Same motive = same killer

[harry]

Fisherman,
My question has nothing to do with the likelyhood that there were two killers,nor what is proven or unproven by the injuries.
Try again.Or better still,state the obvious,you do not know.
When you are jumping from 15000 ft,you need a few restraints.

[Fisherman]

Never mind the fictitious examples, Fish. Never mind the real examples of other crimes, for that matter. Neither will get us anywhere.

I disagree totally. The examples are totally instrumental in showing how one single odd and specific similarity can and will outweigh all dissimilarities. It is the exact same thing with the Ripper/Torso cases - but they contain not just the one odd siilarity but instead many such similarities.

In the same vein, if there are no other example of serial killers working in tandem and doing the same type of odd damage to their victims, then that must have an impact of which decision we go with in the choice inbetween one or two killers.

Why not just stick to the facts of the Ripper and Torso cases? And I mean the precise facts, not your interpretation of them. So for example, we say "West London" and "East London" when we refer to where the women met their end, not just "London" or "the same town". Similarly, we don't call the Torso Killer a "womb taker" because he only did that once. Oh, and of course we must speak of throat cutting (JTR) versus decapitation (torsos), and refrain from using the over-generalised and imprecise "neck cutting", and similar fudges.

Don´t even try to go there, Gareth. You will be immediately exposed. Read here, and you will see how it works:

1. We have no idea where the Torso vicims met their end. We only know that they were TRANSPORTED to where they were dumped, and that means that they could have been killed anywhere, East, West, South or North London. It can be added that the further afield the killer brought the body parts, the larger his chances of keeping his place out of focus.
So that takes care of that "point".

2. A man who takes out a womb can be called a "womb taker". The phrase as such only points out that he has done so, not that he would do it whenever he had the opportunity.
A single case killer is called a killer although he did not kill every people he met.
Moreover, there was another womb missing in the series that he may (or may not) have taken away. The odds are he did it, since we KNOW that he was a womb taker, as shown by the Jackson case.
That´s your second "point" dispelled.

3. You have so far not answered my question: Is it true that the necks and throats may have been cut in the exact same fashion in both series, before the severing of the spine was added in the torso series?
Your silence on the matter speaks volumes. You dare not answer since the only answer avaliable lays your reasoning on this issue in ruins.
If I were you (luckily I am not) I would stop trying to push it, since it will only supply me with one opportunity after the other to showcase this.
Ka-boom - there goes your third "point".

Any more points, Gareth? Any mumbling about how you personally BELIEVE that the Torso man killed in the West? Or perhaps even that this is a "near certainty"?

Are you ready for the yes and no questions now? I know I am.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,
My question has nothing to do with the likelyhood that there were two killers,nor what is proven or unproven by the injuries.
Try again.Or better still,state the obvious,you do not know.
When you are jumping from 15000 ft,you need a few restraints.

As made very obvious, the first thing to prove in a murder trial is that the victim was murdered. You may have missed that?

Otherwise, I am not going to go looking for your questions, Harry. You do that yourself and ask away. No questions, no answers.

As for the restraints, maybe you should try and restrain yourself a bit too. You are jumping from greater heights out here.

[Sam Flynn]

Another example of not sticking to the precise facts: "So you consider it trivial and commonplace when uteri are cut out, when hearts are excised and when abdominal walls are taken away in large flaps?" (Fisherman)

1. The heart was only excised once in the Ripper murders, and once in the Torso cases

2. The abdominal wall was taken, or rather CUT away only ONCE, in the Kelly case; in the two other instances, whilst flesh was cut out of the abdomen, the abdominal wall was not cut away.

3. Only Kelly had truly large flaps of flesh cut from her abdomen; the two others sustained lesser damage, with Jackson arguably suffering the least of all.

[Fisherman]

Another example of not sticking to the precise facts: "So you consider it trivial and commonplace when uteri are cut out, when hearts are excised and when abdominal walls are taken away in large flaps?" (Fisherman)

1. The heart was only excised once in the Ripper murders, and once in the Torso cases

2. The abdominal wall was taken, or rather CUT away only ONCE, in the Kelly case; in the two other instances, whilst flesh was cut out of the abdomen, the abdominal wall was not cut away.

3. Only Kelly had truly large flaps of flesh cut from her abdomen; the two others sustained lesser damage, with Jackson arguably suffering the least of all.

Gareth, it does not matter that these things were not included in all cases in the series. All that matters is that we know that they were present in both series, and so we can conclude that the perpetrator was a in both series a person who took out a heart, who took out a uterus and who took away the abdominal wall in large flaps.

A specific and rare matter will, once it is included in a series of murders, work as a point of comparison to other murders and murder series. If one victim in each series was bound with rare rope from the Chinese Ming dynasti, then we don´t say that this is without significance since not all victims were. The rope will nevertheless provide absolute proof of a connection between the series.

I could go into how we don´t know whether Jackson suffered less or more damage to the abdominal wall than Chapman, but by now, I consider it a waste of time. It has been established that there can be no knowing - it may well be that Jacksons flaps were very large, and we have it on record that the flaps were described as "large" in both series - and it is a bit childish to try and sweep that under the carpet, Gareth.

[Trevor Marriott]

As made very obvious, the first thing to prove in a murder trial is that the victim was murdered. You may have missed that

.

And that is one thing that cannot proved beyond a reasonable doubt, because ther is no conclusive evidence to show how they died.

So how can you keep banging on about a serial killer? And what’s even more laughable is for you to sugggest that this mythical torso serial killer murdered the Whitechapel women to.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

And that is one thing that cannot proved beyond a reasonable doubt, because ther is no conclusive evidence to show how they died.

So how can you keep banging on about a serial killer? And what’s even more laughable is for you to sugggest that this mythical torso serial killer murdered the Whitechapel women to.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I can do so against the backdrop of how we can identify the man behind the torso deeds as the man against the Ripper deeds, on account of how there are numerous very odd similarities inbetween the series.

BOTH series have inclusions of taken out uteri, abdominal walls being cut away in large flaps, hearts being taken out and so on. Since both the perceived series appeared at the same time and in the same town, it is extremely indicative of a common originator (you should know, having been a copper yourself, Trevor - must I teach you your job?).

So there you are - we know that the Ripper victims were murdered, and since the same man apparently perpetrated the torso series too, it stands to reason that the police and medicos at the time and the historians ever after have been absolutely correct in naming the torso series one of murders. And that is why not just I, but close to all who have studied these cases, speak of a serial killer when we speak of the torso man. It´s a fair bet that won´t change.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. The disagreements you refer to are led on either by a humongous bias or by ignorance.

You are the first to complain and assume ‘victimhood’ if someone suggests that you are being selective with your facts or phrases but it appears to be ok for you to make the above quote. Everyone is ignorant except Fish. Everyone is biased except for Fish.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. Gareth, it does not matter that these things were not included in all cases in the series. All that matters is that we know that they were present in both series, and so we can conclude that the perpetrator was a in both series a person who took out a heart, who took out a uterus and who took away the abdominal wall in large flaps.

No we cant.

[Sam Flynn]

"... and who took away the abdominal wall in large flaps"

Unlike Kelly, Jackson's killer did not take away her abdominal wall, and the two strips of flesh that he did cut out do not begin to compare with the three HUGE panels of flesh that laid Kelly's abdomen completely open.

[Fisherman]

No we cant.

Excuse me? How can we NOT conclude that both series involved a person taking out a heart (Jackson, Kelly) a uterus (Chapman, Kelly, Jackson, Eddowes) and large flaps from the abdominal wall (Kelly, Jackson, Chapman)?

You seem bitter, Herlock? Go with the flow!

[Fisherman]

You are the first to complain and assume ‘victimhood’ if someone suggests that you are being selective with your facts or phrases but it appears to be ok for you to make the above quote. Everyone is ignorant except Fish. Everyone is biased except for Fish.

Oh, no - I am not alone in my thinking. But basically, if you beleive in two killers, you ARE biased or ignorant. I could lie about it, I suppose, to ease the pain - but why would I?

[Fisherman]

"... and who took away the abdominal wall in large flaps"

Unlike Kelly, Jackson's killer did not take away her abdominal wall, and the two strips of flesh that he did cut out do not begin to compare with the three HUGE panels of flesh that laid Kelly's abdomen completely open.

Once again, you don´t know that. There is every chance that Jacksons flaps were larger than Kellys, since they were two and Kellys three.

We should not try to fool people into believing that it is a fact that Jacksons flaps must have been narrow strips. It would not be honest. You know quite well that Joshua Rogan, Debra and me have all pointed to the possibility of really large flaps - and "large flaps" was one of the descriptions Hebbert used.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Oh, no - I am not alone in my thinking. But basically, if you beleive in two killers, you ARE biased or ignorant. I could lie about it, I suppose, to ease the pain - but why would I?

Didnt you say a while ago that you had other info that you were holding back?

[Elamarna]

"... and who took away the abdominal wall in large flaps"

Unlike Kelly, Jackson's killer did not take away her abdominal wall, and the two strips of flesh that he did cut out do not begin to compare with the three HUGE panels of flesh that laid Kelly's abdomen completely open.

Lets be honest here guys, any and i mean any section of abdomen cut away could by Christer's definition be termed flaps. I was discussing this will a former colleague yesterday and the view was that "flap" as in cut away in "large flaps" is totally meaningless if one is attemting to look for similarities. My colleague added that given the abdomen can be viewed as a cylinder, and section removed would but for the last cut be a flap, the term gives no anatomical or diagnostic information to allow one to make any comparison at all.


I seriously doubt Christer will accept such, but so be it.


Steve