Same motive = same killer

[Fisherman]

Abby, details about the knife /saw techniques were not reported anywhere, and I doubt that they were even noted . The forensic techniques required to analyse knife or saw marks did not emerge until the 20th century. It's unlikely that Tait spoke to any of the doctors, because they were based in a different part of the country, and it's pretty certain that he wouldn't have spoken to all of them and, if the local doctors who actually examined (some of) the wounds didn't come to a consensus as to JTR and TK being one and the same, how on earth could Tait?

There does not have to be a consensus for somebody to believe in something. Different people make different interpretations of different matters, and some will arrive at conclusions opposed to those of others - that may nevertheless be spot on anyway.

I think the time has come for you to admit that you do not have a scintilla of knowledge about who Tait spoke to and about what. And it is not about what was noted, it is about what a fellow medico was able to tell you. A pattern of cutting that was consistent with how the London butchers cut could well have been spoken about, for example - we simply cannot tell.

What we can tell is that there are numerous factors pointing to a shared identity between the two killers, some of them of so peculiar and rare a character that they cannot be dismissed lightheartedly. I will leave you for now with a 2015 quotation from the late Richard Whittington-Egan:

"There was a contemporary tendency to link the later Thames murders with Jack the Ripper. It has been said that there was absolutely no justification for this; it was just anther expression of the overwhelming obsession with Saucy Jacky that held the population in its stranglehold. Nevertheless, that the killings and mutilations of 87, 88 and 89 were the work of one pair of hands, a single killer, does seem possible, even extremely likely."

There´s another armchair detective for you, Gareth. Why would he say that, if he wasn´t aware of any contemporary consensus? Is he thinking on his own...?

[Sam Flynn]

Adjectives like "jagged" or "deep" are not sufficient to give any insight at all as to whether a butcher inflicted the wounds or not. Yet, not only does Tait claim this, he even purports to know about which school of butchery the killer belonged!

And does that imply a thorough or a lacking insight into the character of the wounds?

It implies a certain naivete or arrogance on Tait's part, if anything.

"What kind of wounds were they?" (assuming he asked someone who was actually there)
"They were deep and jagged, sir"
"Then he was without doubt a London butcher!"


... not so fast, Doctor Tait.

[Fisherman]

It implies a certain naivete or arrogance on Tait's part, if anything.

"What kind of wounds were they?" (assuming he asked someone who was actually there)
"They were deep and jagged, sir"
"Then he was without doubt a London butcher!"


... not so fast, Doctor Tait.

But that is just useless, isn´t it, Gareth? You invent a scenario in which the foremost gynecologist of his era is put forward as a completely asinine person.

What if I write another story, where he asks all the right questions and gets all the crucial answers? Is that how we assess things? By conjuring up something that fits our own notions?

Is kindergarten stuff, Gareth. And kind of shameful.

[Sam Flynn]

Regardless of WHICH cuts he was referring to, it applies that there are often very large dissimilarities inbetween how butchers learn to cut in different cities and regions. The folowing excerpt is about Mexican butchery, but with any luck, you will catch my drift

"Regional and even local variations". So why would there not be such regional and even local variations in how butchers from different cities cut to disarticulate? How they cut out innards? How they cut a neck? Or anything else?

Whilst Mexican butchers might vary from region to region, I doubt that the same applied to Britain. Even if it did, it would have been quite a specialised field of interest, and I fail to see how Dr Tait could have been that well-versed in it, to the extent where he "knew" that London butchers cuts looked different to those of Edinburgh or Dublin. And, unless it was recorded exactly how these cuts appeared, there was no way on earth that Tait could have obtained such detail on which to base his opinion.

So, did those on the ground record exactly how these cuts looked, to the extent that a butcher's style could be discerned by an expert in such things? The short answer is "no". Unless Llewellyn, Phillips, Brown et al were aware that butchers had regional "signatures", they wouldn't have been looking out for them in the first place, nor would they have been equipped to read any significance into the wounds from that perspective without having a "forensic butcher" at hand to impart his expertise.

Yet, our man Tait decides that the killer of the JTR and Torso victims was one and the same person, and that he was definitely a butcher from London. Like I say, it might be arrogance or naivete on Tait's part, but it sure ain't science.

[Sam Flynn]

I think the time has come for you to admit that you do not have a scintilla of knowledge about who Tait spoke to and about what.

Hold on there, Bald Eagle! You're the one who threw Tait into the mix, so you can jolly-well justify why we should believe that this Birmingham-based doctor received any inside information from any of the London-based doctors who worked on the Ripper case.

And it is not about what was noted, it is about what a fellow medico was able to tell you. A pattern of cutting that was consistent with how the London butchers cut could well have been spoken about, for example - we simply cannot tell.

The torso limbs were differently cut from case to case, and it's not as if they were even presented like joints of meat; if they had, I'm sure this would have been commented on. Of course, we know all about the differences between each Ripper case, and we know all about the varying levels of detail and quality in how the doctors involved reported the wounds.

"Consistent with London butchers"? Nowadays, a joint of beef or leg of lamb looks pretty much the same from Land's End to John o'Groats, and it's a fair bet that the same applied in the Victorian era. I doubt very much that there would have been specialists around back then (or even today) who could ID the origin of a joint of meat simply by looking at how it was cut.

I will leave you for now with a 2015 quotation from the late Richard Whittington-Egan... There´s another armchair detective for you, Gareth. Why would he say that, if he wasn´t aware of any contemporary consensus? Is he thinking on his own...?

Did RWE see the wounds? Did RWE see the knife-marks in the flesh? Could RWE have noted (e.g.) any serrations left in the flesh by the knife, or determined the width and depth of the blade? Could RWE have ascertained which type of saw was used and in which manner? Was RWE an expert in the regional practices of butchers across the UK?

Of course he couldn't, and of course my questions with regard to Richard Whittington-Egan are entirely rhetorical. However, substitute "Dr Tait" for "RWE" in the above and ask yourself - how on earth could Tait have got hold of this information and, in the absence of such information, how could he have arrived at anything like an informed conclusion on such matters?

[Michael W Richards]

My opinion in that regard has less to do with Phillips, than with a triangulation of the evidence provided by John Richardson, Elizabeth Long and Albert Cadoche.

Give me Doctors Phillips, Blackwell, Sequeira, Brown and Bond before Dr Tait any day of the week. At least the first five guys were actually there.

On TOD Id agree Sam, evidence suggests she was killed when Cadosche heard the cry from the other side of the fence.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: Whilst Mexican butchers might vary from region to region, I doubt that the same applied to Britain.

Do you now? I don´t. I know it applies back here in Sweden, and Tait implicated that it was exactly the same in your country, so I am much inclined to think that he knew precisely what he was talking about.
You seem to have all sorts of misgivings about that, though. ALL sorts.

Even if it did, it would have been quite a specialised field of interest, and I fail to see how Dr Tait could have been that well-versed in it, to the extent where he "knew" that London butchers cuts looked different to those of Edinburgh or Dublin.

And I have told you before - but don´t mind rubbing it in - that he need not have had any such knowledge at all. If he had a contact who was able to explain it to him, that would be quite enough. It would be as if a physics expert had a friend who said "Black holes? What is that?", and then the physics expert kindly explained it.
Can you see how that would work? Tait does not know about regional cutting differences within the butchery business, but he has a friend/contact/aquaintance who DOES (filling out the physics expert´s role from the former example, as it were), and who tells him about it.

And, unless it was recorded exactly how these cuts appeared, there was no way on earth that Tait could have obtained such detail on which to base his opinion.

And - as I have ALSO told you before - if Tait spoke to one of the medicos who knew the exact shape of the wounds, this would not be a problem. Why is it that you cannot understand that? Is it too hard a concept?

So, did those on the ground record exactly how these cuts looked, to the extent that a butcher's style could be discerned by an expert in such things?

It´s either that, or Tait was fabling.

The short answer is "no".

YOUR short answer is "no" whenever it is suggested that the two murder series were connected. You have sold out/burnt/thrown out/dump deposited whatever credibility you had long ago.

Unless Llewellyn, Phillips, Brown et al were aware that butchers had regional "signatures", they wouldn't have been looking out for them in the first place, nor would they have been equipped to read any significance into the wounds from that perspective without having a "forensic butcher" at hand to impart his expertise.

Let´s try again. Tait speaks to Dr X. Dr X tells him what the wounds were like. Tait knows the traits of butchers - problem solved.
Alternatively, Tait knows a Mr Y, who is aware of how different butchers from different regions go about their business. Tait, thinking and having heard that a butcher can be responsible, speaks to Mt Y and asks him about the business, whereupon Mr Y says "Oh, so the cutting was done like that? Interesting, because that is precisely hw London butchers - but not the rest of the butchers - do things. Problem solved.

Your comprehension problems are probably NOT solved, though. So I shall probably have to go over all of this again.

Yet, our man Tait decides that the killer of the JTR and Torso victims was one and the same person, and that he was definitely a butcher from London. Like I say, it might be arrogance or naivete on Tait's part, but it sure ain't science.

As I have told you before - you don´t know. You have absolutley no idea on what information Lawson Tait reached his stance, will you please admit that? If you won´t, please provide conclusive proof listing the material he used. Speak up, please!

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: Hold on there, Bald Eagle! You're the one who threw Tait into the mix, so you can jolly-well justify why we should believe that this Birmingham-based doctor received any inside information from any of the London-based doctors who worked on the Ripper case.

But I am the one saying that Lawson Tait may have been well informed and correct. You are the one saying that this could not be so. Therefore, YOU are the one provideing untenable certainties, whereas I am accepting that a bid from the top gynecologist of his era may have something to it.
And I´m only slightly balding, not completely bald at all.

The torso limbs were differently cut from case to case, and it's not as if they were even presented like joints of meat; if they had, I'm sure this would have been commented on. Of course, we know all about the differences between each Ripper case, and we know all about the varying levels of detail and quality in how the doctors involved reported the wounds.

But we DON´T know what it was that made Tait think that a London butcher was responsible. We only know that he did and that he was a very informed man, generally speaking.

"Consistent with London butchers"? Nowadays, a joint of beef or leg of lamb looks pretty much the same from Land's End to John o'Groats, and it's a fair bet that the same applied in the Victorian era. I doubt very much that there would have been specialists around back then (or even today) who could ID the origin of a joint of meat simply by looking at how it was cut.

You will - on no evidence at all - doubt anything that points to a shared identity between the perpetrators of the two series, so it´s little surprise that you do it again here.

Did RWE see the wounds? Did RWE see the knife-marks in the flesh? Could RWE have noted (e.g.) any serrations left in the flesh by the knife, or determined the width and depth of the blade? Could RWE have ascertained which type of saw was used and in which manner? Was RWE an expert in the regional practices of butchers across the UK?

Of course he couldn't, and of course my questions with regard to Richard Whittington-Egan are entirely rhetorical. However, substitute "Dr Tait" for "RWE" in the above and ask yourself - how on earth could Tait have got hold of this information and, in the absence of such information, how could he have arrived at anything like an informed conclusion on such matters?

The two reasonably concluded what they did from different information, so you are rambling rather badly here. And I have explained how Tait can have gotten the information. Three times, in fact. Or four, I am losing count. And the will to live along with it.

[Abby Normal]

Hold on there, Bald Eagle! You're the one who threw Tait into the mix, so you can jolly-well justify why we should believe that this Birmingham-based doctor received any inside information from any of the London-based doctors who worked on the Ripper case.The torso limbs were differently cut from case to case, and it's not as if they were even presented like joints of meat; if they had, I'm sure this would have been commented on. Of course, we know all about the differences between each Ripper case, and we know all about the varying levels of detail and quality in how the doctors involved reported the wounds.

"Consistent with London butchers"? Nowadays, a joint of beef or leg of lamb looks pretty much the same from Land's End to John o'Groats, and it's a fair bet that the same applied in the Victorian era. I doubt very much that there would have been specialists around back then (or even today) who could ID the origin of a joint of meat simply by looking at how it was cut.Did RWE see the wounds? Did RWE see the knife-marks in the flesh? Could RWE have noted (e.g.) any serrations left in the flesh by the knife, or determined the width and depth of the blade? Could RWE have ascertained which type of saw was used and in which manner? Was RWE an expert in the regional practices of butchers across the UK?

Of course he couldn't, and of course my questions with regard to Richard Whittington-Egan are entirely rhetorical. However, substitute "Dr Tait" for "RWE" in the above and ask yourself - how on earth could Tait have got hold of this information and, in the absence of such information, how could he have arrived at anything like an informed conclusion on such matters?

sam
so tait has to actually see the wounds on the victims of torso man and the ripper to make any kind of statement on there nature or similarities?

and RWE??

does that go for Debra Arif and Fish and everyone else whos ever looked into it and said anything about it?

Its absurd Sam.


Then alternatively I guess you and everyone whos arguing against the torso series being the same man or the torso and ripper series being the same man need to keep quiet too then-since you know-you haven't actually seen the wounds either.

and I guess with this reasoning no one who saw the wounds on any of the ripper victims can try to say anything about similarities between them and being from the same man.

its mind boggling.

[Fisherman]

This is for you, Gareth. It is from the site

http://www.foodrepublic.com/2017/07/20/evolution-of-british-butchers/

and touches on what is gleaned in the name of the link - the evolution of butchery in Britain. It is written by knife specialist Tim Hayward, and in it, it says:

Techniques of butchery don’t just vary internationally. Even across the UK, different cutting plans developed in different regional meat markets. The arcane vocabulary of chumps, chucks, featherblades and fillets historically had subtly different meanings across the country.

Not Mexico. Britain. Just as I said would be the case. And don´t come and tell me that the victims were not made up of chumps, chucks and fillets, because that is not the point. The point is that we now have it in black on white that the techniques of butchery evinces regional dissimilarities across Britain.

Don´t thank me, it was a pleasure to take you out of your misconception. Never try and take the piss on people with a decade and a half of researching media sources behind them. Regardless if they are balding or not.

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Abby

so tait has to actually see the wounds on the victims of torso man and the ripper to make any kind of statement on there nature or similarities?

But he isn't just doing that. He says that the way in which London butchers cut meat is distinguishable from butchers elsewhere in the UK, which is in itself debatable, and that from this he can say that the perp was a London butcher or slaughterman. Unless he had specific information about how the torso victims or JTR victims were cut up, how on earth could he have determined whether the person who did it was a London butcher?

Head cut off... arms cut off... legs cut off... arms and legs cut off... arm pulled out of socket... hands cut off... feet cut off... etc

That's about the level of detail we have about how the torso victims were "jointed", which is nowhere near enough information to forensically identify the perpetrator as a London butcher - if, indeed, that would be possible with even more information available. Tait was evidently overstating his case, and there's nothing to suggest that he had any further inside info that would have equipped him to reach any definitive conclusion.

[Sam Flynn]

does that go for Debra Arif and Fish and everyone else whos ever looked into it and said anything about it?

Not at all, it just puts Debs, Fish, you and me in the same boat as Dr Tait... except that, in terms of the details of the cases, we are probably better informed than Tait ever could have been. He may have been a doctor, but he was a Birmingham doctor who probably got his info from the Times and/or Telegraph, with one or two (sensational) editorials in The Lancet thrown in for good measure. We have those, too, but in addition we have many more resources at our fingertips - far more than any individual in the LVP would have had - and 129 more years of scientific, historical and criminological research to inform our analysis.

[Fisherman]

Not at all, it just puts Debs, Fish, you and me in the same boat as Dr Tait... except that, in terms of the details of the cases, we are probably better informed than Tait ever could have been. He may have been a doctor, but he was a Birmingham doctor who probably got his info from the Times and/or Telegraph, with one or two (sensational) editorials in The Lancet thrown in for good measure. We have those, too, but in addition we have many more resources at our fingertips - far more than any individual in the LVP would have had - and 129 more years of scientific, historical and criminological research to inform our analysis.

That´s the long and the short of it, is it not? "We are probably better informed that Tait could ever have been". Probably, eh?

Let me tell you that if Tait discussed the case thoroughly with the ones who had made the medical assessments, then HE would have been infinitely better informed about that material than WE can ever hope to be.

It´s a story of possibilities, Gareth, and it always was. The whole case. And the worst thing we can do is to throw those possibilities overboard.

That is what the "informed" community of Ripperologists chose to do with the idea that the two murder series could be related, and the suggestion was firmly fixed to the bottom of the sea for decades.

It´s time to wake up now.

Goodnight.

[Sam Flynn]

That´s the long and the short of it, is it not? "We are probably better informed that Tait could ever have been". Probably, eh?

I was trying to be balanced, Fish. If that's not to your taste, then what I mean is "We ARE better informed than Tait could ever have been".

Fixed that for you.

Let me tell you that if Tait discussed the case thoroughly with the ones who had made the medical assessments, then HE would have been infinitely better informed about that material than WE can ever hope to be.

Did he, though? He doesn't claim to have; isn't he reported in that Utah newspaper article that he "keenly followed" the case, or words to that effect? Being a keen follower doesn't mean he spoke with one, never mind all, the medics directly involved in the JTR and torso cases. Even if he did, then they surely wouldn't have preserved such detailed information about the nature of the cuts, knives/saws used to the extent where Tait could assert that there was one killer, and that he was a London butcher, to boot. The bodies were long buried, so there's no way that he could have examined the wounds himself.

It's time to wake up, now.

Indeed. I hope you had a restful sleep.

[MrBarnett]

sam
so tait has to actually see the wounds on the victims of torso man and the ripper to make any kind of statement on there nature or similarities?

and RWE??

does that go for Debra Arif and Fish and everyone else whos ever looked into it and said anything about it?

Its absurd Sam.


Then alternatively I guess you and everyone whos arguing against the torso series being the same man or the torso and ripper series being the same man need to keep quiet too then-since you know-you haven't actually seen the wounds either.

and I guess with this reasoning no one who saw the wounds on any of the ripper victims can try to say anything about similarities between them and being from the same man.

its mind boggling.

What is mind-boggling is the hypocrisy of this post and the extent to which you misrepresent Gareth's position.

Elsewhere you described those who opposed Gareth's views as 'buffoons' and 'clowns'. Over here in your little comfort bubble you are gleefully throwing around words like 'absurd' 'ridiculous' and 'mind-boggling' while, presumably deliberately, misquoting him.

Gareth did not say or imply that Tait had ' to see the wounds on the bodies to be able to make any kind of statement on there (sic) nature and similarities'. What he asked was how, not having seen the wounds himself he 'could have arrived at anything like an informed conclusion on such matters.'

You do see the difference, don't you? I'll leave it to your obviously well-developed sense of fair play to decide whether you retract your comments and issue an apology to Gareth.

Personally, I would find it ridiculous, absurd and mind-boggling for anyone to deny that a physician who had personally examined the injuries would be in a far better position to draw conclusions about their origins than someone who had merely read a report.