Same motive = same killer

[Fisherman]

That's just garbage it's totally untrue.

No, John, it is absolutely true. I have listed around a dozen similarities, many of them quite rare.
People have tried to present alternative explanations, but they can never be more than suggestions along the line "maybe it was like this" or "maybe it was like that" - alternative explanations can always be presented.

But:

The soft part of the neck cut

The abdomen opened

The uterus taken away

The abdominal wall taken away in flaps

rings having disappeared from fingers

prostitution background

hearts taken away

lungs or parts of them taken away

...and a few more bits and bobs ARE similarities that demand our attention, and they are more or less certain to point to a common originator. It was always like that and like that it will always be.

And that holds true in spite of your amazingly eloquent posts. Go, garbage boy, go!

[Sam Flynn]

But:

The soft part of the neck cut

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrr rrrrrrrrrrggggghhhhhhhh!!!

A more haemorrhoidal person I've never met in my life.

[John Wheat]

No, John, it is absolutely true. I have listed around a dozen similarities, many of them quite rare.
People have tried to present alternative explanations, but they can never be more than suggestions along the line "maybe it was like this" or "maybe it was like that" - alternative explanations can always be presented.

But:

The soft part of the neck cut

The abdomen opened

The uterus taken away

The abdominal wall taken away in flaps

rings having disappeared from fingers

prostitution background

hearts taken away

lungs or parts of them taken away

...and a few more bits and bobs ARE similarities that demand our attention, and they are more or less certain to point to a common originator. It was always like that and like that it will always be.

And that holds true in spite of your amazingly eloquent posts. Go, garbage boy, go!

No I'm correct. All you do is twist things to fit your crappy theories Fisherman. Most regular poster realise this and regard you as nothing more than a joke.

[Sam Flynn]

lungs or parts of them taken away

Missed this one earlier, but it's another example of over-generalisation to make the evidence fit a theory. One torso victim had both lungs removed, evidently because the perpetrator wanted to empty her chest cavity. This could have been for a number of reasons (more than likely practical ones), but it's quite clear that the removal of the lungs in the torso case was deliberate and total. This is nothing like what happened to Kelly, who only had part of one lobe of one lung torn - not "taken" - away, evidently as a by-product of her killer's intention to get at her heart from below.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrr rrrrrrrrrrggggghhhhhhhh!!!

A more haemorrhoidal person I've never met in my life.

Fancy a pint Gareth

[Herlock Sholmes]

You can wear your best new throat tie

[Sam Flynn]

Fancy a pint Gareth

Gladly, Herlock. I'll be having my usual noglet later, and will raise my glass to you then. (BTW, don't go looking up "noglet". It's a made-up nickname that Patrick Troughton used to refer to his tipple. I think it's a great word.)

[Herlock Sholmes]

A couple of glasses of Glen Moray might be in order

I like noglet.

[harry]

Might I suggest that the torso victims may have been lying face down when the head was removed.It is a 50/50 possibility.Such a situation is a point of dissimilar activity.Takes away the argument that the throat wounds were the same.What is the great Wizard's thoughts on that?

[Sam Flynn]

Might I suggest that the torso victims may have been lying face down when the head was removed.It is a 50/50 possibility.

It's possibly rather more than 50:50, Harry, if a saw was used. Confucius he say: "It's easier to slice a loaf of bread from the firm crust to the soft bottom, than the other way around".

[Fisherman]

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrr rrrrrrrrrrggggghhhhhhhh!!!

A more haemorrhoidal person I've never met in my life.

Oh, I think I´ve prepared you that I - just like Thomas Bond did - will point out that the neck was cut and not just the throat.

[Fisherman]

No I'm correct. All you do is twist things to fit your crappy theories Fisherman. Most regular poster realise this and regard you as nothing more than a joke.

Well, I´d never describe you as a joke. I have humour.

[Fisherman]

Missed this one earlier, but it's another example of over-generalisation to make the evidence fit a theory. One torso victim had both lungs removed, evidently because the perpetrator wanted to empty her chest cavity. This could have been for a number of reasons (more than likely practical ones), but it's quite clear that the removal of the lungs in the torso case was deliberate and total. This is nothing like what happened to Kelly, who only had part of one lobe of one lung torn - not "taken" - away, evidently as a by-product of her killer's intention to get at her heart from below.

I don´t care what you think. It is a FACT that lungs or parts of them were removed in both series. Whether Kellys lung removal does not mimick the ones in the torso series is neither here nor there - in her case, the killer reached up from below and took the lung part out, and there is every reason to think that he opted for the whole lung but had to settle for less due to how it was hard to remove.
It also applies that we don´t know how the Torso killer took Jacksons lungs out, we only know that he removed them, meaning - as far as I understand - that they could have been torn out too.
Whichever applies, it remains a FACT that lungs or parts of them were taken in both series. How many murders have you heard of where lungs or parts of lungs were taken away?
THAT is a much more pertinent question, although you are trying to sweep it under the carpet. BOTH KILLERS WERE LUNG-TAKERS, GARETH! Deal with it.

[Fisherman]

Might I suggest that the torso victims may have been lying face down when the head was removed.It is a 50/50 possibility.Such a situation is a point of dissimilar activity.Takes away the argument that the throat wounds were the same.What is the great Wizard's thoughts on that?

I can only give you MY thoughts, Harry - although I am generally speaking disinclined to speak to you at all.

It is your SUGGESTION that the victims were face down. That does not make it a truth and a fact that you can use to say that it was dissimilar to the Ripper series. So it does not take any argument away other than in your dreams. The Torso killer may just as well have cut the neck Ripper style to kill, and then - long after that - he can have proceeded to sever the spine.

Suggest away, by all means, but don´t get all hot about how you think a suggestion will morph into a fact.

[Elamarna]

I don´t care what you think. It is a FACT that lungs or parts of them were removed in both series. Whether Kellys lung removal does not mimick the ones in the torso series is neither here nor there - in her case, the killer reached up from below and took the lung part out, and there is every reason to think that he opted for the whole lung but had to settle for less due to how it was hard to remove.
It also applies that we don´t know how the Torso killer took Jacksons lungs out, we only know that he removed them, meaning - as far as I understand - that they could have been torn out too.
Whichever applies, it remains a FACT that lungs or parts of them were taken in both series. How many murders have you heard of where lungs or parts of lungs were taken away?
THAT is a much more pertinent question, although you are trying to sweep it under the carpet. BOTH KILLERS WERE LUNG-TAKERS, GARETH! Deal with it.

Cbrister

There is no reason to think he opted for the whole lung, that is purely said to attempt to fit your theory.

What evidence other than your own self beleif leads you to such a suggestion.

While it is pefectly proper to suggest it may or could have been the intention, there is not "EVERY REASON" to think so

Steve