Same motive = same killer

[Fisherman]

I didn't say anything about the shape of the flaps, only their number and extent. You can see the extent to which Kelly's abdomen was laid open from the photographs, and that in no way tallies with the descriptions we have of Jackson's comparatively modest wound.Why? Kelly's killer did a very thorough job of emptying her abdomen, and cut three enormous slabs of flesh from her lower body to facilitate that process, doing so under time pressure. If Jackson's killer had had the same motivation, why wouldn't he have made his life easier by giving himself more room in which to operate? On the contrary, it seems that Jackson's killer only wanted to access her pregnant uterus, quite possibly motivated by a desire to avoid chopping through the foetus; be that as it may, he left her upper abdominal organs in situ (unlike Kelly), so only needed to cut away a relatively smaller amount of abdominal wall. The end-game was apparently very different in either case, and the specific means by which access was gained to the abdominal contents were not the same.
Your comparison is invalid. You can't get at a foetus by removing a woman's fingers.Deliberate removal of panels of flesh in order to get at the contents of the abdomen is not the same as raining blows on a skull.
More insults. It's neither "ridiculous" nor "comedy stuff" - I've made perfectly reasonable, and valid, points. If we're looking for genuine patterns, then we simply must take into consideration the evidence across all the cases, and analyse it objectively.

Once you PROVE that Jacksons wound was "comparatively modest", you will still be wrong. Cut away abdominal walls is cut away abdominal walls, it is very rare and therefore a common denominator.

As for insulting, you have insulted common intelligence too long now to have any saying in the matter.

Now, PROVE what Jacksons loss of the abdominal wall amounted to, or admit that you can´t. I want the size of the flaps described as "large" by Hebbert and as "a woman lower abdomen, divided in two" by the press. I want it in figures, I want to know the percentage of the abdominal wall represented by the flaps, and I want to know the shapes of them.

It is time to stop the folly now.

Waiting, waiting, waiting, waaaiiiitiiiiing.....

[Sam Flynn]

Once you PROVE that Jacksons wound was "comparatively modest", you will still be wrong.

Are you seriously suggesting that Hebbert's notes on Jackson describe abdominal wounds anything like as extensive as Mary Kelly's? They don't, and to diminish the distinction between Jackson and Kelly is self-delusional at best, and wilfully misleading at worst.

As for insulting, you have insulted common intelligence too long now to have any saying in the matter.

Au contraire. I think most folks would agree that my posts are invariably perfectly reasonable and rational.

[Fisherman]

Are you seriously suggesting that Hebbert's notes on Jackson describe abdominal wounds anything like as extensive as Mary Kelly's? They don't, and to diminish the distinction between Jackson and Kelly is self-delusional at best, and wilfully misleading at worst.

Hebberts notes on Jackson do not describe the opening caused by the removal of the flaps at all, do they? They do not suggest that there was a massive opening and they do not suggest that there was a small opening only

So your point is moot and uncalled for. Saying that "Hebbert does not support you!" is uninteresting when you are subject to the same thing. Hebbert does not support you either. He is silent or inconclusive on the matter.

What Hebbert DOES say is that the flaps stretched from the umbillicus area down to the vaginal area and beyond. That´s what was lost lengthwise. What was lost widthwise is not described by Hebbert. He uses the terms "large flaps" and "slips", and the press decribes the parts as "a womans lower abdomen, divided in two". Meaning, of course that all of the lower abdomen MAY have been taken away.

In Kellys case, Bond says that "The skin and tissues of the abdomen from the costal arch to the pubes were removed in three large flaps." That means that he also describes the length and not the width. The costal arch is the arch formed by the sternum and ribs, and it´s lower part is situated some three inches or so from the umbillicus in terms of height on a woman of Kellys stature.

We may therefore be speaking of a comparatively small difference in terms of flesh removed.

If you can disprove this - and I don´t mean disagree with, I mean disprove - you are welcome to do so.

Au contraire. I think most folks would agree that my posts are invariably perfectly reasonable and rational.

Normally, I´d say that you are knowledgeable and well read up on most matters.
Your defence of the flaps matter does not support that view, though. It is filled with misleadings and twistings, making it one of the uglier matters I have seen out here.

Especially coming from you.

[Sam Flynn]

There is no hiding anymore, though, behind whacky suggestions about how the flaps must look exactly the same

I didn't say that. I commented on the number and extent of the wounds, specifically, and also suggested that the purpose of the wounds were different in either case. The end result certainly was, in that Kelly's abdomen was entirely emptied of its organs (barring part of the stomach), whilst the majority of Jackson's abdominal organs were left in place. These facts alone signify that different motivations were in play, to say nothing of the additional fact that Jackson was pregnant and her baby had been removed.

[Sam Flynn]

I neither mislead nor twist. How dare you.

[Fisherman]

I didn't say that.

No? Because in the post I got, it said: "If the abdominal flaps had been cut in exactly the same way it might be interesting, but they weren't."
To me that seems to crave twin flaps, but maybe you want to rephrase yourself? Not that you know in what way the flaps WERE cut, but nevertheless, here´s a chance to redeem yourself.

I commented on the number and extent of the wounds, specifically, and also suggested that the purpose of the wounds were different in either case. The end result certainly was, in that Kelly's abdomen was entirely emptied of its organs (barring part of the stomach), whilst the majority of Jackson's abdominal organs were left in place. These facts alone signify that different motivations were in play, to say nothing of the additional fact that Jackson was pregnant and her baby had been removed.

Yes, you commented on the extent of the wounds as if you know that. Why would you do that?
I mean, you say that it would be misleading of me to say that Hebberts wordings tell us the extent of the wounds - something I have never done - and then YOU claim to know it?
That, Gareth, IS misleading.

What you "suggested" and what you think is "signified" by the wounds is neither here nor there. It is the fact that we HAVE abdominal walls taken away in flaps that is the one and only matter of interest here. Leave the interpretations out, like I do. That makes for a factual discussion instead of one based on your personal beliefs only.

[Fisherman]

I neither mislead nor twist. How dare you.

How dare I? How dare you?

It is very simple to clarify how you mislead: You wrote: "Are you seriously suggesting that Hebbert's notes on Jackson describe abdominal wounds anything like as extensive as Mary Kelly's? They don't, and to diminish the distinction between Jackson and Kelly is self-delusional at best, and wilfully misleading at worst."

This was written in a discussion about the abdominal flaps. It seems that you have instead shifted focus to the organs taken out, and you then go on to say that the damage done on Jackson was nothing like Kellys damage.

But we are not discussing what was taken out. It is totally misleading to involve that part here.

We are discussing the flaps ONLY, and I am saying that you do NOT know their shapes and sizes, just as you cannot claim with any substance that Kellys hole in her abdominal wall was very different from Jacksons. Jacksons hole can have been seventy or eighty per cent of Kellys, for all we know, and in that respect - which is the ONLY respect I have been discussing throughout - the flaps can have been very similar. It is fully possible that the flaps from Jacksons belly were twin flaps to two lower flaps on Kelly, whereas the third flap on Kelly can have been taking the top part of the abdomen away. Can! Not DID! But it is important that we do not try to claim that this is untrue, impossible or even unlikely as such.

This is what we discuss. We dont discuss that Kelly had more organs taken out, since I have not listed that as a similarity. Both had their uteri taken out, both had their hearts taken out and both had part of a lung or the lungs taken out. That is per se quite, quite enough to speak of a very far-reaching similarity in itself - but it is NOT what I am discussing with you!

The mere idea of stating that Kelly looked very different from Jackson as regards the abdominal damage is in itself odd. We don´t know what Jackson looked like at this stage. We know that she was opened up, that her uterus had been taken out and that her heart and lungs had gone the same way. We have no idea if her head had been scored like Kellys. She may well have represented a sight quite reminiscent of Kelly, with the gut wide open and organs lying around.
The thing is WE DON`T KNOW and so we should not infer that we do. Facts only, please.

Now, will you please at least admit that I may be right on what I say in this post about the extent of the flaps, or provide some sort of evidence why I must - not could! - be wrong? Please? It´s OK if you say that I am an idiot for suggesting it, but yes, I may be right. The main thing is that you acknowledge that there can be no denying it.

[Fisherman]

In the ongoing trial against the submarine inventor Peter Madsen in Copenhagen, accused of having sexually assaulted, mutilated, murdered and dismembered the Swedish journalist, Kim Wall, the prosecution has suggested that Wall was killed by means of having her arteries in the neck severed. Then, later on, she was dismembered and her head cut off, the prosecution suggests. Madsen had carried a saw onbord his submarine, the Nautilus.
Needless to say, it is a case that has it´s parallels with both the Ripper case and the Torso case.

[Varqm]

IMO..

"Hebbert does not just say that there were similarities. There are similarities between you and me, Harry. And between you and a cow,
me and a banana and us and a pack of hyenas.

Hebbert said that the four murders were VERY similar "in almost every aspect", and that he was in little doubt that they had the
same originator.

So let´s not miss out on the magnitude, shall we? That would put us at risk to think that Hebbert was not very sure at all and
that the similarities were only small and superficial.

And we would not want THAT wrongful picture to take hold, would we? Precisely!

Plus it is NOT Hebbert who says that it is beyond reasonable doubt that there was just the one killer. It is me, yours truly,
and Hebbert is among the sources that urge me to make that call."

"In almost every respect they are similar to the first two cases, and appear to belong to a series of murders and dismemberment by the same hand ..."

Fisherman


--- Yes we should believe Hebbert.They were similar enough that one killer could have done it,but Hebbert observed the similarities
by looking at the body parts and cuts,but could not have possibly did with how many killers so it was an intelligent guess.Biggs below differ.


"Including Hebbert who is probably one of the only people actually involved to have made a direct comparison:

"During the years 1887-1889, a series of murders was committed in London, by unknown and unidentified assassin.
The victims were thirteen women of the class of prostitutes. These outrages were done by more than one man, the
post-mortem examination showing very clearly that in one series the motive was the desctruction of the identity
of the person, and concealment of the crime. In the second, savage and singularly purposeless mutilation. The
examination also proved the difference in the skill and intention of the operator. In the first series, as I
may put it, the women's bodies were skillfully divided into sections such as might be done by a butcher or a
hunter, evidently for the purpose of easy carriage and distribution, as the different parts were found in various
districts, some in Regent's Park, Chelsea, Battersea, Isle of Dogs. even, in one case, the vaults of New Scotland
Yard. In the other series, the women were horribly and unmercifully mutilated. Even the internal organs had been
removed and taken away. It was in the last series that the theory of satyriasis was strengthened by the post-mortem
examinations."
Alfred Hebbert 1908

Debra

---Yes we should believe Hebbert. That the 2 series,ripper and torso ,were done by different people.He was there and/or had access to info and saw things you could only imagine.Whatever you see that seems or is similar was a concidence and negligible.


Trevor, regarding dismemberment - the "finished results end up looking very similar!"(Biggs).Does this also apply
to opening the body to procure organs? I think/assume it does.

Dr Biggs

"If you look at a series of unrelated dismembered bodies, you will see some startling similarities between them.
This does not mean you can conclude that they were carried out in the same way / with the same tool(s) / by the
same person(s). When disposing of a body people (even without prior knowledge or instruction) tend to adopt very
similar strategies for dividing up the body to make it more manageable for concealment / transportation.
The finished results end up looking very similar!"



Another comment from Dr Biggs relative to this issue on who could have dismembered these torsos and the doctors
of the days opinions

"I think it is worth noting that comments relating to ‘anatomical knowledge’ or ‘surgical skill’ should be taken
with a pinch of salt in these sorts of cases. I have seen surgeons and pathologists make a right mess of human
anatomy, and I have seen ‘amateurs making a pretty good job of chopping up a body at their first attempt.
Generalizations cannot be used to comment on specific cases, and I find their assumption that a surgeon or
anatomist could not have done such a good job because they are not cutting as regularly as a hunter or butcher quite bizarre."

Trevor


--Yes we should also believe Dr. Biggs that the similarities of the dismemberment may not necessarily point to one killer,
it could also point to one profession or different people following the practical way of cutting a human carcass.He somewhat
disagreed with Hebbert.As ‘amateurs making a pretty good job of chopping up a body at their first attempt" it shows ,as alluded by
diferent posters,the limted/practical ways of dismembering which could have been the reason of the similarities.
Tough call between Hebbert and Biggs.Hebbert was there but Biggs has more access to past cases.Who had more experience when it
came to dismeberment Biggs or Hebbert?.




---As far as statistics on murderers are concerned..

Judgeefendant you're gulty and will be hanged.
Defendant:Why? where is the evidence?
Judge: There is none but statistics show that...


You do not want to see that in courts would you?

[Fisherman]

IMO..

"Hebbert does not just say that there were similarities. There are similarities between you and me, Harry. And between you and a cow,
me and a banana and us and a pack of hyenas.

Hebbert said that the four murders were VERY similar "in almost every aspect", and that he was in little doubt that they had the
same originator.

So let´s not miss out on the magnitude, shall we? That would put us at risk to think that Hebbert was not very sure at all and
that the similarities were only small and superficial.

And we would not want THAT wrongful picture to take hold, would we? Precisely!

Plus it is NOT Hebbert who says that it is beyond reasonable doubt that there was just the one killer. It is me, yours truly,
and Hebbert is among the sources that urge me to make that call."

"In almost every respect they are similar to the first two cases, and appear to belong to a series of murders and dismemberment by the same hand ..."

Fisherman


--- Yes we should believe Hebbert.They were similar enough that one killer could have done it,but Hebbert observed the similarities
by looking at the body parts and cuts,but could not have possibly did with how many killers so it was an intelligent guess.Biggs below differ.


"Including Hebbert who is probably one of the only people actually involved to have made a direct comparison:

"During the years 1887-1889, a series of murders was committed in London, by unknown and unidentified assassin.
The victims were thirteen women of the class of prostitutes. These outrages were done by more than one man, the
post-mortem examination showing very clearly that in one series the motive was the desctruction of the identity
of the person, and concealment of the crime. In the second, savage and singularly purposeless mutilation. The
examination also proved the difference in the skill and intention of the operator. In the first series, as I
may put it, the women's bodies were skillfully divided into sections such as might be done by a butcher or a
hunter, evidently for the purpose of easy carriage and distribution, as the different parts were found in various
districts, some in Regent's Park, Chelsea, Battersea, Isle of Dogs. even, in one case, the vaults of New Scotland
Yard. In the other series, the women were horribly and unmercifully mutilated. Even the internal organs had been
removed and taken away. It was in the last series that the theory of satyriasis was strengthened by the post-mortem
examinations."
Alfred Hebbert 1908

Debra

---Yes we should believe Hebbert. That the 2 series,ripper and torso ,were done by different people.He was there and
saw things you could only imagine.Whatever you see that seems or is similar was a concidence and negligible.


Trevor, regarding dismemberment - the "finished results end up looking very similar!"(Biggs).Does this also apply
to opening the body to procure organs? I think/assume it does.

Dr Biggs

"If you look at a series of unrelated dismembered bodies, you will see some startling similarities between them.
This does not mean you can conclude that they were carried out in the same way / with the same tool(s) / by the
same person(s). When disposing of a body people (even without prior knowledge or instruction) tend to adopt very
similar strategies for dividing up the body to make it more manageable for concealment / transportation.
The finished results end up looking very similar!"



Another comment from Dr Biggs relative to this issue on who could have dismembered these torsos and the doctors
of the days opinions

"I think it is worth noting that comments relating to ‘anatomical knowledge’ or ‘surgical skill’ should be taken
with a pinch of salt in these sorts of cases. I have seen surgeons and pathologists make a right mess of human
anatomy, and I have seen ‘amateurs making a pretty good job of chopping up a body at their first attempt.
Generalizations cannot be used to comment on specific cases, and I find their assumption that a surgeon or
anatomist could not have done such a good job because they are not cutting as regularly as a hunter or butcher quite bizarre."

Trevor


--Yes we should also believe Dr. Biggs that the similarities of the dismemberment may not necessarily point to one killer,
it could also point to one profession or different people following the practical way of cutting a human carcass.He somewhat
disagreed with Hebbert.As ‘amateurs making a pretty good job of chopping up a body at their first attempt" it shows ,as alluded by
diferent posters,the limted/practical ways of dismembering which could have been the reason of the similarities.
Tough call between Hebbert and Biggs.Hebbert was there but Biggs has more access to past cases.Who had more experience when it
came to dismeberment Biggs or Hebbert?.




---As far as statistics on murderers are concerned..

Judgeefendant you're gulty and will be hanged.
Defendant:Why? where is the evidence?
Judge: There is none but statistics show that...


You do not want to see that in courts would you?

There will be no court case. Which is why relying in statistics is not morally wrong at all, but instead helpful in understanding the background - it carries a lot of weight that we know that these murders were rare ones indeed, and once we have rare murders any inclusion of rare elements is going to further decrease the risk of getting it wrong.
Furthermore, there are no names mentioned - we have no killer in either series at hand, and so nobody is going to be pointed out by the statistics as such.

As I have pointed out numerous times, the victorians seemingly thought that dismemberment murders are always practical matters. This we know to be wrong, and accordingly Hebberts view of two different killers carries little weight. It was thought that these were two killers of different mindsets, but as we can see, a dismemberer can be any bit as vicious and directed by his urges as a mutilator.

No two killers in the same town and at the same town will cut open abdomens, take out uteri, cut away buttock parts, cut noses, sever the soft parts of the neck, take out hearts, take out lungs or parts of them, target prostitutes, take rings from the fingers of their victims and cut away their abdominal walls in large flaps unles they are one and the same. It is as close to an impossibility as it can get.

[Varqm]

There will be no court case. Which is why relying in statistics is not morally wrong at all, but instead helpful in understanding the background - it carries a lot of weight that we know that these murders were rare ones indeed, and once we have rare murders any inclusion of rare elements is going to further decrease the risk of getting it wrong.
Furthermore, there are no names mentioned - we have no killer in either series at hand, and so nobody is going to be pointed out by the statistics as such.

As I have pointed out numerous times, the victorians seemingly thought that dismemberment murders are always practical matters. This we know to be wrong, and accordingly Hebberts view of two different killers carries little weight. It was thought that these were two killers of different mindsets, but as we can see, a dismemberer can be any bit as vicious and directed by his urges as a mutilator.

No two killers in the same town and at the same town will cut open abdomens, take out uteri, cut away buttock parts, cut noses, sever the soft parts of the neck, take out hearts, take out lungs or parts of them, target prostitutes, take rings from the fingers of their victims and cut away their abdominal walls in large flaps unles they are one and the same. It is as close to an impossibility as it can get.

"The examination also proved the difference in the skill and intention of the operator."

Hebbert

It had nothing to do with mindsets.The similarities were concidences.
Also the torso killer discreet,as alluded to by many,was consistent in that there were no witnesses spotting the killer and victim and got away with the murder.He changed ? The ripper was seen by various witnesses with the victim minutes before their murder and had to deal with some police patrols.The difference is big.I do not believe he did it for some thrill.

[Fisherman]

"The examination also proved the difference in the skill and intention of the operator."

Hebbert

It had nothing to do with mindsets.The similarities were concidences.
Also the torso killer discreet,as alluded to by many,was consistent in that there were no witnesses spotting the killer and victim and got away with the murder.He changed ? The ripper was seen by various witnesses with the victim minutes before their murder and had to deal with some police patrols.The difference is big.I do not believe he did it for some thrill.

The torso killer demonstrated skill in cutting the joints, whereas the Ripper never showed that kind of skill. However, Phillips was adamant that the killer of Chapman was highly skilled, and he also said that the mode of cutting inbetween Kelly and the Pinchin Street torso was very similar.

There were far too many similarities and far too unusual ones to be coincidences. It is self-evident, and that is all there is to it.

Banging on about how you personally think it had nothing to do with mindsets only adds to the heap of personal interpretations that impress me very little. Or not at all, to be frank.

[Abby Normal]

"The examination also proved the difference in the skill and intention of the operator."

Hebbert

It had nothing to do with mindsets.The similarities were concidences.
Also the torso killer discreet,as alluded to by many,was consistent in that there were no witnesses spotting the killer and victim and got away with the murder.He changed ? The ripper was seen by various witnesses with the victim minutes before their murder and had to deal with some police patrols.The difference is big.I do not believe he did it for some thrill.

hi Varqm
the killers of both series were never identified so no one knows if the similarities are coincidences are not. what we do know, however, is that there were similarities.

Differences too as you mention, but even though (most)the ripper murders were in public, he was also "discreet" enough not to get busted.

"he changed?" he could have, if his usual chop shop was not available, but the urge is still there, and forced to kill on the streets.

and in terms of capture/luring MO both were probably similar in that a ruse was used to get the victims to a secluded place.

[harry]

The ripper killings were not in secluded places.They were in public places.As it is not known,in both series of deaths,how the victims came to be in the company of the person last to be with them,there can be no claim of probability or ruse.

[Sam Flynn]

Look at the abdomen in the Kelly photographs. Nothing remotely like that happened to any of the torso victims.