Could Jack have killed some of the torso victims?

[Sam Flynn]

Taking the abdominal wall away from a victim is always going to be above and beyond the necessary. Taking the heart and lungs out from a torso section is much the same - it is above and beyond what is requiered. Taking the uterus out - same thing. Taking a foetus out from the uterus - same thing. Cutting a face away from a victim - same thing.

So why didn't these things feature in each and every case? Granted, that doesn't apply to the removal of the foetus, as that was only relevant in one instance, but you'd think that a practised single perpetrator would show a bit more consistency in his technique throughout all the torso cases.

Indeed, if that perpetrator were also the Ripper, you'd think that thorough evisceration would happen each and every time. Yet, in the ONLY case to happen anywhere near the Ripper's territory, not only was there no evisceration, but the abdomen was not even opened! Furthermore, the dismemberment only extended as far as the head and the legs, so it's even doubtful that the Pinchin Street case can be pinned on "the" Torsoman, let alone Jack the Ripper.

[Fisherman]

So why didn't these things feature in each and every case? Granted, that doesn't apply to the removal of the foetus, as that was only relevant in one instance, but you'd think that a practised single perpetrator would show a bit more consistency in his technique throughout all the torso cases.

Indeed, if that perpetrator were also the Ripper, you'd think that thorough evisceration would happen each and every time. Yet, in the ONLY case to happen anywhere near the Ripper's territory, not only was there no evisceration, but the abdomen was not even opened! Furthermore, the dismemberment only extended as far as the head and the legs, so it's even doubtful that the Pinchin Street case can be pinned on "the" Torsoman, let alone Jack the Ripper.

You know, Gareth, you are asking the wrong question over and over again: "Why was he not consistent?"

I truly believe he WAS consistent, and that all of the deeds were different expressions of the same thing. They all fit into a pattern, but it is not until you know the pattern that you can see it.

What you are aiming at is easy to see: If the deeds differed in some way, let´s try and peddle the idea that they did not have the same originator. 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. So if one case can be forgotten about, it should preferably be this one!

Charles Hebbert was just as aware of the differences between the cases as you and I are. He knew infinitely more about them than we do. And he was just as aware as you and I are that a wide geographical distribution speaks against a common originator, just as differing things done to the victims will do so.
All of this he knew, but he was adamant that it was the same originator just the same. And why? Because he had the victims on his slab and was able to see and feel every cut in those bodies and that left him in no doubt that the killer was one and the same in each of the cases.
And it was not as if the cutting work was of the expected quality - this was cutting that displayed a lot of skill. We may recall the initial reactions of Dr Galloway on seeing the meticulous and exact cutting done on the Rainham torso. Galloway was totally blown away by it, and Hebbert tells us that the other three bodies were more of the exact same.

Therefore, as I said, you are asking the wrong question. The correct question is "what can we learn from how this killer expressed himself in more than one way? What is this about, if it is not about dismemberment only? What was he trying to achieve by what he did? What urge did he satisfy, and how could different results be equally viable to reach that satisfaction?"

The answer is hinted at by how he left the head on the Pinchin Street torso, how he meticulously carved the face away IN ONE PIECE from the 1873 victim, how he sawed that victims arms and legs off at the hips and shoulders, how he took away the abdominal walls from some victims (Kelly and Chapman included) and how he carefully placed a length of Eddowes colon beside her body, how he made a pillow of Kellys own organs and flesh for her, etcetera, etcetera.

Asking why not all victims had such a pillow made for them is asking the wrong question. Asking why Kelly had one made for her is asking the right question. It is not and was never about the lacking consistency. It is and was always about how what he was producing, and how it could be expressed by a multitude of elements, as proven by the victims.

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. If, that is, you are interested enough to open your eyes to material that does not concur with your own take. Such things can hurt, I know.

[Sam Flynn]

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.

[Sam Flynn]

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.

[Busy Beaver]

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 .

[Fisherman]

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.

[Fisherman]

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!

[Fisherman]

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!

[Harry D]

He [Lechmere] seemingly killed Nichols

[Fisherman]

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)

[Sam Flynn]

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!

[Sam Flynn]

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.

[Fisherman]

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.

[Sam Flynn]

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.)

[Fisherman]

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".