Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Jack and the Thames Torso Murders: A New Ripper? by Drew Gray and Andrew Wise

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
    well I guess I wont need to worry about availability of this book anymore. Been following it here and on the other forum and it appears there is not only NOT a detailed examination of the torsos, there is many very basic features that the authors get incorrect in general. very disappointing.

    oh well, now will someone please write a good book on the torsos!
    another issue I have with the suspect Hardiman-would he also lure, kill and mutilate in his Mums back yard? I think not.
    "Is all that we see or seem
    but a dream within a dream?"

    -Edgar Allan Poe


    "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
    quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

    -Frederick G. Abberline

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
      well I guess I wont need to worry about availability of this book anymore. Been following it here and on the other forum and it appears there is not only NOT a detailed examination of the torsos, there is many very basic features that the authors get incorrect in general. very disappointing.

      oh well, now will someone please write a good book on the torsos!
      Hi Abby,

      I'm afraid this thread, like many threads, as gone off into a complete tangent, and not relevant to the book preview. The preview of the book, available in Kindle following purchase, is very brief and discloses very little of the author's intentions.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by John G View Post

        Hi Abby,

        I'm afraid this thread, like many threads, as gone off into a complete tangent, and not relevant to the book preview. The preview of the book, available in Kindle following purchase, is very brief and discloses very little of the author's intentions.
        Im not talking about the preview. theres folks already reading the book and commenting on it here and on the other forum. when folks like Debra, Sam, Jerry Dunlop and gary Barnett are already finding problems it does not bode well. the suspect also has a very tenuous connection to the ripper case (let alone the torsos) and weak circumstantial evidence. Im quickly losing interest.
        "Is all that we see or seem
        but a dream within a dream?"

        -Edgar Allan Poe


        "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
        quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

        -Frederick G. Abberline

        Comment


        • #49
          [QUOTE=Fisherman;n713088]
          Originally posted by John G View Post

          In afraid it doesn't remotely amount to hard forensic evidence, as Dr Biggs made abundantly clear.

          It amounts to evidence that tells us that three women had part of their abdominal walls taken away. That IS hard forensic evidence, albeit with no measurements given. If three murder victims have their left feet sawed off, should we forget about it until we have the exact angles of the cuts, John?

          For instance, was any body imaging carried out? Tool mark analysis? 3-d X-Ray scan? CT scan? More specifically, considering, say, the Kelly and Jackson cases, here are a few of the questions that Rutty (2017) suggests a forensic anthropologist might pose. Was any of this done? :


          "What is the exact anatomical location of each of the marks?
          Has soft tissue been removed from the bone to visualize the cut surface(s)?
          If soft tissue has been removed have, have the implements used been recorded, measured and imaged?
          Is the cut mark associated with dismemberment/attempted dismemberment?
          If yes, is the mark a complete cut through bone/partial cut through the bone/false start/other?
          What is the length and width of each of the cut marks?
          Is the mark associated with other cut marks? What is the association?
          What is the shape of the cross-section of the kerf (if not completely cut through the bone)?
          What is the degree of bone wastage caused by the implement?
          What is the degree of decomposition/taponomoc change seen?
          Were the remains vulnerable to possible scavenging during the post mortem period?
          Were there any indication of animal activity in the area? If so, which species?
          Were the remains vulnerable to any other taphonomic influences that might cause artefacts that could resemble cut marks? For example, trampling, stony ground, burial?
          Did the recovery process involve any risk of damage to the cut areas?
          Have all the marks been recorded on a skeletal recording form and been described with contemporaneous notes using clear indications of proximal and distal, etc?
          Has the masceration method been recorded including photographs before, during and after the process, the method used and the time of the start and finish of the process?
          Have all the marks been photographed with and without a scale?
          Have all the marks been photographed using a macro as well as a normal lens?
          Has photography included all possible views of the cut marks (e.g. cross-sections of the kerf and macro images of the striatuons?)
          Has an identification system (letters/numbers) been incorporated into the photographs for later identification during review of the images?"

          None of these points are crucial to determine whether portions of the abdominal wall were taken away from each victim. None of them dissolve the fact that we KNOW that this happened. Returning to the sawed off feet, it would be informative to have them X-ray scanned, but no X-ray scan in the world would take away the fact that they were sawed off.

          With respect, you cannot simply refer to something extremely generalized, such as the cutting away of abdominal walls, and argue that represents a match. For instance, in respect of Kelly we appear to have a perpetrator who has committed an aggressive assault on the body, demonstrating no particular skill whatsoever. Pieces may have simply been hacked out.

          Can you explain to me how it is "extremely generalized" to have the abdominal wall taken away in portions? It is in fact anything BUT "generalized" - it is extremely uncommon. And that is REGARDLESS if we have X-rays of the abdomens or not.
          I do not want to annoy you, John, but surely it would be utterly ridiculous to look away from these details on account of how we do not know their exact measurements?
          Removed portions from the abdominal wall.
          Removed hearts.
          Removed uteri.
          Cuts from sternum to pelvis.
          Prostituted victims.
          Same town.
          Same time.

          Before Gareth blows his top again, I will point out that these are inclusions in both series, not something that happened to all victims. Okay, Gareth?


          That's not remotely what happened in the Jackson case, where a completely different method and purpose can be discerned.

          No!!! It can be SUGGESTED only! The method and purpose may well have been the exact same - a cut by knife to allow access to the abdominal cavity and the innards. What you personally THINK you discern is not everybody rule for what can be seen, John!

          For example, Jackson would have been heavily pregnant, meaning the uterus would be greatly enlarged, making body disposal more difficult. Now, considering that the foetus was removed, and that the strips of skin from the abdominal wall were wrapped up in a parcel, containing the uterus, cord and placenta, it's reasonable to conclude that the perpetrator's prime motive in cutting into the abdominal wall was to access the foetus, for purposes of removal, in order to better facilitate body disposal. Although, I believe shock value may have been a secondary purpose.

          Yes, it is pretty obvious that the killer took an interest in the fetus, otherwise he would not have cut it out. But how does that tell us that he is any different from, say, Eddowes´killer? He took a uterus and a kidney there, apparently because he took an interest in THOSE parts in THAT case. And she was not pregnant, so how do we know that he would not have taken her foetus too, given the chance?
          Is it not true that we have a killer in BOTH cases who seems interested in what can be taken out of the abdominal cavity?


          The Albright case is different, in that the removal of the eyeballs is very rare and very specific.

          How is taking the abdominal wall away in portions NOT very rare and very specific, John?

          And something that serves von practical purpose.

          von? Should that be a "no"? If so, what "practical purpose" does it serve to cut a foetus out from a woman´s uterus? How are you reasoning?

          There's also a close geographical link-very different to the Torso and C5 cases, which indicate two completely different geographical profiles.

          Please, John - we don't know where the torso victims were procured. The Ripper victims were not dumped. So there can be no comparison. But we DO know that we have a cross-over victim in Pinchin Street!

          However, the fact that Albright was only convicted of one murder only serves to demonstrate how difficult it is, even in the modern era, to prove forensic links.

          Yes! And the gouged out eyeballs tell us that we don't NEED exact forensic evidence to make a call that is 99,999 per cent certain to be correct anyway. Plus there is the legal issue of how the prosecution had already reached its goal to have Albright sent down for life. To press the two other cases with no forensic evidence would perhaps work, perhaps not and in the end, the outcome would be the same for Albright, so it saved money and time not to push on.


          No it is not hard forensic evidence! It's not like DNA or tool mark analysis, using modern technology! This was the very point that Dr Biggs was essentially making.

          Saying that you've found two victims with part of the abdominal wall removed is very general and proves nothing. For instance, you could say, "here's one victim with an eye removed, and here's another victim which has been decapitated: obviously the same killer as they both ensured the eyes were detached from the rest of the body!"

          It's perfectly plausible to argue that he removed the foetus to make the remains easier to dispose of. In other words, a heavily pregnant individual has a large bulge in her stomach, therefore not so easy to dispose of the remains!

          As Gareth has pointed out, the abdominal wall injuries sustained by Kelly and Chapman are not remotely similar. And there is no hard forensic evidence to demonstrate they were: evidence proving the same implement was used; evidence demonstrating that the cuts were the same etc.

          "Cuts from sternum to pelvis". Hardly unique. "Removed portions of abdominal wall". Yes, but radically differently, as discussed. "Removed uteri" Incidental, as Jackson's uteri was not retained by the perpetrator. And he had to remove the uteri in order to access the foetus! I'm sure you'll agree, we can't just focus on the similarities, whilst ignoring the differences. "Same town". Well, same city, and a city of almost 700 square miles. And this ignores the very different geographical profiles, which I'll come to shortly. "Same time". No, none of the victims were killed at the same time (even Stride and Eddowes were not killed at precisely the same time. ) Victims prostitutes? Some were, although we don't know they were soliciting at the time they were murdered.

          Okay, geo-profile. Dr Kim Rossmo calculated that JtR most probably lived in Flower and Dean Street. In any event, all of the C5 murders were committed within a remarkably small geographical area-around one square mile-so a location somewhere in the heart of Whitechapel/Spitalfields seems highly likely.

          Now remarkably, this isn't unusual even for modern serial killers. Thus, Godwin and Canter (1997) considered the spatial behaviour of 54 American serial killers who abducted their victims. Result: average mean distance from home to place of fatal encounter was a mere 1.46 miles.

          Now, how does this relate to the Torso perpetrator? Well, according to Debra Arif, in an article on this site, Elizabeth Jackson, the only Torso victim identified, had a habit of remaining in Battersea Park, where her trunk was discovered. But this would have been 5.9 miles from Flower and Dean Walk, a location at the heart of the Whitechapel murders. Debra also points out that she had slept rough on the Chelsea embankment, which is even further away- 6 miles from Flower and Dean Walk.

          It's therefore submitted that the Battersea area is a likely location for the Torso perpetrator, and that it would have been very unlikely that he would have travelled as far as Whitechapel/Spitalfields, or even as far as his modern counterpart, particularly considering that: he would be less likely to own a vehicle than a modern perpetrator; that any such vehicle would be only one horsepower-or should that be pony power?-not ,say, 200 horsepower; that any "vehicle" would not have a boot in which to store a victim,; that he would be travelling in a densely populated area with poor transport infrastructure, compared with a modern perpetrator. Note: distance travelled to dump sites for modern perpetrator was much further-average of 14.5 miles-emphasizing a strategy of putting distance between himself and the victim.

          Pinchin Street crossover? Well, there's no evidence that this victim was murdered in Whitechapel (see above: perpetrator's tend to travel much further to dump sites than to point of fatal contact. This also brings me to the radical differences in MO and signature. Thus, one perpetrator abducted his victims, the other didn't. One perpetrator decapitated his victims, the other didn't. One perpetrator focussed his activities on a very small geographical area-around one square mile-the other was active over a much larger range. One perpetrator dismembered his victims, the other didn't. Etc. Etc. Etc.
          Last edited by John G; 06-13-2019, 03:50 PM.

          Comment


          • #50
            I have just started the book, and my first impression is that it is a sober well written account in which the authors offer up
            a "plausible solution", and present "a suspect who should bear close examination".

            No grandiose claims to have solved the case, just positing a possible suspect.

            They also look at how "the curious geography of it's streets and alleys , and explain how they and London's wider transport network are intimately connected with the murders of 1887-1891".

            This is something that I know Fisherman has been looking at in relation to his Lechmere theory.

            All in all, I think this book will be a welcome addition to the case.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

              Im not talking about the preview. theres folks already reading the book and commenting on it here and on the other forum. when folks like Debra, Sam, Jerry Dunlop and gary Barnett are already finding problems it does not bode well. the suspect also has a very tenuous connection to the ripper case (let alone the torsos) and weak circumstantial evidence. Im quickly losing interest.
              Thanks Abby. I can only assume they have advanced copies! I've read some of the posts you refer to, by the aforementioned highly respected posters, and I would therefore have to agree with you that the book may be fundamentally flawed. However, having not read it, I reserve final judgment. Oh dear..
              I sound like an austere judge about to pass sentence...sorry Drew, I promise to be objective!

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by John G View Post

                Thanks Abby. I can only assume they have advanced copies! I've read some of the posts you refer to, by the aforementioned highly respected posters, and I would therefore have to agree with you that the book may be fundamentally flawed. However, having not read it, I reserve final judgment. Oh dear..
                I sound like an austere judge about to pass sentence...sorry Drew, I promise to be objective!
                Some people are reading it on Kindle John, it's been available for a few days in that format.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Elamarna View Post

                  Some people are reading it on Kindle John, it's been available for a few days in that format.
                  Thanks, Steve. In fact, I now feel a bit stupid. I bought the paperback version, ETA 21/22nd June, but a Kindle version (preview) automatically downloaded as well. Following your post I've just checked said Kindle version and discovered that the whole book has now mysteriously downloaded!

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Actually, it's only the table of contents and two chapters that have downloaded ! Oops...
                    Last edited by John G; 06-13-2019, 05:40 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      [QUOTE=John G;n713092][QUOTE=Fisherman;n713088]

                      No it is not hard forensic evidence! It's not like DNA or tool mark analysis, using modern technology! This was the very point that Dr Biggs was essentially making.

                      Then Dr Biggs made a point that is not of much interest to us. And "hard evidence" is not necessarily technically qualified evidence, John - it is definitively established evidence. And it IS definitively established that the three victims in question did have large parts of their abdomens cut away in portions. And since that is something that is practically unheard of, it goes without saying that our best guess must be that the originator was the same. Otherwise, we need to accept that two different perps in the same town and at the same time did something to their victims that is practically unheard of. And not only that, we must also accept that they did a lot of other things that overlapped and that are pretty unusual things too. It defies logic in a massive manner.
                      What I am saying is that we don't NEED to know what the flaps looked like to make the assumption that they were cut away by the same man. And that is because just about no murders involve this kind of thing, it is rarer than hen´s teeth.


                      Saying that you've found two victims with part of the abdominal wall removed is very general and proves nothing. For instance, you could say, "here's one victim with an eye removed, and here's another victim which has been decapitated: obviously the same killer as they both ensured the eyes were detached from the rest of the body!"

                      If I ever heard an unfair argument, then that is it. In all of these three cases large flaps of flesh was removed from the abdominal wall together with subcutaneous tissue. That is the exact same thing, and it bears no resemblance at all to your proposition, I'm afraid.

                      It's perfectly plausible to argue that he removed the foetus to make the remains easier to dispose of. In other words, a heavily pregnant individual has a large bulge in her stomach, therefore not so easy to dispose of the remains!

                      Yes, we can suggest anything at all, John! That is what I am saying - there can ALWAYS be presented alternative explanations. And some of these explanations can be perfectly plausible. However, it is NOT plausible at all to suggest that there will surface two killers in the same town who will both cut away parts of abdominal walls, who will both cut out hearts, who will b both take out uteri, who will. both attack prostitutes, who will both cut from sternum to groin, who will both take out parts of the colon, who will both be mistaken for surgeons by medicos. That is NOT plausible in the least, it is instead totally and utterly IMPLAUSIBLE. And I am afraid that overrides the fact that we can always, item by item, come up with alternative explanations. Once the evidence for a common originator is as massive and conclusive as it is here, that dispels any such exercises into dust.

                      As Gareth has pointed out, the abdominal wall injuries sustained by Kelly and Chapman are not remotely similar.

                      Where did you get that from? Or where did he get that from? Of course they were very similar! It is two cases of women having had large flaps of flesh cut away from their abdomens, leaving the innards open to the naked eye. In what universe is that not similar? Regardless if the opening in Kellys case was 20 x 10 inches and in Chapmans case 15 x 20, it is the same thing nevertheless - the "lid" is taken of the innard box. And we don't even know how large the openings were, John. You cannot say that the flaps is not hard evidence, and then go on to treat two openings in abdomens that you know very little about as if THEY were proven different!

                      And there is no hard forensic evidence to demonstrate they were: evidence proving the same implement was used; evidence demonstrating that the cuts were the same etc.

                      And there is no need for it. Enough is enough.

                      "Cuts from sternum to pelvis". Hardly unique.

                      But very rare.

                      "Removed portions of abdominal wall". Yes, but radically differently, as discussed.

                      A: You don't know that. B: The measure as such is unique, more or less.

                      "Removed uteri" Incidental, as Jackson's uteri was not retained by the perpetrator.

                      A: You don't know that. The uteri could have been cut out in the same way and for the same reason. And B: it is another very rare damage.

                      And he had to remove the uteri in order to access the foetus!

                      No other victim was pregnant, so no comparison can be made.

                      I'm sure you'll agree, we can't just focus on the similarities, whilst ignoring the differences.

                      No, I don't agree. If the similarities are as rare as they are in this case, then we SHOULD ignore the differences, because unless they are conclusive, they WILL mislead us.

                      "Same town". Well, same city, and a city of almost 700 square miles.

                      And surfacewise a tiny portion of the planet, with all the killing spots and dumping ditto in walking distance from each other, John. Its not Calcutta and Bognbor Regis, is it?

                      And this ignores the very different geographical profiles, which I'll come to shortly.

                      Then so will I.

                      "Same time". No, none of the victims were killed at the same time (even Stride and Eddowes were not killed at precisely the same time.

                      A good joke but a lousy argument.

                      Victims prostitutes? Some were, although we don't know they were soliciting at the time they were murdered.

                      Yes, exactly: we know that there were prostitutes involved in both series. I did not say that they were soliciting, I said that they were prostitutes, John - a common and specific type of serial killer prey. And once we KNOW that there are prostitutes involved, why should we ignore it? It is potentially a case-breaker.

                      Okay, geo-profile. Dr Kim Rossmo calculated that JtR most probably lived in Flower and Dean Street. In any event, all of the C5 murders were committed within a remarkably small geographical area-around one square mile-so a location somewhere in the heart of Whitechapel/Spitalfields seems highly likely.

                      Check the outcome of geographical profiling against reality and come back to me, John. The thing is, sometimes they are right, sometimes they are wrong. Hardly the best evidence there is!

                      Now remarkably, this isn't unusual even for modern serial killers. Thus, Godwin and Canter (1997) considered the spatial behaviour of 54 American serial killers who abducted their victims. Result: average mean distance from home to place of fatal encounter was a mere 1.46 miles.

                      And if our man was not average...? Come on, this is timewasting and proves absolutely nothing. Putting it otherwise, it is not... ehrm, "hard evidence".

                      Now, how does this relate to the Torso perpetrator? Well, according to Debra Arif, in an article on this site, Elizabeth Jackson, the only Torso victim identified, had a habit of remaining in Battersea Park, where her trunk was discovered. But this would have been 5.9 miles from Flower and Dean Walk, a location at the heart of the Whitechapel murders. Debra also points out that she had slept rough on the Chelsea embankment, which is even further away- 6 miles from Flower and Dean Walk.

                      Debra knows what we all know, that Jackson frequented Battersea at times. Where she was when abducted is something none of us knows, not me, not you and not Debra. But regardless if she WAS in Battersea, we know quite well that the torso killer had access to transport. So what is the problem?

                      It's therefore submitted that the Battersea area is a likely location for the Torso perpetrator, and that it would have been very unlikely that he would have travelled as far as Whitechapel/Spitalfields, or even as far as his modern counterpart, particularly considering that: he would be less likely to own a vehicle than a modern perpetrator; that any such vehicle would be only one horsepower-or should that be pony power?-not ,say, 200 horsepower; that any "vehicle" would not have a boot in which to store a victim,; that he would be travelling in a densely populated area with poor transport infrastructure, compared with a modern perpetrator. Note: distance travelled to dump sites for modern perpetrator was much further-average of 14.5 miles-emphasizing a strategy of putting distance between himself and the victim.

                      If the torso killer was so uninterested in traveling, then what did he dump parts in places so far from each other? Never mind answering that question, we will get no further this way: the killer COULD have travelled to and fro Whitechapel, and the combination of odd similarities within the series establish beyond reasonable doubt that he did just that.

                      Pinchin Street crossover? Well, there's no evidence that this victim was murdered in Whitechapel (see above: perpetrator's tend to travel much further to dump sites than to point of fatal contact. This also brings me to the radical differences in MO and signature. Thus, one perpetrator abducted his victims, the other didn't. One perpetrator decapitated his victims, the other didn't. One perpetrator focussed his activities on a very small geographical area-around one square mile-the other was active over a much larger range. One perpetrator dismembered his victims, the other didn't. Etc. Etc. Etc.

                      And one poster interpreted the signs correctly while another didn't, John. Instead, this poster claimed that comparing taking away sections of the abdominal wall to taking away sections of the abdominal wall is like comparing taking away an eye to taking away a head, since that means the eye tags along when it occurs.

                      Is that how we should proceed, John?
                      Last edited by Fisherman; 06-13-2019, 06:33 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        [QUOTE=John G;n713092]
                        Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                        No it is not hard forensic evidence! It's not like DNA or tool mark analysis, using modern technology! This was the very point that Dr Biggs was essentially making.

                        Saying that you've found two victims with part of the abdominal wall removed is very general and proves nothing. For instance, you could say, "here's one victim with an eye removed, and here's another victim which has been decapitated: obviously the same killer as they both ensured the eyes were detached from the rest of the body!"

                        It's perfectly plausible to argue that he removed the foetus to make the remains easier to dispose of. In other words, a heavily pregnant individual has a large bulge in her stomach, therefore not so easy to dispose of the remains!

                        As Gareth has pointed out, the abdominal wall injuries sustained by Kelly and Chapman are not remotely similar. And there is no hard forensic evidence to demonstrate they were: evidence proving the same implement was used; evidence demonstrating that the cuts were the same etc.

                        "Cuts from sternum to pelvis". Hardly unique. "Removed portions of abdominal wall". Yes, but radically differently, as discussed. "Removed uteri" Incidental, as Jackson's uteri was not retained by the perpetrator. And he had to remove the uteri in order to access the foetus! I'm sure you'll agree, we can't just focus on the similarities, whilst ignoring the differences. "Same town". Well, same city, and a city of almost 700 square miles. And this ignores the very different geographical profiles, which I'll come to shortly. "Same time". No, none of the victims were killed at the same time (even Stride and Eddowes were not killed at precisely the same time. ) Victims prostitutes? Some were, although we don't know they were soliciting at the time they were murdered.

                        Okay, geo-profile. Dr Kim Rossmo calculated that JtR most probably lived in Flower and Dean Street. In any event, all of the C5 murders were committed within a remarkably small geographical area-around one square mile-so a location somewhere in the heart of Whitechapel/Spitalfields seems highly likely.

                        Now remarkably, this isn't unusual even for modern serial killers. Thus, Godwin and Canter (1997) considered the spatial behaviour of 54 American serial killers who abducted their victims. Result: average mean distance from home to place of fatal encounter was a mere 1.46 miles.

                        Now, how does this relate to the Torso perpetrator? Well, according to Debra Arif, in an article on this site, Elizabeth Jackson, the only Torso victim identified, had a habit of remaining in Battersea Park, where her trunk was discovered. But this would have been 5.9 miles from Flower and Dean Walk, a location at the heart of the Whitechapel murders. Debra also points out that she had slept rough on the Chelsea embankment, which is even further away- 6 miles from Flower and Dean Walk.

                        It's therefore submitted that the Battersea area is a likely location for the Torso perpetrator, and that it would have been very unlikely that he would have travelled as far as Whitechapel/Spitalfields, or even as far as his modern counterpart, particularly considering that: he would be less likely to own a vehicle than a modern perpetrator; that any such vehicle would be only one horsepower-or should that be pony power?-not ,say, 200 horsepower; that any "vehicle" would not have a boot in which to store a victim,; that he would be travelling in a densely populated area with poor transport infrastructure, compared with a modern perpetrator. Note: distance travelled to dump sites for modern perpetrator was much further-average of 14.5 miles-emphasizing a strategy of putting distance between himself and the victim.

                        Pinchin Street crossover? Well, there's no evidence that this victim was murdered in Whitechapel (see above: perpetrator's tend to travel much further to dump sites than to point of fatal contact. This also brings me to the radical differences in MO and signature. Thus, one perpetrator abducted his victims, the other didn't. One perpetrator decapitated his victims, the other didn't. One perpetrator focussed his activities on a very small geographical area-around one square mile-the other was active over a much larger range. One perpetrator dismembered his victims, the other didn't. Etc. Etc. Etc.
                        Hi John
                        you keep going on about abduction and even basing analysis and quoting studies of the two series by it. there is no evidence the victims where abducted in either series and on the contrary it seems the same MO was used in both-a ruse to get the victims where the killer wanted them so he could do his thing.
                        "Is all that we see or seem
                        but a dream within a dream?"

                        -Edgar Allan Poe


                        "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                        quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                        -Frederick G. Abberline

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          [QUOTE=Fisherman;n713106][QUOTE=John G;n713092]
                          Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                          No it is not hard forensic evidence! It's not like DNA or tool mark analysis, using modern technology! This was the very point that Dr Biggs was essentially making.

                          Then Dr Biggs made a point that is not of much interest to us. And "hard evidence" is not necessarily technically qualified evidence, John - it is definitively established evidence. And it IS definitively established that the three victims in question did have large parts of their abdomens cut away in portions. And since that is something that is practically unheard of, it goes without saying that our best guess must be that the originator was the same. Otherwise, we need to accept that two different perps in the same town and at the same time did something to their victims that is practically unheard of. And not only that, we must also accept that they did a lot of other things that overlapped and that are pretty unusual things too. It defies logic in a massive manner.
                          What I am saying is that we don't NEED to know what the flaps looked like to make the assumption that they were cut away by the same man. And that is because just about no murders involve this kind of thing, it is rarer than hen´s teeth.


                          Saying that you've found two victims with part of the abdominal wall removed is very general and proves nothing. For instance, you could say, "here's one victim with an eye removed, and here's another victim which has been decapitated: obviously the same killer as they both ensured the eyes were detached from the rest of the body!"

                          If I ever heard an unfair argument, then that is it. In all of these three cases large flaps of flesh was removed from the abdominal wall together with subcutaneous tissue. That is the exact same thing, and it bears no resemblance at all to your proposition, I'm afraid.

                          It's perfectly plausible to argue that he removed the foetus to make the remains easier to dispose of. In other words, a heavily pregnant individual has a large bulge in her stomach, therefore not so easy to dispose of the remains!

                          Yes, we can suggest anything at all, John! That is what I am saying - there can ALWAYS be presented alternative explanations. And some of these explanations can be perfectly plausible. However, it is NOT plausible at all to suggest that there will surface two killers in the same town who will both cut away parts of abdominal walls, who will both cut out hearts, who will b both take out uteri, who will. both attack prostitutes, who will both cut from sternum to groin, who will both take out parts of the colon, who will both be mistaken for surgeons by medicos. That is NOT plausible in the least, it is instead totally and utterly IMPLAUSIBLE. And I am afraid that overrides the fact that we can always, item by item, come up with alternative explanations. Once the evidence for a common originator is as massive and conclusive as it is here, that dispels any such exercises into dust.

                          As Gareth has pointed out, the abdominal wall injuries sustained by Kelly and Chapman are not remotely similar.

                          Where did you get that from? Or where did he get that from? Of course they were very similar! It is two cases of women having had large flaps of flesh cut away from their abdomens, leaving the innards open to the naked eye. In what universe is that not similar? Regardless if the opening in Kellys case was 20 x 10 inches and in Chapmans case 15 x 20, it is the same thing nevertheless - the "lid" is taken of the innard box. And we don't even know how large the openings were, John. You cannot say that the flaps is not hard evidence, and then go on to treat two openings in abdomens that you know very little about as if THEY were proven different!

                          And there is no hard forensic evidence to demonstrate they were: evidence proving the same implement was used; evidence demonstrating that the cuts were the same etc.

                          And there is no need for it. Enough is enough.

                          "Cuts from sternum to pelvis". Hardly unique.

                          But very rare.

                          "Removed portions of abdominal wall". Yes, but radically differently, as discussed.

                          A: You don't know that. B: The measure as such is unique, more or less.

                          "Removed uteri" Incidental, as Jackson's uteri was not retained by the perpetrator.

                          A: You don't know that. The uteri could have been cut out in the same way and for the same reason. And B: it is another very rare damage.

                          And he had to remove the uteri in order to access the foetus!

                          No other victim was pregnant, so no comparison can be made.

                          I'm sure you'll agree, we can't just focus on the similarities, whilst ignoring the differences.

                          No, I don't agree. If the similarities are as rare as they are in this case, then we SHOULD ignore the differences, because unless they are conclusive, they WILL mislead us.

                          "Same town". Well, same city, and a city of almost 700 square miles.

                          And surfacewise a tiny portion of the planet, with all the killing spots and dumping ditto in walking distance from each other, John. Its not Calcutta and Bognbor Regis, is it?

                          And this ignores the very different geographical profiles, which I'll come to shortly.

                          Then so will I.

                          "Same time". No, none of the victims were killed at the same time (even Stride and Eddowes were not killed at precisely the same time.

                          A good joke but a lousy argument.

                          Victims prostitutes? Some were, although we don't know they were soliciting at the time they were murdered.

                          Yes, exactly: we know that there were prostitutes involved in both series. I did not say that they were soliciting, I said that they were prostitutes, John - a common and specific type of serial killer prey. And once we KNOW that there are prostitutes involved, why should we ignore it? It is potentially a case-breaker.

                          Okay, geo-profile. Dr Kim Rossmo calculated that JtR most probably lived in Flower and Dean Street. In any event, all of the C5 murders were committed within a remarkably small geographical area-around one square mile-so a location somewhere in the heart of Whitechapel/Spitalfields seems highly likely.

                          Check the outcome of geographical profiling against reality and come back to me, John. The thing is, sometimes they are right, sometimes they are wrong. Hardly the best evidence there is!

                          Now remarkably, this isn't unusual even for modern serial killers. Thus, Godwin and Canter (1997) considered the spatial behaviour of 54 American serial killers who abducted their victims. Result: average mean distance from home to place of fatal encounter was a mere 1.46 miles.

                          And if our man was not average...? Come on, this is timewasting and proves absolutely nothing. Putting it otherwise, it is not... ehrm, "hard evidence".

                          Now, how does this relate to the Torso perpetrator? Well, according to Debra Arif, in an article on this site, Elizabeth Jackson, the only Torso victim identified, had a habit of remaining in Battersea Park, where her trunk was discovered. But this would have been 5.9 miles from Flower and Dean Walk, a location at the heart of the Whitechapel murders. Debra also points out that she had slept rough on the Chelsea embankment, which is even further away- 6 miles from Flower and Dean Walk.

                          Debra knows what we all know, that Jackson frequented Battersea at times. Where she was when abducted is something none of us knows, not me, not you and not Debra. But regardless if she WAS in Battersea, we know quite well that the torso killer had access to transport. So what is the problem?

                          It's therefore submitted that the Battersea area is a likely location for the Torso perpetrator, and that it would have been very unlikely that he would have travelled as far as Whitechapel/Spitalfields, or even as far as his modern counterpart, particularly considering that: he would be less likely to own a vehicle than a modern perpetrator; that any such vehicle would be only one horsepower-or should that be pony power?-not ,say, 200 horsepower; that any "vehicle" would not have a boot in which to store a victim,; that he would be travelling in a densely populated area with poor transport infrastructure, compared with a modern perpetrator. Note: distance travelled to dump sites for modern perpetrator was much further-average of 14.5 miles-emphasizing a strategy of putting distance between himself and the victim.

                          If the torso killer was so uninterested in traveling, then what did he dump parts in places so far from each other? Never mind answering that question, we will get no further this way: the killer COULD have travelled to and fro Whitechapel, and the combination of odd similarities within the series establish beyond reasonable doubt that he did just that.

                          Pinchin Street crossover? Well, there's no evidence that this victim was murdered in Whitechapel (see above: perpetrator's tend to travel much further to dump sites than to point of fatal contact. This also brings me to the radical differences in MO and signature. Thus, one perpetrator abducted his victims, the other didn't. One perpetrator decapitated his victims, the other didn't. One perpetrator focussed his activities on a very small geographical area-around one square mile-the other was active over a much larger range. One perpetrator dismembered his victims, the other didn't. Etc. Etc. Etc.

                          And one poster interpreted the signs correctly while another didn't, John. Instead, this poster claimed that comparing taking away sections of the abdominal wall to taking away sections of the abdominal wall is like comparing taking away an eye to taking away a head, since that means the eye tags along when it occurs.

                          Is that how we should proceed, John?
                          HI Fish
                          good post and I agree with pretty much everything you say-except where EJ was "abducted". I doubt very much any of the torso victims were abducted-seems as like in the ripper case the killer used a ruse to get then where he wanted them-torso-his chop shop, ripper-in a dark alleyway.
                          "Is all that we see or seem
                          but a dream within a dream?"

                          -Edgar Allan Poe


                          "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                          quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                          -Frederick G. Abberline

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            [QUOTE=Abby Normal;n713110][QUOTE=Fisherman;n713106]
                            Originally posted by John G View Post

                            HI Fish
                            good post and I agree with pretty much everything you say-except where EJ was "abducted". I doubt very much any of the torso victims were abducted-seems as like in the ripper case the killer used a ruse to get then where he wanted them-torso-his chop shop, ripper-in a dark alleyway.
                            I see I gave the impression that I thought that Jackson was abducted - I accidentally stepped on the John G train. Just like you, I think there was instead quite likely a ruse involved. The overall point I was making was that there can be no certainty about where the killer met Jackson, even if we do know that Battersea was her home ground.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              [QUOTE=Fisherman;n713112][QUOTE=Abby Normal;n713110]
                              Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                              I see I gave the impression that I thought that Jackson was abducted - I accidentally stepped on the John G train. Just like you, I think there was instead quite likely a ruse involved. The overall point I was making was that there can be no certainty about where the killer met Jackson, even if we do know that Battersea was her home ground.
                              yup agree. I would also posit that the torso victims may have voluntarily gone to his chop shop unknowingly- thinking they were going there for some kind of business, whether that be for prostitution or some other kind of work.
                              "Is all that we see or seem
                              but a dream within a dream?"

                              -Edgar Allan Poe


                              "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                              quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                              -Frederick G. Abberline

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Hi Fisherman,

                                Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                                Statistics are a fun pastime when it comes to looking at murder cases. They offer insights at a general level, but they cannot in retrospect change the case details and their implications.
                                When we say that it is unusual to kill with long intervals, we point to a generalistic picture only, a picture where there will be all sorts of exceptions to the rule, just as serial killing is an exception to the rule that people generally don't kill, least of all in spades.

                                In the case at hand, we know that there are inclusions of odd similarities within the two series we are looking at, and so general statistics will have to take a step back in respect of that fact.
                                Stats are a big part of my work, and while they are useful for what they can do, they are often used inappropriately or misinterpreted. They can be very useful as they help one to evaluate some things. For example, if one were to find that in 50% of strangulation cases there are no signs of bruising, then suggesting that may be the case in a particular case is not pushing credibility, but if it was found that only occurs in 0.5%, so <1% of the cases, then one is making a very unlikely claim. The former might be considered a viable alternative, the latter viewed as grasping at straws.

                                In the end, stats are just a way to evaluate the data. They are neither magic, nor misleading. By "not misleading" I mean, they effectively give you the answer to the question you asked, but the problem is, most people don't realize the question they are asking is not the one they intended to ask, hence they misinterpret the answer they are given. Much like "42".

                                - Jeff

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X