Same motive = same killer

[Fisherman]

It's not a question of where they are, but how they were accessed...

Then you may want to admit that when you spoke of "the carotid arteries that lie within the throat"?

...the Ripper victims' carotids were severed as a result of their throats being cut.

No, they were not. The reason being that the throat involves no carotid arteries. They are part of the NECK and not the throat, and therefore they can only be severed if the neck is cut.

The carotid arteries are deeply embedded in the neck, and the throat can be cut without damaging them.

If we were to give you the benefit of a doubt and accept that the doctors could have known that the killers intention was to cut the throat only, but happened to cut much, much deeper than he needed to - how does that negate the fact that the necks WERE cut? They were severed down to the bone! That is not a damage that will go away because you propagate for the idea that the killer only wished to cut the throat, and consequently it is perfectly correct to say that the killer cut the necks of the Ripper victims - the way 99, 9999 per cent do.

The unpleasant hint that I have a hidden agenda governing me when I use the word neck can easily be countered by this question:
99, 9999 people say that Jack the Ripper cut the neck* - but you are hellbent on establishing that the Ripper cut throats whereas the Torso man cut necks, presumably trying to establish that they did very different things. One cannot help to wonder why you are doing this?

It´s the worst way possible of debating, abandoning sense and sound judgment for sly hinting, and I can personally do without it.

Then again, I don´t even need it, do I?

[Fisherman]

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.

Cut the neck all the way, and the throat will go.

Cut the throat all the way, and the neck will not go, plus the arteries will remain intact.

The throat is part of the neck, but the neck is not part of the throat.

[Fisherman]

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

"We"?

2 out of 1 080 002?

We? Who´s the other guy?

[Sam Flynn]

But the knife, in nearly all the Whitechapel cases, entered the neck over the carotid.

Yes... via a cut to the throat, which is the approach a surgeon would take if they needed to perform surgery on the carotid arteries. They don't cut through the neck to get at them.

[Fisherman]

From Thomas Bonds report on Kelly:

"The neck was cut through the skin and other tissues right down to the vertebrae, the fifth and sixth being deeply notched. The skin cuts in the front of the neck showed distinct ecchymosis. The air passage was cut at the lower part of the larynx through the cricoid cartilage."

There is one word that is not mentioned at all in the report. Guess which word that is? Hint: It begins and ends with a "t".

[Fisherman]

Inquest testimony on Nichols, as per the Times:

"Five teeth were missing, and there was a slight laceration of the tongue. There was a bruise running along the lower part of the jaw on the right side of the face. That might have been caused by a blow from a fist or pressure from a thumb. There was a circular bruise on the left side of the face which also might have been inflicted by the pressure of the fingers. On the left side of the neck, about 1 in. below the jaw, there was an incision about 4 in. in length, and ran from a point immediately below the ear. On the same side, but an inch below, and commencing about 1 in. in front of it, was a circular incision, which terminated at a point about 3 in. below the right jaw. That incision completely severed all the tissues down to the vertebrae. The large vessels of the neck on both sides were severed. The incision was about 8 in. in length. the cuts must have been caused by a long-bladed knife, moderately sharp, and used with great violence. No blood was found on the breast, either of the body or the clothes. There were no injuries about the body until just about the lower part of the abdomen. Two or three inches from the left side was a wound running in a jagged manner. The wound was a very deep one, and the tissues were cut through. There were several incisions running across the abdomen. There were three or four similar cuts running downwards, on the right side, all of which had been caused by a knife which had been used violently and downwards. the injuries were form left to right and might have been done by a left handed person. All the injuries had been caused by the same instrument."

That same word beginning and ending with a "t" is missing here too.

[Fisherman]

Phillips on Stride:

"The body was lying on the near side, with the face turned toward the wall, the head up the yard and the feet toward the street. The left arm was extended and there was a packet of cachous in the left hand.

The right arm was over the belly, the back of the hand and wrist had on it clotted blood. The legs were drawn up with the feet close to the wall. The body and face were warm and the hand cold. The legs were quite warm.

Deceased had a silk handkerchief round her neck, and it appeared to be slightly torn. I have since ascertained it was cut. This corresponded with the right angle of the jaw. The throat was deeply gashed and there was an abrasion of the skin about one and a half inches in diameter, apparently stained with blood, under her right arm.

At three o'clock p.m. on Monday at St. George's Mortuary, Dr. Blackwell and I made a post mortem examination. Rigor mortis was still thoroughly marked. There was mud on the left side of the face and it was matted in the head.;

The Body was fairly nourished. Over both shoulders, especially the right, and under the collarbone and in front of the chest there was a bluish discoloration, which I have watched and have seen on two occasions since.

There was a clear-cut incision on the neck. It was six inches in length and commenced two and a half inches in a straight line below the angle of the jaw, one half inch in over an undivided muscle, and then becoming deeper, dividing the sheath. The cut was very clean and deviated a little downwards. The arteries and other vessels contained in the sheath were all cut through.

The cut through the tissues on the right side was more superficial, and tailed off to about two inches below the right angle of the jaw. The deep vessels on that side were uninjured. From this is was evident that the hemorrhage was caused through the partial severance of the left carotid artery.

Decomposition had commenced in the skin. Dark brown spots were on the anterior surface of the left chin. There was a deformity in the bones of the right leg, which was not straight, but bowed forwards. There was no recent external injury save to the neck.

The body being washed more thoroughly I could see some healing sores. The lobe of the left ear was torn as if from the removal or wearing through of an earring, but it was thoroughly healed. On removing the scalp there was no sign of extravasation of blood.

The heart was small, the left ventricle firmly contracted, and the right slightly so. There was no clot in the pulmonary artery, but the right ventricle was full of dark clot. The left was firmly contracted as to be absolutely empty.

The stomach was large and the mucous membrane only congested. It contained partly digested food, apparently consisting of cheese, potato, and farinaceous powder. All the teeth on the lower left jaw were absent."

Guess which word is missing?

[Sam Flynn]

In fact, it`s probably the other way around, in that the throat cut was collateral damage after the carotid had been severed.

Most victims were cut across the throat, from one side to the other. If the tissues of the neck suffered any damage, and they did, then this was collateral to the throat-cut, not vice versa.

By way of example: Part of the long wound inflicted on Eddowes' lower half first cut through her xiphoid process - which is part of the thorax - but nobody says that she was disembowelled due to a cut to the chest. Part of the chest was damaged, but it wasn't the focus of the injury, and the more significant damage was caused by the abdominal incision that followed.

[Sam Flynn]

BTW, has anybody ever heard of a "cut-neck razor"?

Didn't think so.

[Abby Normal]

Well necks and throats BOTH were cut. I believe Chapman and KELLY were nearly decapitaded. And since the torso heads were eventually cut off and the heads never found we’ll never know for sure if he cut the necks first as cause of death, but imho I’m sure he did.

I think both probably learned to kill swiftly and silently and to bleed out so they got less blood on them to do that.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Not true, Herlock....sometimes Torsoman left the legs miles apart!

[Sam Flynn]

I believe Chapman and KELLY were nearly decapitaded.

Firstly, near-decapitation didn't happen in every case, and Chapman/Kelly were extremes. Secondly, was "near-decapitation" the cause of their deaths, or did they die of blood loss due to severance of the carotid arteries caused by cutting the throat?

Nowhere was it said that any victim (then or since) had "died of a cut neck", nor would I have expected anyone to have said so. In all cases apart from Kelly (even more of an extreme case than Chapman), statements that the victims' throats had been cut turn up again and again, by witnesses, policemen and doctors alike.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi hs
Well after the first bits from the first torso that he threw in the river was discovered, he would then know that just tossing them in the river isn’t going to hide them, yet he kept doing it. You would think if the river tossing was to hide he would have learned his lesson and done something else, like weight them down, cut into smaller pieces etc, yet he didn’t.

All I’m saying is that I think for both, whether they were same man or not, there was more going on with the way he left/dumped them than just trying to conceal or hide, because in either it’s obvious he wasn’t.

Was it a mischievous game to him, did the places have some meaning to him, was he marking his territory, polluting the city, thumbing his nose at the police, trying to gain maximum Exposure?

I’m not sure but it’s obvious to me there is more to it than trying to hide and conceal or just get rid of.

Hi Abby,

To me its very random. If you dump body parts in a river for example you cant be certain that they will emerge. Or theres a chance that they might emerge and remain undiscovered in undergrowth or beneath a disused dock.

The Whitehall Torso is different of course.

[Joshua Rogan]

Hi Abby,

To me its very random. If you dump body parts in a river for example you cant be certain that they will emerge. Or theres a chance that they might emerge and remain undiscovered in undergrowth or beneath a disused dock.

And, of course, there's no way of knowing how many torsos were floated down the Thames without being discovered.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Find out, Herlock. The more relevant matter, though, is to find out if the can give any example at all of anything coming even close to what we have inbetween two series of murders.

They can easily enough answer that.

Sorry Fish but you keep going on about there needing to be a prior example. There doesn’t. Things happen for the first time; every day of the week.