Same motive = same killer

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,Abby,
I'll make it easier then.Discount a court of law .Name the element that justifies beyond reasonable doubt.
Your replies so far only show an ignorance coupled with a lack of knowledge..
STRANGE.

I have to confess, in my case it is more a lack of interest than one of knowledge.

Not that one cannot lack both, of course.

[Sam Flynn]

You really need to brighten up.

When it comes to research, you're in no position to tell me what to do.

If you have a beef with the matter, then it is up to you to do the research

It is you who should have done some research before throwing stats around. You stated that only two such murders had occurred in 218 years and that you had "seen the data" to that effect. Imagine our disappointment, then, when we found out that the source of this "data" was merely a Wikipedia list of some major/famous murders.

This reveals a certain lack of rigour in your approach, to put it mildly.

[Fisherman]

When it comes to research, you're in no position to tell me what to do.

...and THAT comes from somebody who calls me deliberately misleading. Do you think that forms a good ground for being treated with respect?
For your information, I am not telling you what to do. I am telling you that if you want your questions answered, then YOU should not tell ME to do it for you. I trust you can see how that works?

As of now, it seems your major interest is to avoid the facts and try and quarrel as much as possible. You may do better to try and explain why two killers are a better suggestion than one - although it would be in total conflict with the statistics and known facts.

[Sam Flynn]

Do you think that forms a good ground for being treated with respect?

If you treated others with respect first, instead of scoffing at them and insulting their intelligence, then you might get the same in return.

As of now, it seems your major interest is to avoid the facts and try and quarrel as much as possible.

My overwhelming interest is to stick to the facts, not to avoid them. I wish others did likewise.

You may do better to try and explain why two killers are a better suggestion than one

I, and others, already have.

although it would be in total conflict with the statistics and known facts.

...and that from a man who appears to think that a list in Wikipedia is a representative enough sample from which to draw statistical inferences.

[Fisherman]

If you treated others with respect first, instead of scoffing at them and insulting their intelligence, then you might get the same in return.

That does not alter the fact that you started out by calling me deliberately misleading. You can check out the posts for yourself, and you will find that this is the starting point for the quarrel between you and me - this time. You made along post in which you painted me out as unreliable twister of facts and a liar, more or less.
Once that happens, I see no reason at all to treat you with any more respect than such a thing earns you.

In short - if you only have fallabellas to hand, don´t get on your high horses.

My overwhelming interest is to stick to the facts, not to avoid them. I wish others did likewise.

No. If your interest had been sticking to the facts and not to avoid them, you would not avoid the wording "large flaps" and "the lower abdomen of a woman, cut in two". Nor would yo alter Hebberts "slips" for "strips".

If you only have fallabellas...

I, and others, already have....

Failing miserably and disrespecting facts along the way.

and that from a man who appears to think that a list in Wikipedia is a representative enough sample from which to draw statistical inferences.

That from a man who is not presenting a book, but instead having a debate on a public forum. There is a lot of very good Wikipedia material, and you may have missed that I wrote in my post that it was not a very scientific remark I was making.
But such things you blithely disregard, don´t you? You have fallabellas to mount.

This "debate" suits you eminently, I believe. It takes the focus away from the core issue of how it is extremely unlikely to have two eviscerating and mutilating serial killers active in the same period and area, and producing the same type of damage to their victims.

Let´s not concentrate on that, shall we? It could go awfully wrong.

[Abby Normal]

Hello Abby,

Would Jane Beadmore’s murder qualify, I wonder? She was killed and eviscerated on Sept 22 1888 by her lover. Did he share the same paraphillia as the Ripper or was he taking advantage of the recent Ripper scare?

I don’t know enough about her. Could you provide details or point me in right direction.

[Sam Flynn]

That does not alter the fact that you started out by calling me deliberately misleading.

And so you are. You're (consciously or subconsciously) misleading yourself, at least.

This "debate" suits you eminently, I believe. It takes the focus away from the core issue of how it is extremely unlikely to have two eviscerating and mutilating serial killers active in the same period and area, and producing the same type of damage to their victims.

Stop blurring the boundaries. The Ripper cases were, quintessentially, instances of disembowelment, (frequent) evisceration and (occasional) mutilation... with NO dismemberment WHATSOEVER. The torso cases were, quintessentially, instances of dismemberment with (occasional) evisceration and (rare) mutilation. As to "extreme unlikelihood"... how many cases of dismemberment occurred in the 218 years you've cited? Wikipedia lists of "greatest hits" arent' good enough, by the way.

[harry]

Misleading would be an understatement Fisherman.After the hundreds of words you have written on the subject,beyond reasonable doubt is now of no interest you say.How STRANGE.

[MrBarnett]

And so you are. You're (consciously or subconsciously) misleading yourself, at least.
Stop blurring the boundaries. The Ripper cases were, quintessentially, instances of disembowelment, (frequent) evisceration and (occasional) mutilation... with NO dismemberment WHATSOEVER. The torso cases were, quintessentially, instances of dismemberment with (occasional) evisceration and (rare) mutilation. As to "extreme unlikelihood"... how many cases of dismemberment occurred in the 218 years you've cited? Wikipedia lists of "greatest hits" arent' good enough, by the way.

Gareth,

Can you quantify your classifications of 'frequent' and 'occasional'? It sounds like a huge difference. What are we talking about, dozens, hundreds?

Gary

[Pcdunn]

Hello Abby,

Would Jane Beadmore’s murder qualify, I wonder? She was killed and eviscerated on Sept 22 1888 by her lover. Did he share the same paraphillia as the Ripper or was he taking advantage of the recent Ripper scare?

Excellent example. The young man responsible for Jane's death confessed he was angry at her, and that he had attacked her in anger. He said he had recently been reading the accounts of the Ripper murders, and that a sort of madness overtook him during Jane's murder, leading him to cut her open in the same way.

How much we can believe of his confession may be debatable, since criminals may well try to minimize their crime, but I think he doesn't really fit into either the categories you have suggested. If he copycatted, was it premeditated or semi-accidental?

[jerryd]

Johnny Gill and Barbara Waterhouse were also similar to the ripper style but more than likely not ripper murders. They were also both young children.

[Robert St Devil]

Fisherman, Abby. I'm uncertain; the general options seem to be: familiar, common or social. Familiar being, this Torso Killer and Jack the Ripper are one and the same; common being, they knew each other; and, social being, each killer was a stranger to the other(s). Considering that I would have questioned the Torso Killer about the Autumn of Terror murders if he had been apprehended, I have no issues/problems with noticing similarities; some have that "" factor. So, Fish, to your list in #3293, I might add: Jackson's "missing wedding ring" [Chapman] and those random cuts on the back of Pinchin St victim's hand/wrist area [Kelly]. I also thought the albeit-brief mention of the lack of sexual assault in either case was interesting/"possibly telling".

I don't know if the following hold any relevance but they are curiosities to me:
1. Did this Torso Killer stop around the same time as Jack the Ripper? iow if they were independent of each other, should more dismembered body parts have been expected to be found through the early 90s?
2. Theres been call for serial killers that provide contradictory examples to the "one and the same" assertion. The thing I noticed about those mentioned is that they had usually been caught or their identity discovered. Is it too random to believe that two sets of killers could have alluded the Metro's investigations without either ever providing an opportunity or clue leading to their apprehension?

[Sam Flynn]

Is it too random to believe that two sets of killers could have alluded the Metro's investigations without either ever providing an opportunity or clue leading to their apprehension?

The killers of Smith, Tabram, Mylett, McKenzie, Coles and, I'd argue, Stride were neither Jack the Ripper nor the torso killer and, whoever they were, they were never brought to justice. There may have been many other killers at the time who literally got away with murder.

[Sam Flynn]

Can you quantify your classifications of 'frequent' and 'occasional'? It sounds like a huge difference. What are we talking about, dozens, hundreds?

I'm talking about percentages within each series, Gary. 4 out of 5 canonical Ripper victims disembowelled, as compared to only 2 out of however many torso victims you include in your Canon. 100% of the torso victims were dismembered, as opposed to 0% of the Ripper victims. And so forth.

[Fisherman]

And so you are. You're (consciously or subconsciously) misleading yourself, at least.

Yes, that is true - as reragrds the Wikipedia article. I accepted it as representing statistics of major crime types. "Major", though, meant "well known", so it was a mistake to use the source.
In decideing whether you think it was a conscious misleading or an honest mistake, you may want to realize that I freely provided the source from the outset.

To me, honest blunders are not as bad as saying that "the journalists reporting about the abdominal flaps were wrong!" or as sweeping half of the evidence under the carpet, like you are doing with the "large flaps"/"slips" matter. Or, for that matter, interchanging "strips" and "slips".

You see, I am not fighting some sort of tactical battle here, with the aim to get the upper hand regrdless of what it takes. I am presenting the evidence, using BOTH "slips" and "large flaps", admitting that journalists CAN be wrong but saying that it is less likely than them being correct, not least since there are numerous sources speaking for the flaps representing the abdomen, cut in two.

I make mistakes. But I don´t produce them intentionally. And I am rather proud of the latter.

Stop blurring the boundaries. The Ripper cases were, quintessentially, instances of disembowelment, (frequent) evisceration and (occasional) mutilation... with NO dismemberment WHATSOEVER. The torso cases were, quintessentially, instances of dismemberment with (occasional) evisceration and (rare) mutilation. As to "extreme unlikelihood"... how many cases of dismemberment occurred in the 218 years you've cited? Wikipedia lists of "greatest hits" arent' good enough, by the way.

The boundaries are anything but clear. The two series float in and out of each other, many things (some VERY unusual) being represented in both series, and other matters telling them apart.

Your problem is that there are way too many similarities for the series not to be connected. If that is you want me to stop saying, you will be disappointed. I listed ten similarities in a recent post, and that stands.

For your version of the events to be true it takes one dismemeberment killer who cut away the nose, who opened up abdomens, who took out a womb or wombs, who took out a heart, who took out lungs, who cut away part of a buttock, who targetted prostitutes in one or more cases and who cut away the abdominal flesh in what was referred to as large flaps. And then it takes ANOTHER killer, who did NOT dismember but who cut away the nose, who opened up abdomens, who took out a womb or wombs, who took out a heart, who took out part of a lung, who cut away part of a buttock, who targetted prostitutes in one or more cases and who cut away the abdominal flesh in what was referred to as large flaps.

In the same city.

In overlapping periods of time.

You may try to explain away these similarities - you have already tried to, with some desperation. That is evinced by how you have even stated that these similarities were no similarities at all. And then you add YOUR interpretation of the underlying motives, something you can speculate about but not know. And of course, this is where your comparison of slips and flaps enter the game. Speaking, as it were, about misleading. Conscious or subconcious or unconscious. Or unconscientious.