Same motive = same killer

[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 donīt 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 donīt 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?

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

[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.

[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

[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?

[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 donīt know what the killer knew about the placement of the organs, we donīt know which organs he had decided on (if he had decided on any), we donīt 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 donīt 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 "Letīs 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.