Practicality or madness?

[Fisherman]

Since we have been discussing the abdominal flaps on this thread, I thought Iīd put this snippet out here. It is from the Morning Advertiser of the 3rd, and it describes the mutilation of the Whitehall victim: "In cutting off the legs a portion of the abdomen had been cut away".

I had not seen this before, and it has me very interested. What was found of the victim was the torso in the vault, one arm in the Thames and a leg from the knee down and the attached foot buried in the vault. Why the assumption was made that the missing portion of the abdomen was collateral damage from taking the legs off, I donīt know.

Anyhow, The Evening News tell us that part of the abdomen was gone. Are they speaking of part of the abdominal wall? They are not speaking of the stomach, because it was in place in the torso. What was missing from the abdomen were part of the descending colon and some pelvic viscera. Would that be described as a "portion of the abdomen"?

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman

May I take your second question first:

Oh, alright then. If you must.

I believe there is no one to whom we can entrust the authority to decide those boundaries, it is a matter of opinion and debate and either coming to a consensus, establishing further facts which helps to answer the question or agreeing to disagree about the significance of individual factors.

I see before my eyes a bottomless bog of so called subjective opinions, Iīm afraid. And as many suggestions of boundaries as we are posters

I think my answer to this question is more complex than my statement would make it appear. I'll try to articulate clearly my perspective on your list of similarities.

I look at your list and divide the items on it into two categories; those that seem to me to be significant in suggesting that the killer of both victims is the same person and those that are factors which facilitate your theory but do not of themselves suggest (to me) a single killer. The only one I would question being included at all, is the last in your list since there are conflicting views on the skill levels applied by the ripper and torso murderer(s). I am not sure if I have managed to articulate this clearly, but looking at how I split the list may make it clearer.



They both DID have a prostitution background. (category 2)
They both WERE killed and/or dumped in the same city. (category 2)
They both WERE killed in close proximity in time. (category 2)
The both DID have their abdomens cut from sternum to groin. (category 1)
They both DID have their uteri cut out. (category 1)
They both DID have their abdominal walls taken away in flaps. (category 1)
NONE of them had any reported signs of pre-death torture on their bodies. (category 2)
They both HAD their rings taken away in close proximity to death, probably by their killer. (category 1)
They both DID have their throats severed. (category 2)
They both WERE reported about as having been cut by somebody who cut skilfully and with at least some anatomical insights.

The above is simply my way of organising and making sense of the data - I don't say it is the only or best way, but it may make clearer how I approach your theory.

As I mentioned in a previous post - I then balanced these against the differences in the way the murders were conducted to reach a different conclusion to you but with reservations about how we explain those factors in your list that I consider to be significant (category 1 factors).

An interesting approach, etenguy. But it has itīs disadvantages. For example, once you phrase yourself "seem to me", you must be aware that we once again land in subjective territory. And then there is the question of grading down some parameters to level 2 points, for the reason of them being, as you put it, not per se suggestive of a single killer but instead facilitating the idea.
Being the sensitive animal that I am, I immediately wonder why we would use the word "facilitate" - it has a ring of trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Why do we not instead speak of them as further enhancing or bolstering or strengthening the idea? Because that is what they do, is it not?

If we look at the geography and the timing, they are class 2 points for you - but they are the very foundation on which the case rests, are they not? If one series was in London 1888 and the other in San Fransisco 2002, there would not be any debate over a single killer, would there? Then again, it is not as if I cannot see the value of your thinking - I can. And overall, I tend to -broadly speaking - agree with you over the ranking of the parameters. I too think that the flaps are way more instrumental in pointing to a single killer than the fact that they were all cut away in London.

I am looking at this in a slightly different manner. It was said before on this thread that nobody would take any interest in the similarity that all the victims wore shoes. I agree about that. Nobody would - or should.
But WHY is that?
Well, it is of course because the reason that some parameters point (to a smaller or larger degree) to a single killer, is because they all reflect active choices or actions on the killers behalf. The shoes donīt. And this is where I think I find the best path to walk down. The things the killer actually DID to the victims are the clearest pointers to a single killer, if they were similar inbetween the deeds. This must be coupled with the rarity of the different measures - if he hit them over the head, that is not a very rare thing to do and therefore not very telling. But cutting a person open from sternum to groin is a exceedingly rare thing to do, and therefore clearly indicative of a single killer (provided that the geography and timings allow for it - or even encourage the idea, as is the case here). Cutting abdominal walls away in large flaps is even more rare, bordering on unheard of, and therefore is an extremely strong indicator of a common originator.
Taken one by one, these parameters will carry different weight, as I say. But taken together, they will carry a weight that is many times greater. When we couple the flaps with the long cuts, we get a far better case than when we look at them separately. And that case is strengthened (not facilitated...) immensely by every other addition to a smaller (knife deed) or larger (uteri taken out) degree.

Basically, it is a case of how many mindblowing coincidences we are ready to allow for.

Then there are the points where we are dealing with choices, not actions, on behalf of the killer. He chose to work in London. He chose to do so in the latee eighties. He chose not to inflict any pre-mortem torture. These matters are not set off in any physical shape (other than in a negative manner), and they are therefore not as clear as are the former parameters.

The dearth of detailed reports also influences the matter; we know that skill was spoken of, but we do not have the exact cutting on record so that we can compare the damage caused and say if we seem to be looking at the same killer. Therefore, this parameter is not as weighty as are the uteri, the long abdominal cuts, the abdominal flaps etcetera.

This is how I look on things. I would not want to grade the parameters, least of all using only 1:s and 2:s. With your suggestion, it puts the taking of the rings and the abdominal flap cutting on par with each other in terms of decisive power. And that is not sound, since taking valuables from a murder victim was always a very common thing to do, whereas the fewest killers leave a murder site with their pockets lined with abdominal flaps!

I do appreciate your sharing your thoughts with me, anyhow. But I would encourage you to try and find any string of murders with as many and rare similarities inbetween them as we have here and where it was NOT a case of a single killer. In my world, if there is a string of murders in a certain area and time with any of the rare inclusions we speak of - be it uterus taking OR cutting from sternum to groin OR cutting away abdominal walls in flaps - the police would not spend two seconds flat on reasoning about whether they were likely dealing with one or two (or multiple) killers. It would be an irresponsible waste of hard earned tax money.

[Fisherman]

2. if we do end up being convinced that the killer of Elizabeth Jackson and Annie Chapman is the same man, it does not follow automatically that all the C5 and torso murders were committed by one man. In fact, I think we would struggle to evidence such a conclusion. However, lack of proof does not invalidate the possiblity - take the Higgs-Boson particle for instance, it was theorised years before proof of its existence could be confirmed.

This is of course true. It is only if we accept that at least the C5 and the four torso murders 1887-89 were genuine murder series committed respectively by the same person that we arrive at the conclusion that we have a single killer for both series after having accepted that Jackson and Chapman were killed by the same person.

Then again, if we do accept that Jackson and Chapman WERE killed by the same man, the rest will follow suit for most of us, and the general consensus will be one of a single killer for the Ripper and the Torso series.

[etenguy]

Hi Fisherman

May I take your second question first:

And what do you mean by this: "The area it leaves for debate is what we should include in the list." To whom do we entrust the authority to decide the boundaries of that area...?

I believe there is no one to whom we can entrust the authority to decide those boundaries, it is a matter of opinion and debate and either coming to a consensus, establishing further facts which helps to answer the question or agreeing to disagree about the significance of individual factors.

Can I ask you, etenguy, when you say:"There are other facts included in Fisherman's list which I think we might take different views about including", are you saying that you would recommend taking one or more points off the list? And if so, which point/s?

I think my answer to this question is more complex than my statement would make it appear. I'll try to articulate clearly my perspective on your list of similarities.

I look at your list and divide the items on it into two categories; those that seem to me to be significant in suggesting that the killer of both victims is the same person and those that are factors which facilitate your theory but do not of themselves suggest (to me) a single killer. The only one I would question being included at all, is the last in your list since there are conflicting views on the skill levels applied by the ripper and torso murderer(s). I am not sure if I have managed to articulate this clearly, but looking at how I split the list may make it clearer.

They both DID have a prostitution background. (category 2)
They both WERE killed and/or dumped in the same city. (category 2)
They both WERE killed in close proximity in time. (category 2)
The both DID have their abdomens cut from sternum to groin. (category 1)
They both DID have their uteri cut out. (category 1)
They both DID have their abdominal walls taken away in flaps. (category 1)
NONE of them had any reported signs of pre-death torture on their bodies. (category 2)
They both HAD their rings taken away in close proximity to death, probably by their killer. (category 1)
They both DID have their throats severed. (category 2)
They both WERE reported about as having been cut by somebody who cut skilfully and with at least some anatomical insights.

The above is simply my way of organising and making sense of the data - I don't say it is the only or best way, but it may make clearer how I approach your theory.

As I mentioned in a previous post - I then balanced these against the differences in the way the murders were conducted to reach a different conclusion to you but with reservations about how we explain those factors in your list that I consider to be significant (category 1 factors).

[etenguy]

thanks Eten
ive always considered you one of the more reasonable and open minded posters on here! : )

Thanks Abby, but although I agree the principle there are two areas where I am not as convinced as you and Fisherman about the application of that principle
1. although the cumulative number of similarities between the murders makes for a stronger argument than a single similarity on its own, I haven't reached the conclusion that taken together they are sufficiently compelling to be able to state that both murders were committed by one killer when considered in the context of the differences also. I think Fisherman raises some interesting questions and makes a strong argument which cannot be ignored by those who favour the two separate killers theory. I think either you and Fisherman are correct in your conclusion or those who favour two killers need to be able to explain how those similarities exist (though only the significant ones). Some explanations have been put forward (including one by me) but neither side of the argument, in my view, has reached the point where one is significantly strong to convince those who favour the other.
2. if we do end up being convinced that the killer of Elizabeth Jackson and Annie Chapman is the same man, it does not follow automatically that all the C5 and torso murders were committed by one man. In fact, I think we would struggle to evidence such a conclusion. However, lack of proof does not invalidate the possiblity - take the Higgs-Boson particle for instance, it was theorised years before proof of its existence could be confirmed.

[Fisherman]

Can I ask you, etenguy, when you say:"There are other facts included in Fisherman's list which I think we might take different views about including", are you saying that you would recommend taking one or more points off the list? And if so, which point/s?

And what do you mean by this: "The area it leaves for debate is what we should include in the list." To whom do we entrust the authority to decide the boundaries of that area...?

[Abby Normal]

Hey Abby - I haven't seen you post recently, nice to touch base again.

You articulate the point I was making better than I did. The area it leaves for debate is what we should include in the list. The fact the victims wore shoes we can both easily agree is irrelevant, the fact that the victims had abdominal flaps cut away we can both easily agree should be in the list. There are other facts included in Fisherman's list which I think we might take different views about including.

Nevertheless, the argument you and Fisherman make concerning the cumulative effect of similarities is one I accept.

thanks Eten
ive always considered you one of the more reasonable and open minded posters on here! : )

[etenguy]

Hi Eten
the similarities are facts-there significance is subjective of course. But I think were all smart enough to realize that something like they were all wearing shoes while a fact/similarity would not be significant (or relevant). Its the number of similarities, and very specific ones at that, in the context of serial murder, that add up pointing to probability of common origin-one man.

Hey Abby - I haven't seen you post recently, nice to touch base again.

You articulate the point I was making better than I did. The area it leaves for debate is what we should include in the list. The fact the victims wore shoes we can both easily agree is irrelevant, the fact that the victims had abdominal flaps cut away we can both easily agree should be in the list. There are other facts included in Fisherman's list which I think we might take different views about including.

Nevertheless, the argument you and Fisherman make concerning the cumulative effect of similarities is one I accept.

[c.d.]

C. D., here īs your answer. As I told you, if Michael returned he would get no answer from me. I intend to keep it that way.

Well done, Fisherman.

c.d.

[Fisherman]

C. D., here īs your answer. As I told you, if Michael returned he would get no answer from me. I intend to keep it that way.

[Michael W Richards]

Im in negotiation of a book deal at the moment Fisherman but I can assure you that you will specifically will be referenced in the forward If I get it. Fortunately for me all the vile accusations, slanderous remarks and laughable defenses are on record here, on this site...in your own words, already. So, maybe you will be famous in this study area one day, but certainly not for what you hoped to be.

Im not usually vindictive or inclined toward retribution for slights, but Ive suffered your bullshit here for no other reason that to defend the truth from the trash you try to infuse it with. So Ill live with my posts, be sure you will have to live with yours too. See ya pal.

[Michael W Richards]

To suggest that 2 murders occurred in the same city, for one example, is something that is unique, relevant, or even germane to the concept of associating the 2 specific murders with one killer is simply beyond ridiculous, no matter what a juvenile and devoid of nobility, honor or character an online troll suggests.

Ill listen to people who aren't dishonest deviates who pretend to possess insights that amount to nothing more than wild guesses, and disparage anyone who calls that truth to the light.

"Of course, you aim will have been to try and make my case look a lot weaker than it is." I don't have to. It just is.

In fact it isn't a case, its some farcical attempt to get some recognition. You have that now. Everyone can now read how you have libeled me, slandered me and others, and consistently repeated your belief in arguments that have already been defeated, most without any real effort. They will also note that you took a position that both these series are by one killer, yet most recently used only 1 victim from each alleged series to keep your hopes alive. Since its clear enough already to anyone sentient that they are not by one person.

[Fisherman]

Hi Eten
the similarities are facts-there significance is subjective of course. But I think were all smart enough to realize that something like they were all wearing shoes while a fact/similarity would not be significant (or relevant). Its the number of similarities, and very specific ones at that, in the context of serial murder, that add up pointing to probability of common origin-one man.

Yes, Abby, that is exactly how we must look upon it. It is as if we were to look at a list involving technical specifications of two different cars; tire dimensions, horsepower count, types of carburators etcetera. As long as that list is not used to make any sort of subjective claim (like "I think car A is better than car B because it has more horsepower and broader tires" or "I think car B is better than car A because it is less fuel demanding"), it is a thoroughly non-subjective list, simply stating objective facts.
Overall I think there is sometimes a fear to acknowledge the collected power of the evidence for a single killer, and so these kinds of miscomprehensions surface.

[Abby Normal]

Just back from a few days away to find the debate hotting up here. I wish not to stoke that fire but to add my tuppence worth to the debate.

In relation to your statement above, there are other similarities we could add to your list - but they are not all significant similarities in relation to identifying whether the victims were killed by one and the same man. For example you could add that they were both women and your list jumps to eleven similarities. The number of similarities you can list is irrelevant. What matters are the number of SIGNIFICANT similarities you can list in relation to identifying whether these murders were the work of one or more killers. By that definition, then your list is subjective in so much as it is your interpretation of whether these factors are significant in that determination.

You know by now that I find some of the similarities you list as significant and worth exploring further, but others, though factual, are not, in my view, significant in relation to the argument you seek to make.

Hi Eten
the similarities are facts-there significance is subjective of course. But I think were all smart enough to realize that something like they were all wearing shoes while a fact/similarity would not be significant (or relevant). Its the number of similarities, and very specific ones at that, in the context of serial murder, that add up pointing to probability of common origin-one man.

[Fisherman]

Just back from a few days away to find the debate hotting up here.

More like getting silly, etenguy.

I wish not to stoke that fire but to add my tuppence worth to the debate.

In relation to your statement above, there are other similarities we could add to your list - but they are not all significant similarities in relation to identifying whether the victims were killed by one and the same man.
For example you could add that they were both women and your list jumps to eleven similarities. The number of similarities you can list is irrelevant. What matters are the number of SIGNIFICANT similarities you can list in relation to identifying whether these murders were the work of one or more killers. By that definition, then your list is subjective in so much as it is your interpretation of whether these factors are significant in that determination.

You know by now that I find some of the similarities you list as significant and worth exploring further, but others, though factual, are not, in my view, significant in relation to the argument you seek to make.

Nope, my list is not subjective at all. You have got that wrong, although I do see the point you are trying to make. I will try and explain to you how things work, the way I see it. But keep in mind that the list is NOT subjective, these things DID happen!!

First of all, any which one similarity we pick will in isolation be less indicative of a single killer than if we put it into context and couple it with the other similarities. For example, the similarity you mention, that all the victims were women, is in itself not indicative of a single killer other than to a very low degree. On itīs own, it DOES point to a single killer in a very small way (if we have two murders, then they are more likely to have been committed by a single killer if the gender is the same than it would be with different genders), but once we couple it with all the rest, it does help to shape a picture of a single killer. If one of the victims in these series had been a man who had been cut open and eviscerated, that would have been confusing, although if flaps had been taken from the abdomen and if there was a cut from sternum to groin etcetera, then the circumstances would be extremely much in favour of him belonging to the the series anyway!

So in essence, yes, the characteristics I mention all differ in magnitude when it comes to speaking for a single killer, but the sum of them carries much more weight than one would sometimes think if one was to look at the indicidual weight for each parameter taken in isolation.

The outcome of this is that it is not in any way irrelevant how many similatities there are. If you listen to the proposition you may understand that it is not true. Take one of the less "hot" leads, for example the taking if the rings from the victims fingers, and look what happens in varying contexts:

Letīs say that we have two living people who have rings stolen from their fingers. One is a man in Birmingham 1918 and the other a woman in Tokyo in 1989.

Are these cases connected? The odds against it are astronomical!

Now letīs start adding parameters. Letīs say that BOTH these people had their rings stolen in 1989. Does THAT mean that we are likely looking at the same perpetrator? No, it does not, the odds against are still astronomical - but they are nevertheless less astronomical than they used to be.

Put both of them in Tokyo, and what happens? We get two cases of Tokyo citizens who have their rings taken from their fingers the same year - and oopla, the odds for a connection grow a lot better, although they are still not in any way conclusive.

Now, letīs say these people were murder victims. In Tokyo. In the same year. Who have their rings taken from their fingers, likely by their killer/s. What happens? It suddenly becomes a whole lot more likely with just the one killer, right?

You know what happens now, donīt you? Correct: Now we make the assumption that these two Tokyo murder victims in 1989 were both killed by way of knife, that they were both eviscerated and that they were both left with some very rare and odd damage caused to their bodies. Letīs say they both had their ears cut off and that they were both eviscerated through a round ten-inch hole in their abdomens.
Can you see what the ring issue amounts to now? Yes, exactly: it becomes further corroboration of the very near certainty of a common killer. It is a case that is beyond reasonable doubt at this stage. And so we can see that what seems a trivial and common thing - the taking of a ring from a victims finger - becomes an important point of further corroboration of a single killer.

At this stage, you may think that I have concluded the logical train of thought, but there is actually one more ingredient to be added: letīs presume that the victims were both women. That DOES complete the picture, does it not? And so you see, what you named as totally irrelevant actually has itīs relevance.

When we are taking a look at whether two series are related or not, we should never start by sorting away the similarities we do not think are very weighty, etenguy. It is doing it backwards. We should list ALL similarities, big and small, and then we should ask ourselves if it is reasonable to believe that two killers will both include them in what are otherwise unconnected murder series. Many ripperologists who dislike an idea do it the wrong way, they pick the points one by one and try to furnish them with alternative innocent explanations. That, Iīm afraid, is ommitting to look at the full picture. EVERY similarity gains more traction with every other similarity that is coupled to it, and that is why the police go looking for them.