JtR failed amputation. Torso killer was successful.

[Batman]

Don't forget that the v-shaped marks on Eddowes's face may have been the result of an attempt to cut off the nose. Which would be another failure.

Very good.

[Sam Flynn]

All we know is that the killer took the uterus out

He also took her baby out.

[Fisherman]

The reality is that Jackson was heavily pregnant, and it's surely not much of a fantasy to suppose that this factor had something to do with the removal of her uterus - a factor entirely absent in the case of every canonical Ripper victim.

Iīm afraid it is 100 per cent speculation, Gareth. Of course it MAY be that the pregnancy had something to do with it, but the whole point I am making is that we cannot allow ourselves to elevate our guesswork to fact.
All we know is that the killer took the uterus out, and all we know is that this was a conscious decision of his.

If we were to introduce fantasy and guesswork as useful parameters in our thinking, we may just as well say that the killer may have had a thing about motherhood that made him go for the uterus and that Jackson represented some sort of ultimate prize in the game of uterus-hunting.

That would fit entirely well with a common killer. But I am not going to press that point on account of how it would be just as much guesswork as yours, and accordingly it would be something that cannot be presented as evidence, let alone as fact.

In both series, uteri were taken out. Why, we donīt know. Full stop.

[Sam Flynn]

we must once again dive deep into your magical well and come up with the idea that - for example - we can know that the Torso killer had a different reason for taking the uterus out of Jackson than the Ripper had for doing the same in the Kelly case. We must phantasize to make reality go away, it was always like that.

The reality is that Jackson was heavily pregnant, and it's surely not much of a fantasy to suppose that this factor had something to do with the removal of her uterus - a factor entirely absent in the case of every canonical Ripper victim.

[Fisherman]

Don't forget that the v-shaped marks on Eddowes's face may have been the result of an attempt to cut off the nose. Which would be another failure.

The nose was gone, so he did not fail in that context. The initial cut seems to have hit bone structure, and so he moved the blade a bit further down before he cut a second time.

Are you saying that the torso killer would never have been able to make that kind of a mistake? Or am I misreading you?

[Fisherman]

Very interesting fish. Care to expound?

Not really, no. I prefer to leave it for the future as it stands.

[Fisherman]

What they are indicating here is that muscles, not the markings left by the knife, look as if an attempt had been made to separate the bones of the neck. That means it looks like they have been pulled upon.

Eddowes nose amputation isn't remarked upon at the time as the type of amputation associated with any surgical or medical procedure involving its removal. Seems to me it was crudely hacked off and the lip possibly cut in the process.

Even Kelly's right thigh denuded in front to the bone is just a hatchet job with a knife. Nothing to do with medicine or experience with amputations.

It's like this. The Torso Murders is capable of amputations. If JtR could amputate, he would amputate and even tries it with some success... nose, breasts, but Chapman's neck and Kelly's leg says it's not this experienced Torso Murderer who was well able to do all that.

Once more, there has never been any doctor saying that Jack the Ripper attempted to decapitate. What was said by Phillips was that the appearance of the neck wounds allowed for such an interpretation. No certainty whatsoever can be reached on the matter, though, and thatīs what you must settle for: perhaps, perhaps not.

Saying if JtR could amputate, he would amputate, is nothing but a guess on your behalf, and guessing never produced any factual ground to work from.

Letīs begin by laying down that if the dismemberment carried out in the torso murders was always a question of practicality (for facilitating disposal of the bodies), then it must be accepted that there was never any such need at all for the Ripper victims to be dismembered. They were not going anywhere, and there was never any need to dump them any place else than where they were left.
So in that context, if we have the same killer, then why would JtR amputate at all? What possible need would there be for it?

Ergo, what you are trying to lead on with your guesswork, is that you would somehow have been magically informed that the Ripper nourished a wish to amputate, but that he was not able to do so. From this pure guesswork of yours, you then deduct that the two men cannot possibly have been one and the same.

It is an intellectual debacle.

Once we admit that the Ripper did not have any practical reason to dismember, it is only when we (from your magical well of wisdom) conclude that the torso killer dismembered, NOT on account of practicalities but on account of a deeply rooted urge, that we may move on to saying that the Ripper cannot have been the same man and that the lack of amputations in the Ripper cases shows this.

If we have a situation where the Torso killer did in fact NOT nourish a deep urge to amputate, then why would we conclude that he must have felt such an urge in the guise of the Ripper? Correct, we would not.

So which is it, and - more pertinently - can we know what applies? Did or did not the Torso killer nourish such an urge?
Well, of course we cannot be sure either way. My own guess (you see, when I guess, I say so) is that there was no such urge linked to what he did in general. I believe that he COULD sometimes amputate in order to reach an outcome that he wished to see, but I donīt think it was something that was always necessary. To my mind, many of the dismemberments were about body disposal in the torso cases. Not all, but many of them.

In the end, no matter how much we try to hide behind guesswork presented as fact, we must deal with the inherent similarities between the two series, and there is no getting around how they are with almost total certainty linked series of murders with one and the same originator. To deny this, we must once again dive deep into your magical well and come up with the idea that - for example - we can know that the Torso killer had a different reason for taking the uterus out of Jackson than the Ripper had for doing the same in the Kelly case. We must phantasize to make reality go away, it was always like that.

[Damaso Marte]

Don't forget that the v-shaped marks on Eddowes's face may have been the result of an attempt to cut off the nose. Which would be another failure.

[Abby Normal]

What he DID, Abby. The torso killer dumped everything, quite probably the heads too. But it was what he had done before this that mattered to him. If I am correct, of course.

He didnīt dump the Ripper victims, so in that case one can say that what he left was more important than what he took away (or with himself). If I am correct, of course.

Very interesting fish. Care to expound?

[Batman]

The muscular structures appeared as though an attempt had made to separate the bones of the neck. - Philips on Chapman.

What they are indicating here is that muscles, not the markings left by the knife, look as if an attempt had been made to separate the bones of the neck. That means it looks like they have been pulled upon.

Eddowes nose amputation isn't remarked upon at the time as the type of amputation associated with any surgical or medical procedure involving its removal. Seems to me it was crudely hacked off and the lip possibly cut in the process.

Even Kelly's right thigh denuded in front to the bone is just a hatchet job with a knife. Nothing to do with medicine or experience with amputations.

It's like this. The Torso Murders is capable of amputations. If JtR could amputate, he would amputate and even tries it with some success... nose, breasts, but Chapman's neck and Kelly's leg says it's not this experienced Torso Murderer who was well able to do all that.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: Perhaps he ate their heads.

Who knows? In fish, that is the most nourishing part, the one salmonfishing grizzlys go for first. The biggest bears get the head, and floats the rest down the river.
There could also be ritualistic reasons for eating heads.

In the end, I donīt believe he ate any of the missing parts, but thatīs just a guess on my behalf.


What he/they produced by cutting were anonymised corpses divided into portable chunks.

A puzzle is also something divided into parts. But it has a meaning if we put it together in the correct way.
Just because you cannot see anything that goes beyond pure mayhem, that does not mean that other canīt do so either.
One question for you, regarding the totally meaningless and frenzied hacking you see in the Kelly case: how damaged were the innards? The liver, the spleen, the uterus...? How hacked to pieces where they?
If there were no damages on them, would you agree that it seems they were neatly and purposefully cut out? And is that what frenzied killers do? Neatly cut organs from their attachments and pluck them out of a body?

[Fisherman]

thanks fish
so what was more important to the torsoripper-what he took and kept or what he left behind or "dumped"?

What he DID, Abby. The torso killer dumped everything, quite probably the heads too. But it was what he had done before this that mattered to him. If I am correct, of course.

He didnīt dump the Ripper victims, so in that case one can say that what he left was more important than what he took away (or with himself). If I am correct, of course.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn:
But it probably was.

YOU think that is probable, and thatīs fine. But what I am saying is that it can sometimes be useful to try and look in the other direction too, no matter how painful it seems.

Saw through the thorax or abdomen, dig out and dump the organs rather than have them slop around or dangle out when carrying the torso.

No other dismemberment killer seems to make that choice, though. The organs are left in the body and dumped with it. And in the torso case, it seems only some organs got in his way so much as to require cutting out before dumping.
Take the heart, for example, firmly fixed in the peritoneum. It would no go anywhere, and it would not dangle out. It would be tucked away behind the ribcage. So why would this killer want to take it out? It would serve no practical aim at all. Surely you can see that?
Maybe it dangled out in the Rainham case because the killer had divided the sternum.
Then again, for what practical reason would he do so? He had already opened the abdomen up from sternum to pubes, so why get a saw and saw through the sternum? Could you give me a practical reason for that?
Has not the time come to finally admit that what this killer did went way beyond practicalities? That is why I say that you must dare to take your head out of the sand for once, Gareth.

Cut out the baby, and the womb comes with it (but don't keep the womb, unlike wot Jack did).

Jack did NOT keep Kellyīs womb, Gareth, He discarded it at the murder scene. Can you see the similarity?
How many eviscerators have we on record who cut the uterus out AND LEAVE IT? I can think of two. Or one, to be more precise.

And what of all the torso cases when NO organ removal happened at all?

I already answered that. Both the Torso killer and the Ripper went beyond organtaking. Both of them = similarity.

[Sam Flynn]

And it is a fact that fetischists and ritualists may engage in cannibalism.

Perhaps he ate their heads.

I think that it was what he produced by his cutting that was his primary driving force.

What he/they produced by cutting were anonymised corpses divided into portable chunks.

[Abby Normal]

Personally, I ascribe a relatively low value to how organs were taken. I think that the most logical option is that he took them for being able to relive what he had done to his victims. Alternatively, he could of course have taken them for consumption, but going on gut feeling only, I donīt believe that he did, although I favour the idea that fetischism and ritual played a role to him. And it is a fact that fetischists and ritualists may engage in cannibalism. Itīs just not something that appeals to my thinking.
I think that it was what he produced by his cutting that was his primary driving force.

thanks fish
so what was more important to the torsoripper-what he took and kept or what he left behind or "dumped"?