Same motive = same killer

[Sam Flynn]

I am therefore keepig to the truth, so I´d request that you honour that instead of misleading about me.

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?

[Fisherman]

But the victims apart from the probable exception of Jackson where never identified so the perpetrator, if indeed there was only one obviously did a good enough job of concealing identity. This was an age before fingerprints etc

That is circular reasoning, Darryl. We know that there were moles an such that COULD have helped identify the victins. It seems more than luck than precautions to me. And I can be circular too: Jackson WAS identified, so the killer obviously dod not do a good job.

I really can't see someone carrying weighted parts of a body down to the Thames. It would be hard enough to take just the body parts there.

No? Have a look in the records how many weighed own bodies have been found there over the years, Darryl! I think you will find that this is much more common than floatinf the parts down the stream.

The body of the poor young lad whose torso was found in the Thames in 2007 as never been identified despite today's technology. And he was wearing bright orange shorts which someone on TV etc could possibly identify. Also the Whitehall mystery perpetrator probably left the body parts when and where he could. I can think of worse places of concealment than a vault on a construction site which may be being built over, and possibly not opened again.

There was never any intention to build it over. People don´t build cellar vaults to build them over, Darryl. And cellar vaults with tools lying around is a pretty good indication that the body MUST be found.
As for the boy in the Thames, it´s another case of luck that nobody recognized the shorts. That is not something one can count on.

[Fisherman]

Indeed, kudos to Trevor for an excellent post. However, I would point out that many of the torso victims had no organs removed at all. The way Fisherman goes on, you'd swear that evisceration was a constant feature of the torso cases, but it wasn't by a long chalk.

Nope. That is a blatant lie. I am saying that Jackson had her uterus removed together with her heart and lungs and part of the colon.

We know this.

I am aslo saying that the Rainham victim MAY have had heart and lungs and part of the colon removed - but we do not know this for sure. The organs were missing, that´s all we know.

Likewise, I am saying that the Whitehall torso lacked the uterus and "other organs", but it applies that we don´t know how they went missing.

I am therefore keepig to the truth, so I´d request that you honour that instead of misleading about me.

You´d do better to answer my questions instead of dreaming up things.

[Darryl Kenyon]

But the victims apart from the probable exception of Jackson where never identified so the perpetrator, if indeed there was only one obviously did a good enough job of concealing identity. This was an age before fingerprints etc
I really can't see someone carrying weighted parts of a body down to the Thames. It would be hard enough to take just the body parts there.
The body of the poor young lad whose torso was found in the Thames in 2007 as never been identified despite today's technology. And he was wearing bright orange shorts which someone on TV etc could possibly identify. Also the Whitehall mystery perpetrator probably left the body parts when and where he could. I can think of worse places of concealment than a vault on a construction site which may be being built over, and possibly not opened again.

[Fisherman]

You are blind to the obvious

If you read my post I stated that in addition to abortion per-see. I also mentioned administering a noxious substance to procure an abortion.

In the case of Jackson,as Debs has stated her death may have been caused by others than a back st medic. As it appears from what Debs has found out the family and her partner did not want the baby.

So if that be the case it causes a big hole in your theory because you cannot keep citing her and what happened to her body, to link it to other torsos and the WM.

And Bond did initially believe she had been aborted, then changed his mind. How can you safely come to a positive conclusion on this when a doctor changes his mind in mid stream. Beyond a reasonable doubt springs to mind.

There could be any number of plausible explanations why organs were not taken from some of the bodies. And in the case where they were found missing, equally there are other plausible explanations.

You have to accept that it is your theory that has more holes in than a cullender, and these holes have been pointed out to you many times on here, yet still you ignore them bumbling on in your own inimitable way. There is not any hope of any compromise. You have set your stall out and no one is going to make you change your mind. We saw this with you and the Charles Cross debacle

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

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

Okay. And if it is not true?

I don´t 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.

[Sam Flynn]

Talking of admitting of possibilities Fish isn’t it possible that Trevor’s last post might be a possible explaination of events?

Indeed, kudos to Trevor for an excellent post. However, I would point out that many of the torso victims had no organs removed at all. The way Fisherman goes on, you'd swear that evisceration was a constant feature of the torso cases, but it wasn't by a long chalk.

[Trevor Marriott]

There was no abortion performed on Jackson, as per Bond.

Certainly the Pinchin Street woman was not pregnant, not was the Rainham woman.

In Jackons case, if he wanted to sell the uterus, why throw it away?

In The Pinchin Street case, why not take any organs at all?

In the Rainham case, why not take out all organs? Why the ehart and the lungs only - since they were the only parts missing, together with a piece of the colon. Who would he sell the colon part to, Trevor?

The suggestion leaks worse than Bonnie and Clydes car would have after they were ambushed, if you filled it with water.

I don´t need to take a step back, Trevor. It was about time somebody took a step FORWARD.

You are blind to the obvious

If you read my post I stated that in addition to abortion per-see. I also mentioned administering a noxious substance to procure an abortion.

In the case of Jackson,as Debs has stated her death may have been caused by others than a back st medic. As it appears from what Debs has found out the family and her partner did not want the baby.

So if that be the case it causes a big hole in your theory because you cannot keep citing her and what happened to her body, to link it to other torsos and the WM.

And Bond did initially believe she had been aborted, then changed his mind. How can you safely come to a positive conclusion on this when a doctor changes his mind in mid stream. Beyond a reasonable doubt springs to mind.

There could be any number of plausible explanations why organs were not taken from some of the bodies. And in the case where they were found missing, equally there are other plausible explanations.

You have to accept that it is your theory that has more holes in than a cullender, and these holes have been pointed out to you many times on here, yet still you ignore them bumbling on in your own inimitable way. There is not any hope of any compromise. You have set your stall out and no one is going to make you change your mind. We saw this with you and the Charles Cross debacle

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

I think you need to take a step back, take a deep breath and clear your head, and revisit the torsos again.

Looking at each one individually what do we have.

In every case, a dead female, who may have been murdered by a serial killer, or by a single killer, or may have died as a result of some medical procedure which may have just been being administered some noxious substance to procure an abortion. Can we conclusively prove any of them. The answer is no.!

If one or more were murdered as is being suggested, throat cutting or strangulation would not be relevant to the end result and either method cannot be proven despite all your arguments, because the heads were removed and that would remove any evidence of either.

Who ever then has charge of that body has an urgent need to dispose of it for obvious reasons. So what can be done, as Dr Biggs states and I think most will agree that there are only so many ways a body can be dismembered. The easiest is to cut it into 6 pieces. With that in mind we have to ask why would there be a need to open up the abdomens, thereby making disposal more difficult, and creating a bloody mess.

But we know that the torsos did have their abdomens opened up, but for what purpose, to remove organs, and take them away? well that is clearly not evident in most of the cases so that might rule out a serial killer taking organs. So one minus point to comparisons to the WM as per you theory.

Another minus point with regards to comparisons is that the heads of the torsos were missing, and why was that? Another means to hide the identity.
Certainly the WM did not make any attempt to hide the identity of any of the victims, nor did he make any attempt to lure them to anywhere for the purpose of dismemberment. They were murdered where they were found.

I personally think the answer to the torsos lies with the women themselves.

They were all believed to have been prostitutes, all relatively young in age, and they may have been in the very early stages of pregnancy, or believed they were pregnant. Jackson we know was heavily pregnant.

So if they sought help, and as a result of that help they died then, whoever administered whatever, or carried out some procedure would need to dispose of the body and hide the identity of that body.

These so called back street medicos were quite proficient when it came to medical knowledge, in fact one coroner did make mention of the fact that these back st medicos should not be underestimated as to their medical knowledge.

That being said we cannot discount the fact that having a dead body to dispose of to avoid prosecution, they would know how valuable organs were for research. So another plausible suggestion is that they opened up the abdomens if they had not been already opened up, and removed various organs to perhaps sell onto medical establishments.

One final minus point to note for comparisons to the WM. In those murders the abdomens of the victims were subjected to stabbing and mutilation. That does not appear to be the case of the Torsos.

So having taken a deep breath, and cleared you head. I hope you can now look at these torsos in a totally different light and take off those blinkers

There was no serial killer at work, and the similarities you seek to rely on do not stand up to close scrutiny

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

There was no abortion performed on Jackson, as per Bond.

Certainly the Pinchin Street woman was not pregnant, nor was the Rainham woman.

In Jacksons case, if he wanted to sell the uterus, why throw it away?

In The Pinchin Street case, why not take any organs at all?

In the Rainham case, why not take out all organs? Why the heart and the lungs only - since they were the only parts missing, together with a piece of the colon. And who would he sell the colon part to, Trevor? A colon collector? Or a partial colons collector, to be more precise?

The suggestion leaks worse than Bonnie and Clydes car would have after they were ambushed, if you filled it with water.

I don´t need to take a step back, Trevor. It was about time somebody took a step FORWARD.

[Fisherman]

Talking of admitting of possibilities Fish isn’t it possible that Trevor’s last post might be a possible explaination of events?

Let me read it and see! I´ll get back to you - and Trevor.

[Fisherman]

Sorry if i am sounding numb here but it seems to me that the cutting of the throats/decapitation of the heads was done, not as a similarity but as a necessity. In torso's case none of the heads 87-89 where found. To me that means, even if their throats where cut before the heads where taken off, that was done to make ID harder or impossible. IE the victims, if identified could possibly lead to the perpetrator. Necessity. Note if Liz was decapitated for instance, and her body never identified would Kidney be seen as a suspect ? But since Jack probably didn't know any of his victims he had no need to do that. In his case the cutting of the throat was probably done to silence his victims quickly after he probably half strangled them first. Necessity. And i think you could even argue that after he killed Martha, i know that isn't a given, but if he did, he learned to slit the victims throats to make sure they where dead quicker, rather than stabbing them numerous times. And that would post date some of the torso victims.

I would suggest that since we know that the Torso killer mutilated and eviscerated too, just like the Ripper did, there is every reason not to accept that the dismemberments were a practicality only.

As has been said before - and it seems to me that everything has been - this killer did NOT weigh down the parts he threw in the river, but instead he floated them down the Thames. That is not something a person who wants to conceal a crime does.
Nor does such a person leave clothes with the victims that can lead to their identification.
Nor does such a person leave moles and scars on a corpse.
Nor does such a person place the torso of a victim in the basement of the New Scotland Yard building

It seems abundantly clear that the torso murders were not about hiding away the victims and concealing the crimes. Therefore, I think there may well be another reason for the absense of the heads than a wish to hide the identities of the victims.

As we can see, the torso killer spent a lot of time and work on the head of the 1873 victim, carving away the face, eyelashes included, in one piece from the skull.

For many mutilators, different parts of the body carry importance to them. The head can have been such a part, and the killer can have kept the heads for purpose of self-gratification instead of concealment.

The damage done to the torso victims certainly allows for such an interpretation.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Sorry if i am sounding numb here but it seems to me that the cutting of the throats/decapitation of the heads was done, not as a similarity but as a necessity. In torso's case none of the heads 87-89 where found. To me that means, even if their throats where cut before the heads where taken off, that was done to make ID harder or impossible. IE the victims, if identified could possibly lead to the perpetrator. Necessity. Note if Liz was decapitated for instance, and her body never identified would Kidney be seen as a suspect ? But since Jack probably didn't know any of his victims he had no need to do that. In his case the cutting of the throat was probably done to silence his victims quickly after he probably half strangled them first. Necessity. And i think you could even argue that after he killed Martha, i know that isn't a given, but if he did, he learned to slit the victims throats to make sure they where dead quicker, rather than stabbing them numerous times. And that would post date some of the torso victims.

[Fisherman]

There appears to be no way of being certain if the Torso victims had their throats cut before their heads came off. As we can’t know either way there’s not much point arguing about it.

Yes! YES!! You DID it! Bravo, Herlock! This is what Gareth has been unable to acknowledge. You beat him to it. Well done!!!
There is NO way of knowing this, and that is EXACTLY what I have been saying for the longest.

A more relevant debate is why The Torso Killer removed the heads whereas Jack didn’t. Because they were 2 different people perhaps?

It is not more relevant, no - acknowledging that they may be the same type of wounds, made in the same way and for the same reason is VERY relevant and important.
Your question is nevertheless extremely interesting. One explanation is that they were two killers - but that does not explain the dozen or so similarities.

The explanation that the dismemberment was led on by how the killer had murdered the women in the torso series in a location that was tied to his identity, and that he therefore needed to clear the corpse away, covers BOTH things, though - dismemberment AND similarities alike.

So there you are, Herlock. That is how I see things.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Talking of admitting of possibilities Fish isn’t it possible that Trevor’s last post might be a possible explaination of events?

[Fisherman]

The Ripper victims did not "have their necks cut". They had their THROATS cut.

As to the BEHEADED torso victims - to say that their necks were cut is a gross understatement, if not an insult to their memory - we just don't know whether their throats were cut or not. Some might have been strangled, others smothered, others might have had their heads bashed in.

Just answer my questions and we will be fine:

Is it possible that the victims in both series sustained the same type of cuts, at least initially, before the spine was severed in the torso series?

That is all you need to answer. Unlike what Herlock leads on, I am not inferring anything at all, I am only saying that it is a possibility that this was so, just as it is a possibility that everything was cut in a single sequence (or two, to be fair - both knife and saw were used in most cases).

No other questions need to be answered but this one.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There has never been any question about whether the heads in the torso series were deliberately severed or not, Herlock. We all, each and every one of us, know that this was so. It is a non-issue. Nobody in the whole wide world thinks it was accidental.

So why bring that up? How could it possibly be of interest?

I will tell you why it is brought up: Because - speaking of inferences - you want to infer that neck, throat and spine all were severed at the same time.

This is where the whole issue is at risk to become misleading! Because what applies is NOT that neck, throat and spine all were severed simulataneously. What applies is that EITHER

A/ neck, throat and spine were severed simultaneously, OR

B/ the neck and throat was FIRST cut, in the exact same way the Ripper victims had their necks cut, and then, some time after that, the spine was severed.

If A applies, then the deeds were dissimilar in this respect, but if B applies, they were EXACTLY similar in this respect.

So very, very far from "taking the inference too far" this is a crucial matter, Herlock.

There will however be no answer to it: We cannot know whether A or B applies. Consequently, both can be true, and consequently my question "Is it not true that the deeds can have been exactly similar in this respect?" can only be answered with a "Yes, it is true".

But Gareth won´t touch the question with a ten feet pole, because he is afraid to have it agreed upon. He wants to deny it, he cannot deny it and so he chooses to not even answer it. And he calls it "irrelevant", even!

That is an absolutely deplorable way of debating, when you are not even able to acknowledge the most crucial of facts, instead opting for dubbing them "irrelevant". Or, for that matter, claiming that it is taking an inference too far when no inference has been made at all.

I am not "inferring" that B is the correct solution. I am saying that it MAY be the correct solution and that we must not try and peddle the idea that A is instead the only possibility. We should be honest and acknowledge that it could have been either way.

Putting it otherwise, when somebody claims that this detail represents something that differs inbetween the series, or comes up with the nutty idea that the fact that the Ripper victims had their throats cut would somehow tell them apart from the Torso cases, where the throats were ALSO cut, then the time has come to put an end to the shenaningans. If I am able to say it could have been both ways, I find it beyond pityful when the other side is unable to admit as much.

It-is-a-fact-that-the -cutting-of-the-soft-parts-of-the-neck-can-have-been-done-in-the-exact-same-manner-in-both-series-and-for-the-same-reason.

Equally, it-is-a-fact-that-neck-throat-and-spine-can-have-been-cut-simultaneously-in-the-torso-series.

Are we clear on this now?

Yet again an unneccesarily patronizing last sentence.

I understand your point perfectly Fish. Indeed there is a bit of a parallel in the JFK assassination story where researchers (conspiracy theorists) believe that a bullet exit wound in the Presidents throat (which would mean a shot from the front and therefore a conspiracy) could have been hidden/disguised by a tracheotomy that was performed to try and save his life.

There appears to be no way of being certain if the Torso victims had their throats cut before their heads came off. As we can’t know either way there’s not much point arguing about it.

A more relevant debate is why The Torso Killer removed the heads whereas Jack didn’t. Because they were 2 different people perhaps?