Same motive = same killer

[Abby Normal]

On this note, I found a Wikipedia site about crime in Britain. Amongst other things, they have listed British serial killers. There were four of them in the 19:th century, three between 1900-1950, twelve between 1950 and 2000 and so far there have been two serial killers in Britain under the 21:st century.

I don´t know how reliable the list is (the Torso killer is not included - maybe the have him bundled up with the Ripper... ), but if it is anything to go by, then we have 21 serial killers over a period of 218 years, that is to say roughly one every ten years.

It is a background that is eminently suited to point out how unlikely it is that two serial killers would surface simultaneously and in the same city, both of them being mutilators and eviscerators, and both of them cutting away abdominal walls from their victims - for example.

The list can be found - together with a lot of other information - on the link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...United_Kingdom

HI Fish
Thanks for posting. Very interesting. a few take aways:

How rare serial killers were in the 19th century.
How rare they are in England.
How unknown is the torso murders.

Now I'm sure there are more they missed but Its pretty telling.

Also, sadly how much less rare they are here in the US.

[Abby Normal]

Next check - out of the serial killers listed in Britain over the last 218 years, how many are proven eviscerators?

I may have missed something, but it seems that three serial killers only have engaged in proven eviscerations:
Jack the Ripper
The Torso killer
Dennis Nilsen

And two of them supposedly coexisted in the same town at the same time, inflicting many elements of the same type of damage on their victims.

I know that statistics are not always useful to lean against, but I still find this very telling.

Have I missed out on any other eviscerating serial killer in Britain? Can anybody help out?

sorry I cant -Im more familiar with SKs in my country.

But I think this re iterates how rare they were- and bolsters my leaning to that they were the same man.

[Sam Flynn]

Next check - out of the serial killers listed in Britain over the last 218 years, how many are proven eviscerators?

Jesus wept. The torso killer(s) was no more an "eviscerator" than Jack the Ripper was a "neck cutter".

Oh, and by the way, neither was Dennis Nilsen a "proven eviscerator". True, he emptied the body cavities of his victims, but this was in order to get rid of the gunk and to make the cutting up and disposal of body parts easier and less messy; ditto the torso killer on just the one occasion, and then he only took out the intestines, presumably because they'd dangle out of the hole he'd made if he left them there (not nice). These dismemberers evidently only eviscerated for practical reasons, not because they had a fixation with the contents of their victims' abdomen... which is categorically what Jack the Ripper was all about.

[Abby Normal]

Jesus wept. The torso killer(s) was no more an "eviscerator" than Jack the Ripper was a "neck cutter".

Oh, and by the way, neither was Dennis Nilsen a "proven eviscerator". True, he emptied the body cavities of his victims, but this was in order to get rid of the gunk and to make the cutting up and disposal of body parts easier and less messy; ditto the torso killer on just the one occasion, and then he only took out the intestines, presumably because they'd dangle out of the hole he'd made if he left them there (not nice). These dismemberers evidently only eviscerated for practical reasons, not because they had a fixation with the contents of their victims' abdomen... which is categorically what Jack the Ripper was all about.

Hi Sam
I think you are correct re nilsen. Im no expert on Nilsen but it does seem it was done to help facilitate dismemberment and disposal of the body.

point taken.

[harry]

How strange that the beyond reasonable doubt keeps cropping up,and that apparently Hebberts reasonings give credence to it. What proofs are there.
Hebbert writes there were similarities,nothing more.Yes there were similarities,but as has been pointed out there were dissimilarities of which he says nothing.Does that mean we have to ignore them?That they do not count?
He also writes that a supposition can be made that the same person was responsible.He does not claim proof of it,or that it is beyong reasonable doubt.
Just that it can be supposed/assumed.No proofs it was the same saws or knives used on each and every victim,or even the same manner of death.Or that every death was a murder.
Yet we are expected to accept interpretations of his writings goes beyond a reasonable doubt or belief.

STRANGE.

[Fisherman]

Jesus wept. The torso killer(s) was no more an "eviscerator" than Jack the Ripper was a "neck cutter".

Oh, and by the way, neither was Dennis Nilsen a "proven eviscerator". True, he emptied the body cavities of his victims, but this was in order to get rid of the gunk and to make the cutting up and disposal of body parts easier and less messy; ditto the torso killer on just the one occasion, and then he only took out the intestines, presumably because they'd dangle out of the hole he'd made if he left them there (not nice). These dismemberers evidently only eviscerated for practical reasons, not because they had a fixation with the contents of their victims' abdomen... which is categorically what Jack the Ripper was all about.

If you had read my posts - and remembered your own - you would be aware that eviscerating is taking the bodily organs out. That is the broad definition of it.
Definition of eviscerate
eviscerated; eviscerating
transitive verb
1 a : to take out the entrails of : disembowel
b : to deprive of vital content or force
2 : to remove an organ from (a patient) or the contents of (an organ)

In that respect, Dennis Nilsen eviscerated his victims.

What you are confusing the matter with is eviscerating as a paraphilia or part of one. That is an area where we will always be able to do what you did just now, say "Ooooh no, I happen to know EXACTLY why the Torso killer took out the uterus, the lungs and the heart from Liz Jackson, and I can tell you all that it was ABSOLUTELY not on account of a paraphilia!"

And we would not want the debate to end up in that kind of a bog. Would we?

Nor would we want it to be regarded as established that the Torso killer only eviscerated once - he may have done so on at least three occasions. There were missing organs from the Rainham victim and the Whitehall victim, but it seems that no matter how many times I point this out, you will not accept it?
And frankly, when we ask ourselves the question "Did they plop out by coincidence or did the killer take them out?", our best guess is that he cut them out - since we DO have the Jackson example where we KNOW that he was ready and willing to do so. And did it!

This is one more example of where it becomes ludicruous how you speak of me as "potentially misleading" - and then you state unequivocally that only one Torso victim was eviscerated! Are you BLIND to all of this? Can´t you see how it reads? You were supposed to be good at expressing yourself, were you not?

Tha absolute majority of those who kill other people, cut them open and remove the inner organs (and these are very, very few) ARE suffering from the kind of paraphilia we are talking about, so the logical thing to deduct is that the Torso man most probably also did.

We also know that he - whaddayouknow? - cut away the abdominal wall of Liz Jackson in "large flaps", described by the papers (plural) as "the lower abdomen of a woman, cut in two." As did the Ripper.

Given the rarity of serial killers overall and given that eviscerating serial killers (regardless of whether the eviscerations are part of a paraphilia or not) are even rarer, much, much rarer, and given that the two killers we discuss did VERY similar things to the abdominals walls of their victims. And cut out their uteri. And cut out their hearts. And cut out lungs. And were described as skilled knifesmen. And were targetting prostitutes...

... there is just about no chance at all that we are dealing with two killers. The mere idea is so much in conflict with the known facts that it is more or less preposterous.

To think that they CAN have been two is a sign of how extremely elastic logic can be at times, and there is nothing wrong with that. It ensures that we will cover all ground.

To claim that they are more likely to be two than one is unworthy of ANY logic. Elastic or not.

Look at the statistics! TWO (two) eviscerating serial killers in 218 years!

[Fisherman]

How strange that the beyond reasonable doubt keeps cropping up,and that apparently Hebberts reasonings give credence to it. What proofs are there.
Hebbert writes there were similarities,nothing more.Yes there were similarities,but as has been pointed out there were dissimilarities of which he says nothing.Does that mean we have to ignore them?That they do not count?
He also writes that a supposition can be made that the same person was responsible.He does not claim proof of it,or that it is beyong reasonable doubt.
Just that it can be supposed/assumed.No proofs it was the same saws or knives used on each and every victim,or even the same manner of death.Or that every death was a murder.
Yet we are expected to accept interpretations of his writings goes beyond a reasonable doubt or belief.

STRANGE.

Hebbert does not just say that there were similarities. There are similarities between you and me, Harry. And between you and a cow, me and a banana and us and a pack of hyenas.

Hebbert said that the four murders were VERY similar "in almost every aspect", and that he was in little doubt that they had the same originator.

So let´s not miss out on the magnitude, shall we? That would put us at risk to think that Hebbert was not very sure at all and that the similarities were only small and superficial.

And we would not want THAT wrongful picture to take hold, would we? Precisely!

Plus it is NOT Hebbert who says that it is beyond reasonable doubt that there was just the one killer. It is me, yours truly, and Hebbert is among the sources that urge me to make that call.

[Sam Flynn]

Hebbert says nothing about the MURDERS being similar, very or otherwise. He comments only on the similarities in the manner of dismemberment and, in the specific case of the Pinchin Street torso, that comparison can only ever be applicable to the legs.

[Sam Flynn]

Where does Hebbert say that "it is beyond reasonable doubt that there was just the one killer"? Exact quote, please.

[Fisherman]

Where does Hebbert say that "it is beyond reasonable doubt that there was just the one killer"? Exact quote, please.

Try again, Gareth, four posts back:


"Plus it is NOT Hebbert who says that it is beyond reasonable doubt that there was just the one killer. It is me, yours truly, and Hebbert is among the sources that urge me to make that call."

[Fisherman]

Hebbert says nothing about the MURDERS being similar, very or otherwise. He comments only on the similarities in the manner of dismemberment and, in the specific case of the Pinchin Street torso, that comparison can only ever be applicable to the legs.

So not the neck, then?

Of course Hebbert only comments on the cutting and dismembering that was performed.

Who has said something else?

As an aside, even if it only had been the leg dismemberment that had been open to Hebbert to comment on - how would that decrease the value of his view? If he saw that the legs had been taken off in a manner that was very, very close to how it was done in the other cases, why would not this be enough to make a comparison?

[Fisherman]

In post 3172, I say that "Hebbert said that the four murders were VERY similar "in almost every aspect", and that he was in little doubt that they had the same originator."

That should be amended - he did not use the word "aspect" but instead "respect", and he said this in a comparison of the two later murders in the series to the two first.

He also never worded himself with a phrase containing the words that he was in little doubt that it was the same originator in each case. What he said was that:

"In the last volume of Reports I was able to give a description of two cases of mutilation which occurred duering 1887 and 1888. I now take the opportunity of recounting two more instances of mutilation which have happened during the present year. In almost every respect they are similar to the first two cases, and appear to belong to a series of murders and dismemberment by the same hand ..."

and

"...The mode of dismemberment and mutilation was in all similar, and showed considerable skill in execution, and it is a fair presumption from the facts that the same man committed all the four murders."

So instead of saying that he had little doubt that the same man committed all four murders, he said that it is a fair presumption from the facts that the same man committed all the four murders.

Wich adds up to more or less the same - Hebbert believed that there was just the one killer - but fair is fair!

[Fisherman]

One interesting thing to notice is that there is another example of two serial killers in London in overlapping periods of time, Christie and Haigh.

Since London is as big as all of Sweden populationwise, it is not all that strange, of course.

However, Christie strangled his victims and dug them down or hid them in the walls, whereas Haigh shot or battered his victims to death, and then put them in barrels of acid to dissolve them.

Neither man engaged in cutting the victims up and eviscerating them. Nor did they cut the abdominal walls of their victims away in large flaps...

There were no similarities at all inbetween them. Not a single one.

This is nevertheless the only example I can find of two serial killers at work in the same time and general geographical area in Britain during the 218 years that we have on record.

[Sam Flynn]

"...The mode of dismemberment and mutilation was in all similar, and showed considerable skill in execution, and it is a fair presumption from the facts that the same man committed all the four murders."

But a "fair presumption" is not the same as saying that it was "beyond reasonable doubt" - Hebbert made no such claim. Besides, he is only going on the mode of dismemberment and doesn't seem to be taking into account other factors like geography (West vs East London) and demographics. In the latter respect, I reiterate the fact that there were plenty of people with butchery and related skills distributed throughout London, and that there are only a limited number of (practical) ways to joint a leg.

[harry]

Fisherman,
In post 3039 you used the term,"In every respect they are similar"
You now use the term,Very similar.Slip of the keyboard maybe. MOOO.
Again 3039.In almost every respect,has now become,in every respect.What happened to the ,Almost. Another slip of the keyboard.MOOO.
Yes,I know it was you that used the term,beyond reasonable doubt,have I written otherwise.?Strange that no one else seems to have gone that far.
I know what Hebbert claimed,what I would like is the proofs of his claims.
Yours too.In every case of murder there has to be proofs.Similarites are hardly
proofs beyond reasonable doubt.
Today I passed two persons wearing similar clothing.Must have been made by the same tailor.How do I know,because they were similar.Go figure!!!