Practicality or madness?

[Fisherman]

The one we do know about lived and worked in and around the Chelsea area. No reason to suppose that the other torso victims - Pinchin excepted - weren't also from South West London. It's almost certain that the torso victims didn't know any of the C5; indeed, there's no guarantee that all the C5 knew each other, either.

Yes, Jackson lived and worked in the Battersea/Chelsea area. But where she was picked up is another matter - that we donīt know.

Not that the Torsoripper could not have picked her up anywhere, if he had transportation.

There is no reason to rule that the other victims could not have come from any district in London, once again for the simple reason that we donīt know where they were picked up.

And, once again, if the Torsoripper had transportation, they could have been picked up at Buckingham Palace which was a round three miles away from the Ripper grounds. No problem.

The fact that most of the parts from these women were dumped in the West End is nothing but that - it tells us that they were dumped somewhere there. Nothing more. You are welcome to suggest that the killer lived there too, but not to imply that it is a near certainty. It is no such thing at all.

The same goes for the Ripper victims and the Torso ditto - I think you may agree that not knowing the identities of the latter means that we will have a very hard time proving that it is "almost certain" that they did not know each other. The suggestion is quite preposterous and has nothing at all to do with serious research.

It would be quite logical if they did not know each other, but it would not be impossible in any shape or form that they did. Itīs one of many unknown and unweighable factors involved in the case. Personally, I am fine with any version, that they knew each other and had tea together on Fridays, or that they never saw each other at all and were totally ignorant of each others presence in London.

I have no problem with that, I can take both versions in my stride. You, on the other hand, have a bias to feed - it is NOT comme il faut to suggest any link at all or even hint at such a possibility. And my, do you feed it!

Once again, however, the aim of the thread is another one, clearly defined in my former post to you.

[Abby Normal]

Dr. Francis "Frank" E. Sweeney is the prime suspect. A bit like the Kozminski claim, when Sweeney committed himself, the murders 'stopped'.

It was sweeney,

[Abby Normal]

Why is the onus of proof on me? What do you mean by " inclusions of similarities that are extremely rare and far reaching?

Regarding similar agendas, I would largely disagree with that (not completely because in a previous post I referred to the possibility of Torso man being an offensive/defensive offender, and offensive dismemberment can be analogues with lust murder.)

Personally I regard Torsoman as a unique and highly unususl killer. Organized, in the way JtR was not; defensive/cautious in the way he took precautions to prevent his victims from being identified; a ghoulish sense of humour, as evidenced by the fact that he was scattering body parts like pieces of a puzzle; and soneone who wss playing a kind of game with the police- I mean there can't be many serial killers who thought it would be a great whiz to bury body parts right under the noses of the police in their own headquarters!

“Scattering body parts like pieces of a puzzle”. Love it!

[Batman]

I would think the primary reason why he kept the heads was to prevent direct identification, although other more morbid reasons can apply, the inference we should make is that he could be associated with these victims and is why he doesn't want them identified.

[Busy Beaver]

The only victim JTR did not want identified was MJK. Torso murderer killed in the wealthy West End and and identification was zero in most cases. Did JTR and Torso killer know each other? Could MJK be connected because she at one point worked in an West End Brothel? But because she had absconded to the East End, JTR got to her first. Just a thought.

[Sam Flynn]

The only victim JTR did not want identified was MJK

So he killed her in her own room?

[Abby Normal]

So he killed her in her own room?

Lol.

One could say maybe he was trying to obscure identity with attacking the face of eddowes, until MK. Then its apparent its escalation of fantasy.

[Fisherman]

I would think the primary reason why he kept the heads was to prevent direct identification, although other more morbid reasons can apply, the inference we should make is that he could be associated with these victims and is why he doesn't want them identified.

If the 1873 torso is part of the series - and I have little doubt that it is - then keep in mind that far from keeping or hiding the head, the killer actually cut the whole face and scalp away and threw it in the Thames. That is not effective identity hiding.

[Fisherman]

The only victim JTR did not want identified was MJK. Torso murderer killed in the wealthy West End and and identification was zero in most cases. Did JTR and Torso killer know each other? Could MJK be connected because she at one point worked in an West End Brothel? But because she had absconded to the East End, JTR got to her first. Just a thought.

The West End and the East End were not impossible to commute inbetween, Mr Beaver. There were many people who did so on a daily basis - not least carmen...

[Fisherman]

Lol.

One could say maybe he was trying to obscure identity with attacking the face of eddowes, until MK. Then its apparent its escalation of fantasy.

If he did not mind Nichols and Chapman and Stride (on the same night!) being ID:d, why would he mind Eddowes having her ID revealed?

[Batman]

If the 1873 torso is part of the series - and I have little doubt that it is - then keep in mind that far from keeping or hiding the head, the killer actually cut the whole face and scalp away and threw it in the Thames. That is not effective identity hiding.

Really? I must have forgotten that and I read Trow.

Which discovery was that one?

[Abby Normal]

If he did not mind Nichols and Chapman and Stride (on the same night!) being ID:d, why would he mind Eddowes having her ID revealed?

Exactly.

[Fisherman]

Really? I must have forgotten that and I read Trow.

Which discovery was that one?

Trow has it in his book - September 1873. If you have not read up about this victim, I recommend you do so. She is of the utmost importance.

Gordon does NOT have her in his book, for a very obvious reason. He opts for the Salamanca Place victim instead, and for just as obvious a cause...

[Batman]

Trow has it in his book - September 1873. If you have not read up about this victim, I recommend you do so. She is of the utmost importance.

Gordon does NOT have her in his book, for a very obvious reason. He opts for the Salamanca Place victim instead, and for just as obvious a cause...

I read Gordon before Trow and might have just forgotten it (obviously have) and will look again in Trow.

Thanks.

[Fisherman]

I read Gordon before Trow and might have just forgotten it (obviously have) and will look again in Trow.

Thanks.

Youīre welcome, Batman!