Same motive = same killer

[Elamarna]

"Almost certainly". Now, where, oh where, have I heard that expression before?

As I have said many times, I am not going by yours or others assurances that it can be known why and how and how much of the lung that was gone.

I note that it WAS gone, and that is about all that can be said.

The heart was of course ALSO gone, just as Jacksonīs heart was.

But hey, if the lung part from Kelly was gone because the killer was trying to take the heart out, then maybe the heart was gone because he wanted to take the lung out?

Working like that, the similarities will also be gone - in no time at all.

Then again...

By the bye: When I write that the lung part was "taken away", I mean from itīs place, not from Millerīs Court. I thought youīd understand that. What I understand is that it is suggested that we have two killers who ravaged the thorax of victims and took organs out from there. If you want to point to a common identity, that is pure gold.

To me, that is. Not to you. To you, it is unsignificant, eh?

Dear Christer,

You have clearly implied by the use of "taken away" that the body was removed from the scene, as you compare it to the heart of kelly..

The heart according to most, with Trevor the notable exception, was indeed gone from the scene.
you claim the same for a section of lung, please provide evidence to support this suggestion.

A lack of evidence means its just another bit of imaginitive theorizing.

Your suggestion that the heart may have been taken as part of wanting to remove the lungs is actually funny. If he had wanted to remove the lungs he could have via the diaphragm , he did not so it follows that was not the intention.
Collatoral damage to the lung while removing the lung is not only feasabile but extremely probably given the condition of the lungs as reported.

The lack of sound anatomic knowledge displayed by some of the comments inevitability leads to these unsupported ideas.




Steve

[Sam Flynn]

You forget that the thorax was also opened up all the way down the front.

I didn't in my original post, where I mentioned the longitudinal cut down the thorax - I must have inadvertently deleted it when I edited my post.

Ehrm...if the killer wanted to facilitate the disposal of the parts, then why did he do that? Why did he open up the bodies down the midline before he cut the thorax into sections?

To extract the organs more easily, to make the chopped-up section of body lighter and prevent the bits from slopping out and/or rotting and stinking up the place.

It may be significant, in that context, that the two cases in question happened in late Spring/early Summer. I can tell you from personal experience that lungs, if unpreserved, can start to smell truly awful in a short time. As a teenager, I used my father's connections with the butchery trade to get animal organs to dissect in the Summer holidays. Not that I was a weirdo, you understand - I was studying biology at the time, and it was by far my favourite subject at school.

Yu are having all sorts of troubles, are you not, trying to make up explanations as you go along. Itīs not working very well for you.

I'm having no trouble at all. My explanations are entirely pragmatic and, I wouldn't mind betting, not a million miles away from what actually happened.

[Fisherman]

Dear Christer,

You have clearly implied by the use of "taken away" that the body was removed from the scene, as you compare it to the heart of kelly..

The heart according to most, with Trevor the notable exception, was indeed gone from the scene.
you claim the same for a section of lung, please provide evidence to support this suggestion.

A lack of evidence means its just another bit of imaginitive theorizing.

Your suggestion that the heart may have been taken as part of wanting to remove the lungs is actually funny. If he had wanted to remove the lungs he could have via the diaphragm , he did not so it follows that was not the intention.
Collatoral damage to the lung while removing the lung is not only feasabile but extremely probably given the condition of the lungs as reported.

The lack of sound anatomic knowledge displayed by some of the comments inevitability leads to these unsupported ideas.




Steve

Donīt tell me what I claim. I know what I claim. You donīt.

I am perfectly aware of the many possible anatomical implications. I have heard all of them before.

You flatter yourself too much, Steve.

[Fisherman]

Opening the abdomens midline shows anatomical knowledge as against the
cut and slash method you might expect to see with a murder/mutilator

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You cannot tell the two series apart for that reason, Trevor. Try as you might.

[Elamarna]

Donīt tell me what I claim. I know what I claim. You donīt.

I am perfectly aware of the many possible anatomical implications. I have heard all of them before.

You flatter yourself too much, Steve.

Ah i see, we cannot understand the deep meanings in your posts, which only you know.

Please Christer, if you suggest something is possible it is a claim by definition.

Hearing something my friend is very different from understanding it.

The quotes i gave in post 3707 make it very clear that the condition of Kelly's lung made the possability of tearing at the bottom of the lungs if attempt to remove the heart via the diaphragm not only likely but very probable..




Steve

[Fisherman]

I didn't in my original post, where I mentioned the longitudinal cut down the thorax - I must have inadvertently deleted it when I edited my post.

The last time I looked, you didnīt even acknowledge itīs existence, so Iīm happy to hear this.

To extract the organs more easily, to make the chopped-up section of body lighter and prevent the bits from slopping out and/or rotting and stinking up the place.

But he didnīt cut the Pinchin Street body in three as he did with Jackson. If he was set on making it lighter to carry, why was this? And why did he leave a leg attached to the 1874 torso?
It falls apart at the seams when we look closer at your suggestions. This man was a mutilator and an eviscerator and that is why he took organs out. But he was more than that, so he cut the odd nosetip off and he cut away arms and legs, and he sometimes parted a body in many pieces.

The similarities will not go away. And we are not dealing woth the most freakish case of two killers on the same ground in the same time doing the same odd things to their victims. We have one killer, just like logic dictates. It is not a hard case to solve in that respect. All that remains to add is the name of the perp. It will be somebody who was born early enough to be a viable suggestion for the 1873 deed, which mirrors the Kelly deed more than any of the other slayings.

It may be significant, in that context, that the two cases in question happened in late Spring/early Summer. I can tell you from personal experience that lungs, if unpreserved, can start to smell truly awful in a short time. As a teenager, I used my father's connections with the butchery trade to get animal organs to dissect in the Summer holidays. Not that I was a weirdo, you understand - I was studying biology at the time, and it was by far my favourite subject at school.

I know that you are not a weirdo, Gareth - not THAT kind of a weirdo, anyhow. And I know the smell of rotting flesh in hot conditions. I just donīt think that was ever an issue for our man. I bet he was very much in control about what he did. Just a feeling, but there you are.

I'm having no trouble at all. My explanations are entirely pragmatic and, I wouldn't mind betting, not a million miles away from what actually happened.

We really should not try to come up with a dozen explanations, Gareth. When the similarities are that many, we go the other way: "Oh, alright, itīs quite obvious that there was just the one killer".
And much as I do not want to dishearten you, I donīt think you have the first clue about what the combined killer was really about. If you did, you would agree with me.

[Fisherman]

Ah i see, we cannot understand the deep meanings in your posts, which only you know.

Please Christer, if you suggest something is possible it is a claim by definition.

Hearing something my friend is very different from understanding it.

The quotes i gave in post 3707 make it very clear that the condition of Kelly's lung made the possability of tearing at the bottom of the lungs if attempt to remove the heart via the diaphragm not only likely but very probable..

Steve

Yes, I am sure you "see".

If you take a look at when I say that it is not only possible but very probable that we had just the one killer, you will get a prime example of how that is worth out here.

As I said, I know the anatomical implications. And as I said, when I wrote that the lung part was taken away, I meant that it was removed from itīs original place. And as I said, I know perfectly well what I mean when I say something.

I am in no way suprised that instead of accepting what I say, you prefer to claim that I was misleading.

It establishes what kind of game you are playing in a very clear manner. "Unbecoming" is a term that springs to mind.

Now, try and debate the issues in themselves instead of trying to score cheap points. The case before the pettyminded attacks, please.

[Elamarna]

As i said i know the anatomical implications. And as I said, when I wrote that the lung part was taken away, I meant that it was removed from itīs original place. And as I said, I know perfectly well what I mean when I say something..

It unfortunatly appears you do not understand the implications.

The report merely says "broken and torn away" it does not say removed. You have repeated used the word "gone". In post 3711 you posted:


"I note that it WAS gone, and that is about all that can be said.

The heart was of course ALSO gone, just as Jacksonīs heart was."

This implies the lung was gone from the scene as were the hearts of Kelly and Jackson.
What you said is abudently clear to any who care to read it.

Now you say you meant gone from its original location. Unfortunately even that is not clear.
Please supply evidence to support the lung section was gone from its originial position?

I am in no way suprised that instead of accepting what I say, you prefer to claim that I was misleading.

It establishes what kind of game you are playing in a very clear manner. "Unbecoming" is a term that springs to mind.

Now, try and debate the issues in themselves instead of trying to score cheap points. The case before the pettyminded attacks, please.

I have not actually accused you of misleading, just misunderstanding.


Its not about scoring cheap or non cheap points, it abouts making statements that are over the top and cannot be supported by the evidence.
It is not a personal attack to say:

"The lack of sound anatomic knowledge displayed by some of the comments inevitability leads to these unsupported ideas."

Its merely a reflection that if one uses inaccurate information one will end up reaching the wrong conclusion.


Steve

[Kattrup]

It unfortunatly appears you do understand the implications.

I presume you mean “you do NOT”. Otherwise, Excellent post

[Elamarna]

I presume you mean “you do NOT”. Otherwise, Excellent post

Thanks my friend, got in to edit just before the 30 min deadline.
Was on bus, but that is no excuse


Steve

[Fisherman]

It unfortunatly appears you do not understand the implications.

The report merely says "broken and torn away" it does not say removed. You have repeated used the word "gone". In post 3711 you posted:


"I note that it WAS gone, and that is about all that can be said.

The heart was of course ALSO gone, just as Jacksonīs heart was."

This implies the lung was gone from the scene as were the hearts of Kelly and Jackson.
What you said is abudently clear to any who care to read it.

Now you say you meant gone from its original location. Unfortunately even that is not clear.
Please supply evidence to support the lung section was gone from its originial position?







I have not actually accused you of misleading, just misunderstanding.


Its not about scoring cheap or non cheap points, it abouts making statements that are over the top and cannot be supported by the evidence.
It is not a personal attack to say:

"The lack of sound anatomic knowledge displayed by some of the comments inevitability leads to these unsupported ideas."

Its merely a reflection that if one uses inaccurate information one will end up reaching the wrong conclusion.


Steve

One will probably end up with the wrong conclusion, Steve - it is not a must. The same thing applies to using the right information - it does not guarantee that you reach the right conclusion.

In this case, what is the right and/or wrong information is not established, nor is it established that anybody has reached the wrong conclusion.

But it was a neat try to make out as if I had, so congratulations on that!

As for the lung being in place or not, I take "The lower part of the lung was broken and torn away." to mean that the lung was not where it originally had been. It was "away" and the word away means that something is off or gone.

Some things really are out here.

How about commenting on the one part that is of interest here: After having established that both men took out uteri, that both men opened up abdomens and that both men cut away the abdominal walls in large flaps, donīt you think it is a tad odd that both men also took out organs from the thorax?

Maybe it is unsignificant, though. And a lot less fun than to discuss never ending ramblings about how I word myself and what you think about it.

Myself, I would say that it is a key issue and a clear pointer to a common killer.

[Elamarna]

One will probably end up with the wrong conclusion, Steve - it is not a must. The same thing applies to using the right information - it does not guarantee that you reach the right conclusion.

In this case, what is the right and/or wrong information is not established, nor is it established that anybody has reached the wrong conclusion.

But it was a neat try to make out as if I had, so congratulations on that!

As for the lung being in place or not, I take "The lower part of the lung was broken and torn away." to mean that the lung was not where it originally had been. It was "away" and the word away means that something is off or gone.

Some things really are out here.

Proffesionally i would take "torn away" to mean seperated from the rest of the lung, by a tear, not a cut. There is no indication that the heart was not removed by cutting.
A tear would be very likely if as Bond says the lungs were adhered to the chest wall in places.
The section of lung still have been in the thorax? Particularly if it were itself affixed to the chest wall. It does not appear to be reported as missing, as the heart seems to be.
To suggest that the word "away" can be used seperatly from "torn away" to imply it was taken is frankly stretching semantics too far.

Sorry Christer but you cant blag your way out over "gone" you used it in a very clear context and compared it to the hearts of Kelly and Jackson.

"I note that it WAS gone, and that is about all that can be said.

The heart was of course ALSO gone, just as Jacksonīs heart was."

If the section of lung was missing one would expect it to be mentioned, i can see no such mention.

Actually there is nothing in Bond's report to say the lung was gone at all.

I would respectfully suggest that on this occassion you have certainly arrived at the wrong conclusion, not by design but by misunderstanding.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Proffesionally i would take "torn away" to mean seperated from the rest of the lung, by a tear, not a cut. There is no indication that the heart was not removed by cutting.
A tear would be very likely if as Bond says the lungs were adhered to the chest wall in places.
The section of lung still have been in the thorax? Particularly if it were itself affixed to the chest wall. It does not appear to be reported as missing, as the heart seems to be.
To suggest that the word "away" can be used seperatly from "torn away" to imply it was taken is frankly stretching semantics too far.

Sorry Christer but you cant blag your way out over "gone" you used it in a very clear context and compared it to the hearts of Kelly and Jackson.

"I note that it WAS gone, and that is about all that can be said.

The heart was of course ALSO gone, just as Jacksonīs heart was."

If the section of lung was missing one would expect it to be mentioned, i can see no such mention.

Actually there is nothing in Bond's report to say the lung was gone at all.

I would respectfully suggest that on this occassion you have certainly arrived at the wrong conclusion, not by design but by misunderstanding.


Steve

I have finished my discussion with you over where the lung part may or may not have been. I have given my answer to how I interpreted it and why I say that the lung part was gone - it was gone from where it should be. As was indeed the heart too.

If you want to imply that I am not allowed to use the word gone unless the part was in Zanzibar, it comes with a get-a-life warning to you, but that is all I can do about it.

I note that you are uninterested in the core issues, so I think you must speak to yourself fortwith until that changes.

You will enjoy that greatly, no doubt.

[Elamarna]

I have finished my discussion with you over where the lung part may or may not have been. I have given my answer to how I interpreted it and why I say that the lung part was gone - it was gone from where it should be. As was indeed the heart too.

If you want to imply that I am not allowed to use the word gone unless the part was in Zanzibar, it comes with a get-a-life warning to you, but that is all I can do about it.

I note that you are uninterested in the core issues, so I think you must speak to yourself fortwith until that changes.

You will enjoy that greatly, no doubt.

My friend,

The word gone is never used by the doctors only that the lung is broken and a torn away.

It is YOU who used the word GONE to imply it was gone the same as Kelly's heart which most accept was gone and Jackson's heart, again gone from the body.

There can be little doubt that you were implying that the lung section was also gone and taken away by the killer.

However there is nothing in the report we have used to support you view that the section of lung was missing (GONE) from the thoracic cavity.



The core issues cannot be addressed if the evidence is misunderstood.

If you decide not to partake in discussion that is your choice Christer.


Have a good evening


Steve

[Fisherman]

My friend,

The word gone is never used by the doctors only that the lung is broken and a torn away.

It is YOU who used the word GONE to imply it was gone the same as Kelly's heart which most accept was gone and Jackson's heart, again gone from the body.

There can be little doubt that you were implying that the lung section was also gone and taken away by the killer.

However there is nothing in the report we have used to support you view that the section of lung was missing (GONE) from the thoracic cavity.


The core issues cannot be addressed if the evidence is misunderstood.

If you decide not to partake in discussion that is your choice Christer.


Have a good evening


Steve

Oh, I will partake in the discussion, alright. But the discussion about "misunderstood evidence" and "gone lungs" you must have with yourself.

And actually, the core issues MUST be addressed if the evidence is misunderstood. Thatīs why I have taken you to task numerous times.