Same motive = same killer

[Sam Flynn]

As the only torso dumped in the East End, perhaps a lame attempt was made to deflect suspicion on the Ripper?

I should perhaps have emphasised "lame attempt", in that the main wound to the Pinchin Street torso was a cut through the "external coat of the abdomen" (inquest report), and "not opening the peritoneal cavity" (Hebbert: A System of Legal Medicine). Whoever did it seems to have cut the skin and muscles of the abdomen, but failed to follow through. There were also two cuts above one wrist, inflicted after death; perhaps the culprit had intended to sever the hands, or even the arms, but thought twice about it?

On both counts, the evidence might suggest that the Pinchin Street torso was not the work of a proficient "eviscerator" nor of an experienced "dismemberer" either.

[Fisherman]

I should perhaps have emphasised "lame attempt", in that the main wound to the Pinchin Street torso was a cut through the "external coat of the abdomen" (inquest report), and "not opening the peritoneal cavity" (Hebbert: A System of Legal Medicine). Whoever did it seems to have cut the skin and muscles of the abdomen, but failed to follow through. There were also two cuts above one wrist, inflicted after death; perhaps the culprit had intended to sever the hands, or even the arms, but thought twice about it?

On both counts, the evidence might suggest that the Pinchin Street torso was not the work of a proficient "eviscerator" nor of an experienced "dismemberer" either.

Maybe, Gareth, what you need to do is to do some serious reading ot the Torso material. You say yourself that you are not read up on it, and that is somethimes mirrored ver flagrantly in your posts.

The Pinchin Street torso was skilfully cut, the legs had been neatly cut as in all the other cases - once again, we have a man at work who knows his way around disarticulation by way of knife. The edges were cleanly cut, and once more it is sopken of sweeping knifework. Plus the medicos agreed that Rainham, Whitehall, Jackson and the Pinchin Street torso were probably cut up by the same man, since they all were very alike in matters of cutting and disarticulation.

Against that background, it is hard to argu a case of an unexperienced dismemberer. But you do it anyway.

I also n oted that you thibk it unfair to ask for examples where two eviscerators work simultaneously in the same general area or town. The reason for why you think it is unfari is because the occurrence is so very rare as to render the task hopeless.

You did, however, manage to come up with cases where serialists have been at work simultaneously, albeit they were not eviscerators. So you seem to think that this will have to do, and that I should not be so fair as to ask for the impossible, more or less.

Has it dawned on you what you really say here, Gareth? As far as I can tell, you are saying that two simultaneously eviscerating serial killers in the same general area are not to be expected, since these creatures are extremely rare.

Thatb is of course the exact same thing I have been saying for quite some time now. And the only reasonable thing to suspect when we have two series of murders in the same town at the same time is therefore that we have just the one killer.

That MUST be the working premise, and it can ONLY be dispelled if there are built-in differences that are impossible or very hard to look away from between the two series.
What we need to accept here is that a killer may dismember some victims while not doing so with others. That is a given, since there are a fair few examples of this, and it is quite easy to accept that differnt circumstances may have ruled what happened.
After that, all that remains is to accept thata killer who stalks a certain part of town may decide to dump the parts from his evisceration victims in another part of town. And yes, that is something that is quite easy to accept too. Regardless of whether it is the expected or logical thing to do, it is a possibility that cannot be rued out in any way. There may even have been practical reasons for it, in how the killer may have had access to transport to the western parts of town, and thereby a favoured method for disposal.

So! The Pinchin Street torso was NOT an example of a dismemberment murder where the killer was inexperienced with the knife. And it is NOT a better guess that there were two killers.

I have come to realize that it is futile at times to try and persuade you, but I decided to give it a shot anyway, since there was information to add that you seem to have missed. I hope you can take it to heart and conclude from it.

[Sam Flynn]

Maybe, Gareth, what you need to do is to do some serious reading ot the Torso material.

I read the relevant material in respect of the Pinchin Street torso's wounds, Fish, and that was sufficient for the point I was making.

The Pinchin Street torso was skilfully cut, the legs had been neatly cut as in all the other cases - once again, we have a man at work who knows his way around disarticulation by way of knife.

Apart from the arms, evidently.

I also n oted that you thibk it unfair to ask for examples where two eviscerators work simultaneously in the same general area or town. The reason for why you think it is unfari is because the occurrence is so very rare as to render the task hopeless.

I rather think it's more of a pointless task. Like I said in respect of the Kraft/Kearney/Bonin cases, precedents have to be set at some stage, and these constellations of multiple independent killers are seldom repeated. There's no reason to suspect that this wasn't also the case with the Ripper and Torso crimes.

You did, however, manage to come up with cases where serialists have been at work simultaneously, albeit they were not eviscerators.

But they were truly extreme serialists, nonetheless. These weren't your run-of-the-mill abductor/muderers; they were utterly depraved.

As far as I can tell, you are saying that two simultaneously eviscerating serial killers in the same general area are not to be expected, since these creatures are extremely rare.

I'm not saying anything that. I'm saying that it's futile to ask for precedents, or even successors (see above).

Also, you say "two simultaneously eviscerating serial killers", but there is no common theme of evisceration in all the torso cases, so it's a moot point whether the perpetrator(s) was an "eviscerating killer" at all.

[A single killer] MUST be the working premise

Teleological reasoning, I'm afraid. We should examine all the cases on their merits, without preconceptions.

and it can ONLY be dispelled if there are built-in differences that are impossible or very hard to look away from between the two series.

Time scales/cadence, location (of murder sites and dump sites), precise nature of wounds inflicted... etc.

What we need to accept here is that a killer may dismember some victims while not doing so with others.

That's a handy argument to have in the back pocket. Anything goes, then!

That is a given, since there are a fair few examples of this, and it is quite easy to accept that differnt circumstances may have ruled what happened.

Perhaps the milkman interrupted the killer just before he got a chance to push his knife the fraction of an inch further that would have exposed the Pinchin victim's bowels to the open air.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: I read the relevant material in respect of the Pinchin Street torso's wounds, Fish, and that was sufficient for the point I was making.

No, Gareth, it was not. If you had read Hebbert, you would have known that we are dealing with a skilled knife handler and a very capable disarticulator. You seemingly had no idea about that.

Apart from the arms, evidently.

Are you seriously suggesting that a man who skillfully disarticulated the legs with a few clean sweeps of the knife was at a loss to understand how arms are disarticulated...? Because if you are, then we should not take this discussion any longer. I will abstain from answering your further points until I know.
You may want to look at the 1874 torso, Gareth. That killer knew how to disarticulate one leg, but was seemingly lost when it came to the other...

[Abby Normal]

I read the relevant material in respect of the Pinchin Street torso's wounds, Fish, and that was sufficient for the point I was making.
Apart from the arms, evidently.I rather think it's more of a pointless task. Like I said in respect of the Kraft/Kearney/Bonin cases, precedents have to be set at some stage, and these constellations of multiple independent killers are seldom repeated. There's no reason to suspect that this wasn't also the case with the Ripper and Torso crimes.
But they were truly extreme serialists, nonetheless. These weren't your run-of-the-mill abductor/muderers; they were utterly depraved.
I'm not saying anything that. I'm saying that it's futile to ask for precedents, or even successors (see above).

Also, you say "two simultaneously eviscerating serial killers", but there is no common theme of evisceration in all the torso cases, so it's a moot point whether the perpetrator(s) was an "eviscerating killer" at all. Teleological reasoning, I'm afraid. We should examine all the cases on their merits, without preconceptions.Time scales/cadence, location (of murder sites and dump sites), precise nature of wounds inflicted... etc.
That's a handy argument to have in the back pocket. Anything goes, then!Perhaps the milkman interrupted the killer just before he got a chance to push his knife the fraction of an inch further that would have exposed the Pinchin victim's bowels to the open air.

post mortem mutilation rip with knife to the abdomen, having nothing to do with aiding in dismemberment, similar to the ripper.


perhaps the milkman startled him and causing a 15 inch wound-collateral damage you call it?

It was probably the same milkman when he was cutting up the totenham torso causing him to slice off a large flap of flesh from the thigh.

come to think of it Sam, maybe the milkman caused him to slip and make all the exteraneous wounds to all the torso victims!

and Sam
there are scores of examples of serial killers with similar MOs working in the same time and same area. Just not eviscerators. You just cant find them and none of your logistical gymnastics can change it. And if you spent one tenth of your energy honestly trying to answer the simple question as you do with your typical knee jerk reactions of flying off on tangents ("thought experiment"-mind games more like it), minutia police enforcement, and semantic debates, you (and others) might actually learn something. even the milkman.

[Sam Flynn]

Abby,

Those who have known me for a long time will know that I seldom do anything in a "knee jerk" manner. I actually DO think things through.

PS: there's nothing wrong with thought experiments, and they're emphatically not mind-games. If they were good enough for Einstein, they're good enough for us. (Google it if you don't believe me)

[Fisherman]

Abby,

Those who have known me for a long time will know that I seldom do anything in a "knee jerk" manner. I actually DO think things through.

PS: there's nothing wrong with thought experiments, and they're emphatically not mind-games. If they were good enough for Einstein, they're good enough for us. (Google it if you don't believe me)

But would not Einstein have understod that a man who can disarticulate legs, can also disarticulate arms, Gareth?

[Sam Flynn]

But would not Einstein have understod that a man who can disarticulate legs, can also disarticulate arms, Gareth?

That's just a fact, so happily it doesn't need an Einstein to work that one out. More interesting is why the Pinchin Street victim did not have her arms removed (unlike the other torso victims), and why her killer's knife scored a - single - abdominal cut without penetrating the abdominal wall (unlike any of the Ripper victims).

[RockySullivan]

Interesting. I know Sam thinks Pinchin is a different killer, but I say it's only 3 months after Liz Jackson which means the torso killer is active. Yes the torso was in Whitechapel, but it's also the last case. Something might have changed, a move, anything that could have been the reason he stopped after Pinchin.

But the mutilation seems like a big clue to me. This seems very unique and specific to do to cut the skin that way.

[RockySullivan]

That's just a fact, so happily it doesn't need an Einstein to work that one out. More interesting is why the Pinchin Street victim did not have her arms removed (unlike the other torso victims), and why her killer's knife scored a - single - abdominal cut without penetrating the abdominal wall (unlike any of the Ripper victims).

well one reason to remove the legs is that it cuts the length of the body in half. minus the head which wasn't found like all the others. if the killer planned to dump the way he did, he might have decided not to remove the arms if it wasn't absolutely necessary to save the trouble. Then he also wouldn't have to take another risk dumping the arms.

The pinchin torso dump seems desperate to me like Whitehall only more so. It was smelling strong and hadn't been dumped yet. Wasn't Liz Jackson killed, dismembered and disposed of very quickly?

So what you interpret as a different killer Sam I say could be different circumstances.

[Abby Normal]

Abby,

Those who have known me for a long time will know that I seldom do anything in a "knee jerk" manner. I actually DO think things through.

PS: there's nothing wrong with thought experiments, and they're emphatically not mind-games. If they were good enough for Einstein, they're good enough for us. (Google it if you don't believe me)

Believe me I don't need to google anything about Einstein.

and you don't need to use thought experiments for crying out loud, when asked to come up with examples of something-just a little bit of common sense and research.

[Fisherman]

That's just a fact, so happily it doesn't need an Einstein to work that one out. More interesting is why the Pinchin Street victim did not have her arms removed (unlike the other torso victims), and why her killer's knife scored a - single - abdominal cut without penetrating the abdominal wall (unlike any of the Ripper victims).

Given that the medicos said that the killer was skilled with the knife, cut cleanly and know how to disarticulate neatly, I´d say the probable reason is that he decided not to take the arms of and that he decided not to cut any deeper than he did in the belly.

The Einstein that I called for was one who could explain to you that people who know how to take away legs by means of disarticulation will also know how to remove arms in the same fashion.

I simply can´t believe that you are trying to make the point that the Pinchin Street killer did not.

Then again, I fail to see how else you should argue that he was unskilled, so maybe you simply had to settle for the least bad choice - forgetting in the process that it was VERY bad anyway...?

[Abby Normal]

well one reason to remove the legs is that it cuts the length of the body in half. minus the head which wasn't found like all the others. if the killer planned to dump the way he did, he might have decided not to remove the arms if it wasn't absolutely necessary to save the trouble. Then he also wouldn't have to take another risk dumping the arms.

The pinchin torso dump seems desperate to me like Whitehall only more so. It was smelling strong and hadn't been dumped yet. Wasn't Liz Jackson killed, dismembered and disposed of very quickly?

So what you interpret as a different killer Sam I say could be different circumstances.

exactly, Rocky-on your last two posts.

and re the exteraneous mutilations? why? I have yet to see anyone give a good explanations on those, if it wasn't the same man, if dismemberment was done mainly for ease of removal, dumping.

[Sam Flynn]

Believe me I don't need to google anything about Einstein.

I meant for you to Google "thought experiment", Abby.

and you don't need to use thought experiments for crying out loud, when asked to come up with examples of something.

I did produce an example - Kraft, Bonin and Kearney. But they weren't "eviscerators", so apparently that doesn't count; personally, I don't buy that.

Besides, I can play that game too. Perhaps you or Fisherman, or someone else can come up with an example of three independent serial killers who subjected their victims to the same horrors as Kraft, Bonin and Kearney, whilst operating in the same area at the same time.

Tricky, isn't it?

[Fisherman]

I meant for you to Google "thought experiment", Abby. I did produce an example - Kraft, Bonin and Kearney. But they weren't "eviscerators", so apparently that doesn't count; personally, I don't buy that.

Besides, I can play that game too. Perhaps you or Fisherman, or someone else can come up with an example of three independent serial killers who subjected their victims to the same horrors as Kraft, Bonin and Kearney, whilst operating in the same area at the same time.

Tricky, isn't it?

As I said, there are hundreds of unsolved murders, involving physical abuse and strangulation, spread all over the USA. So no, it does not seem tricky at all. The authorities will probably be very confused about how many killers there are out there. If one of them had been an eviscerator, they would have been able to tell him apart from the rest, I am sure.

The bottom line, Gareth, is STILL that evisceration is a far, far more odd thing than beating up people (happens on an everyday basis in every large town every day), and strangling them (happens often in all countries around the world). Eviscerators com along only very rarely, many years may pass between then even in the US, I should think. Whereas killers who beat up and strangle seem to be produced Henry Ford style, on a conveyor belt.

Let´s not loose sight of that, is my advice. Your advice seems to be the polar opposite: Let´s try and make people think that all serial killers are equally special and odd.

They are not. Not even nearly so. I don´t think there is one eviscerator (regardless of HOW and WHY they eviscerate) in a hundred serial killers, but I am happy to stand corrected!