Practicality or madness?

[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.

[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]

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]

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"?

Havenīt seen any reaction to this, so far. What do people think? Does "portion of the abdomen" allude to the abdominal wall, or can there be any other explanation to it?

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Hi Fish,

I'd given it some thought but not being an anatomist I didn't respond, likewise, I've no desire to watch any instructional videos on the matter!

I can only presume that perhaps in disarticulating the hip joints, parts of the lower abdomen would be removed? Collateral damage to the navel/pubic area? It could be affected by the "nourishment" of the body, hip size and such.

[Joshua Rogan]

I would presume that it refers to the entire lower abdomen, as the Whitehall "torso" only extended from neck to waist.

[Abby Normal]

Havenīt seen any reaction to this, so far. What do people think? Does "portion of the abdomen" allude to the abdominal wall, or can there be any other explanation to it?

could be collateral damage to lower abdomen since the seperation was at the waist. then again...

[Fisherman]

I would presume that it refers to the entire lower abdomen, as the Whitehall "torso" only extended from neck to waist.

Mmm. Itīs the wording I find odd; "a portion of the abdomen" was missing. And as I said, the stomach was in place in the torso, it was just part of the descending colon and some pelvic viscera that were not there. Why would they describe it as "a portion of the abdomen"? "Some abdominal viscera" would have been fine, or something like that. But here, it seems to be more in line with what the papers said about Jackson "the whole of the abdomen was missing", "the lower part of the abdomen was missing" etcetera. And that was the abdominal wall they referred to.

Then again, why would part of the abdominal wall go lost on account of two legs being disjointed and cut off? Similarly, pelvic viscera or colon parts do not go missing because of that either, so that presumption seems odd.

[jerryd]

Hi Christer.

According to Dr. Hebbert "....the head having been separated at the sixth cervical vertebra, and the pelvis and low part of the abdomen at the fourth lumbar vertebra..."

He also stated the torso itself, when found, included the thorax and upper part of the abdomen.

[Fisherman]

There is also the odd wording (it seems odd to me, at least, but English is not my number one language, of course) that a portion of the abdomen "had been cut away". To me, that sounds very much like a part of the abdomen is what is being spoken about, not a whole section of the lower torso. "Cut away" implies "detached from", does it not?

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer.

According to Dr. Hebbert "....the head having been separated at the sixth cervical vertebra, and the pelvis and low part of the abdomen at the fourth lumbar vertebra..."

He also stated the torso itself, when found, included the thorax and upper part of the abdomen.

Yep, I just checked that myself too. But I am flummoxed by the overall wording in the Evening News anyway. Anyway, if a major part of the abdominal wall had been missing in the torso part found, I think Hebbert would have mentioned it. But if it was simply an "arch" of less distinctive proportions, I am not as sure.

Anyway, itīs not that we need more cut away abdominal walls to make the case, but I find the article intriguing just the same.

[Fisherman]

Actually, Hebbert also writes that there were "no appearances of lineae albae on the surface of the abdomen", so that seems to tell us that Hebbert saw nothing odd about the overall appearance of the abdominal wall. That has to rule the day until further notice, I think. Itīs probably only a case of a sloppily worded article.

[Abby Normal]

Yep, I just checked that myself too. But I am flummoxed by the overall wording in the Evening News anyway. Anyway, if a major part of the abdominal wall had been missing in the torso part found, I think Hebbert would have mentioned it. But if it was simply an "arch" of less distinctive proportions, I am not as sure.

Anyway, itīs not that we need more cut away abdominal walls to make the case, but I find the article intriguing just the same.

Hi Fish

Anyway, itīs not that we need more cut away abdominal walls to make the case

no we dont. that its in two of the ripper and one of the torsos is enough for a link . but yes intriguing article

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Fish


no we dont. that its in two of the ripper and one of the torsos is enough for a link . but yes intriguing article

A very tenuous link at best

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

A very tenuous link at best

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Since Trevor is doing nothing here but stirring up trouble, maybe I should not comment. But I find it revealing and disturbing when an ex-murder squad copper claims that an extremely rare inclusion that is present within two murder series in the same town and general timeframe is only "a very tenuous link at best".

When we put our head in the sand like that, we represent the very worst of Ripperology.

If somebody says "Yes, it is a truly mindblowing similarity, but it may be just a coincidence nevertheless", then thatīs all fine. But opting for a whopper like the one Trevor opts for is doing our field of research no good at all. Anyone who does not understand how Ripperology works will, after having taken a look at that post, be quite satisfied that we are a bunch of clowns. They really cannot be asked to understand what most of us out here know: Trevor is perfectly aware that the abdominal flaps is an extremely powerful indication of a common killer, but he cannot bring himself to admit it.

Small wonder, then, that we get no recognition from other fields of research. Thank you, Trevor.

PS. Donīt bother to answer in your accustomed manner, Trevor. It will only make things worse. Ask a police investigator about it instead, and learn something about your trade. Itīs never too late - or so they say.