Same motive = same killer

[Fisherman]

Well the fairies have been useful in the evidence gathering process a worthwhile acquisition to my team. They did tell me they were originally working for you, but resigned when you would not accept the evidence they gathered because it destroyed your theory

I am not going to hi jack this thread with regards to the organs issue, save to say that there will be more new facts and new evidence on this subject, which we be forthcoming in the next few weeks, which will add even more weight to what has already been produced to negate these original inferences.

Meanwhile perhaps you could enlighten us all as to what the evidence is to suggest the killer/s did take the organs from Chapman and Eddowes, other than the inferences, which this important part of the WM has been built upon.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

There was no cctv in either Hanbury street or Mitre Square, so no, I have no evidence whatsoever that the killer who cut open the abdomens of these two women was also the person who cut out their organs and took them away.

I am simply going by the inference, just like you say. Nothing more than so. I simply accept that anybody who killes and cuts a woman open is also the likeliest person to take the organs out from her.

Once you produce proof - and rumour has it it´s on it´s way - that the organs were instead taken away by a mortuary attendant or some such person, I will of course withdraw the suggestion that the killer was also the organ taker.

Meanwhile, say hello to the fairies from me.

PS. I don´t think people would mind if you hijacked the thread, not as long as you come up with that proof. It will change ripperology forever, Trevor, so people will certainly forgive you. Now, we will have to wait for some time and then see whether it is "Bravo, Trevor, you solved that part!" or "Come on, Trevor - not more of that crap, please!".

I bet it´s a toss-up.

[Trevor Marriott]

There was no cctv in either Hanbury street or Mitre Square, so no, I have no evidence whatsoever that the killer who cut open the abdomens of these two women was also the person who cut out their organs and took them away.

I am simply going by the inference, just like you say. Nothing more than so. I simply accept that anybody who kills and cuts a woman open is also the likeliest person to take the organs out from her.

But just because the abdomens were ripped open, and we know they were, why should it be "inferred" and generally accepted that the killer removed organs. The attacks on these victims were ferocious, and they were clearly subjected to a frenzied attack with a knife. So with little time available to him in Mitre Square would he have been able to go from a state of frenzy to being calm and in control,to remove two different organs with some medical knowledge in almost total darkness?

Destroy this inference from Mitre Square, and the Ripper mystery changes for ever, but will some accept changes I suspect not.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

But just because the abdomens were ripped open, and we know they were, why should it be "inferred" and generally accepted that the killer removed organs. The attacks on these victims were ferocious, and they were clearly subjected to a frenzied attack with a knife. So with little time available to him in Mitre Square would he have been able to go from a state of frenzy to being calm and in control,to remove two different organs with some medical knowledge in almost total darkness?

Destroy this inference from Mitre Square, and the Ripper mystery changes for ever, but will some accept changes I suspect not.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

What should be inferred is that the by far likeliest taker of the organs is the one who cut the abdomen open, Trevor. You see, most of us accept that to get at the organs, one must open the abdomen first, and so it becomes part of a logical chain that the man who opened the abdomen is the likely remover of the organs too.

I don´t think that we can read any frenzy into the deeds, Trevor. I know it can seem tempting to do so, but all I see is a man who works fast with his knife. And for a reason.

As I say, I am quite ready and willing to accept changes - if there is reason to do so. Show me that reason, and I will change my mind.

[Trevor Marriott]

What should be inferred is that the by far likeliest taker of the organs is the one who cut the abdomen open, Trevor. You see, most of us accept that to get at the organs, one must open the abdomen first, and so it becomes part of a logical chain that the man who opened the abdomen is the likely remover of the organs too.

I don´t think that we can read any frenzy into the deeds, Trevor. I know it can seem tempting to do so, but all I see is a man who works fast with his knife. And for a reason.

As I say, I am quite ready and willing to accept changes - if there is reason to do so. Show me that reason, and I will change my mind.

It is a fact that it was a frenzied attack in a short time frame.

The abdomens were stabbed and ripped open, not neatly cut open, All of that is not a definitive explanation to say that this was for the purpose of organs extraction, and besides if organ extraction was the motive, along side murder and mutilation, why would the killer inflict those injuries on the abdomen when they might damage any organs he was seeking to harvest.

And for him to have worked that fast in Mitre Square he would have needed to be more of an expert than Dr Browns expert. to remove them in the time available to him.

Be patient, but if you run true to form your mind cannot be changed, as has been proved to date, no matter what is put before you.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

It is a fact that it was a frenzied attack in a short time frame.

No, Trevor, it is not a fact at all. It is a fact that many people THINK it was a frenzied attack, but facts are not what we think, it is what we know.

The abdomens were stabbed and ripped open, not neatly cut open, All of that is not a definitive explanation to say that this was for the purpose of organs extraction, and besides if organ extraction was the motive, along side murder and mutilation, why would the killer inflict those injuries on the abdomen when they might damage any organs he was seeking to harvest.

We don´t know what the killer knew about the placement of the organs, we don´t know which organs he had decided on (if he had decided on any), we don´t know that the uterus and kidney were damaged by the opening of the abdomen (reasonably, they were not), and so this is not a good point of yours.

And for him to have worked that fast in Mitre Square he would have needed to be more of an expert than Dr Browns expert. to remove them in the time available to him.

We don´t know how much time he had, Trevor. We only know that he took out the organs (well, I think he did, leastways) and it is apparent that if he did, then there was time enough.

Be patient, but if you run true to form your mind cannot be changed, as has been proved to date, no matter what is put before you.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I changed my mind on Tabram, for example. I always do change my mind when the evidence calls for it. If it calls upon me NOT to change my mind, I follow that course instead.
You try to play the game "Let´s paint him out as a total zealot, who cannot change his mind", but the fact of the matter is that I have not been presented with any reason to do so that holds much water. Once it happens - and it happened in the Tabram errand - I immediately accept that I have been wrong.

So sway me with some good arguments, and I will turn to wax in your hand, Trevor. Fail to do so, and I will bite that hand off.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But surely Trevor as this was the fourth in a series of well publicised murders that were terrorising the whole of London; murders that the police were under extreme pressure to solve, the police would have kept the body under close guard thus reducing the chance for anyone to take away organs? Every clue would have been vital after all?

[Trevor Marriott]

But surely Trevor as this was the fourth in a series of well publicised murders that were terrorising the whole of London; murders that the police were under extreme pressure to solve, the police would have kept the body under close guard thus reducing the chance for anyone to take away organs? Every clue would have been vital after all?

Like I said I dont want to hi jack this thread, and as is known I have put forward a good case so far with evidential facts to negate this long standing inference surrounding the removal of the organs from Chapman and Eddowes

I also have re visited the Mitre Square murder again in much greater detail and I have obtained new information, and new facts, which when i publish them will tip the scales firmly in favour of the killer not removing the organs from Chapman and Eddowes, those organs being removed whilst the bodies were left for up to 12 hours before the post mortems were carried out and when it was first discovered that organs were missing from the bodies.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

Trevor's theories notwithstanding, the fact remains that, whoever removed the organs from the Ripper victims, 4 out of 5 of them were disembowelled and/or eviscerated. This is a feature which did not apply in most of the torso cases, and can be readily explained in terms of practicalities in the minority of cases where it did.

[Fisherman]

Trevor's theories notwithstanding, the fact remains that, whoever removed the organs from the Ripper victims, 4 out of 5 of them were disembowelled and/or eviscerated. This is a feature which did not apply in most of the torso cases, and can be readily explained in terms of practicalities in the minority of cases where it did.

You don´t know in how many cases there WERE eviscerations in the torso series, Gareth. We are looking at perhaps three or more such cases. And your idea that these things can be "readily explained" may be better worded "fancifully explained". We don´t know which applies, do we?

How do you "readily explain" why Jacksons heart and lungs were removed, by the way?

Anyways, I asked you a question or two before, and I have had no answer:

Is it not true that the cuts to the neck/throat region may initially have been exactly the same: a knifecut through both the throat and the soft parts of the neck? Is it not true that all victims but for Stride had the soft parts of their necks cut?

I´m off to a party now, so any answer on my behalf will have to wait for some time.

[harry]

I suppose that being as the neck part of the body includes the throat,any injury to the throat can also be interpreted as an injury to the neck.
However,traditionay a cut throat has ben accepted as a frontal injury,not one to the nape. The wizard of course will object.
Sam is correct.

[Sam Flynn]

Saying that JTR's victims had their necks cut is tantamount to classifying the loss of an eye as a facial wound.

[Fisherman]

Here are my questions again, Gareth:

Is it not true that the cuts to the neck/throat region may initially have been exactly the same: a knifecut through both the throat and the soft parts of the neck? Is it not true that all victims but for Stride had most of the soft parts of their necks cut?

It seems you find them hard to answer for some reason?

[Sam Flynn]

It's not that I find them difficult to answer, it's simply that your questions entirely miss the point. The Ripper victims had their THROATS cut, period. That there might have been collateral damage to the neck muscles is as irrelevant as it was inevitable.

BTW, classifying the throat as "the soft part of the neck" is like calling the eyes "the transparent part of the face".

[Fisherman]

It's not that I find them difficult to answer, it's simply that your questions entirely miss the point. The Ripper victims had their THROATS cut, period. That there might have been collateral damage to the neck muscles is as irrelevant as it was inevitable.

BTW, classifying the throat as "the soft part of the neck" is like calling the eyes "the transparent part of the face".

Nope, Gareth. It is NOT up to you to decide what is irrelevant and what is not. And it is not up to you to decide if something is collateral damage or not. For all we know, the Ripper may well have cut as deeply as he did in order to sever as many blood vessels as possible, in order to bleed his victims. As may the Torso killer have done!!! The thing is, we cannot possibly know and we should NOT try to make it look as if we did. Which is exactly what you are doing now.

It is a disastrous way to look at things historically, to make a decision based on your own thinking and then exclude all other possibilities as "irrelevant". For the shame!

And it get´s worse: "BTW, classifying the throat as "the soft part of the neck" is like calling the eyes "the transparent part of the face"."

Why do you try to make it look as if I had done so? When I write "the soft parts of the neck", I refer to everything but the spine. The parts, as it were, that are soft enough to allow for them to be severed by a knife.

Why do you do these things? Have you no shame? I don´t falsely attribute things to you. I don´t have to.

Now, here are the questions again. They are not irrelevant at all, since they will give away exactly where you are wrong. Which is in all probability whyt you wriggle like a worm on a hook when you have them put to you:

Is it not true that the cuts to the neck/throat region may initially have been exactly the same: a knifecut through both the throat and the soft parts of the neck? Is it not true that all victims but for Stride had the soft parts of their necks cut?

Let´s hear it now, Gareth!

[Elamarna]

But just because the abdomens were ripped open, and we know they were, why should it be "inferred" and generally accepted that the killer removed organs. The attacks on these victims were ferocious, and they were clearly subjected to a frenzied attack with a knife. So with little time available to him in Mitre Square would he have been able to go from a state of frenzy to being calm and in control,to remove two different organs with some medical knowledge in almost total darkness?

Destroy this inference from Mitre Square, and the Ripper mystery changes for ever, but will some accept changes I suspect not.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor,

Wont derail thread, but look forward to your new suggestions.

I also am working on a possible extension to the time in the square we have all worked to for so long.

We can debate it all soon i guess


Steve