Practicality or madness?

[Fisherman]

I just read this, Christer. Maybe I'm missing something, but my first reaction is: how, in the name of god, would they ever able to conclude the above if they didn't have the lower part of the trunk, nor the upper part of the legs?!?

But, supposing it WAS possible for them to make such a conclusion, I would think they were talking about part of the abdominal wall rather than innerds, because I simply cannot see cutting out innerds as a sort of accidental by-product of cutting off the legs.

That is the exact same reaction that I had Frank! Then I read up on Hebberts examination of the body, and he clearly speaks about how there is no lineae albae on the surface of the abdomen, and so I asked myself: If there was a significant portion of the abdominal wall cut away, would Hebbert not have mentioned that in combination with his info on the abdominal surface and the lineae albae...?

I came to the conclusion that the likeliest thing is that we are dealing with a sloppy wording in the Evening News, and that there was no significant part of the abdominal wall missing.

[Fisherman]

But all the dissimilarities between the various torsos and the WM victims point to different persons who carried out the dismemberments and in the case of the Wm victims, there is no evidence of any specific dismemberment.

Yes, Trevor, you are absolutely correct: the dissimilarities inbewtween the Ripper and Torso series speak for different perpetrators. It is the similarities that speak of a common originator, not the dissimilarities. That is why I posted about the burnt in "Z" marks on the foreheads earlier: to show us how a single similarity will weigh out all dissimilarities that are not definitive (like two murders being perpetrated in different cities at the exact same time). That is the nature of things, and I have been trying to make that point for the longest time now. If there is an extremely rare inclusion in two murder series, then regardless of how the series look dissimilar in many ways, the similarity overrides those dissimilarities! And it is not as if the two series are very dissimilar, is it? They involve cut throats, taken out organs, long incisions through the midline, prostituted victims, all in the same town and time. They are not very dissimilar from the outset, are they?
I have exemplified with a comparison between Chaman and Jackson before the latter was dismembered. They would at that stage have been two prostitutes, having been killed and lying on their backs, having had their abdomens opened up by a long incision dowen the midline, having had their uteri taken out, having had their throats severed, having had their rings stolen from their fingers and having had their abdominal walls cut away in large panes.
How many similarities does it take for you to understand how very much alike they were? They are practically twin sisters!!

If I am going to dismember a body and I do it in a way that suits its purpose, why am I going to change that method the next time? not logical. The torsos were dismembered as you say in different ways!

You are not going to change the way of dismemberment at all if it is all about practicality, of course.
But what if it is NOT about practicality, Trevor? What if we have a killer who enjoys cutting uop human bodies, and wants to do it in different ways for that very reason? The man who killed the Rainham victim also killed Jackson, and they were cut up in the exact same way, more or less. But he ALSO killed the Whitehall victim and the Pinchin Street victim, and he cut very differently on those occasions, right? And we can be fairly certain that it was not about having less time! Hebbert says that these women were all cut up in the exact same manner, the knifework is identical and the killer/cutter is therefore the same man - who therefore does not dismember in the same way all the time. Learn from it, Trevor! It is there for the taking!!

We either go "Hebbert must be wrong" or we go "Aha - so it was not about mere practicality, it was about something else!". I suggest that the latter choice is by far the best and only factual choice, and I think we must learn from it. The killer was NOT an ordinary, practically minded dismemberer, he was an offensive dismemberer who intentionally cut up in various ways on account of choosing to do so, because he WANTED it that way. It gave him pleasure! And just like how we try another chocolate from the box when given a second chance, so did he, and for the exact same reason: to feel a different sensation, to take things further.

The back street medicos who clearly from time to time administered females with a noxious substance which resulted in their deaths would need to dispose of the body quickly and in a way that it could not be traced back to them, so scattering the parts in different places makes it more difficult for the authorities to identify the body and to trace it back, that's why no heads were ever found These type of persons would know the value of organs for medical research and likely as not take the organs from the dead body and sell them on, in particular, the heads

But they would NOT be offensive dismemberers, and they would therefore not engage in the kind of things our man VERY clearly engaged in. Ergo, these women were not done away with by any back street abortionist, they were cut up and dumped by a lust killer who enjoyed the process of cutting. There you go.

Now can I prove any of this? Well, it is well documented that there were many back street medicos who gave substances to people for varying reasons and we know that abortion was one of their specialities, and we know Jackson was pregnant so there is a lot to corroborate the suggestion. more so I would suggest than your mythical serial killer.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The varying methods of cutting up his victims tell us that you got that very wrong. You really should come onboard a floating vessel, Trevor. It is fascinating, and I would welcome you any day in the week!

[Trevor Marriott]

The varying methods of cutting up his victims tell us that you got that very wrong. You really should come onboard a floating vessel, Trevor. It is fascinating, and I would welcome you any day in the week!

If you cant prove they were murdered there has to be an alternative !

I think you are sailing a lone ship which is sinking fast!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

If you cant prove they were murdered there has to be an alternative !

I think you are sailing a lone ship which is sinking fast!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Of course there is an alternative, Trevor. I have never said anything else. I have pointed on this very thread - and numerous others - to how people will always be able to produce alternative explanations, have I not?

The issue is how likely those alternatives are, in light of what we know about the rarity of eviscerating serial killers and the abundance of similarities within the two series. "Not likely at all" must be the verdict - although technically not 100 per cent impossible.

Ripperology should long ago have worked from the assumption of a single killer, and the alternatives should be left to those who believe in extreme coincidences and weird occurrences. Because if there were two killers, that would be truly weird and utterly unexpected.

You really should not bang on about me sailing a lone ship, Trevor. There are numerous people who think there were ony one killer and even more that allow for the possibility. The late Richard Whittington-Egan, very much acclaimed and knowledgable, was one of tose who endorsed the single killer view. It does Ripperology no favours to make the kind of false statement you offer, therefore. It´s much the same with your earlier claim that I believe hundreds of murders (or something such) were the work of the same killer. The simple truth is that I believe that the evisceration murders were the work of the same killer, for very logical reasons. I also think there are a few other murders that would have been the same man, on account of the geography and timing, although there are less similarities. All in all, I think we are looking at a round dozen murders, give or take - and I have eminent reasons to make that claim.
If we could be honest enough not to skew these matters beyond recognition, we would be able to enjoy a much better debating climate. Of course, then there is the question whether we WANT a better climate or not - if we prefer to misrepresent what out opponents say in an effort to make them look stupid, then you are on the correct path. But who wants to be on such a path when they are revealed for it?

[Kattrup]

Ripperology should long ago have worked from the assumption of a single killer, and the alternatives should be left to those who believe in extreme coincidences and weird occurrences.

you mean the police and doctors who investigated the crimes?

Because if there were two killers, that would be truly weird and utterly unexpected.

And yet, at the time that was the completely unsurprised (and unsurprising) conclusion

[Fisherman]

you mean the police and doctors who investigated the crimes?
And yet, at the time that was the completely unsurprised (and unsurprising) conclusion

We are 132 years removed from 1888. If you back down in history a further 132 years, you end up in 1756, with witch processes and a time at which Swedish genius Carl von Linné made his botanical system - while believing that swallows spent the winters sleeping on lake bottoms.

It´s all good and well to say that the police and doctors of the time did not believe in a single killer - but how relevant is it, given this backdrop? You know as well as I do (at least I hope you do...) that the ordinary copper believed in crime as a hereditary matter, that physical propensities were looked upon as indicators of certain crime types, that the concept of aggressive dismemberment for dismemberments' sake was not on the agenda, that masturbation was regarded as leading to insanity etcetera, etcetera.

What we can learn (provided we are,willig to learn in the first place...) from this is that the doctors and policemen of 1888 did not have the knowledge to assess matters like serial killing eviscerators from any base of empirical knowledge and insights.

Take Hebbert, for example - he was a skilled anatomist and knew a lot about the human body - but he was nevertheless a convinced criminal anthropologist.

We need to understand these matters before we call upon the authorities of eras gone by as unfallible judges of matters they did not understand in the first place. Moreover, if we lack these insights, we may well embarrass ourselves pretty badly if we take our uniformed views to debating forums like this one.

If we choose to believe that the police and medicos of the time had all the tools they needed to understand what the murders were about, psychologically speaking not least, we will make a very serious mistake. Back in the 17:th century, the judicial system ordered women to be burnt at the stake on account of having bewitched people. Surely, you are not reccommending that we believe that this was correct, on acount of how the authorities of the era proposed it? Or...???

[Kattrup]

Actually, in 1756, the with trials were over. But I agree, human knowledge increases - too slowly, imho.

Anyway, I just found your statements amusing, that only those believing in extreme coincidences etc. would entertain the idea of two killers. And you, at a distance of 132 years, declare it "truly weird and utterly unexpected".

When the people at the time, who actually investigated these crimes and saw the remains of both Ripper-victims and Torso victims, didn't bat an eye at the idea.

[Fisherman]

Actually, in 1756, the with trials were over. But I agree, human knowledge increases - too slowly, imho.

Anyway, I just found your statements amusing, that only those believing in extreme coincidences etc. would entertain the idea of two killers. And you, at a distance of 132 years, declare it "truly weird and utterly unexpected".

When the people at the time, who actually investigated these crimes and saw the remains of both Ripper-victims and Torso victims, didn't bat an eye at the idea.

Quoting from the net: "The last known official witch-trial was the Doruchów witch trial in Poland in 1783".

... but let´s not get bogged down in that, shall we? Here´s a link, anyway: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doruchów_witch_trial

I do not see why you should think that it is in any way amusing to point to how things actually work, Kattrup - unless you are not really aware of it.
We have no known historical or contemporary examples of simultaneously working eviscerating serial killers in the same town, and that alone goes to tell us that it would be a remarkable coincidence if this was so in victorian London. It is asking for a great deal, you know!

But it does not stop there:

-Annie Chapman had her throat cut.
-Liz Jackson had her throat cut.

-Annie Chapman had her abdomen cut open from sternum to groin.
-Liz Jackson had her abdomen cut open from sternum to groin.

-Annie Chapman was a prostitute.
-Liz Jackson was a prostitute.

-Annie Chapman had her uterus cut out from her body.
-Liz Jackson had her uterus cut out from her body.

-Annie Chapman had her rings taken from her finger.
-Liz Jackson had her ring taken from her finger.

-Annie Chapman´s abdominal wall was cut away in large panes of flesh with subcutaneous tissue attaching to them.
-Liz Jackson´s abdominal wall was cut away in large panes of flesh with subcutaneous tissue attaching to them.

-Annie Chapman showed no apparent signs of having been physically tortured in connection with her death.
-Liz Jackson showed no apparent signs of having been physically tortured in connection with her death.

-Annie Chapman was killed in London in September of 1888. (The inquest ruled the deed a murder.)
-Liz Jackson was killed in London in June of 1889, some nine months later. (The inquest ruled the deed a murder.)

-The cutting involved in Annie Chapmans murder made the examining medico comment on the skill applied.
-The cutting involved in Liz Jacksons murder made the examining medico comment on the skill applied.

These similarities must all - according to you - be sheer coincidences. Or copycat behavior. And yes, there are more cases involved that are not as similar. But that does not mean that we can forget about these two cases and their similarities.

If I was looking for amusement, I actually think that your stance lends itself a lot better to a laugh or two than mine..

Funny, is it not, what makes different people smile?

[Fisherman]

One more aspect:

"When the people at the time, who actually investigated these crimes and saw the remains of both Ripper-victims and Torso victims, didn't bat an eye at the idea."

Given that they believed that ALL dismemberment cases were about practicality only, they were never going to be able to comprehend how the two series were interconnected.

Look at Phillips, when comparing the Pinchin Street murder and the Kelly ditto. He explains that the Kelly murder was "most wanton" - and in the Pinchin Street crime he believed the cuts were made "in order to dispose of the body".

That was the only path open to him. Aggressive dismemberment for dismemberment´s sake was not on the agenda, they knew nothing about it´s existence. And Phillips never tried to explain how a fifteen inch shallow cut from pubes to ribs facilitated disposal of the Pinchin Street body. Or why disposal was made easier by leaving the arms on the torso.

It becomes even more evident how the professionals of the time were at a loss to understand the series if we look at Hebbert, who in trying to impose upon us just how terrible a creature the Ripper was tells us that this dastardly killer even took out organs from the bodies. And this particular comment comes from a medico who himself examined Liz Jackson and concluded that her heart and lungs were removed, plus he was aware that Jacksons killer had cut her uterus out, cut the foetus inside it away, packaged the uterus together with cord and placenta and two flaps of flesh from the abdominal wall, and thrown the package in the Thames!
Does this make him think that the Torso killer was much the same as the Ripper, since both men cut out organs? No, to him, only the Ripper was an eviscerator, and only he was to be pointed out as a madman, ready to do such things!
How weird is that?

Anybody who reads up on these matters and fails to see the implications of them needs a reality check. No, the contemporary professional did not bat an eye at the idea of a common killer. Which is a VERY good reason for US, who know so much more about these matters, to bat BOTH our eyes!

[Michael W Richards]

Anyway, I just found your statements amusing, that only those believing in extreme coincidences etc. would entertain the idea of two killers. And you, at a distance of 132 years, declare it "truly weird and utterly unexpected".

When the people at the time, who actually investigated these crimes and saw the remains of both Ripper-victims and Torso victims, didn't bat an eye at the idea.

And that is something that is worthy of note...proximity to the events and access to documentation that no longer exists. This question was asked of contemporary investigators and was summarily dismissed, but Im sure the Omnipotent One would suggest it was their inexperience, lack of scientific application in the investigation, their lack of access to modern research and their lower than average ability to solve puzzles that is to blame for that shortsightedness.

The truth is the truth, even when its on a small scale, and the investigators, all of them, did not muddied the investigative waters with frivolity. I think they likely saw, as do most who don't have agendas, likely a loner in one series, and possibly more than one killer in the other series. Doing different things. Looking for different thrills. The outdoor Ripper murders also have an additional component that the others don't...the emotional impact on the neighbourhood. Lots of people saw the Ripper women and the horrible injuries, peeking through fence boards, out their window, these were, intentionally or not, acts of terrorism.

Clandestinely doing your business then scattering the unwanted bits here and there seems like trying to hide the act. Not flaunt it in front of the public.

[Fisherman]

For those not in the know, I do not answer any posts by Michael Richards. If anybody should want to know my views on what he says, just ask, and I will answer you instead.

[Michael W Richards]

Its not a requirement that posts are responded to when they contain facts that are not disputed. Conversely.....

[Fisherman]

For those not in the know, I do not answer any posts by Michael Richards. If anybody should want to know my views on what he says, just ask, and I will answer you instead.

[Michael W Richards]

Maybe wait till a post is addressed to you before posting that you wont reply.

[Fisherman]

For those not in the know, I do not answer any posts by Michael Richards. If anybody should want to know my views on what he says, just ask, and I will answer you instead.