Same motive = same killer

[Fisherman]

See my last post.

Is that a promise, John?

[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 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.

So you do admit they were two simultaneously working serial killers and eviscerators then?

[John Wheat]

Is that a promise, John?

Where do you get that from? I was answering your recent post before you updated it.

[Fisherman]

So you do admit they were two simultaneously working serial killers and eviscerators then?

Others suggest it, which is why I asked the question.

If the answer to it is no, then it stands to reason that there has NEVER been any such town or region.

It is all quite basic.

PS. Wasn´t that earlier post of yours supposed to be your last one...?

[Fisherman]

Where do you get that from? I was answering your recent post before you updated it.

Seems I never can get a break...

Anyways, I think I have given you all the answers called for, and so I trust we may put an end to this little exchange of ours. I know I will.

[John Wheat]

Apart from London in the late eighteenhundreds, I mean.

That's a statement not a question in itself.

[John Wheat]

Seems I never can get a break...

No everyone else can never catch a break with you still posting.

[Sam Flynn]

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?

a. The torso killers may have evisceratED, that doesn't make them primarily evisceratORS
b. JTR didn't consistently remove the abdominal walls in of his victims in large flaps
c. When he did, he cut three flaps, and he cut them differently in either case
d. The three flaps taken from Annie Chapman were not described as large
e. The three flaps taken from Kelly were described as large, and laid the entire abdomen bare
f. In the one torso case where flaps were cut, they were described as strips ("slips") of flesh, which suggests that they were long and narrow, but not "large"
g. In the one torso case where the abdomen was cut in "slips", it was very possibly because the killer(s) did so in order to remove a foetus from the victim's uterus

We aren't dealing with two - or more - eviscerators, and they did not inflict the "same" cuts on their victims. Indeed, JTR didn't inflict the "same" cuts on his own victims.

[John Wheat]

a. The torso killers weren't eviscerators
b. JTR didn't consistently remove the abdominal walls in large flaps
c. When he did, he cut three flaps, and cut them differently in either case
d. The three flaps taken from Annie Chapman were not described as large
e. The three flaps taken from Kelly were described as large, and laid the entire abdomen bare
f. In the one torso case where flaps were cut, they were described as strips ("slips") of flesh, which suggests that they were long and narrow, but not "large"
g. In the one torso case where the abdomen was cut in "slips", it was very possibly because the killer(s) did so in order to remove a foetus from the victim's uterus

We aren't dealing with two - or more - eviscerators, and they did not inflict the "same" cuts on their victims. Indeed, JTR didn't inflict the "same" cuts on his own victims.

Face it Fisherman Sam's right. You're wrong as usual.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn:
a. The torso killers may have evisceratED, that doesn't make them primarily evisceratORS

It makes them both eviscerators. I never said anything about being "primarily" eviscerators. That´s your addition.

b. JTR didn't consistently remove the abdominal walls in of his victims in large flaps

He did so in two cases ascribed to him. I never said he did so "consistently". That is your addition.

c. When he did, he cut three flaps, and he cut them differently in either case

What I said was that he cut away the abdominal walls in large flaps from victims in two cases. I have never disputed that the number of flaps varied - from three to four. The idea that this should be somehow revealing different mindsets or something like that - if that is what you think - is your addition.

d. The three flaps taken from Annie Chapman were not described as large

It is evident that a large part of the abdominal wall was opened up. If you nourish the idea that the Ripper engaged in peephole surgery in Hanbury Street, then that is your addition.
Moreover, it does not take two victims in the Ripper series to make the comparison with what was done in the torso series completely viable - and decisive.

e. The three flaps taken from Kelly were described as large, and laid the entire abdomen bare

Thw one and obly thing that counts is that the abdominal wall was removed by the killer in large flaps. Whether he cut away 79, 83 or 99 per cent of the wall is pitifully irrelevant and unintersting - and lends itself very poorly to any idea that it would point to any relevant difference. I´m sorry, but this has to be established firmly - cutting the abdominal wall away in large flaps is incredibly rare within the range of serial killers. I fact, it is very rare that people kill. And it is very, very rare that killers are serial killers. It is even more rare that the few killers who are serial killers, are also eviscerators. And amongst the very rare killers who have gone on to be serial killers and who have moved on to become eviscerators, it is extremely rare that they take away the abdominal wall in large flaps. So when two murder series surface where this happens in the same period of time and in the same town, the likelihood that we are dealing with the same killer in both cases is so very large that it must be regarded as being very close to an established fact.

f. In the one torso case where flaps were cut, they were described as strips ("slips") of flesh, which suggests that they were long and narrow, but not "large"

The doctor who examined the case, Dr Charles Hebbert, used the exact word "large" when describing the flaps. And we know for certain that they extended at least from the umbilicus down to - and beyond - the vulva. That MUST be large unless they were spaghetti-shaped. And if they WERE, then why dod Hebbert call them "large". By what right are you challenging him on the point?

g. In the one torso case where the abdomen was cut in "slips", it was very possibly because the killer(s) did so in order to remove a foetus from the victim's uterus

In BOTH of the cases where the abdomen was cut away from the victims in the Ripper series, the uterus was ALSO cut out. So I see no reason not to employ the exact same thinking there - maybe the killer cut the wall away to facilitate cutting the reproductive organs out.
As an aside, on the other site, Steve Blomer - who has medical experience although he is no medico himself - says that there would be no reason at all to cut the abdominal walls away to be able to extract the uterus from Jacksons body.

We aren't dealing with two - or more - eviscerators...

That´s true - we are dealing with just the one. I do hope you are not trying to make an idea that the torso killer was not an eviscerator at all take flight, because that flight company is not selling any tickets. The torso killer cut out the uterus, cord and placenta from Jackson, and that is the exact definition of being an eviscerator - you take out organs from a body. Furthermore, the medicis also laid down that the heart and lungs had been "removed" from a torso victim. That too is evisceration: removing organs from the body.

...and they did not inflict the "same" cuts on their victims. Indeed, JTR didn't inflict the "same" cuts on his own victims.

They could not have inflicted the same cuts, of course. But that is semantics and nothing else. They both cut their victims open down the midline in large, long cuts, laying the abdomen open.

How is that?

If you have no answer, I will provide it for you: It´s game over.

It´s interesting to see how you always claim to argue for the simple solution, the rational thinking - and then you favour something that has no parallel in the criminal history over the REALLY simple solution.

[Sam Flynn]

They both cut their victims open down the midline in large, long cuts, laying the abdomen open.

They did not. Period.

The only one whose abdomen was laid open was Mary Kelly.

[Fisherman]

They did not. Period.

The only one whose abdomen was laid open was Mary Kelly.

If you are saying that a cut from ribs to pubes does not lay the abdomen open, then I disagree. It IS laid open, albeit not necessarily to the eye.

Chapmans and Jacksons abdomens were of course also laid open by the removal of the abdominal wall in flaps. You may reason that only Kellys abdomen was laid entirely open, since it was said that the whole of the abdominal wall was taken away, and I have no problem with that.

The problem I have is how it can make you go "Different killer! Different killer!" if only 50, 60, 70, 80 or 90 per cent of Chapmans and Jacksons abdomens were "laid open" in this extremely rare manner.

In fact, if you decide that Jackson should not be viable as the Rippers victim on account of that factor, then what happens to Chapman - she did NOT have her abdominal wall removed in toto either.

So...different killer than Kelly then? Or?

[RockySullivan]

But that is semantics and nothing else. They both cut their victims open down the midline in large, long cuts

Didn't the killer cut up and not down

[Fisherman]

Didn't the killer cut up and not down

I´d be happy to discuss that with you if...

[Fisherman]

I´m off to bed now. I believe there will be posts to answer tomorrow, and I will gladly do so. I hope that they will not involve expression like whacky (or braindead for that matter ). I do not mind tough exchanges, and I tend never to pull any punches myself. But I will make it my business to do so with respect, and I hope that I will be met by the same sentiment.

Goodnight for now!