Tweet
Originally posted by Kattrup
View Post
I am sorry, it was worded a little too economically. I was responding to Abby Normal's theory that some parts of the victims the killer wanted to keep.
My counterargument was: then why not assume he wanted to keep the heads, since they were the only part never found in any of the cases? (in the four torso cases we were discussing)
I do not personally believe he kept them, since it is just as likely they were disposed of in the Thames and never found.
Also, I only discuss the various possible actions of the Torso Killer in the context of Abby Normal's argument; I do not at present accept that a torso killer actually existed, since there is little evidence to suggest his existence.
If he did exist, then I agree he would be a he
This presupposes that we agree on what damage was intentionally inflicted by a murderer or dismemberer. I do not think we do.
You frequently use terms and phrases in a particular manner in order to suggest more of a link than is actually present. Case in point, "the uterus having been taken" - well, was it? Not really in the same manner, was it? Jackson's uterus was cut out, but since she was heavily pregnant, it's very possible that it was only because someone wanted access to the foetus. The uterus was found bundled up with other parts of her, and so cannot really be shown to have had any particular significance. So yes, it was "cut out" but there's a big difference in the context.
Similarly, "necks cut" - a cut throat in a murder victim is something altogether different from a decapitation of a woman already dead from natural causes.
I think the overlap in "mysteries", in particular the ending at roughly the same time, is the most suggestive of a common origin. The damage, as stated, is not very similar, and indeed, any similarity could easily be incidental.
The damage listed does not link the two series, since the similarity is superficial and could easily stem from the practical concerns of (quickly) cutting open a human body. The fact that Jackson was pregnant, the slips cut were from the front of her belly, along with the damage to the uterus must necessitate speculation that the main objective was to gain access to the foetus. Since we don't know that she was actually murdered, there's no reason to link her to the Ripper crimes.
The link between the series that does exist is the contemporary speculation that some of the torso cases were the Ripper's work.
Sadly for you, that is also one of the main arguments against any link since the authorities dismissed a connection.
Similarly, the main evidence for arguing that some of the torso cases are linked is Hebbert's belief that they were: the opinion of an experienced medical man who witnesses all four cases. Others disagreed but of course, his opinion constitutes a real linking of cases.
My counterargument was: then why not assume he wanted to keep the heads, since they were the only part never found in any of the cases? (in the four torso cases we were discussing)
I do not personally believe he kept them, since it is just as likely they were disposed of in the Thames and never found.
Also, I only discuss the various possible actions of the Torso Killer in the context of Abby Normal's argument; I do not at present accept that a torso killer actually existed, since there is little evidence to suggest his existence.
If he did exist, then I agree he would be a he
This presupposes that we agree on what damage was intentionally inflicted by a murderer or dismemberer. I do not think we do.
You frequently use terms and phrases in a particular manner in order to suggest more of a link than is actually present. Case in point, "the uterus having been taken" - well, was it? Not really in the same manner, was it? Jackson's uterus was cut out, but since she was heavily pregnant, it's very possible that it was only because someone wanted access to the foetus. The uterus was found bundled up with other parts of her, and so cannot really be shown to have had any particular significance. So yes, it was "cut out" but there's a big difference in the context.
Similarly, "necks cut" - a cut throat in a murder victim is something altogether different from a decapitation of a woman already dead from natural causes.
I think the overlap in "mysteries", in particular the ending at roughly the same time, is the most suggestive of a common origin. The damage, as stated, is not very similar, and indeed, any similarity could easily be incidental.
The damage listed does not link the two series, since the similarity is superficial and could easily stem from the practical concerns of (quickly) cutting open a human body. The fact that Jackson was pregnant, the slips cut were from the front of her belly, along with the damage to the uterus must necessitate speculation that the main objective was to gain access to the foetus. Since we don't know that she was actually murdered, there's no reason to link her to the Ripper crimes.
The link between the series that does exist is the contemporary speculation that some of the torso cases were the Ripper's work.
Sadly for you, that is also one of the main arguments against any link since the authorities dismissed a connection.
Similarly, the main evidence for arguing that some of the torso cases are linked is Hebbert's belief that they were: the opinion of an experienced medical man who witnesses all four cases. Others disagreed but of course, his opinion constitutes a real linking of cases.
2. Yes, my presupposition is that we are dealing with intentionally inflicted damage. The uterus was taken in all three cases, and I see no conflict in putting it in that way. I fully accept that we cannot know with any certainty WHY it was taken, but taken it was. As for the severed necks, I have already commented on that in combination with an exactly similar post of Gareths. Yes, there is a difference in cutting a neck to kill and dismembering a head. But no, we do not know that the torso man did not cut to kill initially, and indeed, this was suggested by the doctors to have been the case.
I have repeatedly said that I am not adding any interpretation, additions, excuses or alternative solutions - I am simply accepting that the necks were severed in each case, and so that is treated as a similarity - wich indeed it is. It is the underlying reasons for the cutting that may or may not involve dissimilarities.
3. I donīt agree that any similarity easily can be coincidental. The abdominal flaps are such a rare inclusion that it cannot easily be accpeted that it was coincidental. However, taken each on their own, each similarity CAN per se be coincidental. But since there are many of them, that does not speak for two killers but instead for just the one. Every added similarity strengthens that case, and any heightened degree of being unusual does the same. Thatīs why I end up where I do, and why I recommend those of a different meaning to speak to policemen, forensic psychologists etc, who have practical knowledge and experience of these matters. I have no dount at all that they will agree with me about how totaly weird it would be if the similarities were purely coincidental. But donīt take my word for it - ask those in the know!
4. The notion that the damage is superficial builds on opinion only. We may be dealing with tin (or triplet) damages, for all we know. For example, thereīs no telling whether the flaps were all very similar in apparition or not, and thereīs no telling whether they came about as the result of the exact same idea with the killer or not.
Assuming that there must have been a difference on account of Jackson being pregnant is not something we can do.
) took place soon after death. This is a reoccurring theme, it is as if the killer is eager to start cutting.
Comment