Same motive = same killer

[harry]

So you are disinclined to talk to me Fisherma.I am so overcome and hurt, I do not know what to say to that.Here I was, hanging around,hoping the wizard would,as he claimed,prove beyond reasonable doubt,that two series of deaths were linked,and a killer revealed.
You have let me down badly lad.

[Fisherman]

So you are disinclined to talk to me Fisherma.I am so overcome and hurt, I do not know what to say to that.Here I was, hanging around,hoping the wizard would,as he claimed,prove beyond reasonable doubt,that two series of deaths were linked,and a killer revealed.
You have let me down badly lad.

You can just hang around and read my other posts, and you will get my view from there. Magic!

[Fisherman]

Okay, so you are all trying to play little games?

Fine.

I think it is immature and stupid, and I think it is not doing the case any good at all - but I can play the game too.

Steve is the great discloser of how I supposedly believe that Kellys lung part was taken away from the scene at Millers Court. The hero of the hour, as it were!

Now, as you all know quite well, I am not entertaining such an idea for a split second. I know quite well that the lung part will have been in the room or inside the body (which is also in the room for that matter), although we don´t know exactly where. And you know that I know, let´s not beat about the bush on that score.

This, however, will not stop you. You prefer to have your fun.

So why don´t I have some little fun with Steve?

In his post 3744, he writes "Kelly's thighs are certainly gone, is that significant?"

So he obviously believes that Kelly was dismembered. He believes that the thighs were taken away from the trunk. It is, as he puts things himself when speaking about me, "very obvious" that this is his take on things. He writes in no uncertain terms that the thighs are gone.

The truth of the matter is that flesh was taken away from her thighs, not that the thighs themselves were removed.

Of course, it also now becomes apparent that a man with such deplorable insights into anatomy cannot be trusted to post out here. It always follows that if you work from bad information, you will reach bad decisions, and cannot be relied upon. I have that from a very reliable source.

See? I can do the exact same thing that Steve does.

Then again, I can instead choose to admit that I do not for a second entertain the idea that he does not know that the thighs were not severed from Kellys body. Just as he is certain that I know that the lung was not taken from the scene, I am certain that he knows that the thighs were not taken from the scene either.

The only difference lies in how I will admit this. I will immediately recognize that a poor wording made things look like something they are not.

I firmly believe that if we can all do that for each other, not only will the world become a better place, but we will also be able to set aside a lot more time for a relevant and useful discussion, instead of wasting time on sheer stupidities.

Now it´s up to you, Steve, Gareth, Herlock, to make your minds up about what you are here to do - to work the case or to make a mockery of it. The choice is yours.

If any of you should sober up - and I hope you do - then I think that an interesting question is "what kind of person will eviscerate and take out organs, cut away nosetips, thigh and buttock flesh, abdominal flesh, cut away faces, sever the limbs from a body and cut the trunk in several sections?"

Those who are into eviscerating don´t normally do this - they open the abdomen up and take what they came for, end of story.

Those who dismember normally only do that, and for practical reasons, end of story. They dont pluck organs out and cut faces away.

Those who disfigure normally only do that. They don´t take organs out and sever limbs.

So what kind of mindset, which types of paraphilia can be at work when we see a combination of all these things? What possible inspiration ground can there be? Which other crimes comes closest to resembling what the combined Ripper/Torso killer did?

We can discuss such matters, or we can discuss gone lung parts and thighs and the underlying semantical implications. Make your choice.

[harry]

Fisherman,
Well I read post 3717 and reference to a Banbury schoolclass.Still trying to figure out the idiotcy behind their mention.Perhaps it's the idiot who introduced them that's at fault.
Still nice to know you are still speaking to me.
Love,Harry.

[Trevor Marriott]

Okay, so you are all trying to play little games?

Fine.

I think it is immature and stupid, and I think it is not doing the case any good at all - but I can play the game too.

Steve is the great discloser of how I supposedly believe that Kellys lung part was taken away from the scene at Millers Court. The hero of the hour, as it were!

Now, as you all know quite well, I am not entertaining such an idea for a split second. I know quite well that the lung part will have been in the room or inside the body (which is also in the room for that matter), although we don´t know exactly where. And you know that I know, let´s not beat about the bush on that score.

This, however, will not stop you. You prefer to have your fun.

So why don´t I have some little fun with Steve?

In his post 3744, he writes "Kelly's thighs are certainly gone, is that significant?"

So he obviously believes that Kelly was dismembered. He believes that the thighs were taken away from the trunk. It is, as he puts things himself when speaking about me, "very obvious" that this is his take on things. He writes in no uncertain terms that the thighs are gone.

The truth of the matter is that flesh was taken away from her thighs, not that the thighs themselves were removed.

Of course, it also now becomes apparent that a man with such deplorable insights into anatomy cannot be trusted to post out here. It always follows that if you work from bad information, you will reach bad decisions, and cannot be relied upon. I have that from a very reliable source.

See? I can do the exact same thing that Steve does.

Then again, I can instead choose to admit that I do not for a second entertain the idea that he does not know that the thighs were not severed from Kellys body. Just as he is certain that I know that the lung was not taken from the scene, I am certain that he knows that the thighs were not taken from the scene either.

The only difference lies in how I will admit this. I will immediately recognize that a poor wording made things look like something they are not.

I firmly believe that if we can all do that for each other, not only will the world become a better place, but we will also be able to set aside a lot more time for a relevant and useful discussion, instead of wasting time on sheer stupidities.

Now it´s up to you, Steve, Gareth, Herlock, to make your minds up about what you are here to do - to work the case or to make a mockery of it. The choice is yours.

If any of you should sober up - and I hope you do - then I think that an interesting question is "what kind of person will eviscerate and take out organs, cut away nosetips, thigh and buttock flesh, abdominal flesh, cut away faces, sever the limbs from a body and cut the trunk in several sections?"

Those who are into eviscerating don´t normally do this - they open the abdomen up and take what they came for, end of story.

Those who dismember normally only do that, and for practical reasons, end of story. They dont pluck organs out and cut faces away.

Those who disfigure normally only do that. They don´t take organs out and sever limbs.

So what kind of mindset, which types of paraphilia can be at work when we see a combination of all these things? What possible inspiration ground can there be? Which other crimes comes closest to resembling what the combined Ripper/Torso killer did?

We can discuss such matters, or we can discuss gone lung parts and thighs and the underlying semantical implications. Make your choice.

As I see it there are two simple choices, if the killer of the Whitechapel women did not take away the organs, then the motive for the crimes is murder and mutilation, and is no way connected to the torsos.

If the torsos were not the subject of murder, but were simply dismembered to aid disposal from another cause of death, then again another simple explanation, what you choose to accept, or reject, is down to you, and the same applies to all other researchers.

It sometimes pays dividends to think out of the box from time to time, you see things in a different light.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,
Well I read post 3717 and reference to a Banbury schoolclass.Still trying to figure out the idiotcy behind their mention.Perhaps it's the idiot who introduced them that's at fault.
Still nice to know you are still speaking to me.
Love,Harry.

You do know that it is strictly forbidden to make personal attacks, Harry? We are allowed to call suggestions moronic - like I do with your suggestions - but we are not allowed to call each other idiots.

You see, these boards have the purpose of discussing the case, and not to make personal attacks from the safety behind the keyboard.

This of course is why I am disiclined to speak to you. You have apparently misunderstood the purpose of the boards, and after having been revealed as a poster with very little to contribute, you have decided to change to personal attacks instead.

The result is meagre - I used the Banbury schoolclass example to be very clear, but I could have suggested siamese twins, the Portsmouth cricket team or a woman´s choir from Scotland to elucidate that we really do not know that Kelly´s killer was a single male, but we nevertheless accept it as a fact - and as I said, making personal attacks is strictly forbidden.

[Fisherman]

As I see it there are two simple choices, if the killer of the Whitechapel women did not take away the organs, then the motive for the crimes is murder and mutilation, and is no way connected to the torsos.

If the torsos were not the subject of murder, but were simply dismembered to aid disposal from another cause of death, then again another simple explanation, what you choose to accept, or reject, is down to you, and the same applies to all other researchers.

It sometimes pays dividends to think out of the box from time to time, you see things in a different light.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But you are missing an "if" or two here, Trevor, are you not? What if I am on the money? THAT is the question I want answered: what kind of killer emerges in such a case? One thing I believe we may agree on is that he would be an extremely rare beast.

[Sam Flynn]

It sometimes pays dividends to think out of the box

For God's sake, Trevor, don't encourage him!

[Fisherman]

For God's sake, Trevor, don't encourage him!

So still not willing to discuss the case, I see?

Whatever happened to the matter-of-fact Sam Flynn who once graced these boards?

[Elamarna]

Okay, so you are all trying to play little games?

Fine.

------------------------


This, however, will not stop you. You prefer to have your fun.

So why don´t I have some little fun with Steve?

In his post 3744, he writes "Kelly's thighs are certainly gone, is that significant?"

So he obviously believes that Kelly was dismembered. He believes that the thighs were taken away from the trunk. It is, as he puts things himself when speaking about me, "very obvious" that this is his take on things. He writes in no uncertain terms that the thighs are gone.

The truth of the matter is that flesh was taken away from her thighs, not that the thighs themselves were removed.

Of course, it also now becomes apparent that a man with such deplorable insights into anatomy cannot be trusted to post out here. It always follows that if you work from bad information, you will reach bad decisions, and cannot be relied upon. I have that from a very reliable source.

See? I can do the exact same thing that Steve does.

Actually my friend you do not do it at all well.

The point of my post 3744 was to highlight your revised use of the word "gone"

The flesh of the upper leg, the thigh is indeed removed.
It is left in the room, the question was is it significant, as you claim tearing away of the lung was.

You of course go off on this long diversionary post to avoid addressing that if the lung tearing is collateral damage, as strongly indicated by the condition of the lungs, a point you are aware of but have ignored, then there is no linkage to the removal of the lungs in the Jackson case.

Then again, I can instead choose to admit that I do not for a second entertain the idea that he does not know that the thighs were not severed from Kellys body. Just as he is certain that I know that the lung was not taken from the scene, I am certain that he knows that the thighs were not taken from the scene either.

The only difference lies in how I will admit this. I will immediately recognize that a poor wording made things look like something they are not.

How utterly charming.
Admitting that your wordage was poor, however if "gone" was meant as you now claim and has i used in post 3744, there appears to be no linkage via lungs to Jackson.

Lovely long semantic diversion to avoid addressing the core issue of this particular subject. That is was the tearing of a section of lung significant.

I firmly believe that if we can all do that for each other, not only will the world become a better place, but we will also be able to set aside a lot more time for a relevant and useful discussion, instead of wasting time on sheer stupidities.

Now it´s up to you, Steve, Gareth, Herlock, to make your minds up about what you are here to do - to work the case or to make a mockery of it. The choice is yours.

If any of you should sober up - and I hope you do - then I think that an interesting question is "what kind of person will eviscerate and take out organs, cut away nosetips, thigh and buttock flesh, abdominal flesh, cut away faces, sever the limbs from a body and cut the trunk in several sections?"

Those who are into eviscerating don´t normally do this - they open the abdomen up and take what they came for, end of story.

Those who dismember normally only do that, and for practical reasons, end of story. They dont pluck organs out and cut faces away.

Those who disfigure normally only do that. They don´t take organs out and sever limbs.

So what kind of mindset, which types of paraphilia can be at work when we see a combination of all these things? What possible inspiration ground can there be? Which other crimes comes closest to resembling what the combined Ripper/Torso killer did?

We can discuss such matters, or we can discuss gone lung parts and thighs and the underlying semantical implications. Make your choice.

Wouldnt it be great if one could actually look at the thread, you know motive.
But thats not what we have, even in your above comments you state suppositions as facts. And if we dont agree with you we are childish and immature. Worse we are making a mockery of the case according to you.

No i, and i beleive the other two you name are siimply questioning the arguments you present. Or rather challenging the arguments you present as uncontestable fact.
I say uncontestable because this post clear shows that you cannot deal with those arguments being challenged.



Steve

[Fisherman]

Actually my friend you do not do it at all well.

The point of my post 3744 was to highlight your revised use of the word "gone"

The flesh of the upper leg, the thigh is indeed removed.

Steve

Okay. Let´s do it your way.

The thigh is NOT the thigh flesh. The Oxford dictionary defines it as "The part of the human leg between the hip and the knee", and that is what we are talking about.

So you are effectively suggesting that Kelly was dismembered. Stating it as a fact, even: "the thigh is indeed removed".

Shall we go on? Must the mockery go on? Or are we able to do better?

I may add that I do not think that you believe that Kelly was dismembered. But your phrasing implied it, due to a poor choice of wording. That is the real issue here: should we just skip over such things or correct them in a friendly manner - or should we use them to vilify our opponents?

[Elamarna]

Okay. Let´s do it your way.

The thigh is NOT the thigh flesh. The Oxford dictionary defines it as "The part of the human leg between the hip and the knee", and that is what we are talking about.

So you are effectively suggesting that Kelly was dismembered.

Shall we go on? Must the mockery go on? Or are we able to do better?

Oh dear the games go on.

I made it very clear the flesh of the upper leg, what is commonly called the thigh was removed, not that the femur was cut.
It seems you are not reading what is actually written.

And still avoiding discussing the issue, the reason behind post 3744, if the lung was still in the room and given that the condition of the lung strongly suggests the tearing was collateral damage, how can it be linked to the actual removal of the lungs in the jackson case.

You accuse others of making a mockery of the case, however it is you my dear Christer who continues to ignore the arguments in favour of semantic games.
You have claimed a link between Kelly and Jackson based on the lungs had been "taken away" in both cases, however you have not been able to establish this link, and to question it is entirely legitimate and indeed required; yet by doing so i am reducing the case to a mockery!

In case you are wondering you used Taken away in post 3703

"How many murders have you heard of where lungs or parts of lungs were taken away?"


Now i fully accept that maybe you have once again poorly worded that to suggest something you did not mean.



Steve

[Fisherman]

Just noticed this, Steve:

"You of course go off on this long diversionary post to avoid addressing that if the lung tearing is collateral damage, as strongly indicated by the condition of the lungs, a point you are aware of but have ignored, then there is no linkage to the removal of the lungs in the Jackson case. "

No, that is not why I posted about the thighs - it was to stop people having a dig atme instead of discussing the case.

In that vein, I will gladly comment on the issue you mention. For the simple reason that discussing the case is what we ought to do.

Yes, if the lung was collateral damage, then that similarity goes away. And yes, it is in no way an unreasonable suggestion. It is not, however, a fact. What IS a fact is that lungs or parts of them were targetted and removed/torn away/cut away or in some other fashion taken away from their original position in both cases, and it that respect, we do have a similarity.

As I have pointed out, we do have removal of the thorax organs, no matter how we look upon it, and that is per se something that is a very odd inclusion. I would like to ask you how many cases you are aware of where the heart was removed from a murder victim?

Once you have decided on a number, you need to ask yourself the same question about uteri - how many cases are you aware of where that was removed?

Then the abdominal walls follow suit - how many murder cases do you know of that have this inclusion?

Once you have figured out how rare these things are, you need to combine all three things - in how many cases have you seen the uterus, the abdominal wall and the heart taken away from a murder victim?

I know of two such cases only, Mary Kelly and Liz Jackson.

One may reason that it borders on the fantastic that there ARE two such cases - but once we learn that they both took place within some months and in the same city, an alternative solution to "the fantastic coincidence solution" offers itself up freely. And that solution is in no way fantastic at all. It is undramatic, sound and logical.

The suggestion of two killers copying away, one very odd trait after another, is NOT undramatic, sound and logical. It is the exact reverse.

[Fisherman]

Oh dear the games go on.

I made it very clear the flesh of the upper leg, what is commonly called the thigh was removed, not that the femur was cut.
It seems you are not reading what is actually written.

And still avoiding discussing the issue, the reason behind post 3744, if the lung was still in the room and given that the condition of the lung strongly suggests the tearing was collateral damage, how can it be linked to the actual removal of the lungs in the jackson case.

You accuse others of making a mockery of the case, however it is you my dear Christer who continues to ignore the arguments in favour of semantic games.
You have claimed a link between Kelly and Jackson based on the lungs had been "taken away" in both cases, however you have not been able to establish this link, and to question it is entirely legitimate and indeed required; yet by doing so i am reducing the case to a mockery!

In case you are wondering you used Taken away in post 3703

"How many murders have you heard of where lungs or parts of lungs were taken away?"


Now i fully accept that maybe you have once again poorly worded that to suggest something you did not mean.



Steve

I was not the one starting "the game" - you were.

And no, Steve, the flesh of the thigh is decidedly NOT the same thing as the thigh! The thigh involves the femur and is made up of the part of the leg between the hip and the knee.

That is beyond discussion. If you can find a definition that say that the thigh flesh is the same as the thigh, you are welcome to produce it.

Anyhow, it is also beyond discussion that I understand what you meant, and that I will not push the point that you were ignorant or deceitful. It was a faulty wording, and nothing more dramatic than so.

And that is how we MUST do things to be honest in what we do.

You will note that you have had your answer on the lung question - our posts crossed, and there was never any wish to avoid the question on my behalf.

I note that you now accept that I never intended to claim that the lung part was removed from Millers Court. To me, "taken away" was written with the same intent as "gone": to show that it was removed from it´s original position.
Thank you for that. It took way too long, but since it arrived, that´s water under the bridge.

[Sam Flynn]

Those who dismember normally only do that, and for practical reasons, end of story. They dont pluck organs out and cut faces away

Dismemberers do take out organs, for very practical reasons - Nilsen being a classic example. As to cutting faces away, we don't know that this happened to the torso victims, unless you're about to make another one of your evidence-twisting over-generalisations to equate facial mutilations with the removal of the head.