Same motive = same killer

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: I HAVE answered it. There are only so many ways to cut open an abdomen, so there's not much we can read into the "three flaps" method.

That is simply uniformed. You can prove me wrong by supplying a single other example of the practice.

I'll add to that by observing that we don't know what the shape or size of those flaps were.

To some extent, we actually do.

Even in the case of JTR, there was a difference: in Chapman's case, the flaps were cut from a limited area on the right side of the belly; in Kelly's case, the flaps were large and exposed the entire abdominal cavity.

If it was on the right side only on Chapman, it´s odd that the umbillicus was taken away.But the thing is, it does not matter if it was mainly on the right side. And it does not matter if the killer did not bring a template and a rule with himself so that he could cut all flaps equally shaped and sized. It is the practice as such that matters, and it is extremely rare. Two men practicing that on their victims? The suggestion is not reasonable at all. Especially not since there are a heap of other similarities.
It is beyond doubt, I´m afraid. It always was, and the time has come to recognize it.

[Fisherman]

It really isn't.

Fine. Be wrong. It´s your prerogative.

[Fisherman]

Hello Abby,

Sure., you could cut a star pattern, a hexagon, etc, but practically speaking there are certain limits. I'd suggest these boil down to cutting a square slab, or cutting a limited number of segments/flaps. There's also a single vertical incision, but that wouldn't of itself lay the entire abdomen open (neither would cutting an X).

Thankfully, we can investigate these things to a large degree. You may be baffled by how many eviscerators use the single cut only. But don´t take my word for it - go search!

[Fisherman]

For you, Gareth, from the Echo:

Dr. Phillips (missing) - The abdominal wall had been removed in three portions, two taken from the anterior part, and the other from another part of the body. There was a greater portion of the body removed from the right side than the left. On placing these three flaps of skin together, it was evident that a portion was wanting. I removed the intestines as I found them in the yard. The mesentery vessels were divided through. The large intestine remained in situ, but cut through with a keen incision transversely. (Further details were given, which created a great sensation, the doctor asserting that other portions of the body were missing.)

It was also said that "The abdomen had been entirely laid open".

This reads to me as if the whole of the abdominal wall was removed from Chapman as well, and that it was the parts dug out from the abdomen that came more pronouncedly from the right hand side of the body.

But as I said, on the whole it does not matter at all, since it is the practice of removing the abdominal wall that is of interest, not the exact amount that was removed or the shape of the flaps.

[Sam Flynn]

Sam Flynn: I HAVE answered it. There are only so many ways to cut open an abdomen, so there's not much we can read into the "three flaps" method.

That is simply uniformed. You can prove me wrong by supplying a single other example of the practice.

Ever opened a pie or a piece of fruit? The problem-space is rather similar.

It's not as if murderers - or "serialists" - live in a universe of their own, with their own laws of physics. On the contrary, they occupy the same world as us, and face similar logistical problems. We can extrapolate from experience, and put ourselves in their shoes, even without being murderers - or "serialists" - ourselves.

If it was on the right side only on Chapman, it´s odd that the umbillicus was taken away.

The umbilicus straddles the left and right side of the body. The wounds to Chapman were overwhelmingly on the right hand side of her abdomen.

It is the practice as such that matters, and it is extremely rare. Two men practicing that on their victims? The suggestion is not reasonable at all. Especially not since there are a heap of other similarities. It is beyond doubt, I´m afraid. It always was, and the time has come to recognize it.

No it isn't beyond doubt, and I don't recognise it. Anymore than I'd recognise that every eight-slice pizza in my town was cut by the same pizza chef.

[Sam Flynn]

For you, Gareth, from the Echo:

[I] Dr. Phillips (missing) - The abdominal wall had been removed in three portions, two taken from the anterior part, and the other from another part of the body. There was a greater portion of the body removed from the right side than the left

Indeed. Which is what I said. Which portion of "the body" could they have meant otherwise? The "right uterus"? The "right bladder"? The "right intestine"? Evidently, it was referring to the right side of the abdominal wall as said organs don't come in left/right pairs. When one thinks of a "body", one things of the outer part usually, not the innards. Indeed, it was in this sense that Phillips meant it, as the red, bold, underlined phrase in the above quote shows.

It was also said that "The abdomen had been entirely laid open".

The full quote is "It appears that the abdomen had been entirely laid open", and that came from an article writer working for the Lancet, not from Dr Phillips. (The same writer who came up with those famous, and historically unhelpful soundbites, "obviously the work of an expert" and "one sweep of the knife".)

[Sam Flynn]

Thankfully, we can investigate these things to a large degree. You may be baffled by how many eviscerators use the single cut only. But don´t take my word for it - go search!

I know, but would a single cut lay the abdomen entirely open? No, it wouldn't. Which was part of my point.

[Sam Flynn]

Fine. Be wrong. It´s your prerogative.

I'm not wrong. Hardly anyone has heard of the 1873-1889 torso murders, except weirdos like us.

[jerryd]

Not only do we supposedly have two different killers working at the same time but they were also murdering victims on the same day. That would be a rare occurrence if they were two different men in my opinion. Especially considering Torso man committed his last known murder the previous year in 1887.

Some disagree with me on this point, but I will make it again anyway.

A little over a year, torso man struck again and an arm was found floating in some timbers owned by the John T. Chappel Company in Pimlico. I won't get into all the details except for Dr. Neville's estimation of the time of the murder. If Neville is correct, and I think he is, another woman was murdered and mutilated on September 8, 1888.

Daily News
3 October 1888

The trunk is pronounced by the medical gentlemen to have belonged to a remarkably fine young woman, and this at once gives good grounds to the theory that it belonged to the body of which the arm found on the 11th ult in the Thames, near Grosvenor road, formed a part. It will be remembered that on that date the right arm of a woman was discovered in the river, and upon Dr.Neville having it submitted to him for inspection he pronounced it to have belonged to a woman of apparently from 25 to 30 years of age. This limb had been in the water for about three days, so that if yesterday's discovery is connected with it the date of the murder would be somewhere about the 8th of September. Dr. Neville, the Divisional Police Surgeon for Pimlico, who examined the arms of a woman found in the Thames as above stated on the 11th September, has not yet been called to see the body, neither does he expect to be called. He states that in his opinion the time which Dr. Bond allows for the decease of this mutilated victim would agree with his own conclusion that the woman, whoever she may be, had been dead about the same period. Dr. Neville states that there would be no
difficulty in ascertaining whether the arm belonged to the remains found yesterday. He came to the conclusion, when he examined the limb submitted to him, that it was that of a big woman. Dr. Bond also avers that the remains submitted to him are those of a woman of no small stature. Since Dr.
Neville examined the arm it has been kept in preservation at the Ebury street Mortuary, and he suggests that by comparing the arm with the trunk it could be discovered without difficulty whether or not they were portions of the same person's body. The same also applies to the arm discovered in
Lambeth. At King street and Scotland yard the police maintain their usual reticence. They assert that they know nothing except that a body has been found.

The Standard 12 September, 1888.

[Abby Normal]

I'm not wrong. Hardly anyone has heard of the 1873-1889 torso murders, except weirdos like us.

LOL!!!!

[Abby Normal]

Not only do we supposedly have two different killers working at the same time but they were also murdering victims on the same day. That would be a rare occurrence if they were two different men in my opinion. Especially considering Torso man committed his last known murder the previous year in 1887.

Some disagree with me on this point, but I will make it again anyway.

A little over a year, torso man struck again and an arm was found floating in some timbers owned by the John T. Chappel Company in Pimlico. I won't get into all the details except for Dr. Neville's estimation of the time of the murder. If Neville is correct, and I think he is, another woman was murdered and mutilated on September 8, 1888.

Daily News
3 October 1888

The trunk is pronounced by the medical gentlemen to have belonged to a remarkably fine young woman, and this at once gives good grounds to the theory that it belonged to the body of which the arm found on the 11th ult in the Thames, near Grosvenor road, formed a part. It will be remembered that on that date the right arm of a woman was discovered in the river, and upon Dr.Neville having it submitted to him for inspection he pronounced it to have belonged to a woman of apparently from 25 to 30 years of age. This limb had been in the water for about three days, so that if yesterday's discovery is connected with it the date of the murder would be somewhere about the 8th of September. Dr. Neville, the Divisional Police Surgeon for Pimlico, who examined the arms of a woman found in the Thames as above stated on the 11th September, has not yet been called to see the body, neither does he expect to be called. He states that in his opinion the time which Dr. Bond allows for the decease of this mutilated victim would agree with his own conclusion that the woman, whoever she may be, had been dead about the same period. Dr. Neville states that there would be no
difficulty in ascertaining whether the arm belonged to the remains found yesterday. He came to the conclusion, when he examined the limb submitted to him, that it was that of a big woman. Dr. Bond also avers that the remains submitted to him are those of a woman of no small stature. Since Dr.
Neville examined the arm it has been kept in preservation at the Ebury street Mortuary, and he suggests that by comparing the arm with the trunk it could be discovered without difficulty whether or not they were portions of the same person's body. The same also applies to the arm discovered in
Lambeth. At King street and Scotland yard the police maintain their usual reticence. They assert that they know nothing except that a body has been found.

The Standard 12 September, 1888.

interesting-thanks for posting.

another point in similarity that this reminded me of is that none of the torsos were Ided, except Jackson, probably a prostitute.

so why weren't any of the others ided, or at least connected to missing women??

because they were unfortunates and nobody cared /noticed they were missing.

same victimology as the ripper.

[jerryd]

Hi Abby,

I found this clip in the "missing persons" portion of this paper. I haven't found a follow up to it yet, though.

Lloyd's Weekly, August 21st, 1887 (referring to Rainham torso)

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: Ever opened a pie or a piece of fruit? The problem-space is rather similar.

It's not as if murderers - or "serialists" - live in a universe of their own, with their own laws of physics. On the contrary, they occupy the same world as us, and face similar logistical problems. We can extrapolate from experience, and put ourselves in their shoes, even without being murderers - or "serialists" - ourselves.

Yes - but how many of us do the practical comparison of opening a blueberry pie and a freshly killed woman in order to get at the goodies inside? You keep forgetting that you are comparing the commonest of things with the rarest of them. Yes, two serialists may on their own realize that taking away the abdomen in flaps will yeild full insight and access to the innards - but it is an extremely rare thing to actually do. I have heard of one man only who was a serial killer and did it - the combined Ripper/Torso killer.

The umbilicus straddles the left and right side of the body. The wounds to Chapman were overwhelmingly on the right hand side of her abdomen.

The portion TAKEN OUT OF THE BODY was somewhat more to the right than to the left side - but it seems the whole of the abdominal wall was removed, and not only - as you suggested - the right hand part of it. Once more: not that it matters.

No it isn't beyond doubt, and I don't recognise it. Anymore than I'd recognise that every eight-slice pizza in my town was cut by the same pizza chef.

It is beyond reasonable doubt, which was what I should have written. Pizzas have nothing to do with it. Or pies. Or fruit.

[Fisherman]

Indeed. Which is what I said. Which portion of "the body" could they have meant otherwise? The "right uterus"? The "right bladder"? The "right intestine"? Evidently, it was referring to the right side of the abdominal wall as said organs don't come in left/right pairs. When one thinks of a "body", one things of the outer part usually, not the innards. Indeed, it was in this sense that Phillips meant it, as the red, bold, underlined phrase in the above quote shows.The full quote is "It appears that the abdomen had been entirely laid open", and that came from an article writer working for the Lancet, not from Dr Phillips. (The same writer who came up with those famous, and historically unhelpful soundbites, "obviously the work of an expert" and "one sweep of the knife".)

More than the uterus was removed: ", the uterus and its appendages with the upper portion of the vagina and the posterior two thirds of the bladder, had been entirely removed". I´d suggest that Phillips saw more of the appendages and the bladder from the right side having been lost than from the left side, as well as more of the right hand side upper part of the vagina.

[Fisherman]

I know, but would a single cut lay the abdomen entirely open? No, it wouldn't. Which was part of my point.

And MY point is that most eviscerators do not care about this - they are happy to use the single cut. Like Gingerich, who took every organ out from a seven inch opening, a single cut.

My further point is that I am still waiting for the many examples of abdominal wall removal you seem to predispose are there. They are not.