Practicality or madness?

[Abby Normal]

Three of the very specific similarities between the torso series and ripper series really pushes me in the direction they were the same man.

The totenham victims head was mutilated almost exactly like eddowes-face gashed, ear (or part of) cut off and the nose cut off. torso 73 also had the nose cut off I believe.

secondly-the flaps of flesh removed from the stomach in the chapman, Kelly and Jackson cases.

Thirdly- the (seemingly initial) VERTICAL gash made to the midsection in both series.

these things really make an impression on me they were probably done by the same hand.

[Fisherman]

Three of the very specific similarities between the torso series and ripper series really pushes me in the direction they were the same man.

The totenham victims head was mutilated almost exactly like eddowes-face gashed, ear (or part of) cut off and the nose cut off. torso 73 also had the nose cut off I believe.

secondly-the flaps of flesh removed from the stomach in the chapman, Kelly and Jackson cases.

Thirdly- the (seemingly initial) VERTICAL gash made to the midsection in both series.

these things really make an impression on me they were probably done by the same hand.

One of the things that stand out most to me is the lack of obvious physical damage caused to the victims when in life. Serial killers who start out by securing a dead body without inflicting any bodily harm are quite rare.

If we stop there and do not even mention the fact that both men took out uteri and hearts from victims of theirs, that tells quite a story about the validity of our case, I´d say!

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Just a quick note on the removal of organs and the level of evisceration needed, the afore quoted Ed Gingrich made a small incision, 7", but removed all the organs. The ripper/torso killer made large incisions, but removed relatively little. Given that Gingerich was a one time killer who can be analysed, what do you make of the idea that someone who purely wanted to remove organs would do no more than necessary, but in the torso/ripper cases the level of bodily opening was in excess to removing a particular organ? Was the organ the goal, or just part of a bigger picture?

[Abby Normal]

Just a quick note on the removal of organs and the level of evisceration needed, the afore quoted Ed Gingrich made a small incision, 7", but removed all the organs. The ripper/torso killer made large incisions, but removed relatively little. Given that Gingerich was a one time killer who can be analysed, what do you make of the idea that someone who purely wanted to remove organs would do no more than necessary, but in the torso/ripper cases the level of bodily opening was in excess to removing a particular organ? Was the organ the goal, or just part of a bigger picture?

considering all the other damage they did, just part of the bigger picture.

[harry]

Yes Fisherman,we can leave it there,i think posters can make up their own minds from what has been said.Yes I used the word peoves,so what,but not in the form you are suggesting.

[harry]

Should have been proves.I don't wish him to fault my spelling,that would have been calamitous.Now let's see ,have I spelt that correct?

[Fisherman]

Yes Fisherman,we can leave it there,i think posters can make up their own minds from what has been said.

I am absolutely certain that they can.

Yes I used the word peoves,so what,but not in the form you are suggesting.

You used the word proves? Really? But in your former post you claimed, and I quote: "Nowhere,or in any form,have I used the word proven.,or suggested that Fisherman had used the term."
Now, all of a sudden, you admit that you DID use the word proven, but you say that you did not do so in the form I am suggesting. Wriggle, wriggle!

The "form" I am suggesting is something I pointed out many times already: you led on that I would have implied that it is a proven thing taht Gillis and the Ripper/Torso killer were of the same ilk. And I am afraid that there can be no other interpretation of what you wrote. And so you were claiming things on my behalf that I had never said. Nor would I ever say something like that.

This, Harry, I will point out each and every time you try to deny it. And yes, I am sure that any poster who has not already lost his will to live after having read your pathetic efforts to evade responsibility for what you state out here will be perfectly able to make his or her mind up about who is right and who is wrong here.

Now, I advice you to do the decent thing and admit that you were misrepresenting me. Short of that, at least have the clearmindedness not to prolong your public flogging by going on insisting that it is okay to claim falseties about your fellow posters.

[Fisherman]

Just a quick note on the removal of organs and the level of evisceration needed, the afore quoted Ed Gingrich made a small incision, 7", but removed all the organs. The ripper/torso killer made large incisions, but removed relatively little. Given that Gingerich was a one time killer who can be analysed, what do you make of the idea that someone who purely wanted to remove organs would do no more than necessary, but in the torso/ripper cases the level of bodily opening was in excess to removing a particular organ? Was the organ the goal, or just part of a bigger picture?

There is absolutely no need to cut all the way from pubes to ribs to take out a uterus or a kidney. This we can learn from the Gingerich case, which is why I brought it up. A seven inch opening is enough to retrieve ALL the inner organs through. But our man cut all the way from pubes to ribs, and as if that was not enough, he even took away the abdominal wall in three cases.

The way I see things, he did not cut the way he did in order to enable him to retrieve the organs he took out. To me, he cut the way he did because a complete opening up of the abdominal cavity belonged to the phantasy he entertained. He wanted the abdominal cavity to be fully exposed, showing off the inside of the victims with all the options of choosing an organ at will to take out. It´s about his phantasy, not about judging the exact opening needed to extract a particular organ. If you ask me, of course!

I would say that the thigh he cut to the bone on Kelly is another example of the same: it is a pedagogical representation of how a thigh is built, from the inside out. If we for a second return to Gillis, we may once again listen to how he explained how he cut one of his victims post mortem: "I wanted to see her femur".

The kind of psychopathology I think we are dealing with is therefore something that allows for many different expressions. A killer like this may choose to cut out part of a colon section, to cut down to the bone structure to expose it, to cut deep into a face and remove a nose, to take out inner organs - or to cut people up in smaller parts, all depending on opportunity and implements at hand.

[harry]

Not all of a sudden fisherman,as soon as the mistake was pointed out.and the word I used was proves not proven.I have never declared that you used the word proven in your use of Gillis.Implied and intimated yes,why else did you introduce Gillis and attempt a connection between him and JTR?I could have used the word shown and it would have conveyed the same message.Yes, for years you have implied and intimated that JTR,the torso murderer as he has been called,and Cross were one and the same.So it is not something you have said I am remarking on.The basic elements of your theory are that JTR,and the torso killer were the same person,and that person was Cross.Gillis is a feeble attempt to show some providence,though what that is no one seems to know.
There has been no misrepresention on my part ,no wriggle wriggle.No need to.That façade you mentioned was built by you,and it has fallen and left nothing behind.The word proven should not be used,you are arguing that yourself.Your theory has no providence.Thanks for tellin us.

[Fisherman]

I need not make my case again, Harry. You misrepresented me, I pointed it out, and you hysterically started to call me a liar. Keep it up, by all means. If you are set on flaunting your behind, be my guest.
Arguing that saying that I would have claimed that the circumstances proves my case is any different from arguing that I would have said that my case is proven is completely asinine, by the way.

Now, stop wasting space with this garbage. We all make mistakes, and the true qualifier of who is worth listening to lies in whether we are willing to admit it when it happens. If we are not, we are truly pityful.

[Abby Normal]

There is absolutely no need to cut all the way from pubes to ribs to take out a uterus or a kidney. This we can learn from the Gingerich case, which is why I brought it up. A seven inch opening is enough to retrieve ALL the inner organs through. But our man cut all the way from pubes to ribs, and as if that was not enough, he even took away the abdominal wall in three cases.

The way I see things, he did not cut the way he did in order to enable him to retrieve the organs he took out. To me, he cut the way he did because a complete opening up of the abdominal cavity belonged to the phantasy he entertained. He wanted the abdominal cavity to be fully exposed, showing off the inside of the victims with all the options of choosing an organ at will to take out. It´s about his phantasy, not about judging the exact opening needed to extract a particular organ. If you ask me, of course!

I would say that the thigh he cut to the bone on Kelly is another example of the same: it is a pedagogical representation of how a thigh is built, from the inside out. If we for a second return to Gillis, we may once again listen to how he explained how he cut one of his victims post mortem: "I wanted to see her femur".

The kind of psychopathology I think we are dealing with is therefore something that allows for many different expressions. A killer like this may choose to cut out part of a colon section, to cut down to the bone structure to expose it, to cut deep into a face and remove a nose, to take out inner organs - or to cut people up in smaller parts, all depending on opportunity and implements at hand.

hi fish and al
agree.
when chase killed and mutilated one of his victims, he had spread her intestines out across some tree branches and when police discovered they rightfully so were perplexed at this bizzaro scene and why anyone would do that. when chase was caught and asked about it he simply said, i wanted to get a better look at them in the sunlight. i think something similar is going on with torsoripper. now of course chase was bat **** crazy so he didnt last long before he was caught, but i think the same type of morbid curiosity is going on here, hence the variety and extent of damage done to the victims.

[Fisherman]

hi fish and al
agree.
when chase killed and mutilated one of his victims, he had spread her intestines out across some tree branches and when police discovered they rightfully so were perplexed at this bizzaro scene and why anyone would do that. when chase was caught and asked about it he simply said, i wanted to get a better look at them in the sunlight. i think something similar is going on with torsoripper. now of course chase was bat **** crazy so he didnt last long before he was caught, but i think the same type of morbid curiosity is going on here, hence the variety and extent of damage done to the victims.

I think this is part of the explanation, Abby. A curious person will not ask the same exact question over and over again - he will move on and widen his insights.

Then again, there are reoccurring inclusions like the extensive cuts to the abdomen to consider, or the taking away of abdominal walls. This speaks to me of something that borders on ritual elements. If Chase had hung all of his victims intestines from trees, we would have the same, and we would be able to conclude that there was a bit more than curiosity involved.

There is a fusing of factors going on, therefore, if you ask me.

[Curious Cat]

I feel the perpetrator in the Ripper murders started with a relatively low level violent killing that went unsolved, with the immediate and local reaction to it triggering a need to see how far they could take it and how long they could safely go undetected. The thrill and the power of knowing they were the killer while frustrating and spreading fear among the police and public being the driving force. Creating the mystery itself was as methodical as the actual killings themselves. The killer stopped having fulfilled their personal remit, allowing the unsolved murders to pass into legend and their notoriety to live forever.

We've effectively all fallen perfectly into the killer's trap psychologically.

[Abby Normal]

I think this is part of the explanation, Abby. A curious person will not ask the same exact question over and over again - he will move on and widen his insights.

Then again, there are reoccurring inclusions like the extensive cuts to the abdomen to consider, or the taking away of abdominal walls. This speaks to me of something that borders on ritual elements. If Chase had hung all of his victims intestines from trees, we would have the same, and we would be able to conclude that there was a bit more than curiosity involved.

There is a fusing of factors going on, therefore, if you ask me.

Hi Fish
totally agree and appreciate the distinction too. yes there are ritualistic/fusing elements of course.

[Abby Normal]

I feel the perpetrator in the Ripper murders started with a relatively low level violent killing that went unsolved, with the immediate and local reaction to it triggering a need to see how far they could take it and how long they could safely go undetected. The thrill and the power of knowing they were the killer while frustrating and spreading fear among the police and public being the driving force. Creating the mystery itself was as methodical as the actual killings themselves. The killer stopped having fulfilled their personal remit, allowing the unsolved murders to pass into legend and their notoriety to live forever.

We've effectively all fallen perfectly into the killer's trap psychologically.

interesting take curious.
IMHO the killings seemed to stop with pinchin and Mackenzie. and it is a myth that serial killers will only stop when they are incarcerated or die, so need to ruminate on your idea a bit.