Same motive = same killer

[Abby Normal]

As Sam pointed out already, Marys right thigh was completely "stripped" to the bone...sorry for use of that word again Fish, and her left inner thigh was also stripped of flesh. So to say Mary had a large piece of flesh removed from her thigh isn't accurate, her right thigh had all the flesh removed.

Over the years here Ive a had a few smiles when people try to fit square pegs into round holes by shaving off the sides a bit, meaning overlooking the inconsistencies within their own theory, anything to make their own theory seem more viable. Ive also smiled when people say that its clear Jack killed Liz Stride...but that's for another day and thread.

But this thread started off with a flawed premise anyway, so how could it not be a matter of overlooking the inconsistencies.

haha.

So to say Mary had a large piece of flesh removed from her thigh isn't accurate, her right thigh had all the flesh removed.

Ill just let this howler linger in the air like a stale fart.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: Many women had their throats deeply cut during the period of the Whitechapel Murders, AND their deaths actually took place in the East End, but I don't attribute them all to JTR.

Nor do I, Gareth. As I said before, it´s about magnitude and specificity of the deed. If we have two cut necks cut very close in time and place, though, the thing to work from is that it IS the same killer, unless anything points away from it.

"A large piece of flesh from the thighbone", which is about all the detail we have on the Tottenham Court Road finding, is not enough to instantly leap to a connection with MJK.

So what do we have? A substantial amount of flesh was cut away from the leg from BOTH victims, the Tottenham victim and Kelly. However, here we have a time span of four years and we have a geographical difference that offers up a window for another killer. Personally, I would not say anything else than what I have said: it IS a similarity, and so we may be looking at the same killer.
If we furthermore weigh in how this kind of damage - defleshing - is quite rare, the odds for a common originator brighten up substantially. We must leave learoom for it being collateral damage, but we know that the Tottenham murder was performed by a man skilled in disarticulation.
That´s how it must be weighed - the defleshing does create a link. Why would we shut our eyes and put our hands over our ears - that never helped.

When we consider the latter, and the fact that the flesh from both her thighs was completely removed, the TCR case doesn't begin to compare.

Don´t DO that! It does not only "begin to compare" - it compares albeit to an unestablishable extent.

Add to that the fact that Kelly's killer completely filleted both her thighs when under considerable time-pressure, whereas the TCR killer seems to have had plenty of time on his/their hands, then any comparison between the two cases is fanciful indeed.

How do you know that Kellys killer was "under considerable time pressure" when he cut away the thigh flesh, Gareth? I eill tell you how - you INVENTED it just now. How do you know that the Tottenham killer had all the time in the world? Same answer.

I am not saying that you are wrong. I am saying that neither you nor me can possibly be certain. Therefore we can only look at the physical implications. Both women had substantial amounts of flesh cut from their thighs. That is an established similarity and a link between the two cases.
"Fanciful" - that is to suggest that the cut away flesh in the Tottenham case was collateral damage.

[Fisherman]

As Sam pointed out already, Marys right thigh was completely "stripped" to the bone...sorry for use of that word again Fish, and her left inner thigh was also stripped of flesh. So to say Mary had a large piece of flesh removed from her thigh isn't accurate, her right thigh had all the flesh removed.

Over the years here Ive a had a few smiles when people try to fit square pegs into round holes by shaving off the sides a bit, meaning overlooking the inconsistencies within their own theory, anything to make their own theory seem more viable. Ive also smiled when people say that its clear Jack killed Liz Stride...but that's for another day and thread.

But this thread started off with a flawed premise anyway, so how could it not be a matter of overlooking the inconsistencies.

But I am not saying that Mary Kelly had a "large piece of flesh" removed, am I? I am saying that she had a substantial amount of thigh flesh removed, as did the Tottenham woman.

If I have a round peg, you should not swap it for a square one, Michael.

[Sam Flynn]

Its like you cant even bring your self to admit the word or to admit anything similar. and IMHO it hurts your credibility because your just so stubborn about it!

I can see superficial similarities, Abby, but I don't see enough compelling evidence to make them significant. I favour a more holistic approach, rather than drawing inferences from piecemeal resemblances. I can assure you there's nothing "knee-jerk" about it.

whenever anyone posits an obvious similarity--you just knee jerk=
NO similarity! and just go to smaller and smaller details.

The small details and knee-jerking seem to revolve more around things like:

"Abdominal flaps", but when you think about it, that only appears in one of the torso murders, that of the only pregnant woman among the victims;

"Same time", but there are long gaps between the torso cases, and there's a gap of more than a year either side of the Autumn of Terror for all but one of the torso victims;

"Same place", despite the fact that all but one of the torso victims were deposited clandestinely in Southwest London, and almost all of the Whitechapel Murder victims were slain in public places in a small part of the East End;

"Same victimology", but then prostitutes are often the target of killers, and not even all the Whitechapel prostitute murders can be reasonably attributed to the same man.

Like I said before, this type of reasoning then you should be discounting that all the torsos as similar and the C5 as similar too, for that matter.

Yes, there are differences, but the main features of the JTR murders are remarkably similar and, taking them as a whole, it's reasonable to conclude that at least three, and probably four, of them were probably committed by the same person.

[Elamarna]

"Such assuredness come only from obsessive belief in ones own infaliabilty."

You need to brighten up somewhat, Steve, and accept things for what they are. I am not speaking about my "beliefs", I am talking about irreversible facts.

Keep the handkerchief.

You 're not . It is your view, to suggest it is more is untrue.
How tiresome and how predictable a response.

Steve

[Abby Normal]

I can see superficial similarities, Abby, but I don't see enough compelling evidence to make them significant. I favour a more holistic approach, rather than drawing inferences from piecemeal resemblances. I can assure you there's nothing "knee-jerk" about it.The small details and knee-jerking seem to revolve more around things like:

"Abdominal flaps", but when you think about it, that only appears in one of the torso murders, that of the only pregnant woman among the victims;

"Same time", but there are long gaps between the torso cases, and there's a gap of more than a year either side of the Autumn of Terror for all but one of the torso victims;

"Same place", despite the fact that all but one of the torso victims were deposited clandestinely in Southwest London, and almost all of the Whitechapel Murder victims were slain in public places in a small part of the East End;

"Same victimology", but then prostitutes are often the target of killers, and not even all the Whitechapel prostitute murders can be reasonably attributed to the same man.
Yes, there are differences, but the main features of the JTR murders are remarkably similar and, taking them as a whole, it's reasonable to conclude that at least three, and probably four, of them were probably committed by the same person.

Ok sam. Thanks.
At least you said superficial similarities. I guess that’s the best I can hope for from you! : )

[Abby Normal]

You 're not . It is your view, to suggest it is more is untrue.
How tiresome and how predictable a response.

Steve

Hi el
IMHO your and sams constant responses of things not being similar when they are de facto similar is tiresome and predictable.

[Fisherman]

Hi el
IMHO your and sams constant responses of things not being similar when they are de facto similar is tiresome and predictable.

Seconded. It´s been a LONG time since earth "was" flat.

[Sam Flynn]

Seconded. It´s been a LONG time since earth "was" flat.

Indeed. And a long time since some believed that everything had to revolve around it.

[Sam Flynn]

But I am not saying that Mary Kelly had a "large piece of flesh" removed, am I? I am saying that she had a substantial amount of thigh flesh removed, as did the Tottenham woman.

Since when did a large piece of flesh from one thigh bone become the complete removal of the flesh from BOTH thighs from pelvis to the knees? How large was "large"? The size of a decent steak? We just don't have the information. All we can reasonably conclude is that something described as a "piece" of flesh did not constitute the entire top half of the leg, which is what was removed - twice, under time pressure - in Kelly's case.

[Fisherman]

Indeed. And a long time since some believed that everything had to revolve around it.

Don´t even go there, Gareth. The ones who held that belief where just like you, not like me. I know that you want to portray me as suffering from illusions of grandeur (thank you very much for that noble effort), but the truth is that I am quite aware that I am only following in the footsteps of giants. If I have made any vital contribution at all, then it is to point out how stale and locked some posters who once used to have something important to say have become.

Aaaaaaaaaaarrrrrggghhhh?

I don´t get it?

Aha.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: When a large piece of flesh from one thigh bone become the complete removal of the flesh from BOTH thighs?

Take some time, lean back and ask yourself: Has anybody - like for example Abby and me - even suggested that taking a large piece of flesh from one thigh bone would somehow magically become completely removing the flesh from both thighs?

Well, have we? And if not, then why are you leading it on? Don´t you think that is just a tad wrong?

I also think that you need not emphasize BOTH the way you did. The difference between not removing flesh from a leg and actually doing so is incredibly much larger than the difference between removing flesh from one thigh as opposed to doing so from both thighs.
Removing flesh from a thigh is the important matter here, not whether it was removed from one or two.

Can I work from the presumption that you do understand that? Or do we need to have that discussion too?

How large was "large"?

They probably meant a narrow strip - that is how you interpreted "large" the last time over.
In my world, "large" means "big", "substantial", "hefty", something like that.
If the part of flesh removed from the leg of the Tottenham victim was less than half of what was removed from either leg of Kelly, it is nevertheless an example of the same thing - removing flesh from the thigh of a woman.

The size of a decent steak? We just don't have the information.

No, we don´t, so let´s settle for the size of a decent steak.

If so, what does it exemplify: Not cutting away flesh from the thigh of a woman or cutting away flesh from the thigh of a woman?

In other words, is it a similarity or a dissimilarity, comparing to Kelly?

All we can reasonably conclude is that something described as a "piece" of flesh did not constitute the entire top half of the leg, which is what was removed - twice, under time pressure - in Kelly's case."?

Why is it that you think that you are the best judge of what should be dubbed "reasonable"? If, as you say, we cannot possibly know what size the "large piece of flesh" was, then how is it that it must have been comparatively small? If the whole top front half of the thigh was taken away from the Tottenham victim, cutting all the way down to the bone, then why could that not be described as "large"?

Can you see that the fact that we do not have the size on record opens up for interpretations in BOTH directions - that it was EITHER smaller OR larger than you want it to have been?
Can you follow that logic?

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrggggggggghhhhhhhhhhh?

Or?

[Sam Flynn]

I am quite aware that I am only following in the footsteps of giants.

Matters, McCormick, Fairclough, Knight...

[Fisherman]

Matters, McCormick, Fairclough, Knight...

Insult away, Gareth. I guess that is some sort of contribution to Ripperology too. We do what little we can.

Personally, I was more thinking of people like Debra Arif, who is very open to the suggestion of a shared identity. Little does she know that it makes her a laughing stock in your eyes. And, I suppose, little will she care.

[Sam Flynn]

Personally, I was more thinking of people like Debra Arif, who is very open to the suggestion of a shared identity. Little does she know that it makes her a laughing stock in your eyes.

Don't presume to know what I think about Debs. I hold her in high regard, and I greatly value her contributions.