autopsy notes

[Abby Normal]

Sorry, Abby, no - but a very valid effort!

well is this part right at least? :

He neatly cut and disarticulated the thinner bones because those where the ones he wanted to keep?

[Fisherman]

well is this part right at least? :

Iīm afraid not - he did not keep any parts. Basically, all that went missing from the 1873 torso was a foot, if I remember correctly. So he didnīt play for keeps, it would seem.

[John G]

Then you have not read enough, kjab - yes, the thigh and shoulder/overarm were sawn through - but the rest of the joints were neatly cut and disarticulated. This is what the Lancet wrote:
Contrary to the popular opinion, the body has not been hacked, but dexterously cut up; the joints have been opened, and the bones neatly disarticulated, even the complicated joints at the ankle and the elbow, and it is only at the articulations of the hip-joint and shoulder that the bones have been sawn through.

So here we have a man who knew quite well how to cut joints open and disarticulate, but who chose to saw through the thigh and shoulder/overarm nevertheless.

Once you understand WHY he sawed off the thicker bones (which would have been easier to disarticulate) while he neatly disarticulated the thinner ones (which would have been easier to saw off), you will know what led the killer to do what he did. There is an explanation that sits very well with this, and ties the 1873 victim very clearly into the Ripper/torso conglomerate.

How does it tie-in with the Tabram and the C5 as they weren't dismembered/disarticulated?

[Fisherman]

How does it tie-in with the Tabram and the C5 as they weren't dismembered/disarticulated?

In different ways, actually. The cleares examples of a connection are Chapman and Kelly, and I am certain that this owes to how he had more time with these victims than he did with the others.
The dismemberment of the limbs is not something that needs to be done to fit the bill. The bill is a broader concept than that. For example, with Chapman and Kelly, there is no dismemberment of the limbs, but there is a removal of the abdominal wall in flaps. With the Rainham and Whitehall victims, there is no removal of the abdominal wall in flaps, but there is dismemberment of the limbs. In all four cases, these things are examples of him working to a larger agenda.

The fact that he dismembered the torso victims owes to how he had a secure place to do so and time to it. However, it must be noted that he used that time to cut his victims open from sternum to groin, that he took out organs etcetera, just like the Ripper - who did NOT have time and a sheltered place to dismember, and who worked under conditions that gave a cruder end product, but with the exact same underlying inspiration, if I am correct.

[Abby Normal]

In different ways, actually. The cleares examples of a connection are Chapman and Kelly, and I am certain that this owes to how he had more time with these victims than he did with the others.
The dismemberment of the limbs is not something that needs to be done to fit the bill. The bill is a broader concept than that. For example, with Chapman and Kelly, there is no dismemberment of the limbs, but there is a removal of the abdominal wall in flaps. With the Rainham and Whitehall victims, there is no removal of the abdominal wall in flaps, but there is dismemberment of the limbs. In all four cases, these things are examples of him working to a larger agenda.

The fact that he dismembered the torso victims owes to how he had a secure place to do so and time to it. However, it must be noted that he used that time to cut his victims open from sternum to groin, that he took out organs etcetera, just like the Ripper - who did NOT have time and a sheltered place to dismember, and who worked under conditions that gave a cruder end product, but with the exact same underlying inspiration, if I am correct.

I think you lost me here fish. surely Torso/ripper had enough time to dismemeber Kelly if he really wanted too?

[MsWeatherwax]

Perhaps he did not anticipate being able to kill indoors, and did not arrive prepared. Maybe it was as simple as that he didn't bring anything to carry the body parts away in?

[Fisherman]

I think you lost me here fish. surely Torso/ripper had enough time to dismemeber Kelly if he really wanted too?

Yes, he had plenty of time! And he could dismember with a knife, at the joints. But he chose not to do so.

And all the while, she fits the bill perfectly.

[Fisherman]

Perhaps he did not anticipate being able to kill indoors, and did not arrive prepared. Maybe it was as simple as that he didn't bring anything to carry the body parts away in?

I donīt think he wanted to take any body parts away, Ms W. He had eons of time, and did what he wanted to do. He may have taken the heart, of course, but overall, he would have wanted to leave the parts behind in the room, if I am on the money.

[John G]

I think you lost me here fish. surely Torso/ripper had enough time to dismemeber Kelly if he really wanted too?

Hi Abby,

Yes, this is an excellent point. Moreover, she does not "fit the bill" as Fisherman suggests, because whilst the Torso victims were dismembered by a perpetrator demonstrating a significant level of skill, Kelly was merely butchered by a perpetrator who wasn't interested in dismemberment at all. Of course, as a possible C5 victim this could represent an escalation or "progression across the violence continuum." (Keppel, 2005).

[John G]

In different ways, actually. The cleares examples of a connection are Chapman and Kelly, and I am certain that this owes to how he had more time with these victims than he did with the others.
The dismemberment of the limbs is not something that needs to be done to fit the bill. The bill is a broader concept than that. For example, with Chapman and Kelly, there is no dismemberment of the limbs, but there is a removal of the abdominal wall in flaps. With the Rainham and Whitehall victims, there is no removal of the abdominal wall in flaps, but there is dismemberment of the limbs. In all four cases, these things are examples of him working to a larger agenda.

The fact that he dismembered the torso victims owes to how he had a secure place to do so and time to it. However, it must be noted that he used that time to cut his victims open from sternum to groin, that he took out organs etcetera, just like the Ripper - who did NOT have time and a sheltered place to dismember, and who worked under conditions that gave a cruder end product, but with the exact same underlying inspiration, if I am correct.

Removal of the abdominal wall by a eviscerator is not unique to these cases. Moreover, you can only establish a connection if you can demonstrate that this was done as part of ritual and signature in the cases you refer to. However, as I've previously explained, Chapman can be explained by practical considerations, whereas Kelly was simply butchered by a perpetrator demonstrating no skill whatsoever, i.e. he may simply have made "X" number of cuts into the abdominal wall and then removed it piecemeal in a somewhat frenzied, unskilled approach, which is very different to what occurred in Jackson's case, for example.

[Fisherman]

John G: Removal of the abdominal wall by a eviscerator is not unique to these cases.

Not if you use Ed Gingerich as an example, not. Otherwise, though...

Moreover, you can only establish a connection if you can demonstrate that this was done as part of ritual and signature in the cases you refer to.

And that I can.

However, as I've previously explained, Chapman can be explained by practical considerations, whereas Kelly was simply butchered by a perpetrator demonstrating no skill whatsoever, i.e. he may simply have made "X" number of cuts into the abdominal wall and then removed it piecemeal in a somewhat frenzied, unskilled approach, which is very different to what occurred in Jackson's case, for example.

Go find a parallel example, John. NOT Gingerich, please.

[Michael W Richards]

Anyone trying to link together murders which at surface value share virtually no relevant characteristics with others in the group has lots of 'splainin to do. Which is why we so often see the posters version of logic or their own interpretation of "the facts" as the explanation. Which of course means nothing in an empirical world.

Liz Stride is the obvious speed bump in the Canonical roadway, as are Torsos with abdominal mutilations. To suggest 1 killer covets abdominal organs which he then arbitrarily leaves aside in subsequent murders isn't the kind of logic Id employ when problem solving here.

[Fisherman]

Michael W Richards: Anyone trying to link together murders which at surface value share virtually no relevant characteristics with others in the group has lots of 'splainin to do.

Indeed. I am glad to hear that you are not talking about the Ripper/Torso murders, since they HAD a lot of common denominators:
-Cut from sternum to pubes.
-Evisceration of both sexual and non-sexual organs.
-Rings taken.
-Abdominal walls removed in large sections.
-Colon sections removed.
-Prostitutes among the victims, perhaps only prostitutes were victims.
-Same city.
-Overlapping times.

Which is why we so often see the posters version of logic or their own interpretation of "the facts" as the explanation. Which of course means nothing in an empirical world.

True enough. How does your empirical world look visavi the facts I just posted?

Liz Stride is the obvious speed bump in the Canonical roadway, as are Torsos with abdominal mutilations.

There were abdominal mutilations in the Torso series. Liz Jackson had her uterus and itīs appendages cut out. Does that count?

To suggest 1 killer covets abdominal organs which he then arbitrarily leaves aside in subsequent murders isn't the kind of logic Id employ when problem solving here.

Jackson had her uterus taken.
Eddowes had her uterus taken.
Chapman had her uterus taken.
The Whitehall torso lacked the uterus, and it is stated on Wikipedia that it had been "removed".

So what is the problem you are identifying here, Michael? It seems to me that instead of looking at the true facts, you are proposing alternative facts, ā la the new Trump administration.

To me, that wonīt do, Buddy. I am aware of your deep engagement in the case, but facts "trump" engagement.

PS. This killer did not do anything arbitrarily, if you ask me. There is a very clear reason for why he left the organs behind at the Kelly scene, for example. He works to an established agenda, and interestingly, the two cases that are most useful to elucidate this is the 1873 torso case and the Kelly case. These two cases give away all we need to know to be able to understand why he cut the way he did, why he took what he took and why he left what he left. If I can see it, then so can you. Look again!

[Fisherman]

How about them parallel examples I asked for, John G?

Found any yet?

[Michael W Richards]

Michael W Richards: Anyone trying to link together murders which at surface value share virtually no relevant characteristics with others in the group has lots of 'splainin to do.

Indeed. I am glad to hear that you are not talking about the Ripper/Torso murders, since they HAD a lot of common denominators:

3 victims-Cut from sternum to pubes.
2 victims-Evisceration of both sexual and non-sexual organs.
1 victim-Rings taken.
2 victims-Abdominal walls removed in large sections.
3 victims-Colon sections removed.
2 working prostitutes-Prostitutes among the victims, perhaps only prostitutes were victims.
All violent crime victims in London during 1888-89-Same city.
hard to determine in some cases-Overlapping times.

So what is the problem you are identifying here, Michael? It seems to me that instead of looking at the true facts, you are proposing alternative facts, ā la the new Trump administration.

The problem, as indicated in bold above, is that no more than 3 victims match your criteria, within the Unsolved file. Yet you continually espouse a victims list that exceeds that 3, and even the accepted Canonical victims number of 5. Clearly within that mere 5 victims list at least 1 victim does not belong at all, and 2 more leave serious doubts. So on what basis would we now entertain expanding a list that is at present most probably incorrect? Hunches? Explanations that make sense to the poster? A need to explain all these events with one "sweep" of a knife?

Torso victims were not killed where Polly and Annie were...outdoors while soliciting, how Polly and Annie were.. subdued and partially mutilated, and with a detectable trace of skill and knowledge as Annie and Pollys killer showed.

Anyone who cannot see the obvious connection by killer of Polly and Annie should seek other entertainments, and anyone who sees commonality among overtly different murders should consider doing the same.

Explanations as to why something makes sense to you Fisherman isn't anything like proving a theory.

Why not start by solving just one murder before you create explanations as to why all unsolved murders were connected?