Same motive = same killer

[Debra A]

That´s as clear as anybody could ask for - nobody in their right mind would describe two narrow slips of flesh like "the lower part of a woman´s abdomen, cut in two".

I agree.

[Fisherman]

Just trying to put contemporary opinions out there, Christer.

Yeah, I know. I find it interesting to see how the Victorians think - and how we cotton on, in spite of how we should know better.

"His mind probably caved in after the excess in Miller´s Court" or how it was MacNaghten worded it. Little did he know - although I would prefer to live in a world like that...

Just keep it coming, Debra.

Please.

[Elamarna]

Basically meaning that you think that when three prostituted victims over a period of nine months, in the same city, are killed and:
-Have their necks cut
-Have their uteri taken out
-Have their abdomens ripped open from sternum to pelvis
-Have their abdominal walls cut away in large flaps

... then there is no need to make the assumption that the killer is one and the same. It is just as likely that two or three killers are responsible.

I can only say that when you reason that we are likely to disagree fortwith over this, you are hitting the nail on the head.

Good to hear, anyways, that you understand and acknowledge the principle. In spite of it being unscientific...

Christer, when you present it like that I find that far too simplistic.


1. Had their Necks cut?
In the case of Chapman and Kelly this was the cause of death, in Jackson such may well not be the case. The evidence does not point in that direction at all. Indeed cuts to the Neck are probably part of the dismemberment process.

So the similarity appears to be superficial.

2. Had the uteri removed?
Yes Chapman's was taken away, Kelly's left at the scene, in Jackson case she was pregnant and the reason for removal MAY be completely different.

Again it appears superficial similarity.

3. Opened from sternum to Pelvis.
The reasoning for Kelly and Chapman was probably to facilitate the removal of abdomenial organs, although the actual process of cutting may also have been important.

Jackson is far harder to anaylise, it may have been for the same reason, but there appears to be little to show this is the case, it may have allowed for easier dismemberment of the body.

So I see the similarity as being possibly superficial.

4. The large Flaps,
What can i say, you see this as significant, despite the fact that there may be no similarity in the cutting method or technique. Or even in what is cut and the reason for such.

Again I find the similarity to be superficial


Of course that does not mean there is no link, only I do not see any link to be particular strong or significant.

Yes I fear agreement will be difficult.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Christer, when you present it like that I find that far too simplistic.


1. Had their Necks cut?
In the case of Chapman and Kelly this was the cause of death, in Jackson such may well not be the case. The evidence does not point in that direction at all. Indeed cuts to the Neck are probably part of the dismemberment process.

So the similarity appears to be superficial.

2. Had the uteri removed?
Yes Chapman's was taken away, Kelly's left at the scene, in Jackson case she was pregnant and the reason for removal MAY be completely different.

Again it appears superficial similarity.

3. Opened from sternum to Pelvis.
The reasoning for Kelly and Chapman was probably to facilitate the removal of abdomenial organs, although the actual process of cutting may also have been important.

Jackson is far harder to anaylise, it may have been for the same reason, but there appears to be little to show this is the case, it may have allowed for easier dismemberment of the body.

So I see the similarity as being possibly superficial.

4. The large Flaps,
What can i say, you see this as significant, despite the fact that there may be no similarity in the cutting method or technique. Or even in what is cut and the reason for such.

This I find the similarity to be superficial

Yes I fear agreement will be difficult.


Steve

This is where we should not enter the interpretation area, Steve. You see, these matters may or may not - as a wise man said a few posts back - be similar or not similar in appearance or motivation.

The thing is, we do not have any idea at all whether this is so or not.

Therefore, we can only say that they all were prostitutes (common enough) from the same town (common enough) who had their necks cut ( not all that common), their abdomens ripped open from sternum to pelvis (very, very unusual), their uteri taken out (extremely unusual) and their abdominal walls removed in large flaps (rarer than hen´s teeth).
You see, when we have a number of elements that are ridiculously rare, we should not accept that it is likely that three killers were on the loose, ready and willing to perform these rarities.
Instead, just because there were these very unusual things, a number of them, present in all three cases, there is no practical need to start pondering how they MAY all have been caused by different men in different manners.

It is just not realistic at all.

I appreciate that you have a scientific background and (I believe) a past as a politician, and I realize that this may have had more than a slight influence over how you reason. Myself, I think that we need to take a completely practical (or should I say "simplistic"?) position here, and call that thing that walks, talks, flies, runs, swims, sleeps and eats like a duck ... a duck.

Your protests in the name of science are duly noted, but it has long since become time to move on and make a fresh start. I always thought the Ripper was a horrific killer and that the Torso man was also a really nasty character. Taken together, I have little doubt that we are dealing with the real bogey man, if you will. I am fascinated by how the areas of research opened by this will produce a lot more facts and information to the case (not cases) in the future.

Oh, and have a look at Debra´s post about the apparition of the abdominal flaps from Jackson - i seem to remember that you referred to them as ... "thin strips", was that it? Anyways, you may need to find a new footing in at least that respect.

It is entertaining, I´ll give you that, to imagine three Victorian Londoners, one in September, one in November and one in June, cutting away at their victim´s abdominal walls, carving large flaps of flesh with subcutaneous tissue attached, unknowing of how they all had two brothers in arms ALSO having realized the joy (or necessity) of cutting abdominal walls into flaps. And to think, after them, it seems that just about nobody had the same urge...? Sort of a rush hour for abdominal wall dividers and cutters!

And to imagine, as they cut away at the abdominal walls, after (all of them) having cut the abdomen from pelvis to sternum, they all had the freshly cut out uteri of their particular victim lying on the ground beside them!

It´s a story with a wow factor.

[Sam Flynn]

That´s as clear as anybody could ask for - nobody in their right mind would describe two narrow slips of flesh like "the lower part of a woman´s abdomen, cut in two".

A journalist might, either in error or by way of exaggeration.

An editor might, by omitting some key text, e.g. "The parcel contained [flesh from] the lower part of a woman's abdomen, cut in two".

Alternatively, the "lower part of a woman's abdomen, cut in two" could easily be a euphemism; the strips of flesh divided the pubic mound and labia, remember. They were big on euphemisms, the Victorians.

The report clearly can't be taken literally anyway, as the "lower part of a woman's abdomen" includes the lower abdominal viscera, the (bony) pelvic girdle and vertebræ, which were not found attached to the slips of flesh, and neither were they cut in two.

The same applies to the other reports mentioned by Debs. There clearly wasn't "an abdomen" in the parcel, neither was "the lower portion of a woman's body", which is not only vague but - strictly speaking - would include the legs.

These particular newspaper reports are thus not as useful as you think and, far from their being "as clear as anybody could ask for", the opposite is true.

[Fisherman]

A journalist might, either in error or by way of exaggeration.

An editor might, by omitting some key text, e.g. "The parcel contained [flesh from] the lower part of a woman's abdomen, cut in two".

Alternatively, the "lower part of a woman's abdomen, cut in two" could easily be a euphemism; the strips of flesh divided the pubic mound and labia, remember. They were big on euphemisms, the Victorians.

The report clearly can't be taken literally anyway, as the "lower part of a woman's abdomen" includes the lower abdominal viscera, the (bony) pelvic girdle and vertebræ, which were not found attached to the slips of flesh, and neither were they cut in two.

The same applies to the other reports mentioned by Debs. There clearly wasn't "an abdomen" in the parcel, neither was "the lower portion of a woman's body", which is not only vague but - strictly speaking - would include the legs.

These particular newspaper reports are thus not as useful as you think and, far from their being "as clear as anybody could ask for", the opposite is true.

It´s always a journalist in error when the evidence does not go your way, it seems?

If it had said two slips of flesh, I´m sure you would have been equally eager to castigate the journalist, since the true meaning of that would of course be that the journalist wrote "Don´t slip now, the flesh was the whole of the abdominal surface", and then the editor goofed up.

[Elamarna]

This is where we should not enter the interpretation area, Steve. You see, these matters may or may not - as a wise man said a few posts back - be similar or not similar in appearance or motivation.

The thing is, we do not have any idea at all whether this is so or not.

Therefore, we can only say that they all were prostitutes (common enough) from the same town (common enough) who had their necks cut ( not all that common), their abdomens ripped open from sternum to pelvis (very, very unusual), their uteri taken out (extremely unusual) and their abdominal walls removed in large flaps (rarer than hen´s teeth).
You see, when we have a number of elements that are ridiculously rare, we should not accept that it is likely that three killers were on the loose, ready and willing to perform these rarities.
Instead, just because there were these very unusual things, a number of them, present in all three cases, there is no practical need to start pondering how they MAY all have been caused by different men in different manners.

It is just not realistic at all.

I appreciate that you have a scientific background and (I believe) a past as a politician, and I realize that this may have had more than a slight influence over how you reason. Myself, I think that we need to take a completely practical (or should I say "simplistic"?) position here, and call that thing that walks, talks, flies, runs, swims, sleeps and eats like a duck ... a duck.

Your protests in the name of science are duly noted, but it has long since become time to move on and make a fresh start. I always thought the Ripper was a horrific killer and that the Torso man was also a really nasty character. Taken together, I have little doubt that we are dealing with the real bogey man, if you will. I am fascinated by how the areas of research opened by this will produce a lot more facts and information to the case (not cases) in the future.

Oh, and have a look at Debra´s post about the apparition of the abdominal flaps from Jackson - i seem to remember that you referred to them as ... "thin strips", was that it? Anyways, you may need to find a new footing in at least that respect.

Christer

A fair post, yes right on both counts about my past.. and yes of course such colours ones reasoning as i assume your background in Journalism does yours.

Jjust two comments I think.


Sometimes it's not a duck, we just think it is.

I read Delta's post and I respect her utterly, however what we have is opinion and that may not always be correct, even from those we respect.

I see it is a comment from a newspaper, such needs to be treated differently than say a comment by Hebbert.

My understand is that that the cuts forming the, let's call them sections of tissue were vertical and long. I see no issue with the term thin strip if that is correct.

I too am fascinated by the Torso's and time will show if there is a link or not one hopes.

I still have an open mind, that is I do not discount the possability of a link to the Whitechapel murders; I just don't at present see it as probable.

Steve

[Fisherman]

I still have an open mind, that is I do not discount the possability of a link to the Whitechapel murders; I just don't at present see it as probable.

Steve

On account of...?

[Sam Flynn]

Christer, when you present it like that I find that far too simplistic.

1. Had their Necks cut?
In the case of Chapman and Kelly this was the cause of death

In fact, they died from having their throats cut, strictly speaking. A few notches on the cervical vertebræ apart, their necks were still very much in place... which is more than can be said of the necks of the Torso victims.

3. Opened from sternum to Pelvis.

I don't think Annie Chapman was actually opened from sternum to pelvis, though. All the reports I recall refer only to "abdominal" wounds, with no hint of anything like Eddowes' experience of having been cut from breastbone to pubes. The same applies to Polly Nichols, where Dr Llewellyn explicitly stated that there were no wounds on the body until the lower part of the abdomen.

Now, Kelly was certainly opened from sternum to pelvis, as was Eddowes... but the former had her abdomen opened in three large (and I mean really large) flaps of flesh, whereas Eddowes was opened in a single, zig-zag cut. Jackson wasn't opened "from sternum to pelvis" anyway, and none of the other Torso victims were either, as far as I recall.

So much for being "opened from sternum to pelvis" as a diagnostic criterion, then.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Two killers have overlapped in the past.

Two serial killers have overlapped in the past.

No two serial killers have ever overlapped in the past, with so many and so unusual and specific damage done to their vctims as in the Torso/Ripper cases.



That´s how it works, Herlock. On the battlefield, thousands of people can be shot and killed by thousands of other people.

But when two victims on that battlefield have their abdomens ripped open entirely, their abdominal walls cut away in large sections, and lose the same inner organ by means of having it cut away, we can be sure of the same killer being responsible - or one killer imitating the deed somebody else did.

That is how murder investigations work in cases of multiple murder - what is looked for is similarities, in order to - if possible - tie two or more cases together.

Surely you must be aware of this?

You could say - they hadn't overlapped until then.

To say 'that's how it works.' Sounds like you believe that crimes can be solved by formula.

I fully accept your opinion Fish ( I have no right not to.) But for the life of me I cannot understand your level of confidence.

You will probably say that my viewpoint is too simplistic but I sum up my opinion like this.

Two series of murders that gave always been considered separate might show some similarities in mutilation. Similarities which are hotly debated. But the dissimilarities are vast and obvious to all. No matter what the history of murder shows we have to accept that things do occur at some point for the first time. And so... massive differences trump debatable similarities. Therefore... for me, 2 killers.

[Elamarna]

On account of...?

On account of I don't see it the same way you do I guess.
To me the links are all superficial in the main.

Not sure how else to put it

Steve

[Sam Flynn]

their abdomens ripped open from sternum to pelvis (very, very unusual), their uteri taken out (extremely unusual) and their abdominal walls removed in large flaps (rarer than hen´s teeth).

We can all make things appear to fit by using loose descriptions, Fish. The picture is rather different if we force ourselves to be more precise:

1. Only Eddowes was truly "ripped" from sternum to pelvis, albeit Kelly had her entire abdominal wall cut away in three large (and I mean large) flaps, from ribcage to pelvis. None of the other victims sustained wounds to this extent.

2. Removing uteri was indeed extremely unusual... but only in the Torso murders. In contrast, it featured prominently in the Ripper series.

3. The only person to have their abdominal wall removed was Mary Kelly and, boy, was it removed. Chapman and Jackson had a "panel" of flesh removed from the abdomen in two or three pieces, but that's a far cry from having had their abdominal wall removed... and extremely modest compared to Kelly.

Oh, and have a look at Debra´s post about the apparition of the abdominal flaps from Jackson - i seem to remember that you referred to them as ... "thin strips", was that it? Anyways, you may need to find a new footing in at least that respect.

Not really, Fish. See my response to your somewhat premature celebration of those newspaper descriptions.

[Harry D]

Fisherman, do you see any connection to the Paris torso found in 1886? That victim was also missing her uterus, along with her limbs and one of her breasts. Or is that a bridge too far for you?

[Joshua Rogan]

Fisherman, do you see any connection to the Paris torso found in 1886? That victim was also missing her uterus, along with her limbs and one of her breasts. Or is that a bridge too far for you?

I'm pretty sure Van Gogh was responsible for that one.

[Fisherman]

On account of I don't see it the same way you do I guess.
To me the links are all superficial in the main.

Not sure how else to put it

Steve

I was wondering what makes you think there were two killers, Steve.