Same motive = same killer

[Fisherman]

I'm not disputing that; my point was simply that the bruises suggest that she was repeatedly restrained.

Apparently, yes, but I don´t find that very odd. A change of grip, two opportunities of forcing the victim, anything like that will be a very possible explanation.

I'm not saying that she was severely beaten up, either, but she does seem to have been roughly treated and repeatedly restrained. Could this indicate rape? Could this indicate more than one perpetrator working together? (i.e. one holding the arms, the other doing... other stuff).

Forceful rape can often be traced in cases like this, and nothing was said about it. Not that it rules it out, but I think we have no indications of rape in either series - which of course tie the cases together in that respect too.
History teaches us that there will be the odd case of two killers working together, but I find it less likely than just the one, which is the norm.

The info Jerry posted only tells us about Pinchin Street, which might give us some useful pointers as to what happened before the victim died. It would be good to know if similar details exist for the other victims.

Bruising, you mean? In the Torso series? Well, there were four bruises indicating finger pressure on the thigh of Jackson, found under Albert Bridge. That´s off the top off my head, and there may well be more.

The Ripper victims also had bruising that seemed to have come from finger pressure.

[Sam Flynn]

Forceful rape can often be traced in cases like this, and nothing was said about it. Not that it rules it out, but I think we have no indications of rape in either series - which of course tie the cases together in that respect too.

The Ripper victims might not have been raped, but 4 out of 5 were disembowelled, and 3 out of those 4 were eviscerated. The same can't be said of the torso cases. Seen in that light, the alleged absence of rape hardly gives us much to go on and, besides, I don't think we can lightly dismiss the possibility of rape in the case of the Pinchin Street victim.

The Ripper victims also had bruising that seemed to have come from finger pressure.

Of those who did, the bruises appeared on the upper body (e.g. clavicle, face or throat) and none of them, ISTR, had finger-pressure bruises on the forearms.

[harry]

jerryd,
Was not me that said there was a doubt about the women being murdered,though I agree with the statement.The term I would use is unlawful death which cover other than murder,which is a precise term,(murder)and I am referring to what has been referred to as the torso victims.and in particular the statements of Doctor Hebbert.
Now if you read my arguments correctly ,you will also observe that I was specific in objecting to Fisherman's claim of 'Beyond reasonable doubt',and again was specific in reference as to whether a single killer was responsible.
As you refer to a Coroners Inquest,there can be no objection to it's verdict,but again if there had been a trial,no one can be certain as to what defence evidence and questioning might produce to negate the caronial verdict.
To be blunt no one can be sure that a murder verdict would be sustained against a known person.
Now to make it easier for Fisherman. What element determines a verdict of'Beyond reasonable doubt'
Perhaps you can help him jerryd.

[Fisherman]

The Ripper victims might not have been raped, but 4 out of 5 were disembowelled, and 3 out of those 4 were eviscerated. The same can't be said of the torso cases. Seen in that light, the alleged absence of rape hardly gives us much to go on and, besides, I don't think we can lightly dismiss the possibility of rape in the case of the Pinchin Street victim.

Actually, much the same MAY be true in the torso cases. And it´s not as I have not pointed it out before, is it, Gareth?
3 out of the 1887-1889 torso victims may have been eviscerated, and one certainly was. Two of them were opened up all the way, and a third had a long, shallow cut down the abdomen, opening up the vagina.
I would request that we keep this in mind fortwith. It is fine by me if you say that there is only proof in one case, but it is not fine by me to say that only one of the torso victims was eviscerated.
The absence of rape gives us a whole lot to go on, since rape is a standard element in cases where men take control over women and kill them. If there is no trace of rape whatsoever, it becomes a much rarer case.

Of those who did, the bruises appeared on the upper body (e.g. clavicle, face or throat) and none of them, ISTR, had finger-pressure bruises on the forearms.

There were pressure marks on Strides shoulders, Gareth. And a bruise on the back of Eddowes´ left hand. Admittedly, that is not on the forearms, but I don´t think we should predispose that the torso killer would only bruise forearms. To me, much will have been guided by the situation at hand, and it is much likelier that the torso murders involved sequences of moving the victims against their will than was the case with the Ripper murders, where it can be argued that the killer made do with what he found, and that dragging a woman along by her arms may have given the plot away.

[Fisherman]

jerryd,
Was not me that said there was a doubt about the women being murdered,though I agree with the statement.The term I would use is unlawful death which cover other than murder,which is a precise term,(murder)and I am referring to what has been referred to as the torso victims.and in particular the statements of Doctor Hebbert.
Now if you read my arguments correctly ,you will also observe that I was specific in objecting to Fisherman's claim of 'Beyond reasonable doubt',and again was specific in reference as to whether a single killer was responsible.
As you refer to a Coroners Inquest,there can be no objection to it's verdict,but again if there had been a trial,no one can be certain as to what defence evidence and questioning might produce to negate the caronial verdict.
To be blunt no one can be sure that a murder verdict would be sustained against a known person.
Now to make it easier for Fisherman. What element determines a verdict of'Beyond reasonable doubt'
Perhaps you can help him jerryd.

Thanks, Harry! But I am not the one in need of help.

[Sam Flynn]

It's evident that the Pinchin Street victim was pinioned at least twice by the forearms. This did not happen by any stretch of the imagination in the canonical Ripper murders. Furthermore, evisceration was emphatically NOT a common factor in the torso cases.

[Fisherman]

It's evident that the Pinchin Street victim was pinioned at least twice by the forearms. This did not happen by any stretch of the imagination in the canonical Ripper murders. Furthermore, evisceration was emphatically NOT a common factor in the torso cases.

It was not a common factor in the Ripper cases either, Gareth.

But let´s return to the eartshattering news that the Pinchin Street victim had bruises on her forearms that were not there in the Ripper cases, where there were instead instances of bruising on shoulders and hands.

I take it that you are now throwing the forearm bruising of the Pinchin Street victim forward as very telling evidence that she could not have been killed by the Ripper, since he would never bruise forearms? And that the Pinchin Street victim almost certainly was not claimed by the same killer who did for the other Torso victims?

Let me just point out to you that it comes across as distinctly weird if you first dismiss the taking out of uteri, the cutting open of abdomens, the severing of the necks and throats and - not least - the taking away of the abdominal wall in large flaps as having any significant bearing at all when comparing the victims - and then you make a lot of fuss OVER A FEW BRUISES???

I mean, it´s all good and well that we take in as many details as possible, but if you think that you have disclosed a killer with a paraphilia involving bruising forearms in the Pinchin Street case, then you may need to think again.
Bruises are very trivial matters, and cannot be used to tell two series of murders apart - least of all when there is bruising in many cases throughout the series and always in varying places.

Can you see the sense in what I am saying here, Gareth? Or do you REALLY think that the bruising is a sign of the same magnitude as the damage done to the three victims I speak of? Is that where you aim to take the debate?

[Fisherman]

-Look here, Sarge, there´s two women lying dead out in the street. And they both have had their necks cut.

-Then it´s probably the same ki...

-And look! Their abdomens have been opened up!

- As I said, it is pro...

-Oh dear God! They have had their wombs cut out, both of them!

-Yes, there can be no doubt that ...

-Eeeek! They have had their abdominal walls cut away in large sections, lying beside them!!

-Well, when it´s the same killer, that is what will happ...

-Oh, look! One of them has eight bruises on her forearm, while the other has bruised shoulders.

- WHAT!? So it was two killers after all! The bastards!

[jerryd]

I'm not disputing that; my point was simply that the bruises suggest that she was repeatedly restrained.I'm not saying that she was severely beaten up, either, but she does seem to have been roughly treated and repeatedly restrained. Could this indicate rape? Could this indicate more than one perpetrator working together? (i.e. one holding the arms, the other doing... other stuff).
The info Jerry posted only tells us about Pinchin Street, which might give us some useful pointers as to what happened before the victim died. It would be good to know if similar details exist for the other victims.

Hi Gareth,

The bruises to the back or the arms and hands, the rope mark around the waist (may have been caused by clothing but I need to look further into that) the small cut just above the left wrist and the superficial cut down the centerline of the body are starting to make me think she may have been tied down to something. In her struggle not to be tied, the killer grasped her arms tighter while holding them down. Once she was dead, the ropes were cut off with a knife leaving a small cut just above the wrist and the superficial centerline cut.

As far as similiar details in other torso murders, I think the 1873 victim may have had rope marks on the body if I'm not mistaken.

[Fisherman]

Hi Gareth,

The bruises to the back or the arms and hands, the rope mark around the waist (may have been caused by clothing but I need to look further into that) the small cut just above the left wrist and the superficial cut down the centerline of the body are starting to make me think she may have been tied down to something. In her struggle not to be tied, the killer grasped her arms tighter while holding them down. Once she was dead, the ropes were cut off with a knife leaving a small cut just above the wrist and the superficial centerline cut.

As far as similiar details in other torso murders, I think the 1873 victim may have had rope marks on the body if I'm not mistaken.

If she was tied down, Jerry, then it makes a lot of sense how the nightgown she wore was cut. There were cuts from the sleeve holes up to the neck hole on both sides and a long cut opening up the front.

If she was tied down, this sounds like the best way of removing the nightgown without untying the victim. It could be cut open this way and allowed to fall down beside her while she was still flat on her back. She would end up lying on the cut nightgown, but with her body fully exposed.

[Sam Flynn]

Interesting hypothesis, Jerry, and not implausible either. Whatever actually happened, I get the distinct feeling that there was something very "other" going on in the Pinchin Street case. And by "other", I don't mean "weird", just different from the rest.

[Herlock Sholmes]

-Look here, Sarge, there´s two women lying dead out in the street. And they both have had their necks cut.

-Then it´s probably the same ki...

-And look! Their abdomens have been opened up!

- As I said, it is pro...

-Oh dear God! They have had their wombs cut out, both of them!

-Yes, there can be no doubt that ...

-Eeeek! They have had their abdominal walls cut away in large sections, lying beside them!!

-Well, when it´s the same killer, that is what will happ...

-Oh, look! One of them has eight bruises on her forearm, while the other has bruised shoulders.

- WHAT!? So it was two killers after all! The bastards!

And, as ever, it appears that.....

Any similarities (no matter how debateable) = an overwhelming likelihod of one killer

however,

Any glaring dissimilarities = can be fancifully explained away.

Why does one half of the ‘evidence’ appeare to trump everytime the other half?

I dont get it.

[Fisherman]

Interesting hypothesis, Jerry, and not implausible either. Whatever actually happened, I get the distinct feeling that there was something very "other" going on in the Pinchin Street case. And by "other", I don't mean "weird", just different from the rest.

Hebbert got the distinct feeling that the knife work and the disarticulations pointed straight to a single killer. Whis is to be expected too, given how rare these murders were.

The Rainham victim and Jackson were of course very close in apparition, having had their trunks cut in three and having lost heart and lungs alike, plus they had both been cut all the way from sternum to pelvis.

In that sense, the Pinchin Street victim differs. But so does the Whitehall victim as well as the 1873 and 1884 victims. Not to speak of the Tottenham torso.

My guess is that what bothers you the most is that the victim was found on Pinchin Street in the East, but as I have pointed out, there are other dump sites that are equally removed from what we may (or may not) perceive to be the epicentre.

The 1873 victim was apparently hung up to drain the blood out. That may well have meant that rope was used. Maybe this is a close connection with the Pinchin Street woman?

Most of it boils down to the combined fact that these kinds of killings are extremely rare, plus there was evidence telling Hebbert that it was in all likelihood just the one killer. That is a major wall to tear down, and I fail to see why we would give it a try unless there were major indicators that Hebbert was wrong and real evidence pointing to two killers with different mindsets and urges.

Once we reason that it was two killers with the exact same urges, we may need to reassess our take on things.

[Fisherman]

And, as ever, it appears that.....

Any similarities (no matter how debateable) = an overwhelming likelihod of one killer

however,

Any glaring dissimilarities = can be fancifully explained away.

Why does one half of the ‘evidence’ appeare to trump everytime the other half?

I dont get it.

Okay. I will try again.

In every two murders that have been committed around the world throughout history, there have been factors that have differed. There will ALWAYS be differences. Always. It is a law of nature.

The alternative is that two exactly similar victims are killed in the exact same locality at the exact same time in the exact same way. That is physically impossible.

Ergo: There WILL be differences. There MUST be.

There must NOT be similarities, however. Some similarities may be run-of-the mill things: both killed in the same month. Both killed by knife. Both prostitutes.

These are things that will interest the police, but they do not make for a very safe case of the same identity.

But when the similarities are rare or extremely rare, then they DO make for such a case. And as I have shown, there has been 2 (two) eviscerating serial killers in Britain the last 218 years. Not in the same area. Not at the same time. Not killing in the same way. Not interested in the same sex.

But they DID both eviscerate.

That is how utterly uncommon these creatures are. So when you have them in the same city, at the same time, doing the same things and when those things are ridiculously rare, then - let me put is like this - screw the differences, Herlock. If they are not unsurmountable - and they are not in any shape or form - then they will have their explanations and they will NOT be of the same importance as the similarities.

Are you truly saying that you cannot understnad this? If two people are killed by having their hearts embrooidered with the Chelsea club emblem, but one of them is a woman and the other a man - should we then say that the major, major difference is enough to make it as unlikely with one killer as it is likely?

No.

The similarities rule the day, and have always done so.

I hope that we can come to some sort of understanding about this, because it is beginning to be very tiresome to explain. Sorry, but there you are.

[Fisherman]

And, as ever, it appears that.....

Any similarities (no matter how debateable) = an overwhelming likelihod of one killer

however,

Any glaring dissimilarities = can be fancifully explained away.

Why does one half of the ‘evidence’ appeare to trump everytime the other half?

I dont get it.

Okay. I will try again.

In every two murders that have been committed around the world throughout history, there have been factors that have differed. There will ALWAYS be differences. Always. It is a law of nature.

The alternative is that two exactly similar victims are killed in the exact same locality at the exact same time in the exact same way. That is physically impossible.

Ergo: There WILL be differences. There MUST be.

There must NOT be similarities, however. Some similarities may be run-of-the mill things: both killed in the same month. Both killed by knife. Both prostitutes.

These are things that will interest the police, but they do not make for a very safe case of the same identity.

But when the similarities are rare or extremely rare, then they DO make for such a case. And as I have shown, there has been 2 (two) eviscerating serial killers in Britain the last 218 years. Not in the same area. Not at the same time. Not killing in the same way. Not interested in the same sex.

But they DID both eviscerate.

That is how utterly uncommon these creatures are. So when you have them in the same city, at the same time, doing the same things and when those things are ridiculously rare, then - let me put is like this - screw the differences, Herlock. If they are not unsurmountable - and they are not in any shape or form - then they will have their explanations and they will NOT be of the same importance as the similarities.

Are you truly saying that you cannot understnad this? If two people are killed by having their hearts embrooidered with the Chelsea club emblem, but one of them is a woman and the other a man - should we then say that the major, major difference is enough to make it as unlikely with one killer as it is likely?

No.

The similarities rule the day, and have always done so.

I hope that we can come to some sort of understanding about this, because it is beginning to be very tiresome to explain. Sorry, but there you are.

PS. And it is not "any similarities", Herlock. Let´s be fair and admit that I have always said that the MORE and the MORE UNUSUAL similarities, the greater the risk of a common killer.
Both having toenails is NOT a clincher. Both having been eviscerated and having had their uteri and their abdominal walls taken away is, however.