Same motive = same killer

[Fisherman]

For God's sake, Trevor, don't encourage him!

So still not willing to discuss the case, I see?

Whatever happened to the matter-of-fact Sam Flynn who once graced these boards?

[Sam Flynn]

It sometimes pays dividends to think out of the box

For God's sake, Trevor, don't encourage him!

[Fisherman]

As I see it there are two simple choices, if the killer of the Whitechapel women did not take away the organs, then the motive for the crimes is murder and mutilation, and is no way connected to the torsos.

If the torsos were not the subject of murder, but were simply dismembered to aid disposal from another cause of death, then again another simple explanation, what you choose to accept, or reject, is down to you, and the same applies to all other researchers.

It sometimes pays dividends to think out of the box from time to time, you see things in a different light.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But you are missing an "if" or two here, Trevor, are you not? What if I am on the money? THAT is the question I want answered: what kind of killer emerges in such a case? One thing I believe we may agree on is that he would be an extremely rare beast.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,
Well I read post 3717 and reference to a Banbury schoolclass.Still trying to figure out the idiotcy behind their mention.Perhaps it's the idiot who introduced them that's at fault.
Still nice to know you are still speaking to me.
Love,Harry.

You do know that it is strictly forbidden to make personal attacks, Harry? We are allowed to call suggestions moronic - like I do with your suggestions - but we are not allowed to call each other idiots.

You see, these boards have the purpose of discussing the case, and not to make personal attacks from the safety behind the keyboard.

This of course is why I am disiclined to speak to you. You have apparently misunderstood the purpose of the boards, and after having been revealed as a poster with very little to contribute, you have decided to change to personal attacks instead.

The result is meagre - I used the Banbury schoolclass example to be very clear, but I could have suggested siamese twins, the Portsmouth cricket team or a womanīs choir from Scotland to elucidate that we really do not know that Kellyīs killer was a single male, but we nevertheless accept it as a fact - and as I said, making personal attacks is strictly forbidden.

[Trevor Marriott]

Okay, so you are all trying to play little games?

Fine.

I think it is immature and stupid, and I think it is not doing the case any good at all - but I can play the game too.

Steve is the great discloser of how I supposedly believe that Kellys lung part was taken away from the scene at Millers Court. The hero of the hour, as it were!

Now, as you all know quite well, I am not entertaining such an idea for a split second. I know quite well that the lung part will have been in the room or inside the body (which is also in the room for that matter), although we donīt know exactly where. And you know that I know, letīs not beat about the bush on that score.

This, however, will not stop you. You prefer to have your fun.

So why donīt I have some little fun with Steve?

In his post 3744, he writes "Kelly's thighs are certainly gone, is that significant?"

So he obviously believes that Kelly was dismembered. He believes that the thighs were taken away from the trunk. It is, as he puts things himself when speaking about me, "very obvious" that this is his take on things. He writes in no uncertain terms that the thighs are gone.

The truth of the matter is that flesh was taken away from her thighs, not that the thighs themselves were removed.

Of course, it also now becomes apparent that a man with such deplorable insights into anatomy cannot be trusted to post out here. It always follows that if you work from bad information, you will reach bad decisions, and cannot be relied upon. I have that from a very reliable source.

See? I can do the exact same thing that Steve does.

Then again, I can instead choose to admit that I do not for a second entertain the idea that he does not know that the thighs were not severed from Kellys body. Just as he is certain that I know that the lung was not taken from the scene, I am certain that he knows that the thighs were not taken from the scene either.

The only difference lies in how I will admit this. I will immediately recognize that a poor wording made things look like something they are not.

I firmly believe that if we can all do that for each other, not only will the world become a better place, but we will also be able to set aside a lot more time for a relevant and useful discussion, instead of wasting time on sheer stupidities.

Now itīs up to you, Steve, Gareth, Herlock, to make your minds up about what you are here to do - to work the case or to make a mockery of it. The choice is yours.

If any of you should sober up - and I hope you do - then I think that an interesting question is "what kind of person will eviscerate and take out organs, cut away nosetips, thigh and buttock flesh, abdominal flesh, cut away faces, sever the limbs from a body and cut the trunk in several sections?"

Those who are into eviscerating donīt normally do this - they open the abdomen up and take what they came for, end of story.

Those who dismember normally only do that, and for practical reasons, end of story. They dont pluck organs out and cut faces away.

Those who disfigure normally only do that. They donīt take organs out and sever limbs.

So what kind of mindset, which types of paraphilia can be at work when we see a combination of all these things? What possible inspiration ground can there be? Which other crimes comes closest to resembling what the combined Ripper/Torso killer did?

We can discuss such matters, or we can discuss gone lung parts and thighs and the underlying semantical implications. Make your choice.

As I see it there are two simple choices, if the killer of the Whitechapel women did not take away the organs, then the motive for the crimes is murder and mutilation, and is no way connected to the torsos.

If the torsos were not the subject of murder, but were simply dismembered to aid disposal from another cause of death, then again another simple explanation, what you choose to accept, or reject, is down to you, and the same applies to all other researchers.

It sometimes pays dividends to think out of the box from time to time, you see things in a different light.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[harry]

Fisherman,
Well I read post 3717 and reference to a Banbury schoolclass.Still trying to figure out the idiotcy behind their mention.Perhaps it's the idiot who introduced them that's at fault.
Still nice to know you are still speaking to me.
Love,Harry.

[Fisherman]

Okay, so you are all trying to play little games?

Fine.

I think it is immature and stupid, and I think it is not doing the case any good at all - but I can play the game too.

Steve is the great discloser of how I supposedly believe that Kellys lung part was taken away from the scene at Millers Court. The hero of the hour, as it were!

Now, as you all know quite well, I am not entertaining such an idea for a split second. I know quite well that the lung part will have been in the room or inside the body (which is also in the room for that matter), although we donīt know exactly where. And you know that I know, letīs not beat about the bush on that score.

This, however, will not stop you. You prefer to have your fun.

So why donīt I have some little fun with Steve?

In his post 3744, he writes "Kelly's thighs are certainly gone, is that significant?"

So he obviously believes that Kelly was dismembered. He believes that the thighs were taken away from the trunk. It is, as he puts things himself when speaking about me, "very obvious" that this is his take on things. He writes in no uncertain terms that the thighs are gone.

The truth of the matter is that flesh was taken away from her thighs, not that the thighs themselves were removed.

Of course, it also now becomes apparent that a man with such deplorable insights into anatomy cannot be trusted to post out here. It always follows that if you work from bad information, you will reach bad decisions, and cannot be relied upon. I have that from a very reliable source.

See? I can do the exact same thing that Steve does.

Then again, I can instead choose to admit that I do not for a second entertain the idea that he does not know that the thighs were not severed from Kellys body. Just as he is certain that I know that the lung was not taken from the scene, I am certain that he knows that the thighs were not taken from the scene either.

The only difference lies in how I will admit this. I will immediately recognize that a poor wording made things look like something they are not.

I firmly believe that if we can all do that for each other, not only will the world become a better place, but we will also be able to set aside a lot more time for a relevant and useful discussion, instead of wasting time on sheer stupidities.

Now itīs up to you, Steve, Gareth, Herlock, to make your minds up about what you are here to do - to work the case or to make a mockery of it. The choice is yours.

If any of you should sober up - and I hope you do - then I think that an interesting question is "what kind of person will eviscerate and take out organs, cut away nosetips, thigh and buttock flesh, abdominal flesh, cut away faces, sever the limbs from a body and cut the trunk in several sections?"

Those who are into eviscerating donīt normally do this - they open the abdomen up and take what they came for, end of story.

Those who dismember normally only do that, and for practical reasons, end of story. They dont pluck organs out and cut faces away.

Those who disfigure normally only do that. They donīt take organs out and sever limbs.

So what kind of mindset, which types of paraphilia can be at work when we see a combination of all these things? What possible inspiration ground can there be? Which other crimes comes closest to resembling what the combined Ripper/Torso killer did?

We can discuss such matters, or we can discuss gone lung parts and thighs and the underlying semantical implications. Make your choice.

[Fisherman]

So you are disinclined to talk to me Fisherma.I am so overcome and hurt, I do not know what to say to that.Here I was, hanging around,hoping the wizard would,as he claimed,prove beyond reasonable doubt,that two series of deaths were linked,and a killer revealed.
You have let me down badly lad.

You can just hang around and read my other posts, and you will get my view from there. Magic!

[harry]

So you are disinclined to talk to me Fisherma.I am so overcome and hurt, I do not know what to say to that.Here I was, hanging around,hoping the wizard would,as he claimed,prove beyond reasonable doubt,that two series of deaths were linked,and a killer revealed.
You have let me down badly lad.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The full phrase is "torn away", a common compound phrase which doesn't mean "taken from the premises", anymore than "jerked off" means you've detached your penis and thrown it out of the window.

[Sam Flynn]

You DO know the meaning of the word "away", I take it?

The full phrase is "torn away", a common compound phrase which doesn't mean "taken from the premises", anymore than "jerked off" means you've detached your penis and thrown it out of the window.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Its ironic to see a Fisherman wriggling on a hook.

Gone means absent. End of.

[Elamarna]

And when did I say that it was no longer at the scene? When was I unaware that the heart only was what was taken away from Millerīs Court - and not even that is 100 per cent certain? Why in the whole world would I claim that a lung part was taken away from Millerīs Court? I mean, there ARE some really dumb people out here, but luckily, there are those who are not - and they would be all over me like a rash.

Then again, I may prefer having knowledgeable people over me like a rash than people who think that I cannot tell whether there was a lung missing from Milers Court or not.

Regardless of what "gone" may mean to you, havenīt I been perfectly clear in saying that I mean "gone" as in "gone from where it belonged"?

I sometimes ask myself what is wrong with some people out here. I really do. This was supposed to be a forum for discussing the Jack the Ripper case, not a forum for people who are too gone to realize that.

I am done with this discussion as of now. Iīm sure that you and Steve can have a really nice evening or two discussing it, so you wonīt go glip of the treat, Herlock.

Enjoy.

Of course the reply as absolutly no relevence to the post it is responding to.



Steve

[Elamarna]

If anybody out here would be interested in discussing the case, I welcome that very much. It would make for a refreshing change.

We discuss the case and disagree with your viewpoint, and all at once we are not discussing the case.

I will happily disciss the torsos and possible links to the canal system, the strange behaviour of john Arnold/leary.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Iīll pick up tomorrow and see if there is anyone interested in discussing the case. So far, the answer is "no".

It is understandable.