Same motive = same killer

[Fisherman]

You are doing nothing more than interpreting them in a way that fits with your theory.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It is not a problem for me that the facts fit my theory, Trevor. It is what it is. I am open to the possibility that it was two killers. It would be a freak coincidence, of course, but I am all for not ruling out things even if they are quite unlikely to be true.

However, much as you may think it would have been becoming on my behalf to deny the obvious fact that the facts work very well with my theory, I am not that bashful and modest myself. I call things by their real names, and I am not ashamed of it.

If the facts had fit your theories, I am certain that you would have been pleased about that, Trevor, just as I feel pretty certain that you would have found it hard to clam up about it. You canīt even clam up about the many parts of theories that DONīT fit the facts!

[Trevor Marriott]

Therefore, I reason that she may have been the result of an unplanned attack. After it, the killer may have realized that the great outdoors (well...) could work as arena for his more meticulous and focused work too.

Just a suggestion of course. Tabram deviates in many a way. I like her as a Ripper victim for the geographical and chronological connotations. But she would not fit the bill very well at all unless she was the first.

How can you say it was an unplanned attack when her killer has obviously gone with her to a dark secluded spot inside a building in the early hours of the morning where he has proceeded to murder her in a frenzied attack, the same frenzy we then saw with Chapman Eddowes and Kelly in also quiet dark secluded spots.

In chronlogical terms it was the first, but he never took any organs from her, and he never took any organs from Nicholls the next victim, and if you count Stride he never took organs from her, and if Insp Reid and others are to be belived he never took organs from Kelly, which leaves Chapman and Eddowes who were the only two found missing organs at the post mortems.

So one killer or more than one? If one killer there is no distinct MO based on the evidence, so how you can try to link these victims or their killer/s to the torsos beggar belief.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

There are too many and too specific similarities for them to be coincidental. Otherwise, your suggestion is just fine - we all have our own beliefs and pet theories.

You are doing nothing more than interpreting them in a way that fits with your theory.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Well, you DID say that it was probably a series of unwanted pregnancies, and that if it was not that, then it could have been about selling organs, did you not?

No, I never said that so please dont misquote me. What I said was that these deaths could have occurred as a result of some medical procedure with the intention of perhaps procuring an abortion. I said that if these women died as a result of anything connected to that, then it could have happened that the perpetrator could have realized that there was money to be made in selling some of the organs before dismembering and disposing of the body parts. I did not say that applied to every torso.

I would like to point out that you are mistaken when you say that I think it was about organ taking, by the way. I donīt think that at all - to my mind, that was secondary. Itīs Gareth who thinks the Ripper was about organ taking, not me. And he misses out on how the Ripper did so much more when given the opportunity.

Part of what you suggest does revolve around the removal of the organs, and I say again if it were one killer then we would expect to see an identical MO, and organs missing from all those you say were murdered by this one lone killer.

I think it was all about disassembling women. The cutting and parting was more important than the organ taking, and the organ taking was not something the killer did because he wanted the organs, but instead because he liked the idea of the organs being removable.

So sometimes there would be organ removal, on other occasions there would be the removal of a face, or the cutting off of the limbs or cutting the breasts off and so on. Organ removal was but a part of the many possibilities he had at hand.

Well if that isnt a typical journalistic cop out answer I dont know what is !

If you donīt understand me and have not even read my take on this - posted numerous times - then you should perhaps not try to make points from suggestions I have never made?

Your take changes, depending on what is put before you to negate your theory, as can be seen in this post

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

If there was just one killer, and his fixation with disassembly had developed prior to 1888, why might he not have attempted anything of the kind on Martha Tabram's body?

Even if, this being his first public killing, he felt at risk of discovery, he could have lopped off and ear or a finger quite easily.

That is a great question, Gary - much better than many other questions asked out here nowadays.

I have no really good answer to it, only a suggestion:

I donīt think personally that Smith was a Ripper victim - but I think that Tabram quite possibly was.

If so, she is the first of the blitz victims killed in the open street.

Therefore, I reason that she may have been the result of an unplanned attack. After it, the killer may have realized that the great outdoors (well...) could work as arena for his more meticulous and focused work too.

Just a suggestion of course. Tabram deviates in many a way. I like her as a Ripper victim for the geographical and chronological connotations. But she would not fit the bill very well at all unless she was the first.

[Fisherman]

And its perfectly reasonable to postulate the killers motives and driving forces. And so its perfectly reasonable for me, or anyone else, to postulate the rippers ‘driving force’ based on the known evidence.

I believe that it was important for the ripper to leave his victims where they would be found soon after. And more importantly that the victims were found recognisable as destroyed women/prostitutes and not strewn body parts.

Add this to the obvious facts that they were all (apart from Kelly) middle aged prostitutes. They were killed over a short 2 month period and within a few streets of each and that the severity of mutilations increased with each crime (apart from Stride of course) and the conclusion is a very reasonable one.

Ripper and Torso unconnected. Any coincidental similarities are just that.

There are too many and too specific similarities for them to be coincidental. Otherwise, your suggestion is just fine - we all have our own beliefs and pet theories.

[MrBarnett]

If there was just one killer, and his fixation with disassembly had developed prior to 1888, why might he not have attempted anything of the kind on Martha Tabram's body?

Even if, this being his first public killing, he felt at risk of discovery, he could have lopped off an ear or a finger quite easily.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. I think it was all about disassembling women. The cutting and parting was more important than the organ taking, and the organ taking was not something the killer did because he wanted the organs, but instead because he liked the idea of the organs being removable.

And its perfectly reasonable to postulate the killers motives and driving forces. And so its perfectly reasonable for me, or anyone else, to postulate the rippers ‘driving force’ based on the known evidence.

I believe that it was important for the ripper to leave his victims where they would be found soon after. And more importantly that the victims were found recognisable as destroyed women/prostitutes and not strewn body parts.

Add this to the obvious facts that they were all (apart from Kelly) middle aged prostitutes. They were killed over a short 2 month period and within a few streets of each and that the severity of mutilations increased with each crime (apart from Stride of course) and the conclusion is a very reasonable one.

Ripper and Torso unconnected. Any coincidental similarities are just that.

[Fisherman]

"And he misses out on how the Ripper did so much more when given the opportunity"

Like what? Disfiguring the face? Another thing which, for very obvious reasons, can not be claimed for the torso victims.

Really? I would have thought that the face of the 1873 victim was greatly disfigured, Gareth. But - and this is the main matter - I donīt think that the killer would have felt inclined to disfigure the face in all cases. Nor do I think that the killers aim was to disfigure the face per se. I donīt think he thought that he disfigured faces at all.
Once again - I think the killer wanted to disassemble women. Take them apart. In more than one fashion. Many different measures would have appealed to him. Which is why we cannot demand that the same exact type of damage must always be present, which it indeed never is.
One can choose to try and understand that and learn from it, or one loftily wave it away and call it irrelevant. I know what choice I make.

You really want to have your cake, don't you, Fish? When a torso has (some) organs extracted, it's because her killer was JTR. When a torso victim DOESN'T have any organs removed, it's because JTR was actually only interested in taking women apart!

Yours truly, Jack the Dismantler.

Thatīs you attributing ideas to me that I never had. Again. You need to stop that. The killer wanted to take women apart, if you ask me - and taking out organs is one of many aspects of doing that. Many of the things led on by this urge were duplicated inbetween victims, but new ideas entered the equation every now and then, some never to be repeated.
If you donīt like the concept, thatīs fine. If you are having trouble understanding how such a thing works, so be it. But donīt put words in my mouth.
Given your insights into the cases and you inability to accept facts that go against your ideas, that would spell disaster.

[Sam Flynn]

"And he misses out on how the Ripper did so much more when given the opportunity"

Like what? Disfiguring the face? Another thing which, for very obvious reasons, can not be claimed for the torso victims.

You really want to have your cake, don't you, Fish? When a torso has (some) organs extracted, it's because her killer was JTR. When a torso victim DOESN'T have any organs removed, it's because JTR was actually only interested in taking women apart!

Yours truly, Jack the Dismantler.

[Fisherman]

I dont suggest at all that organ taking was the motive,far from it in my opinion. It is your theory, but it doesn't stand up to close scrutiny because had one killer been responsible for the murders of these torsos,as you suggest, and part of the motive was organ removal then we would have seen that in all of his victims would we not ?

Its not rocket science

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Well, you DID say that it was probably a series of unwanted pregnancies, and that if it was not that, then it could have been about selling organs, did you not?

I would like to point out that you are mistaken when you say that I think it was about organ taking, by the way. I donīt think that at all - to my mind, that was secondary. Itīs Gareth who thinks the Ripper was about organ taking, not me. And he misses out on how the Ripper did so much more when given the opportunity.

I think it was all about disassembling women. The cutting and parting was more important than the organ taking, and the organ taking was not something the killer did because he wanted the organs, but instead because he liked the idea of the organs being removable.

So sometimes there would be organ removal, on other occasions there would be the removal of a face, or the cutting off of the limbs or cutting the breasts off and so on. Organ removal was but a part of the many possibilities he had at hand.

If you donīt understand me and have not even read my take on this - posted numerous times - then you should perhaps not try to make points from suggestions I have never made?

[Sam Flynn]

Spot on, Trevor. And with all that time and privacy on their hands, the perpetrator(s) could have made a VERY thorough job of removing organs indeed
.

[Trevor Marriott]

"If that is true it causes a big hole in your theory..."

Okay. And if it is not true?

I donīt agree that there are plausible explanations to why organs were not taken from the bodies, if - as you suggest - organ taking was the reason for killing the victims. If so, then there would have been all the time in the world to procure all the organs.

Hearing you say that there are holes in my theory is amusing. You were always good fun to read.

I dont suggest at all that organ taking was the motive,far from it in my opinion. It is your theory, but it doesn't stand up to close scrutiny because had one killer been responsible for the murders of these torsos,as you suggest, and part of the motive was organ removal then we would have seen that in all of his victims would we not ?

Its not rocket science

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

I said "the way Fisherman goes on about it, you'd think that evisceration was a constant feature", NOT that you actually said that all the torso victims had organs removed. So I was neither lying nor misleading.

To clarify: You "go on about" parallels with the Ripper case, and cite evisceration as one of those parallels, but we know that can't be in the least bit significant because it didn't happen that often in the torso cases. So why "go on about" evisceration as a link between the two series?

Yes, I think you were VERY misleading. I have presented the facts, nothing else, so I am not prepared to have it inferred that I would have implied anything else.

I am in my full right to say that there were eviscerations in both series. It is a fact that there were.
And since we know that there were, that is a similarity between the series. Whether it is a perfect parallel or not, is another matter. As is the case with the cutting of the soft parts of the neck, it can be either way.
But that does not take away anything at all from the fact that there are mutilations and eviserations in both series.

You very apparently wish that there were no eviscerations and no mutilations in the torso series. You wish that there was no possibility of similarly cut necks. You wish that there had not been missing rings in both series, that there had not been opened up abdomens in both series and that there had not been abdominal walls taken away in flaps in both series.

But wishing is one thing, sticking with the facts is another. And claiming that we know that the similarities very never REAL similarities is a third, called misleading and lying.

[Kattrup]

.
As for the boy in the Thames, itīs another case of luck that nobody recognized the shorts.

I think you mean bad luck!