Same motive = same killer

[Fisherman]

That excuse won't be good enough here, I'm afraid. There were fundamental differences, and in nature not just degree.

PINCHIN.............. OTHERS
East London......... West London
Knife only............ Knife and saw
Arms attached...... Arms removed

Plus, there's the absence of parts found in the river but, as I say, this might just have been because they washed away unnoticed. Be that as it may, I'm content that the three differences I've listed in the crappy "table" above are strong enough pointers to an entirely different perpetrator(s) for the Pinchin Street case.

Pinchin........................................... ....................Others
dismemberment and mutilation..............dismemberment and mutilation
Hebbert said she belonged.................... Hebbert said they belonged
Cut abdomen.......................................cut abdomens in two cases
Arms attached.....................................Leg attached (1874 victim)
Skilfully cut and disarticulated...............Skilfully cut and disarticulated
Dumped on land..................................Dumped on land (Whitehall/Jackson)

There are no strong pointers for the Pinchin Street woman being anything but a torso series victim. There were fair distances between for example the Rainham parts in Regents Canal and the Whitehall torso in the Scotland Yard building, so it should not baffle us that the Pinchin Street torso was found in the East. The distance from St Pancras lock to Whitehall is not very much different from the distance between St Pancras lock and Pinchin Street.

[John Wheat]

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?

The Canon's show an escalation with the exception of Liz Stride as you might expect.

[Sam Flynn]

Pinchin........................................... ....................Others
dismemberment and mutilation..............dismemberment and mutilation
Hebbert said she belonged.................... Hebbert said they belonged
Cut abdomen.......................................cut abdomens in two cases
Arms attached.....................................Leg attached (1874 victim)
Skilfully cut and disarticulated...............Skilfully cut and disarticulated
Dumped on land..................................Dumped on land (Whitehall/Jackson)

Insignificance, subjectivity and over-generalisation all over the map, as usual, and none of those cut any ice with me.

[jerryd]

No, it's just that I always got very high marks for English Comprehension at school. I merely reported what the article actually said, without reading anything into it that wasn't actually there in the text.

There's more to the story though, Gareth.

Have you read the story of "Guzzling Jim" or the businessman that was being watched who was out at all hours of the night? These two men (unknown names) were being watched at the time of the Pinchin torso. Their names cropped up in news reports during the search for "John Cleary". They could very well be the "former suspect" I am alluding to. I wasn't guessing at what the report meant.

In fact, "Guzzling Jim" was thought to be the type of man that could be the Ripper. He was being tailed by the police for 18 months. That is, 18 months prior to September of 1889. That's January of 1888. The Rainham torso was found in 1887 and a supposed ripper murder happened in December 1887.

[Fisherman]

You don't get marks for "ingenuity" in Comprehension Tests, Fish. You have to demonstrate that you've understood what's written. In the case of those articles about Pinchin Street, it was not indicated that the police thought that "Jack and a partner" were responsible, nor that a former Ripper suspect had been named in connection with the case.

Let me assure you, Gareth, that I am ready and willing to compete with you when it comes to the topic language comprehension any day in the week. And I am still waiting for your answer to the question why it was believed that the Pinchin Street case would throw light on the former Whitechapel murders.

[Fisherman]

Insignificance, subjectivity and over-generalisation all over the map, as usual, and none of those cut any ice with me.

Thats wrong - what does not cut any ice with you is information that speaks about a single killer for both series and a clear connection having been suggested between the Pinchin Street case and the Ripper murders back in 1889.
That is where you are having difficulties cutting any ice at all.

To hear you speaking about subjectivity though - that made my day. In haven´t laughed so hard for ages. So thanks for that!

[John Wheat]

Thats wrong - what does not cut any ice with you is information that speaks about a single killer for both series and a clear connection having been suggested between the Pinchin Street case and the Ripper murders back in 1889.
That is where you are having difficulties cutting any ice at all.

To hear you speaking about subjectivity though - that made my day. In haven´t laughed so hard for ages. So thanks for that!

But the Torso Killer and Jack the Ripper were two separate killers. In fact most at the time believed they were dealing with two separate killers.

[Fisherman]

The Canon's show an escalation with the exception of Liz Stride as you might expect.

A-ha - so he escalated in his desire for cutting out organs? In the Chapman case, he was satisfied with the uterus only, but then he wanted a uterus and a kidney in the Eddowes case - and the whole package in the Kelly case?

So at the stage when Jackson died, he would unquestionably have taken everything out?

But when the Whitehall victim died, he would have been at the uterus level only?

Then let me ask you, why were the lungs and heart missing from the Rainham victim?

And why was he having a face-cutting period in 1873?

Maybe - just maybe - this is not as easy as it seems, John?

[John Wheat]

A-ha - so he escalated in his desire for cutting out organs? In the Chapman case, he was satisfied with the uterus only, but then he wanted a uterus and a kidney in the Eddowes case - and the whole package in the Kelly case?

So at the stage when Jackson dies, he would have taken everything out?

But when the Whitehall victim died, he would have been at the uterus level only?

Then let me ask you, why were the lungs and heart missing from the Rainham victim?

And why was he having a face-cutting period in 1873?

Maybe - just maybe - this is not as easy as it seems, John?

Two different killers it's that simple.

[Fisherman]

But the Torso Killer and Jack the Ripper were two separate killers. In fact most at the time believed they were dealing with two separate killers.

Everybody believed that the world was flat but for Galileo, John. You would even get jailed for not agreeing.

[Fisherman]

Two different killers it's that simple.

It´s three now, actually, as per Gareth. At least.

It´s going epidemic. Ballistic, even. We have started on a journey that will disclose that nine out of ten Londoners were dismemberers. Or mutilators. Or Jack the Ripper.

I am finding it hard to follow. I need to sleep.

[John Wheat]

Everybody believed that the world was flat but for Galileo, John. You would even get jailed for not agreeing.

That's totally irrelevant to this thread. However the flat World brigade were wrong and you are wrong.

[Sam Flynn]

There's more to the story though, Gareth.

That may be so, Jerry, but all I did was to comment on the newspaper articles posted, and point out that in themselves they didn't actually say what some people thought they did.

[John Wheat]

It´s three now, actually, as per Gareth. At least.

It´s going epidemic.

I'm sticking with two.

[Fisherman]

I'm sticking with two.

Why? Three is funnier!