Same motive = same killer

[Sam Flynn]

If you are saying that a cut from ribs to pubes does not lay the abdomen open, then I disagree. It IS laid open, albeit not necessarily to the eye.

The degree to which the abdomens were laid open that is important. The killer almost certainly had more time and privacy with Elizabeth Jackson than he did with Kelly at Miller's Court, but her abdominal wounds sound almost like keyhole surgery in comparison. And what of the other torso victims? Where do we hear about the long, ribs-to-pubis wounds that they endured? Where do we hear about the "large" (i.e. long, narrow) flaps that were cut from their abdomens?

If there was true consistency in the manner in which JTR and the torso killer(s) dissected their victims, we may have grounds to consider that the perpetrators were one and the same person. There is no such consistency, however, in either series.

[RockySullivan]

I´d be happy to discuss that with you if...

if what I stop calling you braindead? I'm an honest man. And don't expect me to not point out when you say something stupid.

[RockySullivan]

Ok fish, for the sake of continuity i won't call you any names anymore. But I'm calling you Surströmming from now on. So no more using name calling as an excuse not to have to explain stuff anymore and back to the topic at arm

[RockySullivan]

Debs, why was it said Liz Jackson might have been killed on the embankment? If the killer were to kill outside around the embankment in this case, it would strike me as odd if the rest of the murders were in indoors. If he killed and dismembered outside around the area he found the victim, well that is very different. Jerry suggested the Whitehall torso could have been dismembered inside the vault.

[drstrange169]

>>... what I have in mind would require a garment that LOOKED like a nightgown, quite simply.<<

Fair enough, though you will have to take into account the fact that none of the people who saw it thought it was a nightgown, so something about it made them all think it was a chemise. Off hand, I'd guess the size of it but, who knows.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: The degree to which the abdomens were laid open that is important.

No, Gareth, once there is a substantial hole made by the removal of flaps of skin and subcutaneous tissue, the exact degree of that hole is completely secondary to the fact that the hole was made in the first place. Are you really arguing like this: "One victim only had 57 per cent of the abdominal wall removed, one had 79 per cent of it removed and one had all of it removed, so that tells us that we are dealing with different cutters"?
Surely, you can see how that is simply not sound?

The killer almost certainly had more time and privacy with Elizabeth Jackson than he did with Kelly at Miller's Court, but her abdominal wounds sound almost like keyhole surgery in comparison.

This goes awfully wrong in three ways. To begin with, you are making a comparison between the amount of time afforded to the killer that cannot be substantiated in any manner; we don´t know how much time was there in either case! To carry on, you have no idea at all about how much of the abdominal wall was removed from Jackson. All we know is that Hebbert said that the flaps taken away were large flaps. They were long, and they WILL be long if they take in both the umbilicus and part of the buttock. And they were irregular in shape. That´s all we know. I can tell you that the flaps from the abdomens of Kelly and Chapman will also have been irregular in shape, unless the killer used a ruler and a scalpel making them.
So this effectively dissolves any idea that we could possibly know that we have some sort of keyhole surgery with Jackson. Can you assert us that more than half of the abdominal wall could not have gone lost? I should think not!
And the third matter where it goes wrong? Have you realized what that is? It is how you make the assumption that the killer would have taken all of the abdominal wall away from all three victims if he had the time. How on earth would that be a given thing?
Once more, look at what Steve Blomer says about the flaps on the other site: He can see no practical reason for them.
Nor can I do so.
And if we cannot see any practical reason for something, what happens then? Well, I for one will reason that there WAS no practical reason. The reason was not a practical one, putting it differently. The killer cut away the abdomen in flaps, but he did not do so to enable access to the organs inside. He did it for another reason.
And if he did not have to cut the abdominal wall away at all, then why would we surmise that there were two killers who both aimed at taking it away in toto, one of them being unable to do so - and the other one being unable in one of the cases where it happened!
Your reasoning here is working from untenable presumptions and coming up with nothing at all, I´m afraid. Least of all any notion that there were two - or three! - killers!

And what of the other torso victims? Where do we hear about the long, ribs-to-pubis wounds that they endured? Where do we hear about the "large" (i.e. long, narrow) flaps that were cut from their abdomens?

Once again, who says that the killer wanted to do these things to all victims? I don´t. Of course, the Rainham victim had the abdomen cut all the way from the opened up sternum down to the pubes and the Pinchin Street victim had a fifteen inch cut from just below the centre of the ribs down into the genitals - but if my thinking is correct, neither NEEDED to have this. The reason for the cutting could just as well express itself in a cut away face, as in 1873.
You seem bitter about how Hebbert spoke of long AND large flaps? And once again, you try to introduce "narrow" which he never wrote? I think the time has come to accept that a flap can be both long and large without being narrow.
Being frustrated by the facts was never any good.

If there was true consistency in the manner in which JTR and the torso killer(s) dissected their victims, we may have grounds to consider that the perpetrators were one and the same person. There is no such consistency, however, in either series.

There are quite enough of overlapping elements to make the call with no hesitation at all. And as I have been telling you, there is a ritual element involved that - once we see it - glues the cases together in an even clearer way. This element can be expressed in many ways, not only by cutting into abdomens. In fact, that does not need to happen to have the element represented! I am of course not disclosing that element right now, and I really don´t have to: there is more than enough to make the call even without it.

[Fisherman]

if what I stop calling you braindead? I'm an honest man. And don't expect me to not point out when you say something stupid.

You are quite entitled to point out when you think I am wrong - tht is, after all, what debates are for. You are not, however, entitled to call me names - not in my world, at least. Alas, this is the internet and the internet is very forgiving about such behaviour. Therefore, it is up to anybody to take whatever step we find reasonable to provide a useful debating atmosphere.

That is why I am not debating with you until you either apologize for your behaviour or promise that it will not be repeated.

[Fisherman]

Ok fish, for the sake of continuity i won't call you any names anymore. But I'm calling you Surströmming from now on. So no more using name calling as an excuse not to have to explain stuff anymore and back to the topic at arm

Maybe we can get cosy and start calling each other funny names in the future, Rocky - but not now. So if you want me to answer your posts, you need to refrain from any namecalling. Fisherman or Christer is what you can use, or - should you feel solemn, Mr Holmgren. You can even use Fish as many people do, and I will be fine with that.
Suggesting that I need any excuse to avoid a debate with you is no good idea at all when in fact it is you who are disenabling that debate.

You are very close now. Drop the surströmming, accept what I say and you will be there. Believe me, you don´t want to hang onto a surströmming too closely in any case.

[Fisherman]

>>... what I have in mind would require a garment that LOOKED like a nightgown, quite simply.<<

Fair enough, though you will have to take into account the fact that none of the people who saw it thought it was a nightgown, so something about it made them all think it was a chemise. Off hand, I'd guess the size of it but, who knows.

The size was normally down to knee height, I am given to understand. And that would probably do just fine. The problem is that I cannot ask the killer whether HE would think it worked for HIM in the context I am thinking of. If he said "No, that won´t do", then I am out. If he said "That will do nicely", then I am correct.
The one and only thing I can say is that I don´t rule out in any way that the chemise may have played the role I have in mind for it.

[Sam Flynn]

Sorry, Fish, but there's a WORLD of difference between laying the ENTIRE abdomen open (Kelly) and cutting a slot in the abdomen (Jackson).

[Fisherman]

Sorry, Fish, but there's a WORLD of difference between laying the ENTIRE abdomen open (Kelly) and cutting a slot in the abdomen (Jackson).

And just how do you know that the damage to Jacksons abdomen was a "slot" only?

You are making that up, sadly it is that simple. On no factual grounds at all!

I was fearing that we would reach this stage, and now we are here.

Tell me on what grounds you can rule out that 50-75 per cent of the abdominal wall was taken away, and I will listen to you.

Alternatively, admit that there is no way you can do that.

Could the flaps from Jacksons belly potentially have been roughly 30-35 centimeters long and 10 centimeters wide, Gareth? Is that possible? And would that fit "large" and "long", or would it not? I will be interested to hear your answer.

[Sam Flynn]

And just how do you know that the damage to Jacksons abdomen was a "slot" only?

You are making that up, sadly it is that simple. On no factual grounds at all!

"Two long, irregular slips of flesh". I'm not making anything up.

Call it a "slot", a "window" or a "panel" if you will, but the fact remains that her abdomen was definitely not laid open, as was the case with Kelly.

[Sam Flynn]

Could the flaps from Jacksons belly potentially have been roughly 30-35 centimeters long and 10 centimeters wide, Gareth? Is that possible? And would that fit "large" and "long", or would it not?

Two narrow slips (i.e. strips) of flesh do not give you a Miller's Court scenario, and probably not a Hanbury St scenario either. Certainly it doesn't give you a Bucks Row or Mitre Square scenario, because no slips, strips or flaps were involved there.

[Trevor Marriott]

And just how do you know that the damage to Jacksons abdomen was a "slot" only?

You are making that up, sadly it is that simple. On no factual grounds at all!

I was fearing that we would reach this stage, and now we are here.

Tell me on what grounds you can rule out that 50-75 per cent of the abdominal wall was taken away, and I will listen to you.

Alternatively, admit that there is no way you can do that.

Could the flaps from Jacksons belly potentially have been roughly 30-35 centimeters long and 10 centimeters wide, Gareth? Is that possible? And would that fit "large" and "long", or would it not? I will be interested to hear your answer.

I have just posted this on JTR and it is relevant here also

Playing devils advocate here.

Look at it from a practical point of view the killer has a body presumably lying flat on their back. If he wants to get into the abdomen how does he start. He sticks a sharp knife into the abdominal area starting off either at the base of the sternum or around the waist area, either way he draws the knife up or down to create an opening. He doesnt need to cut away skin to do this.

So he has now made an opening but it is perhaps not big enough for his purpose. So how does he make it bigger. One way would for him to make other cuts either side of his first and then draw down or up and then this would enable him to get into the abdomen. But more importantly it would leave two large flaps of skin which would be detached.

I think it was the Jackson Torso where the body parts were found also wrapped in a parcel, does this make sense to those suggesting the killer killed, and wanted organs, No it suggest someone wanted to dispose of the whole body, parts and all.

Another important quote from Dr Biggs a modern day forensic patholgist after reviewing the torsos evidence

"I don't think (from what I have read) that there are sufficient similarities between the cases to conclude that the same 'killer' dismembered the bodies."

For those who want to read in full what Dr Biggs says in relation to the WM and the Torsos. The full interviews can be found in http://www.trevormarriott.co.uk/jack-ripper-real-truth/

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: "Two long, irregular slips of flesh". I'm not making anything up.

No, you are not making THAT up - you are of course forgetting to add "large" to make the picture full, but that was probably to be expected.

Call it a "slot", a "window" or a "panel" if you will, but the fact remains that her abdomen was definitely not laid open, as was the case with Kelly.

That is not a fact at all, I´m afraid, and you have reentered the making stuff up-business by saying so. BOTH women were laid open, but probably to varying extents (it is nowhere said that the whole of the abdomen was not laid open in the Jackson case, so who knows?)
And I don´t have to call it a slot, a window or a panel - Hebbert called them flaps of skin and subcutaneous tissue, large, long and irregular. Whatever other name we use for them will potentially be indicative of our wish to reshape them.

Any which way, we are talking about how some sort of windows were opened up in the abdomens of both women. And like I said, you will not be able to disprove that the flaps from Jackson were 35 by 10 centimeters each, which would open her up just about totally.

What we cannot know, we should never present as facts.