Practicality or madness?

[Michael W Richards]

Fisherman, please don't use the word "facts" when espousing your claims, and claiming support you most clearly do not have, most don't post their disagreement with you because of your insulting manner of addressing such posts, but I have no problem dealing with comments from you because, in many ways, they are just hilarious. Spiteful. Disingenuous, inaccurate, and misleading, sure...but none the less, hilarious.

Not 1 of the contemporary investigators side with you. Few if any current students do. And insults are only unpleasant or hurtful if the source of them wasnt such an a**. But you do have a point, why am I bothering with such a useless idea anyway. Maybe its an interest in having newer people not mislead that keeps me dealing with some that seem to have an agenda to do so.

Maybe well bump into a thread that has its basis in fact next time.....

[Fisherman]

Letīs assume that the kind of character I have outlined in numerous posts now was a poster with a solid record of presenting his own rather odd ideas as facts over the years; what if such a person was to claim that I should not speak of facts...?

One would laugh. Or cry. But laughing IS funnier!

Maybe such a poster could also call me an a**, claim that I am spiteful, disingenuous, inaccurate, misleading and insulting, and then add that people will not debate with me because I scare them away? Would that not be very precarious? I mean, if somebody is ready to call me names and spout out all sorts of accusations, would not THAT kind of a poster be much more likely to deter others from debating?

Maybe such a poster would not consider the fact that the threads which I create and/or participate in regularly attract many hundreds of posts - like this one? Maybe he would not understand that far from pointing to how people avoid debating with me, I am instead one of the posters out here who is MOST engaged in debates with other posters?

Could it be that such a poster would in fact be so misguided as to claim that he is performing some sort of cleansing duty by calling me names and piling insults on each other? Would he be a self-proclaimed equivalent of Travis Bickle in "Taxi Driver", thinking he was on a mission to purify Casebook?

Normally, I would say no. But one learns something new every day. And MY, does it detract from the debate that SHOULD be had here; instead of discussing the case, what is served is a large helping of horse manure, suited to do accommodate somebody who seemingly has nothing to show for himself but a weird hangup that has nothing at all to do with debating the case.

I would ask such a poster to try and get a grip of himself and to engage in factual debating about the case. That would really be all I could do for him.

[Kattrup]

thanks kattrup

2. im having a hard time coming up with any scenario where she could have gone to some private place quack dr to have an abortion and anything they tried causing her immediate death. i beleive debra stated in the past that any poison type scenario would not kill immediately but take days. same for trying to insert something through the vagina, yes could cause bleeding obviously but how would that kill her immediately?? even the brutal insertion that emma smith received didnt kill her immediately, and took sometime. i guess i could imagine something along the lines of an immediate allergic or shock happening which might lead to prolonged stay in the "office" and eventual death. but that would seem so rare to me.

From an earlier thread:

The process usually involved dilating the cervical canal or squirting some noxious substance into the womb, rather than trying to physically traumatise the foetus. This often led to extremely rapid collapse and death due to catastrophic haemorrhage, cardiac air embolus or profound hypotension and bradycardia as a reflex response to stimulation of the cervix by stretching.

It is very possible that an abortion procedure could lead to a rapid demise.

We do not know if that is what happened. But you challenged posters to present a reasonable abortion scenario.You don't have to disprove it, just concede that yes, it could have happened. Debra Arif has shown reports that EJ wanted to get rid of the pregnancy and the coroner in the case mentioned that it would have been possible for an abortionist to pull it off.
So it's not outlandish to suggest.

As said, others viewed EJ's death as related to three others, so obviously that invalidates the abortionist scenario. But you personally asked for a reasonable scenario. As shown, there is one.

[Abby Normal]

From an earlier thread:


It is very possible that an abortion procedure could lead to a rapid demise.

We do not know if that is what happened. But you challenged posters to present a reasonable abortion scenario.You don't have to disprove it, just concede that yes, it could have happened. Debra Arif has shown reports that EJ wanted to get rid of the pregnancy and the coroner in the case mentioned that it would have been possible for an abortionist to pull it off.
So it's not outlandish to suggest.

As said, others viewed EJ's death as related to three others, so obviously that invalidates the abortionist scenario. But you personally asked for a reasonable scenario. As shown, there is one.

yes absolutely and thanks for posting! who posted that snippet you quoted and is that from a poster here and or is it taken from a medical expert?

[The Baron]

The fact that EJ was pregnant will set her forever apart from chapman's mureder.

That doesn't mean Jack couldn't have killed one or more of those torsos.. since we don't know who he was, we cannot say anything for sure, but we don't have a shining proof of any kind to build upon this hypothesis.


The Baron

[Fisherman]

That, mr Baron, is where the flaps come in. It actually shines a whole lot. Now, if it had only been about the flaps, the case for a single killer would still be a very good one, but once we add all the rest...! It is not an absolutely proven case, but I don’ t hesitate for a split second to say that it IS a case beyond reasonable doubt.

[Harry D]

Whatever your stance, it's a fascinating debate! It's intriguing to think that the Ripper murders may have actually been only part of a larger crime series. There are reasonable arguments on both sides. I have to say that Fisherman has done a good job of emphasising the peculiar similarities in both series of murders. It's entirely plausible that Victorian London spawned two macabre killers from within its bowels, particularly as one potentially spanned two decades. However, the signature elements and overlap in time/place, culminating in the dumping of one torso in Ripper territory, are hard to ignore.

[Fisherman]

Whatever your stance, it's a fascinating debate! It's intriguing to think that the Ripper murders may have actually been only part of a larger crime series. There are reasonable arguments on both sides. I have to say that Fisherman has done a good job of emphasising the peculiar similarities in both series of murders. It's entirely plausible that Victorian London spawned two macabre killers from within its bowels, particularly as one potentially spanned two decades. However, the signature elements and overlap in time/place, culminating in the dumping of one torso in Ripper territory, are hard to ignore.

Yes, Harry, I agree that it is not impossible (and therefore also entirely plausible, itīs just a matter of how we choose to word ourselves) that victorian London housed two serial killers who on occasion eviscerated their victims. It must once again be emphasized, however, that being possible does not in any way equate being likely; the scarcity of serial killers who eviscerate is the explanation behind why we cannot find two such creatures working simultaneously in the same town anywhere in history. It is a logical thing; I donīt think that a serial killer and eviscerator is something that surfaces every year, even if we look at it globally. Then again I may be wrong, so letīs say that three such serial killers appear on the world stage yearly. What are the chances that they will work simultaneously and in the same town? Extremely low, obviously. But that does not mean it cannot happen. I would even be willing to say that sooner or later, it is likely to happen. That is how chance works.

But what we are staring in the face is not jut a case of two series of murders involving eviscerations in the same town and time, is it? It is instead two series of murders involving eviscerations in the same town and time WHERE THERE IS AN OVERLAP IN EXTREMELY PECULIAR DAMAGE DONE TO THE VICTIMS.

And THAT is something that has a tremendeous impact on how we must look upon the question of one or two killers. To me, the only possible explanation for these similarities if we are dealing with two killers would be the very farfetched one about copycatting. But once I realized that it would require the Ripper copycatting the sternum to groin cut from the Torso killer and the Torso killer copycatting the abdominal flaps from the Ripper, I dumped the idea - that I was not very supportive of at any stage anyway. And so in practice, I rule out two killers.

Just as you say, Pinchin Street seems to be the point where the paths merge. I only wish that people would consider the underlying factual base for this instead of arguing that leaving the arms on the torso would somehow point away from the victim belonging to the torso series!

I also agree that the debate is a fascinating one. Moreover, I believe it will finally allow us to get a much better grip of the man we are looking for, quite possibly taking us very much further in the identification process.

[Abby Normal]

Whatever your stance, it's a fascinating debate! It's intriguing to think that the Ripper murders may have actually been only part of a larger crime series. There are reasonable arguments on both sides. I have to say that Fisherman has done a good job of emphasising the peculiar similarities in both series of murders. It's entirely plausible that Victorian London spawned two macabre killers from within its bowels, particularly as one potentially spanned two decades. However, the signature elements and overlap in time/place, culminating in the dumping of one torso in Ripper territory, are hard to ignore.

indeed harry
and then "both" series apparently coming to an inexplicable end at the same time! I still haven't seen a reasonable explanation for that one if theyre separate series.

[Michael W Richards]

indeed harry
and then "both" series apparently coming to an inexplicable end at the same time! I still haven't seen a reasonable explanation for that one if theyre separate series.

ahem...Torsos found in London in 1889 and 1903. Cant help but watch this from the peanut gallery. Like listening to Trump talk.

[Harry D]

ahem...Torsos found in London in 1889 and 1903. Cant help but watch this from the peanut gallery. Like listening to Trump talk.

Abby includes Alice McKenzie as a ripper victim.

Also, the Lambeth torso was crudely chopped up and was never linked to the 1887-89 cases.

[Abby Normal]

Abby includes Alice McKenzie as a ripper victim.

Also, the Lambeth torso was crudely chopped up and was never linked to the 1887-89 cases.

indeed I do re Mckenzie thanks Harry

[etenguy]

Yes, Harry, I agree that it is not impossible (and therefore also entirely plausible, itīs just a matter of how we choose to word ourselves) that victorian London housed two serial killers who on occasion eviscerated their victims. It must once again be emphasized, however, that being possible does not in any way equate being likely; the scarcity of serial killers who eviscerate is the explanation behind why we cannot find two such creatures working simultaneously in the same town anywhere in history. It is a logical thing; I donīt think that a serial killer and eviscerator is something that surfaces every year, even if we look at it globally. Then again I may be wrong, so letīs say that three such serial killers appear on the world stage yearly. What are the chances that they will work simultaneously and in the same town? Extremely low, obviously. But that does not mean it cannot happen. I would even be willing to say that sooner or later, it is likely to happen. That is how chance works.

I mostly agree with you Fisherman - but I would question the use of the word simultaneously - not because it is strictly speaking wrong, but because if there were two killers, one acted over a 20 year period and the other in fewer than 20 weeks. This would make it far less 'rare' than if the two series of murders occurred to the same time scales. If the question was 'it is rare or unexpected that one large city might spawn two eviscerator murderers over a twenty year period?' then the answer is no. Statistics would suggest that is to be expected.

But what we are staring in the face is not jut a case of two series of murders involving eviscerations in the same town and time, is it? It is instead two series of murders involving eviscerations in the same town and time WHERE THERE IS AN OVERLAP IN EXTREMELY PECULIAR DAMAGE DONE TO THE VICTIMS.

It is my belief that the sentence in capital letters provides more thought provoking than the lower case argument.

And THAT is something that has a tremendeous impact on how we must look upon the question of one or two killers. To me, the only possible explanation for these similarities if we are dealing with two killers would be the very farfetched one about copycatting. But once I realized that it would require the Ripper copycatting the sternum to groin cut from the Torso killer and the Torso killer copycatting the abdominal flaps from the Ripper, I dumped the idea - that I was not very supportive of at any stage anyway. And so in practice, I rule out two killers.

Copycatting is not the only explanation, though it is not entirely implausible. However, like you, I think that is unlikely to be the explanation if there were two murderers. Your debate here prompted me to consider how this seemingly unlikely similarity might occur without relying on coincidence or the necessity for some link between the two murderers. I can only speculate, but one possible explanation (no evidence for this) is that they both were (or had been) animal slaughterers. This might explain why they both performed a mid-line cut and may also explain the 'flaps' and the evisceration, in so much as this is what they would be used to when preparing carcasses.

Just as you say, Pinchin Street seems to be the point where the paths merge. I only wish that people would consider the underlying factual base for this instead of arguing that leaving the arms on the torso would somehow point away from the victim belonging to the torso series!

I agree with the point you make about the arms, I would expect this murder was part of the torso series.

I also agree that the debate is a fascinating one. Moreover, I believe it will finally allow us to get a much better grip of the man we are looking for, quite possibly taking us very much further in the identification process.

All good debate has the possibility of leading us closer to the killer(s)- this one included. You often challenge conventional thinking and maintain interesting and, shall we say passionate, debates.

The one thing which I think could be included more in this debate is the differences between the two series of murders which point to separate killers, such as the apparent different cutting skill levels of the two killers. They, to me, are more compelling, but someone may have a view which helps to explain them.

[Fisherman]

I mostly agree with you Fisherman - but I would question the use of the word simultaneously - not because it is strictly speaking wrong, but because if there were two killers, one acted over a 20 year period and the other in fewer than 20 weeks. This would make it far less 'rare' than if the two series of murders occurred to the same time scales. If the question was 'it is rare or unexpected that one large city might spawn two eviscerator murderers over a twenty year period?' then the answer is no. Statistics would suggest that is to be expected.

Whether or not it is to be expected to have an eviscerating serial killer every twenty years is something I do not have the knowledge to say. Personally, I think it sounds unexpected - but it does not detract from what you say: the longer the time span, the less odd it becomes with two serial eviscerating killers. But it should be noted that we would have two such men cutting abdominal flaps within a nine month span! And that comes pretty close to being simultaneous, although that word of course points to an exact correlation.

Copycatting is not the only explanation, though it is not entirely implausible. However, like you, I think that is unlikely to be the explanation if there were two murderers. Your debate here prompted me to consider how this seemingly unlikely similarity might occur without relying on coincidence or the necessity for some link between the two murderers. I can only speculate, but one possible explanation (no evidence for this) is that they both were (or had been) animal slaughterers. This might explain why they both performed a mid-line cut and may also explain the 'flaps' and the evisceration, in so much as this is what they would be used to when preparing carcasses.

It nevertheless requires two animal slaughterers turning to eviscerating prostitutes, taking out hearts and uteri, cutting away abdominal walls, stealing rings in a nine-month period. And both would remain uncaught. And none of them would engage in torture, they would instead BOTH peculiarly be interested in post-mortem cutting only.
What that proposal leads up to is the question: When these things happen in the same town and in overlapping times, what is more likely: One killer or two? And although the two killer scenario is not impossible, it is nowhere near as likely as the one killer ditto, Iīm afraid. Iīm sure you must realize this too.

All good debate has the possibility of leading us closer to the killer(s)- this one included. You often challenge conventional thinking and maintain interesting and, shall we say passionate, debates.

The one thing which I think could be included more in this debate is the differences between the two series of murders which point to separate killers, such as the apparent different cutting skill levels of the two killers. They, to me, are more compelling, but someone may have a view which helps to explain them.

Do elaborate on this, Etenguy! Exactly which skills is it that tell the two apart? And please donīt say that the Torso killer could dismember whereas the Ripper could not, because we cannot rule out that the Ripper CHOSE not to dismember. Otherwise, I much welcome a discussion on this theme!

[Kattrup]

yes absolutely and thanks for posting! who posted that snippet you quoted and is that from a poster here and or is it taken from a medical expert?

It’s apparently from dr. Biggs, by way of Trevor Marriott.

From this thread about EJ https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...570#post532570