Practicality or madness?

[Fisherman]

I cannot be any clearer than my last post. So Ill just have to assume you didn't read it. I never said you claimed a dozen eviserations ever, so stop posting that falsehood now...or be reported.You said the Torso Murders and The Ripper murders have a common element...one being eviscerations. That's 12 victims total. I pointed out accurately that only some Canonicals have that, so its not a link between the "series"...its a potential link between victims.

You make a claim, someone points out a flaw in it, and you then attack the person pointing that out and lie about what they said. My god... this is the most childish exchange Ive ever had with a grown up.

You made the claim, you were wrong not qualifying it, and now you've been outed as someone who posted incorrectly and is petulant and will fabricate something to discredit someone else. That's what you want?

Never ever accused you of claiming 12 were eviscerated, never, not once. So stop claiming it NOW..and consider yourself lucky youre lying about me from across the pond.

"3 canonicals were eviscerated. Just 3. Not a dozen victims, like you've espoused on other threads..."

You see, I am claiming nothing at all, Michael. The claiming is all on your behalf.

I have no wish to discredit anyone. I loathe anyone who does so without reason. Otherwise, we would not be having this discussion.

If you now post that you do not say that I have claimed that a dozen victims were eviscerated, thatīs fine. And correct. But to say that you have never said so is simply wrong. Whether it was down to an unlucky wording or not is not for me to say. I can only read what is posted. If you had written "3 canonicals were eviscerated. Just 3. And there were not a dozen victims, like you've espoused on other threads...", you would have been in the clear.

But you didnīt, did you?

Thatīs all there is to it. Try to be more careful in the future, and unfortunate matters like this will hopefully not taint the discussion.

PS. It of course also needs to be said that you cannot know whether there were a dozen victims or not, but thatīs another matter.

[John G]

dismember

[ dis-mem-ber ]SHOW IPA
SEE SYNONYMS FOR dismember ON THESAURUS.COM

---

verb (used with object)

1. to deprive of limbs; divide limb from limb: The ogre dismembered his victims before he ate them.
2. to divide into parts; cut to pieces; mutilate.

Yes, you're technically correct, although I haven't seen a murder described as a dismemberment crime with such a small level 9f dismemberment.

[Fisherman]

You have now.

[Fisherman]

If you don’t like Miyazaki, there are guys like Herbert Mullin, Randy Krafft and quite a few others to choose from, who dismembered on occasion. If you want a parallel who changed between street mutilations and very skilled dismemberments, involving eviscerations, it may prove a lot harder to find. Then again, individual cases will be... well, individual.

[Kattrup]

Yes, you're technically correct

Personally, I don't think he is, since a hand or a foot is not a limb.

The secondary meaning is figurative (so we can use the word to describe e.g. a car being taken apart as dismembered), but in the case you're discussing, Fisherman used the literal sense.
It's likely we won't agree about it, though

[Fisherman]

I rarely agree with people who are wrong, Kattrup, so you are quite right. Now, that’s an anomaly if I ever heard one...

[John G]

Personally, I don't think he is, since a hand or a foot is not a limb.

The secondary meaning is figurative (so we can use the word to describe e.g. a car being taken apart as dismembered), but in the case you're discussing, Fisherman used the literal sense.
It's likely we won't agree about it, though

The technical name for the hands and feet is extremities, although they're commonly referred to as limbs.

However, the point is somewhat academic because when forensic scientists refer to a body being dismembered (usually for ease of transportation) they don't, as far as I'm aware, include cases where just the extremities have been removed. So, once again, the point essentially becomes academic.

Of course, over time the meaning of words can change or develop. For instance, the word "fantastic" used to mean grotesque. Today, in common usage at least, it has a very different meaning.

[Kattrup]

The technical name for the hands and feet is extremities, although they're commonly referred to as limbs.

However, the point is somewhat academic because when forensic scientists refer to a body being dismembered (usually for ease of transportation) they don't, as far as I'm aware, include cases where just the extremities have been removed. So, once again, the point essentially becomes academic.

Of course, over time the meaning of words can change or develop. For instance, the word "fantastic" used to mean grotesque. Today, in common usage at least, it has a very different meaning.

Absolutely, I just find it part of the attempt to assert similarities based on a superficial word usage. The victims all had their throats cut! No, decapitation does not equal cut throat. The victims were eviscerated! No, cutting a torso into small pieces means the intestines will no longer be attached, it does not equal eviscerating. Uteri were removed! Well, EJ was heavily pregnant, so removing the uterus with foetus was necessary before sectioning the torso. So again, not the same thing.

[Fisherman]

Absolutely, I just find it part of the attempt to assert similarities based on a superficial word usage. The victims all had their throats cut! No, decapitation does not equal cut throat. The victims were eviscerated! No, cutting a torso into small pieces means the intestines will no longer be attached, it does not equal eviscerating. Uteri were removed! Well, EJ was heavily pregnant, so removing the uterus with foetus was necessary before sectioning the torso. So again, not the same thing.

"Superficial"! Isnīt that the word Gareth commonly uses about the similarities of the two series? They are supposedly only "superficial"? Well, the fact (FACT) of the matter is that we do not know whether the similarities are superficial or not. But we DO know that when a number of dismemberment/evisceration murders occur in the same area and time, this is almost certainly on account of how a single killer is on the loose. And so, the overwhelming likelihood is that the similarities were not superficial but instead real similarities.

As for dismemberment, most people will think about it as a defensive mechanism only, and defensive mechanism will regularly involve taking the body apart in a number of parts, normally consisting of six such parts, torso, head, arms and legs.
However, sometimes a defensive dismemberer decides that smaller parts are easier to carry, and so he may take off the hands and feeet and divide the limbs by the elbows/knees. The idea that the cutting away of a hand or foot in such cases would be something else than dismemberment is of course wrong. And he must not also cut the rest of the limb away before the cutting away of a hand becomes dismemberment.
When we move into the area of offensive dismemberment, we are dealing with a very different matter! These are dismemberments that serve the purpose of satisfying an urge within the cutter, and so whatever part such a killer chooses to cut from a body represents a dismemberment.

If your suggestion, Kattrup, is that limb dismemberment, if you will, is only reached when a whole limb is removed, then what happens if a killer takes the arm off at the elbow? Is it not dismemberment in such a case? And if he saws the arm off one inch below the shoulder, leaving a tiny part of the limb in place? No dismemberment, or? Where are the exact limits? Three inches up above the elbow? In the exact middle beteen wrist and elbow?

Dismemberment can easiest be described as taking a body apart in pieces. How many parts a dismemberment produces is not what decides if it is a dismemberment or something else. The six part partition is the usual one, but why would not a five-, four-, three- or two-part division represent dismemberment?

Itīs all good and well to have these hunches, but before they are passed off as relevant, I think a little bit of reading up is essential.

PS. I tried the phrase "dismembered hand" on Google. 105 000 hits. "Dismembered head" gave 62 700 hits. "Dismembered reasoning" gave 5, but I think your contribution may just have pressed that number up to 6. There ARE parts lacking from it.

[John G]

Absolutely, I just find it part of the attempt to assert similarities based on a superficial word usage. The victims all had their throats cut! No, decapitation does not equal cut throat. The victims were eviscerated! No, cutting a torso into small pieces means the intestines will no longer be attached, it does not equal eviscerating. Uteri were removed! Well, EJ was heavily pregnant, so removing the uterus with foetus was necessary before sectioning the torso. So again, not the same thing.

Thanks Kattrup, excellent point regarding Jackson. And whilst sectioning the Torso is unusual, the Torso is usually left as one piece, it's certainly not unprecedented.

[Kattrup]

"Superficial"! Isnīt that the word Gareth commonly uses about the similarities of the two series? They are supposedly only "superficial"? Well, the fact (FACT) of the matter is that we do not know whether the similarities are superficial or not. But we DO know that when a number of dismemberment/evisceration murders occur in the same area and time, this is almost certainly on account of how a single killer is on the loose. And so, the overwhelming likelihood is that the similarities were not superficial but instead real similarities.

As for dismemberment, most people will think about it as a defensive mechanism only, and defensive mechanism will regularly involve taking the body apart in a number of parts, normally consisting of six such parts, torso, head, arms and legs.
However, sometimes a defensive dismemberer decides that smaller parts are easier to carry, and so he may take off the hands and feeet and divide the limbs by the elbows/knees. The idea that the cutting away of a hand or foot in such cases would be something else than dismemberment is of course wrong. And he must not also cut the rest of the limb away before the cutting away of a hand becomes dismemberment.
When we move into the area of offensive dismemberment, we are dealing with a very different matter! These are dismemberments that serve the purpose of satisfying an urge within the cutter, and so whatever part such a killer chooses to cut from a body represents a dismemberment.

If your suggestion, Kattrup, is that limb dismemberment, if you will, is only reached when a whole limb is removed, then what happens if a killer takes the arm off at the elbow? Is it not dismemberment in such a case? And if he saws the arm off one inch below the shoulder, leaving a tiny part of the limb in place? No dismemberment, or? Where are the exact limits? Three inches up above the elbow? In the exact middle beteen wrist and elbow?

Dismemberment can easiest be described as taking a body apart in pieces. How many parts a dismemberment produces is not what decides if it is a dismemberment or something else. The six part partition is the usual one, but why would not a five-, four-, three- or two-part division represent dismemberment?

Itīs all good and well to have these hunches, but before they are passed off as relevant, I think a little bit of reading up is essential.

PS. I tried the phrase "dismembered hand" on Google. 105 000 hits. "Dismembered head" gave 62 700 hits. "Dismembered reasoning" gave 5, but I think your contribution may just have pressed that number up to 6. There ARE parts lacking from it.

Haha, I do much prefer your good-humored posts

yes, language and words are inexact and that is the point: you take two different processes and apply an inexact term or word that can be said to cover both. And then argue that the word shows a factual similarity between the two.

I think the similarities are superficial and using a word like evisceration about the killers’ actions does not prove otherwise.

[John G]

Haha, I do much prefer your good-humored posts

yes, language and words are inexact and that is the point: you take two different processes and apply an inexact term or word that can be said to cover both. And then argue that the word shows a factual similarity between the two.

I think the similarities are superficial and using a word like evisceration about the killers’ actions does not prove otherwise.

Hi Kattrup,

I take your point concerning the removal of the foetus to facilitate dividing the Torso. However, why do you think he removed the two irregular strips of skin from the abdomen?

[Kattrup]

Hi Kattrup,

I take your point concerning the removal of the foetus to facilitate dividing the Torso. However, why do you think he removed the two irregular strips of skin from the abdomen?

He opened the abdomen in order to remove the foetus and intestines that would otherwise be in the way when dividing the trunk.

[John G]

He opened the abdomen in order to remove the foetus and intestines that would otherwise be in the way when dividing the trunk.

Okay, thanks. But wouldn't removing the two irregular pieces of skin to open up the abdomen have been an odd way to access the foetus? Or am I missing something here?

[Kattrup]

Okay, thanks. But wouldn't removing the two irregular pieces of skin to open up the abdomen have been an odd way to access the foetus? Or am I missing something here?

I don’t know, I don’t find it odd. How else would he do it?
he opens the abdomen, cuts away part of the abdomen in order to reach inside and take out parts that would otherwise impede cutting the torso across the abdomen.

I don’t find it very odd, I find it a perfectly straightforward method of accessing the abdomen.