Same motive = same killer

[Fisherman]

There is evisceration as a means to an end, then there is evisceration as an end in itself.

Yes, as I said, there will be many types of evisceration. But they are all eviscerations anyway.

When we gauge the eviscerations carried out by the Thames Torso killer, we do it against a backdrop of cutting abdomens open, carving an unborn child out of his murdered mothers uterus, emptying his victims bodies of blood and cutting them up in small pieces.

It is a gothic horror tale, and so is the tale of Jack the Ripper. Making the case that the Torso killer may only have been a practical fellow who wanted to facilitate dismembering the body of Liz Jackson does not work for me. We are looking at cruel and vicious murder in it´s worst shape. And we have the medico´s words that lungs and heart were "removed", meaning that the killer took care of that part too.

We than have a very large possibility that there were MORE evisceration on his behalf - but we cannot prove it on account of how there is a possibility that the organs were lost on account of the current of the Thames.

My final word is that the Torso killer MAY have had an enbalming and mummification in mind for Liz Jackson - or any other process that differed from the mindset of the Ripper when HE eviscerated.

The easy, logical, rational and wise solution, though, is that it was all about the same man doing the same thing for the same reason. Not that it was two men who just happened to make their deeds resemble each other to the degree where they cut away abdominal walls in large flaps from their victims.

[Sam Flynn]

It is a gothic horror tale, and so is the tale of Jack the Ripper.

That's where you and I differ. I just see sordid murders.

The easy, logical, rational and wise solution, though, is that it was all about the same man doing the same thing for the same reason.

Easy, yes, as in "the easy way out", perhaps. Logic and wisdom requires that one takes multiple factors into account, not just the three out of ten instances where flaps of some description were cut from the victims' abdomens.

Not that it was two men who just happened to make their deeds resemble each other to the degree where they cut away abdominal walls in large flaps from their victims.

They didn't, though, did they? This only happened in a minority of the murders, which is a rather small sample upon which to claim any significance. Even where tranches of abdominal flesh were cut, there were clear differences in how they were executed, without beginning to consider what the possible motivations for doing so were.

[Michael W Richards]

Once you pluck out innards from a body, you become an eviscerator. The grounds for doing it may vary, but that does not change the fact that you eviscerate when you take out parts from inside a body.

Maybe we can agree on that much, at least?

A dictionary example looked like this:

"The ancient Egyptiand used to eviscerate bodies before mummifying them"

Evisceration is not an evil thing per se. But taking out organs IS eviscerating.

When you cut a body in half, you don't have to carve out the innards from the upper section, you just need to empty the cavity and sever the ligaments and connective tissues.. Do you know whether the body was disarticulated before the flaps/strips were cut, or the organs removed? Nope. None of us do.

Did the Egyptians eviscerate, or was that just a part of mummification? I can say that removing a uterus is what it is, can you say within the Torso murders there is evidence that abdominal organs were accessed and kept by the perpetrator? Nope. I can say that Annies killer opened her abdomen so he could get her uterus. Does that make him a cutting fetishist, or does he cut to facilitate his fetish?

[jerryd]

Do you know whether the body was disarticulated before the flaps/strips were cut, or the organs removed? Nope. None of us do.

Hi Michael,

In the case of Elizabeth Jackson, we do know the answer to this. One flap included abdominal flesh and the external female parts and a part of the right buttock. If the killer had disarticulated/cut the spine first, there would have been more sectioned flaps.

Both strips covered two severed sections of her body and both flaps contained abdominal flesh and the external genitalia.

[RockySullivan]

The press also mentioned 'marine knowledge' in association with the plugging, yes you're right, Rocky. I forgot to mention that one in my reply to TM. As far as death on a boat goes, I sometimes wonder if Ginger Nell's claiming she gave warnings to Elizabeth Jackson wasn't more for effect but that's another story.
I don't think death on a barge or vessel is feasible. Elizabeth's body had two land site dumps but both were pretty close to the Thames and both were said to have been thrown because of broken bushes in the vicinity, but I doubt anyone could have thrown anything 200 yards in to Battersea Park unless from the Albert Bridge. But then they would need to have dumped the thigh found opposite in the Shelly house gardens before or after the that dump.

hey debs, do you know anything about this "dangerous class of boatmen"? If boat isn't the answer it seems like the embankment is. someone who worked is connected to the embankment. who was in charge of keeping the embankment clean?

[Sam Flynn]

In the case of Elizabeth Jackson, we do know the answer to this.

Indeed, Jerry, in the case of Elizabeth Jackson... alone. She's the only one among six torso victims to have exhibited such wounds. She was also the only pregnant one - there might be a clue there as to why the slices of flesh were cut in the first place.

[Sam Flynn]

hey debs, do you know anything about this "dangerous class of boatmen"?

Perhaps they were down on oars

[jerryd]

Perhaps they were down on oars

That actually took me a second to get. Good one, Gareth!

[Harry D]

Is that why he killed in Buck's Row?

[jerryd]

who was in charge of keeping the embankment clean?

Hi Rocky,

I'm pretty sure that would have been the Board of Works in 1888 and London City Council after about March of 1889. I also seem to recall the Board of Works would have overseen the construction of the new police offices.

[RockySullivan]

Some sleuthers think that this torso killer did it to mark his territory as in "Long Island is my hunting ground."

Nobody should think this since all the torso victims on OP were dumped years and even decades before the gilgo 4

[Kattrup]

Perhaps they were down on oars

Nice

[Fisherman]

[Sam Flynn: That's where you and I differ. I just see sordid murders.

Which is the main ingredient in every gothic horror tale...

Easy, yes, as in "the easy way out", perhaps. Logic and wisdom requires that one takes multiple factors into account, not just the three out of ten instances where flaps of some description were cut from the victims' abdomens.

There are soooo many other similarities, Gareth, down to the plucking of rings from fingers. I think that the REAL difference between you and me is that you are playing the defense lawyers part here. You are pointing to how things cannot be proven, how there MAY be another explanation to the flaps than a common originator, how the Torso man MAY have taken the uterus out to facilitate dividing the body and so on. You are trying rather depserately to point to how it MAY be that the two were not the same.

And yes, legally speaking a skilled defense lawyer would follow the same kind of line.

But we are not in a trial here, are we? We are looking at what is the more likely solution, when we arrive at the only truly logical solution to that answer, we are not convicting anybody. We are just making sense, and admitting that even IF there could be another explanation, the obvious solution remains that we are dealing with just the one man.

They didn't, though, did they? This only happened in a minority of the murders...

But Gareth, that is not the same as it did not happen at all! It DID happen.

...which is a rather small sample upon which to claim any significance.

To a degree - but that all hinges on what the killer did. If two murders are perpetrated by knife - fine, they may well be related, but knife murders are common.
If two murders are perpetrated by knife and by cutting the neck, then the likelihood we have the same killer is dramatically raised.

Surely, you can see how that works?

Then, if two murders are perpetrated by knife and by cutting the neck AND involving eviscerations, then the risk of a single killer is ASTRONOMICALLY elevated!

You MUST concede that, surely?

Even where tranches of abdominal flesh were cut, there were clear differences in how they were executed, without beginning to consider what the possible motivations for doing so were.

But when we arrive at abdominal flap cutting, we have travelled even beynd the point with two murders perpetrated by knife, by cutting necks and with eviscerations involved! It is even MORE specific, rare and peculiar!

There is also the fact that you seem to try and lay down that the shapes of the flaps varied very much, speaking about how there were differences in how they were executed.

Do we actually KNOW that the flaps from Kelly and Chapman were NOT long and large - like Jacksons were?

Do we actually KNOW that the flaps from Kelly and Chapman were not irregular - like Jacksons were?

You see, I don´t think we know that at all. There is some crude description of the Chapman flaps, but how do we know that Kellys flaps were not mirror images of Jacksons?

At the end of the day, though, is not a question of saying that the cuts were made in an exactly similar fashion. It is a question of realizing that abdominal flaps WERE cut away from all three victims, subcutatenous tissue included. That i itself is a similarity that is incredibly unexpected from two different killers - but entirely expected with just the one man.

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=Michael W Richards;434108]When you cut a body in half, you don't have to carve out the innards from the upper section, you just need to empty the cavity and sever the ligaments and connective tissues.. Do you know whether the body was disarticulated before the flaps/strips were cut, or the organs removed? Nope. None of us do.

Yes, in Jacksons case, we DO know that the parts were fit afterwards and that the flaps fit the midline incision and the sides.
So either the killer FIRST cut the sections of the trunk and THEN carefully measured exactly how he was to give the impression that the flaps were cut afterwards - or that impression is correct.

Did the Egyptians eviscerate, or was that just a part of mummification?

The eviscerated in order to mummify, Michael. Evisceration is not an evil thing, necessarily.

I can say that removing a uterus is what it is, can you say within the Torso murders there is evidence that abdominal organs were accessed and kept by the perpetrator? Nope.

I can say that organs were taken out, which is the exact same thing I can say about the Ripper. I cannot say that either man kept the innards. The Torso man carved out Jacksons uterus and later threw it in the Thames. How do you suppose to prove that the Ripper did not do the exact same thing with Chapmans uterus?

I can say that Annies killer opened her abdomen so he could get her uterus.

And I can say that Liz Jacksons killer opened her abdomen so he could get HER uterus.

Does that make him a cutting fetishist, or does he cut to facilitate his fetish?

It makes him neither thing. We only know what you said, that he opened Chapman up and took out her uterus.

[Abby Normal]

There is evisceration as a means to an end, then there is evisceration as an end in itself.

HI Sam
didn't all the torso victims receive damage/wounds above and beyond what was needed just for dismemberment?