Same motive = same killer

[Trevor Marriott]

And still, all the naysayers do is to point out that there were differences. We know that.

It´s explaining and accounting for the similarities that is called for. Who will do that?

Dr Biggs will and does

"If you look at a series of unrelated dismembered bodies, you will see some startling similarities between them. This does not mean you can conclude that they were carried out in the same way / with the same tool(s) / by the same person(s). When disposing of a body people (even without prior knowledge or instruction) tend to adopt very similar strategies for dividing up the body to make it more manageable for concealment / transportation. The finished results end up looking very similar!"

[Fisherman]

And let's not forget that Kelly's killer de-fleshed not only her thighs, but also her entire abdomen. He also cut great chunks of flesh from the chest and ribcage, and damaged the face and arms to a considerable degree.

Now, THIS is what you call a "mutilation murder".

... while cutting away the abdomen in large flaps, combined with ripping the whole of it open from sternum to pelvis, cutting the uterus out together with the cord and placenta and cutting out the heart and lungs from a woman, is NOT what you call a "mutilation murder". That is instead a dismemberment murder, with some slight collateral damage added.

The fact that the degree of mutilation was largest in the Kelly case does not mean that the rest cannot also be mutilation murders.

[Fisherman]

Dr Biggs will and does

"If you look at a series of unrelated dismembered bodies, you will see some startling similarities between them. This does not mean you can conclude that they were carried out in the same way / with the same tool(s) / by the same person(s). When disposing of a body people (even without prior knowledge or instruction) tend to adopt very similar strategies for dividing up the body to make it more manageable for concealment / transportation. The finished results end up looking very similar!"

Biggs is not speaking about the similarities inbetween the Ripper series and the Torso series here. He is - mistakenly - saying that all dismemberment murders look alike.

That´s a different story.

Please note that Biggs only considers dismemberment for concealment and/or transportation, and not dismemberment as being part of a paraphilia. I am sure that you can see the implications of that.

[Trevor Marriott]

Biggs is not speaking about the similarities inbetween the Ripper series and the Torso series here. He is - mistakenly - saying that all dismemberment murders look alike.

That´s a different story.

No he is not saying that all dismemberment murders look alike. What he is saying is that different people can dismember different bodies, and that the end results will all look the same. Because there are only so many ways to cut up a body !

Please note that Biggs only considers dismemberment for concealment and/or transportation, and not dismemberment as being part of a paraphilia. I am sure that you can see the implications of that.

So you are trying to say that the dismemberment is part of the killers MO ? If you are it is nothing more than your own personal opinion, and there is no evidence to support that, and certainly no evidence to link these torsos with the Whitechapel victims. Your similarities do not stand up to close scrutiny

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Debra A]

Dr Biggs will and does

"If you look at a series of unrelated dismembered bodies, you will see some startling similarities between them. This does not mean you can conclude that they were carried out in the same way / with the same tool(s) / by the same person(s). When disposing of a body people (even without prior knowledge or instruction) tend to adopt very similar strategies for dividing up the body to make it more manageable for concealment / transportation. The finished results end up looking very similar!"

Trevor, In his email, Dr Biggs went on to describe the common way in which bodies are usually divided didn't he? Number of divisions etc.

[Debra A]

Elizabeth Jackson June 1888
No specific cause of death identified
Verdict Wilful murder by jury !!!!!!!!!!!!!

How could a coroner allow a verdict of wilful murder, when there is no specific cause of death identified in the proceedings? The verdict should have been found dead/open verdict

Arrest that jury!

Elizabeth Jackson had two separate inquests opened in two different areas with two different coroners and two different death certificates

The inquest on her uterus and contents and two large flaps of skin and subcutaneous tissue taken from the abdomen resulted in an open verdict. The other inquest on the rest of her body resulted in a verdict of wilful murder.

Wilful murder is also the verdict that would have been brought by the jury if they believed that Elizabeth Jackson had died as the result of procuring an abortion, even if it was proven that no abortion had taken place, as was the case with Elizabeth. No abortion had taken place.
Death while procuring an abortion covers accidental death caused by an overdose of poison etc. This was not ruled in or out.

[Fisherman]

So you are trying to say that the dismemberment is part of the killers MO ? If you are it is nothing more than your own personal opinion, and there is no evidence to support that, and certainly no evidence to link these torsos with the Whitechapel victims. Your similarities do not stand up to close scrutiny

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

We KNOW quite well that the person who killed Liz Jackson took out her uterus, heart and lungs, and that he ripped her abdomen open and took away abdominal flesh. That means that no doubt at all can be entertained about whether we are dealing with a man with a paraphilia tied to the human body or not.
Working from this knowledge, it is not hard to conclude that there is every reason to believe that the killer did not dismember only for practical reasons - that would not have included cutting the face away from a victim, would it? Such things don´t come about as a result of practical thinking.

Dismemberment is always the result of one or more of three grounds of reasoning:
1. A wish to conceal the identitiy of the victim
2. A wish to be able to transport a victim
3. A deep pshychological wish to dismember

I don´t think that it can be excluded that all three parts can be involved in a case. A killer who has a deeply rooted wish to dismember a corpse may well also be interested in hiding the identity of the victim, if an identification could lead to his capture. Similarly, he may also realize the benefit of not being detected when disposing of the body. So we may well have had triple incitements for the killer to dismember. Interestingly, I think that we can see part of that matter in the dismemberment of the 1873 victim, where some limbs were neatly and skilfully disarticulated whereas others were sawn through. To top that off, the limbs sawn through were the one easiest to disarticulate, whereas some of the disarticulated joints were joints that are hard to disarticulate.
There is every reason to identify different underlying motivations for the different choices of dismemberment method in this case.

[John Wheat]

If the dismemberment in the torso cases was performed to enable carrying body parts away from a bolthole that could be connected to the killer, then there was no such need in the Kelly case.

That is the obvious explanation, but overall, I believe there´s more to it than so, since I think the dismemberment was at least to a degree part of the killers agenda, something he did because he wanted to.

In Kellys case, I think he worked to an agenda that did not involve dismemberment, and that dismemberment would actually ruin what he was after.

That really doesn't stand up to scrutiny. If dismemberment was part of the agenda Kelly would have been dismembered.

[Trevor Marriott]

Arrest that jury!

Elizabeth Jackson had two separate inquests opened in two different areas with two different coroners and two different death certificates

The inquest on her uterus and contents and two large flaps of skin and subcutaneous tissue taken from the abdomen resulted in an open verdict. The other inquest on the rest of her body resulted in a verdict of wilful murder.

Wilful murder is also the verdict that would have been brought by the jury if they believed that Elizabeth Jackson had died as the result of procuring an abortion, even if it was proven that no abortion had taken place, as was the case with Elizabeth. No abortion had taken place.
Death while procuring an abortion covers accidental death caused by an overdose of poison etc. This was not ruled in or out.

I am only referring to the issue of wilful murder by homicide as is being suggested with regards to her death, and the deaths of the other torso victims. As I have stated, and it is a matter of fact that there are other plausible explanations for the deaths, injuries and mutilations to these bodies as well as and the removal of organs from these torsos, outside of homicide

In any event a cause of death has to be established by evidential facts, and not by guesswork by the doctors back then or researchers 130 years later.

I fully accept what you say in relation to Jackson but it seems others dont want to, or wont accept any other scenario other than murder.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

We KNOW quite well that the person who killed Liz Jackson took out her uterus, heart and lungs, and that he ripped her abdomen open and took away abdominal flesh. That means that no doubt at all can be entertained about whether we are dealing with a man with a paraphilia tied to the human body or not.

There is no evidence to show Jackson was murdered. How many times do you have to be told !

Working from this knowledge, it is not hard to conclude that there is every reason to believe that the killer did not dismember only for practical reasons - that would not have included cutting the face away from a victim, would it? Such things don´t come about as a result of practical thinking.

Dismemberment is always the result of one or more of three grounds of reasoning:
1. A wish to conceal the identitiy of the victim
2. A wish to be able to transport a victim
3. A deep pshychological wish to dismember

You have missed off the most obvious the need to dispose of the body for whatever reason

.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Abby Normal]

Hip joint opened and ready for removal. The only thing missing is the disarticulation of the joint. As Abby pointed out, how does he now carry that large piece of her body down the road? Notice the large part missing? The thigh. The thighs of other victims of the torso series were also removed.

Hi Jerry
Thanks. Torso victims also had thigh flesh flayed off? I’m not sure if I have heard that before. Which ones?

[Abby Normal]

He didn't need to carry the femur etc down the street with him. He could have cut it out and displayed it in a grotesque way to make a statement, much like he did with the breasts.

Hi Darryl
I’m not sure he displayed the breasts, they were found under her head. Could be he used them to prop her head up?? Not sure what’s going on there.

Plus, displaying per se I don’t think was really his thing. Well not to the extent of a serial killer who cuts off body parts and places them In overtly shocking places/positions.

I’m thinking the torso ripper had something going on more geographically important with where he left or disposed of body/parts.

[Fisherman]

That really doesn't stand up to scrutiny. If dismemberment was part of the agenda Kelly would have been dismembered.

Yes, exactly so, John. Precisely so. And for that very reason, we may conclude that dismemberment was not part of the agenda on that occasion.

Dismemberment was one of the outlets for his paraphilia, but it needed not be present to satisfy him. That is what I am proposing.

[Abby Normal]

And the Torso victims were all filleted before their limbs were cut off. Not.

Why does everything have to be exactly the same with you? Serial killers aren’t robots sam.

There MOs, behavior, and damage they do to a victims body can vary widely.

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott:

There is no evidence to show Jackson was murdered. How many times do you have to be told !

It is something that is accepted by just about every single scholar of the case, and the police always accepted it and the jury came up with a verdict of murder. I´m fine with that. No matter how many times you repeat your lesser informed take on things.


1. A wish to conceal the identitity of the victim
2. A wish to be able to transport a victim
3. A deep pshychological wish to dismember

You have missed off the most obvious the need to dispose of the body for whatever reason

Eh, no - it is covered by number 2.