likelihood of one killer when taken in conjunction with the vast differences in mo.



"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! The fact that Kelly was killed indoors is as likely due to Kelly’s decision as the rippers. It’s unlikely that he would have known that she had her own room and if they were nearby when they met? So it could have been pure chance that he ended up killing indoors.
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. Agreed of course. But surely we are taking no leap of faith to surmise that he didn’t kill his victims in a public place then store them in a public place and then over days dismember and despatch from a public place. This kind of operation requires privacy. We have to accept that surely. And it’s logical therefore to accept that he had sole access to a property and if that’s so we also have to ask why he didn’t make use of that property for the ripper murders.

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. No. I can’t see how you can try to square the rippers method with TK’s. They really couldn’t be more different. If they were stamped with “killed by the ripper” as you suggest we have to ask why no one in authority thought this at the time. And very, very few in the intervening years have come to the same conclusion. A suggestion of biased thinking makes little sense to me. Could it be said that those who say two killers are just defending the ripper’s ‘honour’ and that they don’t want crimes added to his tally. If there was overwhelming evidence that the ripper was TK why would people bloody mindedly refuse to accept this? After all, more victims increase the chances of identifying the culprit.

I see no links apart from coincidental ones.

[Sam Flynn]

I see no links apart from coincidental ones.

And even those aren't particularly compelling on closer inspection.

[RockySullivan]

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.

This is a really good example. Notice how it's completely ignored by the posters with an "open mind".

[Herlock Sholmes]

It never ceases to amaze me how often having a ‘closed mind’ is always the fall back accusation from those who dislike being disagreed with. I disagree because I’ve viewed the facts and come to a conclusion. As I do with all subjects. I’m not ideologically committed the Canonical Five, I believe it likeliest though. I could be wrong. We all could. But accusations of ‘closed minds’ or bias’ or ‘ignorance’ just succeed in making me wonder why some people are so passionate about certain aspects of Ripperology? Passion is emotion. Why an emotional attachment to an idea? Surely that’s more likely to produce bias than anything?

I’ll make a few statements, not ones of guaranteed, unequivocal truths, but ones that appears to me to be quite reasonable and logical.

I would suggest that it would be overwhelmingly likely that TK performed his dismemberment indoors.

Therefore I would suggest that it would have been overwhelmingly likely that TK had access to premises, and for more than one day at a time as he distributed the body parts over a period of time and he would have required ‘storage space.’

And therefore again it would have been overwhelmingly likely that he would have had sole access to these premises as he wouldn’t have wanted a friend or associate ‘dropping in’ and finding a partially dismembered corpse.

Therefore isn’t it at least a reasonable question to ask: why didn’t he avail himself of these premises during the Ripper murders. If it’s suggested that he only later came into possession of the premises then aren’t we at least justified in pointing out that there would have been no overlap in the two series if that was the case?

But of course this can be ignored by more ‘open-minded’ posters.

[Abby Normal]

It never ceases to amaze me how often having a ‘closed mind’ is always the fall back accusation from those who dislike being disagreed with. I disagree because I’ve viewed the facts and come to a conclusion. As I do with all subjects. I’m not ideologically committed the Canonical Five, I believe it likeliest though. I could be wrong. We all could. But accusations of ‘closed minds’ or bias’ or ‘ignorance’ just succeed in making me wonder why some people are so passionate about certain aspects of Ripperology? Passion is emotion. Why an emotional attachment to an idea? Surely that’s more likely to produce bias than anything?

I’ll make a few statements, not ones of guaranteed, unequivocal truths, but ones that appears to me to be quite reasonable and logical.

I would suggest that it would be overwhelmingly likely that TK performed his dismemberment indoors.

Therefore I would suggest that it would have been overwhelmingly likely that TK had access to premises, and for more than one day at a time as he distributed the body parts over a period of time and he would have required ‘storage space.’

And therefore again it would have been overwhelmingly likely that he would have had sole access to these premises as he wouldn’t have wanted a friend or associate ‘dropping in’ and finding a partially dismembered corpse.

Therefore isn’t it at least a reasonable question to ask: why didn’t he avail himself of these premises during the Ripper murders. If it’s suggested that he only later came into possession of the premises then aren’t we at least justified in pointing out that there would have been no overlap in the two series if that was the case?

But of course this can be ignored by more ‘open-minded’ posters.

Hi HS
To me, if theyre the same man, he killed out in the streets (the ripper series)
because he probably didn't have access to his chop shop but the urge was still there, and the availability was somewhat random.

[RockySullivan]

It never ceases to amaze me how often having a ‘closed mind’ is always the fall back accusation from those who dislike being disagreed with. I disagree because I’ve viewed the facts and come to a conclusion. As I do with all subjects. I’m not ideologically committed the Canonical Five, I believe it likeliest though. I could be wrong. We all could. But accusations of ‘closed minds’ or bias’ or ‘ignorance’ just succeed in making me wonder why some people are so passionate about certain aspects of Ripperology? Passion is emotion. Why an emotional attachment to an idea? Surely that’s more likely to produce bias than anything?

I’ll make a few statements, not ones of guaranteed, unequivocal truths, but ones that appears to me to be quite reasonable and logical.

I would suggest that it would be overwhelmingly likely that TK performed his dismemberment indoors.

Therefore I would suggest that it would have been overwhelmingly likely that TK had access to premises, and for more than one day at a time as he distributed the body parts over a period of time and he would have required ‘storage space.’

And therefore again it would have been overwhelmingly likely that he would have had sole access to these premises as he wouldn’t have wanted a friend or associate ‘dropping in’ and finding a partially dismembered corpse.

Therefore isn’t it at least a reasonable question to ask: why didn’t he avail himself of these premises during the Ripper murders. If it’s suggested that he only later came into possession of the premises then aren’t we at least justified in pointing out that there would have been no overlap in the two series if that was the case?

But of course this can be ignored by more ‘open-minded’ posters.

https://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=452475&postcount=85

[Sam Flynn]

Hi HS
To me, if theyre the same man, he killed out in the streets (the ripper series)
because he probably didn't have access to his chop shop but the urge was still there, and the availability was somewhat random.

Why was it that, when he did have access to his "chop shop" (love that phrase!), he didn't commit anything like the Ripper crimes in the vast majority of his murders? Even in the minority of torso victims who were eviscerated, the resemblance with the Ripper eviscerations are readily explained by other means, if not completely superficial.

[RockySullivan]

Why was it that, when he did have access to his "chop shop" (love that phrase!), he didn't commit anything like the Ripper crimes in the vast majority of his murders? Even in the minority of torso victims who were eviscerated, the resemblance with the Ripper eviscerations are readily explained by other means, if not completely superficial.

Truth is we don't know where he killed or dismembered. it could have been a property he owned, rented or worked at or it could have been in some sewer gate on the embankment. jerry suggested the whitehall victim was chopped up in the vault. It's been suggested Liz Jackson was chopped up outdoors, on the embankment or on a boat. You have to admit the torso murders took a lot more work. What is the motive in both series?

[Abby Normal]

Why was it that, when he did have access to his "chop shop" (love that phrase!), he didn't commit anything like the Ripper crimes in the vast majority of his murders? Even in the minority of torso victims who were eviscerated, the resemblance with the Ripper eviscerations are readily explained by other means, if not completely superficial.

that's a good question sam. I don't know.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There’s much that we don’t know so all we can do is attempt to come up with ‘possible’ answers and attempt to judge the likeliest of those.

Is it likely that a man would kill a women and then spend time mutilating and dismembering her outdoors with all the risks of being seen? Is it impossible? No of course it’s not but I’d suggest that a more reasonable, logical suggestion would be that he did it indoors. Personally I’d say that it’s at least 80/20 in favour of indoors.

We also can’t know the motives in each series but dismemberment and the time and effort that it would have taken to deposit a part here and a part there makes me feel that TK was trying to hide the identities of these women. Obviously it’s easier to dispose of a leg than a whole body though. We can only guess at motive but the ripper murders suggest themselves as part of a series. Prostitutes killed in the streets and left ‘on display.’ Obviously Kelly was different but it’s not a ‘leap’ to say that the ripper wouldn’t have known that Mary had a room nearby so he took his chance to spend more time on his work. The killings were over a period of 2 months or so and in a very localised area. All had their throats cut and were mutilated (except for Stride who might not have been a victim or the killer might have been disturbed.)

For me it’s overwhelmingly likely that these were 2 very separate murders. What would change my mind? New evidence.

[Harry D]

This is a really good example. Notice how it's completely ignored by the posters with an "open mind".

Heirens was probably innocent, though.

[Sam Flynn]

Heirens was probably innocent, though.

Besides, killing two women and leaving them otherwise intact is one thing, but I can understand why he dismembered the third victim, a 6 year old girl. Being a killer of adults is one thing, but who wants to admit to being a child killer? No wonder he decided to chop her up and scatter the remains.

[John Wheat]

Hi HS
To me, if theyre the same man, he killed out in the streets (the ripper series)
because he probably didn't have access to his chop shop but the urge was still there, and the availability was somewhat random.

But why the upping of the ante? With comparatively little time between each murder in 1888 just because his chop shop was unavailable?

[Abby Normal]

But why the upping of the ante? With comparatively little time between each murder in 1888 just because his chop shop was unavailable?

Hi john
Because once he got into killing on the street it was like a quick fix.

But why do you think both stopped at roughly the same time, in the fall of 89?
Which in my view is a very underlooked point.

All this talk of when the series started overlapped etc. and very liitle they just both happened to end around the same time. Another circumstance?