Same motive = same killer

[Fisherman]

Firstly, Jack the Ripper was an eviscerating serial killer, true, and did so to the majority of his victims. The torso killer(s), however, was a dismemberer, who only eviscerated a minority of his victims, and the evisceration was almost certainly a secondary concern in both cases. Thus it is at least two, and probably more, very different "creatures" we're talking about, and they emphatically weren't "doing the same things". Nothing like it.

Secondly, these two (or more) creatures were operating in very different parts of the same city, and the timing is almost certainly a coincidence. When a series (like the torsos) spans nearly a decade and a half or more, it's bound to overlap with something else. Besides, apropos time, there was an entirely different tempo to both series, which again points to separate perpetrators.

Finally, your "argument from uncommonality" is, as I've previously said, a bit of an own goal. But I still won't tell you why.

Edit: By the way, how many cases of dismemberment were there in Britain during those 218 years?

Quality check:

Both killers took out uteri, both killers took away heart and lungs from a victim, both killers cut away noses, both killers opened up abdomens, both killers took away abdominal walls from their vicims, both killers cut the soft parts of their victims necks, both killers attacked prostitutes....

My impression: They did the same things to their victims in many instances.

Your impression: "They emphatically weren´t doing the same things to their victims".

Can you see where this reasoning of yours leaks more than the Titanic...?

I have no idea how many dismemberment cases there were in Britain during the 218 years, I have only seen the statistics for serial killers who dismember. It was never going to be a common thing anyway, least of all if the dismemberment is an offensive one instead of practical - as was the case with the torso killer.

[Fisherman]

Agreed.

Why must all of the Ripper murders and all of the Torso Mysteries be the work of the same person? For all we know, perhaps Mary Kelly was killed by the Torsoman, as was Elizabeth Jackson, but the other canonical Ripper victims were killed by someone else.

They MUST not be, but they probably are. It lies in the rarity of the murder type, involving women being taken apart and cut up in pieces.

Only three murders can be described as positively being linked (Chapman, Kelly and Jackson), but some of the rest are extremely likely to also belong, if you ask me.

[Fisherman]

... there are very few similarities between what happened to Kelly and and Jackson.

Both prostitutes.

Both had the soft part of their necks severed.

Both had their abdomens opened up.

Both had their uteri taken out.

Both had their hearts taken out.

Both had one or both lungs taken out.

Both had their abdominal walls cut away in large flaps.

Both had flesh from one buttock cut away.

Both killed in London within a time period of seven months.

That´s how "very few similarities" there are between Kelly and Jackson. I would say that it is a case of gross disinformation to make this claim. And the above list proves my point.

Why deny the perfectly obvious? Why turn whay could be a useful debate into a farce? There were many differences too - but no amount of differences in the world can make the similarities go away!

[Fisherman]

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

I dont get it.

One further thing:

It is not a case of one part of the evidence trumping the other half every time in cases like these.

If there are very few, very common or no similarities between two victims, then the dissimilarities will normally trump the similarities.

It is only in cases were there are very many similarities, or very specific and unusual similarities, that dissimilarities will not be able to trump them unless the dissimilarities are of a kind that proves different killers. For example, in a British murder series, if we know that the killer X was in Britain when victim A died but not when victim B died, then he cannot be the killer of the latter even he is the proven killer of the former.
However, if the similarities involved are of a totally specific and unusual character, one must predispose a connection anyway, but not with X as the actual killer.

[Sam Flynn]

I'm not denying the obvious. Quite the contrary, I'm respecting the facts. Kelly's ENTIRE abdomen was completely laid open in three enormous slabs of flesh from flank to flank, Jackson's only by way of a modest panel made of two strips of flesh cut from her LOWER abdomen. Only a fragment of of the lobe of ONE of Kelly's lungs was torn off, from below, in the process of removing her heart; something very, VERY different, and far more thorough, happened to Jackson.

I could go on, but that'll do for now. The point is that I'm being true to the evidence, Fish, and you're not.

[Fisherman]

I'm not denying the obvious.

Yes, you are. You claim that there are "very few similarities" inbetween Kelly and Jackson, and that is denying the obvious.

Quite the contrary, I'm respecting the facts.

No, Gareth - you are trying to produce alternative facts, and that breaks up rather badly at the seams.

Kelly's ENTIRE abdomen was completely laid open in three enormous slabs of flesh from flank to flank, Jackson's only by way of a modest panel made of two strips of flesh cut from her LOWER abdomen. Only a fragment of of the lobe of ONE of Kelly's lungs was torn off, from below, in the process of removing her heart; something very, VERY different, and far more thorough, happened to Jackson.

Here we are! You are beginning your quest for truthfulness by using the term "strips" - a term that was never used by Hebbert, who said "slips" AND "large flaps". Plus the press said that what was found was "the lower part of the abdomen, cut in two", "the abdomen of a woman" etcetera. It may well be, therefore, that the entire lower abdomen was taken away, something that is bolstered by every piece of information we have, but for the wording "slips", that MAY refer to narrower parts - but once again, that is not likely given how the press described them.
One reason for Hebbert using slips (not strips) as well as large flaps may be that he could have lifted the parts into the air, and then they will have looked like slips.
Whichever applies, we can all see that you desperately cling on to YOUR interpretation and you REFUSE to take on board that the flaps are otherwsie described as large and representing the lower abdomen.

That is your take on being honest to the evidence. You are patently so - once you decided which specific part of it to support. It´s an approach that needs to be marked "Danger-Venomous!"

In the same vein, you write that a "fragment" of one of Kellys lung was taken out, something that supposedly dovetails with the reality as described by Bond:
"On opening the thorax it was found that the right lung was minimally adherent by old firm adhesions. The lower part of the lung was broken and torn away."

So the whole lung was almost torn away, but managed to hang on minimally by old adhesions, the result being that the lower part of the lung - quite possibly most of the lung - was taken out.
But in your book, it was a fragment only. More evidence of how you treat the facts.

You also say that what happened to Jackson "was very different". Yes, in the respect that both lungs were removed. That is different in quantity. But how does it differ in character? Are not both women examples of a killer who attacked and removed lungs or parts of them? How is that not a similarity?

I could go on, but that'll do for now. The point is that I'm being true to the evidence, Fish, and you're not.

Yes, you could go on - and you would have it all flung back in your face, revealing the same thing over and over again: You are being VERY economical with the truth: And you have the audacity to claim that I am not true to the evidence. Oh, the irony!

Here is what you think, Gareth. Correct me if I am wrong:

In the city of London, back in the late 1800:s, there lived two evil men. One of them was a raving madman who would attack and kill women out in the street, throwing any risk to the wind, while then other was a sly planner, a devious and deceitful man who took great care not to reveal himself and who wanted to hide his killings.

Peculiarly, they both severed the soft parts of their victims necks, they both engaged in eviscerations but also in cutting away other parts of the bodies, they both took out uteri, lungs and hearts, they both opened up the abdomens of their victims and they both cut away the abdominal walls of victims in what was described as large flaps.

This, however, they did for wildly differing reasons, and it only a coincidence that they happened to end up doing these things. A mere coincidence, nothing else.

That is about it, is it not?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Nope. Doesn´t work, I´m afraid. Dissimilarities can never make similarities go away, as I just told Herlock.

Yup, it only works the other way around

[Abby Normal]

That there was even two serial killers, forget all the other similarities, operating at the same time and place, at that period of time should give one pause.

[Sam Flynn]

Yup, it only works the other way around

Even when the dissimilarities are objective facts, and the "similarities" are subjective and/or exaggerated, it seems.

[harry]

That two serial killers were operating at the same time is a reasonable belief.
It is my belief.
What proof exists that I am wrong?

[Abby Normal]

That two serial killers were operating at the same time is a reasonable belief.
It is my belief.
What proof exists that I am wrong?

Sure. And there is no proof. Only belief.

[Fisherman]

Yup, it only works the other way around

Yes, it works the other way around.

Similarities will not become umimportant on account of dissimilarities, unless these dissimilarities conclusively prove that the similarities are only coincidental.

Dissimilarities will become unimportant if they can be explained and if there are similarities that tell us that the perceived dissimilarities are of no real importance.

So there is a difference. Which is what I have been banging on about for weeks. And which any person with a minimum of insight into these things will acknowledge.

When you can show me that the dissimilaritites of these cases rule out the importance of the similarities instead of going on about how it MAY have been like this and it MAY have been like that, you have a case.

Until that happens, you don´t.

[Fisherman]

That there was even two serial killers, forget all the other similarities, operating at the same time and place, at that period of time should give one pause.

Yes! That is perfectly true. Whenever many people are killed in a flurry, the more logical standpoint is always going to be that the source is the same.

This may be wrong - and has been wrong in a number of cases - but it is nevertheless the expected thing.

And then, if there are similarities inbetween the deeds, the scales tip over very much.

In the Ripper/Torso cases, specifically in the Chapman-Kelly-Jackson case, they will not get back up again.

[Fisherman]

Even when the dissimilarities are objective facts, and the "similarities" are subjective and/or exaggerated, it seems.

So your "truth" about the "strips" is not a subjective or exaggerated one...?

Never throw stones in glass houses, Gareth. It will make the whole structure come tumbling down.

[Fisherman]

That two serial killers were operating at the same time is a reasonable belief.
It is my belief.
What proof exists that I am wrong?

The only proof there is says that you are less likely to be right. Statistically, you are smoked. Your belief is based on more of personal musings and less on reality.

Otherwise, you´re fine.