Same motive = same killer

[Trevor Marriott]

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 wonīt 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?

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

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

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.

[Fisherman]

Its also perfectly possible that if someone found a body burned to ashes someone could have said ‘well its possible that her body might have at one time looked exactly like Mary Kelly’s.’

Surely your taking an inference too far Fish? These were deliberately severed heads not over exuberant throat cuttings.

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 wonīt 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?

[Sam Flynn]

These were deliberately severed heads not over exuberant throat cuttings.

Quite so.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But hey, you donīt need to answer. We all know that it is perfectly possible that the necks were all cut in the same way and for the same reason by the same man..

Its also perfectly possible that if someone found a body burned to ashes someone could have said ‘well its possible that her body might have at one time looked exactly like Mary Kelly’s.’

Surely your taking an inference too far Fish? These were deliberately severed heads not over exuberant throat cuttings.

[Fisherman]

I'm not going to answer, Fish. Your points are irrelevant, for reasons I've given above.

My points are totally relevant, since they decide whether there was a possible connection or not. It does not get any more relevant than that. It is the core of the errand, no more, no less.

And it doesnīt get more obvious when it comes to the reason for your not daring to answer!

But hey, you donīt need to answer. We all know that it is perfectly possible that the necks were all cut in the same way and for the same reason by the same man.
We also all know that all the victims but for Stride had the major parts of the soft part of their necks cut.

Itīs not rocket science, is it?

I just wanted you to man up and acknowledge it. But you couldnīt. You just couldnīt.

[Sam Flynn]

I'm not going to answer, Fish. Your points are irrelevant, for reasons I've given above.

[Fisherman]

Still waiting for your answers, Gareth.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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".

[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

[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 getīs 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 donīt falsely attribute things to you. I donīt 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?

Letīs hear it now, Gareth!

[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]

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]

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

[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.