Same motive = same killer

[Fisherman]

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.

The word narrow was never used. The word large was. And long. A slip can be of very many different sizes. The slip of your tongue when you say "narrow" in this context, for example, is huge.

[Sam Flynn]

The word narrow was never used. The word large was. And long. A slip can be of very many different sizes. The slip of your tongue when you say "narrow" in this context, for example, is huge.

No, a "slip" is another word for a "strip". The definition of a strip is "a long, narrow piece" (Cambridge online dictionary), and, from the Collins Dictionary, "A strip of something such as paper, cloth, or food is a long, narrow piece of it".

[Fisherman]

What must be understood is that the extent to which these things are done is always subordinate to the fact that they ARE done. As I keep saying, the practice is a million times more important than the extent.

Let´s try another angle, another example:

In A-town, three women are found murdered. Victim number one is found strangled in her own home, victim number two is found shot to death in a garage and victim number three is found stabbed to death in the open street.

How will the police reason? They will reason like this:

Nothing in the surrounding circumstances speaks of a single killer being repsonsible. However, if there is a significant rise in the homicide levels, the police will be alert about the possibility of a connection.

Now, add an ingredient: all the victims were found with a buttock, or part of a buttock, cut away. In the first case, all of the left buttock was cut away in three sections that were left at the crime scene, in the second, seventy per cent of the right buttock was cut away in four parts, mainly to the right hand side of the buttock, and left at the crime scene and in the third case, the mid-section of the left buttock was cut away in two long, parallel parts, leaving half of the buttock missing. In this case, the parts were not left at the crime scene, but instead found dumped in an adjoining street.

What will the police make of that? Probably three killers, who coincidentally happened to cut away buttocks? Or definitely one and the same killer, with a very specific calling card?

What happens if we furthermore change the goalposts and say that all three women were killed by sharp violence?

It does not matter - the police would already have made their minds up that a single killer was prowling the streets of their community.

In the Rippertorso murders, we have varying cases that muddle the picture. But the fact that victims from both series had their abdominal walls cut away cannot be muddled. It remains, and it is a surefire indicator of how at least these three cases were one mans work.

[Fisherman]

No, a "slip" is another word for a "strip". The definition of a strip is "a long, narrow piece" (Cambridge online dictionary), and, from the Collins Dictionary, "A strip of something such as paper, cloth, or food is a long, narrow piece of it".

Go have a look at the internet and see how many shapes are given the eptiteth "slip", Gareth. 2 x 12 inches is a slip. 30 x 10 inches is a slip. 4 x 10 inches is a slip.

The only thing required to be a slip, basically, is that the shape spoken of is a longish one. There is no definition or limit described about how length and width must relate to each other to make a slip.

It is a futile efort on your behalf, therefore. And Hebbert used "slip", not "strip", by the way. He spoke of two LARGE and LONG flaps, but he never said a word about any narrow flap.

[Fisherman]

Some more help:

Imagine the twodimensional shape of a watermelon, roughly. It resembles the abdominal wall, sort of.

Now, divide it in three parts, all of roughly equal shape. Take a look at the three parts.

Then divide it in FOUR roughly equally shaped parts. And look at those four parts.

Do anyone of there parts look like a slip to you? No?

Okay, then try this: divide the watermelon shape in two parallel parts along the long stretch of the watermelon shape.

And see what happened, all of a sudden - we got slips!

Let´s now take away only fifty per cent of the watermelon shape in the same way. Divide it in the middle along the long stretch, and then take away half of the remaining shape. And me oh my - we got two narrower slips!

Amazing, is it not?

[Sam Flynn]

all the victims were found with a buttock, or part of a buttock, cut away. In the first case, all of the left buttock was cut away in three sections that were left at the crime scene, in the second, seventy per cent of the right buttock was cut away in four parts, mainly to the right hand side of the buttock

What about part of the skin of the buttock?That's what we get in the torso murders... well, just one of them, anyway.

But the fact that victims from both series had their abdominal walls cut away cannot be muddled. It remains, and it is a surefire indicator of how at least these three cases were one mans work.

Part of the abdominal wall being cut away does not mean the abdominal wall was cut away. And a cut into the abdomen, no matter how long, does not mean that the abdominal wall was "cut away" at all. Eddowes' abdomen was cut open, but her abdominal wall was not cut away, ditto Nichols, ditto some of the torso victims.

Be more precise, and stop generalising.

[Michael W Richards]

In the Rippertorso murders, we have varying cases that muddle the picture. But the fact that victims from both series had their abdominal walls cut away cannot be muddled. It remains, and it is a surefire indicator of how at least these three cases were one mans work.

I see you've even coined a new nickname for your expanded series, one that is essentially your argument here. Its important that you talk of apples and organs Fisherman, and as you stated above, the picture is muddled on quite a few of these cases. Only some victims fit your theory, the rest you seem content to draw into the same series because of what I assume is an assumption that the likelihood was that only 1 man was running amok at the time.

I wouldn't hesitate to accept a sound theory that explains why the differences are so vast in some cases, (Stride-Kelly), I suspect though that this has more to do with intentional mimicry, in tribute to, as an homage, as a means of confusing an investigation, than any single mad killer who, seemingly at will, alters what he is doing without any intervention or provocation.

You can argue about how skillfully Annies killer went about his business, but its hard to dispute the fact that it appears as if the whole procedure was about obtaining what he obtained. Specificity. The fact that this goal, same area and same organ taken, is repeated in the Eddowes murder is one of the things that connects this loosely with Chapman, neither can be connected with any Torso murder. There is no evidence within the Torso murders that the abdomen was the focus. Dismemberment was the focus. Something that is in none of the Canonicals...except perhaps that Marys right arm is almost separated from her body.

[Sam Flynn]

Some more help:

Imagine the twodimensional shape of a watermelon, roughly. It resembles the abdominal wall, sort of.

Now, divide it in three parts, all of roughly equal shape. Take a look at the three parts.

Then divide it in FOUR roughly equally shaped parts. And look at those four parts.

Do anyone of there parts look like a slip to you? No?

Okay, then try this: divide the watermelon shape in two parallel parts along the long stretch of the watermelon shape.

And see what happened, all of a sudden - we got slips!

Let´s now take away only fifty per cent of the watermelon shape in the same way. Divide it in the middle along the long stretch, and then take away half of the remaining shape. And me oh my - we got two narrower slips!

Amazing, is it not?

What's amazing is your irritating habit of trying to make the evidence fit your preconceptions.

I've had enough of this.

[Sam Flynn]

Dismemberment was the focus. Something that is in none of the Canonicals...except perhaps that Marys right arm is almost separated from her body.

Whoa there, Mike! Bond said that her arm was "slightly abducted" from the body. He's using a specific medical term, which merely means that her arm wasn't clamped to her right side, but was displaced a little bit away from the body (much like the hands of a clock at, say, 6:33 or 6:35).

Good post otherwise.

[Fisherman]

What's amazing is your irritating habit of trying to make the evidence fit your preconceptions.

I've had enough of this.

Actually, you have not. And I am not the one trying to make the evidence fit my preconceptions - you are. I am not saying that the flaps must have looked like this or that - but you ARE! To you, the Jackson flaps were narrow strips, for example. Which is NOT in evidence at all.

Have a look at this link:

https://imageshack.com/i/poZvAe56j

There, you will see thre possible representations of the damage done to the three abdomens. Please observe that they are suggestions only, but they are nevertheless representations that are fully viable.

Have a look and then tell me I must be wrong! Note that the flaps from Jackson are large, long, irregular slips.

But don´t try and peddle the idea that I am the one fitting the evidence. Nobody will buy it.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: What about part of the skin of the buttock?That's what we get in the torso murders... well, just one of them, anyway.

No, no, no. The flaps included the subcutaneous tissue, so they were not skin only. The buttock reference only referred to a smallish part of the flap. And I have given you very clear rules to play by. Let´s say that the fictive buttock parts were all an inch thick. There!

Part of the abdominal wall being cut away does not mean the abdominal wall was cut away.

Who ever proposed it did? Not that it matters.

And a cut into the abdomen, no matter how long, does not mean that the abdominal wall was "cut away" at all. Eddowes' abdomen was cut open, but her abdominal wall was not cut away, ditto Nichols, ditto some of the torso victims.

Your point being? I am not commenting on these cases at all, since they only serve to muddle the picture. The fact that Nichols did not have any flaps cut away from the abdomen has no influence at all on the fact that the three mentioned victims did. It is of no consequence at all to that parameter.

Be more precise, and stop generalising.

Be less evasive and start answering.

[Fisherman]

Michael W Richards: I see you've even coined a new nickname for your expanded series, one that is essentially your argument here. Its important that you talk of apples and organs Fisherman, and as you stated above, the picture is muddled on quite a few of these cases. Only some victims fit your theory, the rest you seem content to draw into the same series because of what I assume is an assumption that the likelihood was that only 1 man was running amok at the time.

That is the overall likelihood in any two series like these ones, I´m afraid. But you are mistaken if you think that the ones who did not loose their abdominal walls, fully or in part, do not fit in with my theory. They do, all of them.

I wouldn't hesitate to accept a sound theory that explains why the differences are so vast in some cases, (Stride-Kelly), I suspect though that this has more to do with intentional mimicry, in tribute to, as an homage, as a means of confusing an investigation, than any single mad killer who, seemingly at will, alters what he is doing without any intervention or provocation.

No two cases will be exactly the same, Michael. The one thing that always differs is the will of those who comment on the cases to accept the existing differences as signs of multiple killers. In that respect, you belong to a small minority, who may or may not be correct. Just saying. I tend to think that it is a good thing that all views are represented out here, so we don´t go glip of any possibilities, regardless of how likely they are.

You can argue about how skillfully Annies killer went about his business, but its hard to dispute the fact that it appears as if the whole procedure was about obtaining what he obtained. Specificity. The fact that this goal, same area and same organ taken, is repeated in the Eddowes murder is one of the things that connects this loosely with Chapman, neither can be connected with any Torso murder.

No? Chapman lost her uterus, Jackson lost her uterus. No connection? How does that work?
And I am not disputing that it APPEARS that the killer came for the innards. It does appear like that. Just remember that appearances can be deceiving, Michael.

There is no evidence within the Torso murders that the abdomen was the focus.

Three abdomens cut open along the midline, one abdomen lost it´s walls, a uterus was taken out - and you conclude that there is no evidence that the abdomen was a focus area? You may need to rethink that...
However, if you ask me, I think that the abdomen was only one of many focuses, all of them equally useful to the killer. Face, limbs, abdomen..

Dismemberment was the focus. Something that is in none of the Canonicals...except perhaps that Marys right arm is almost separated from her body.

Yes, Michael, dismemberment was PART of the focus! Indeed! And in the normal dismemberment case, dismemberment is NOT the focus, but instead only something that is necessitated by the killing itself.

[Fisherman]

What's amazing is your irritating habit of trying to make the evidence fit your preconceptions.

I've had enough of this.

Yes, you have had enough of it. You can take no more.

I know.

[Sam Flynn]

Chapman lost her uterus, Jackson lost her uterus. No connection?

Chapman was not pregnant. Jackson was.

Three abdomens cut open along the midline

For what reason? To empty the body cavity to minimise stink? To make a torso lighter to transport? Or for the sheer "fun" of evisceration? There are several reasons why the abdomens may have been cut, and it's those which are important, not the mere fact that bellies were slit.

However, if you ask me, I think that the abdomen was only one of many focuses, all of them equally useful to the killer. Face, limbs, abdomen..

That's handy. Now we can make everything fit both series whenever it suits us.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: Chapman was not pregnant. Jackson was.

First of all: I am glad to see that you did not walk away from the discussion.

Secondly, the fact that Jackson was pregnant may or may not have had something to do with how the uterus was removed. Regardless of that, the fact that both women had an amateur post-mortem hysterectomy performed on them IS a connection.

For what reason? To empty the body cavity to minimise stink? To make a torso lighter to transport? Or for the sheer "fun" of evisceration? There are several reasons why the abdomens may have been cut, and it's those which are important, not the mere fact that bellies were slit.

They are potentially important factors, yes. But we are not going to find a definitive answer to the question you ask. So we are left with the mere anatomical fact that abdomens were slit from ribs to pubes in both series. And rational people that the police are, they will immediately latch onto how that is an almighty coincidence - or not. Unless they are provided with anything to prove the idea wrong, they will go with the notion that there is no coincidence involved at all. The damage is a very rare one, and most towns never suffer such damage done to it´s inhabitants. But now, all of a sudden, it was suggested that two of these extremely rare creatures were at large and cutting away simultaneously. The odds are stacked totally against that idea.

That's handy. Now we can make everything fit both series whenever it suits us.

You are just being jealous here, Gareth... Actually, there are only a number of things that fit the bill in a way that is consistent with the scenario I am pondering. The cuts to Kellys overarm do not, but the defleshing of the thigh may do. The opening up of the abdomen absolutely does, as does the cutting of the face.
Of course, as long as I am not giving away what I have in mind, I cannot "make everything fit" both series. Therefore, I am only pointing to the established similarities - that are quite enough as it is.
The rest will come in due time.

Until then, you can ponder whether or not it is "fitting the evidence" to say that the flaps from Jacksons body were "narrow". Or whether it is "fitting the evidence" to say that none of the torso victims were eviscerated (!). Or to say that Jacksons opening in the abdomen was a mere slot. And so on.

In my world, that is fitting the evidence big time. So you may want to hold your horses somewhat.