Same motive = same killer

[Abby Normal]

He might, he might not, but that's beside the point.

THE FLAPS ARE NOT IMPORTANT, because there's only LIMITED WAYS a layman is going to open up an abdomen in order to access the contents.

How many f*king times do I have to say that?Think before you gloat.

Sam
I'm just going to say this one more time about this issue and then I'm out because I don't like hitting my head against a brick wall.

you keep saying the flaps are unimportant, theres only a limited way a layman can gain access to the abdomen, no similarities etc.

yet at the same time saying

to open up an abdomen in order to access the contents

so you admit we have three victims where the killer:

open up an abdomen in order to access the contents.

forget about the "flaps shmaps" (LOL! btw) so you admit,at least this part, its a similarity?

yes or no.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: He might, he might not, but that's beside the point.

Of course. Why would it be the point when we are discussing how likely it is that a killer will remove the abdominal wall in sections? It is of course totally and utterly irrelevant to that topic!

So what do you want to discuss instead?

THE FLAPS ARE NOT IMPORTANT, because there's only LIMITED WAYS a layman is going to open up an abdomen in order to access the contents.

Okay. So just about the only way a killer/layman can open the abdomen is in this fashion, by removing the abdominal wall in sections?
Then it stands to reason that jst about every eviscerator will do precisely that.

However, Gareth - it seems there are no further examples of the habit? Isn´t that odd? You even had to lie about Dahmer to try and find an example!

Maybe there is a choice between opening with a cut and NOT remove the wall, and opening with a cut and DO remove the wall - and 100 per cent of the killers use the former way?

How about the tooth thing? There are only so many ways a layman can pull a tooth out. But doing THAT is "weird" in Gareth-land, whereas it is decidedly NOT weird to cut away a fellow human beings abdominal wall in flaps.

If you think you can sell this idea to anybody who has had their head screwed on properly - or screwed on in any fashion at all, properly or not - then you are sorely mistaken.

You are having the baldfaced audacity to try and claim that it is irrelevant that the killer cut the abdomen away in sections! You are trying to discard that as unimportant! And then you accuse ME of fitting the evidence! It is mindbogglingly weird.

How many f*king times do I have to say that?

The fewer the better, unless you are aspiring to aquire a one-way ticket to the funny farm. I have never seen a more apallingly mindless argument made out here in all the years I have posted. If I had a remedy to reccomend, I would do it, but I am at a loss to see what will help.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: Don't you dare falsely accuse me of presenting imagination as fact.

It´s only a few posts back that you claimed that Dahmer removed the abdominal wall from his victims.

I don´t think anything more has to be said on this subject. And I will certainly dare to point your ramblings out whenever you are misleading.

I´m done discussing with you for tonight, since I can clearly see that you have lost the plot totally. Please have a cold shower and a good nights sleep, and you may be able to clear away that red haze that stands in the way for your eyesight.

[RockySullivan]

The fewer the better, unless you are aspiring to aquire a one-way ticket to the funny farm. I have never seen a more apallingly mindless argument made out here in all the years I have posted. If I had a remedy to reccomend, I would do it, but I am at a loss to see what will help.

Surstromming demands respect like he's in charge but then he makes rude comments to people

[Fisherman]

Surstromming demands respect like he's in charge but then he makes rude comments to people

I´d be happy to tell you why that is very wrong once you learn how to behave on an internet forum. The choice - as always - is yours.

[Abby Normal]

Surstromming demands respect like he's in charge but then he makes rude comments to people

HiRocky
with all due respect we all have been making rude comments, no?

[RockySullivan]

HiRocky
with all due respect we all have been making rude comments, no?

I never said I'm not rude. I said Surstromming keeps using me being rude as a way to avoid having to answer holes in his theories or account for errors he's made like he makes the rules here and then he turns around and says rude **** to other people. it's such blantant hypocrisy

[Fisherman]

I never said I'm not rude. I said Surstromming keeps using me being rude as a way to avoid having to answer holes in his theories or account for errors he's made like he makes the rules here and then he turns around and says rude **** to other people. it's such blantant hypocrisy

Then take your chance to disclose me as being wrong on all counts. It is the easiest thing in the world. All you have to do is to say "I promise I will not call you names again when debating with you", and I will then answer whatever it is you have to ask.

Just man up, Rocky, it´s easy enough. Listen here: I promise not to call you names when debating with you, Rocky. Not that I ever have done so - like you have - but I promise not to start doing it in the future either.

You see, I can do it, no probs. But you won´t, will you?

The simple truth of the matter is that you don´t want that debate, do you? And so you hide behind a lie in order not to have it happen.

Prove me wrong, why don´t you?

PS. The rules out here are supplied by the administrators and not by me. As for being in charge, that is something that anybody who knows his way around the case can be versus somebody who is less informed.
You can have the night to sleep on that information.

[RockySullivan]

As for being in charge, that is something that anybody who knows his way around the case can be versus somebody who is less informed.
You can have the night to sleep on that information.

Surstromming, what do debs or jerry have to do with this? I would hardly describe you as someone who knows his way around the torso case well. You didn't even know which direction the killer cut the abdomen

[Fisherman]

Surstromming, what do debs or jerry have to do with this? I would hardly describe you as someone who knows his way around the torso case well. You didn't even know which direction the killer cut the abdomen

Once again, my answer is the same - before you shape up, you will not have any comment from me on these matters. You are - of course - wrong, and I will happily tell you why when you have manned up. But not before that happens.

PS. If you check out Debras posts you will find that she also speaks of "from ribs to pubes". And she is quite entitled to, just as I or anybody else is.

[RockySullivan]

Once again, my answer is the same

My answer is the same too. I will only refer to you as Surströmming from now on. If you don't like it you can go fish yourself

[Sam Flynn]

so you admit we have three victims where the killer opened up the abdomen to access the contents

so you admit,at least this part, is a similarity?

yes or no.

Yes.

The question is one of how relevant and consistent this was in either series.

[Abby Normal]

Yes.

The question is one of how relevant and consistent this was in either series.

I’ll take it!


Have a good weekend Sam

[Michael W Richards]

For someone in a stressful situation....lets say, cutting up a woman you just killed, the method of access would be for speed and complete access to the area desired. Certainly in the cases where the murder and evisceration took place outdoors. But none of these murders had surgical incisions, intended to make the least amount of collateral damage. That's why flaps are not a significant factor when marrying these series of murders, the convenience and speed would appeal to many in that heightened state of excitement and fear.

In plain terms one of these killers sought to disassemble, one sought to access the female abdomen and to cut into it. Both had to kill to facilitate their goals. One did so to create a public spectacle. One disposed of his dirty work in a method that is used in attempt to hide the deceased. The fact that one torso appears to have been placed is likely more about the political climate more than anything else.

Ill also add that marring the facial features, in the cases of Mary and Kate, likely have a lot to do with venting and punishing, I don't believe that there was any serious attempt to wipe away their identities. Cutting someone into pieces....and separating the head from the body, is such an act.

[Fisherman]

That's why flaps are not a significant factor when marrying these series of murders, the convenience and speed would appeal to many in that heightened state of excitement and fear.

When was it proven that the killer was in a state of "excitement and fear", Michael? Is it just a suggestion of yours?

Was the killer in a state of fear when cutting Jackson up, in all probability in a private lair?

The flaps are significant and very, very important. If yu can prove that they were simply coincidental, then fine.

You may find that hard, though.