Lechmere the serial killer?

[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.

[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]

Sorry, what was that...?

[Abby Normal]

nothing. let it pass.

please

[Pierre]

Sorry, what was that...?

That was your arrogance.

[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.

[Fisherman]

That was your arrogance.

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

[Fisherman]

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

More like flops... Thereīs that bat again!

[Elamarna]

Just a few comments

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.

It is what I am discussing, I believed we were discussing if the method of opening the body to obtain organs by the means of flaps is common or not.


If the killer was someone trained to do this, be it butcher, doctor, a student of anatomy or physiology, or even someone who seen dissections at school, it would not be unknown, and would be the common way to gain entry for such persons.

If not trained then it would be uncommon, and two separate series of murders with the same type cuts could could suggest a link.

However we do not know who the killer/killers were or if they were trained or not.
with all due respect and to paraphrase Littlechild, - you only think you know.

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!

But I am, and i see it as sticking to the subject entirely, it is not for one person to define the limits of a discussion.

You do not agree with me, so be it.

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 would argue that they were not extremely skillful, just skilled in the use of a knife.
It also appears the torso man knew how and where to saw a body to separate it, possibly a different skill set from the whitechapel killer who shows no such skill..

So how likely is it that two killers with similar skills were at large at the same time in 1888 London?
Considering the population size, and London’s world status as a trading centre at the time I do not think you can rule the possibility out.

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.

Its not up to one person to say accepting something is a prerequisite to debate surely?

It is for this very reason I joined this thread. I did not agree with the statement made by Abby about the similarities.
If I have to accept the view before I can debate this is little point in debating is there?

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.

I must have missed it, the point is certainly not proven.

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.
whitehall

If you dismember and remove the body from the pelvis down as in the Whitehall case, you are likely to encounter the colon more than once.
It depends on where you cut, that’s just anatomy, nothing to do with coincidence at all.

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

Yes. And many bad cops keep their jobs.

Given that I am obviously not a cop, but a retired natural scientist, the point of that statement is?

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.

The same applies in reverse Fish, I can see myself losing big .

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.

No, that was the result, not the approach, not the method used or the skill shown.

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.

Disagree completely, not slight academic interest but central to the debate.

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?

You said you are happy as long as you are correct, I just asked what if you are not correct, meaning if that were the case would you still be happy?

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.

At my age I can promise that 100%

steve

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: Just a few comments

It is what I am discussing, I believed we were discussing if the method of opening the body to obtain organs by the means of flaps is common or not.

We were not. We were discussing if there are any examples of killers cutting away the abdominal walls from their victims in panes. That is what is of interest here.


If the killer was someone trained to do this, be it butcher, doctor, a student of anatomy or physiology, or even someone who seen dissections at school, it would not be unknown, and would be the common way to gain entry for such persons.

So what you are saying is that the two killers were both ex anatomists who used to perform dissections...? Would that not be quite a coincidence?

If not trained then it would be uncommon, and two separate series of murders with the same type cuts could could suggest a link.

It would be utterly and extremely uncommon anyway, if two killers used the method on their victims in the same town at the same time, by sheer coincidence. That does not happen, Steve. Once again, exemplify! What other killer did it? If you can fond no examples, or just the odd and very rare one, then do the maths, please. Draw the conclusions.
The key thing is the rarity of the measure, not the technical performance of it. If two victims are stabbed in the abdomen, they can well have met different killers. If two victims have their abdomens removed in panes, then we can conclude that it is the same killer with a near 100 per cent certainty.

However we do not know who the killer/killers were or if they were trained or not.
with all due respect and to paraphrase Littlechild, - you only think you know.

I do think I know, and I do so on excellent grounds. To celebrate the idea that it MAY have been two killers is to feast on air.


But I am, and i see it as sticking to the subject entirely, it is not for one person to define the limits of a discussion.

You do not agree with me, so be it.

Murders with abdominal walls removed is the only thing discussed here. It is the only thing that should be discussed here. The rest is irrelevant, Iīm afraid. The fact that a butcher may electrocute bulls does not mean that it makes an electrocution murder a triviality. We cannot transfer such thing into real murder situations, it would be improductive.
But I can see why you avoid that discussion.


I would argue that they were not extremely skillful, just skilled in the use of a knife.

Phillips and Galloway disagreed, for whatever thatīs worth.

It also appears the torso man knew how and where to saw a body to separate it, possibly a different skill set from the whitechapel killer who shows no such skill..

Not that we know that he tried, so itīs kind of hard to establish. The marks in the vertebrae of Kelly may be due to excessive force.

So how likely is it that two killers with similar skills were at large at the same time in 1888 London?
Considering the population size, and London’s world status as a trading centre at the time I do not think you can rule the possibility out.

Statistically, I canīt. Practically, I can.

Its not up to one person to say accepting something is a prerequisite to debate surely?

Itīs up to anybody. And it is equally up to anybody to challenge it. And it is up to anybody to draw the conlusion that a person is avoiding a discussion.

It is for this very reason I joined this thread. I did not agree with the statement made by Abby about the similarities.
If I have to accept the view before I can debate this is little point in debating is there?

You have to accept nothing. And I am free to challenge your unwillingness to accept things. Thatīs how the boards work.


I must have missed it, the point is certainly not proven.

It is proven that both killers murdered women who prostituted themselves.


If you dismember and remove the body from the pelvis down as in the Whitehall case, you are likely to encounter the colon more than once.
It depends on where you cut, that’s just anatomy, nothing to do with coincidence at all.

If you inititally cut the transverse colon part, yes. The killer did not, however. In either case. So no, you have no good point there.


Given that I am obviously not a cop, but a retired natural scientist, the point of that statement is?

Ehhh... beyond you?


No, that was the result, not the approach, not the method used or the skill shown.

His approach to the abdomen was to cut away the abdominal flaps. Once more: Have you ever heard of this happening to any other murder victim? Or was it just these two killers who did it, in the history of crime?


Disagree completely, not slight academic interest but central to the debate.

Nope. If two victims are found with the eyes gouged out, one with a knofe, one with a teaspoon, it is the removal of the eyes that sets the agenda, not the iplements. If two victims are found with part of their pinkies removed, then tht is what sets the agenda, not how much of the pinkie is left on the victim. I think anybody can see this. But for you.


You said you are happy as long as you are correct, I just asked what if you are not correct, meaning if that were the case would you still be happy?

I know what you asked me. I was pulling your leg.


At my age I can promise that 100%

Thatīs reassuring! But should not old people be insightful...?

[Fisherman]

To put an end to the discussion:

You say, Steve, that the fact that civilians take away the abdomens in flaps at times, means that we will be looking at two killers, not one.

I say that there is no relevance in that statement. It is only when a trait is transferred to a murder situation that it gains itīs relevance.

Imagine that two victims in the same time period and in the same town are found with their finger- and toenails clipped off. Should that make us conclude that there are so many manicurists around that we must be talking about two different killers?

Curtains down. Goodnight.

[Trevor Marriott]

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 do you know the uterus and the flaps of skin found floating in the thames came from Jackson?

There was no forensics in those days so they could have come from any source could they not ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Joshua Rogan]

"These flaps accurately fitted together in the midline, laterally corresponding to the incisions in the two lower pieces of the trunk."

[Joshua Rogan]

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

Not really....one single slice through the waist will cut the colon in two places. Likewise, one long cut down the midline, if it's deep enough, could also sever the colon in two places. Coincidentally, cutting about two feet adrift. And when removed from the body cavity, also coincidentally, giving access to the left kidney.

[John Wheat]

Not really....one single slice through the waist will cut the colon in two places. Likewise, one long cut down the midline, if it's deep enough, could also sever the colon in two places. Coincidentally, cutting about two feet adrift. And when removed from the body cavity, also coincidentally, giving access to the left kidney.

That's extremely interesting Joshua. I guess those that believe the Ripper was also the Torso Killer will go back to talking about flaps.

Cheers John