Same motive = same killer

[Fisherman]

And, although lacking uteri, how many male victims have suffered a similar fate at the hands of dismembering killers? I know that Nilsen removed the thoracic and abdominal organs of his victims before disposing of the chopped-up external body parts.

Yes, there ARE cases like that - but you have to admit that they are extremely rare. When was there ever TWO such killers on the loose in the same town and time period? There is almost never even one!

Besides, the removal of the abdominal wall is not present with Nielsen. So itīs two out of three only.

And that is enough to make for a killer so rare that he will become front page news when he does appear. And itīs always a "he", never a "them" when it happens.

The idea of two killers in "our" case is statistically freakish. It just does not make any sense at all. Maybe the greatest disservice previous generations have ever made about the Ripper case is to write history from the idea of two killers. It has cemented the idea in most peopleīs brains, and it wonīt go away, although all logic speaks against the suggestion.

[Fisherman]

Sweet Fanny Adams?

Nope - no record of any removal of he abdominal wall in that case. Which is why I keep banging on about that detail - it is so extremely rare. Take it away, and you will find examples - Ed Gingrichīs wife being one of them. Add it, and we quickly run completely dry when searching.

But she is interesting in her own right since she was a mutilated, eviscerated and dismembered victim in much the same way that the combined Ripper/Torso killer would also have dismembered, eviscerated and mutilated his victims - if we are to buy into the one killer scenario.

[Sam Flynn]

And, although lacking uteri, how many male victims have suffered a similar fate at the hands of dismembering killers? I know that Nilsen removed the thoracic and abdominal organs of his victims before disposing of the chopped-up external body parts.

[Joshua Rogan]

in how many cases have you seen the uterus, the abdominal wall and the heart taken away from a murder victim?

I know of two such cases only, Mary Kelly and Liz Jackson.

Sweet Fanny Adams?

[Fisherman]

Nonsense, on all points.

Thatīs not a very good post, Gareth. Please explain how it is "nonsense". It makes all the sense in the word to me.

[Fisherman]

Yes still attached to windpipe, that does not rule out the torn section is still in the thorax, seperated from the remainder of the lung and thus not attached, but possible fixed in places to the chest wall.
As you saywe cannot be sure, and i can go either way, just leaning towards in the thorax.


Steven

Letīs compromise: In the thorax but unattached!

[Elamarna]

Steve:

"Actually the peceeding bit of the quote that the lung was broken is a really odd phrase to me, all my years in work i have never heard an organ described as broken."

You broke my heart with the remarks about the word "gone"...

Seriously, I think it translates into "collapsed", more or less.

On the "broken" issue, hereīs a little something for you:

"Broken lung and broken heart: a case of right pneumothorax resulting in Takotsubo cardiomyopathy.
Kumar A1, Padala S, Morales DC, Swales H.
Author information
Abstract
Takotsubo cardiomyopathy (TC), also known as broken-heart syndrome, is usually the result of a stressful event. It is more common in postmenopausal females and can mimic an acute coronary syndrome. We report the case of an elderly female who presented with acute chest pain and ECG changes suggestive of an acute myocardial infarction, but later was found to have right-sided pneumothorax with TC. The case highlights the growing interest in stress cardiomyopathy and its variable modes of presentation. It also reminds us that the acute chest pain of a pneumothorax can closely mimic a coronary event with similar electrocardiographic changes."

Not the same thing, but the same wording!

Broken just seems very odd when apied to the lungs, heart one can understand, given the term broken heart.

Your suggestion of collapsed has merit, but i have never heard it applied.
One could in that case read it as the lung had collapsed, because a section of it had been torn away

Academically might look it up in 19th century papers to see if was commonly used.


Steve

[Elamarna]

It IS stated that the remainder of the lung was "still attached", and to me, coupled with the "torn away" wording, it points very much to the torn part being unattached. If he could specify that one part was still attached in spite of the tearing, then why would he not do so with the other? It makes little sense.

As always, no certainty can be reached. But thatīs how I see it.

Yes still attached to windpipe, that does not rule out the torn section is still in the thorax, seperated from the remainder of the lung and thus not attached, but possible fixed in places to the chest wall.
As you saywe cannot be sure, and i can go either way, just leaning towards in the thorax.


Steven

[Sam Flynn]

Nonsense, on all points.

[Fisherman]

One can tear a fingernail away from the bed, and it can still remain attached to the finger. If Bond had said "torn out", things would be clearer - sadly, he didn't.

Be that as it may, we're still only taking about PART of ONE lung in Kelly's case, so to classify her killer as a "lung-taker" is unsustainable.

In a sense, that applies to the torso killer too - he may simply have cleared the lugs away to get at the heart. So itīs an impossible call to make. What remains is that in both cases, the lungs were - how shall we put it? - interfered with by the killer and the heart was taken away.

That in itself is totally unexpected to find in simultaneous serial killer cases.

Add to that that there were other curious similarities (it IS a similarity that abdominal wall flaps were cut away, and it IS a similarity that the uterus was taken, it IS a similarity that the women were prostututing themselves, it IS a similarity that rings that had very recently been there were suddenly gone and so on), and we are faced with an overwhelming probability of one killer only.

[Sam Flynn]

One can tear a fingernail away from the bed, and it can still remain attached to the finger. If Bond had said "torn out", things would be clearer - sadly, he didn't.

Be that as it may, we're still only taking about PART of ONE lung in Kelly's case, so to classify her killer as a "lung-taker" is unsustainable.

[Fisherman]

Steve:

"Actually the peceeding bit of the quote that the lung was broken is a really odd phrase to me, all my years in work i have never heard an organ described as broken."

You broke my heart with the remarks about the word "gone"...

Seriously, I think it translates into "collapsed", more or less.

On the "broken" issue, hereīs a little something for you:

"Broken lung and broken heart: a case of right pneumothorax resulting in Takotsubo cardiomyopathy.
Kumar A1, Padala S, Morales DC, Swales H.
Author information
Abstract
Takotsubo cardiomyopathy (TC), also known as broken-heart syndrome, is usually the result of a stressful event. It is more common in postmenopausal females and can mimic an acute coronary syndrome. We report the case of an elderly female who presented with acute chest pain and ECG changes suggestive of an acute myocardial infarction, but later was found to have right-sided pneumothorax with TC. The case highlights the growing interest in stress cardiomyopathy and its variable modes of presentation. It also reminds us that the acute chest pain of a pneumothorax can closely mimic a coronary event with similar electrocardiographic changes."

Not the same thing, but the same wording!

[Fisherman]

Christer, seperated from the upper part of the lung certainly, that would make the lower section of which we have no real description "torn away".

My view is that given its not mentioned again after the initial comment it is still in place.


Actually the peceeding bit of the quote that the lung was broken is a really odd phrase to me, all my years in work i have never heard an organ described as broken.

Steve

It IS stated that the remainder of the lung was "still attached", and to me, coupled with the "torn away" wording, it points very much to the torn part being unattached. If he could specify that one part was still attached in spite of the tearing, then why would he not do so with the other? It makes little sense.

As always, no certainty can be reached. But thatīs how I see it.

[Trevor Marriott]

For God's sake, Trevor, don't encourage him!

Sorry about that Sam

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

How do you guys relate to the question "are you saying that two killers is an option that cannot be ruled out, an equally good suggestion as one killer only, or a better suggestion that one killer only?"