Same motive = same killer

[Fisherman]

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.

Just how do you know it does not resemble the paraphilia that may have driven the Ripper murders, if you see no paraphilia in the torso murders...?

[Debra A]

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

Thanks for the explanation, Steve,

Yes, that was my opinion- that I thought it would be unlikely that two supposed long thin strips of flesh ,as 'slips' is being interpreted, would be described as the 'abdomen' of a woman, as the press reported.
The interpretation of the shape and size as long and thin and putting measurement to it is equally just opinion. Hebbert also used the term 'large flaps' in the same paragraph describing the flesh portions.

Try over ten years reading the same press reports..
I quoted from a couple of different newspaper reports, , all with similarly worded descriptions of the parcel containing the abdomen of a woman. This could be a simple misunderstanding by the reporters, or a mishearing, or a shortened version of what was said or it could be correct. There's no opinion on behalf of the reporters there, they are either interpreting what they heard correctly or incorrectly and depending whether your a 'flap' or 'slip' person, you'll decide correct or incorrect accordingly.
Yet more than one of these differently worded reports mentioned this was an abdomen and none mentioned it was portion or strip from an abdomen.

Given that Hebbert also described two large flaps of skin and subcutaneous tissue (Dr Biggs interpreted this as meaning the underlying tissue still attached to the skin) and the reporters mentioned the abdomen, in one report saying the abdomen was cut in two, and we know there were two flaps, there is some agreement between those two different sources .

[Elamarna]

Hi Sam and El






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.

Sorry Abby

Such a simplistic approach fails when examined in detail. That's the problem it's taking Headlines with no details.

To me that is not how research works.

You don't agree fine,

However such does not deflect from the issue that when one looks beyond the headlines you give, many have little no significance at all.
Some don't apply to all of a series.

Looks like we won't agree on this.

Have a good day.


Steve

[Fisherman]

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

U-huh. And what happens if the sample size is absolutely minimal?

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

A-hah. Meaning, of course, that as long as you cannot present evidence of parallel cases where serialists performed the same very unusual damages on their victims in the same geographical area at the same time, then that will never happen either?

You just have to love that combination of logic and karma.

[Robert St Devil]

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.

Just generalizing; it seems like Chapman's and Mary's flap-cutting was more extensive than Jackson's. Thinking maybe the fetus was his objective with Jackson, so he cut only high enough on her abdomen so that he could remove the umbilicus along with the other parts. {It reads like Jackson's killer slips the side of her navel, just like in Jack's murders.}

[Fisherman]

Hi Sam and El






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.

Easy, Abby - you have won the battle already. Once people resort to bolstering their thoughts by claiming that any press clipping that goes against it will be a journalistic mistake, or that things that have never happened will happen on account if it being their turn, you know that they have been handed the short end of the stick.

The fact that they will never admit defeat is always annoying, but I prefer being correct and shunned to being wrong and celebrated by fellow loosers who shout "Excellent post!" when you and I are rolling on the floor, laughing.

[Fisherman]

Just generalizing; it seems like Chapman's and Mary's flap-cutting was more extensive than Jackson's. Thinking maybe the fetus was his objective with Jackson, so he cut only high enough on her abdomen so that he could remove the umbilicus along with the other parts. {It reads like Jackson's killer slips the side of her navel, just like in Jack's murders.}

On Chapman, from the medical report: "The abdomen had been entirely laid open".

Not the lower part of it. Not a minor part of it.

Not that it matters much - it is not the lenght or the direction of the cut that gives away the paraphilia.

And Jacksons lost abdomen may well have been pretty much most of the abdominal wall too.

[Abby Normal]

Sorry Abby

Such a simplistic approach fails when examined in detail. That's the problem it's taking Headlines with no details.

To me that is not how research works.

You don't agree fine,

However such does not deflect from the issue that when one looks beyond the headlines you give, many have little no significance at all.
Some don't apply to all of a series.

Looks like we won't agree on this.

Have a good day.


Steve

El

Such a simplistic approach fails when examined in detail.

Not simplistic. concise. but nice job with the insulting semantics.

That's the problem it's taking Headlines with no details.

Headlines? there you go again. no. Facts. The similarities I listed are more than detailed and specific enough. but your kicking ass with the stupid semantics.

To me that is not how research works.

I'm not doing research. I'm listing similarities between the cases.

However such does not deflect from the issue that when one looks beyond the headlines you give, many have little no significance at all.

They may or may not have significance El, the only point I'm making is that there are similarities between the cases. similarities that you cant admit because of your subjective opinion that they were not done by the same man. "that is not how research works" either El.

Some don't apply to all of a series.

Thats a flat out untruth. They all apply to both series.

you have a good day

[Elamarna]

Easy, Abby - you have won the battle already. Once people resort to bolstering their thoughts by claiming that any press clipping that goes against it will be a journalistic mistake, or that things that have never happened will happen on account if it being their turn, you know that they have been handed the short end of the stick.

The fact that they will never admit defeat is always annoying, but I prefer being correct and shunned to being wrong and celebrated by fellow loosers who shout "Excellent post!" when you and I are rolling on the floor, laughing.

Some who does not agree with you is now termed a "loser"? In what sense is that term applicable?

The fact is the debate has not moved 1 inch since this thread started. In that respect the only loser is research and truth.

Your comments are offensive, and I see none aimed at you.
I respect you opinion, even if I think it is wrong, I do not belittle those who disagree with me.

I find it kind of sad, but I am not unduly surprised.


Steve

[Abby Normal]

Some who does not agree with you is now termed a "loser"? In what sense is that term applicable?

The fact is the debate has not moved 1 inch since this thread started. In that respect the only loser is research and truth.

Your comments are offensive, and I see none aimed at you.
I respect you opinion, even if I think it is wrong, I do not belittle those who disagree with me.

I find it kind of sad, but I am not unduly surprised.


Steve

save the righteous indignation El. Just your last post to me was belittling and insulting.

he fact is the debate has not moved 1 inch since this thread started. In that respect the only loser is research and truth.

that's your opinion. I and others I'm sure appreciate the input, analysis and research of posters here- especially ones like Debra, Fish, JR and Sam, regardless of what side of the fence one is on. I know I have at least.

whats "sad" is that posters who usually I respect there opinion are so entrenched in their opinion that it wasn't one man cant even acknowledge that there are similarities between the cases, and are now even belittling this thread!

[Sam Flynn]

Once people resort to bolstering their thoughts by claiming that any press clipping that goes against it will be a journalistic mistake...

Which it demonstrably was. It was either a journalistic or editorial error or else a euphemism, as I also suggested. There was no "lower part of a woman's abdomen cut in two" in that parcel, you can rest assured of that, because the lower part of Jackson's abdomen was neither detached nor cut in two. Two pieces were cut out of the flesh of the lower abdomen, and her labia and mons veneris were divided in the process, but neither of these are the same as the "lower part of her abdomen", as the paper erroneously said.

[Elamarna]

El


Not simplistic. concise. but nice job with the insulting semantics.

There is no insult there Abby, One line statements such as you gave, by nature lack detail.

Headlines? there you go again. no. Facts. The similarities I listed are more than detailed and specific enough. but your kicking ass with the stupid semantics.

No they are not detailed, I pointed out the detailed differences in an earlier post, those are significant.
Sorry it's not semantics, it's an assessment of the statements made in detail.

I'm not doing research. I'm listing similarities between the cases.



They may or may not have significance El, the only point I'm making is that there are similarities between the cases. similarities that you cant admit because of your subjective opinion that they were not done by the same man. "that is not how research works" either El.

Actually I have admitted there are similarities, that's the whole debate.
It's not are there similarities but are those similarities significant?

Thats a flat out untruth. They all apply to both series.

Not to all of each seriesby a very long way, in the case of Whitechapel ones several may not exhibit some of the wounds due to possible interruption, what happens to the Torsos that don't follow the list.

Organs are actually removed from each torso as a deliberate process rather than as part of the dismemberment? That I venture to say is impossible to prove.

All the Torso' s did not overlap with Whitechapel only those on the late 80s.

We can prove throat cutting for all the Torsos as opposed to a seperate decapitation?
If we had evidence of cuts to the necks which showed a real connection, this debate would be long over.

That's not semantics Abby, it's just asking in depth questions which need to be asked if we are to establish a reliable link.

I am a little surprised at the tone of your reply my friend.


Steve

[Robert St Devil]

On Chapman, from the medical report: "The abdomen had been entirely laid open".

Not the lower part of it. Not a minor part of it.

Not that it matters much - it is not the lenght or the direction of the cut that gives away the paraphilia.

And Jacksons lost abdomen may well have been pretty much most of the abdominal wall too.

True, it doesn't matter much if we are solely recognizing that the killer had desires. But I've been working a rationale for the cretin.
In Chapman's case, the rationale may be: to get to the uterus, the intestines have to be removed; to get to the intestines, the abdominal wall had to be removed. Annie may have had a larger belly, so more of her wall had to be removed in order to facilitate the intestine removal. Catherine was a thin woman, so he only had to "unzip" her; and, with the time he saved by not having to remove excess belly from her body, he could have been mutilating her face.
In Jackson's case, it appears as though the foetus was the objective. If she were laying on her back and had a baby-bump in her belly, her killer may have found that all he needed to do was cut a bisected "triangle-of-sorts" in her lower abdomen in order to reach the uterus; but, he still cut high enough so that he could remove the umbilicus too.

[Abby Normal]

There is no insult there Abby, One line statements such as you gave, by nature lack detail.



No they are not detailed, I pointed out the detailed differences in an earlier post, those are significant.
Sorry it's not semantics, it's an assessment of the statements made in detail.



Actually I have admitted there are similarities, that's the whole debate.
It's not are there similarities but are those similarities significant?



Not to all of each seriesby a very long way, in the case of Whitechapel ones several may not exhibit some of the wounds due to possible interruption, what happens to the Torsos that don't follow the list.

Organs are actually removed from each torso as a deliberate process rather than as part of the dismemberment? That I venture to say is impossible to prove.

All the Torso' s did not overlap with Whitechapel only those on the late 80s.

We can prove throat cutting for all the Torsos as opposed to a seperate decapitation?
If we had evidence of cuts to the necks which showed a real connection, this debate would be long over.

That's not semantics Abby, it's just asking in depth questions which need to be asked if we are to establish a reliable link.

I am a little surprised at the tone of your reply my friend.


Steve

hi El

Actually I have admitted there are similarities,

ill take it! LOL

[Elamarna]

save the righteous indignation El. Just your last post to me was belittling and insulting.



that's your opinion. I and others I'm sure appreciate the input, analysis and research of posters here- especially ones like Debra, Fish, JR and Sam, regardless of what side of the fence one is on. I know I have at least.

whats "sad" is that posters who usually I respect there opinion are so entrenched in their opinion that it wasn't one man cant even acknowledge that there are similarities between the cases, and are now even belittling this thread!

Abby How did I insult you?

I said the list lacked detail and to that extent was simplistic. To refer to your points as headlines was not insulting, they could well be used as sub headings for an indeoth discussion.

I did not say i saw no similarities, if I did I would say so, but I have not.
I have spoken and written of similarities just that I do not see those has being significant.

I am not sure what it is I have said you have taken offence at, but I am most sorry that you have.
No insult has been thrown at you that I can see, I have reread what I posted, and I still can see nothing which could be seen as such. Obviously you have and for that I unreservedly apologise. No offence was intended please beleive me.

As for belittling the thread no, much as been debated, but there as been little if any movement in the position of most posters. That's just saying there is a lack of convincing evidence. At least that's what I meant


Steve