torso maps

[John Wheat]

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?

If the quick fix was so satisfying to the killer then why bother going back to using the chop shop?

[Sam Flynn]

If the quick fix was so satisfying to the killer then why bother going back to using the chop shop?

And why did all his quick fixes happen in a small area of East London?

[RockySullivan]

If the quick fix was so satisfying to the killer then why bother going back to using the chop shop?

hide the identities, victims could be traced back to the killer perhaps

[RockySullivan]

And why did all his quick fixes happen in a small area of East London?

where else would this method work?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Why is it that we can make any ‘perhaps’ or ‘what if’ or ‘its not impossible that...’ or ‘ we weren’t there so we can’t [B]know[/B or produce any alternative scenario to ‘explain’ the huge differences in method between Jack and TK and yet when we talk about any possible similarities in mutilations between one Torso victim and Kelly then we are expected to accept that this proves that both sets of murders were obviously the work of the same man?

[RockySullivan]

Why is it that we can make any ‘perhaps’ or ‘what if’ or ‘its not impossible that...’ or ‘ we weren’t there so we can’t [B]know[/B or produce any alternative scenario to ‘explain’ the huge differences in method between Jack and TK and yet when we talk about any possible similarities in mutilations between one Torso victim and Kelly then we are expected to accept that this proves that both sets of murders were obviously the work of the same man?

Because dismemberment and dispersal is never done to hide the identity of murder victims, right sherlock holmes?

[John Wheat]

hide the identities, victims could be traced back to the killer perhaps

Right so he knew all the Torso victims but not the Ripper victims then?

[RockySullivan]

Right so he knew all the Torso victims but not the Ripper victims then?

The ripper victims were murdered in the street at night, except for Kelly. It's very possible their killer was a stranger, perhaps not as likely in the Kelly murder. It's not necessarily that the torso killer knew all the victims, but this IS THE method very commonly used for preventing identification. It may be these victims could be traced back to him, not necessarily that they knew each other

[Herlock Sholmes]

Because dismemberment and dispersal is never done to hide the identity of murder victims, right sherlock holmes?

You’ll have to clarify the point that you are trying to make because it’s obvious that dismemberment and dispersal could be done to hide the victims identity. Something that TK felt the need to do but the ripper didnt.

And my screen name is Herlock Sholmes who was a parody of Sherlock Holmes. It was not my attempt to make people believe that I was in any way as clever as Holmes.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The ripper victims were murdered in the street at night, except for Kelly. It's very possible their killer was a stranger, perhaps not as likely in the Kelly murder. It's not necessarily that the torso killer knew all the victims, but this IS THE method very commonly used for preventing identification. It may be these victims could be traced back to him, not necessarily that they knew each other

If as the ripper he killed victims that were unknown to him thus reducing his risk of capture why would he take the unnecessary risk of killing victims that could possibly be traced back to him thus burdening himself with the job of dismembering a ridding himself, undetected, of The body parts. A job that had to be done over a period of time, again increasing the risk of discovery. This appears to make little sense.

[RockySullivan]

If as the ripper he killed victims that were unknown to him thus reducing his risk of capture why would he take the unnecessary risk of killing victims that could possibly be traced back to him thus burdening himself with the job of dismembering a ridding himself, undetected, of The body parts. A job that had to be done over a period of time, again increasing the risk of discovery. This appears to make little sense.

So you agree with me that the dismemberment and dispersal is more risky than the ripper crimes?

[RockySullivan]

It's hard to equate the risks honestly. It's hard to say that the double event was less risky than any torso murders. But the rippers murders were only possible in the end east, an area of sex workers on the dark streets. Likewise the annie chapman murder in the backyard was pretty risky too. There are a number of reasons the dismemberment murders could have continued but the main is the killer chose victims who were likely dismembered to hide their identity so they could possibly be victims who could be traced back to him. But the important question is what is present in both series that could point to a motive?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don’t understand why you are taking this approach but I’ll explain my opinion.

The ripper killings which took place in the street (except for one) would have entailed far more risk than the Torso killings which are overwhelmingly likely to have taken place indoors. I think that this is at least a reasonable conclusion. You may disagree.

The dismemberment itself wouldn’t have been more risky than the actual ripper killings because again it’s overwhelmingly likely that the dismemberments would have taken place indoors in some place that the killer would have had a high level of confidence that he wouldn’t have been discovered. I think that this is at least a reasonable conclusion. You may disagree.

The dispersal itself I would take to have been the riskiest part of the Torso ‘operation.’ That said, I would have thought that murdering and mutilating in the streets (with the risks of the victim making a noise in the struggle or the unexpected arrival of a third party or the chance of being seen in the victims company immediately before the murder) would have been more fraught with danger than someone, probably at night, dumping parcels at various, probably isolated locations. I think that this is at least a reasonable conclusion. You may disagree.

[Sam Flynn]

I would have thought that murdering and mutilating in the streets... would have been more fraught with danger than someone, probably at night, dumping parcels at various, probably isolated locations.

Quite so, Herlock. Open-air disembowelment and evisceration in a public street would be vastly more risky than discreetly dumping bits of body into a river or a deserted building.

[Fisherman]

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.

I really don´t step over it lightly, Frank. I have a very weighty reason to do so. There are very far-reaching similarities, there are extremely odd inclusions that overlap and there is no evidence anywhere of two serial killers and eviscerators operating simulatnaeously and in the same area. That is not light evidence, it is led-heavy.
I take your point that organized and disorganized killers differ - but I must point out that there was never any agreement that the Ripper was disorganized. Most people say that there are traits from both sides represented. And since we do not know exactly what happened in either series, I find it impossible to decide what applies. What I am certain DOES apply, however, is that it is unlikely in the extreme to be two killers.

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.
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.

I am not saying that it is a combined killer that was an expected one. I fully agree that there are inclusions that are unexpected if we deal with just the one killer, differences that I would not have expected to find. I am with you on that score. But I am very certain that these matters will have explanations, for the simple reason that they MUST have and CAN have so.

What cannot be the case is two killers acting like twins in some very, very rare instances. It will not happen. It just will not. The likelihood is totally and massively against the suggestion.