Same motive = same killer

[Sam Flynn]

actually that's not the point

I'm afraid it is, because killers eviscerate for a number of reasons. To ask the question "were they eviscerators?" is to beg the question "is there such a thing as an eviscerator?"

[Fisherman]

The point is that there is evisceration for purely practical reasons (e.g. clearing stuff out of the way to facilitate chopping the body up; minimising the risk of stink if the body is to be stored before disposal; making a body lighter and easier to transport), there may even be incidental reasons (i.e. yer man chopped this body up and all this gunk spilled out), then there is evisceration as an end in itself (e.g. specifically to remove out and/or possess one or more internal organs).

These men were nevertheless both eviscerators, Gareth, regardless of why they did so.

A point that needs to be made is that those who eviscerate for purely practical reasons are normally not serial killers - they are people who - whooops! - happen to kill their wife or a friend, often in a drunken stupour, whereupon they are faced with the problem of having a body lying around.

People who kill and kill again, serialists, as it were, are people who LIKE killing. They are quite unlikely to turn dismemberers unless they actually enjoy dismemberment.

The Thames torso killer MAY - there are so many mays that we can choose from in this rich world of hours, luckily! - have cut out the uterus so that he could easier dismember. But is it not a tad odd that he took the foetus out of the uterus? Once the uterus was out, the problem would have gone away, one would think.
Also, if he took the foetus out before taking the uterus out - and he reasonably did - then why not just shove the emptied uterus to the side? Why cut it out together with placenta and cord, material that he could reasonably have shoved aside?

And why did he take out the colon section? Why did he take out the lungs? why did he take out the heart? So that he could cut the body up and easier dispose of it?

Then why did he leave a leg on the 1874 body, if he was all for cutting things into easier to handle parcels?

The truth of the matter is the same as regards the strips you suggested - I could not conclusively disprove that and I cannot disprove that the Torso killer eviscerated as a means of praacticality. I can only look closer at what he did and draw what I find are the only tenable conclusions - that this man either enjoyed cutting, eviscerating and dismembering or felt compelled for whatever reason to do it.

[Fisherman]

Thanks for that, Debs. Irritatingly, in the same book, the author refers several times to "slips of India rubber", when the context indicates clearly that he's talking about lengths/strips of rubber.

It is not as if a slip can not be a strip. Very clearly it can. Slip is a wider (!) definition than strip, simple as that.

[Fisherman]

The police thought that they had one serial "freeway killer" on their hands in California during the early 1970s, but it transpired there were three independent killers with a similar taste in young boys, and similar MOs.

Bonin et al, yes, I know. And as I say, there are many examples of simultaneous serialists - but not of simultaneous eviscerating serialists, as far as I know.

And - once again, as it were - even if we DO find an example, it will only serve to further underline how rare it is.

I also happen to think that serial killers are much more common today than they were back in 1888, but that´s another matter.

[Sam Flynn]

These men were nevertheless both eviscerators, Gareth, regardless of why they did so.

I don't acknowledge the term "eviscerator" as a diagnostic category, Fish; we're dealing with psychology here, not physics - there are no absolutes.

Did they eviscerate? Now, that would be a legitimate question to ask. Gein eviscerated, Dahmer eviscerated, Chikatilo eviscerated, Vacher eviscerated, Nilsen eviscerated, Albert Fish eviscerated, etc etc. But the reasons why they did were rather different, as were their methods.

[Sam Flynn]

It is not as if a slip can not be a strip. Very clearly it can. Slip is a wider (!) definition than strip, simple as that.

Not according to the OED. Anyhow, I'll leave it there.

Suffice to say whatever happened to Elizabeth Jackson's abdominal wall - and to NO other torso victim - was a degree of magnitude less extreme than what happened to Mary Kelly.

[RockySullivan]

But the pinchin torso was mutilated in a way that did not aid in disposal or id prevention in any way

[Sam Flynn]

But the pinchin torso was mutilated in a way that did not aid in disposal or id prevention in any way

Indeed, Rocky (although it was lighter in the leg department), but neither was it dumped in Southwest London.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: I don't acknowledge the term "eviscerator" as a diagnostic category, Fish; we're dealing with psychology here, not physics - there are no absolutes.

Good on you -because it IS no diagnostic category at all. And nobody is saying so.

Did they eviscerate? Now, that would be a legitimate question to ask. Gein eviscerated, Dahmer eviscerated, Chikatilo eviscerated, Vacher eviscerated, Nilsen eviscerated, Albert Fish eviscerated, etc etc. But the reasons why they did were rather different, as were their methods.

And the Ripper eviscerated and the Torso killer eviscerated. Whether they did so for wildly different reasons or for the exact same reason is another matter. But eviscerated they did.

What we need to do is to look at the fact that there were two serial killers on the loose simultaneously in victorian London.

Can you think of any other two cases of serial killers working simultaneously in the same town or region anywhere else in the 19:th century world?

Any? Just one such coincidence?

I can´t.

Now, don´t you think that is a very good reason to be VERY surprised that two such mens murderous carreers accidentally crossed paths in London back then? I mean, if it is the only example we have, then it must be regarded as quite rare.

Actually, it is so rare as to be completely unexpected. Therefore, the more logical explanation is that they were one and the same. The one thing that could dissolve such a notion would be if they differed totally.

But instead, they both EVISCERATE! A thing that is extremely rare.

It is fine to say "Let´s be cautious so we do not jump to conclusions" when such a thing happens - it would be good if somebody left the door ajar, because believe me, most people won´t.

And most people will stand by far the better chance to be correct.

So keep an open mind, Gareth, if that is what you want to do. But don´t claim that the series are actually more likely to have differing originators, because that is not a tenable idea.

We have been over this a hundred times by now, and it seems you have nothing at all going over the same ground again. But you will have to do it alone.

I have said what I have to say on the matter for now: there is virtually no chance at all that there were two killers. And I feel quite at ease to say that even before I add the matter I am keeping silent about so far. Once we add THAT...!

Goodnight, Gareth, and good luck with your quest. May the force be with you and may people not be too hard on you for making the wrong choice. And remember, you don´t want me to make so many and long posts anyway, so it´s for the best that I take my leave.

[Abby Normal]

I'm afraid it is, because killers eviscerate for a number of reasons. To ask the question "were they eviscerators?" is to beg the question "is there such a thing as an eviscerator?"

No its not. to answer the question:

Has there ever been any example of a town or region where two eviscerating serial killers have worked simultaneously?

you have to first even establish if victims were eviscerated.

so lets just start with that. and if we can find an example of victims that were eviscerated and that there were two sets of eviscerated victims attributed to serial killers, then we can go on to address your further points.

lets just start with the basics first.

because as far as I know, or that anyone has shown, there are not two eviscerating serial killers (or sets of victims), for whatever reason, intentional or not, operating in the same area in the same time frame.

[Abby Normal]

I don't acknowledge the term "eviscerator" as a diagnostic category, Fish; we're dealing with psychology here, not physics - there are no absolutes.

Did they eviscerate? Now, that would be a legitimate question to ask. Gein eviscerated, Dahmer eviscerated, Chikatilo eviscerated, Vacher eviscerated, Nilsen eviscerated, Albert Fish eviscerated, etc etc. But the reasons why they did were rather different, as were their methods.

exactly. but lets just see if we can find out if there were two eviscerating serial killers (like your examples)in the same place at the same time first! simple enough?

[Sam Flynn]

because as far as I know, or that anyone has shown, there are not two eviscerating serial killers (or sets of victims), for whatever reason, intentional or not, operating in the same area in the same time frame.

If Patrick Kearney, William Bonin and Randy Kraft hadn't been caught, one might well ask similar questions about the abduction, abuse and murder of young boys on the freeways in the 1970s.

"Show me an example of where more than one highway-abductor of teenage boys was at work at the same area in the same time-frame", you might say. And I'd likely make similar points to those I've made about JTR and TK.

[Abby Normal]

If Patrick Kearney, William Bonin and Randy Kraft hadn't been caught, one might well ask similar questions about the abduction, abuse and murder of young boys on the freeways in the 1970s.

"Show me an example of where more than one highway-abductor of teenage boys was at work at the same area in the same time-frame", you might say. And I'd likely make similar points to those I've made about JTR and TK.

is this your way of saying that No, you don't know of two eviscerating serial killers working at the same time and same place?

because I'm not sure what your getting at here. obviously the question means people who were caught, or if not caught, its clear they were separate series.

please explain.

[jerryd]

There actually was another eviscerator working near London at the time of the other two series and it was not connected. The murder of Johnny Gill (1888) and Barbara Waterhouse (1891). Even though I think personally they were murdered by the same hand (Walter Turner), he was never convicted of the Gill murder. He was hanged for the murder of Barbara Waterhouse in 1891. These two murders were on children, so I don't know if it fits what you are asking, Abby?

[Abby Normal]

There actually was another eviscerator working near London at the time of the other two series and it was not connected. The murder of Johnny Gill (1888) and Barbara Waterhouse (1891). Even though I think personally they were murdered by the same hand (Walter Turner), he was never convicted of the Gill murder. He was hanged for the murder of Barbara Waterhouse in 1891. These two murders were on children, so I don't know if it fits what you are asking, Abby?

Hi Jerry
yes.yes, YES! Thank you! (now were getting some where)Ive heard about Johnny Gill, and ive always had him in the back of my mind as a possible victim of the torsoripper, as he was both dismemebered and clearly eviscerated, but as you say being away from London and being a child (and a boy) I kind of lean on ruling him out as being part of any of the ripper, or torso murders.

I don't know about water house, can you please explain alittle more and why you think turner was also Johnny gills murderer? was he suspected?