Same motive = same killer

[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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

To use a tennis analogy:

“Advantage Gareth and Steve “

[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.

[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?

[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

[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]

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]

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

[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]

I donīt care what you think. It is a FACT that lungs or parts of them were removed in both series. Whether Kellys lung removal does not mimick the ones in the torso series is neither here nor there - in her case, the killer reached up from below and took the lung part out, and there is every reason to think that he opted for the whole lung but had to settle for less due to how it was hard to remove.
It also applies that we donīt know how the Torso killer took Jacksons lungs out, we only know that he removed them, meaning - as far as I understand - that they could have been torn out too.
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?
THAT is a much more pertinent question, although you are trying to sweep it under the carpet. BOTH KILLERS WERE LUNG-TAKERS, GARETH! Deal with it.

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

[Fisherman]

Might I suggest that the torso victims may have been lying face down when the head was removed.It is a 50/50 possibility.Such a situation is a point of dissimilar activity.Takes away the argument that the throat wounds were the same.What is the great Wizard's thoughts on that?

I can only give you MY thoughts, Harry - although I am generally speaking disinclined to speak to you at all.

It is your SUGGESTION that the victims were face down. That does not make it a truth and a fact that you can use to say that it was dissimilar to the Ripper series. So it does not take any argument away other than in your dreams. The Torso killer may just as well have cut the neck Ripper style to kill, and then - long after that - he can have proceeded to sever the spine.

Suggest away, by all means, but donīt get all hot about how you think a suggestion will morph into a fact.

[Fisherman]

Missed this one earlier, but it's another example of over-generalisation to make the evidence fit a theory. One torso victim had both lungs removed, evidently because the perpetrator wanted to empty her chest cavity. This could have been for a number of reasons (more than likely practical ones), but it's quite clear that the removal of the lungs in the torso case was deliberate and total. This is nothing like what happened to Kelly, who only had part of one lobe of one lung torn - not "taken" - away, evidently as a by-product of her killer's intention to get at her heart from below.

I donīt care what you think. It is a FACT that lungs or parts of them were removed in both series. Whether Kellys lung removal does not mimick the ones in the torso series is neither here nor there - in her case, the killer reached up from below and took the lung part out, and there is every reason to think that he opted for the whole lung but had to settle for less due to how it was hard to remove.
It also applies that we donīt know how the Torso killer took Jacksons lungs out, we only know that he removed them, meaning - as far as I understand - that they could have been torn out too.
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?
THAT is a much more pertinent question, although you are trying to sweep it under the carpet. BOTH KILLERS WERE LUNG-TAKERS, GARETH! Deal with it.

[Fisherman]

No I'm correct. All you do is twist things to fit your crappy theories Fisherman. Most regular poster realise this and regard you as nothing more than a joke.

Well, Iīd never describe you as a joke. I have humour.

[Fisherman]

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrr rrrrrrrrrrggggghhhhhhhh!!!

A more haemorrhoidal person I've never met in my life.

Oh, I think Iīve prepared you that I - just like Thomas Bond did - will point out that the neck was cut and not just the throat.

[Sam Flynn]

Might I suggest that the torso victims may have been lying face down when the head was removed.It is a 50/50 possibility.

It's possibly rather more than 50:50, Harry, if a saw was used. Confucius he say: "It's easier to slice a loaf of bread from the firm crust to the soft bottom, than the other way around".