JtR failed amputation. Torso killer was successful.

[Sam Flynn]

Gareth, you must be able to take on board that the organ excising may NOT have been a practical matter.

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

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

[Fisherman]

Hi fish




I believe your ps have lost their tails
lol

Just noticed that and added them, Abby!

[Abby Normal]

Gareth, you must be able to take on board that the organ excising may NOT have been a practical matter. As long as you put your head in the sand, you will deliberately throw away the other possibilities. Why would you do that?

How is the taking out of a heart a practical exercise for a dismemberer? How is taking the uterus out a practical exercise for a dismemberer? How is riooing the abdomen open from sternum (and beyond!) to pelvis a practical exercise for a dismemberer?

Can you explain that?

Hi fish

riooing

I believe your ps have lost their tails
lol

[Fisherman]

so it was more important to torsoripper what he left behind, than what he took?

hes creating works of art in what he left?

whats the significance then for what he took (the body parts, internal organs)???

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.

[Fisherman]

I don't see that, sorry. And, even where this might be argued, the wounds were as nothing compared to the mutilations suffered by most Ripper victims in a much shorter period of time and in far more challenging circumstances.In a very few instances, and even then probably for practical purposes. He even left the womb behind, on the odd occasion when it was removed.

Gareth, you must be able to take on board that the organ excising may NOT have been a practical matter. As long as you put your head in the sand, you will deliberately throw away the other possibilities. Why would you do that?

How is the taking out of a heart a practical exercise for a dismemberer? How is taking the uterus out a practical exercise for a dismemberer? How is ripping the abdomen open from sternum (and beyond!) to pelvis a practical exercise for a dismemberer?

Can you explain that?

By the way, you say that "he even left the womb behind" about the torso killer. Well, so did the Ripper in Millers Court, right?

[Abby Normal]

Because if it was not in place,I donīt think the killer would have produced what he set out to do, Abby. It would be as if Michelangelo carved his Pietá with the left arms missing from Maria and Jesus.

so it was more important to torsoripper what he left behind, than what he took?

hes creating works of art in what he left?

whats the significance then for what he took (the body parts, internal organs)???

[Sam Flynn]

all the torso victims had post mortem mutilation above and beyond what was needed for dismemberment

I don't see that, sorry. And, even where this might be argued, the wounds were as nothing compared to the mutilations suffered by most Ripper victims in a much shorter period of time and in far more challenging circumstances.

and internal organs were missing.

In a very few instances, and even then probably for practical purposes. He even left the womb behind, on the odd occasion when it was removed.

[Abby Normal]

That would equate how you donīt think that taking out a heart (or perhaps two) and taking out a uterus amounts to any special interest in taking out internal body parts, Gareth.

Then again, you have a few things going for you, and I actually agree to an extent - although we do have evidence that he took out internal body parts, it seems this could not have been an ultimate aim for him. If it was, then why did not all the victims suffer eviscerations?

My suggestion would be because organ excising was but one of many different things he could do, and that all of these things would be satisfactory to him. Compare, if you will, how Eddowes and Kelly had their faces cut (no organ excising there) and how flesh was cut away from the thighs of Kelly (no organ excising there), how Eddowes had her nose cut off (no organ excising there) and so on.

It was not only about organ excising for the torso killer - but organ excising was part of his agenda.

Similarly, organ excising was part of the Rippers agenda too - but it was NOT all he did to his victims.

I just watched a Youtube video with the Swedish criminologist Leif G W Persson commenting on the Ripper murders. He said that the kind of murders he perpetrated, with organ excising and very extensive cutting, is something that is so rare that there are not many cases around in the criminological history of the world.
Strange then, is it not, that one of the very, very few examples should have coexisted with the Ripper, same city, same time...?

well put fish

agree 100%

[Fisherman]

May i ask why Fish
Sorry i see the question has been asked.

Our posts crossed, and so I have given an answer. I could expand on it, but Iīm afraid I wonīt.

[Fisherman]

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

Chapman examination report.

Yes, if you decapitate with a knife, you will cut into the muscular structures. Then again, if you cut a neck very deeply and forcefully, you may end up with the blade cutting into the muscular structures.

This is why there is no agreement that there must have been an effort on the killerīs behalf to decapitate - it looks the same, and ergo it leaves both possibilities open.

If this was not so, we would know that there was an attempt to decapitate. We donīt, though.

[Darryl Kenyon]

I donīt think he wanted to decapitate the Ripper victims at all, least of all Kelly. I think it was of the utmost importance to him that her head was in place.

May i ask why Fish
Sorry i see the question has been asked.

[Fisherman]

Hi fish




why pray tell?

Because if it was not in place,I donīt think the killer would have produced what he set out to do, Abby. It would be as if Michelangelo carved his Pietá with the left arms missing from Maria and Jesus.

[Batman]

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

Chapman examination report.

[Fisherman]

I don't see any evidence that the torso murderer(s) was especially interested in internal body parts.

That would equate how you donīt think that taking out a heart (or perhaps two) and taking out a uterus amounts to any special interest in taking out internal body parts, Gareth.

Then again, you have a few things going for you, and I actually agree to an extent - although we do have evidence that he took out internal body parts, it seems this could not have been an ultimate aim for him. If it was, then why did not all the victims suffer eviscerations?

My suggestion would be because organ excising was but one of many different things he could do, and that all of these things would be satisfactory to him. Compare, if you will, how Eddowes and Kelly had their faces cut (no organ excising there) and how flesh was cut away from the thighs of Kelly (no organ excising there), how Eddowes had her nose cut off (no organ excising there) and so on.

It was not only about organ excising for the torso killer - but organ excising was part of his agenda.

Similarly, organ excising was part of the Rippers agenda too - but it was NOT all he did to his victims.

I just watched a Youtube video with the Swedish criminologist Leif G W Persson commenting on the Ripper murders. He said that the kind of murders he perpetrated, with organ excising and very extensive cutting, is something that is so rare that there are not many cases around in the criminological history of the world.
Strange then, is it not, that one of the very, very few examples should have coexisted with the Ripper, same city, same time...?

[Abby Normal]

I donīt think he wanted to decapitate the Ripper victims at all, least of all Kelly. I think it was of the utmost importance to him that her head was in place.

He cut savagely and all the way down to the bone. How could the vertebrae NOT be nicked, considering this?

Hi fish

I donīt think he wanted to decapitate the Ripper victims at all, least of all Kelly. I think it was of the utmost importance to him that her head was in place.

why pray tell?