Same motive = same killer

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hang on Steve......lets get this right.......are you suggesting that Lechmere wasnt the Ripper?

[Abby Normal]

I fully understand him but for you to accept what he says kicks the arse out of your theory and I quote what he says

"I don't think (from what I have read) that there are sufficient similarities between the cases to conclude that the same 'killer' dismembered the bodies"

Maybe its time for you to withdraw?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

This is the dr who recommends a book that’s partially based on trows book?

Lol. Dr Biggs is not very impressive, and Its painfully obvious he really doesn’t knows or care enough about the torso or ripper case to be of any value.

[Abby Normal]

Well so much for the levity, I guess were back to being *******s.

Sam and el, that really uncalled for. Shame on you both. Seriously.

Dick moves. Big time

[Elamarna]

Hang on Steve......lets get this right.......are you suggesting that Lechmere wasnt the Ripper?

No Herlock, i would never go that far.

He MAY have been, but much of the "evidence" used in the Documentary, over which I accept Christer had no control, is either misleading or totally inaccurate.

He is as good a suspect as several others and cannot be ruled out; however it fair to say I do not see the evidence to make a particularly strong case against him.

Thats a fair summary of my position.

Steve

[Sam Flynn]

Sam and el, that really uncalled for.

Not uncalled for at all, simply a home-truth about the flimsiness of the case against Lechmere presented by the documentary, on the basis of which thousands of viewers apparently believe him to be the Ripper.

[Fisherman]

Not uncalled for at all, simply a home-truth about the flimsiness of the case against Lechmere presented by the documentary, on the basis of which thousands of viewers apparently believe him to be the Ripper.

Good on them! They are most probably correct.

[Abby Normal]

Not uncalled for at all, simply a home-truth about the flimsiness of the case against Lechmere presented by the documentary, on the basis of which thousands of viewers apparently believe him to be the Ripper.

bullshit. first of all totally off topic, out of the blue and mean spirited.

Ive seen the docu and its one of the better ones. theres a few innacuracies, which youll find in any docu, none of which couldn't be possible anyway, and fish wasn't the fricken director. and lech isn't even a bad suspect.

it was a totally uncalled for attack.

you can go pound salt on this one.

[Fisherman]

Well so much for the levity, I guess were back to being *******s.

Sam and el, that really uncalled for. Shame on you both. Seriously.

Dick moves. Big time

Actually, I find it kind of amusing, Abby. And revealing. I am not opposed to letting them go on, since I am confident that those who make a fair judgment will immediately see what it is all about.

There are flaws in the docu, as could be expected, and they have been commented on numerous times - which is as it should be. When somebody goes totally over the top, though, constructive criticism turns into bitterness, distortion and tasteless attacks.

People recognize that when they see it.

[Fisherman]

But you are of course correct, Abby, that Lechmere and the docu is about as off-topic as it can be.

Maybe we should return to the issue at hand, gentlemen?

[Debra A]

This is the dr who recommends a book that’s partially based on trows book?

Lol. Dr Biggs is not very impressive, and Its painfully obvious he really doesn’t knows or care enough about the torso or ripper case to be of any value.

Hi Abby,

The book that Dr Biggs recommended to Trevor was an academic forensic text book dealing exclusively with dismemberment cases and written by highly qualified people.
The book included a chapter on historical dismemberment, written by a historian it deals with dismemberment in a historical context and briefly mentions a couple of what the author calls calls the 'Thames Torso' cases. The details are scant and teh author cites Mei Trow's Thames torso book for some of the information. The chapter is no way as detailed as message board discussions and articles written.
One of the editors/authors of the textbook is G N Rutty, a colleague of Dr Biggs I believe. Dr Rutty appears to have different ideas to Dr Biggs on whether or not cases can be linked by teh mode of dismemberment and tools used.

Like Fisherman, I do agree with Dr Biggs in most things he says. He's a very sensible man.
Dr Biggs did in fact say that most medical people can/could remove internal organs from one long incision on a body without removing flaps of flesh to facilitate that. He also suggested that excess flesh removed from a body to access something would suggest someone unskilled and not medically trained. This goes against the idea that Elizabeth may have died during a back street medical procedure and her organs removed and sold by a medical man.

It doesn't rule out death by something like poisoning whilst attempting to bring on a miscarriage though and the body dismembered to get rid of the evidence, similar to the Yellow Pond case in the US.

[Abby Normal]

But you are of course correct, Abby, that Lechmere and the docu is about as off-topic as it can be.

Maybe we should return to the issue at hand, gentlemen?

yup. lets.

I'm struck by the recent capture of the Golden state killer. this guys apparent differences and locations led people to think that there were THREE!?! different perpetrators: the Visalia Ransacker, The East Area Rapist and the Original Nightstalker.

wasn't connected till much later.

of course there was a common thread that ran through all of them. the similarities of sig/MO.

sound familiar?

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

The book that Dr Biggs recommended to Trevor was an academic forensic text book dealing exclusively with dismemberment cases and written by highly qualified people.
The book included a chapter on historical dismemberment, written by a historian it deals with dismemberment in a historical context and briefly mentions a couple of what the author calls calls the 'Thames Torso' cases. The details are scant and teh author cites Mei Trow's Thames torso book for some of the information. The chapter is no way as detailed as message board discussions and articles written.
One of the editors/authors of the textbook is G N Rutty, a colleague of Dr Biggs I believe. Dr Rutty appears to have different ideas to Dr Biggs on whether or not cases can be linked by teh mode of dismemberment and tools used.

Like Fisherman, I do agree with Dr Biggs in most things he says. He's a very sensible man.
Dr Biggs did in fact say that most medical people can/could remove internal organs from one long incision on a body without removing flaps of flesh to facilitate that. He also suggested that excess flesh removed from a body to access something would suggest someone unskilled and not medically trained. This goes against the idea that Elizabeth may have died during a back street medical procedure and her organs removed and sold by a medical man.

It doesn't rule out death by something like poisoning whilst attempting to bring on a miscarriage though and the body dismembered to get rid of the evidence, similar to the Yellow Pond case in the US.

thanks Debs
I appreciate that. of course your correct.
however, I get the distinct impression that dr. Biggs is not really all that knowledgable(interested?) about the history aspect and the context of the ripper/torso cases.

I have little regard for Trow.

It doesn't rule out death by something like poisoning whilst attempting to bring on a miscarriage though and the body dismembered to get rid of the evidence, similar to the Yellow Pond case in the US

and thanks for this!!! I actually been waiting for this-I asked you a while back to expound on the hint you gave about Jackson re this.

Interesting. I think you mentioned there was evidence her family was trying to get rid of the baby, or something like this??? or maybe her man was trying to get rid of her because she was pregnant?

full disclosure-I had no idea poisoning was even a thing for aborting babies.

please xpound. of course we all know I lean toward one torso man responsible for the torso murders and that he and the ripper were the same.

and this line of reasoning goes against that, but I keep an open mind and in the end, all I am only interested in the truth.

please let us know if you are going to expand on this idea that jackson might have been killed (accidently or not) by family/friends/lover etc. becaue of her pregnancy-or any other reason.

[Fisherman]

yup. lets.

I'm struck by the recent capture of the Golden state killer. this guys apparent differences and locations led people to think that there were THREE!?! different perpetrators: the Visalia Ransacker, The East Area Rapist and the Original Nightstalker.

wasn't connected till much later.

of course there was a common thread that ran through all of them. the similarities of sig/MO.

sound familiar?

It does - and indeed, there was a (now retired) detective who kept banging on about how the caes were probably connected, but for deaf ears (does that sound familiar too? )

In the end, he was proven right. And he had a lot less to go on than we have. Plus the cases were far more common in character than the rare cases we are dealing with, involving elements of what must be described as looking very much like sexual mutilation.

[Trevor Marriott]

This is the dr who recommends a book that’s partially based on trows book?

Lol. Dr Biggs is not very impressive, and Its painfully obvious he really doesn’t knows or care enough about the torso or ripper case to be of any value.

I think you should read the book first before you pre judge it the author is a medical forensic professor and far more intelligent than you are ever likely to be

The reality is that you and Fisherman cannot accept the fact that Dr Biggs has negated the main issues, which have been put forward to suggest the torsos were murdered and murdered by the same killer.

I think as a forensic pathologist Dr Biggs just has the edge and medical knowledge over you, Fisheman and the other deluded individuals who follow him. Your statement just goes to show what a clown you are.

And as of now I will not be publishing any further information from him.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

I think you should read the book first before you pre judge it the author is a medical forensic professor and far more intelligent than you are ever likely to be

The reality is that you and Fisherman cannot accept the fact that Dr Biggs has negated the main issues, which have been put forward to suggest the torsos were murdered and murdered by the same killer.

I think as a forensic pathologist Dr Biggs just has the edge and medical knowledge over you, Fisheman and the other deluded individuals who follow him. Your statement just goes to show what a clown you are.

And as of now I will not be publishing any further information from him.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Strange how that coincides with my request to provide him with a list of similarities and THEN ask him if there is reason to connect the cases....