Same motive = same killer

[Elamarna]

I donīt 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

[Fisherman]

"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.

[Fisherman]

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.

[Sam Flynn]

"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.

[Fisherman]

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 donīt exclude it - but the wording "torn away" gives me the impression that it was not attached any more.

[Fisherman]

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 itīs because I am right and you wrong. Like you say, letīs not forget about the many possibilities.

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

[Elamarna]

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 itīs original position.
Thank you for that. It took way too long, but since it arrived, thatīs 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

[Elamarna]

And i shall reply in a similar spirit.

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

[Fisherman]

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 donīt 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.

[Sam Flynn]

Those who dismember normally only do that, and for practical reasons, end of story. They dont pluck organs out and cut faces away

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.

[Fisherman]

Oh dear the games go on.

I made it very clear the flesh of the upper leg, what is commonly called the thigh was removed, not that the femur was cut.
It seems you are not reading what is actually written.

And still avoiding discussing the issue, the reason behind post 3744, if the lung was still in the room and given that the condition of the lung strongly suggests the tearing was collateral damage, how can it be linked to the actual removal of the lungs in the jackson case.

You accuse others of making a mockery of the case, however it is you my dear Christer who continues to ignore the arguments in favour of semantic games.
You have claimed a link between Kelly and Jackson based on the lungs had been "taken away" in both cases, however you have not been able to establish this link, and to question it is entirely legitimate and indeed required; yet by doing so i am reducing the case to a mockery!

In case you are wondering you used Taken away in post 3703

"How many murders have you heard of where lungs or parts of lungs were taken away?"


Now i fully accept that maybe you have once again poorly worded that to suggest something you did not mean.



Steve

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 itīs original position.
Thank you for that. It took way too long, but since it arrived, thatīs water under the bridge.

[Fisherman]

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

[Elamarna]

Okay. Letīs do it your way.

The thigh is NOT the thigh flesh. The Oxford dictionary defines it as "The part of the human leg between the hip and the knee", and that is what we are talking about.

So you are effectively suggesting that Kelly was dismembered.

Shall we go on? Must the mockery go on? Or are we able to do better?

Oh dear the games go on.

I made it very clear the flesh of the upper leg, what is commonly called the thigh was removed, not that the femur was cut.
It seems you are not reading what is actually written.

And still avoiding discussing the issue, the reason behind post 3744, if the lung was still in the room and given that the condition of the lung strongly suggests the tearing was collateral damage, how can it be linked to the actual removal of the lungs in the jackson case.

You accuse others of making a mockery of the case, however it is you my dear Christer who continues to ignore the arguments in favour of semantic games.
You have claimed a link between Kelly and Jackson based on the lungs had been "taken away" in both cases, however you have not been able to establish this link, and to question it is entirely legitimate and indeed required; yet by doing so i am reducing the case to a mockery!

In case you are wondering you used Taken away in post 3703

"How many murders have you heard of where lungs or parts of lungs were taken away?"


Now i fully accept that maybe you have once again poorly worded that to suggest something you did not mean.



Steve

[Fisherman]

Actually my friend you do not do it at all well.

The point of my post 3744 was to highlight your revised use of the word "gone"

The flesh of the upper leg, the thigh is indeed removed.

Steve

Okay. Letīs do it your way.

The thigh is NOT the thigh flesh. The Oxford dictionary defines it as "The part of the human leg between the hip and the knee", and that is what we are talking about.

So you are effectively suggesting that Kelly was dismembered. Stating it as a fact, even: "the thigh is indeed removed".

Shall we go on? Must the mockery go on? Or are we able to do better?

I may add that I do not think that you believe that Kelly was dismembered. But your phrasing implied it, due to a poor choice of wording. That is the real issue here: should we just skip over such things or correct them in a friendly manner - or should we use them to vilify our opponents?

[Elamarna]

Okay, so you are all trying to play little games?

Fine.

------------------------


This, however, will not stop you. You prefer to have your fun.

So why donīt I have some little fun with Steve?

In his post 3744, he writes "Kelly's thighs are certainly gone, is that significant?"

So he obviously believes that Kelly was dismembered. He believes that the thighs were taken away from the trunk. It is, as he puts things himself when speaking about me, "very obvious" that this is his take on things. He writes in no uncertain terms that the thighs are gone.

The truth of the matter is that flesh was taken away from her thighs, not that the thighs themselves were removed.

Of course, it also now becomes apparent that a man with such deplorable insights into anatomy cannot be trusted to post out here. It always follows that if you work from bad information, you will reach bad decisions, and cannot be relied upon. I have that from a very reliable source.

See? I can do the exact same thing that Steve does.

Actually my friend you do not do it at all well.

The point of my post 3744 was to highlight your revised use of the word "gone"

The flesh of the upper leg, the thigh is indeed removed.
It is left in the room, the question was is it significant, as you claim tearing away of the lung was.

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.

Then again, I can instead choose to admit that I do not for a second entertain the idea that he does not know that the thighs were not severed from Kellys body. Just as he is certain that I know that the lung was not taken from the scene, I am certain that he knows that the thighs were not taken from the scene either.

The only difference lies in how I will admit this. I will immediately recognize that a poor wording made things look like something they are not.

How utterly charming.
Admitting that your wordage was poor, however if "gone" was meant as you now claim and has i used in post 3744, there appears to be no linkage via lungs to Jackson.

Lovely long semantic diversion to avoid addressing the core issue of this particular subject. That is was the tearing of a section of lung significant.

I firmly believe that if we can all do that for each other, not only will the world become a better place, but we will also be able to set aside a lot more time for a relevant and useful discussion, instead of wasting time on sheer stupidities.

Now itīs up to you, Steve, Gareth, Herlock, to make your minds up about what you are here to do - to work the case or to make a mockery of it. The choice is yours.

If any of you should sober up - and I hope you do - then I think that an interesting question is "what kind of person will eviscerate and take out organs, cut away nosetips, thigh and buttock flesh, abdominal flesh, cut away faces, sever the limbs from a body and cut the trunk in several sections?"

Those who are into eviscerating donīt normally do this - they open the abdomen up and take what they came for, end of story.

Those who dismember normally only do that, and for practical reasons, end of story. They dont pluck organs out and cut faces away.

Those who disfigure normally only do that. They donīt take organs out and sever limbs.

So what kind of mindset, which types of paraphilia can be at work when we see a combination of all these things? What possible inspiration ground can there be? Which other crimes comes closest to resembling what the combined Ripper/Torso killer did?

We can discuss such matters, or we can discuss gone lung parts and thighs and the underlying semantical implications. Make your choice.

Wouldnt it be great if one could actually look at the thread, you know motive.
But thats not what we have, even in your above comments you state suppositions as facts. And if we dont agree with you we are childish and immature. Worse we are making a mockery of the case according to you.

No i, and i beleive the other two you name are siimply questioning the arguments you present. Or rather challenging the arguments you present as uncontestable fact.
I say uncontestable because this post clear shows that you cannot deal with those arguments being challenged.



Steve