I was not comparing you as individuals; just the data sources that were not disclosed.
And I wanted to show that it was not personally but a position I take with all.
There is no comparison at all between you two as you must know.
The I would rather you avoided it - you could have made the point without using Pierre, right?
By the way, donīt listen too closely to Johnīs ramblings. The 1873 victim was every bit as neatly disarticulated at the joints as the later victims, as per the Lancet: "Contrary to the popular opinion, the body has not been hacked, but dexterously cut up; the joints have been opened, and the bones neatly disarticulated, even the complicated joints at the ankle and the elbow, and it is only at the articulations of the hip-joint and shoulder that the bones have been sawn through. In the trunk the sections have all been made in the most favourable parts. This is clearly shown on the left side of the trunk, for after the body had been divided longitudinally, the right side was severed into three portions, а thoracic, an abdominal, and a pelvic."
What one does not know, one should not comment on. John has a tedious habit of violating that rule.
What everybody with an interest in the case should take to heart here is that the articulations at the hip-joint and the shoulder included the bones being sawed off.
Once you understand what the killer was up to, you will immediately realize why this was so.
Once you donīt, you are at a disadvantage to comprehend it.
Just to restate the point that I've made on a number of occasions: Jackson's mutations were probably ritualistic; Chapman's were probably driven by practicalities, i.e on the basis that she was emaciated; MJK represents a killer who was attempting to destroy the body in a frenzied attack, demonstrating no skill whatsoever.
And if Chapman's mutilations were ritualistic, why was the same ritual absent with Eddowes, or for that matter, Nichols?
The venue John, that's what would explain the lack of pm mutilations comparatively.
I believe that most everyone would agree that Annie Chapmans murder can be associated with the unknown killer "Jack". What happened to her was unique when comparing it with the average street kills of the period. We all likely have common ground there.
If that is the case, then we have a measuring stick for at least the kill previous to Annie, and the subsequent Double Event murders. Considering the relatively short time elapse from Polly to Annie, then almost a month wait until the next attributed kills, many things may have changed by the time Liz Stride is killed. And she was killed in a manner inconsistent with our measuring stick, in almost every relative category.
The real mystery here isn't a Double Event, its a murder that may have been made to appear as if created by the monster at large. You see I agree that there wasn't a bunch of mad killers on the loose simultaneously, there was a monster and other men who killed living together in a crime ridden ghetto.