Same motive = same killer

[Sam Flynn]

Nonsense, on all points.

[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 that´s 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

[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, here´s 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

[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

Let´s compromise: In the thorax but unattached!

[Fisherman]

Nonsense, on all points.

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

[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?

[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.

[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 Gingrich´s 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.

[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 it´s 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 it´s 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 people´s brains, and it won´t go away, although all logic speaks against the suggestion.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just out of curiosity Fish how many examples are there of serial killers having 2 methods? By that of course i mean the example here (imo) Jack killed in the street, skirt up etc and the TK killed probably indoors, dismemberment, distribution of parts. Before you say it, yes i know that you favour ‘similarities’ but you will accept these differences exist. Im not talking about killers who might have 4 or 5 different methods/weapons etc but killers that have 2 very distinct methods?
And no, im not trying to be clever and catch you out here because i recall you might have mentioned one once. I just wondered out of interest how often this had occurred in crime history?

[harry]

I know the rules very well Fisherman,and I have applied them to other posters.
I make exeption to you,because of your frequent insults to myself and other posters.You can give but not take as your last post to me shows.Get a backbone.
While I may make little contribution to the solution of the thread,your puny efforts make even less impact. Way more posts than myself,and you are not even off the starting block.I am quite sure that my evaluation of two killers is far more acceptable than your choice of one,so I am ahead of you,and at your rate you will never catch up.But keep trying lad,you make for a good laugh.

[Fisherman]

I know the rules very well Fisherman,and I have applied them to other posters.
I make exeption to you,because of your frequent insults to myself and other posters.You can give but not take as your last post to me shows.Get a backbone.
While I may make little contribution to the solution of the thread,your puny efforts make even less impact. Way more posts than myself,and you are not even off the starting block.I am quite sure that my evaluation of two killers is far more acceptable than your choice of one,so I am ahead of you,and at your rate you will never catch up.But keep trying lad,you make for a good laugh.

I have no idea who you are and what you are about. I only know that your efforts in Ripperology are not always up to scratch. Pointing that out is not a personal insult, and personal insults are strictly forbidden.

If you do it again, I will report the post and you will have to answer for it.

You are most welcome to criticize my posts, but not me. I myself have no problems using that tool to full effect. If it is not sufficient for you, that is your problem. It does not change the rules of the boards, though. And we must all abide by the rules, you included.

[Fisherman]

Just out of curiosity Fish how many examples are there of serial killers having 2 methods? By that of course i mean the example here (imo) Jack killed in the street, skirt up etc and the TK killed probably indoors, dismemberment, distribution of parts. Before you say it, yes i know that you favour ‘similarities’ but you will accept these differences exist. Im not talking about killers who might have 4 or 5 different methods/weapons etc but killers that have 2 very distinct methods?
And no, im not trying to be clever and catch you out here because i recall you might have mentioned one once. I just wondered out of interest how often this had occurred in crime history?

Ouch - that´s a tough one. There is no listing as such, and so I can only name examples that come to mind.

But the question you ask is just as relevant as the question I ask, Herlock. And I am not paranoid enough to think you are trying to catch me out!

I believe the killer you remember was a serialist who dismembered some victims while others were left with an intact body. I think it was a Japanese guy.

The Golden state killer went from rape to murder, and the different jurisdictions searched for different perps. Of course, the mo was the same, more or less, but there is nevertheless a difference.

Peter Kürten had the Duesseldorf police looking for three or four killers, one who strangled, one who killed with a pair of scissors, one who bashed peoples heads in and so on.

William Heirens, the "Lipstick killer" had three victims. A middle-aged woman was stabbed to death, a divorced woman was shot - and his third victim was a six-year old girl, who Heirens strangled if I remember correctly - and then dismembered and tucked away the parts in different places.

Paul Bernardo killed sometimes on a whim, while he other times stalked victims carefully. Some victims were dismembered, some not.

David Berkowitz, "The Son of Sam", started out as a stabber, but changed to shooting since he found the knife approach too messy and difficult.

The Zodiac attacked and killed by Lake Baryessa by knife, out in the open - and he killed a taxi driver inside a large city, in his cab - by means of shooting him with a gun.

"The Grim Sleeper", Lonnie Franklin, shot a handful of women, while he strangled another handful. He made a 14 year hiatus in the midst of things. And one victim was a man!

Cedrik Maake, who killed nigh on 30 victims, bashed the heads of his victims in with a rock on a number of occasions, and shot people sitting in their cars on others.

Paul John Knowles killed a couple of sisters, seven and eleven years of age, by strangling them. He had around 20 victims, but claimed there were more. He killed a 65 year old woman by strangling her. He killed couples. He killed single men. He sometimes smothered or stragled, and sometimes shot his victims.

Carl Panzram shot six men to death on a hunting expedition and fed them to crocodiles. On another occasion he raped a man and beat him to death with a rock.

I could probably come up with a lot more if I tried, but I don´t think it is necessary.

One problem that arises with this question is that I am certain - but cannot prove it - that there are numerous serial killers who have changed their MO:s in so successfull a manner as to manage to stay uncaught. The net is full of such speculations, and I think they are sound speculations. Any potential serial killer has access to many sources where he can read about the disadvantages of keeping to one MO only. Basically, we teach aspiring serial killers how to stay uncaught: Do not give away any signature, change your MO and move inbetween states or countries, and you will be fine. It would be very odd if nobody with a murderous mindset has realized the benefits of going about things like this.

Staying within a confined area and providing the police with signature elements of a very unusual character is giving away that there´s a serialist on the prowl. The victorians were not aware of this mechanism. They did not discuss MO:s in relation to killings because serial murder was not a problem that was common enough to have been studied at the time. To me, this is the reason that they opted for two killers - lacking experience. This same lack of experience made them think that the Torso killer was a practically minded man, for the simple reason that all the dismemberments they knew of WERE practically governed body partings.

If they had had the knowledge that there are people with a paraphilia that urges them to take bodies apart for the joy of it, they would have opted for one killer. I have no doubt about that. And Phillips would probably have gone "Oh, that explains why the cuts to the necks of Kelly and the Pinchin Street woman were so very similar. I always thought that was a very remarkable coincidence!"

Phillips, as the rest of the medicos and police at the time, were caught behind a door that made it impossible to imagine the kind of killer we are discussing. Unlock that door and the solution becomes very easy to see.

[Sam Flynn]

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 it´s 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 it´s 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 people´s brains, and it won´t go away, although all logic speaks against the suggestion.

Stop deflecting away from the main point, namely that it is a fact that some dismemberment killers DO remove thoracic and/or abdominal organs, and for very practical reasons.

[Fisherman]

Stop deflecting away from the main point, namely that it is a fact that some dismemberment killers DO remove thoracic and/or abdominal organs, and for very practical reasons.

In what way am I "deflecting away" from that? I thought I wrote "Yes, there ARE cases like that" in the beginning of the post you are quoting?

Or do you mean that since there are such cases, I am not allowed to point out that practical reasons are not the only reasons for taking out organs? I think that eviscerations are mainly led on by urges and not by practicalities, and I think that very much belongs to the discussion.

I really don´t understand how you are reasoning here, Gareth. Can you please explain?