Same motive = same killer

[Fisherman]

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

If I say that I am not devastated - will that sadden you much?

Goodnight.

[Sam Flynn]

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

It´s going epidemic

There's nothing remotely ridiculous in what I've suggested. I see no reason to include the Pinchin Street case in the other torso series, and certainly no reason to pin any of them on the Ripper. The Pinchin Street case might easily have been a one-off, just as many of the Whitechapel Murders (Coles, Mylett, McKenzie, Tabram, Smith, Stride...) could have been one-offs, and many of them almost certainly were. A lot of blood was shed that year, and it sure as hell wasn't all down to the same man; how much more likely is it that there was more than one man involved in the longer time-span of the torso cases?

[John Wheat]

If I say that I am not devastated - will that sadden you much?

Goodnight.

No but you are still wrong.

[John Wheat]

There's nothing remotely ridiculous in what I've suggested. I see no reason to include the Pinchin Street case in the other torso series, and certainly no reason to pin any of them on the Ripper. The Pinchin Street case might easily have been a one-off, just as many of the Whitechapel Murders (Coles, Mylett, McKenzie, Tabram, Smith, Stride...) could have been one-offs, and many of them almost certainly were. A lot of blood was shed that year, and it sure as hell wasn't all down to the same man; how much more likely is it that there was more than one man involved in the longer time-span of the torso cases?

I have to agree Gareth. Although I think it more likely one killer was responsible for the Torso Murders. Fisherman on the other hand is in R Michael Gordon territory pinning all sorts of murders on one man and we all know who that is.

[Sam Flynn]

Fisherman on the other hand is in R Michael Gordon territory pinning all sorts of murders on one man and we all know who that is.

Hmmm... I wonder who that could be, John

[Sam Flynn]

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

I'm a darned sight more objective than you will ever be.

[Abby Normal]

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

Insignificance subjectivity and over generalization??

Actually just facts, facts and facts. And simple ones at that.

[Abby Normal]

I'm a darned sight more objective than you will ever be.

Lol. On the contrary sam, on this thread your Non objectivity comes shining through.

[Abby Normal]

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.

So when you list simple differences it’s objective but when others list similarities it’s insignificance, subjective, and overgeneralization? And all over the map Is it??

Your being blatantly hypocritical sam, and I’m starting to wonder about your self proclaimed great English comprehension.

[Sam Flynn]

Insignificance subjectivity and over generalization??

Actually just facts, facts and facts. And simple ones at that.

They weren't all facts, Abby, some were opinions - "skilfully cut and disarticulated". Says who? Define "skill". Others were over-generalised - "cut abdomen"... "dismemberment and mutilation"? Define "cut abdomen"... define "mutilation". Such facts as there were were insignificant - "dumped on land"? So what?; Leg attached in 1874 victim? Should 1874 be counted in the "canon", but I see absolutely no need to do so.

Compare Fisherman's list of apparent "facts" with my original ones:

PINCHIN.......................... OTHERS
East London..................... West London
Knife only.........................Knife and saw
Arms attached.................. Arms removed
No parts found in water..... Parts dumped in water (I've added that one, but only because Fish included "dumped on land" in his list).

Now, which strike you as the most useful distinguishing criteria? Clue: there are no "opinions" in my list, just pure facts.

[jerryd]

They weren't all facts, Abby, some were opinions - "skilfully cut and disarticulated". Says who? Define "skill".

Hi Gareth,

Here is some actual wording from Dr. Hebbert.

Rainham Torso-

"The heads of the humeri had been cleanly disarticulated. "

"The disarticulations were neatly and cleanly done, in each case the joint being exactly opened"

Whitehall Torso-

"The manner in which the limb had been separated was exactly the same as in the first case, and similar arguments as to the occupation of the operator will apply in this case."

"The glenoid fossae are bare, and the limbs cleanly disarticulated"

Elizabeth Jackson-

"Both arms had been taken off opposite the shoulder-joints by three or four long, sweeping cuts, the joints neatly disarticulated."

"The thighs had been taken off opposite the hip joints by long, sweeping incisions through the skin, muscles and tissues down to the joint, the heads of the bones neatly disarticulated."

Pinchin Torso-

"The thighs had been separated at the hip joints, the skin cut through by two or three sweeping, circular incisions, beginning apparently just below the hip bone, and carried downward and inward around the buttock. The capsules of the hip joint were opened, and the heads of the bones neatly disarticulated."


Not only is the procedure very similar in all cases, it was neatly and cleanly performed. This wasn't hack and slash to remove an arm and a leg. This was someone familiar with how to remove limbs by disarticulation. The easy route was to saw the limbs off. The more time consuming way, too. Why take the time to open up the joints, and neatly disarticulate the limbs?

[jerryd]

In contrast to my last post.

1836 James Greenacre dismemberment of Hannah Brown.

"It proved to be the body of a female, apparently about fifty years of age. The head had been severed from the trunk in an awkward manner, the bone of the neck having been partly sawn through and partly broken off; and the legs had been removed in a similar irregular way."

1879 Kate Webster dismemberment of Julia Thomas.

"I determined to do away with the body as best I could. I chopped the head from the body with the assistance of a razor which I used to cut through the flesh afterwards. I also used the meat saw and the carving knife to cut the body up with. I prepared the copper with water to boil the body to prevent identity; and as soon as I had succeeded in cutting it up I placed it in the copper and boiled it. I opened the stomach with the carving knife, and burned up as much of the parts as I could."

1902 Salmanca Lambeth Torso

"On more careful examination , other points were noted about the body. It had been dissected in a very rough and ready fashion, in the manner that would be expected of an ignorant person, with no idea of anatomy."

[jerryd]

In post #3131 I said The more time consuming way, too.. Meant to say less time consuming

[Debra A]

Not only is the procedure very similar in all cases, it was neatly and cleanly performed. This wasn't hack and slash to remove an arm and a leg. This was someone familiar with how to remove limbs by disarticulation. The easy route was to saw the limbs off. The more time consuming way, too. Why take the time to open up the joints, and neatly disarticulate the limbs?

Hi Jerry
More specifically, Hebbert thought the similarity in cutting the skin around the joints with a knife, exposing the joint and then opening it to remove the limb linked the four cases 87 to 89 and showed the same skill demonstrated by someone accustomed to cutting up animals; like a butcher, hunter or horse knackerer.

[Sam Flynn]

Thanks Jerry and Debs

I'd only observe that there were plenty of people who had some experience of jointing meat in London at the time, and not necessarily in a professional capacity.