Same motive = same killer

[Abby Normal]

If the Torso killer was looking for maximum shock value by displaying body parts all over town. Why not post a piece of the body to the newspapers, authorities etc AKA Lusk Kidney

Hi Darryl.

Well maybe he did. Maybe he sent the luck kidney.

But any way I think it’s a slippery slope when we start saying well why didn’t he do this and why didn’t he do that? Serial killers have a perfectly good reason, to themselves, why they do things a certain way. And it often seems odd to us why they didn’t, or did, do things a certain way so best to just stick to known evidence and go from there IMHO.

[Jon Guy]

There is nothing misleading in using the term neck,.

Correct, that was the term Phillips used.

[harry]

Fisherman,
I have misunderstood nothing.I have asked for a legal definition of"Beyond reasonable doubt" So far we have only had your reasonings.
It is you who has set the standards,live up to them.
Yes a policeman of that time need only have reasonable doubt,and some might have believed in one killer,though the evidence seems otherwise,but the courts needed more.It was not there,no more than it is now.
Reasonable doubt/belief/proof,call it what you will,is all you have given,and it has been answered just as reasonably,in a negative manner.

[Harry D]

Hi Darryl.

Well maybe he did. Maybe he sent the luck kidney.

But any way I think it’s a slippery slope when we start saying well why didn’t he do this and why didn’t he do that? Serial killers have a perfectly good reason, to themselves, why they do things a certain way. And it often seems odd to us why they didn’t, or did, do things a certain way so best to just stick to known evidence and go from there IMHO.

Well said, Abby. Everyone has preconceived notions as to what the killer should or shouldn’t have done. I’m sure if you look through various serial killer profiles you will find behaviour that was inconsistent and unpredictable. It goes without saying but we can’t state definitively what the killer would have done when he was never caught in the first place.

[Sam Flynn]

Correct, that was the term Phillips used.

Phillips distinguishes between throat and neck in the same breath: "The throat was dissevered deeply. I noticed that the incision of the skin was jagged, and reached right round the neck"

The throat is the front part of the neck, and it was the cutting of this part, and the carotid arteries that lie within the throat, which was the cause of death in the Ripper murders.

There is nothing misleading in using the term neck

Yes there is, especially given that it suits your argument to blur the distinctions between the two series; it's like trying to link a series of shootings with a series of stabbings by saying that "weapons" were used in both when, to be accurate, one should recognise the clear distinction between a "gun" and a "knife".

You cannot detach a corpse's head by simply cutting the throat; you have to cut/saw through the entirety of the neck. Cutting through the neck so as to remove a corpse's head is fundamentally different to slashing the throat to cause near-instant death. By all means say that the torso victims had their heads cut off at the neck, but the Ripper victims died, specifically, of cut throats.

[Jon Guy]

Phillips distinguishes between throat and neck in the same breath: "The throat was dissevered deeply. I noticed that the incision of the skin was jagged, and reached right round the neck"

So, why then is it misleading to use the term neck ?

[Sam Flynn]

So, why then is it misleading to use the term neck ?

Please read the rest of my previous post, after I quote Fisherman. I explain why it's misleading there.

Edit to add, for further clarification: You can have a cut on the neck without cutting the throat, and you can endure a cut on the throat without cutting the neck. If you go to the doctor with a sore neck, she will know where to look, and it won't be at the front; similarly, she will not look at the back if you complain of a sore throat. They are not interchangeable terms.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,
I have misunderstood nothing.I have asked for a legal definition of"Beyond reasonable doubt" So far we have only had your reasonings.
It is you who has set the standards,live up to them.
Yes a policeman of that time need only have reasonable doubt,and some might have believed in one killer,though the evidence seems otherwise,but the courts needed more.It was not there,no more than it is now.
Reasonable doubt/belief/proof,call it what you will,is all you have given,and it has been answered just as reasonably,in a negative manner.

I don´t think that we can take the knowledge of the victorian police and legal system as something that is comparable to ours. They very clearly thought that dismemberments murders were always practical affiars, and that is emphatically not the case.

As for the definition of reasonable doubt, it´s legally defined as "a doubt especially about the guilt of a criminal defendant that arises or remains upon fair and thorough consideration of the evidence or lack thereof". Which is why I say that it is beyond reasonable doubt that there was just the one killer.

But if two ripperologists are going to discuss what "reasonable" means, I´ll make sure not to be one of them.

[Fisherman]

Phillips distinguishes between throat and neck in the same breath: "The throat was dissevered deeply. I noticed that the incision of the skin was jagged, and reached right round the neck"

The throat is the front part of the neck, and it was the cutting of this part, and the carotid arteries that lie within the throat, which was the cause of death in the Ripper murders.
Yes there is, especially given that it suits your argument to blur the distinctions between the two series; it's like trying to link a series of shootings with a series of stabbings by saying that "weapons" were used in both when, to be accurate, one should recognise the clear distinction between a "gun" and a "knife".

You cannot detach a corpse's head by simply cutting the throat; you have to cut/saw through the entirety of the neck. Cutting through the neck so as to remove a corpse's head is fundamentally different to slashing the throat to cause near-instant death. By all means say that the torso victims had their heads cut off at the neck, but the Ripper victims died, specifically, of cut throats.

I just googled "carotid arteries of the neck". It resulted in 56800 hits.

Then I tried "carotid arteries of the throat". The result? 1 (one) hit.

One has to ask oneself why everybody speaks of the carotid arteries of the neck when the carotid arteries of the throat is the correct term. My own suggestion would be that the former term is the correct one and the latter the wrong one. So much so that we may need to point out that it seems misleading to speak of the carotid arteries of the throat.

Then again, I won´t do that. I don´t think it is good debating, because it implies that somebody is intentionally misleading, and I want to believe that even faulty arguments are always offered in good faith.

[Fisherman]

Now I tried the phrase "Jack the Ripper cut the neck*" versus the phrase "Jack the Ripper cut the throat*".

Not very scientific, perhaps. But the outcome 1 080 000 versus 2 should give us a hint anyways.

1 080 000 misleaders and 2 who got it right?

Like we say about the idea of two killers - it is possible.

If you are going to call my take on things "misleading", you must do so against this backdrop. I´d advice against it.

[Jon Guy]

By all means say that the torso victims had their heads cut off at the neck, but the Ripper victims died, specifically, of cut throats.

They died, specifically, due to severed carotid arteries, which, as Christer points out, are in the neck, not throat.

[Sam Flynn]

They died, specifically, due to severed carotid arteries, which, as Christer points out, are in the neck, not throat.

It's not a question of where they are, but how they were accessed, and the Ripper victims' carotids were severed as a result of their throats being cut. For nearly 130 years since, following the lead of the doctors who said as much at the inquests, we have consistently (and correctly) referred to the Ripper victims as having had their throats cut. Then, all of a sudden, along comes Fisherman and tries to make our taxonomy less specific and more generic. I wonder why.

[Fisherman]

It's not a question of where they are, but how they were accessed, and the Ripper victims' carotids were severed as a result of their throats being cut. For nearly 130 years since, following the lead of the doctors who said as much at the inquests, we have consistently (and correctly) referred to the Ripper victims as having had their throats cut. Then, all of a sudden, along comes Fisherman and tries to make our taxonomy less specific and more generic. I wonder why.

With respect, Gareth, it is not just Fisherman who says the Ripper victims had their necks cut. As I just said, 1 080 000 (one million eighty thousand) voices on Google say that Jack the Ripper cut the necks, whereas 2 (two) voices only say that Jack the Ripper cut the throats.

Undoubtedly, the 1 080 000 voices will include medicos, criminologists, historians and policemen, who should know what they are talking about.

The 2 differing voices cannot do that since I listed twice as many professions.

99,9999 per cent of those who have used this wording have spoken of cut necks and not of cut throats.

But you say that you are certain that the Ripper cut throats. You are so certain of this that you think it allows you to claim that the 99,9999 per cent who - based on the wording I checked - differ with you are misleading.

I was always under the he impression that I am the one who needs to be painted out as arrogant and overconfident. However, Gareth, however...

[Jon Guy]

It's not a question of where they are, but how they were accessed, and the Ripper victims' carotids were severed as a result of their throats being cut. .

But the knife, in nearly all the Whitechapel cases, entered the neck over the carotid. The carotid was specifically targeted, it wasn`t just collateral damage whilst sawing across the throat. In fact, it`s probably the other way around, in that the throat cut was collateral damage after the carotid had been severed.

[Sam Flynn]

Their throats were cut. That's what was found at the time, and that's what we've been saying since.