Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Could Jack have killed some of the torso victims?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
    vertical gashes to the abdomen for starters
    That only really applies to Pinchin, though; a seemingly pointless vertical gash - singular - which didn't even penetrate the abdominal wall. Where others had sustained vertical gashes, they appeared in conjunction with other vertical/horizontal cuts through the abdominal cavity and/or thorax, and the removal of abdominal and/or thoracic organs (and one baby). These cuts might have been above and beyond what was required for dismemberment, but they were somewhat necessary for the purposes of dividing the bodies or opening a bodily cavity to remove the contents.

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Originally posted by Kattrup View Post
    Perhaps it’s difficult to answer because you’ve not stated what you consider wounds “above and beyond” what was needed for dismemberment.

    I suspect that you, like Fisherman I seem to recall, consider opening the abdomen unnecessary?

    Which is untrue. So perhaps there in fact were very few wounds “above and beyond”?
    vertical gashes to the abdomen for starters

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Sam Flynn: As non-sequiturs/circular arguments go, that's a humdinger even by your standards.

    No - it is the most credible solution offered to date. Says I.

    Says you.

    No, it is the evidence that makes the claim:

    We KNOW that he mutilated, it is proven.

    We KNOW that he eviscerated, it is proven.

    We KNOW that this is exactly what aggressive dismemberers will do, while non-aggressive dismemberers will NOT do it.

    And we KNOW how hard it is to admit things, when you have beforehand staked your judgment and reputation on the other bet. But is it really productive to react like a child when you are proven wrong? Or is it counterproductive?

    I´ll leave you to solve that riddle, I have better things to do than this kind of a "discussion".
    Last edited by Fisherman; 01-10-2019, 06:41 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    Well, if you can get it up your behind, he should have less trouble taking it diwn a cellar vault, I´d say.

    Alternatively, he put the cart OUTSIDE. An outrageous suggestion, I know.

    So we have now once more reached the stage where the ones loosing out on the argument side seek each other´s comfort in the shape of a few hearty jokes? How very unexpected.
    We're not "loosing" any argument. Your reasoning was "loose" to begin with, and it remains so.

    (And yes, I know that "loosing" was only a typo on your part, but at least it helped me make another hearty joke.)

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
    He must have had a hell of a job getting that cart of his into the basement of Scotland Yard!
    Well, if you can get it up your behind, he should have less trouble taking it down a cellar vault, I´d say.

    Alternatively, he put the cart OUTSIDE. An outrageous suggestion, I know.

    So we have now once more reached the stage where the ones loosing out on the argument side seek each other´s comfort in the shape of a few hearty jokes? How very unexpected.
    Last edited by Fisherman; 01-10-2019, 06:40 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    Sam Flynn: What links Cross to those torsos deposited in the West of London, e.g. Chelsea and/or Battersea?

    What I said was that the obvious link is between him and the Pinchin Street torso. What links him to the rest is:

    He seemingly killed Nichols - the Ripper and the Torso killer is the same man - ergo, he also killed the torsos dumped in Chelsea/Battersea.
    As non-sequiturs/circular arguments go, that's a humdinger even by your standards.
    In terms of the torso cases, almost certainly the urge to dispose of body parts effectively, and to minimise traceability by rendering the victims as anonymous as possible.

    No, that is completely incorrect. The Torso killer was an aggressive dismemberer/mutilator/eviscerator
    Says you.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Harry D View Post
    Well, Harry, he DID ask how I link Lechmere to the "West Side" victims, although he was perfectly aware of it beforehand, so I´d say that Gareth is the one throwing rotten baitfish into the water.

    And the scenario as such remains more credible than any other scenario, right? (bait)

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by Busy Beaver View Post
    Come on Sam. you of all people should have worked out that Charlie Ripper-Torsoman loaded up his pickfords van and scattered body parts whilst driving erratically through the street of London/Whitechapel, when he wasn't walking them at un-godly hours of the night & morning .
    He must have had a hell of a job getting that cart of his into the basement of Scotland Yard!

    Leave a comment:


  • Harry D
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    He [Lechmere] seemingly killed Nichols

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Busy Beaver View Post
    Come on Sam. you of all people should have worked out that Charlie Ripper-Torsoman loaded up his pickfords van and scattered body parts whilst driving erratically through the street of London/Whitechapel, when he wasn't walking them at un-godly hours of the night & morning .
    Yes, that is what it looks like. Why do you find it funny? Share, please, so we all may have a laugh!

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Sam Flynn: What links Cross to those torsos deposited in the West of London, e.g. Chelsea and/or Battersea?

    What I said was that the obvious link is between him and the Pinchin Street torso. What links him to the rest is:

    He seemingly killed Nichols - the Ripper and the Torso killer is the same man - ergo, he also killed the torsos dumped in Chelsea/Battersea.



    In terms of the torso cases, almost certainly the urge to dispose of body parts effectively, and to minimise traceability by rendering the victims as anonymous as possible.

    No, that is completely incorrect. The Torso killer was an aggressive dismemberer/mutilator/eviscerator, and that kind of man does not have disposal and indentification issues on top of his list. Aren´t you getting a lot of sand in your eyes, sticking your head in it like that? First it was "no, the killer did not take out the uterus from Jackson", now it is "it seems he did", then it was "No, Jackson did not have a long, vertical gash in her trunk", now it is "you misunderstand me..."

    Getting there, getting there!

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Sam Flynn: If we're looking for patterns, there has to be consistency. Real consistency, that is, not assumed, generalised or fudged.

    Indeed!

    You're missing my point. Pinchin had a single, vertical gash - it's more of a "scoring", actually, but let's go with "gash" - to her abdomen, and that's as far as it went. Jackson had more than "a gash" to her abdomen, as did some other torso victims, to say nothing of four out of five canonical Ripper victims, most of whose abdominal wounds were far more extensive.

    No, I am not missing your point. Your point was to deny that Jackson had a vertical gash in the trunk, all the way from sternum to pelvis.

    Leave a comment:


  • Busy Beaver
    replied
    Come on Sam. you of all people should have worked out that Charlie Ripper-Torsoman loaded up his pickfords van and scattered body parts whilst driving erratically through the street of London/Whitechapel, when he wasn't walking them at un-godly hours of the night & morning .

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    And let´s try hardest when it comes to the Pinchin Street deed, since that is the one deed that not only ties the series together through the geograpy, but worse still links things to Charles Lechmere.
    What links Cross to those torsos deposited in the West of London, e.g. Chelsea and/or Battersea?
    What urge did he satisfy, and how could different results be equally viable to reach that satisfaction?"
    In terms of the torso cases, almost certainly the urge to dispose of body parts effectively, and to minimise traceability by rendering the victims as anonymous as possible.
    Last edited by Sam Flynn; 01-10-2019, 05:24 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    You know, Gareth, you are asking the wrong question over and over again: "Why was he not consistent?"
    If we're looking for patterns, there has to be consistency. Real consistency, that is, not assumed, generalised or fudged.
    I´ll leave you to ponder all of this, and - of course - to ask me to show you how I can prove that Jackson had a long vertical gash cut into her trunk from sternum to pelvis, instead of - as you claim - only having a large hole made in her abdomen. It´s in the reports, all of it and very clear to see.
    You're missing my point. Pinchin had a single, vertical gash - it's more of a "scoring", actually, but let's go with "gash" - to her abdomen, and that's as far as it went. Jackson had more than "a gash" to her abdomen, as did some other torso victims, to say nothing of four out of five canonical Ripper victims, most of whose abdominal wounds were far more extensive.
    Last edited by Sam Flynn; 01-10-2019, 04:58 AM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X