Same motive = same killer

[Fisherman]

Not sure we share that view, Fish. I'd say that the evidence linking the JTR/torso series is rather tenuous, and there are many important differences.

I know we don´t share the view, Gareth. It is nevertheless how I see it - even without adding my "secret ingredient" if you will. I think that the best way to understand what I mean would be to ask a seasoned murder investigator with no ripperological background how he looks upon it.

Then again, I have had some seriously ugly experiences when doing just that.

[Elamarna]

Hi el
IMHO your and sams constant responses of things not being similar when they are de facto similar is tiresome and predictable.

Abby,


You say it is tiresome and so it may be to those who view it differently, What do you think we should say then, if we seriously beleive the similarities are superficial and not significant?
If we had some real evidence say that each flap was cut with a zigzag edge then I would hold a very different position.

All the best


Steve

[Abby Normal]

Abby,


You say it is tiresome and so it may be to those who view it differently, What do you think we should say then, if we seriously beleive the similarities are superficial and not significant?
If we had some real evidence say that each flap was cut with a zigzag edge then I would hold a very different position.

All the best


Steve

Hi El
large sections of flesh removed from a thigh are de facto similar.
flaps of flesh removed from the abdomen are de facto and similar.
post mortem mutilation is de facto similar.
I could go on.

per ripper victims:
just like cuts to the throat are de facto similar.
Just like internal organs are removed de facto similar.

do we call them superficial similarities or not at all similar in the ripper case just because one may have two cuts to the throat, or not as deep?
do we call them superficial similarities or not at all similar because they were different organs?

of course not. These are things that linked them as a series. because they are...wait for it..SIMILAR!

do you see what I am getting at?

there are many reasons to think torsos and ripper victims are not related, but lets please stop this nonsense. there are de facto and obvious similarities. your not going to die if you admit it.

[Michael W Richards]

Michael!

1. We can discuss the viablity of suggested motives in absurdum, and we will never agree. So it would - at least to a degree - be time wasted.

2. The evidence of a single killer is overwhelming, so although we may not be able to discuss an overriding motive, I myself am convinced that such a creature is there.

Hi again Fisherman,

My responses;

1. Gaining agreement from others in the field isn't paramount in my opinion, the case once made will speak for itself and there will always be detractors from any sound argument anyway. People have their own perspectives, their own prejudices and their own sense of how logical and reasonable they are. What I suggest is that there are ways to help uncover murder motives and one of those ways is to evaluate the circumstantial evidence. Like for example its not impossible that Liz Stride simply pissed off a man who, in a moment perhaps of rage, reacted violently. That is a story that is supported by the known evidence. As are some other scenarios...none of which involve interruptions that are NOT present in any evidence by the way.

I believe that people are not all equal when it comes to interpreting data, and that people often choose something based on emotional response rather than logic or reason.

2. I know youre convinced, and that's fine by me, but I will jump in whenever you talk about "overwhelming evidence for one killer", or how targeted cutting and dismemberment are obviously synonymous acts.

[Abby Normal]

This would, presumably, be the idea that the intention was to shock? If that was the intention, then doesn't that equate to the motive, or at least part of it?

Leaving the psychology to one side, the mechanics of what happened to the bodies is that the torso victims were decapitated, sawn/chopped into multiple pieces, taken away from where they were murdered to be scattered in water and/or land. The Ripper victims were cut open and left where they were killed.

Hi Sam

Leaving the psychology to one side, the mechanics of what happened to the bodies is that the torso victims were decapitated, sawn/chopped into multiple pieces, taken away from where they were murdered to be scattered in water and/or land. The Ripper victims were cut open and left where they were killed

absolutely. These are obvious and de facto differences. In fact, for me, they are so different that it points away for them being the same man. no question.

I just think that there are enough similarities(ive listed them numerous times before, but can again if you want) between the two series that they out weigh the differences, and IMHO point to one man for both.

but I'm not totally convinced of it-as ive said before, I'm at about 60-70% convinced, and keep an open mind.

[Abby Normal]

ruminations on the use of the word "superficial"

The term "superficial" has been bandied around a lot when speaking about the torso, and also ripper cases.

I swear to god, if I hear that word one more time I'm going to barf all over my computer!

there is nothing superficial about the wounds received by the victims.

a superficial "wound" or cut is something you get when playing with your pet cat or when trimming the hedges!

In this day and age its most common connotation even means "fake".

so please enough.

[Fisherman]

Hi again Fisherman,

My responses;

1. Gaining agreement from others in the field isn't paramount in my opinion, the case once made will speak for itself and there will always be detractors from any sound argument anyway. People have their own perspectives, their own prejudices and their own sense of how logical and reasonable they are. What I suggest is that there are ways to help uncover murder motives and one of those ways is to evaluate the circumstantial evidence. Like for example its not impossible that Liz Stride simply pissed off a man who, in a moment perhaps of rage, reacted violently. That is a story that is supported by the known evidence. As are some other scenarios...none of which involve interruptions that are NOT present in any evidence by the way.

I believe that people are not all equal when it comes to interpreting data, and that people often choose something based on emotional response rather than logic or reason.

2. I know youre convinced, and that's fine by me, but I will jump in whenever you talk about "overwhelming evidence for one killer", or how targeted cutting and dismemberment are obviously synonymous acts.

Jump away - you´re always welcome!

[Sam Flynn]

The term "superficial" has been bandied around a lot when speaking about the torso, and also ripper cases.

I swear to god, if I hear that word one more time I'm going to barf all over my computer!

there is nothing superficial about the wounds received by the victims.

I've referred to superficial similarities between cases, i.e. resemblances which initially look reasonable on the surface, but which on analysis reveal themselves not to be so significant. I'll continue to use the adjective where I find it appropriate, Abby, so get the sick-bag ready.

[Abby Normal]

I've referred to superficial similarities between cases, i.e. resemblances which initially look reasonable on the surface, but which on analysis reveal themselves not to be so significant. I'll continue to use the adjective where I find it appropriate, Abby, so get the sick-bag ready.

Hi Sam

well then you are using the word incorrectly.

like in the past when someone used that word to describe the wounds to Ellen Bury and mackenzies abdomen. nothing superficial about them.

Just like theres nothing superficial about the similarities that I have pointed out about the similarities between the torso and ripper cases.

they are similarities. period. facts. period.

light brown isn't a superficial similarity to the color brown just because you don't like that shade of brown. It makes it light brown, not orange.

if you want to be accurate (and fair) pick a more appropriate adjective.

[Fisherman]

I've referred to superficial similarities between cases, i.e. resemblances which initially look reasonable on the surface, but which on analysis reveal themselves not to be so significant. I'll continue to use the adjective where I find it appropriate, Abby, so get the sick-bag ready.

Could you say something about how the analysis of the flaps was performed? And why it ended up in a verdict of "not so significant"?
As far as I can tell, we simply don´t know how the Chapman and Kelly flaps looked, so how can they be dismissed as non-significant?

If I say that as long as we do not know what the flaps looked like, we must accept that the stage we can use for a comparison ends with the stage "large flaps" in a comparison between Kelly and Jackson - would that be wrong in any way? To your way of thinking?

Is it not true that these flaps could have been mirror images of each other for all we know?

I would like to stress the fact that they need not have been mirror images for us to conclude that they probably had the same originator anyway - but for the sake of clarity, I would like an answer to this question anyway.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Sam

well then you are using the word incorrectly.

Sorry, Abby, I am using the word correctly. English has always been one of my strong points, and I got "A" grades in every English (language and literature) examination I sat, likewise in my school reports.

like in the past when someone used that word to describe the wounds to Ellen Bury and mackenzies abdomen. nothing superficial about them.

They were superficial compared to any one of the Ripper's evisceration victims.

[Sam Flynn]

light brown isn't a superficial similarity to the color brown just because you don't like that shade of brown.

Liking hasn't got anything to do with it. If a person is described as having "light brown hair" then, in respect of their hair at least, their similarity with another person with "dark brown hair" would be superficial.

[Sam Flynn]

Could you say something about how the analysis of the flaps was performed? And why it ended up in a verdict of "not so significant"?
As far as I can tell, we simply don´t know how the Chapman and Kelly flaps looked, so how can they be dismissed as non-significant?

We do know about Kelly "The skin and tissues of the abdomen from the costal arch to the pubes were removed in three large flaps" (Bond), and we can see from the photograph that her entire abdomen was thus laid open. These were "super-flaps" by any description. It's trickier to tell with Chapman, but we know that her abdomen was opened in three flaps again, with the cuts biased towards the right hand side of her body. In respect of Jackson, however, not only are there only two pieces of abdominal flesh removed, but they are described as "slips" of flesh. "Slips", as I've shown, is another word for "strips", and the definition of "strips" is long, narrow pieces. So, in number and in nature, the resemblance is not so significant.

In terms of motivation, it might be significant that, as the only torso victim from whom "slips" of abdominal flesh were removed, Jackson was the only one who was pregnant, and her foetus was cut from her womb. The two strips of flesh could therefore have been cut "along the bump", with the specific intention of exposing the womb in order to remove the baby.

[Abby Normal]

Sorry, Abby, I am using the word correctly. English has always been one of my strong points, and I got "A" grades in every English (language and literature) examination I sat, likewise in my school reports.
They were superficial compared to any one of the Ripper's evisceration victims.

Hi Sam

Sorry, Abby, I am using the word correctly. English has always been one of my strong points, and I got "A" grades in every English (language and literature) examination I sat, likewise in my school reports.

Yes yes I know Sam, your very good in English. I know and I agree.

But nobody is perfect! : )

They were superficial compared to any one of the Ripper's evisceration victims.

nope. they might not have been as "deep" or "severe" wounds. but not "superficial". theyre not superficial compared to anything.

[Abby Normal]

Liking hasn't got anything to do with it. If a person is described as having "light brown hair" then, in respect of their hair at least, their similarity with another person with "dark brown hair" would be superficial.

theres nothing superficial about comparing shades of the same color!

you could use the adjectives like "lighter" or "darker". theres nothing "superficial" about similar shades of color.

unless one dyed their hair of course! now that's superficial!!! : )

Happy Halloween Sam