Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Elamarna 32 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Elamarna 45 minutes ago.
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - by David Orsam 51 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Debra A 1 hour and 4 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Debra A 1 hour and 6 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Elamarna 1 hour and 18 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - (73 posts)
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - (27 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (9 posts)
Shades of Whitechapel: The Golden State Serial Killer - (6 posts)
Scene of the Crimes: Was Whitechapel really any worse than other areas of London? - (3 posts)
Witnesses: Pearly Poll's Husband - (3 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Motive, Method and Madness

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #3171  
Old 04-16-2018, 10:12 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 16,334
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
Jesus wept. The torso killer(s) was no more an "eviscerator" than Jack the Ripper was a "neck cutter".

Oh, and by the way, neither was Dennis Nilsen a "proven eviscerator". True, he emptied the body cavities of his victims, but this was in order to get rid of the gunk and to make the cutting up and disposal of body parts easier and less messy; ditto the torso killer on just the one occasion, and then he only took out the intestines, presumably because they'd dangle out of the hole he'd made if he left them there (not nice). These dismemberers evidently only eviscerated for practical reasons, not because they had a fixation with the contents of their victims' abdomen... which is categorically what Jack the Ripper was all about.
If you had read my posts - and remembered your own - you would be aware that eviscerating is taking the bodily organs out. That is the broad definition of it.
Definition of eviscerate
eviscerated; eviscerating
transitive verb
1 a : to take out the entrails of : disembowel
b : to deprive of vital content or force
2 : to remove an organ from (a patient) or the contents of (an organ)


In that respect, Dennis Nilsen eviscerated his victims.

What you are confusing the matter with is eviscerating as a paraphilia or part of one. That is an area where we will always be able to do what you did just now, say "Ooooh no, I happen to know EXACTLY why the Torso killer took out the uterus, the lungs and the heart from Liz Jackson, and I can tell you all that it was ABSOLUTELY not on account of a paraphilia!"

And we would not want the debate to end up in that kind of a bog. Would we?

Nor would we want it to be regarded as established that the Torso killer only eviscerated once - he may have done so on at least three occasions. There were missing organs from the Rainham victim and the Whitehall victim, but it seems that no matter how many times I point this out, you will not accept it?
And frankly, when we ask ourselves the question "Did they plop out by coincidence or did the killer take them out?", our best guess is that he cut them out - since we DO have the Jackson example where we KNOW that he was ready and willing to do so. And did it!

This is one more example of where it becomes ludicruous how you speak of me as "potentially misleading" - and then you state unequivocally that only one Torso victim was eviscerated! Are you BLIND to all of this? Can´t you see how it reads? You were supposed to be good at expressing yourself, were you not?

Tha absolute majority of those who kill other people, cut them open and remove the inner organs (and these are very, very few) ARE suffering from the kind of paraphilia we are talking about, so the logical thing to deduct is that the Torso man most probably also did.

We also know that he - whaddayouknow? - cut away the abdominal wall of Liz Jackson in "large flaps", described by the papers (plural) as "the lower abdomen of a woman, cut in two." As did the Ripper.

Given the rarity of serial killers overall and given that eviscerating serial killers (regardless of whether the eviscerations are part of a paraphilia or not) are even rarer, much, much rarer, and given that the two killers we discuss did VERY similar things to the abdominals walls of their victims. And cut out their uteri. And cut out their hearts. And cut out lungs. And were described as skilled knifesmen. And were targetting prostitutes...

... there is just about no chance at all that we are dealing with two killers. The mere idea is so much in conflict with the known facts that it is more or less preposterous.

To think that they CAN have been two is a sign of how extremely elastic logic can be at times, and there is nothing wrong with that. It ensures that we will cover all ground.

To claim that they are more likely to be two than one is unworthy of ANY logic. Elastic or not.

Look at the statistics! TWO (two) eviscerating serial killers in 218 years!

Last edited by Fisherman : 04-16-2018 at 10:40 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3172  
Old 04-16-2018, 10:23 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 16,334
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by harry View Post
How strange that the beyond reasonable doubt keeps cropping up,and that apparently Hebberts reasonings give credence to it. What proofs are there.
Hebbert writes there were similarities,nothing more.Yes there were similarities,but as has been pointed out there were dissimilarities of which he says nothing.Does that mean we have to ignore them?That they do not count?
He also writes that a supposition can be made that the same person was responsible.He does not claim proof of it,or that it is beyong reasonable doubt.
Just that it can be supposed/assumed.No proofs it was the same saws or knives used on each and every victim,or even the same manner of death.Or that every death was a murder.
Yet we are expected to accept interpretations of his writings goes beyond a reasonable doubt or belief.

STRANGE.
Hebbert does not just say that there were similarities. There are similarities between you and me, Harry. And between you and a cow, me and a banana and us and a pack of hyenas.

Hebbert said that the four murders were VERY similar "in almost every aspect", and that he was in little doubt that they had the same originator.

So let´s not miss out on the magnitude, shall we? That would put us at risk to think that Hebbert was not very sure at all and that the similarities were only small and superficial.

And we would not want THAT wrongful picture to take hold, would we? Precisely!

Plus it is NOT Hebbert who says that it is beyond reasonable doubt that there was just the one killer. It is me, yours truly, and Hebbert is among the sources that urge me to make that call.

Last edited by Fisherman : 04-16-2018 at 10:34 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3173  
Old 04-16-2018, 11:13 PM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 9,541
Default

Hebbert says nothing about the MURDERS being similar, very or otherwise. He comments only on the similarities in the manner of dismemberment and, in the specific case of the Pinchin Street torso, that comparison can only ever be applicable to the legs.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3174  
Old 04-16-2018, 11:22 PM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 9,541
Default

Where does Hebbert say that "it is beyond reasonable doubt that there was just the one killer"? Exact quote, please.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3175  
Old 04-16-2018, 11:39 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 16,334
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
Where does Hebbert say that "it is beyond reasonable doubt that there was just the one killer"? Exact quote, please.
Try again, Gareth, four posts back:


"Plus it is NOT Hebbert who says that it is beyond reasonable doubt that there was just the one killer. It is me, yours truly, and Hebbert is among the sources that urge me to make that call."
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3176  
Old 04-16-2018, 11:41 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 16,334
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
Hebbert says nothing about the MURDERS being similar, very or otherwise. He comments only on the similarities in the manner of dismemberment and, in the specific case of the Pinchin Street torso, that comparison can only ever be applicable to the legs.
So not the neck, then?

Of course Hebbert only comments on the cutting and dismembering that was performed.

Who has said something else?

As an aside, even if it only had been the leg dismemberment that had been open to Hebbert to comment on - how would that decrease the value of his view? If he saw that the legs had been taken off in a manner that was very, very close to how it was done in the other cases, why would not this be enough to make a comparison?

Last edited by Fisherman : 04-16-2018 at 11:44 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3177  
Old 04-17-2018, 12:00 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 16,334
Default

In post 3172, I say that "Hebbert said that the four murders were VERY similar "in almost every aspect", and that he was in little doubt that they had the same originator."

That should be amended - he did not use the word "aspect" but instead "respect", and he said this in a comparison of the two later murders in the series to the two first.

He also never worded himself with a phrase containing the words that he was in little doubt that it was the same originator in each case. What he said was that:

"In the last volume of Reports I was able to give a description of two cases of mutilation which occurred duering 1887 and 1888. I now take the opportunity of recounting two more instances of mutilation which have happened during the present year. In almost every respect they are similar to the first two cases, and appear to belong to a series of murders and dismemberment by the same hand ..."

and

"...The mode of dismemberment and mutilation was in all similar, and showed considerable skill in execution, and it is a fair presumption from the facts that the same man committed all the four murders."

So instead of saying that he had little doubt that the same man committed all four murders, he said that it is a fair presumption from the facts that the same man committed all the four murders.

Wich adds up to more or less the same - Hebbert believed that there was just the one killer - but fair is fair!
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3178  
Old 04-17-2018, 12:27 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 16,334
Default

One interesting thing to notice is that there is another example of two serial killers in London in overlapping periods of time, Christie and Haigh.

Since London is as big as all of Sweden populationwise, it is not all that strange, of course.

However, Christie strangled his victims and dug them down or hid them in the walls, whereas Haigh shot or battered his victims to death, and then put them in barrels of acid to dissolve them.

Neither man engaged in cutting the victims up and eviscerating them. Nor did they cut the abdominal walls of their victims away in large flaps...

There were no similarities at all inbetween them. Not a single one.

This is nevertheless the only example I can find of two serial killers at work in the same time and general geographical area in Britain during the 218 years that we have on record.

Last edited by Fisherman : 04-17-2018 at 12:56 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3179  
Old 04-17-2018, 01:15 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 9,541
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
"...The mode of dismemberment and mutilation was in all similar, and showed considerable skill in execution, and it is a fair presumption from the facts that the same man committed all the four murders."
But a "fair presumption" is not the same as saying that it was "beyond reasonable doubt" - Hebbert made no such claim. Besides, he is only going on the mode of dismemberment and doesn't seem to be taking into account other factors like geography (West vs East London) and demographics. In the latter respect, I reiterate the fact that there were plenty of people with butchery and related skills distributed throughout London, and that there are only a limited number of (practical) ways to joint a leg.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3180  
Old 04-17-2018, 03:03 AM
harry harry is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,712
Default

Fisherman,
In post 3039 you used the term,"In every respect they are similar"
You now use the term,Very similar.Slip of the keyboard maybe. MOOO.
Again 3039.In almost every respect,has now become,in every respect.What happened to the ,Almost. Another slip of the keyboard.MOOO.
Yes,I know it was you that used the term,beyond reasonable doubt,have I written otherwise.?Strange that no one else seems to have gone that far.
I know what Hebbert claimed,what I would like is the proofs of his claims.
Yours too.In every case of murder there has to be proofs.Similarites are hardly
proofs beyond reasonable doubt.
Today I passed two persons wearing similar clothing.Must have been made by the same tailor.How do I know,because they were similar.Go figure!!!
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.