Same motive = same killer

[Fisherman]

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

There is ample reason to think he opted for the whole lung, but no proof as such. But when you tear at an organ, the normal reason for that is to tear the organ - all of it - away.

Whether you want me to say "some reason", "logical reason", "ample reason", "justified reason" or whatever, really does not make all that much of a difference to me, Steve. Itīs more of that "you canīt quantify large" stuff again.

In the end, it remains that both killers took away lungs or large parts of them. Actually, that is the whole point, but not one that is often addressed in a fair and viable manner. It is a further similarity - one of many - that is odd and peculiar and that should have anybody with intact gifts of judgment realizing that it points to a common originator.

How many lung-taking killers can you name, off the top of your head? Myself, I can only name two - or one, to be more precise. And whaddayouknow - BOTH of these fellowes ALSO took out uteri and cut away the abdominal walls in large flaps from victims.
Now, isnīt that curious? No?
Or is it, as you sometimes put it, "unsignificant"?

[Elamarna]

And of course the description of the damage to the thorax and lungs is:

"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 & torn away.

The left lung was intact: it was adherent at the apex & there were a few adhesions over the side. In the substaces of the lung were several nodules of consolidation.

The Pericardium was open below & the Heart absent. "

So the lung is torn away, that means seperated from the whole, not taken away.
It is torn, not cut.

The description of the lungs strongly suggests that the tearing would be the result of removing the heart via the diaphragm.

Steve

[Elamarna]

There is ample reason to think he opted for the whole lung, but no proof as such. But when you tear at an organ, the normal reason for that is to tear the organ - all of it - away.

Whether you want me to say "some reason", "logical reason", "ample reason", "justified reason" or whatever, really does not make all that much of a difference to me, Steve. Itīs more of that "you canīt quantify large" stuff again.

In the end, it remains that both killers took away lungs or large parts of them. Actually, that is the whole point, but not one that is often addressed in a fair and viable manner. It is a further similarity - one of many - that is odd and peculiar and that should have anybody with intact gifts of judgment realizing that it points to a common originator.

How many lung-taking killers can you name, off the top of your head?

Sorry provide evidence that a portion of lung was "taken away" in the kelly case,

It says as I mentioned above "broken and torn away" that does not mean taken away, that means seperated from the rest of lung, it does not even say if the section is fully torn away or how much Christer?

Steve

[Elamarna]

There is ample reason to think he opted for the whole lung, but no proof as such. But when you tear at an organ, the normal reason for that is to tear the organ - all of it - away.

Whether you want me to say "some reason", "logical reason", "ample reason", "justified reason" or whatever, really does not make all that much of a difference to me, Steve. Itīs more of that "you canīt quantify large" stuff again.

In the end, it remains that both killers took away lungs or large parts of them. Actually, that is the whole point, but not one that is often addressed in a fair and viable manner. It is a further similarity - one of many - that is odd and peculiar and that should have anybody with intact gifts of judgment realizing that it points to a common originator.

How many lung-taking killers can you name, off the top of your head? Myself, I can only name two - or one, to be more precise. And whaddayouknow - BOTH of these fellowes ALSO took out uteri and cut away the abdominal walls in large flaps from victims.
Now, isnīt that curious? No?
Or is it, as you sometimes put it, "unsignificant"?

There is no reason at all to think he simed to take the whole lung.


Steve

[Elamarna]

Whether you want me to say "some reason", "logical reason", "ample reason", "justified reason" or whatever, really does not make all that much of a difference to me, Steve. Itīs more of that "you canīt quantify large" stuff again.

No its just more of you talking as if an expert, about things you clearly have little knowledge or understanding of.

The lung is broken almost certainly because it is adhered to the chest wall. And has torn, not been cut, while removing the heart.


Steve

[Fisherman]

No its just more of you talking as if an expert, about things you clearly have little knowledge or understanding of.

The lung is broken almost certainly because it is adhered to the chest wall. And has torn, not been cut, while removing the heart.


Steve

"Almost certainly". Now, where, oh where, have I heard that expression before?

As I have said many times, I am not going by yours or others assurances that it can be known why and how and how much of the lung that was gone.

I note that it WAS gone, and that is about all that can be said.

The heart was of course ALSO gone, just as Jacksonīs heart was.

But hey, if the lung part from Kelly was gone because the killer was trying to take the heart out, then maybe the heart was gone because he wanted to take the lung out?

Working like that, the similarities will also be gone - in no time at all.

Then again...

By the bye: When I write that the lung part was "taken away", I mean from itīs place, not from Millerīs Court. I thought youīd understand that. What I understand is that it is suggested that we have two killers who ravaged the thorax of victims and took organs out from there. If you want to point to a common identity, that is pure gold.

To me, that is. Not to you. To you, it is unsignificant, eh?

[Sam Flynn]

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?

There is no evidence that the fragment detached from Mary Kelly's lung (singular) was "taken away". Bond said that it had been "torn away", but that's not the same thing as being entirely missing, as was the case with both the lungs of the torso victim.

BOTH KILLERS WERE LUNG-TAKERS, GARETH!

Wrong. And, furthermore, since you bring up the subject of sweeping things under the carpet, you're doing precisely that in respect of the torso killer's not being either a "kidney taker", "spleen taker" nor a "liver taker", nor was he a "diaphragm cutter", amongst other things.

1887 [Rainham]: Diaphragm was intact, lungs, heart and other thoracic viscera were absent. Liver, stomach, both kidneys and spleen present... In the pelvis were the uterus, vagina, ovaries and appendages and bladder.

1888 [Whitehall]: Heart, lungs, stomach, liver, spleen and kidneys present.

1889 [Jackson]: Upper part of sternum had been cut through, and the contents of the chest removed... the duodenum and a piece of stomach remained. Also present were both kidneys, the spleen, pancreas and liver.

1889 [Pinchin]: No organs removed at all. Neither thorax nor abdomen opened.

[Herlock Sholmes]

To use a tennis analogy:

“Advantage Gareth and Steve “

[Fisherman]

There is no evidence that the fragment detached from Mary Kelly's lung (singular) was "taken away". Bond said that it had been "torn away", but that's not the same thing as being entirely missing, as was the case with both the lungs of the torso victim.Wrong. And, furthermore, since you bring up the subject of sweeping things under the carpet, you're doing precisely that in respect of the torso killer's not being either a "kidney taker", "spleen taker" nor a "liver taker", nor was he a "diaphragm cutter", amongst other things.

1887 [Rainham]: Diaphragm was intact, lungs, heart and other thoracic viscera were absent. Liver, stomach, both kidneys and spleen present... In the pelvis were the uterus, vagina, ovaries and appendages and bladder.

1888 [Whitehall]: Heart, lungs, stomach, liver, spleen and kidneys present.

1889 [Jackson]: Upper part of sternum had been cut through, and the contents of the chest removed... the duodenum and a piece of stomach remained. Also present were both kidneys, the spleen, pancreas and liver.

1889 [Pinchin]: No organs removed at all. Neither thorax nor abdomen opened.

So whatīs new?

Nothing, as far as I can see.

As i pointed out in my post to Steve, I meant that the lung part had been taken from itīs place, not that it had been taken from Millerīs Court.

And as I also told him, we know quite well that it seems that both killers had an interest in eviscerating the thorax of victims of theirs.

What we can learn from how the Torso killer did not take out all organs from every victim is that the Torso killer made an active choice not to do so.

We can learn from that and try to understand it, or we can try to use it to try and tell these murders apart from the Ripper series, where the exact same thing was the case - some organs were taken out, some were not and most of the collected organs of the victims stayed within their bodies.

That wonīt work, therefore.

[Fisherman]

To use a tennis analogy:

“Advantage Gareth and Steve “

To use another one: "Oooops, missed".

[Trevor Marriott]

What we can learn from how the Torso killer did not take out all organs from every victim is that the Torso killer made an active choice not to do so. .

Thats nothing more than an uncorroborated opinion of your part

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Thats nothing more than an uncorroborated opinion of your part

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It is not a fact written is stone, no, but then again more or less nothing is. As I say, it could be a schoolclass from Banbury that killed Kelly, and not necessarily a lone male.

However, the balance of probabilities is very much in favour of the Torso killer making an active choice not to take out all organs from every victim. It seems very clear that he had time and worked in seclusion, so there is not any really credible alternative to that take.

What are you suggesting, Trevor? That Jacksons killer took out the heart and the lungs, the uterus and itīs appendages plus a large part of the colon - and then he was disturbed, otherwise he would have taken the rest too?

To conclude what applies, we need to look at the other victims, and they firmly establish that we are dealing with a killer who did not take everything out when he had an opportunity to.

The Rainham victim - who had the trunk divided into three parts, just like Jackson - also lost the heart, the lungs and a large part of the colon. But not the rest.

So there is a pattern, and that pattern says that I am in all probability correct.

What you should do instead is to ask yourself "what kind of killer does that?". Iīs a tricky question.

[Sam Flynn]

What we can learn from how the Torso killer did not take out all organs from every victim is that the Torso killer made an active choice not to do so.

Removing the dangly bits from the cut abdomens would make them easier and lighter to carry, whilst the more cosily packed organs (stomach, liver, spleen, kidneys, uteri etc) would pose less of a problem, so they could mostly be left in place. As to the occasions on which the thoracic organs were removed, this coincided with a particularly extreme cross-sectional division of the thorax at top and bottom, leaving the perpetrator with more slops to get out of the way.

It's also possible that the removal of the stinkiest of the soft tissues would have served the dual purpose of minimising the risk of foul odours giving the game away, if the body parts had to be briefly held in storage after butchery.

[Fisherman]

Removing the dangly bits from the cut abdomens would make them easier and lighter to carry, whilst the more cosily packed organs (stomach, liver, spleen, kidneys, uteri etc) would pose less of a problem, so they could mostly be left in place. As to the occasions on which the thoracic organs were removed, this coincided with a particularly extreme cross-sectional division of the thorax at top and bottom, leaving the perpetrator with more slops to get out of the way.

It's also possible that the removal of the stinkiest of the soft tissues would have served the dual purpose of minimising the risk of foul odours giving the game away, if the body parts had to be briefly held in storage after butchery.

You forget that the thorax was also opened up all the way down the front. Ehrm...if the killer wanted to facilitate the disposal of the parts, then why did he do that? Why did he open up the bodies down the midline before he cut the thorax into sections?

Yu are having all sorts of troubles, are you not, trying to make up explanations as you go along. Itīs not working very well for you. It is time to sober up and try to solve the cases instead of doing the exact opposite.

[Trevor Marriott]

You forget that the thorax was also opened up all the way down the front. Ehrm...if the killer wanted to facilitate the disposal of the parts, then why did he do that? Why did he open up the bodies down the midline before he cut the thorax into sections?

Yu are having all sorts of troubles, are you not, trying to make up explanations as you go along. Itīs not working very well for you. It is time to sober up and try to solve the cases instead of doing the exact opposite.

Opening the abdomens midline shows anatomical knowledge as against the
cut and slash method you might expect to see with a murder/mutilator

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk