Same motive = same killer

[Herlock Sholmes]

. Gareth, it does not matter that these things were not included in all cases in the series. All that matters is that we know that they were present in both series, and so we can conclude that the perpetrator was a in both series a person who took out a heart, who took out a uterus and who took away the abdominal wall in large flaps.

No we cant.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. The disagreements you refer to are led on either by a humongous bias or by ignorance.

You are the first to complain and assume ‘victimhood’ if someone suggests that you are being selective with your facts or phrases but it appears to be ok for you to make the above quote. Everyone is ignorant except Fish. Everyone is biased except for Fish.

[Fisherman]

And that is one thing that cannot proved beyond a reasonable doubt, because ther is no conclusive evidence to show how they died.

So how can you keep banging on about a serial killer? And what’s even more laughable is for you to sugggest that this mythical torso serial killer murdered the Whitechapel women to.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I can do so against the backdrop of how we can identify the man behind the torso deeds as the man against the Ripper deeds, on account of how there are numerous very odd similarities inbetween the series.

BOTH series have inclusions of taken out uteri, abdominal walls being cut away in large flaps, hearts being taken out and so on. Since both the perceived series appeared at the same time and in the same town, it is extremely indicative of a common originator (you should know, having been a copper yourself, Trevor - must I teach you your job?).

So there you are - we know that the Ripper victims were murdered, and since the same man apparently perpetrated the torso series too, it stands to reason that the police and medicos at the time and the historians ever after have been absolutely correct in naming the torso series one of murders. And that is why not just I, but close to all who have studied these cases, speak of a serial killer when we speak of the torso man. Itīs a fair bet that wonīt change.

[Trevor Marriott]

As made very obvious, the first thing to prove in a murder trial is that the victim was murdered. You may have missed that

.

And that is one thing that cannot proved beyond a reasonable doubt, because ther is no conclusive evidence to show how they died.

So how can you keep banging on about a serial killer? And what’s even more laughable is for you to sugggest that this mythical torso serial killer murdered the Whitechapel women to.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Another example of not sticking to the precise facts: "So you consider it trivial and commonplace when uteri are cut out, when hearts are excised and when abdominal walls are taken away in large flaps?" (Fisherman)

1. The heart was only excised once in the Ripper murders, and once in the Torso cases

2. The abdominal wall was taken, or rather CUT away only ONCE, in the Kelly case; in the two other instances, whilst flesh was cut out of the abdomen, the abdominal wall was not cut away.

3. Only Kelly had truly large flaps of flesh cut from her abdomen; the two others sustained lesser damage, with Jackson arguably suffering the least of all.

Gareth, it does not matter that these things were not included in all cases in the series. All that matters is that we know that they were present in both series, and so we can conclude that the perpetrator was a in both series a person who took out a heart, who took out a uterus and who took away the abdominal wall in large flaps.

A specific and rare matter will, once it is included in a series of murders, work as a point of comparison to other murders and murder series. If one victim in each series was bound with rare rope from the Chinese Ming dynasti, then we donīt say that this is without significance since not all victims were. The rope will nevertheless provide absolute proof of a connection between the series.

I could go into how we donīt know whether Jackson suffered less or more damage to the abdominal wall than Chapman, but by now, I consider it a waste of time. It has been established that there can be no knowing - it may well be that Jacksons flaps were very large, and we have it on record that the flaps were described as "large" in both series - and it is a bit childish to try and sweep that under the carpet, Gareth.

[Sam Flynn]

Another example of not sticking to the precise facts: "So you consider it trivial and commonplace when uteri are cut out, when hearts are excised and when abdominal walls are taken away in large flaps?" (Fisherman)

1. The heart was only excised once in the Ripper murders, and once in the Torso cases

2. The abdominal wall was taken, or rather CUT away only ONCE, in the Kelly case; in the two other instances, whilst flesh was cut out of the abdomen, the abdominal wall was not cut away.

3. Only Kelly had truly large flaps of flesh cut from her abdomen; the two others sustained lesser damage, with Jackson arguably suffering the least of all.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,
My question has nothing to do with the likelyhood that there were two killers,nor what is proven or unproven by the injuries.
Try again.Or better still,state the obvious,you do not know.
When you are jumping from 15000 ft,you need a few restraints.

As made very obvious, the first thing to prove in a murder trial is that the victim was murdered. You may have missed that?

Otherwise, I am not going to go looking for your questions, Harry. You do that yourself and ask away. No questions, no answers.

As for the restraints, maybe you should try and restrain yourself a bit too. You are jumping from greater heights out here.

[Fisherman]

Never mind the fictitious examples, Fish. Never mind the real examples of other crimes, for that matter. Neither will get us anywhere.

I disagree totally. The examples are totally instrumental in showing how one single odd and specific similarity can and will outweigh all dissimilarities. It is the exact same thing with the Ripper/Torso cases - but they contain not just the one odd siilarity but instead many such similarities.

In the same vein, if there are no other example of serial killers working in tandem and doing the same type of odd damage to their victims, then that must have an impact of which decision we go with in the choice inbetween one or two killers.

Why not just stick to the facts of the Ripper and Torso cases? And I mean the precise facts, not your interpretation of them. So for example, we say "West London" and "East London" when we refer to where the women met their end, not just "London" or "the same town". Similarly, we don't call the Torso Killer a "womb taker" because he only did that once. Oh, and of course we must speak of throat cutting (JTR) versus decapitation (torsos), and refrain from using the over-generalised and imprecise "neck cutting", and similar fudges.

Donīt even try to go there, Gareth. You will be immediately exposed. Read here, and you will see how it works:

1. We have no idea where the Torso vicims met their end. We only know that they were TRANSPORTED to where they were dumped, and that means that they could have been killed anywhere, East, West, South or North London. It can be added that the further afield the killer brought the body parts, the larger his chances of keeping his place out of focus.
So that takes care of that "point".

2. A man who takes out a womb can be called a "womb taker". The phrase as such only points out that he has done so, not that he would do it whenever he had the opportunity.
A single case killer is called a killer although he did not kill every people he met.
Moreover, there was another womb missing in the series that he may (or may not) have taken away. The odds are he did it, since we KNOW that he was a womb taker, as shown by the Jackson case.
Thatīs your second "point" dispelled.

3. You have so far not answered my question: Is it true that the necks and throats may have been cut in the exact same fashion in both series, before the severing of the spine was added in the torso series?
Your silence on the matter speaks volumes. You dare not answer since the only answer avaliable lays your reasoning on this issue in ruins.
If I were you (luckily I am not) I would stop trying to push it, since it will only supply me with one opportunity after the other to showcase this.
Ka-boom - there goes your third "point".

Any more points, Gareth? Any mumbling about how you personally BELIEVE that the Torso man killed in the West? Or perhaps even that this is a "near certainty"?

Are you ready for the yes and no questions now? I know I am.

[harry]

Fisherman,
My question has nothing to do with the likelyhood that there were two killers,nor what is proven or unproven by the injuries.
Try again.Or better still,state the obvious,you do not know.
When you are jumping from 15000 ft,you need a few restraints.

[Sam Flynn]

Never mind the fictitious examples, Fish. Never mind the real examples of other crimes, for that matter. Neither will get us anywhere.

Why not just stick to the facts of the Ripper and Torso cases? And I mean the precise facts, not your interpretation of them. So for example, we say "West London" and "East London" when we refer to where the women met their end, not just "London" or "the same town". Similarly, we don't call the Torso Killer a "womb taker" because he only did that once. Oh, and of course we must speak of throat cutting (JTR) versus decapitation (torsos), and refrain from using the over-generalised and imprecise "neck cutting", and similar fudges.

[Fisherman]

I cannot understand why we are still discussing why dissimilarities are not as important as similarities.

I will once again examplify how it works.

Letīs imagine two murders that are hugely different in a large amount of respects:

Murder one: James Johnson, a 72-year old widower is murdered in Preston in June of 2019. He is found on the beach outside his house, lying beside his boat, where he has been working with the interior. His skull has been cracked by a blow with a rock, that is lying beside the body. Johnson was known to have no enemies, and he was well liked by everybody he knew.

Murder two: Misty Cole, a 21-year oldprostitute, is killed in November 2020, in London. She has a nasty reputation of robbing punters, she is known to have been involved in the drug trade and she was well and truly hated by her neighbours. She is found in her own apartment, naked on the bed. She has been strangled, and her abdomen has been opened up and the uterus is missing. Somebody has carved in the word "bitch" on her forehead with a knife.

Now, can two murders be much more dissimilar than these? The dissimilarities are total, different year, different place, different sex, different victimology, different murder methods, different generations, different social circumstances - different everything.

Is there any reason at all to suspect the same killer? No. None whatsoever.

Now, lets add a similarity. Letīs say that both victims had their right ear cut away, and that the killer had subsequently stitched up the wound before leaving the murder place.

What reaction would that cause among the police? Would they say "letīs forget about it, it is just a coincidence?" Or would they say "strange as it may seem, it nevertheless applies that the ear damage and ensuing stitching together of the wounds mean that we must work from the presumption that these two murders are somehow connected, although God knows how."

One single similarity will always outweigh all of the dissimilarities, if it is specific and peculiar enough and if the dissimilarities do not conclusively prove that there were two killers. Otherwise, it is up to the police to find out why an earcutting and woundstitching killer would kill two very different people in different towns and years.

[Fisherman]

I return to a point that i made before. If it is so glaringly obvious why do people disagree with you? Why is there a debate? Why your conclusion over theirs? Just because of apparent similarities in 2 crimes which you seem to think is so staggeringly remarkable that no other conclusion can be drawn. No, you cannot keep dismissing the chasm of differences Fish. You are picking and choosing what is important and what is not.

Am I? So you consider it trivial and commonplace when uteri are cut out, when hearts are excised and when abdominal walls are taken away in large flaps?

The disagreements you refer to are led on either by a humongous bias or by ignorance.

I have pointed out that there are no other two series of murders with as far-reaching similarities of so odd a character in the history of crime.

If that is correct, then there can be no doubt that we MUST accept that there was just the one killer.

If it is wrong, then my premise is wrong. And it is up to anybody to show me that it is wrong. The records are there, the listing are there of serial killers, so go ahead and disprove me.

So my certainty can be tested, to see if it is based on sound facts. Test away, Herlock.

Saying that other ripperologists disagree with me and claiming that as proof that I am wrong will never work. If it sounds presumptious on my behalf to say that they are wrong and I am right, then so be it. If it is rude not to take the side of the majority, then so be it. As long as I am correct in saying that the list of similarities ensures that one killer only is by far the most logical bid, then I am fine with being called rude and too unwilling to adjust to what others think.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,
You wrote in a previous post that you didn't know me,so here is a photo.
You are not the kneeling person are you?.
Here is a question that you do not have to search for,and it is relevant.'What,in a murder trial is the first element that has to be proven'.

Why are they restraining you on the picture, Harry?

I donīt think that I am up for games like the ones you are suggesting. If you want to say that it is not proven in the torso cases that the victims were murdered, then say that right out and donīt beat about the bush.

Not that it will take us any further, since we all know out here that murder was not proven in any of the torso cases - albeit the classification in some of them WAS wilful murder.

The fewest speculate that they were not murders. The consensus has been that they were for the last 130 years.

[harry]

Fisherman,
You wrote in a previous post that you didn't know me,so here is a photo.
You are not the kneeling person are you?.
Here is a question that you do not have to search for,and it is relevant.'What,in a murder trial is the first element that has to be proven'.

[Herlock Sholmes]

That depends on the type of similarity.

If the similarity consists of how matches of a very rare type, originating from WWI, have been used in both these cases, then the police will immediately suspect a common originator, Herlock.

Or if a 7 foot man has been seen running from both sites, singing "Waltzing Matilda", the same thing applies.

It is a question of the rarity and specificity of the similarity. There are similarities that will outweigh any dissimilarities that are not factually unbridgeable. And we donīt have any unbridgeable dissimilarities in our case, do we?

It is very, very rare with killers who take out uteri. It is very, very rare with killerswho take away hearts. And killers who cut away the abdominal wall in large flaps are practically speaking unheard of.

So EACH OF THESE PARAMETERS would have the police thinking that the same killer was responsible. Combine the three, and there is not a copper in the whole wide world who would not swear to it. And for extremely sound reasons.

You know, there are moments when I cannot believe that there is even a discussion about this, let alone a very heated one.

As I say, the similarities must be proven to be false before there is any reason at all to speculate about two killers. There was just the one, and he was into disassembling women. That is what the evidence tells us, and it is a fantastic thing that we may now conclude this. It will revolutionize how we look upon this man, and it will provide us with tools allowing us to come a lot closer to who he was.

Letīs not throw that away.

I return to a point that i made before. If it is so glaringly obvious why do people disagree with you? Why is there a debate? Why your conclusion over theirs? Just because of apparent similarities in 2 crimes which you seem to think is so staggeringly remarkable that no other conclusion can be drawn. No, you cannot keep dismissing the chasm of differences Fish. You are picking and choosing what is important and what is not.