Same motive = same killer

[Elamarna]

It does not matter if they ran vertically or horizontally, Steve - they are nevertheless examples of large portions of flesh being cut away from the abdominal wall. And regardless of whay they looked like, that is something that is so totally weird and unheard of that the assumption must be made that the originator was the same.

I notice that you now actively choose to join Hareth in saying that the Jackson flaps were "strips" and you even add "thin" to that term.Thereby, you look away from how Hebbert ALSO described them as "large flaps" - the exact same term used for the flasp in the Chapman case and the Kelly case.

It applies that the Chapman and Kelly flaps could also have been described by Hebbert as slips (which I think is the term he used), we just don´t know.

But we actually DO know that since the practice is rarer than hen´s teeth, the only reasonable guess is that the killer was one and the same, and the flaps are therefore more likely to resemble each other than not.

Overall, though, that question is of very small importance. Killers who cut away the abdomen in flaps are ridiculously rare. Killers who do so and add uterus evisceration are even rarer. Killers who did that, together with cutting the abdomen from sternum to pelvis in Victorian London are so rare as to be only one.

Ever.

The denial of this is a lip gymnastic and absolutley nothing else.

Firstly, to be specific there must be specific similarities, not the generic similarities in words. That we disagree on that is no surprise.

Large surely describes the length, to suggest they cannot be thin and large is strange.
"Could have been" yes i love that. Again non specific.

No we don't know that at all. You suggest such, it's a belief not a fact, but such does not and will not prevent it being presented as one will It?

No it's not lip gymnastics, it a reasoned assement of the evidence.
You disagree. Such is life.


STEVE

[Joshua Rogan]

Thanks JR !!

So, Dr Phillips actually points out the similarities between Jackson and Dorset Street.

Blimey

Bugger, wrong inquest! That was from the Pinchin St case. All these cases blur into one. Apologies

[Elamarna]

Thanks JR !!

So, Dr Phillips actually points out the similarities between Jackson and Dorset Street.

Blimey

Jon,

There is a major issue here.

There was no disarticulation of the Neck in Dorset street, only what could be interpreted as the possible failed attempt at it.

So Phillips comments are speculation on what may have been.

There are limited methods of disarticulation of the neck, its somewhat different from the shoulder for instance. In reality an cuts which mark the spine will look very similar.
If the head had been removed in Dorset street it would still be far from conclusive.

He does however also highlight the differences of which in the extract Joshua provided are more than the similarities and maybe more specific.

Of course we lack detailed PM reports so it's all speculation which allows endless argument in either direction.


Steve

JUST SAW JOSHUA's comment which changes it considerably but the generic points remain over the problems of comparison.

[John Wheat]

Yes, exactly so, John. Precisely so. And for that very reason, we may conclude that dismemberment was not part of the agenda on that occasion.

Dismemberment was one of the outlets for his paraphilia, but it needed not be present to satisfy him. That is what I am proposing.

If dismemberment was one of his outlets for his paraphilia there is no reason why Kelly wouldn't have been dismembered. Why when he had opportunity to dismember which he did he would have done.

[Joshua Rogan]

With regard to the shape of the "slips" of skin cut from Jackson's abdomen, one paper has the following dscription;

"The whole skin and the front of the pelvis were absent, and this was found to be supplied by the portion of the body found at Horselydown on Tuesday last."

[Abby Normal]

Abby

The problem for me is flaps is not a medical term, it can mean different things to different people.
Are they horizontal or vertical? In Jackson they are more like thin strips running vertically .

Yes there are superficial similarities but that's my issue, superficial not specific.

You feel different, I have no issue at all with that.


Steve

Hi el
No problem.

However, medical term or not, large flaps is how the doctors in the three cases of Jackson, Kelly and Chapman describe the sections of flesh removed from there stomachs. To me That’s more than specific enough. In fact I don’t even care what size they were or what shape. That you’ve got a killer that is even cutting away flesh post mortem from the stomach is enough. That’s it’s in large flaps is just a bonus.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby it's probably a matter of interpretation whether the victims parts where displayed. Dr Bond - The viscera were found in various parts viz: the uterus and kidneys with one breast under the head, the other breast by the right foot, the liver between the feet, the intestines by the right side and the spleen by the left side of the body. The flaps removed from the abdomen and thighs were on a table. And from the FBI Profile - The victims were left in the open and on display in an effort to further degrade them and shock those who discovered the bodies. The parts of MJK could have been left just where the killer placed them, or he could have been doing his upmost to shock people. I don't suppose we will ever know.
.

Hi Darryl
Good post. And I agree. And I lean toward the ripper wanting to shock with the way the bodies were displayed. No attempt to conceal, clean up, move or even cover up.

Now if it’s torso ripper, like I said I think there something even more deeper significance going on. Something more geographical. It’s obvious torso man wasn’t trying just to get rid of or conceal all the parts.

[Sam Flynn]

"The whole skin and the front of the pelvis were absent."

That has to be a journalistic blunder. The "front of the pelvis" being absent makes absolutely no sense - neither does "the whole skin" being absent, for that matter.

[Sam Flynn]

So, Dr Phillips actually points out the similarities between [Pinchin?] and Dorset Street.

Only in respect of the perceived attempt to disarticulate the bones of the neck, but not anywhere else: "At this point Dr. Phillips said he would answer the coroner’s question. He did not see any similarity in the cutting of the legs, but the division of the neck and the attempt to disarticulate the bones of the spine were very similar".

He may have been mistaken in the specifics, in that it was Annie Chapman's case in which he'd pronounced that an attempt may have been made to separate the bones of the neck, but - whatever - it only seems to be in this particular point that he saw a similarity. That said, I wonder how many ways are there by which one might go about separating the vertebræ with a knife?

That notwithstanding, Phillips goes on to say: "The savagery shown in Dorset-street, however, far exceeded anything in the present case. In the former case the mutilations were most wanton, whereas, in this case, they appeared to have been made for the purpose of disposing of the body."

As they used to teach me in school, it's important to read the entire text

[Joshua Rogan]

That has to be a journalistic blunder. The "front of the pelvis" being absent makes absolutely no sense - neither does "the whole skin" being absent, for that matter.

I agree that technically it doesn't seem to make sense, but elsewhere the find containing the lower third of the torso is described as containing the "bony pelvis", so I think it's reasonable to conclude that what is meant is that the front abdominal wall sections were removed by cutting along the inside of the pelvic bone.

[Sam Flynn]

I agree that technically it doesn't seem to make sense

Not just technically, Josh; it doesn't make sense at all.

so I think it's reasonable to conclude that what is meant is that the front abdominal wall sections were removed by cutting along the inside of the pelvic bone.

Whilst one might posit that the sections of abdominal wall were removed somewhere in the pelvic region, isn't "cutting along the inside of the pelvic bone" purely conjectural on your part? I wouldn't mind if we had a detailed report by a doctor (or even a competent journalist) to go on, but given the poor and illogical content of this particular article, it needs to be treated with extreme caution.

[Joshua Rogan]

Not just technically, Josh; it doesn't make sense at all.
Whilst one might posit that the sections of abdominal wall were removed somewhere in the pelvic region, isn't "cutting along the inside of the pelvic bone" purely conjectural on your part? I wouldn't mind if we had a detailed report by a doctor (or even a competent journalist) to go on, but given the poor and illogical content of this particular article, it needs to be treated with extreme caution.

Maybe the journalist had been reading Wikipedia;

"The pelvis (plural pelves or pelvises) is either the lower part of the trunk of the human body[1] between the abdomen and the thighs (sometimes also called pelvic region of the trunk) or the skeleton embedded in it[2] (sometimes also called bony pelvis, or pelvic skeleton)."

Yes, it is conjecture, but reaonable, I think.
Hebbert describes the slips in "a System of Legal Medecine", but not their extent. I will try to find time to transcribe the details.

[Fisherman]

Firstly, to be specific there must be specific similarities, not the generic similarities in words. That we disagree on that is no surprise.

Large surely describes the length, to suggest they cannot be thin and large is strange.
"Could have been" yes i love that. Again non specific.

No we don't know that at all. You suggest such, it's a belief not a fact, but such does not and will not prevent it being presented as one will It?

No it's not lip gymnastics, it a reasoned assement of the evidence.
You disagree. Such is life.


STEVE

You bet I disagree!

Just for claritys´sake, Steve - how likely do you think it is with two late Victorian serial killers in London who cut necks, opened abdomens from pubes to ribs, took out uteri and cut large flaps of meat from the abdomen of their victims.

Just as likely as just the one killer? More likely? A bit less likely?

That is where the crux lies. There are no other examples of any two serial killer series on the same ground and at the same time and with so many similarities.

There will be a reason for that. But each to his own!

[Sam Flynn]

Yes, it is conjecture, but reaonable, I think.

Given the patchiness of the source data, to say nothing of its accuracy, I think it's going a step too far to suggest that the killer cut along the pelvic bone as if he were using the bone itself as a template.

Removing the "whole of the flesh" from the front of a woman's pelvic region from one side to the other wouldn't result in what I'd describe as "slips" of flesh; and to have labelled them as such would have been a bit of an understatement.

[Sam Flynn]

There are no other examples of any two serial killer series on the same ground and at the same time and with so many similarities.

Wrong on all counts. You don't give up, do you? More's the pity.