Same motive = same killer

[Kattrup]

It unfortunatly appears you do understand the implications.

I presume you mean “you do NOT”. Otherwise, Excellent post

[Elamarna]

As i said i know the anatomical implications. And as I said, when I wrote that the lung part was taken away, I meant that it was removed from itīs original place. And as I said, I know perfectly well what I mean when I say something..

It unfortunatly appears you do not understand the implications.

The report merely says "broken and torn away" it does not say removed. You have repeated used the word "gone". In post 3711 you posted:


"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."

This implies the lung was gone from the scene as were the hearts of Kelly and Jackson.
What you said is abudently clear to any who care to read it.

Now you say you meant gone from its original location. Unfortunately even that is not clear.
Please supply evidence to support the lung section was gone from its originial position?

I am in no way suprised that instead of accepting what I say, you prefer to claim that I was misleading.

It establishes what kind of game you are playing in a very clear manner. "Unbecoming" is a term that springs to mind.

Now, try and debate the issues in themselves instead of trying to score cheap points. The case before the pettyminded attacks, please.

I have not actually accused you of misleading, just misunderstanding.


Its not about scoring cheap or non cheap points, it abouts making statements that are over the top and cannot be supported by the evidence.
It is not a personal attack to say:

"The lack of sound anatomic knowledge displayed by some of the comments inevitability leads to these unsupported ideas."

Its merely a reflection that if one uses inaccurate information one will end up reaching the wrong conclusion.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Ah i see, we cannot understand the deep meanings in your posts, which only you know.

Please Christer, if you suggest something is possible it is a claim by definition.

Hearing something my friend is very different from understanding it.

The quotes i gave in post 3707 make it very clear that the condition of Kelly's lung made the possability of tearing at the bottom of the lungs if attempt to remove the heart via the diaphragm not only likely but very probable..

Steve

Yes, I am sure you "see".

If you take a look at when I say that it is not only possible but very probable that we had just the one killer, you will get a prime example of how that is worth out here.

As I said, I know the anatomical implications. And as I said, when I wrote that the lung part was taken away, I meant that it was removed from itīs original place. And as I said, I know perfectly well what I mean when I say something.

I am in no way suprised that instead of accepting what I say, you prefer to claim that I was misleading.

It establishes what kind of game you are playing in a very clear manner. "Unbecoming" is a term that springs to mind.

Now, try and debate the issues in themselves instead of trying to score cheap points. The case before the pettyminded attacks, please.

[Fisherman]

I didn't in my original post, where I mentioned the longitudinal cut down the thorax - I must have inadvertently deleted it when I edited my post.

The last time I looked, you didnīt even acknowledge itīs existence, so Iīm happy to hear this.

To extract the organs more easily, to make the chopped-up section of body lighter and prevent the bits from slopping out and/or rotting and stinking up the place.

But he didnīt cut the Pinchin Street body in three as he did with Jackson. If he was set on making it lighter to carry, why was this? And why did he leave a leg attached to the 1874 torso?
It falls apart at the seams when we look closer at your suggestions. This man was a mutilator and an eviscerator and that is why he took organs out. But he was more than that, so he cut the odd nosetip off and he cut away arms and legs, and he sometimes parted a body in many pieces.

The similarities will not go away. And we are not dealing woth the most freakish case of two killers on the same ground in the same time doing the same odd things to their victims. We have one killer, just like logic dictates. It is not a hard case to solve in that respect. All that remains to add is the name of the perp. It will be somebody who was born early enough to be a viable suggestion for the 1873 deed, which mirrors the Kelly deed more than any of the other slayings.

It may be significant, in that context, that the two cases in question happened in late Spring/early Summer. I can tell you from personal experience that lungs, if unpreserved, can start to smell truly awful in a short time. As a teenager, I used my father's connections with the butchery trade to get animal organs to dissect in the Summer holidays. Not that I was a weirdo, you understand - I was studying biology at the time, and it was by far my favourite subject at school.

I know that you are not a weirdo, Gareth - not THAT kind of a weirdo, anyhow. And I know the smell of rotting flesh in hot conditions. I just donīt think that was ever an issue for our man. I bet he was very much in control about what he did. Just a feeling, but there you are.

I'm having no trouble at all. My explanations are entirely pragmatic and, I wouldn't mind betting, not a million miles away from what actually happened.

We really should not try to come up with a dozen explanations, Gareth. When the similarities are that many, we go the other way: "Oh, alright, itīs quite obvious that there was just the one killer".
And much as I do not want to dishearten you, I donīt think you have the first clue about what the combined killer was really about. If you did, you would agree with me.

[Elamarna]

Donīt tell me what I claim. I know what I claim. You donīt.

I am perfectly aware of the many possible anatomical implications. I have heard all of them before.

You flatter yourself too much, Steve.

Ah i see, we cannot understand the deep meanings in your posts, which only you know.

Please Christer, if you suggest something is possible it is a claim by definition.

Hearing something my friend is very different from understanding it.

The quotes i gave in post 3707 make it very clear that the condition of Kelly's lung made the possability of tearing at the bottom of the lungs if attempt to remove the heart via the diaphragm not only likely but very probable..




Steve

[Fisherman]

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

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You cannot tell the two series apart for that reason, Trevor. Try as you might.

[Fisherman]

Dear Christer,

You have clearly implied by the use of "taken away" that the body was removed from the scene, as you compare it to the heart of kelly..

The heart according to most, with Trevor the notable exception, was indeed gone from the scene.
you claim the same for a section of lung, please provide evidence to support this suggestion.

A lack of evidence means its just another bit of imaginitive theorizing.

Your suggestion that the heart may have been taken as part of wanting to remove the lungs is actually funny. If he had wanted to remove the lungs he could have via the diaphragm , he did not so it follows that was not the intention.
Collatoral damage to the lung while removing the lung is not only feasabile but extremely probably given the condition of the lungs as reported.

The lack of sound anatomic knowledge displayed by some of the comments inevitability leads to these unsupported ideas.




Steve

Donīt tell me what I claim. I know what I claim. You donīt.

I am perfectly aware of the many possible anatomical implications. I have heard all of them before.

You flatter yourself too much, Steve.

[Sam Flynn]

You forget that the thorax was also opened up all the way down the front.

I didn't in my original post, where I mentioned the longitudinal cut down the thorax - I must have inadvertently deleted it when I edited my post.

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?

To extract the organs more easily, to make the chopped-up section of body lighter and prevent the bits from slopping out and/or rotting and stinking up the place.

It may be significant, in that context, that the two cases in question happened in late Spring/early Summer. I can tell you from personal experience that lungs, if unpreserved, can start to smell truly awful in a short time. As a teenager, I used my father's connections with the butchery trade to get animal organs to dissect in the Summer holidays. Not that I was a weirdo, you understand - I was studying biology at the time, and it was by far my favourite subject at school.

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.

I'm having no trouble at all. My explanations are entirely pragmatic and, I wouldn't mind betting, not a million miles away from what actually happened.

[Elamarna]

"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?

Dear Christer,

You have clearly implied by the use of "taken away" that the body was removed from the scene, as you compare it to the heart of kelly..

The heart according to most, with Trevor the notable exception, was indeed gone from the scene.
you claim the same for a section of lung, please provide evidence to support this suggestion.

A lack of evidence means its just another bit of imaginitive theorizing.

Your suggestion that the heart may have been taken as part of wanting to remove the lungs is actually funny. If he had wanted to remove the lungs he could have via the diaphragm , he did not so it follows that was not the intention.
Collatoral damage to the lung while removing the lung is not only feasabile but extremely probably given the condition of the lungs as reported.

The lack of sound anatomic knowledge displayed by some of the comments inevitability leads to these unsupported ideas.




Steve

[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

[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.

[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]

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.

[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]

To use a tennis analogy:

“Advantage Gareth and Steve “

To use another one: "Oooops, missed".