torso maps

[Abby Normal]

Firstly, you are making the prior claim, ie that the ripper and TK were one and the same, therefore the burden of proof is on you.

Secondly, for something to be possible why does it have to have occurred before?

Another failure of logic.

Hi hs

IMHO it dosnt of course.

But surely you can see the point-there are no eviscerating (id even broaden that to post mortem mutilator) serial killers prior to torso and ripper... then all of a sudden there is two.

Again for me at least its just too much of yet another coincidence.

[Herlock Sholmes]

then i'll give a fish line youve heard many times before and never given a valid response to. where are all the pre-ripper 19th century post-mortem eviscerating serial killers? if youre going to claim this is possible then prove it. show us the evidence of other post mortem eviscerating serial killers in 19th century London.

Firstly, you are making the prior claim, ie that the ripper and TK were one and the same, therefore the burden of proof is on you.

Secondly, for something to be possible why does it have to have occurred before?

Another failure of logic.

[RockySullivan]

Firstly,

I can’t help smiling when I read a post that basically says ‘ I like being disagreed with because it gives you the opportunity to debate the issues from both sides but if you take a position on one side of this particular argument then you must be stupid.’

Secondly,

I’m the first to admit that, due to a bit of a dip in interest over the last few years, I’m not as up to date with current research as others who have maintained a consistent interest. But, and I’m open to all viewpoints here, it had always been a matter of debate and disagreement (sometimes heatedly so) about the level of skill required to commit the Whitechapel Murders. People have said ‘definite medical knowledge’ or ‘basic anatomical knowledge’ or even ‘the skills of a butcher or slaughterman.’ Now if a consensus has now been reached
that the ripper would have required exceptional medical skills then I’m happy to accept it (I have no medical knowledge at all.) If that’s not the case then I’m unsure why you are so confident in your assertion that it was the case?

Thirdly,

Is it impossible that something ‘unlikely’ in someone’s opinion couldn’t possibly have happened or do we have to check back in history to prove that every possibly occurrence had happened before so that we could admit that it was a possibility? Too much rigid adherence to ‘rules’ surely sets limits on what we can discover.

Fourthly,

Why is it deemed ok to look at possible similarities in terms of mutilation in regard to a fraction of the murders (and deride someone like Gareth who takes a reasoned look and disagrees) and still point to them as definite proof of Ripper=TK and yet when the massive, yawning caverns of differences are mentioned it’s perfectly ok to come up with any ‘perhaps’ or ‘what if’ to explain these inconveniences away. It’s like a Ripperological buffet where you’re just cherry-picking the bits that suit your argument and leaving the others on the table.

It is categorically not proven (or anywhere near) that these murders were committed by the same man. The difference appears to be that I will admit that I could be wrong and that they might have been (or at least some of them,) but you are so confident in your ‘genius’ (to borrow the word that you used about me) that you seem to think that it’s game over.

You remind me of someone

then i'll give a fish line youve heard many times before and never given a valid response to. where are all the pre-ripper 19th century post-mortem eviscerating serial killers? if youre going to claim this is possible then prove it. show us the evidence of other post mortem eviscerating serial killers in 19th century London.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well my apologies then. Your conclusions led me to wonder if you'd skipped the actual details. But actually I revel in being disagreed with because it exposes the inconsistencies in the arguments on both sides. However your side is refusing to acknowledge that post-mortem operations and reproductive organ removables exhibits a specialized knowledge that was extraordinary in victorian london. The idea that two serial killers, who were both active in 1888 and both left body/body parts in whitechapel (both with victims a giant incision up the center of the abdomen) could coexist in London even though there's no previous example of it and both exhibit that extraordinary expertise is stupid.

Firstly,

I can’t help smiling when I read a post that basically says ‘ I like being disagreed with because it gives you the opportunity to debate the issues from both sides but if you take a position on one side of this particular argument then you must be stupid.’

Secondly,

I’m the first to admit that, due to a bit of a dip in interest over the last few years, I’m not as up to date with current research as others who have maintained a consistent interest. But, and I’m open to all viewpoints here, it had always been a matter of debate and disagreement (sometimes heatedly so) about the level of skill required to commit the Whitechapel Murders. People have said ‘definite medical knowledge’ or ‘basic anatomical knowledge’ or even ‘the skills of a butcher or slaughterman.’ Now if a consensus has now been reached
that the ripper would have required exceptional medical skills then I’m happy to accept it (I have no medical knowledge at all.) If that’s not the case then I’m unsure why you are so confident in your assertion that it was the case?

Thirdly,

Is it impossible that something ‘unlikely’ in someone’s opinion couldn’t possibly have happened or do we have to check back in history to prove that every possibly occurrence had happened before so that we could admit that it was a possibility? Too much rigid adherence to ‘rules’ surely sets limits on what we can discover.

Fourthly,

Why is it deemed ok to look at possible similarities in terms of mutilation in regard to a fraction of the murders (and deride someone like Gareth who takes a reasoned look and disagrees) and still point to them as definite proof of Ripper=TK and yet when the massive, yawning caverns of differences are mentioned it’s perfectly ok to come up with any ‘perhaps’ or ‘what if’ to explain these inconveniences away. It’s like a Ripperological buffet where you’re just cherry-picking the bits that suit your argument and leaving the others on the table.

It is categorically not proven (or anywhere near) that these murders were committed by the same man. The difference appears to be that I will admit that I could be wrong and that they might have been (or at least some of them,) but you are so confident in your ‘genius’ (to borrow the word that you used about me) that you seem to think that it’s game over.

You remind me of someone

[RockySullivan]

Well I had. It proves nothing in regard to the previous point that Gareth made, and I agreed with, about the term ‘flaps.’

You are showing a Fish-like dislike of being disagreed with Rocky.

Well my apologies then. Your conclusions led me to wonder if you'd skipped the actual details. But actually I revel in being disagreed with because it exposes the inconsistencies in the arguments on both sides. However your side is refusing to acknowledge that post-mortem operations and reproductive organ removables exhibits a specialized knowledge that was extraordinary in victorian london. The idea that two serial killers, who were both active in 1888 and both left body/body parts in whitechapel (both with victims a giant incision up the center of the abdomen) could coexist in London even though there's no previous example of it and both exhibit that extraordinary expertise is stupid.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well I had. It proves nothing in regard to the previous point that Gareth made, and I agreed with, about the term ‘flaps.’

You are showing a Fish-like dislike of being disagreed with Rocky.

[RockySullivan]

Ok, I’ll say........why did you post that??

Because I figured you'd never read it

[Herlock Sholmes]

https://www.casebook.org/victims/jackson.html

Ok, I’ll say........why did you post that??

[RockySullivan]

If you are utterly determined to link the two series, for whatever reason, it’s quite understandable why you might wish to latch on to any ‘percieved’ link.
We know what a uterus looks like, or a kidney or a lung but can you describe a flap in terms of shape and dimensions if the description isn’t specific? Would you get excited if someone said that both bodies had cuts or stabs? If you can’t, and you can’t, then how the hell can you link a ‘flap’ in one body to a ‘flap’ in another. It defies reason. But then again who needs reason when obsession will do.

On the Saturday afternoon the buttocks and the bony pelvis, with all the organs missing, were picked up near Battersea steam boat pier. These parts were all found to correspond with other parts found among the first discoveries at Horselydown a few days earlier. The bladder was said to have been cut through in the pubic arch. According to the Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper of Sunday 9th June, a strange discovery was made on examining the buttocks closer. A fine piece of linen, approximately 9.5in. by 8in., possibly a handkerchief, was found rolled up and pushed into the back passage. There is no mention of this discovery in the 'A System of legal medicine' description of the pelvis find;

"The third portion of the trunk consisted of the pelvis from below the third lumbar vertebra. The thighs had been taken off opposite The hip joints by long, sweeping incisions through the skin, muscles and tissues down to the joint, the heads of the bones neatly disarticulated....

....The pelvis contained the lower part of the vagina and the lower part of the rectum, the front part of the bladder including the urethra. The vagina was flaccid, the mucus membrane healthy, and still showing rugae. There was no rupture of the vaginal walls or fourchette, nor was there any swelling or congestion of the part."

The right thigh was also found the same day in the garden of Sir Percy Shelley's Chelsea house, which was being rented out to another occupier at the time. It was very much decomposed and wrapped in some more portions of the now familiar Ulster coat as well as what appeared to be the coarse fabric pocket of an apron, similar to those used by meat or fish salesman or costermongers.

On the 10th June the right arm and hand were found floating in the Thames off Newton's Wharf near Blackfriars Bridge. The only portions of the body still missing were the heart, lungs, head and neck and the intestines. By Tuesday the 11th June no further human remains had been discovered and it was doubted whether any further portions would turn up, although on the 12th June the remains of a male foetus, of approximately 5 or 6 months gestation, was found floating in the river near Whitehall, in a jar similar to the ones used for pickles, the doctors were undecided if this had any connection to the case in hand.

https://www.casebook.org/victims/jackson.html

[Herlock Sholmes]

And elsewhere he often uses "slips". Either way, they're not technical terms, neither are they specific. Furthermore, "large" is only relative; if the two pieces of flesh removed from Jackson's abdomen were large, then the three removed from Kelly's were enormous.

Exactly. Beyond question.

[Herlock Sholmes]

this post reeks of desperation

If you are utterly determined to link the two series, for whatever reason, it’s quite understandable why you might wish to latch on to any ‘percieved’ link.
We know what a uterus looks like, or a kidney or a lung but can you describe a flap in terms of shape and dimensions if the description isn’t specific? Would you get excited if someone said that both bodies had cuts or stabs? If you can’t, and you can’t, then how the hell can you link a ‘flap’ in one body to a ‘flap’ in another. It defies reason. But then again who needs reason when obsession will do.

[Herlock Sholmes]

serial killers sometimes plan ahead

I have no problem if you suspect that Jack went from potential victim until potential victim until he found one with a room

[RockySullivan]

I don't want to diminish any facts, only to emphasise that we need to be very specific if we are to draw any inference from the data. Simply observing that ONE torso was deposited in Pinchin Street whilst the majority were dumped on the other side of London doesn't constitute much of a geographical overlap. Likewise the occurrence of a "spike" of open-air evisceration murders in the middle of a long-running series of quite different murders isn't much of a temporal overlap either.

If my opinion is firm in respect of the non-connectedness of the murders, it's because I objectively look at the specifics and avoid over-generalisation.

So a third murderer dismembered this woman, made a 15 inch incision over the abdomen and then dumped her in whitechapel?

[Sam Flynn]

Dr. Hibberts opening statement in “A System of Legal Medicine” regarding The Jackson case is:

The parts found were 1) two large flaps of skin.....

And elsewhere he often uses "slips". Either way, they're not technical terms, neither are they specific. Furthermore, "large" is only relative; if the two pieces of flesh removed from Jackson's abdomen were large, then the three removed from Kelly's were enormous.

[RockySullivan]

What about all the other murders that took place all over London from the start to the end of the torso series? We can say that there was an overlap, but we can also say, quite legitimately and objectively, that it wasn't MUCH of an overlap.

Sam are you volunteering to post another example of any other victims who had their reproductive organs cut out in 1888 since its not a unique trait at all? put up or shut up