torso maps

[jerryd]

I’ve now got this image of the Torso Killer edging his way through the crowd on boat race day carrying a leg wrapped in paper.

“Coming through please. Thank you. Hey look at at that amazing thing over there.”

Heads turn.

Splash!

“Enjoy the race.”

Hi Herlock,

The Pinchin torso was fairly close to your scenario. PC Pennett made a pass by the arch and no torso. He went to knock up Jeremiah Hurley on that same pass and when he arrived again at the arch just short of 30 minutes later, there was a torso.

[RockySullivan]

At least you’ve confirmed one thing for me. I looked at your earlier post with a little confusion. I thought “is it me or does this guy appear to have some kind of personal grudge against me?” Your ‘genius’ comment appears to show that I was correct.

I can’t recall but I can only assume that we’ve debated in the past and you’ve never forgiven me for disagreeing with you on some point.

I gave myself the name Herlock Sholmes because I’m a fan of Sherlock Holmes and Conan Doyle and not because I think that I’m a genius. You’re quite free to check every one of my 2000 or so posts to point out where I proclaimed my genius. In fact, even a post or two ago, I admitted that I could be wrong. Something that certain other posters appear loathe to admit. I have an opinion and I give it. If people feel that I’m wrong they are free to say so. Pointless stroppiness gets us nowhere.

i'm sorry i mistook you for the real sherlock holmes. my point is just that murdering a stranger in a dark alley isn't the same as luring someone to a place they can be murdered and dismembered in. Witness before these two scenarios could have different repercussions.

[RockySullivan]

It’s must be considered a little surprising that something so ‘obvious’ has been completely missed or disregarded by the overwhelming vast majority of ripperologists and criminologists over the ensuing 130 years. You would have thought that it would have become a commonly conceded point by now; a foregone conclusion. Maybe there is a conspiracy afoot to protect the ripper from additional opprobrium? It may be true, it may not be, but to infer that it’s obviously true surely insinuates that the vast majority of people showing an interest in these cases are not taking an honest approach?

http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/a...018/worse1.jpg courtesy of the jtr forum

[RockySullivan]

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


How do you conclude that the abdominal flap cutting was a "coincidental" similarity, Herlock?

What evidence is there to prove that the taking of the hearts and the uteri was coincidental only?

man, although he's off to NK for the week, is dead on here. The idea that a torso killer with a similar victimology to the ripper could co-exist with the ripper in '88 and use the east end as dumping grounds in 89 is pretty far fetched an extremely unlikely. But the idea that they were both mutilating in such a distinct way and both removing the same reproductive organ is absurd and there's no chance in hell. These murders are all clearly the work of one sick mind.

[Sam Flynn]

The Pinchin torso was fairly close to your scenario. PC Pennett made a pass by the arch and no torso. He went to knock up Jeremiah Hurley on that same pass and when he arrived again at the arch just short of 30 minutes later, there was a torso.

Another way in which the Pinchin Street case differs from the other torso murder.

[RockySullivan]

Another way in which the Pinchin Street case differs from the other torso murder.

don't forget the 15 inch long abdominal cut present on the Pinchin torso, another way in which the torso mutilations are similar to the ripper murders.

[John Wheat]

Different time frames, different M. O. 's, one operating over a large area, one a small area, one indoors, one largely outdoors, different motives. These are just a few of the clear differences between Jack and The Torso Killer.

[RockySullivan]

Different time frames, different M. O. 's, one operating over a large area, one a small area, one indoors, one largely outdoors, different motives. These are just a few of the clear differences between Jack and The Torso Killer.

Thank you, John Wheat. It's always good to have a farmer's perspective.

[Sam Flynn]

Thank you, John Wheat. It's always good to have a farmer's perspective.

... as opposed to a rocky one.

[RockySullivan]

... as opposed to a rocky one.

by rocky i can only assume you mean rock solid

[John Wheat]

Thank you, John Wheat. It's always good to have a farmer's perspective.

Better a farmers than an idiots.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The idea that you can come up with any completely random explanation for why the two series are so massively different in method and yet scream ‘no way’ when it comes to a few possible mutilation similarities between a couple of the victims borders on conspiracy thinking. The suggestion that one person can’t, by chance, make similar cuts to another is pathetic. Anyone who says that they are ‘certain’ of one killer is delusional. I go for the canonical five but I’m still not ‘certain’ of that.

We need a little less certainty. We need fewer people who really do think that they are Sherlock Holmes. We need fewer people who believe ‘I come to this conclusion so it must be true.”

Until someone comes up with anything approaching conclusive proof, and they categorically haven’t yet, I’ll say that Jack The Ripper wasn’t the Torso Killer. I may be wrong (an admission that some appear to be psychologically incapable of making) but I’ll take my position until such time as the ‘geniuses’ prove otherwise.

[FrankO]

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.

That’s where we don’t see eye to eye, Christer. And that’s fine, of course. I do see a link, but I see it as much more feeble than you do and I do not attach such decisive weight to the statistics of 2 eviscerating serial killers operating in the same city at about the same time as you do.

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.

It’s perhaps not so much a matter of organized vs. disorganized. It’s mainly about the fact that the Ripper, by killing out in the streets, couldn’t count on doing all that he desired and that - if he wanted to continue killing - he no choice but to divide his attention between what he was doing to the body (which is what actually drove him) and his surroundings. Torso man didn’t have to worry about these things; he (very likely) had all the time and light to follow his driving force.

If they are to be one man, this, together with the distinct change in frequency, has to have an important explanation and until now I haven’t seen any having been offered.

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.

Glad to see that we agree on something.

[Sam Flynn]

That’s where we don’t see eye to eye, Christer. And that’s fine, of course. I do see a link, but I see it as much more feeble than you do and I do not attach such decisive weight to the statistics of 2 eviscerating serial killers operating in the same city at about the same time as you do.

Besides, the torso killer was not primarily an eviscerator. On the few occasions when he did eviscerate, straightforward explanations can be advanced for why he did so, in which the eviscerations don't emerge as an end in themselves.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Besides, the torso killer was not primarily an eviscerator. On the few occasions when he did eviscerate, straightforward explanations can be advanced for why he did so, in which the eviscerations don't emerge as an end in themselves.

Burn the heretic