Practicality or madness?

[Fisherman]

You are the only one it seems who supports the superior skill factor,outside of the basics in dismembering a body.

No, I am not. The skill factor was not introduced by me, it was introduced by those who examined the bodies, and I think we shoud respect that they knew what they were talking about. Galloway, for example, is not very likely to have seen a sloppy cutting work, is he? And since he was able to say that the cutting was exceedingly skilled in the Rainham case (EXCEEDINGLY skilled, not just skilled), he would have compared to other cases. So letīs not be stupid, shall we: The fact that the Torso victims were very skilfully dismembered is on record, and is no invention of mine.

There are only three ways to dismember a body, one with a knife, the other with a saw, or a combination of both,and using a saw would not necessitate sawing through the joints.

There is only one way to paint an oil color painting - by way of using a brush. Does that make you Rembrandt, Trevor? There is only one way to kick a ball into a goal - by way of foot. Does that make you Maradona?
The cutting quality of a dismemberment can vary immensely. Normally, the cutting is sloppy and crude on account of how the cutter dislikes what he is doing. This was no the case with the Torso victims.

Where is the direct evidence, which shows a specific cause of death to any of the torsos relative to the WM time period? and I dont mean opinions or beliefs based on opinions, show me one injury that caused that victims death which suggests they were murdered!

Donīt me moronic. The verdict of murder was given in two out of four cases, and as Trow putds it in his book, it defies belief that this was not the case in all four instances. There was never any realistic doubt that these four deeds were all murders, not least because the bodies were all cut up by the same perpetrator.

It doesnt matter what anyone says to you about these torsos, you are clearly obsessed with the fact that they were all murdered by a serial killer, and that they were all murdered by the same hand, you need to wake up to reality and lose that obsession

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Me obsessed? I am sharing the view of 99 per cent of those who care to read up on and understand these cases. If we should speak of obsessions, we need to find somebody who votes against the rational conclusion served best by the evidence. And that somebody is you. YOU are the blinkered, obsessed and unrealistic part here, not me.
Iīm the one accepting the evidence while you are the goof denying it.

[Abby Normal]

Basically, Abby, I am reasoning that the four Hebbert cases are airtight as an entity - Hebbert said that the cuts to the victims were in all respects similar, and that closes the deal : same killer in those cases.
After that, I tend to reason that the cases where there is skilled cutting will arguably belong to the same tally too. And I am totally satisfied that the 1873 case belongs. The 1874 case is hard to pin down, since it seems the main reason to couple it to the 1873 case is that this was apparently done back in the day. Whether the cutting was skilled or not is not touced upon, but given the contemporary police thought it was two of a kind, reasonably, the cutting was of the same sort. That means that we have 4 + 2 cases, and the Tottenham case was also one of skilled cutting, so I think it belongs too. Seven, therefore in total, to add to the six Ripper deeds, Tabram involved. Thirteen in total. But I do. ot rule out MacKenzie in any way, nor do I do so with Mylett.
It is hard to make any calls because there are peripheral cases where les certainty applies. A least two dozen murders, how does that sound?

two dozen? 24??

[Fisherman]

two dozen? 24??

Now, how did that come about...? At least a dozen murders was what I intended to write. Maybe I misspelt and the autocorrection function of my Mac stepped in, I donīt know.
At least twelve murders, Abby. Sorry.

[Trevor Marriott]

Me obsessed? I am sharing the view of 99 per cent of those who care to read up on and understand these cases. If we should speak of obsessions, we need to find somebody who votes against the rational conclusion served best by the evidence. And that somebody is you. YOU are the blinkered, obsessed and unrealistic part here, not me.
Iīm the one accepting the evidence while you are the goof denying it.

The best evidence is that you first show that the victims died as a result of being murdered, and then evidence to show they were all killed by the same killer

You have been asked many times to provide this evidence so until you do I and many others will continue to challenge your theory. I guess we will grow old waiting !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Abby Normal]

Now, how did that come about...? At least a dozen murders was what I intended to write. Maybe I misspelt and the autocorrection function of my Mac stepped in, I donīt know.
At least twelve murders, Abby. Sorry.

yup sounds about right to me.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

The best evidence is that you first show that the victims died as a result of being murdered, and then evidence to show they were all killed by the same killer

You have been asked many times to provide this evidence so until you do I and many others will continue to challenge your theory. I guess we will grow old waiting !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

There's a bit of a fair point in that. I'm personally of the opinion that for two distinct killers with such extreme levels of post mortem mutilation to be active in such close time and space proximities is unusual to say the least, but I'm not sold on the idea that the same individual is responsible for both. There are equal differences and similarities, and I do think Christer has made good points here and elsewhere ( a book might help?)
But, in the interest of balance, where is the evidence that the Torso victims were murdered? Could they have died by other, non murder, but possibly still manslaughter means? The temple blows on one victim suggest murder, and to suggest the torso killings are not connected seems unlikely. But, given that all the parts of all the victims were not recovered, can it be conclusively said they weren't murdered?
I feel that the type of post mortem mutilation varies, Jack disemboweled and destroyed, the torso killer dissected and dumped. One in the same? Possibly. Again, what odds for two killers, when one is rare enough, balanced against the dissimilarities?

[harry]

Fisherman,
Previous to this I have made only two posts on the subject.In neither did I say that you were claiming as fact,that the three series of killings and killers were the same.
Go ahead and check.They are only short posts.Why do you have to lie?
The word I used was Intimated,which means,according to my dictionary,to hint or imply.You have hinted or implied they were the same.I stand by that.Your whole theory is based on it.
All killers have control.The word is ambiguous.In the case of the Ripper and Torso killers we do not understand what their feelings were on the subject.In the case of Gillis he gives different answers.His first known killing of an 81 year old woman,was he claims because he was frightened of the conse quences of trying to rape her.In an other case he says he woke up in his car with a body beside him and didn't remember killing her,or how he did it,but assumes it must have been him.In neither case does he mention control as a factor.In one interview he claims not to know of a reason he committed the crimes.A bad example to use,but as Trevor so accurately implies,you are desperately clutching at straws.
If you wish to reply to this post,then read it carefully,and don't lie again.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,
Previous to this I have made only two posts on the subject.In neither did I say that you were claiming as fact,that the three series of killings and killers were the same.
Go ahead and check.They are only short posts.Why do you have to lie?
The word I used was Intimated,which means,according to my dictionary,to hint or imply.You have hinted or implied they were the same.I stand by that.Your whole theory is based on it.
All killers have control.The word is ambiguous.In the case of the Ripper and Torso killers we do not understand what their feelings were on the subject.In the case of Gillis he gives different answers.His first known killing of an 81 year old woman,was he claims because he was frightened of the conse quences of trying to rape her.In an other case he says he woke up in his car with a body beside him and didn't remember killing her,or how he did it,but assumes it must have been him.In neither case does he mention control as a factor.In one interview he claims not to know of a reason he committed the crimes.A bad example to use,but as Trevor so accurately implies,you are desperately clutching at straws.
If you wish to reply to this post,then read it carefully,and don't lie again.

What you posted was this:

"...comparing only one man's experience,and intimating it proves the ripper was the same sort of person,and is also the torso killer,because that person too exhibits the same characteristics is mind boggling"

You yourself tells us that "intimate" means to imply.

Therefore you very obviously claimed that I would have implied that it is proven that the Ripper/Torso killer was the same sort of person as Gillis.

That was - and is - why I said that you were being dishonest and falsely claiming things on my behalf. I would not imply such a thing becasue it would be rash and stupid, and rash and stupid I have never been. Others excel in that department, not me.

To all of this you now add that I would have lied about the matter, instead of doing the decent thing and admitting that you overstepped the line.

If you feel a further need to be revealed about this, just say the word. Of course, it was never intended to be the topic of the thread, but insist away, by all means, if you should feel so inclined!

[Fisherman]

The best evidence is that you first show that the victims died as a result of being murdered, and then evidence to show they were all killed by the same killer

You have been asked many times to provide this evidence so until you do I and many others will continue to challenge your theory. I guess we will grow old waiting !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Challenge away, by all means, Trevor. How do you think you have fared so far? Gingerich, temple blows, the police opinion, historyīs verdict, Hebberts experience and all?

[Fisherman]

There's a bit of a fair point in that. I'm personally of the opinion that for two distinct killers with such extreme levels of post mortem mutilation to be active in such close time and space proximities is unusual to say the least, but I'm not sold on the idea that the same individual is responsible for both. There are equal differences and similarities, and I do think Christer has made good points here and elsewhere ( a book might help?)
But, in the interest of balance, where is the evidence that the Torso victims were murdered? Could they have died by other, non murder, but possibly still manslaughter means? The temple blows on one victim suggest murder, and to suggest the torso killings are not connected seems unlikely. But, given that all the parts of all the victims were not recovered, can it be conclusively said they weren't murdered?
I feel that the type of post mortem mutilation varies, Jack disemboweled and destroyed, the torso killer dissected and dumped. One in the same? Possibly. Again, what odds for two killers, when one is rare enough, balanced against the dissimilarities?

Once again, dissimilarities are interesting up to the point where rare similarities occur within two cases, or series of cases. I have explained - or tried to explain - this many times now, but I am happy to do so again:

Dissimilarities inbetween two theoretical cases:

One woman killed in Greenland in 1949, and a man killed in Tahiti in 1960.
The woman killed by strangulation, the man by gunshot.
The woman 103 years old, the man 20.
The woman a famous politician, the man a dishwasher.

Could it be more dissimilar? Surely the cases must be unconnected?

But what if both victims have had their abdominal organs removed, whereupon the killer has stitched the openings closed with copper thread?

Can you see how the dissimilarities become obsolete in such a case? Although there is just the one similarity?

In the cases we look at, the differences are not by any stretch of the imagination as big as they were in my example. We have the same gender, the same occupation of the victims, the same city, the same general timeframe, the same opening up of the abdominal cavity by a cut from pubes to breastplate. What differs is the fact that some victims were dismembered, but there may be many reasons for that, plus we have examples of killers who did dismember only some of their victims.
But both men were eviscerators, both men cut out colon sections, both men cut away abdominal walls and both men stole rings from their victims fingers. And we donīt even have a single other example of co-existing eviscerators in the same area. So why would we accept two eviscerators here - who did the exact same odd things??? In victorian London, at a time in which we have very few serial killers recorded?

You say the Ripper disembowelled whereas the Torso killer dissected. But we know that the Torso killer took out organs from his victims bodies, just like the Ripper did. Why would we claim that this was done in different manners in the two series? Why would we not admit that BOTH men actually disembowelled?
You claim that Jack "destroyed". Didnīt the Torso killer do that? He also cut open, he also took out organs and he FURTHERMORE cut his victims up in pieces. Who destroys more of the two..?

You see, I think you are a victim of generic thinking here, getting tangled up in perceived differences that were never there. And sadly, I think you are in plentyful company.

For the record, I donīt think that either the Ripper murders nor the Torso dittos were about destruction at all. I believe they were both about creating, actually.

[harry]

Yes Fisherman,it does mean to imply,and yes you have implied that the torso killer and JTR were one and the same,that they can be compared to Gillis.I'll add one more name to the total,Cross.You haven't proved anything,and Iv'e never credited you for doing so,nor have I stated you claimed to have written such.That is your lie.
Reveal all you want,but first I suggest you check what imply means.
My dictionary states 'To hint,suggest indirectly,to indicate or involve as a consequence'. do not make yourself a bigger fool than you alreay have.

[Trevor Marriott]

Challenge away, by all means, Trevor. How do you think you have fared so far? Gingerich, temple blows, the police opinion, historyīs verdict, Hebberts experience and all?

I would say I am winning by a country mile !!!!!!!!!!!

But is not about winners or losers, its about trying to establish the truth based on what evidence and facts there are to be worked with from 1888 to prove or disprove, and being unbiased in the way the evidence and the facts are assessed and evaluated.

You are entitled to your opinion, and no one is going to deny you of that, but what you wont accept is that there is no "direct evidence" in support of your opinion.

You go as far back as 1873 with the torsos, but if you suggest the Torsos were all the work of the same killer, and that killer was responsible for the WM why do we not see more street murders akin to the WM during that 15 year period?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

I would say I am winning by a country mile !!!!!!!!!!!

Which is why the latter half of the heading of the thread works nicely with your take on things.

But is not about winners or losers, its about trying to establish the truth based on what evidence and facts there are to be worked with from 1888 to prove or disprove, and being unbiased in the way the evidence and the facts are assessed and evaluated.

Yes, exactly. You should try it.

You are entitled to your opinion, and no one is going to deny you of that, but what you wont accept is that there is no "direct evidence" in support of your opinion.

And what direct evidence is there in support of your take of the Torso murders. not being murders and the Ripper eviscerations being secondary matters performed in the morgues, Trevor? You see, whern there is no evidence, we need to look at probabilities, consistent inclusions, empirical knowledge and such matters.

You go as far back as 1873 with the torsos, but if you suggest the Torsos were all the work of the same killer, and that killer was responsible for the WM why do we not see more street murders akin to the WM during that 15 year period?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Why was there no Dahmer murders for nine yearts between his first and second victim, Trevor? And mind you, Dahmer was ALSO a post mortem mutilator.

[Trevor Marriott]

Why was there no Dahmer murders for nine years between his first and second victim, Trevor? And mind you, Dahmer was ALSO a post mortem mutilator.

Dahmer committed all his murders in the same way irrespective of the time frame.

What you are suggesting between the Torsos and JTR shows us that they are totally different in so many ways for them not to be the same person responsible, and like you keep getting told there is no direct evidence to show the torsos were murdered, a major point which you keep ignoring.

As to the ripper murders we have to ask if the same killer was responsible for all the murders, how come we see only two victims that had organs removed supposedly at the crime scenes, and those two victims were taken to two different mortuaries, and were found to have had the organs removed by two different methods of extraction, Does that point to one or two killers, or does it point to another more plausible explanation which you and others seem to want to dismiss?

What we have in the WM is evidence in many of the cases of a ferocious and violent attack on the victims specifically targetting and mutilating the abdomens, if the killer was intent on harvesting organs would those injuries to the abdomens inhibit any removals of organs, would not the abdomens of those victims having been stabbed not fill up with blood very quickly, thus making any attempt at locating organs and then attempting removals much more difficult especially in the dark?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Yes Fisherman,it does mean to imply,and yes you have implied that the torso killer and JTR were one and the same,that they can be compared to Gillis.

What I have "implied" is that Gillis and the Ripper/Torso killer may have been of the same ilk. But that was not what YOU claimed, was it? You claimed that I had led on that it is a PROVEN THING!!! Now, here is the post you used to make that deduction from:

"I am going to use this old thread of mine to introduce to you the serial killer I beleive is the one closest in pathology to the combined Ripper and Torso killer. The thread is named "Practicality or madness" and I personally believe that distinction is vital to understanding what the killer was about. So many speak of the frenzy and madness displayed in Millers Court, for example, and I thoroughly disagreee - I think that murder was controlled from the outset and that the killer worked meticulously to a scheme.

Sean Vincent Gillis, who killed eight women between 1994 and 2004 offers an explanation to what the killings were about, if I am correct. Gillis was a seemingly meek man, romantically involved with a shopkeeper throughout his ten year spree, and he was looked upon as reliable and honest, someone who could be trusted. Had a job, drove a car, was overall very helpful.
He killed his victims as quickly as he could for the simple reason that the killing itself was not what he was after - he was after gaining control over a body. His method of dispatching his victims, involving a wide variety of ages up to 80+ years of age, was to use a large nylon tie lock which he put over the head and pulled tight at the neck. He called the lock his "objectifier", since what he wanted to do to his victim was to "turn them from a woman" into an object.
Gillis also mutilated hs victims, and he cut limbs away from them. He famously explained his urges by saying in one case that he "wanted to see her femur" about one of his victims.
When interviewed by the police after being caught and confessing, the interviewer brought up the dismemberments, saying "Iīm talking about manipulating dead bodies", whereupon Gillis immediately latched on:
"Thatīs an interesting term you used, thatīs exactly the way looked at it - and would it surprise you that the control of another beings limbs is a part of it?" he asked.

Just like Ted Bundy, Gillis also said that he felt he became God during his slayings, but whereas Bundy felt God-like as he watched the last flicker of light die out in his victims eyes as he strangled them, Gillis was not interested in the killing phase at all. He only became God in his own eyes as he cut away limbs from his dead victims.

Gillis was inspired by the internet and the many representations of sexual violence depicted out there, whereas our man of course got his inspiration from other sources. Otherwise, I believe the two men are very, very closely connected.

I donīt think the Ripper/Torso killer was about madness or an urge to annihilate at all. I think the Victorians were at a loss to understand the pathology of this killer, but we are in a much better position to understand it today. I think our man - just like Gillis - was about taking control over a body by means of cutting parts of the body away at his will. No other control of a vixtim can be as decisive and total.

Thoughts and suggestions are welcomed."

Please tell me where I lead on that it is a proven thing that Gillis and the Ripper/Torso killer were the same kind of killers? Read and digest and then you come clean, please!!

I'll add one more name to the total,Cross.You haven't proved anything,and Iv'e never credited you for doing so,nor have I stated you claimed to have written such.That is your lie.Reveal all you want,but first I suggest you check what imply means.
My dictionary states 'To hint,suggest indirectly,to indicate or involve as a consequence'. do not make yourself a bigger fool than you alreay have.

This latter part of your post also involves an accusation of me lying, but I think I have proven (and yes, this time I DO mean "proven") by now who is refusing to acknowledge the truth: you. Once again, WHERE DO I LEAD ON THAT THE RIPPER/TORSO KILLER AND GILLIS ARE PROVEN TO BE OF THE SAME ILK? As far as I can tell, I take great care to point out that I am making a SUGGESTION of a POSSIBLE link.

Once you have got that sorted, you should be painfully aware who is making a fool of himself. I came here to look at the POSSIBLE link between post mortem mutilators like Gillis and our man, and I thought - and still think - that the matter provides us with a potentially extremely useful angle to look at the case from. What I wanted was a serious and rewarding discussion.

What I got was your unsubstantiable claim that I would somehow have led on that there was a proven link between Gillis and the Ripper/Torso killer and a lot of ensuing posts where you try to evade responsibility for it, so much so that you glibly leave out the term "proven" when you concoct your sad defence attempts. It is as pathetic as it is understandable - once you admit to it, the game is up.

Now, do you want more of this, or can those of us with an interest in the case discuss it? You can always do it the Marriott way, and claim that I cannot be reasoned with now that you find that you have been revealed, Harry. Itīs your choice.