Same motive = same killer

[Sam Flynn]

If he had used a saw alone, yes, then there could not be a very good case made for a comparison with the necks (and throats) cut by the Ripper.

You really are incredibly irritating. The Ripper cut his victims' throats, period. Stop trying to rewrite history, and stop trying to change the way in which we use the English language.

[Fisherman]

You really are incredibly irritating. The Ripper cut his victims' throats, period. Stop trying to rewrite history, and stop trying to change the way in which we use the English language.

It´s a pity Thomas Bond is not around, so that you could have told him off too:

"The neck was cut through the skin and other tissues right down to the vertebrae, the fifth and sixth being deeply notched."

Maybe he didn´t have your superior grip of the British language...?

Do not even go near wordings like "stop trying to rewrite history". Not after having claimed that the arteries are situated in the throat, after having said that only one of the Torso victims had organs taken out and after having claimed that all the journalists were mistaken about how the lower part of the abdomen, cut in two, was found together with Jacksons uterus.

There are two main differences between us, Gareth:

1. I have the facts and details right and you have them wrong. I do not change facts to fit my take, whereas you seemingly have no problems tweaking the arteries into the throat.

2. I don´t call you a liar and a distorter, twisting the evidence. You call me precisely that. It is a difference in how we debate and I am proud not to do it your way.

[Fisherman]

Hi hs
Not sure about this.its why a butcher uses a knife to cut the softer meat.
I guess either could be used.

Yes, I think that sawing through flesh is a messier and rougher business than cutting it with a knife. Much cleaner, and easier to direct the cutting.

[Fisherman]

Gareth, googling on, I tried the two phrases:

"suffered a cut to the neck"

and

"suffered a cut to the throat"

It ended up 23200 to 11600 in favour of the neck.

There seems to be a serious lack of language understanding out there.

[John Wheat]

Why didn´t the Ripper do that himself every time, then? Are we to accept that he was interrupted on four occasions?

Why only take out the uterus from Chapman, for example?

What is your answer to that, John?

He was outside on the other four occasions and presumably he didn't want to get caught.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Gareth, googling on, I tried the two phrases:

"suffered a cut to the neck"

and

"suffered a cut to the throat"

It ended up 23200 to 11600 in favour of the neck.

There seems to be a serious lack of language understanding out there.

Im a little confused over the issue here Fish. Surely we have to accept that when we talk or read about a murder or even listen to someone speak about one (and the method used was a knife to the front part of the neck) people almost invariably use the phrase ‘throat-cutting or a cut throat.’ The phrase ‘a cut neck’ sounds so clumsy and inappropriate (unless, of course, the cuts had only been made to the back of the neck.) Its a bit like a back-stabbing being described as being ‘stabbed in the torso.’ Literally correct but unspecific and potentially misleading.

[Fisherman]

He was outside on the other four occasions and presumably he didn't want to get caught.

But then he should not have cut them at all, right? If he was anxious not to get caught?

But he DID cut and open them up. So why did he ony take the uterus from Chapman, John? If he would always take everything out, given the opportunity?

[Fisherman]

Im a little confused over the issue here Fish. Surely we have to accept that when we talk or read about a murder or even listen to someone speak about one (and the method used was a knife to the front part of the neck) people almost invariably use the phrase ‘throat-cutting or a cut throat.’ The phrase ‘a cut neck’ sounds so clumsy and inappropriate (unless, of course, the cuts had only been made to the back of the neck. Its a bit like a back-stabbing being described as being ‘stabbed in the torso.’ Literally correct but unspecific and potentially misleading.

To be fair, I am not the best judge of that. I am not a brit. That is why I check via Google to see what phraseology is used out there. And it turns out that cutting necks is something that is prevalent enough, just as cutting throats are.

But to be perfectly honest, it is a quasi-debate. It does not matter one iot if people normally use the phrase "cut the throat", since we know full well that f ex Bond spoke about cutting the neck.

It may well be that this was led on by pure necessity, since saying that the throat was cut would not cover the full extent of the damage done. The whole of the neck was cut, right down to the bone.

I regard the effort to paint me out as a villain who deviously mislead people since I use - and always have used - the phrase "cut the neck" as totally unfair and misleading. I used that phrase long before I took an interest in the Torso murders and started to believe in a common killer, as was effectively shown by the examples I posted yesterday.

At that stage, the harm was already done - it was said or hinted at that I only spoke about necks in order to con readers into accepting my view of the originator of the murders.

It is evident that the phrase I use is used by others too, Bond included, and I reserve myself the right to use it fortwith, not least since I find it gives a fuller and better representation of what happened.

And regardless of which expression we use, the fact remains that the torso victims had the soft parts of their necks cut through wth a knife - as did the Rippers victims.

Maybe we should concentrate on that instead of creating a quasi-debate that throws our focus in the wrong direction?

[Fisherman]

I might add that technically, I would not be opposed to say that both the Ripper and the torso killer cut the throats of their victims to the bone, and that they were therefore similar on this aspect.

But I somehow feel that it would not fall on fertile ground.

[Sam Flynn]

The phrase ‘a cut neck’ sounds so clumsy and inappropriate (unless, of course, the cuts had only been made to the back of the neck.)

Correct - to the back or the side, but not the front, which is overwhelmingly referred to as "the throat" in everyday, and even technical, speech.

You can "suffer a cut to the neck" accidentally (e.g. at the barber shop, or whilst shaving), indeed it's quite common and can be fixed relatively simply; either with a styptic pencil, a band-aid or stitches. Cut throats, on the other hand, don't tend to be the result of accidents but deliberate actions, are a lot more serious and harder to fix - if they can be fixed at all. It's for this reason that throat-cutting (as opposed to neck cutting) is an age-old method used by villains, or suicides, to quickly sever the carotid arteries and bring about death.

When was the last time you heard someone threaten to "cut someone's neck", for example? It's almost unheard of, but "I'll cut your throat!" turns up frequently in literature and elsewhere.

Its a bit like a back-stabbing being described as being ‘stabbed in the torso.’ Literally correct but unspecific and potentially misleading.

Correct again, except to refer to the slashed throats of the Ripper victims as "cut necks" is even more unspecific and misleading. Their throats were cut, period, just like we've been saying, correctly and accurately, for 130 years.

[Abby Normal]

That’s a great question Sam, and a good point. It definitely points to a different killer in this case.

Hi sam
I’ve had a little more time to think about this. So the difference of pinchin torso having head removed with knife only and no saw could be as you said, a different killer than torso man, who used a saw also. It’s also different dump location as well, which also points to a different killer.

I’m wondering though if it is torsoman both could be explained that he killed her in a different location than the others, closer to ripper territory, and this not usual place he didn’t have a saw there.

However, both the differences are actually more in line with the ripper-same location and no saw used, plus it had the vertical cut to the abdomen,so could be a link between the too.

It’s definitely the odd one out though for sure, for both series.
Or could be viewed as a link.

Need to ruminate on it some more.

[Abby Normal]

You really are incredibly irritating. The Ripper cut his victims' throats, period. Stop trying to rewrite history, and stop trying to change the way in which we use the English language.

But sam, he also cut the neck and the arteries. But I see what your saying “cutting throats” is the more popular phrase. At least these days. I think that’s the hang up.

[jerryd]

I’m wondering though if it is torsoman both could be explained that he killed her in a different location than the others, closer to ripper territory, and this not usual place he didn’t have a saw there.

Hi Abby,

My thoughts, exactly. Going off Hebberts report it sounds like the head came off later than the legs.

"The cut surfaces at the hips were black and dry, but the surface at the neck moist and red." -Hebbert

"On moving the body I found that there was a little blood underneath where the neck had lain. It was small in quantity and not clotted. The blood had oozed from the cut surface of the neck."- Dr. Clarke


Maybe he didn't have the time to cut off the head in his normal location (he was interrupted) so the body was moved and head cut off at a later time and a different place?

[Sam Flynn]

Hi sam
I’ve had a little more time to think about this. So the difference of pinchin torso having head removed with knife only and no saw could be as you said, a different killer than torso man, who used a saw also. It’s also different dump location as well, which also points to a different killer.

I’m wondering though if it is torsoman both could be explained that he killed her in a different location than the others, closer to ripper territory, and this not usual place he didn’t have a saw there.

It just seems too convoluted/contrived for the "one true Torso Killer" to have gone "Oops! I've killed this one too far away from home, so I'll just have to make do with me knife". Far more likely that there was no "one true Torso Killer" and that Pinchin Street was the work of a different perpetrator than the others.

[Fisherman]

Correct - to the back or the side, but not the front, which is overwhelmingly referred to as "the throat" in everyday, and even technical, speech.

You can "suffer a cut to the neck" accidentally (e.g. at the barber shop, or whilst shaving), indeed it's quite common and can be fixed relatively simply; either with a styptic pencil, a band-aid or stitches. Cut throats, on the other hand, don't tend to be the result of accidents but deliberate actions, are a lot more serious and harder to fix - if they can be fixed at all. It's for this reason that throat-cutting (as opposed to neck cutting) is an age-old method used by villains, or suicides, to quickly sever the carotid arteries and bring about death.

When was the last time you heard someone threaten to "cut someone's neck", for example? It's almost unheard of, but "I'll cut your throat!" turns up frequently in literature and elsewhere.

Correct again, except to refer to the slashed throats of the Ripper victims as "cut necks" is even more unspecific and misleading. Their throats were cut, period, just like we've been saying, correctly and accurately, for 130 years.

The cuts to the neck suffered I read about were mainly what you would insist on calling cuts to the throat, though. There were +20000 entries, mind you.