Internal organ removing SK

[Sam Flynn]

bad analogy by Sam methinks.

My posting the Napper documentary was not meant to be an analogy. It was meant to demonstrate that similar frenzied stabbing method of killing, in a similar - I won't say "same" - geographical area, perpetrated in daylight and in public (even with both perpetrators wearing similar training boots!) can lead an experienced criminologist to theorise that the same person was responsible for different murders. When they weren't, as it later transpired.

as opposed to a serial killer Napper and a one off murderer that Sam used as an analogy.

I don't buy the idea that "serial killers" materially act any differently to "one-off killers", except in the obvious sense. Every "serial killer" has to start out as a "one-off killer" anyway.

In that regard, it's salutary to note that the actual killer of Claire Tiltman, Colin Ash-Smith, had already served time for serious assaults on women, including multiple stabbings, which were luckily not fatal. By the grace of God, therefore, Colin Ash-Smith was that close to being a "serial killer" in any case.

[Fisherman]

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.

So you think it is quite possible that there were two, three, perhaps four eviscerators (or perhaps more?) at large in victorian London, who would open up bellies from ribcage to pelvis, who would take away the abdominal wall in sections from victims, who would remove colon sections, who would take out inner organs of both a sexual and non-sexual nature, who would be described as so skilled with the knife that they were thought to have surgical expertise, who would prey on prostitutes (intentionally or not) and who would take rings from the fingers of their victims?

How many torso killers do you propose there were? Were some of them so called copycat killers? And did they divide the similarities with the Ripper between themselves, or was it just the one torso killer who met this criteria?

Has there ever been any other city in the history of man that has been so heavily struck by a shitload of eviscerators, operating over a simultaneous period of time?

Personally, I think the suggestion enters the realms of pure phantasy. I think it´s ostridge thinking, with the head buried deep in the sand, Gareth.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: My posting the Napper documentary was not meant to be an analogy. It was meant to demonstrate that similar frenzied stabbing method of killing

Do you know where the stabs went, what they looked like and how many they were? Because before we speak of similarities, that needs to be established.

in a similar - I won't say "same" - geographical area, perpetrated in daylight and in public (even with both perpetrators wearing similar training boots!) can still lead an experienced criminologist to strongly suggest that the same person was responsible.

Only one of the Napper murders was in public. The other one was inside the victims house and in no way public.

Are these the supposedly many, many similarities that outshine the eleven similarities I posted? Multiple stabbing (1), in daylight (2) and the killer wearing training boots (3)? Or is there more?

When they weren't, as it later transpired.

Ash-Smith had earlier attacked and stabbed another woman multiple times 300 yards from where he killed Tiltman. He should have been investigated earlier on account of that. But multiple stabbings are so common that the police didn´t make the connection.

Imagine that Tiltman had been eviscerated. Imagine further that the earlier Ash-Smith attack had involved eviscerations. I don´t think that would have been lost on the police, Gareth. The magnitude is a very different one.

I don't buy the idea that "serial killers" materially act any differently to "one-off killers", except in the obvious sense. Every "serial killer" has to start out as a "one-off killer" anyway.

I agree. I find Ash-Smith a viable comparison. Like I said, he seems serial killer material to me. But the comparison does not hold up factually. And even if it did, we would only have uncovered a very, very, very, very rare example where two cases carrying seemingly similar implications were actually carried out by different killers. It would be a freak exception to the rule, and more freakish the more odd the damage done was.
Stabbing is not odd at all. Eviscerating is.

In that regard, it's salutary to note that the actual killer of Claire Tiltman, Colin Ash-Smith, had already served time for serious assaults on women, including multiple stabbings, which were luckily not fatal. By the grace of God, therefore, Colin Ash-Smith was that close to being a "serial killer" in any case.

Very true. One of his victims apparently survived 14 stabs, and could very easily have perished. I have no problems accepting Ash-Smith as a viable, even probable future serialist, had he stayed uncaught. God knows there are hundreds of unsolved cases out there, of which he may be responsible to some degree. He could well be a serialist already.
As an aside, it seems it is reasoned that Tiltman suffered as few as nine stabs, and that earlier rape victim of Ash-Smith received 14. It is many, but a long way from Nappers 50-60 stabs to his victims (where there were also eviscerarion tendencies - one part from the second victim´s abdomen was taken by Napper). A difference, therefore, that needs to be taken into account if the figures are correct. All in all, Napper seems the more frenzied and out of control killer of the two, something that seemingly matches his medical diagnosis - he was sent down to Broadmoor.

[Michael W Richards]

..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.

I think that by definition Id agree with the above Sam with one codicil...since 2 murders is enough to make one a serial killer. The codicil is that I believe the Torsos were the result of another serial killer.
Which in and of itself addresses the notion that 2 active serial killers generally do not overlap on territory.

The question of the supposed Ripper acts performed and how "rare" those are, someone posted the information on the Gill boy in Bradford that same year, and its unlikely he/she was related to the crimes in London.

[Fisherman]

I think that by definition Id agree with the above Sam with one codicil...since 2 murders is enough to make one a serial killer. The codicil is that I believe the Torsos were the result of another serial killer.
Which in and of itself addresses the notion that 2 active serial killers generally do not overlap on territory.

The question of the supposed Ripper acts performed and how "rare" those are, someone posted the information on the Gill boy in Bradford that same year, and its unlikely he/she was related to the crimes in London.

Two things:

1. Accepting that eviscerations murders are very, very rare. Once they surface in heaps, the fewer killers we can ascribe them to, the closer to the statistical truth we will get.

2. The paper coverage of the Ripper case brought the news about what he did to very many people, and that in itself could perhaps have sparked an interest to emulate his deeds with some people. However, why would these people spring into action in the exact same area that was prowled by the Ripper himself?

[Michael W Richards]

Two things:

1. Accepting that eviscerations murders are very, very rare. Once they surface in heaps, the fewer killers we can ascribe them to, the closer to the statistical truth we will get.

2. The paper coverage of the Ripper case brought the news about what he did to very many people, and that in itself could perhaps have sparked an interest to emulate his deeds with some people. However, why would these people spring into action in the exact same area that was prowled by the Ripper himself?

To counter;

1. Within the accepted Canonical Group there is one victim with no eviscerations or physical indication that any were intended. That alone should cause anyone to halt the grouping and look at the environment for possible motivations. I must agree with you that these evisceration type killers are rare and the motivation they have for doing the needs is almost always based on need or desire to do these things. My counter to that is then why would we assume we have this rarest of beasts in all the Unsolved cases within the Police files? Ive pointed out one very obvious contradiction within the generally accepted victims list, Ill also say that the final victim was not dissected, she was killed with anger and some evident curiosity. That factor can suggest many possible motives, including consideration of a known love triangle and a recently ejected partner. Kates injuries are consistent with an elevated degree of damage after Annie...a month earlier by the way,...but they are not of the same targeted approach seen in the Hanbury murder, nor are they performed as skillfully. I see the facial injuries, the tracing of her navel, and the colon section as "play" if you will, this killer didn't have focus.

2. With all the known dangerous criminals in the immediate area at that time, with a much larger group of Unsolved cases than can be brought under 1 killer easily, with an ongoing public airing of potentially treasonous actions taking place within Parliament, with an ongoing assassination plot of a government figure, 1 year after plans to blow up the Queen were barely foiled and riots put police and citizens in area hospitals......you get the point here Fisherman, there were many sources of potential very public violence at that time. I wouldn't be surprised if one of the Canonicals was an act of terrorism rather than the urges of a madman.

My objections to the assumptive discussions are based in the belief that there is ample evidence to suggest we should look for a variety of possible motives in some cases, and therefore the best we can say about these 5 cases at this time is that they are assumed to be linked by one killer by most modern and contemporary investigators.

[Michael W Richards]

To counter;

1. " I must agree with you that these evisceration type killers are rare and the motivation they have for doing the needs is almost always based on need or desire to do these things. "

underlined should have read "these deeds are"...

[Sam Flynn]

Accepting that eviscerations murders are very, very rare. Once they surface in heaps, the fewer killers we can ascribe them to, the closer to the statistical truth we will get.

The Torso Murders don't look much like evisceration murders, anymore than Dennis Nilsen's were evisceration murders. Evisceration might have happened to some extent, but there's nothing to suggest that evisceration was the Torso killer(s) purpose - otherwise they'd have done a damn sight better job of it, given that it appears they had the luxury of privacy (or at least a "bolt-hole"). We only need to see what the Ripper (or AN Other) did at 13 Miller's Court to see what a true "evisceration murderer" might do, given a little privacy. To put it somewhat indelicately, I'd have expected the torsos to have been emptier than Mary Kelly when found, but they weren't.

We must be very careful with terminology, and avoid generalisations. "Evisceration murders", for want of a better label, should be reserved for those crimes where evisceration appears overwhelmingly to be a primary goal. This certainly appears to have been the case in 4 out of 5 of the Canonical Ripper crimes.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: The Torso Murders don't look much like evisceration murders, anymore than Dennis Nilsen's were evisceration murders. Evisceration might have happened to some extent, but there's nothing to suggest that evisceration was the Torso killer(s) purpose - otherwise they'd have done a damn sight better job of it, given that it appears they had the luxury of privacy (or at least a "bolt-hole"). We only need to see what the Ripper (or AN Other) did at 13 Miller's Court to see what a true "evisceration murderer" might do, given a little privacy. To put it somewhat indelicately, I'd have expected the torsos to have been emptier than Mary Kelly when found, but they weren't.

In my view, the real purpose behind the Mary Kelly murder was not evisceration. Nor was it the annihilation of the body. Nor was it punishing womanhood.
The fact that the killer took out the inner organs was a biproduct of the true purpose of the deed.

I suppose that was not the answer you expected, Gareth, but it is nevertheless my belief.

Similarly, the Ripper/Torso killer (yes, it is the same man) never nourished a specific wish only to eviscerate the torso victims. He had other plans for the raw material their bodies constituted, and the signs of this varied. But you may wish to ponder why a face was taken away together with the scalp in one of the cases, and why the same victim had the limbs sawed through at the hip and shoulder joints whereas the rest of the dismemberment was carried out by cutting the joints open and disarticulating them.

We must be very careful with terminology, and avoid generalisations. "Evisceration murders", for want of a better label, should be reserved for those crimes where evisceration appears overwhelmingly to be a primary goal. This certainly appears to have been the case in 4 out of 5 of the Canonical Ripper crimes.

That is the general idea, and has been so for 129 years now. I am pretty certain that it is wrong, or to be a bit more precise, it only provides us with a small bit of the underlying pathology of the killer and his incentives.
If I am right, then we have been anything but careful over the years. We have rushed to decisions and we have made the wrong ones.

Any development on the Napper/Ash-Smith comparison yet?

[Sam Flynn]

Any development on the Napper/Ash-Smith comparison yet?

Like I said, I'm not playing that game. And it's not because I can't, it's because I can't be arsed.

[Fisherman]

Like I said, I'm not playing that game. And it's not because I can't, it's because I can't be arsed.

No, Gareth, it is because you have no case. Disprove it or live with it.

[Sam Flynn]

No, Gareth, it is because you have no case. Disprove it or live with it.

Like I said, Fish, I've no interest in playing that game. There is a case - and a far, far stronger one than you could possibly make for linking the Torso killings and Ripper murders. If you can't see that, then it's not my problem, sorry.

[Fisherman]

Like I said, Fish, I've no interest in playing that game. There is a case - and a far, far stronger one than you could possibly make for linking the Torso killings and Ripper murders. If you can't see that, then it's not my problem, I'm afraid.

That may well be something you think. But that was never what was under discussion. What was under discussion was he fact that you claimed that there were "much, much more similarities" between the Napper murders and the Ash-Smith murder than between the Ripper murders and the Torso murders.

Now you want to move the goalposts and instead speak of your inner conviction that there is a far stronger case for linking your cases than mine, a conviction that I do not share. But that won´t matter, since you will inevitably do the same thing again: state something as a fact and then stay VERY far away from proving your point.

It is a completely useless exercise, and it is not flattering for you at all. If you have a case to make, then make it and be done with it. If not, then don´t.

I´m through with it, because I don´t like it one bit.

[Sam Flynn]

That may well be something you think. But that was never what was under discussion. What was under discussion was he fact that you claimed that there were "much, much ore similarities between the Napper murders and the Ash-Smith murder than between the Ripper murders and the Torso murders.

There are, in terms of significant similarities. Insignificant links can, of course, be obtained by generalising too much and blurring the selection criteria, but I wouldn't advocate that as a sensible way forward.

Now you want to move the goalposts and instead speak of your inner conviction that there is a far stronger case for linking your cases than mine

There are more similarities, objectively speaking.

It is a completely useless exercise, and it is not flattering for you at all.

I'll let others be the judge of that, Fish.

If you have a case to make, then make it and be done with it. If not, then don´t.

I've told you, I'm not going to waste my time. You'll only piss on everything I say, so what's the point?

[Fisherman]

There are, in terms of significant similarities. Insignificant links can, of course, be obtained by generalising too much and blurring the selection criteria, but I wouldn't advocate that as a sensible way forward.There are more similarities, objectively speaking.I'll let others be the judge of that, Fish.I've told you, I'm not going to waste my time. You'll only piss on everything I say, so what's the point?

The point is to have a flawed and faulty argument pissed at. If that is what you think I aim to do. Otherwise, it is to have a flawed and faulty argument fairly criticized. And I have done that already.
There are three similarities between your examples and twelve between the torso and ripper cases. And since you don´t want to "play games" it should delight you to hear that this means game over.