Internal organ removing SK

[Fisherman]

One does not have to wonder since we know what they thought, namely that the torsos were not the work of the Ripper.

In a sense you are correct, if we are discussing the victorian police (which we are not, to be honest). For example, they thought that dismemberment was a practicality only, aiming to dispose of body parts. They expressed the view that this was the aim of the torso killer.

Today, we know that there may be other causes for dismembering. And we have found out that the torso killers victims were dismembered very quickly after death, pointing to how the dismemberment itself could have been part of the aim. And of course, we know that some of the dismemberment done went far beyond measures of practicality.

Sadly, you are misinterpreting the "they" in my question. It refers to TODAYS police force, and my question is about what THEY - who know what similarities inbetween murder sites and -victims can tell us about the originators of the murders.

[Fisherman]

Sadly, you are misinterpreting the "they" in my question. It refers to TODAYS police force, and my question is about what THEY - who know what similarities inbetween murder sites and -victims can tell us about the originators of the murders.

That last sentence should of course read:
It refers to TODAYS police force, and my question is about what THEY - who know what similarities inbetween murder sites and -victims can tell us about the originators of the murders - would have made of these common traits.

[Michael W Richards]

Happy New Year to you too, from your dishonest, muttonheaded friend!

Ive known you quite a while through here Fish, although that's not the extent of who you are obviously, and youre good people in my view. My apologies for any offense. I get frustrated feeling that the reins have to be pulled occasionally to prevent the horse from running amok.

The thread premise is a thinly disguised support of having serial killer filters applied to these case studies, and I cant help but wonder what makes so many people think that it is such a stable foundation to work with.

[Fisherman]

Ive known you quite a while through here Fish, although that's not the extent of who you are obviously, and youre good people in my view. My apologies for any offense. I get frustrated feeling that the reins have to be pulled occasionally to prevent the horse from running amok.

The thread premise is a thinly disguised support of having serial killer filters applied to these case studies, and I cant help but wonder what makes so many people think that it is such a stable foundation to work with.

We all get frustrated at times, Michael - which is why I tried to blunt the edge somewhat.

The thread is an old one, and I plucked it up again, since it deals with the area where my main interest lies at the time. Regardless of what we personally think about the coupling between the torso case and the ripper ditto, it bears significance that we have knowledge about how the police create computerized files on unsolved murders of women, in order to establish if some of them can be coupled by means of similarities, victimology or other implications. It is how serial killers are sought, and the operation mentioned in the video about Robert Napper that Gareth supplied is quite instructive in this matter.

To me, personally, there can be no realistic doubt that the two series had the same originator. The commonalities are far too many and too special for it not to be the case.
As such, coupling the cases offers new possibilities and forms a new framwork for studying the material. For example, if we count in the 1873 torso deed, we get a time perspective that rules out many of the Ripper contenders, and can concentrate on those who remain viable.

Some will say that the one and only reason I make my call is so that I can rid myself of competition in relation to Lechmere. That is a childish and improductive suggestion - there are very clear pointers to Lechmere in the Nichols case, there are incredible similarities between the ripper and the torso cases, and there is every reason to believe that the 1873 torso belongs to the torso series. There is therefore a domino effect pointing to Lechmere, who fits the time profile nicely.
We can either choose to say that anybody who puts forward an argument for a suspect is a destroyer of ripperology and a person wearing tinted glasses, and who should have no say since he or she is being utterly egotistic and wants to sell books or films, or we can choose to say "Wow, that´s interesting, and it´s good to know that somebody is researching this angle since it may just solve the case". Over the years, I have even had it suggested that my belief in Lechmere as the killer is not based on conviction but on economical grounds. I would somehow be lying through my teeth, all the while thinking that Lechmere was not the killer.
Sadly, there are examples of such behaviour, and people have definitely gained from throwing forward baseless suggestions about who the killer was. In that respect, ripperology is a tainted business. But not everybody has to be the same, Michael!

My own approach to ripperologists is to a large degree coloured by how they make their choices in cases like this.

[Abby Normal]

Here is a thread where a few examples are posted about serialists who have taken out organs and - in some cases - taken them along with themselves as they left the murder scenes.

It is very apparent that such examples are very hard to find. These are rare, rare creatures.

But when we have two such series of murders committed in the same town, at the same time, and with even more rare details in common, it has nevertheless been concluded that we are dealing not with one, but two killers.

And why?

Because we know that the victims in one of the series were dismembered.

We ALSO know that these dismemberment victims were killed in some sort of bolthole, so that the necessity to secretely remove the bodies from that bolthole would inevitably arise.

And we also know that this necessity was never on the cards in the other series, because those victims were not killed in locations that could be tied to the killer.

One has to wonder whatever happened to logic.

Hi Fish
happy new year and I agree. I think the dismemberment part threw off the police then as well as people now.

[Abby Normal]

Right, Gareth, now I have seen the docu, and I have evaluated your statement that there were "much, much more similarities" between the two Napper murders and the Tiltman murder, than between the torso murders and the ripper murders.

I earlier listed eleven similarities between the ripper and the torso murders, and I now invite you to produce " much, much more" similarities for these cases.

I would also like to point out that the cases you cite are multiple stabbing cases, a much more common crime than evisceration murders. And stabbing is of course extremely common wheras cutting abdomens open is the exact opposite.

Moreover, it is my understanding that Nappers killings were the results of stalking victims actively, wherreas the Tiltman murder was a spur-of-the-moment attack.

It applies that the Napper murders had rape as an ingredient, whereas the Tiltman murder had not.

The Napper murders were both attacks against a woman with a child (one was raped and killed), whereas the Tiltman murder was not.

There was not a single element in any of these murders, not the Napper ones and not the Tiltman one, that was rare per se.

Am I correct in saying that the only likeness inbetween the attacks is that they were all three knife attacks, Gareth? Of course, they supposedly involved gross overkill, but whereas Nappers victims suffered half a hundred stabs, it seems Tiltman may have suffered as few as nine stabs - that is what the later reports say, whereas it was initially stated that there were 40 stabs. Since we know that Tiltman staggered a hundred yards before collapsing, I think 40 stabs sounds a lot.
So maybe there were large differences in this respect too?

So what remains, Gareth? Please tell me! How are these cases "much, much more similar" than the Ripper cases and the torso cases?

so are we talking about one serial killer and a one off by another man or two serial kiillers?

the most similar element being the victims were stabbed multiple times?

[Sam Flynn]

But when we have two such series of murders committed in the same town, at the same time, and with even more rare details in common

They are not "rare details", though. There are certain logistical problems that would be faced by ALL monsters of this kind, to which only a few solutions might be arrived at. Take evisceration, as just one such example. Dennis Nilsen was not an eviscerating murderer, in the sense that Jack the Ripper was, but he disembowelled his victims for practical reasons.

Oh, and again, we can only claim that the Torso and Ripper murders were "committed in the same town, at the same time" if we adopt a VERY wide definition of "same".

So, even the "sameness" is a moot point.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish
happy new year and I agree. I think the dismemberment part threw off the police then as well as people now.

Indeed! It was understandable in 1888, but it is less so today.

A happy and prosperous new year to you and yours too!!

[Sam Flynn]

so are we talking about one serial killer and a one off by another man or two serial kiillers?

Each one of the Torso Murders could easily have been committed by a different killer. Similarly, more than one murderer might have been responsible for the Jack the Ripper murders - and I'm not talking about the "Jack the Jabber" killer of Martha Tabram; I mean the killer(s) who did for the Canonical Five.

[Abby Normal]

Each one of the Torso Murders could easily have been committed by a different killer. Similarly, more than one murderer might have been responsible for the Jack the Ripper murders - and I'm not talking about the "Jack the Jabber" killer of Martha Tabram; I mean the killer(s) who did for the Canonical Five.

I was asking about YOUR example

[Fisherman]

so are we talking about one serial killer and a one off by another man or two serial kiillers?

the most similar element being the victims were stabbed multiple times?

One serialist (Robert Napper) and one one-off killer (Colin Ash-Smith) with a rap sheet of rape and attempted murder, Abby - which of course does not adjust to then demands of a comparison of two serialists, where multiple murders can be compared. But interesting nevertheless.
And yes, the multiple stabbing seems to be the common denominator. Where all the other similarities found by Gareth are hiding, I don´t know. Maybe he will enlighten us.

[Abby Normal]

One serialist (Robert Napper) and one one-off killer (Colin Ash-Smith) with a rap sheet of rape and attempted murder, Abby - which of course does not adjust to then demands of a comparison of two serialists, where multiple murders can be compared. But interesting nevertheless.
And yes, the multiple stabbing seems to be the common denominator. Where all the other similarities found by Gareth are hiding, I don´t know. Maybe he will enlighten us.

Thanks Fish

the ripper murders and torso murders are obviously two serial killers(or more than likely one serial killer in different circumstances) as opposed to a serial killer Napper and a one off murderer that Sam used as an analogy.

and multiple stabbings being the most common denominator? I agree with you that stabbing is too common a method of murder or attack. especially compared with the specific post mortem mutilation of ripper and torso man.
or Torso ripper. (you know we really need to come up with a good name that includes both series for one man).

bad analogy by Sam methinks.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: They are not "rare details", though.

Evisceration in itself is very rare.

Cutting bellies open from ribcage to pubes is very rare.

Taking out organs of both a sexual and of non-sexual types is quite rare.

Cutting the abdominal wall away in sections is extremely rare.

Cutting out sections of the colon is extremely rare.

Which of the above do you disagree with, Gareth?

There are certain logistical problems that would be faced by ALL monsters of this kind, to which only a few solutions might be arrived at. Take evisceration, as just one such example. Dennis Nilsen was not an eviscerating murderer, in the sense that Jack the Ripper was, but he disembowelled his victims for practical reasons.

The point being? That the torso killer could have done the same? How does that work? Any suggestions? How was it "practical" to cut out Jacksons uterus, cord and placenta, to place them inside a package made up by two flaps of abdominal wall flesh and float the package down the Thames?
If that is what you are saying?

Oh, and again, we can only claim that the Torso and Ripper murders were "committed in the same town, at the same time" if we adopt a VERY wide definition of "same".

So, even the "sameness" is a moot point.

No, it is not. If one series was committed in Saskachewan in 1960 and the Ripper series in London in 1888, it would be a moot point. But the location and timings allow us to realize that these two series were carried out in so limited a geographical area and in such a space of time, that a shared identity is totally feasible. To claim that such a thing is "moot" is simply untenable and factually misleading.

Now, if you could list the supposedly many, many similarities between the Tiltman murder and the Napper cases, we may be able to get somewhere.

[Sam Flynn]

I was asking about YOUR example

I was answering your question, I think More explicitly...

are we talking about one serial killer and a one off by another man or two serial kiillers?

I believe one serial killer was at work, and he was responsible for some, but possibly not all, the Canonical Five "Ripper" murders of the Whitechapel series. There are strong grounds for believing that this killer was not responsible for the murder of Liz Stride or Martha Tabram. There is a slightly less compelling, albeit reasonable, argument against his being responsible for Mary Kelly's murder; I tend not to subscribe to this, but I can see why some people do. So, within the "Ripper" murders, we have one serial killer - who probably killed a "Canonical 3 or 4" - with the remainder dying at the hands of one-off killers.

I don't believe that a convincing case has been made to suggest that a single serial killer was responsible for all the Torso Murders. Even if there was, there is very little evidence to link him (or her) to the Ripper Murders, nor to the other "open-air" Whitechapel Murders for that matter.

[Fisherman]

Abby Normal: Thanks Fish

the ripper murders and torso murders are obviously two serial killers(or more than likely one serial killer in different circumstances) as opposed to a serial killer Napper and a one off murderer that Sam used as an analogy.

True enough - although I have little doubt that Ash-Smith is useful serial killer material.

and multiple stabbings being the most common denominator? I agree with you that stabbing is too common a method of murder or attack. especially compared with the specific post mortem mutilation of ripper and torso man.
or Torso ripper. (you know we really need to come up with a good name that includes both series for one man).

Can´t fault you there - if the stabbing had been directed towards a very specified area on the body, it would have helped, but evenso it would not have made for a fair comparison in any real meaning of the word. Not in my book, at least.

Yes, we are going to need a common name for the combined killer. My bet is that the name Jack the Ripper will soak up the Torso killers name and incorporate it, no credit given to the first series on stage. But any alternative suggestions are welcomed. The obvious suggestion is of course "Charles Lechmere", but it does not have the flair of the more typical trade names. I sometimes favour "The Worst One", since this combination of two bogeymen is really a creepy character, standing out in the annals of serial murders. Then again, we sometimes tend to present these men as some sort of master criminals, whereas they are normally cowardly creeps in many a sense. Perhaps a less loaded title like "The Victorian serialist" would encapsulate things in a more appropriate way.

Then again, the suggestions that will present themselves out in this bog are more likely to be along the line "The Bogus Killer" or "The Make-Up Killer"...