Same motive = same killer

[Fisherman]

Yes, and so would women of all walks of life and all social classes. Both Stride and Eddowes were wearing chemises under layers of other clothing when found. Chemises were practical undergarments, pure and simple.

Yes, the kind of chemise Stride and Eddowes were wearing were practical undergarments. And other chemises were nightgowns.

[Sam Flynn]

Yes, the kind of chemise Stride and Eddowes were wearing were practical undergarments. And other chemises were nightgowns.

How many lower class East End women had the luxury of specially designated nightwear?

[Sam Flynn]

Regardless of this, it fits in with what I have in mind.

What I have in mind is that, having killed, the killer removed the victim's outer clothing for disposal, tore off the undergarment she was already wearing prior to cutting her up, and used the cloth as an improvised wrapper/bandage.

[drstrange169]

>>Yes, the kind of chemise Stride and Eddowes were wearing were practical undergarments. And other chemises were nightgowns.<<

Sorry but, no.

Chemises were chemises, nightgowns were nightgowns, two totally different garments.

Some men, so I'm told, sleep in there jocks, that doesn't make jocks, pyjamas.

Whether the chemise belonged to the killer, I have no opinion on, but if it was a chemise it wasn't a nightgown and visa versa.

[Fisherman]

What I have in mind is that, having killed, the killer removed the victim's outer clothing for disposal, tore off the undergarment she was already wearing prior to cutting her up, and used the cloth as an improvised wrapper/bandage.

That is possible. The scenario that offers itself up in such a case is that the killer cut the victim up, leaving the head and arms on the torso, and then, at a later stage, just before he set off to dump the torso, he took the head off and used the chemise to stop whatever bleeding there could have been from the severed neck a body that had been emptied of blood.

I find that an odd thing to do, since there would not have been any substantial bleeding anyway, but the sources seem to tell us that this was what happened nevertheless.

[Sam Flynn]

I find that an odd thing to do, since there would not have been any substantial bleeding anyway, but the sources seem to tell us that this was what happened nevertheless.

Indeed, and the same sources say that the chemise was stained with blood, so it was evidently still seeping from the cut tissues.

PS: whilst the body had been drained/emptied of blood, it doesn't mean that it was totally dry.

[Fisherman]

>>Yes, the kind of chemise Stride and Eddowes were wearing were practical undergarments. And other chemises were nightgowns.<<

Sorry but, no.

Chemises were chemises, nightgowns were nightgowns, two totally different garments.

Some men, so I'm told, sleep in there jocks, that doesn't make jocks, pyjamas.

Whether the chemise belonged to the killer, I have no opinion on, but if it was a chemise it wasn't a nightgown and visa versa.

If you search the net, you will find victorian chemises that differ a whole lot from the typical one. The latter was knee-long, for example, and there are chemises that are full length too, some of them described with the heading chemise/nightgown.
I have little doubt that the term was almost only used about the undergarment type, and if it was never used about nightgear at all, it makes no difference to me: what I have in mind would require a garment that LOOKED like a nightgown, quite simply. And the Pinchin Street chemise may very well have done just that.

[Fisherman]

Indeed, and the same sources say that the chemise was stained with blood, so it was evidently still seeping from the cut tissues.

PS: whilst the body had been drained/emptied of blood, it doesn't mean that it was totally dry.

We actually know that it wasn´t, since the reddish surface of the cut neck was said to be "moist", if my memory serves me.

[RockySullivan]

Yes, and so would women of all walks of life and all social classes. Both Stride and Eddowes were wearing chemises under layers of other clothing when found. Chemises were practical undergarments, pure and simple.

But are chemises associated with prostitution? And were they in 1889?

[Sam Flynn]

But are chemises associated with prostitution? And were they in 1889?

No, they weren't associated with prostitution in the least, and were worn by all kinds of women. In previous centuries, chemises weren't even associated with women; men wore them too.

[Fisherman]

No, they weren't associated with prostitution in the least, and were worn by all kinds of women. In previous centuries, chemises weren't even associated with women; men wore them too.

But weren´t men associated with women back then...?

[Abby Normal]

117 pages in and I'm still wondering if this question by Fish has been answered?

Question:

Has there ever been any example of a town or region where two eviscerating serial killers have worked simultaneously?

[John Wheat]

117 pages in and I'm still wondering if this question by Fish has been answered?

Yes London. And neither were Lechmere.

[Fisherman]

117 pages in and I'm still wondering if this question by Fish has been answered?

If so, then I have not seen it.

And the fact of the matter is that I have not even moved on to the next question yet:

Has there ever been a town or a region where two simultaneously working serial killers and eviscerators have made the same kind of cuts to their victims´ abdomens and taken away abdominal walls in large flaps?

Apart from London in the late eighteenhundreds, I mean.

[John Wheat]

If so, then I have not seen it.

And the fact of the matter is that I have not even moved on to the next question yet:

Has there ever been a town or a region where two simultaneously working serial killers have made the same kind of cuts to their victims´ abdomens and taken away abdominal walls in large flaps?

See my last post.