Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Same motive = same killer

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
    Dismemberers do take out organs, for very practical reasons - Nilsen being a classic example. As to cutting faces away, we don't know that this happened to the torso victims, unless you're about to make another one of your evidence-twisting over-generalisations to equate facial mutilations with the removal of the head.
    Discussing the case! THANK YOU!

    There is some unneccesary point about evidence-twisting, but it is a step in the right direction.

    Practical evisceration - yes, that can sometimes be the case. But in Nielsens case, it was to enable him to flush the organs down the toilet, was it not? Or to make the burning speedier? The Torso killer had no such problem, dumping into the Thames.
    But yes, practically led on evisceration must be discussed as a possibility.

    In Jacksons case, things point away from it. Some innards were left and others were taken out. That speaks against a practical evisceration.

    How would you explain this from a practical perspective?

    Facial damage was most certainly there in the torso series. The Tottenham torso had the nose cut off, and - not least - the 1873 torso had the whole face cut away from the skull. We don´t have to see the skull to conclude that the face was severely damaged on that occasion. In the other cases, we cannot verify or deny that there was facial damage.

    PS. I think it needs to be pointed out that we only have Nielsens own word for how the cutting he did was practically led on. The possibility remains that he enjoyed it. But that is just a side remark.
    Last edited by Fisherman; 05-04-2018, 03:09 AM.

    Comment


    • And i shall reply in a similar spirit.

      Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
      Just noticed this, Steve:

      "You of course go off on this long diversionary post to avoid addressing that if the lung tearing is collateral damage, as strongly indicated by the condition of the lungs, a point you are aware of but have ignored, then there is no linkage to the removal of the lungs in the Jackson case. "

      No, that is not why I posted about the thighs - it was to stop people having a dig atme instead of discussing the case.

      In that vein, I will gladly comment on the issue you mention. For the simple reason that discussing the case is what we ought to do.

      Yes, if the lung was collateral damage, then that similarity goes away. And yes, it is in no way an unreasonable suggestion. It is not, however, a fact. What IS a fact is that lungs or parts of them were targetted and removed/torn away/cut away or in some other fashion taken away from their original position in both cases, and it that respect, we do have a similarity.

      Indeed you say it is not unreasonable to suggest they was collateral damage; in which case the lungs are not targeted. And it follows does it not that one cannot state it is a fact that they were targeted, its a possability like collateral damage




      As I have pointed out, we do have removal of the thorax organs, no matter how we look upon it, and that is per se something that is a very odd inclusion. I would like to ask you how many cases you are aware of where the heart was removed from a murder victim?

      Once you have decided on a number, you need to ask yourself the same question about uteri - how many cases are you aware of where that was removed?

      Again we have the issue of broad generalisation, the heart of kelly is no doubt removed, as are the heart and lungs of jackson.
      Superficially very similar, but only if one is not carried out to allow disposal of the body and its organs. And the truth is we have no way of knowing, and no way of knowing if the method of removal was at all comparable, it remains a possability, no more.


      Then the abdominal walls follow suit - how many murder cases do you know of that have this inclusion?

      Once again its the debate about past occurrences being a definitive guide to possabilties, such while useful is far from conclusive and by the very nature of humans, it never will be defintive. The big problem in my view with profiling.

      Once you have figured out how rare these things are, you need to combine all three things - in how many cases have you seen the uterus, the abdominal wall and the heart taken away from a murder victim?

      I know of two such cases only, Mary Kelly and Liz Jackson.

      May i respectfully, and i mean it, suggest that you are looking at the end result, which because of insufficient evidence can not be a full picture, rather than the methods employed, which would be the clincher over similaries and differences.


      One may reason that it borders on the fantastic that there ARE two such cases - but once we learn that they both took place within some months and in the same city, an alternative solution to "the fantastic coincidence solution" offers itself up freely. And that solution is in no way fantastic at all. It is undramatic, sound and logical.

      The suggestion of two killers copying away, one very odd trait after another, is NOT undramatic, sound and logical. It is the exact reverse.
      Not to me and many others Christer, you draw conclusions which while interesting cannot ever be conclusive, the evidence is far to subject and open to vastly different interpretations.
      Thats why you disagree with me and others and why we disagree with you.

      Steve

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
        I was not the one starting "the game" - you were.

        And no, Steve, the flesh of the thigh is decidedly NOT the same thing as the thigh! The thigh involves the femur and is made up of the part of the leg between the hip and the knee.

        That is beyond discussion. If you can find a definition that say that the thigh flesh is the same as the thigh, you are welcome to produce it.

        Anyhow, it is also beyond discussion that I understand what you meant, and that I will not push the point that you were ignorant or deceitful. It was a faulty wording, and nothing more dramatic than so.

        And that is how we MUST do things to be honest in what we do.

        You will note that you have had your answer on the lung question - our posts crossed, and there was never any wish to avoid the question on my behalf.

        I note that you now accept that I never intended to claim that the lung part was removed from Millers Court. To me, "taken away" was written with the same intent as "gone": to show that it was removed from it´s original position.
        Thank you for that. It took way too long, but since it arrived, that´s water under the bridge.
        My only comment is that we do not even know it was removed from the thorax, I can find no mention of it other than the refference we have been discussing, and while it is indeed possible it was outside the body, it could equally have still be in place fixed to the chest wall.

        I hope you can see that is a real possability too.


        Steve

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
          And i shall reply in a similar spirit.



          Not to me and many others Christer, you draw conclusions which while interesting cannot ever be conclusive, the evidence is far to subject and open to vastly different interpretations.
          Thats why you disagree with me and others and why we disagree with you.

          Steve
          ... or it´s because I am right and you wrong. Like you say, let´s not forget about the many possibilities.

          I won´t go inte the remarks about language issues. I hope we are past that for now.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
            My only comment is that we do not even know it was removed from the thorax, I can find no mention of it other than the refference we have been discussing, and while it is indeed possible it was outside the body, it could equally have still be in place fixed to the chest wall.

            I hope you can see that is a real possability too.


            Steve
            I don´t exclude it - but the wording "torn away" gives me the impression that it was not attached any more.

            Comment


            • "in how many cases have you seen the uterus, the abdominal wall and the heart taken away from a murder victim? I know of two such cases only, Mary Kelly and Liz Jackson."

              Again, you're only presenting a very partial (in both senses of the word) view of the evidence. The full picture is more accurately presented thus:

              Kelly - heart, PART of ONE lung torn away, the diaphragm cut through, and the breasts, liver, spleen, both kidneys, bladder, uterus, thigh flesh and pudenda removed. Abdomen COMPLETELY laid open from flank to flank by means of three huge slabs of flesh.

              Jackson - heart and BOTH lungs removed, gravid uterus removed and foetus taken out. Abdomen opened by means of two strips of flesh, true dimensions unknown but almost certainly very limited in extent compared to Kelly.
              Kind regards, Sam Flynn

              "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

              Comment


              • I have sometimes referred to the Ripper deeds as "torso light deeds". In that vein, I am thinking that the heart removal from Jackson and Kelly may have been much the same, but more crude in the latter case on account of lacking equipment.

                In Jacksons case, the whole of the sternum was opened up (same thing with the Rainham victim, by the way). That would have facilitated taking the organs out.
                The heart is covered by the lungs to an extent, and so the killer can have cut these away to get an easier access to the heart.

                In Kellys case, maybe the knife he used was too slender to enable him to cut through the chest wall, and so he would have been faced with the option to remove the heart from below, reaching up from under the ribs. That could have been when the lung had to be torn out, enabling him to reach for the heart.

                What remains is that it would be odd in the extreme if two serial killers in the same city and time period cut out hearts from their victims.

                It would be odd in the extreme with two serial killers in the same town and time, to be frank. Not impossible, but odd.

                "Impossible" only enters the equation when we look at the similarities.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                  "in how many cases have you seen the uterus, the abdominal wall and the heart taken away from a murder victim? I know of two such cases only, Mary Kelly and Liz Jackson."

                  Again, you're only presenting a very partial (in both senses of the word) view of the evidence. The full picture is more accurately presented thus:

                  Kelly - heart, PART of ONE lung torn away, the diaphragm cut through, and the breasts, liver, spleen, both kidneys, bladder, uterus, thigh flesh and pudenda removed. Abdomen COMPLETELY laid open from flank to flank by means of three huge slabs of flesh.

                  Jackson - heart and BOTH lungs removed, gravid uterus removed and foetus taken out. Abdomen opened by means of two strips of flesh, true dimensions unknown but almost certainly very limited in extent compared to Kelly.
                  Yes, the full picture involves a large number of differences, Gareth, and there has never been any doubt about that.

                  But my question remains: what other examples are there of killers who have taken out hearts, uteri and large flaps from the abdominal wall?

                  Once we know that the killer had nothing against extracting organs and adding mutilation, we should not be flummoxed by any level of this. Kelly had all organs taken out, but none of the other Ripper victims did. Same thing in the torso series, some had organs taken out, some did not. The killer sometimes go for the organs, on other occasions he does not.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                    I don´t exclude it - but the wording "torn away" gives me the impression that it was not attached any more.
                    Christer, seperated from the upper part of the lung certainly, that would make the lower section of which we have no real description "torn away".

                    My view is that given its not mentioned again after the initial comment it is still in place.


                    Actually the peceeding bit of the quote that the lung was broken is a really odd phrase to me, all my years in work i have never heard an organ described as broken.

                    Steve

                    Comment


                    • How do you guys relate to the question "are you saying that two killers is an option that cannot be ruled out, an equally good suggestion as one killer only, or a better suggestion that one killer only?"

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                        For God's sake, Trevor, don't encourage him!
                        Sorry about that Sam

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
                          Christer, seperated from the upper part of the lung certainly, that would make the lower section of which we have no real description "torn away".

                          My view is that given its not mentioned again after the initial comment it is still in place.


                          Actually the peceeding bit of the quote that the lung was broken is a really odd phrase to me, all my years in work i have never heard an organ described as broken.

                          Steve
                          It IS stated that the remainder of the lung was "still attached", and to me, coupled with the "torn away" wording, it points very much to the torn part being unattached. If he could specify that one part was still attached in spite of the tearing, then why would he not do so with the other? It makes little sense.

                          As always, no certainty can be reached. But that´s how I see it.

                          Comment


                          • Steve:

                            "Actually the peceeding bit of the quote that the lung was broken is a really odd phrase to me, all my years in work i have never heard an organ described as broken."

                            You broke my heart with the remarks about the word "gone"...

                            Seriously, I think it translates into "collapsed", more or less.

                            On the "broken" issue, here´s a little something for you:

                            "Broken lung and broken heart: a case of right pneumothorax resulting in Takotsubo cardiomyopathy.
                            Kumar A1, Padala S, Morales DC, Swales H.
                            Author information
                            Abstract
                            Takotsubo cardiomyopathy (TC), also known as broken-heart syndrome, is usually the result of a stressful event. It is more common in postmenopausal females and can mimic an acute coronary syndrome. We report the case of an elderly female who presented with acute chest pain and ECG changes suggestive of an acute myocardial infarction, but later was found to have right-sided pneumothorax with TC. The case highlights the growing interest in stress cardiomyopathy and its variable modes of presentation. It also reminds us that the acute chest pain of a pneumothorax can closely mimic a coronary event with similar electrocardiographic changes."


                            Not the same thing, but the same wording!

                            Comment


                            • One can tear a fingernail away from the bed, and it can still remain attached to the finger. If Bond had said "torn out", things would be clearer - sadly, he didn't.

                              Be that as it may, we're still only taking about PART of ONE lung in Kelly's case, so to classify her killer as a "lung-taker" is unsustainable.
                              Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                              "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                                One can tear a fingernail away from the bed, and it can still remain attached to the finger. If Bond had said "torn out", things would be clearer - sadly, he didn't.

                                Be that as it may, we're still only taking about PART of ONE lung in Kelly's case, so to classify her killer as a "lung-taker" is unsustainable.
                                In a sense, that applies to the torso killer too - he may simply have cleared the lugs away to get at the heart. So it´s an impossible call to make. What remains is that in both cases, the lungs were - how shall we put it? - interfered with by the killer and the heart was taken away.

                                That in itself is totally unexpected to find in simultaneous serial killer cases.

                                Add to that that there were other curious similarities (it IS a similarity that abdominal wall flaps were cut away, and it IS a similarity that the uterus was taken, it IS a similarity that the women were prostututing themselves, it IS a similarity that rings that had very recently been there were suddenly gone and so on), and we are faced with an overwhelming probability of one killer only.
                                Last edited by Fisherman; 05-04-2018, 04:10 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X