Same motive = same killer

[Herlock Sholmes]

Your approach involved the arteries being part of the throat, remember?

Maybe that is not the best of vantage points from where to start a smearing campaign about me?

I don´t have to try and change any facts about the cases, and I have never done so.

The Ripper´s victims were cut down to the bone in three cases. That means that these victims had not only their throats cut, but all of their necks with the exception of the spine. Or as Thomas Bond put it "The neck was cut through the skin & other tissues right down to the vertebrae the 5th & 6th being deeply notched. The skin cuts in the front of the neck showed distinct ecchymosis."

You may remember that you made the point earlier that the front of the neck was called the throat, but here Bond explicitly speaks of cuts to the front of the neck and how the neck (not the throat) was cut to the bone.

It would seem that I have medical expertise on my side, therefore.

But back to the issue! As stated above, ALL of the neck was cut in three (60 per cent) Ripper cases.

We know that all of the neck was severed - including the bone - in the torso cases.

It is therefore quite evident that the victims may have sufered the exact same thing. Indeed, the medicos suggested the severing of the neck as a likely cause of death in both series.

So when I say that there is an evident possibility that it was a question of the same type of cutting in both series - and that is what I am saying, nothong else - I am on the money 100 per cent.

Contrary to this, inferring or implying or in any way suggesting that the Ripper victims were only subjected to violence that severed the throat and NOT the neck would be grossly misleading - the very thing you are warning against.

You seemingly make the point that I am not being honest and truthful and that my take on things is designed to con people into thinking that the series were related while they may not have been.

Let´s try the same tecnique on your reasoning. You seem to me to try and establish that there is cause to think that the cutting was NOT of the same type in the two series. On what do you base that? On how you say that the Ripper targetted throats and NOT necks.

It seems to me that you cannot bolster this suggestion of yours. No medico says that the killers only intention was to cut the throat, while he was not intersted in cutting the neck. Instead, it is very evident that he DID cut the neck, and it takes a much different effort to do that, so evidently there was an intention to do so.

Now, if no medico says that the killers only intention was to sever the throat, and if you cannot prove that thesis in any way, and if we know that the killer severed all of the throat save the spine - why would we make the assumption that there must have been different incitements for the torso mans cutting as opposed to the Rippers?

What tells us that the Torso killer did not start out by cutting the neck to the bone, bleeding his victims out, only to thereafter move on to the mutilations and dismemberment?

Nothing, Gareth. Absolutely nothing.

I am asking you politely not to infer that I am not honest. It is a level of debate we should not entertain, and you are the only person who can stop it. You may join Herlock and look for how I have worded myself previously, if you promise to learn from that.

Fish, my apologies for the neck/throat point. I couldnt recall you specifically using the phrase and as everyone ive eever spoken to talks of throat-cutting i made the wrong assumption in your case.

[Herlock Sholmes]

From a laymans point of view with regard to ‘medical’ terminology, if i was asked if there was a difference between a cut throat and a cut neck, it would simply be that a cut throat is from the front whereas a cut neck would be from the back?

I think if you asked most people you would get the same reply.

[Abby Normal]

They are NOT silly or worthless - far from it. Can't you see that there is a very important point at stake here? Fisherman is insistent on using very non-specific language so that he can say, "oh, look! the torso victims had their necks cut... and the Ripper victims had their necks cut, too!". Well, he's not going to get away with such loose terminology and sloppy reasoning on my watch.

The Ripper victims' throats were cut, pure and simple. That's how it was described at the time, and how that's how everybody has talked about the victims ever since, because it's both accurate and true. Then, all of a sudden, Christer "cut neck" Holmgren starts using his usual trick of using slippery wording to make things seem to fit his hard-wired conclusions.

Fisherman is the one who is playing semantic games, by using loose, less precise, definitions in order to force the evidence to fit his theories. This is tantamount to twisting the evidence, and it should be pointed out and criticised wherever it occurs.

Then just say torsoman decapitaded his victims and ripper didn’t. It’s the main point and a significant difference on its own. And rightly so.


And both killers cut the neck AND throat, so it’s moot anyway.

This semantic rabbit hole you go down every time you try to find the minutest difference is annoying.

[Sam Flynn]

From a laymans point of view with regard to ‘medical’ terminology, if i was asked if there was a difference between a cut throat and a cut neck, it would simply be that a cut throat is from the front whereas a cut neck would be from the back?

Indeed, and it's much easier to sever the carotid arteries by cutting through the soft tissues of the front - i.e. the throat - than it is by going in through the back, or the side for that matter. As in the Ripper murders, if you want to slash the carotids, then aim your knife at the throat.

Incidentally, whilst I would describe the Ripper victims as having sustained cut throats, I would not say the same of the torso victims. However - and this is important - I wouldn't say that the torso victims had sustained a "cut neck", either. The truth of the matter is that Ripper victims died after sustaining cut throats, but the torso victims had their heads cut off after death. To describe what happened in either series in terms of a "cut neck" is both imprecise and inaccurate.

[Abby Normal]

Indeed, and it's much easier to sever the carotid arteries by cutting through the soft tissues of the front - i.e. the throat - than it is by going in through the back, or the side for that matter. As in the Ripper murders, if you want to slash the carotids, then aim your knife at the throat.

Incidentally, whilst I would describe the Ripper victims as having sustained cut throats, I would not say the same of the torso victims. However - and this is important - I wouldn't say that the torso victims had sustained a "cut neck", either. The truth of the matter is that Ripper victims died after sustaining cut throats, but the torso victims had their heads cut off after death. To describe what happened in either series in terms of a "cut neck" is both imprecise and inaccurate.

Um I think you can’t cut someone’s throat unless you cut there neck. But you can cut there neck without cutting there throat . And I don’t believe you can cut someone’s head off without cutting there throat. but who gives a rats any way because they all had both neck and throat cut.



And it’s in accurate to say the ripper victims “died after sustaining cut throats” because they may have died by strangulation first.

[Elamarna]

But does the police themselves say that the search was inadequate and that a bloodspurt may have been overlooked? I don´t think this could have happened since we are aware that the same police initially believed the body had been carried to Bucks Row after death. That effectively means that no spray was found, and they did look under the body just as they looked on the clothing. And it was said that all the blood there was on the ground was the pool under the neck, plus there is a mentioning of some little blood on the ground under the groin. Nothing much remains to be said. We can always say that the search was or may have been slack, and there is accordingly a possibility that the arterial spray was missed, but it is stretching things a lot I think.

Christer

Of course they don't say it was inadequate, however it is evident from the reports of the inquest testimony that no complete and thorough investigation of the area was carried out before the blood was washed away.

The view you give that the Police believed the body was carried to the site is based I venture to say Entirely on the initial view of Llewellyn. Who carried out no real examination of the area, at least he gives no indication of such.

The reports of the blood and the blood pattern are woefully inadequate and often contradictory.

It's not stretching things at all given that the reporting is so poor.
There is absolutely no indication in the sources that anyone looked for Blood spray before James Green, washed the area clean.
The body should not have been transported from the scene until a police inspector gave instructions for it to happen, however Llewellyn was allowed by Kirby to take control.
A very real failure to follow procedure.


Steve

[Joshua Rogan]

And it’s in accurate to say the ripper victims “died after sustaining cut throats” because they may have died by strangulation first.

I'm reasonably sure that the heart needs to be pumping in order to generate arterial blood spray.

[Abby Normal]

I'm reasonably sure that the heart needs to be pumping in order to generate arterial blood spray.

How many ripper victims had clear arterial blood spray?

[Fisherman]

Incidentally, whilst I would describe the Ripper victims as having sustained cut throats, I would not say the same of the torso victims.

I really should not grace your posts with any answers as long as you point me out as a skewed liar, trying to manipulate the readers. it would be nice if you could manage to stay away from such things.
However, I cannot just sit by and let you post things like these without commenting on them and putting them right. You see, just like Abby does, I also think you are diving down a semantic rabbit-hole every time you understand that your stance is untenable.

You now say that the Rippers victims sustained cut throats, whereas the Torso victims did not.

This is of course poppycock. The Torso killers victims had their heads taken off, and that means that they MUST have suffered cut throats.

The Rippers victims also suffered cut throats, but to a lesser extent in the Stride case, and perhaps also in the Eddowes case.

The throat is a part of the neck. It applies that if we say that the throat was cut, we fail to make it clear when the whole of the neck was. We don´t say that the skin of the forearm was cut when the whole arm was severed, just because the wound commenced there.

Not that the Rippers cuts commenced at the throat. They commenced further back on the neck, cutting from ear to ear.

Now I won´t have any more of your accusations and allegations. I do NOT wish to enter into a slanging match where we call ourselves names. I want it acknowledged that we do NOT know what part of the neck the Ripper set ut to cut, the throat only or all of it. All we know is that he DID cut all of it in three cases.

I cannot be blamed for how there are similarities inbetween the two series. It is a fact that both killers may well have killed by means of cutting the neck - and throat - , and that the medicos offered that explanation in both series. That is not my fault, it is not something I cooked up in order to skew things, and to produce baldfaced falsities about that is to be extremely counterproductive.

The truth of the matter is that Ripper victims died after sustaining cut throats, but the torso victims had their heads cut off after death.

None of us know "the truth of the matter" - but is seems that I am alone in admitting it.

The medicos offered the suggestion that the victims in the torso series could have died on account of having the arteries in their necks opened up by means of cutting.
If this is true, then it offers a perfect parallel to the Ripper murders, where the medicos offered the exact same view.

You say that the torso victims had their heads cut off after death. Well, obviously they did, unless they survived having their neks severed first!

What we cannot do is to establish that the torso victims died from other causes than having their necks cut. One, two or more of them may well have suffered that fate, and before the spine was cut, it may have paralleled the Ripper deeds perfectly.

That is the REAL "truth of the matter" - we may be looking at perfect parallels, and we may not be. All we can say with absolute certainty is that three of the Ripper victims had their neck - throat included - cut down to the bone, leaving only the spine unsevered, and that the torso victims did have their necks cut down to the bone - and subsequently they had the bone severed too. Whether that happened in a single cutting sessioin or whether the neck - throat included - was cut first, whereupon the body was allowed to bleed out before any further mutilation and dismemberment was carried out, is and remains undisclosed to us.

Far from skewing anything, far from twisting anything, far from lying about it, far from misleading anybody intentionally or unintentionally, that is what I say about the matter, and it is demonstrably all true.

In the end, what YOU are doing is to say that the Ripper victims were the victims of a cut-throat approach on account of the killer, and that the torso victims were the victims of a killer who did not attack the throat at all, but instead only took cut the neck - and throat - as part of a dismemberment.

Believe me, Gareth, this is totally impossible to prove and can only be offered as one suggestion of many possibilities. My suggestion that he could have cut the necks - and throats - à la the Ripper are PRECISELY as viable as yours, and to boot, the medicos suggested the exact same thing.

When we have this kind of a stalemate, or whatever we should call it, the last thing that we should do is to say that "although both things can be suggested and have equal bearing, it applies that YOU are a lying and cheating bastard for stating your belief, whereas I am Ripperology´s Mother Teresa, keeping watch".

NONE of us should resort to that. One of us does.

It is incredibly wrongful and I will not stand for it. Fair is fair!

[Fisherman]

How many ripper victims had clear arterial blood spray?

Off the top of my head, only two - Chapman and Kelly. With Eddowes, the blood pools by her sides were widespread, so they may have hidden whatever spray there may have been.

[Abby Normal]

I really should not grace your posts with any answers as long as you point me out as a skewed liar, trying to manipulate the readers. it would be nice if you could manage to stay away from such things.
However, I cannot just sit by and let you post things like these without commenting on them and putting them right. You see, just like Abby does, I also think you are diving down a semantic rabbit-hole every time you understand that your stance is untenable.

You now say that the Rippers victims sustained cut throats, whereas the Torso victims did not.

This is of course poppycock. The Torso killers victims had their heads taken off, and that means that they MUST have suffered cut throats.

The Rippers victims also suffered cut throats, but to a lesser extent in the Stride case, and perhaps also in the Eddowes case.

The throat is a part of the neck. It applies that if we say that the throat was cut, we fail to make it clear when the whole of the neck was. We don´t say that the skin of the forearm was cut when the whole arm was severed, just because the wound commenced there.

Not that the Rippers cuts commenced at the throat. They commenced further back on the neck, cutting from ear to ear.

Now I won´t have any more of your accusations and allegations. I do NOT wish to enter into a slanging match where we call ourselves names. I want it acknowledged that we do NOT know what part of the neck the Ripper set ut to cut, the throat only or all of it. All we know is that he DID cut all of it in three cases.

I cannot be blamed for how there are similarities inbetween the two series. It is a fact that both killers may well have killed by means of cutting the neck - and throat - , and that the medicos offered that explanation in both series. That is not my fault, it is not something I cooked up in order to skew things, and to produce baldfaced falsities about that is to be extremely counterproductive.



None of us know "the truth of the matter" - but is seems that I am alone in admitting it.

The medicos offered the suggestion that the victims in the torso series could have died on account of having the arteries in their necks opened up by means of cutting.
If this is true, then it offers a perfect parallel to the Ripper murders, where the medicos offered the exact same view.

You say that the torso victims had their heads cut off after death. Well, obviously they did, unless they survived having their neks severed first!

What we cannot do is to establish that the torso victims died from other causes than having their necks cut. One, two or more of them may well have suffered that fate, and before the spine was cut, it may have paralleled the Ripper deeds perfectly.

That is the REAL "truth of the matter" - we may be looking at perfect parallels, and we may not be. All we can say with absolute certainty is that three of the Ripper victims had their neck - throat included - cut down to the bone, leaving only the spine unsevered, and that the torso victims did have their necks cut down to the bone - and subsequently they had the bone severed too. Whether that happened in a single cutting sessioin or whether the neck - throat included - was cut first, whereupon the body was allowed to bleed out before any further mutilation and dismemberment was carried out, is and remains undisclosed to us.

Far from skewing anything, far from twisting anything, far from lying about it, far from misleading anybody intentionally or unintentionally, that is what I say about the matter, and it is demonstrably all true.

In the end, what YOU are doing is to say that the Ripper victims were the victims of a cut-throat approach on account of the killer, and that the torso victims were the victims of a killer who did not attack the throat at all, but instead only took cut the neck - and throat - as part of a dismemberment.

Believe me, Gareth, this is totally impossible to prove and can only be offered as one suggestion of many possibilities. My suggestion that he could have cut the necks - and throats - à la the Ripper are PRECISELY as viable as yours, and to boot, the medicos suggested the exact same thing.

When we have this kind of a stalemate, or whatever we should call it, the last thing that we should do is to say that "although both things can be suggested and have equal bearing, it applies that YOU are a lying and cheating bastard for stating your belief, whereas I am Ripperology´s Mother Teresa, keeping watch".

NONE of us should resort to that. One of us does.

It is incredibly wrongful and I will not stand for it. Fair is fair!

Great post fish. I second everything you say here.

[Abby Normal]

Off the top of my head, only two - Chapman and Kelly. With Eddowes, the blood pools by her sides were widespread, so they may have hidden whatever spray there may have been.

Thanks fish
An honest assessment as your also including eddowes as a maybe.

So as I said sam saying the ripper victims died by cut throat is inaccurate and misleading as is JRs post trying to back it up with the arterial spray comment.

So two for sure were probably still alive when they had there throats cut and the rest perhaps already dead perhaps by strangulation when they had there throats cut.

The thing for me is both torso and ripper victims killer
cut the neck significantly with knife. It may be for practical reasons and or paraphilia, but one thing for sure they both had no problem with going for the neck visciously with a knife.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Call me stupid if you want to but i dont understand this viewpoint.

This is of course poppycock. The Torso killers victims had their heads taken off, and that means that they MUST have suffered cut throats.“

So would you say that someone that died on the guillotine had his throat cut?

Surely the point that Gareth is making (and of course he can correct me if im mistaken) is that the rippers victims had there throats cut (yes, the front part of the neck) to kill/silence, possibly after strangulation (after which the killer might not have been absolutely certain of death). The depths of those cuts could vary due to factors like how much the victim struggled or if the knife was recently sharpened or perhaps even an injury might have affected the killers strength. The Torso’s on the other hand just had their heads cut of because that was what was intended. Dismemberment for the purposes of making identification more difficult and ease of disposal of the body.

[Kattrup]

Call me stupid if you want to but i dont understand this viewpoint.

This is of course poppycock. The Torso killers victims had their heads taken off, and that means that they MUST have suffered cut throats.“

So would you say that someone that died on the guillotine had his throat cut?

Surely the point that Gareth is making (and of course he can correct me if im mistaken) is that the rippers victims had there throats cut (yes, the front part of the neck) to kill/silence, possibly after strangulation (after which the killer might not have been absolutely certain of death). The depths of those cuts could vary due to factors like how much the victim struggled or if the knife was recently sharpened or perhaps even an injury might have affected the killers strength. The Torso’s on the other hand just had their heads cut of because that was what was intended. Dismemberment for the purposes of making identification more difficult and ease of disposal of the body.

Exactly, Herlock. How one can confuse the two is beyond me. Semantics indeeed!
The torso victims may have had their throats cut, but we don't know. The fact that they were decapitated is something else entirely.

[Abby Normal]

Exactly, Herlock. How one can confuse the two is beyond me. Semantics indeeed!
The torso victims may have had their throats cut, but we don't know. The fact that they were decapitated is something else entirely.

Exactly Kat and HS
That’s the point. We’re acknowledging that there is a huge difference between cut throats and decapitation, which is why for the life of me I don’t understand why people keep banging on about the throat VS. Neck semantics.
It’s pointless.

Now that being said -to reiterate-I see a big difference between the decapitation VS throat cutting. It’s a definite check mark for me that they are not the same man.
But there is no denying that both cut the crap out of the neck(and yes throat!).


I do have a question though if anyone knows.. did torso man use a knife or a saw when removing the heads?