Lechmere the serial killer?

[Fisherman]

That was your arrogance.

Ah - thanks! For a second there I thought it was a blind bat. Dreadful animals.

[Pierre]

Elamarna: Fisherman,


It would be an important factor yes, but not the overriding one to me.
Just because there has not been one, does not preclude one occurring

Not preclude, no - but the balance of probabilities comes pretty damn close to ruling it out.


That is a possibility but one needs to see how the killer goes about his work, even with different tools, the basic approach should remain fairly constant.

The basic approach was to cut away the abdominal wall in flaps.


The tool used would not matter, would would be of interest would be where the pinky was cut, which joint.

No, that would be secondary. It would be of some slightly academic interest, but the implications would be very clear nevertheless: In all probability the same man.
Thatīs why the press would dub him the Pinky killer.
And that is also why no second Pinky killer would surface.

I do not believe I am sticking my head in the sand, time will out

Couldnīt disagree less.


ah but what if you are not?

What do you mean?


No, I will accept it as a possible solution, which does nevertheless have some sensible thinking behind it, but that is it.

Possibilities based on sensible thinking are normally true, so thatīs fine by me.


Close in that it is a possibility, but far apart on the probability I would suggest.

Never join the police, Steve, promise me that.

Iīm so happy. My research does not depend on flaps.

[Pierre]

Sorry, what was that...?

That was your arrogance.

[Abby Normal]

nothing. let it pass.

please

[Fisherman]

Sorry, what was that...?

[Pierre]

QUOTE=Fisherman;391042

Thatīs just fine, Steve. The crux of the matter, though - as I pointed out - is that there WAS facial damage done to women in both series

It doesnīt matter if there was "facial damage done" "in both series", since these two definitions are too wide for being significant. If you want significance you must have some hypothesis for why the Whitechapel killer performed facial mutilations specifically on Eddowes and Kelly and not on the other ones. You must be able to explain, with an hypothesis based on sources of some kind, why he did those specifically.

Remember that you want to connect Lechmere to mutilating the face of Eddowes. Then you must have an hypothesis based on a source or sources for why he did it specifically in that case. The same goes for Kelly. And also, you must have an hypothesis based on a source or sources for why the mutilations on Kelly were very extensive.

Otherwise, there is no historical explanation for what he did and why. There are just speculations.

And therefore it is not sufficient as an historical argument to say that there was "facial damage done" "in both series". Do you understand?

In the Riper series, all we know is that there was facial damage to two out of a handful oc victims. The comparison os therefore relevant.

But totally useless, a very blunt tool for historical analysis, Fisherman. It may be sufficient for some headlines from a journalist but not for historical analysis.

And - as I also pointed out - there are very many other common factors, that cannot, ought not and will not be skipped over.

And those are treated in the same journalistic way. Wide definitions without any connections to idiographic explanations.

I actually think you treat your "killer" as if he was an idiot. Theoretically, that is.

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: Fisherman,


It would be an important factor yes, but not the overriding one to me.
Just because there has not been one, does not preclude one occurring

Not preclude, no - but the balance of probabilities comes pretty damn close to ruling it out.


That is a possibility but one needs to see how the killer goes about his work, even with different tools, the basic approach should remain fairly constant.

The basic approach was to cut away the abdominal wall in flaps.


The tool used would not matter, would would be of interest would be where the pinky was cut, which joint.

No, that would be secondary. It would be of some slightly academic interest, but the implications would be very clear nevertheless: In all probability the same man.
Thatīs why the press would dub him the Pinky killer.
And that is also why no second Pinky killer would surface.

I do not believe I am sticking my head in the sand, time will out

Couldnīt disagree less.


ah but what if you are not?

What do you mean?


No, I will accept it as a possible solution, which does nevertheless have some sensible thinking behind it, but that is it.

Possibilities based on sensible thinking are normally true, so thatīs fine by me.


Close in that it is a possibility, but far apart on the probability I would suggest.

Never join the police, Steve, promise me that.

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;391073]

No teeth kicking needed at all

Partyspoiler... !

Here I disagree completely,
The method commonly used to open up the body is to cut flaps, which are retracted, they may be completely removed, they may not be.

I am not talking about just the methods which may be used by killers, but anyone removing organs, be that from people or animals.

We did go over this some time ago and nothing has changed you have one view I another, that is as far as we can go on that I think.

Ah - I see what you mean now. Technically speaking, I suppose that a cut from sternum to pelvis would produce two "flaps" of the abdominak wall, one on each side of the cut.
But this is not what we are discussing, is it? We are discussing flaps that were REMOVED, taken away from the abdomen, leaving the innards on display. SUch flaps, and such flaps only are what I am discussing.


Please see my above statement, I am talking about the removal of organs in general, not murders.

Well, I am not. I am specifically talking about murders. That is where I want to see any precedence, in any case. After all, we are dealing with murder cases and not with surgeons operating on people. Letīs stick with the subject!


The knife skill appears to be at least partially valid, in that both series were conducted by someone who knew how to use a knife, but it is no more specific than that.

"Knew how to use knife"? In both series, there was exceedingly skilful cutting on display, enough to make the medicos suggest a surgeon at work. How likely is it that TWO serial killers in the same town at the same time possess such skill?

I have already said that I do not consider the geography or time frame to be significantly similar. You disagree fair enough.

Itīs more than that - it is a prerequisite. It is the very reason we are discussing this.

With regards to victimology, given that all but one is it of the torso victims is unknown, how can any comparison be made?

I just did. Didnīt you notice? The comparison that CAN be made points to the same victimology.

When dismembering, of course organs, including the colon will be cut and maybe severed, therefore I do not see that it can be positively said this is a deliberate act in the Torso case (It could be, however I do not feel there is enough information to draw a conclusion on this); it obviously is in the C5 cases..

It takes TWO cuts that completely severs the colon, Steve. That puts it beyond coincidence, not least when it happens THREE times.


That is your opinion, mine is different, but such is life.

Yes. And many bad cops keep their jobs.


Ah, this is where we really disagree, I made my points in the last post, obviously you see it differently from me, we will have to agree to disagree I think.

Yes, letīs.


Would I bet there was no parallel case reported - probably not
would I bet there were two killers- at present on the balance of probability - yes.

However I am always open to persuasion, with enough evidence that is.
At present I just don't see such to convince me.

Note to self: Never enter on any gambling or betting together with Steve, uness I make the calls.

[Elamarna]

Fisherman,

when I replied it seemed you had not commented on the second part of my post, however you obviously did.

Taking the teeth comparison, and a very good choice by the way.
I would suggest that it would depend on how the teeth had been removed:
Had they been pulled, had they been hacked out, has they could be, did both victims show the same degree of damage to the mouth area/ possible skill employed.

It would play a role and raise questions - but the overriding matter would be that the killer removed teeth at all. We should NOT expect two such killers in the same area and time. There would be no historic precedence - and for a reason.

It would be an important factor yes, but not the overriding one to me.
Just because there has not been one, does not preclude one occurring

If the method was similar then it is probably the same hand.

If the methods vary, that will probably be due to different implements, not different killers.

That is a possibility but one needs to see how the killer goes about his work, even with different tools, the basic approach should remain fairly constant.

The same applies to the Torso/C5 cases, if the cutting was similar, showed the same degree of skill then probably by the same hand.
To me it is not how rare or not the end results are, be that cutting flaps of skin or removing teeth that is important, but the methods used to achive those ends that are.
However, and it is a big however, we do not know those details.

You are - with respect - sticking your head in the sand. And deep too. If two murder victims are found with missing pinkies, one taken away with pliers and one cut off with a knife, the reasonable deduction is that it is the same killer. It would be a very odd thing to do, and THAT is what rules the decision. Do you realistically think that any police force would move with the idea that the difference in method would point to different killers?

The tool used would not matter, would would be of interest would be where the pinky was cut, which joint.

I do not believe I am sticking my head in the sand, time will out

It seems we see this from a different perspective with regards to what is the primary area of importance, I have no problem with that.

Nor do I - as long as I am correct.

ah but what if you are not?

And while it remains an interesting theory, it is not possible to confirm or deny it.

So letīs just settle for accepting it as the only truly reasonable suggestion.

No, I will accept it as a possible solution, which does nevertheless have some sensible thinking behind it, but that is it.

It could be the cuts and skill were identical, if so case closed I agree; but they may be so dissimilar that it would be obvious to anyone.
Sadly we do not know, I hope you agree with that?

Itīs sad we donīt know, yes. But as I keep saying, we know quite enough. Iīm glad to hear you think it is case closed if the cutting was similar - it tells me you know we are close.

Close in that it is a possibility, but far apart on the probability I would suggest



Steve

[Elamarna]

Before we proceed to teethkicking, let me just say thanks for your replying!

No teeth kicking needed at all

Great. There are those who claim it could have been collateral damage, but I am very opposed to that.

Me too

yes, both intentional cuts, but not by same hand.

I take it you mean "not necessarily by the same hand". Or do yu have evidence that it was different hands?

Yes, my mistake, not necessarily.

Just to go back over the issue, cutting flaps is the common practice when wishing to gain entry to the body's internal organs, there was no keyhole Surgery.

I would disagree. A cut to the abdomen is what people who wish to extract organs normally produce. Otherwise, we would know of examples where killers have cut away flaps of the abdominal wall - and we donīt. I have seen one other example only, a deranged killer who cut up a body and dried it, if I remeber correctly. He cut away the abomen in flaps. But it is extremely unusual! In fact, even if half of the evisceration killers did it, we would still only have a handful of such men in the period 1880-1900 in London. If even that!

Here I disagree completely,
The method commonly used to open up the body is to cut flaps, which are retracted, they may be completely removed, they may not be.

I am not talking about just the methods which may be used by killers, but anyone removing organs, be that from people or animals.

We did go over this some time ago and nothing has changed you have one view I another, that is as far as we can go on that I think.

I urge you to produce any examples at all where the abdominal wall was cut away in panes from murder victims. It is important that you substantiate your ideas here!

Please see my above statement, I am talking about the removal of organs in general, not murders.

If those flaps had been cut in an identical or near identical fashion, then you would certainly have a very strong case.

I have a very strong case just the same, Steve. Think, if you will, about the Texas eyeball killer, who gouged out the eyes from his victims. If it had been done more crudely in one instance or with anither inplement in another, the significance would still lie in the wish to gouge out the eyes.
We also know that the same killer who cut away four flaps from Chapman cut away three from Kelly - does that mean two killers to you?

No I believe same killer, however there are plenty who do not.

This is where you miss out on the practical implications. They are clear and unambiguous, not because we know that the abdomens were removed in a certain cutting fashion in all three cases, but because we know that they were removed at all.

Plus, of course, we need to add the other similarities too: colon segments cut away, the knife skill, the victimology, the geography, the timing.

The knife skill appears to be at least partially valid, in that both series were conducted by someone who knew how to use a knife, but it is no more specific than that.

I have already said that I do not consider the geography or time frame to be significantly similar. You disagree fair enough.

With regards to victimology, given that all but one is it of the torso victims is unknown, how can any comparison be made?

When dismembering, of course organs, including the colon will be cut and maybe severed, therefore I do not see that it can be positively said this is a deliberate act in the Torso case (It could be, however I do not feel there is enough information to draw a conclusion on this); it obviously is in the C5 cases..

Added together, I would say that onehundred out of a hundred police investigators would work from the assumption that they were dealing with just the one killer. If one policeman deviated, he COULD be correct - but ought to get fired.
[/B]

That is your opinion, mine is different, but such is life.

However, and I hope we can agree on this, the information which would either support or not the same hand is not as far as I am aware available.

[B]I think it is. There is no detailed information about how the flaps were cut away, but there IS information that they were.

Ah, this is where we really disagree, I made my points in the last post, obviously you see it differently from me, we will have to agree to disagree I think.

And to speculate that two killers in the same town, at the same time, would engage in abdominal flap cutting just by coincidence is sheer folly, as far as Iīm concerned. I would bet all I have that there is no parallel case, where this happened. WOuld you bet against it?

Would I bet there was no parallel case reported - probably not
would I bet there were two killers- at present on the balance of probability - yes.

However I am always open to persuasion, with enough evidence that is.
At present I just don't see such to convince me.


Regards


Steve

[Fisherman]

Before we proceed to teethkicking, let me just say thanks for your replying!

Elamarna: Yes, that would seem clear

Great. There are those who claim it could have been collateral damage, but I am very opposed to that.

yes, both intentional cuts, but not by same hand.

I take it you mean "not necessarily by the same hand". Or do yu have evidence that it was different hands?

Just to go back over the issue, cutting flaps is the common practice when wishing to gain entry to the body's internal organs, there was no keyhole Surgery.

I would disagree. A cut to the abdomen is what people who wish to extract organs normally produce. Otherwise, we would know of examples where killers have cut away flaps of the abdominal wall - and we donīt. I have seen one other example only, a deranged killer who cut up a body and dried it, if I remeber correctly. He cut away the abomen in flaps. But it is extremely unusual! In fact, even if half of the evisceration killers did it, we would still only have a handful of such men in the period 1880-1900 in London. If even that!
I urge you to produce any examples at all where the abdominal wall was cut away in panes from murder victims. It is important that you substantiate your ideas here!

And this may suggest, I say may, that the killer/killers had some knowledge of what they were doing.
If those flaps had been cut in an identical or near identical fashion, then you would certainly have a very strong case.

I have a very strong case just the same, Steve. Think, if you will, about the Texas eyeball killer, who gouged out the eyes from his victims. If it had been done more crudely in one instance or with anither inplement in another, the significance would still lie in the wish to gouge out the eyes.
We also know that the same killer who cut away four flaps from Chapman cut away three from Kelly - does that mean two killers to you?
This is where you miss out on the practical implications. They are clear and unambiguous, not because we know that the abdomens were removed in a certain cutting fashion in all three cases, but because we know that they were removed at all.

Plus, of course, we need to add the other similarities too: colon segments cut away, the knife skill, the victimology, the geography, the timing.

Added together, I would say that onehundred out of a hundred police investigators would work from the assumption that they were dealing with just the one killer. If one policeman deviated, he COULD be correct - but ought to get fired.

However, and I hope we can agree on this, the information which would either support or not the same hand is not as far as I am aware available.

I think it is. There is no detailed information about how the flaps were cut away, but there IS information that they were. And to speculate that two killers in the same town, at the same time, would engage in abdominal flap cutting just by coincidence is sheer folly, as far as Iīm concerned. I would bet all I have that there is no parallel case, where this happened. Would you bet against it?


Taking the teeth comparison, and a very good choice by the way.
I would suggest that it would depend on how the teeth had been removed:
Had they been pulled, had they been hacked out, has they could be, did both victims show the same degree of damage to the mouth area/ possible skill employed.

It would play a role and raise questions - but the overriding matter would be that the killer removed teeth at all. We should NOT expect two such killers in the same area and time. There would be no historic precedence - and for a reason.

If the method was similar then it is probably the same hand.

If the methods vary, that will probably be due to different implements, not different killers.

The same applies to the Torso/C5 cases, if the cutting was similar, showed the same degree of skill then probably by the same hand.
To me it is not how rare or not the end results are, be that cutting flaps of skin or removing teeth that is important, but the methods used to achive those ends that are.
However, and it is a big however, we do not know those details.

You are - with respect - sticking your head in the sand. And deep too. If two murder victims are found with missing pinkies, one taken away with pliers and one cut off with a knife, the reasonable deduction is that it is the same killer. It would be a very odd thing to do, and THAT is what rules the decision. Do you realistically think that any police force would move with the idea that the difference in method would point to different killers?

It seems we see this from a different perspective with regards to what is the primary area of importance, I have no problem with that.

Nor do I - as long as I am correct.


And while it remains an interesting theory, it is not possible to confirm or deny it.

So letīs just settle for accepting it as the only truly reasonable suggestion.

It could be the cuts and skill were identical, if so case closed I agree; but they may be so dissimilar that it would be obvious to anyone.
Sadly we do not know, I hope you agree with that?

Itīs sad we donīt know, yes. But as I keep saying, we know quite enough. Iīm glad to hear you think it is case closed if the cutting was similar - it tells me you know we are close.

You see I do not dismiss the possibility they were by the same hand, but it is just that a possibility, you seem to see it as a probability, a near certainty, that is where we differ.

To be fair, you cannot dismiss the possibility on any reasonable grounds. De facto, I donīt think it can be argued that it is some sort of fifty/fifty case. It is in the region of 99,9/0,01. Coincidences are fine, but a line must be drawn here.

hope that is now clearer.

It was never anything but crystal clear...

[Elamarna]

I realize that your post was aimed for Abby, but I would like to ask you neverhteless:

Annie Chapmans abdominal wall was cut away in four panes, three of them being found at the murder scene, flung over the victim.

They could not possibly have been collateral damage. They must have been intentionally cut away from the corpse. Can we agree on that?

Yes, that would seem clear

If so, the killer did something that is extremely unusual. I have asked you to provide evidence to the contrary if you disagree, and so far, I have seen no such evidence.

Mary Kellys abdominal wall was removed in three large panes, and left at the table beside the bed on which she lay. Once again, it must have been consciously done by the killer. One can imagine how he cuts the panes away, and places them on the table as he works, to get them out of the way.

Once again, this extremely unusual trait surfaces with a Ripper victim. It deserves mentioning that the two victims who suffered this fate were arguably the ones who the killer had at his hands for the longest period of time, allowing him to indulge in his wishes more than in, say, Bucks Row.

Finally, when Liz Jacksons cut out uterus was found, it had been floated down the Thames in a package. That package contained two long irregular flaps taken from the abdominal wall of Jackson, plus the uterus, with placenta and cord. Once again, we may see that the killer had intentionally cut away the abdominal wall in panes.

How on earth would this be coincidental, Steve? Are you saying that the Ripper intentionally cut away the abdominal walls of Chapman and Kelly, and lo and behold, by sheer coincidence, the torso killer ALSO cut away the abdominal wall from one of his victims? Is that what you mean by coincidence?
A simple "yes" or "no" would be greatly appreciated here if you donīt wish to elaborate further on the issue.

Hi Fisherman
yes, both intentional cuts, but not by same hand.

Just to go back over the issue, cutting flaps is the common practice when wishing to gain entry to the body's internal organs, there was no keyhole Surgery.

And this may suggest, I say may, that the killer/killers had some knowledge of what they were doing.
If those flaps had been cut in an identical or near identical fashion, then you would certainly have a very strong case.

However, and I hope we can agree on this, the information which would either support or not the same hand is not as far as I am aware available.

PS. I just noted your last post, but I think the issue would be useful to discuss nevertheless. I also noted that you say that we do not know whether the cuts to the abdominal walls were similar in execution (!), but my stance is that such a thing is totally secondary to the primary fact that BOTH killers seemingly had a taste for removing abdominal walls in large flaps. Once more, if this was a usual thing, I would be more inclined to regard the cutting technique imortant, but it is by no stretch of the imagination any usual thing at all. It is rarer than henīs teeth, and therefore the significance of it is monumental. A comparison would be if two killers removed wisdom teeth from their victims. Would we need to have the exact same kind of pliers confirmed before we realized that we were almost certainly dealing with the same killer in such a case?

I would propose that removing teeth is far more common than removing the abdominal wall in flaps, by the way - but it would nevertheless be a clincher. Or do you disagree?

Taking the teeth comparison, and a very good choice by the way.
I would suggest that it would depend on how the teeth had been removed:

Had they been pulled, had they been hacked out, has they could be, did both victims show the same degree of damage to the mouth area/ possible skill employed.

If the method was similar then it is probably the same hand.

The same applies to the Torso/C5 cases, if the cutting was similar, showed the same degree of skill then probably by the same hand.
To me it is not how rare or not the end results are, be that cutting flaps of skin or removing teeth that is important, but the methods used to achive those ends that are.
However, and it is a big however, we do not know those details.

It seems we see this from a different perspective with regards to what is the primary area of importance, I have no problem with that.


And while it remains an interesting theory, it is not possible to confirm or deny it.

It could be the cuts and skill were identical, if so case closed I agree; but they may be so dissimilar that it would be obvious to anyone.
Sadly we do not know, I hope you agree with that?

You see I do not dismiss the possibility they were by the same hand, but it is just that a possibility, you seem to see it as a probability, a near certainty, that is where we differ.

hope that is now clearer.


Steve

[Jon Guy]

Once again, this extremely unusual trait surfaces with a Ripper victim. It deserves mentioning that the two victims who suffered this fate were arguably the ones who the killer had at his hands for the longest period of time, allowing him to induge in his wishes more than in, say, Bucks Row.

Also, and probably more importantly, there was more ambient light available when Kelly and Chapman were murdered.

[Fisherman]

Yes there are some similarities, but they are not precise and are in my opinion little more than coincidence, I just do not see that two sets of murders committed in the same city are necessarily linked because of that fact that is all.

steve

I realize that your post was aimed for Abby, but I would like to ask you neverhteless:

Annie Chapmans abdominal wall was cut away in four panes, three of them being found at the murder scene, flung over the victim.

They could not possibly have been collateral damage. They must have been intentionally cut away from the corpse. Can we agree on that?

If so, the killer did something that is extremely unusual. I have asked you to provide evidence to the contrary if you disagree, and so far, I have seen no such evidence.

Mary Kellys abdominal wall was removed in three large panes, and left at the table beside the bed on which she lay. Once again, it must have been consciously done by the killer. One can imagine how he cuts the panes away, and places them on the table as he works, to get them out of the way.

Once again, this extremely unusual trait surfaces with a Ripper victim. It deserves mentioning that the two victims who suffered this fate were arguably the ones who the killer had at his hands for the longest period of time, allowing him to indulge in his wishes more than in, say, Bucks Row.

Finally, when Liz Jacksons cut out uterus was found, it had been floated down the Thames in a package. That package contained two long irregular flaps taken from the abdominal wall of Jackson, plus the uterus, with placenta and cord. Once again, we may see that the killer had intentionally cut away the abdominal wall in panes.

How on earth would this be coincidental, Steve? Are you saying that the Ripper intentionally cut away the abdominal walls of Chapman and Kelly, and lo and behold, by sheer coincidence, the torso killer ALSO cut away the abdominal wall from one of his victims? Is that what you mean by coincidence?
A simple "yes" or "no" would be greatly appreciated here if you donīt wish to elaborate further on the issue.

PS. I just noted your last post, but I think the issue would be useful to discuss nevertheless. I also noted that you say that we do not know whether the cuts to the abdominal walls were similar in execution (!), but my stance is that such a thing is totally secondary to the primary fact that BOTH killers seemingly had a taste for removing abdominal walls in large flaps. Once more, if this was a usual thing, I would be more inclined to regard the cutting technique imortant, but it is by no stretch of the imagination any usual thing at all. It is rarer than henīs teeth, and therefore the significance of it is monumental. A comparison would be if two killers removed wisdom teeth from their victims. Would we need to have the exact same kind of pliers confirmed before we realized that we were almost certainly dealing with the same killer in such a case?

I would propose that removing teeth is far more common than removing the abdominal wall in flaps, by the way - but it would nevertheless be a clincher. Or do you disagree?

[Elamarna]

-

Elamarna: Please, just what are you saying i am trying to pass off as "accepted fact"?

[B]I am not saying that you are passing anything off as "accepted fact" - I am warning against such a thing. It was a tongue-in-cheek remark, led on by how you first said that I am passing things off as accepted fact (which I am not) and then went on to try and convince the boards that I am so infatuated with Lechmere that I cannot think straight.

To be fair to you I did not see the comment as "tongue-in- check", but am happy to accept it as such.

Maybe in a similar vein, you did not fully understand what I was alluding to, it was the comment :

"They are a guarantee for a shared ID, more or less."



I was referring to, that did not come across to me as an opinion, if that is how you meant it, then I misinterpreted it, if so I am sorry.

[B]So it is not a fact that women in both series had their abdominal walls removed in large panes?
It is not a fact that women from both series had parts of their colons removed?
It is not a fact that both killers cut victims open from sternum to pelvis?
It is not a fact that medicos judged both killers to be so skilled with the knife as to compete with a surgeons ability?
It is not a fact that both killers took away both exually and non-sexually related body parts from their victims?

Is that what you are claiming, Steve? Or are you saying that you did not claim as a fact that I am too infatuated with Lechmere to be a useful discussion partner? if so, good on you.

Firstly the the similarities are in my view superficial and on that we obviously do not agree.


Secondly, no you are certainly a good person to discuss things with, far better than many on here.
I have commented on this before and recently defended the docu, as you know.
However my view is that you are infatuated with Lechmere; and have not in my opinion proved your case at present with regards to either him being the Whitechapel killer or the torso killer.

You have so far managed to claim that the geographical correlation and the time correlation are of no consequence and you have seemingly denied the existence of numerous very clear facts. I find it a bit hard to discuss with somebody with that kind of an agenda. But weīll get it straightened out, no doubt.

PS. Where are the examples of people who removed the abdominal walls in large panes from their victims...?

No I have not denied the existence of very clear facts, I have disagreed with the interpretation of them, that is very different.

The Flaps, the Flaps, we discussed this some months back, we did not agree then, and nothing has changed.

We have only superficial reports of the flaps, we have no evidence that the cuts are similar in execution, nor to how the flaps looked.

I see little point in restarting that debate given that neither or us appears to have changed our view, it would be a waste of time would it not?

regards


steve