Same motive = same killer

[Trevor Marriott]

You misunderstand what Bond meant, Trevor.
Abortion then, as now, does not involve the opening of the abdomen or uterus with a knife or scalpel. Abortion is the expelling of the contents of the uterus through the vagina. The same route as a live vaginal birth.

To stimulate expulsion of the womb's contents, instruments were inserted in to the vagina, through the tightly closed cervix and the uterus penetrated to break the waters and disturb the delicate foetus in the womb. Sometimes violence was also inflicted on the abdomen.

Bond stated that the cervix was not damaged nor was the vaginal passage, showing no instrument use but crucially no sign of the passage of a baby through either. Their size, shape and surface texture did not show evidence of either ie there was no stretching, bruising, tearing, grazing that comes with childbirth. Therefore his conclusion that there was no abortion performed would be accurate. That there was no attempt at abortion due to lack of evidence of instrument use does not mean that Bond concluded that there had not been an attempt to procure abortion by other means.

Bond reportedly said that because the stomach and neck were not recovered he could not determine whether the throat had been cut or whether she had drugs administered to her. Poisoning and instant death while attempting to bring on a miscarriage through taking a noxious substance were not ruled out by Bond.

Dr Bond was very experienced in bringing criminal abortion cases. In the same year 1889 he was involved in the Dr Gloucester case-. The damaged uterus, complete with penetrating object still inside it, from that case, apparently ended up as a pathological specimen in the Westminster Hospital museum. Hebbert was the curator at the time.

The balance of probability clearly points to her cause of death not being murder. Further than that no one can say with any certainty. Opinions count for nothing not even the doctors.

As I have always said and will continue to say these torsos should be referred to as The Thames Torso Mysteries, and not The Thames Torso Murders because it cannot be conclusively proven that the women were the subject of homicides, and by that I mean specific murder and not wilful murder by any other means.

Here we still are going over the same ground yet again, all because Christer has returned and stirred everyone up again with his misguided beliefs.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,
Out of interest, what part of my post do you class as 'opinion?'

Hebbert was ambiguous in his description of the 'flaps', if indeed it was Hebbert's description alone and not that of Dr Bond. Hebbert was Bond's assistant, Hebbert credits Bond for the use of the material and mentions it was Dr Bond that was invited by the Home Office to conduct the Post Mortems on the four dismemberment cases.

I still want to understand the motive people assign for the removal of the uterus in the case of Elizabeth Jackson? I've read that these ;slips' of skin were removed to facilitate removal of the foetus from the uterus and that in turn was to facilitate dismemberment but no one has said why the uterus was removed entirely in that case. Is it the view that it's just my opinion that the uterus was removed? I've seen Gareth say that isn't the case but I'm still none the wiser as to why that's his view.

Not at all Debra, I must apologise for being less than clear.

I was refering to several issues:

1. Christer's comment after your post

-" nobody in their right mind would describe two narrow slips of flesh like "the lower part of a woman´s abdomen, cut in two"."

And your reply

"I agree."

Which is of course opinion

2. And more importantly to me the actual quote you posted which was from a press report, 18 months of reading Bucks Row reports makes very circumspect about what is fact and what is opinion in such reports.

3. And as you rightly say the comment by Hebbert is ambigious, and so can mean different things to different people - opinion.

I hope that clarifies it, oh reasons for the "Slips" several possabilties but NONE which make any real sense.

All the best


Steve

[Fisherman]

Excellent post, Steve, thank you.

The similarities and evidence are certainly not as clear as some believe and do not unequivocally point to just one killer.

The similarities are de facto exactly as clear as "some" (that will be me) believe.

You see, all I believe is that the three victims Chapman, Kelly and Jackson all:

- had their necks severed. That is proven.
-Lost their uteri. That is proven.
-Had their abdomens opened up from sternum to pelvis. That is proven.
-Had their abdominal walls removed in large flaps. That is proven.

It is the combination of these things that lead me to say that there is not any realistic chance in a million years that this came about purely by coincidence. And I can add that there is no parallel case where two serial killers (or more, for that matter) have procuded two series of murders in overlapping time and in the same geographic area that have involved so many and so unusual elements.

We can always conjure up scenarios where the apparitions of and reasons for the damages mentioned are worlds apart, but the fact of the matter is that such a thing would serve no other purpose than one of writing fairytales.

The long and the short of things is that the combination of damages on the three victims mentioned is so odd and specific per se, without delving into the realms of dressing them up as something we can´t tell if they were ever dressed up as, that we may safely assume that short of a miracle, it was just the one killer who was responsible.

[Fisherman]

Not at all Debra, I must apologise for being less than clear.

I was refering to several issues:

1. Christer's comment after your post

-" nobody in their right mind would describe two narrow slips of flesh like "the lower part of a woman´s abdomen, cut in two"."

And your reply

"I agree."

Which is of course opinion

2. And more importantly to me the actual quote you posted which was from a press report, 18 months of reading Bucks Row reports makes very circumspect about what is fact and what is opinion in such reports.

3. And as you rightly say the comment by Hebbert is ambigious, and so can mean different things to different people - opinion.

I hope that clarifies it, oh reasons for the "Slips" several possabilties but NONE which make any real sense.

All the best


Steve

Why do you expect what a serial killer, seemingly with an odd paraphilia, would make "sense" when satisfying that paraphilia, Steve?I don´t think that we should look for sense in the traditional meaning. Have a look at the victims of Cottingham, of Chikatilo, of Dahmer.What was made to them made all the sense in the world to the originators, but they make a lot less sense to others. Luckily.

When you speak about the slips, I presume you mean the flaps?

[Elamarna]

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

Interesting question?

Are you talking about why 2 in total , that's one JtR and one TO? Or why I wonder if the TK in the late 80s was more than one?

I will assume the former for now as the answer is shorter.

I see nothing to my mind which specifically links the two series of murders, lots of superficial, to me, similarities. However there are only a limited number of ways of opening up a body and the possability that 2 seperate killers would end with methods that are SUPERFICIALLY similar is to me very real.
And you must realise I don't really hold with the argue, that because something has not happened before it is unlikely to occur, 2 killers, similar methods in same part of country.

To me such actually gives the opposite likely outcome, because it hasn't happened it will do soon.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Interesting question?

Are you talking about why 2 in total , that's one JtR and one TO? Or why I wonder if the TK in the late 80s was more than one?

I will assume the former for now as the answer is shorter.

I see nothing to my mind which specifically links the two series of murders, lots of superficial, to me, similarities. However there are only a limited number of ways of opening up a body and the possability that 2 seperate killers would end with methods that are SUPERFICIALLY similar is to me very real.
And you must realise I don't really hold with the argue, that because something has not happened before it is unlikely to occur, 2 killers, similar methods in same part of country.

To me such actually gives the opposite likely outcome, because it hasn't happened it will do soon.


Steve

Okay. So because it has never happened that two serial killers in the same town and time frame have inflicted a number of very unusual, odd and peculiar damages, that guarantess that it is just about to happen?

Well, you are the scientist, so you should know about likelihoods...

Thanks for that answer - most illuminating.

Just one question: Since it has never before happened that a person has been able to conclusively link the torso and the ripper murders together, surely that must also mean that this is a guarantee that it will happen shortly?

It´s a good thing I am not a scientist. It would drive me nuts. But you may be right - to a degree.

And of course, saying that even the almightiest of coincidences may occur is to a degree admitting that we are talking about what would be an almighty coincidence within the three cases I speak of. So I am happy enough.

[Elamarna]

Why do you expect what a serial killer, seemingly with an odd paraphilia, would make "sense" when satisfying that paraphilia, Steve?I don´t think that we should look for sense in the traditional meaning. Have a look at the victims of Cottingham, of Chikatilo, of Dahmer.What was made to them made all the sense in the world to the originators, but they make a lot less sense to others. Luckily.

When you speak about the slips, I presume you mean the flaps?

Indeed I did mean the sections of tissue.


Steve

[Sam Flynn]

I see no strong evidence of paraphilia in the Torso cases. If there was one at all, it doesn't much resemble the paraphilia that might have driven the evisceration and mutilation of the Ripper murders.

[Elamarna]

Okay. So because it has never happened that two serial killers in the same town and time frame have inflicted a number of very unusual, odd and peculiar damages, that guarantess that it is just about to happen?

Well, you are the scientist, so you should know about likelihoods...

Thanks for that answer - most illuminating.

Just one question: Since it has never before happened that a person has been able to conclusively link the torso and the ripper murders together, surely that must also mean that this is a guarantee that it will happen shortly?

It´s a good thing I am not a scientist. It would drive me nuts. But you may be right - to a degree.

And of course, saying that even the almightiest of coincidences may occur is to a degree admitting that we are talking about what would be an almighty coincidence within the three cases I speak of. So I am happy enough.

No it does not guarantee it will happen, just that the likelihood increases the larger the sample size.

Again the answer is no I am afraid, if the evidence does not exist to link the two it will never happen.

However further research MAY provide a link, or it MAY equally show no link.

Only by finding and definitively proving the identity of the perpetrators of both series seperatly and independently of each other would you in my view have the answer, using one case to back the other to me is not enough.

Others will disagree.


Steve

[Abby Normal]

The similarities are de facto exactly as clear as "some" (that will be me) believe.

You see, all I believe is that the three victims Chapman, Kelly and Jackson all:

- had their necks severed. That is proven.
-Lost their uteri. That is proven.
-Had their abdomens opened up from sternum to pelvis. That is proven.
-Had their abdominal walls removed in large flaps. That is proven.

It is the combination of these things that lead me to say that there is not any realistic chance in a million years that this came about purely by coincidence. And I can add that there is no parallel case where two serial killers (or more, for that matter) have procuded two series of murders in overlapping time and in the same geographic area that have involved so many and so unusual elements.

We can always conjure up scenarios where the apparitions of and reasons for the damages mentioned are worlds apart, but the fact of the matter is that such a thing would serve no other purpose than one of writing fairytales.

The long and the short of things is that the combination of damages on the three victims mentioned is so odd and specific per se, without delving into the realms of dressing them up as something we can´t tell if they were ever dressed up as, that we may safely assume that short of a miracle, it was just the one killer who was responsible.

Exactly fish
And the folks who keep using the term superficial similarities should be using the term coincidence. Because there is nothing superficial about the similarities you listed. They are factual similarities.

[Elamarna]

Exactly fish
And the folks who keep using the term superficial similarities should be using the term coincidence. Because there is nothing superficial about the similarities you listed. They are factual similarities.

There Abby we disagree, the similarities are factual yes; but they are also superficial.
You don't agree, such is life in general and Ripperology in particular.

If you wish to use the term coincidence be my guess, I will stick with what is an accurate, description once one does any in-depth comparison beyond the Headline.


We actually have sun here today in London.


Steve

[Sam Flynn]

And the folks who keep using the term superficial similarities should be using the term coincidence. Because there is nothing superficial about the similarities you listed. They are factual similarities.

They may be interpreted as such by some but, if they need interpretation, they are not "factual" by definition. Indeed, I'd go so far as to say that most of these purported "similarities" are non-existent, when one treats the evidence objectively.

[Robert St Devil]

By cutting the flesh in the area of the genitals, the adjacent flesh of the buttock risks being cut as well.Unless it had been decided to remove the baby, in which case the flaps wouldn't have been "extra", but essential, to that purpose.

Hi Gareth. I believe that we are thinking along the same lines. Jackson could have been laying on her back, with her legs in the same open-position as Jack the Ripper's victims; and that could be why his cut went as far back as her buttock [thanks jerryd, i never noticed that about Kelly's mutilations]. If her killer had intended on removing the foetus, he could have focused moreso on her lower abdomen; by opening up these 2 panels [ie flaps] in her lower abdomen, he could have cut out the uterus and removed the foetus outside of/away from her body. I realize that the flaps would have been essential cuts in order to remove the foetus; by "extra flaps", i meant to say, there was no reason to cut out a 3rd or 4th flap in her upper abdomen [like Chapman or Kelly] if he had intended on removing her organs by cutting the torso in half.

[Sam Flynn]

I'm with you now, RSD. However, to correct a small but possibly important point of detail in your post, I don't believe there's any evidence that Chapman had any injuries to her upper abdomen.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Sam and El

There Abby we disagree, the similarities are factual yes; but they are also superficial.
You don't agree, such is life in general and Ripperology in particular.

If you wish to use the term coincidence be my guess, I will stick with what is an accurate, description once one does any in-depth comparison beyond the Headline.

They may be interpreted as such by some but, if they need interpretation, they are not "factual" by definition. Indeed, I'd go so far as to say that most of these purported "similarities" are non-existent, when one treats the evidence objectively.

Hi Sam and El

On this particular point you are unequivocally, undeniably wrong.

In both series women were victims. Fact
In both series a knife was the primary weapon. Fact
In both series there was extensive post mortem mutilation. Fact
In both series the neck was cut. Fact
In both series the abdomen was targeted. Fact
In both series body parts were separated and removed. Fact
In both series internal organs were removed. Fact
In both series the stomach flesh was removed with a knife in large sections. Fact
In both series they overlapped in the same city. Fact
In both series they overlapped in time. Fact

Simple. Objective. Facts. No “interpretation” needed. No “superficial” relevancy. No subjectivity used.

You can dance around your semantics all you want but nothing will change the fact that there are simple, objective and specific similarities.