Practicality or madness?

[Michael W Richards]

Trevor, anybody can come up with alternative reasons for anything. But the fact of the matter is that as long as we do not KNOW why the abdominal walls were removed, we must look upon them as being linked. The reason for that is how incredibly rare eviscerating serial killers are - to find two such people in the same town and time, doing the same VERY odd things to their victims is never going to be likely. The solution with just the one killer is the only realistic bet. We cannot go "Wait! I can think up another solution" and think it alters the picture, because it doesnīt.

Dislike it, by all means - but donīt tell me that your view is based on sound police thinking and experience, because NO policeman has ever experienced what you suggest.

Huh? That's one of the most ridiculous things ever posted about this implausible scenario. When you do not know something one cannot then presume any extrapolated position using that unknown data. Meaning...until you know why they were done, you have no way of marrying them. Just like your line that" one killer is the only realistic bet"...more accurately, its one of a myriad of speculative answers based on questions raised by incomplete or unclear data. The least likely one.

State whatever you like, just don't have the arrogance to suggest its the "only realistic bet" just because you say so.

[Fisherman]

But there is no evidence to show that the torsos were murder victims by reason of no causes of death were firmly established, and no evidence to show that a killer was responsible for dismembering the bodies! Its a wild speculative theory. You are making a sweeping statement back it up with real evidence if you can? You have been listening to Christer for too long !

And I have put forward a plausible explanation for the cutting of the abdominal walls and their removal

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor, anybody can come up with alternative reasons for anything. But the fact of the matter is that as long as we do not KNOW why the abdominal walls were removed, we must look upon them as being linked. The reason for that is how incredibly rare eviscerating serial killers are - to find two such people in the same town and time, doing the same VERY odd things to their victims is never going to be likely. The solution with just the one killer is the only realistic bet. We cannot go "Wait! I can think up another solution" and think it alters the picture, because it doesnīt.

Dislike it, by all means - but donīt tell me that your view is based on sound police thinking and experience, because NO policeman has ever experienced what you suggest.

[Trevor Marriott]

really who cares what anyone calls them-"expert"or lay person.That destitute women murdered by an unsub serial killer who have "sections" (can i call them that? lol) of their stomach/abdominal flesh cut away is a very strong link, given the rarity and specificity of it. it shouldnt take a rocket scientist to see it-just a little common sense.

But there is no evidence to show that the torsos were murder victims by reason of no causes of death were firmly established, and no evidence to show that a killer was responsible for dismembering the bodies! Its a wild speculative theory. You are making a sweeping statement back it up with real evidence if you can? You have been listening to Christer for too long !

And I have put forward a plausible explanation for the cutting of the abdominal walls and their removal

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

really who cares what anyone calls them-"expert"or lay person.That destitute women murdered by an unsub serial killer who have "sections" (can i call them that? lol) of their stomach/abdominal flesh cut away is a very strong link, given the rarity and specificity of it. it shouldnt take a rocket scientist to see it-just a little common sense.

That, of course, is how I see it too. I fail to understand what the semantic debate is about and how it belongs. We know what the parts cut away were, large panes of the abdominal wall with subcutaneous tissue attaching, and that is quite enough to prove that it was a very rare thing going on in two murder series.

Basically, we could turn the body over and suggest that we could have had murders where the buttocks were cut away in two murder series in the same time and town, and I donīt think anybody would deny that such a thing would point straight to a common perpetrator. Having said that, I feel confident in saying that cut away buttocks will be much more common than cut away abdominal walls, for the simple reason that the buttocks carry sexual implications that the abdominal wall doesnīt.

Itīs dead simple, really. Or it would have been, had this not been Ripperology.

[Abby Normal]

really who cares what anyone calls them-"expert"or lay person.That destitute women murdered by an unsub serial killer who have "sections" (can i call them that? lol) of their stomach/abdominal flesh cut away is a very strong link, given the rarity and specificity of it. it shouldnt take a rocket scientist to see it-just a little common sense.

[Fisherman]

For what it's worth, I read Dr Biggs' comments about "where two pieces haven't entirely separated" as referring only to the last term mentioned, ie "bridge", rather than to all the terms he lists.

So did I, Joshua. Sloppy cutting resulting in collateral damage. And lightyears away from intentionally cutting panes of flesh from the abdominal wall.

I have little doubt that Biggs would consider f ex the v-cuts on Eddowes face as flaps too, the way most people do. The point is that the panes cut from three victims and that the doctors called flaps back in 1888-89 actually never were flaps in the accepted sense of the word. But getting bogged down in semantics is what I least want to do ...

[Joshua Rogan]

For what it's worth, I read Dr Biggs' comments about "where two pieces haven't entirely separated" as referring only to the last term mentioned, ie "bridge", rather than to all the terms he lists.

[Fisherman]

Its is relevant because you want to link the torsos and JTR to one killer by reason of flaps whether they be just flaps of skin or abdominal flaps, and there is a difference between the two.

That is not true, is it? I am not linking the torsos to the Ripper murders on account of any flaps, am I? The flaps Biggs refer to are flaps that come about as a result of unclean cutting. You may remember that you have posted material from Biggs where he sais that the dismemberment cases he knew of were all sloppy affairs with unclean cutting - you used that post of Biggs to try and claim that "there are only so many ways one can cut up a body", and at that remove in time, I provided evidence from the four torso cases from 1887-1889 that were all cases representing very clean and exact cutting, using right angles and leaving no impression at all of any sloppy work. And in the Jackson case - just as in the Chapman and Kelly cases from the Ripper series - "flaps" (that was the term the contemporary medicos used) were cut from the abdominal walls. But in these cases, the flaps were not "Dr Biggs flaps" - they were not unintended tongues of skin, collateral damage from a sloppy dismemberment. They were INTENDED damage, large panes of flesh with subcutaneous tissue, cut from the abdominal wall.
So it is not as if we can say that all flaps have the same implications, is it, Trevor? Biggs spoke of a very common thing, collateral damage flaps cut with no intention behind them, whereas the "flaps" from our two series are the exact opposite: they are intended and extremely rare.

You still can't accept that if the women whose torsos were found were not murdered, and whoever was charged with disposing of the body and did not want to incur burial costs knew that organs were a saleable product they would be removed in the quickest and easiest way. That way would be to cut away abdominal flaps either side of any midline incision to allow greater access to the abdominal cavity. Its a simple and plausible explanation.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Why do you say that I canīt accept that the torso cases were not murders? It is not as if that is something that is even remotely proven is it? It would be qually viable for me to say that you still canīt accept that they WERE murdered - that, at least, is the accepted common view, and it was always the starting point for police and medicos alike.
And please, Trevor: adding the work of cutting away abdominal flaps can of couse never speed up or facilitate a dismemberment. It is the other way around: it adds time to the process and it does nothing to facilitate it.

Now, once more: why do you claim that any flap has the same impact on a case, regardless of how it looks and how rare it is? Have we not gotten longer?

[Michael W Richards]

Its is relevant because you want to link the torsos and JTR to one killer by reason of flaps whether they be just flaps of skin or abdominal flaps, and there is a difference between the two.

You still can't accept that if the women whose torsos were found were not murdered, and whoever was charged with disposing of the body and did not want to incur burial costs knew that organs were a saleable product they would be removed in the quickest and easiest way. That way would be to cut away abdominal flaps either side of any midline incision to allow greater access to the abdominal cavity. Its a simple and plausible explanation.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

A huge point here Trevor...we cannot be certain that the bodies were not dead when found. Or for that matter, if they were "found" more than once. Which makes this proposed marriage of "series's" doomed to fail. Jack the Ripper, whoever he was, and however many he killed, was a killer. Not a disarticulator who relies on found goods to operate.

The argument here fails even if the above isn't the case, it presumes that some killers don't compartmentalize their compulsions, that there are a wide range of activities he likes, he's varied, and he can get satisfaction from any one of these acts, not just specific ones.

Well, the ONLY murder that includes the removal of flaps to facilitate abdominal organ extraction in the Ripper series is Annies, and the man that examined her said that based on what he saw, virtually every action taken was to access and extract the uterus intact. "No meaningless cuts".

Seems that he saw specific actions to satisfy specific objectives. Why this cannot be considered an example of a man who kills specifically is beyond me. Here is a profile. Multiple Torsos over 10 years apart is clearly someone else.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, could you please explain to me how it is that you post about how Dr Biggs uses "terms like 'flap' of skin, 'strip' of skin or perhaps 'bridge' of skin where two pieces haven't entirely separated", in a discussion about how large panes of flesh together with subcutaneous tissue were cut away from the abdominal walls of three victims in the torso and Ripper series? Exactly how is that relevant?

Its is relevant because you want to link the torsos and JTR to one killer by reason of flaps whether they be just flaps of skin or abdominal flaps, and there is a difference between the two.

You still can't accept that if the women whose torsos were found were not murdered, and whoever was charged with disposing of the body and did not want to incur burial costs knew that organs were a saleable product they would be removed in the quickest and easiest way. That way would be to cut away abdominal flaps either side of any midline incision to allow greater access to the abdominal cavity. Its a simple and plausible explanation.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

I know and understand how the system works it is you that is blinded by your own beliefs.


www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor, could you please explain to me how it is that you post about how Dr Biggs uses "terms like 'flap' of skin, 'strip' of skin or perhaps 'bridge' of skin where two pieces haven't entirely separated", in a discussion about how large panes of flesh together with subcutaneous tissue were cut away from the abdominal walls of three victims in the torso and Ripper series? Exactly how is that relevant?

[Michael W Richards]

Hey Trevor...seems we are in the presence of self-professed greatness and we are ignorant in comparison. Who can challenge the omnipotent? Who among us has the reason and rational mind to counter such undeniable statements...

To my eye the assumed arrogance seems to be increasing, even hungry....might be time for a slice of humble pie.

[Trevor Marriott]

Well, letīs see:

Your professional opinion is that of a book-peddler in the Ripperology business, so thatīs how much it can be valued.

Dr Biggs, on the other hand, is a REAL professional within his realms, meaning that we should listen to him.

The combination of you two is less useful, because we tend to get Biggsī wisdom sifted through your book-peddlersī view, and that makes for disaster. Letīs for example take a look at what you posted on Biggs comments on flaps!

"When I am describing separated body parts in such cases, I'll use terms like 'flap' of skin, 'strip' of skin or perhaps 'bridge' of skin where two pieces haven't entirely separated. These are purely descriptive terms and have no underlying medical significance. I suspect that the descriptions given in these historical cases were originally just that (i.e. descriptions), but that over the years undue significance has been pinned to the terminology in the hope of somehow finding a 'link' between cases."

So Biggs is saying that HIS take on a flap is the tongue of skin that emerges when two parts of flesh are not fully separated; a bridge of skin, if you will. Now, extremely, utterly and incredibly obviously, those flaps are not the kind of flaps discussed in the comparison between the Ripper and the Torso killer. Those "flaps" (that was the term used by the professionals of that time, colleagues to Biggs as it were) were in fact large panes of detached flesh, with subcutaneous tissue attaching to them, and therefore not at all the same thing that Biggs speaks of. Biggs speaks of smallish tongues of skin, but the Ripper/Torso flaps were effectively the lid of the abdominal dome.

So there we have it:

1. You do not understand the matter.

2. Biggs understands the matter, but is commenting on something else than the matter, because you have not managed to convey to him what the matter is.

3. The combination of you two becomes laughable. And Biggs is NOT to blame for that!

The odd thing is that you do not seem to see how it works, otherwise you would not have posted that quotation from Biggs. Incredibly, you have had this explained to you in the past, when you posted the same material and with the same warped intentions. It ruins whatever hope you could have had of being taken seriously.

Other posters may, as we see, nevertheless endorse you for various reasons. It goes without saying that they thereby reveal themselves as equally ignorant as you seem to be. Thatīs all there is to it, really. No need to invest any more time in it.

I know and understand how the system works it is you that is blinded by your own beliefs.


www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

and Dr Biggs is his not a professional opinion also?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Well, letīs see:

Your professional opinion is that of a book-peddler in the Ripperology business, so thatīs how much it can be valued.

Dr Biggs, on the other hand, is a REAL professional within his realms, meaning that we should listen to him.

The combination of you two is less useful, because we tend to get Biggsī wisdom sifted through your book-peddlersī view, and that makes for disaster. Letīs for example take a look at what you posted on Biggs comments on flaps!

"When I am describing separated body parts in such cases, I'll use terms like 'flap' of skin, 'strip' of skin or perhaps 'bridge' of skin where two pieces haven't entirely separated. These are purely descriptive terms and have no underlying medical significance. I suspect that the descriptions given in these historical cases were originally just that (i.e. descriptions), but that over the years undue significance has been pinned to the terminology in the hope of somehow finding a 'link' between cases."

So Biggs is saying that HIS take on a flap is the tongue of skin that emerges when two parts of flesh are not fully separated; a bridge of skin, if you will. Now, extremely, utterly and incredibly obviously, those flaps are not the kind of flaps discussed in the comparison between the Ripper and the Torso killer. Those "flaps" (that was the term used by the professionals of that time, colleagues to Biggs as it were) were in fact large panes of detached flesh, with subcutaneous tissue attaching to them, and therefore not at all the same thing that Biggs speaks of. Biggs speaks of smallish tongues of skin, but the Ripper/Torso flaps were effectively the lid of the abdominal dome.

So there we have it:

1. You do not understand the matter.

2. Biggs understands the matter, but is commenting on something else than the matter, because you have not managed to convey to him what the matter is.

3. The combination of you two becomes laughable. And Biggs is NOT to blame for that!

The odd thing is that you do not seem to see how it works, otherwise you would not have posted that quotation from Biggs. Incredibly, you have had this explained to you in the past, when you posted the same material and with the same warped intentions. It ruins whatever hope you could have had of being taken seriously.

Other posters may, as we see, nevertheless endorse you for various reasons. It goes without saying that they thereby reveal themselves as equally ignorant as you seem to be. Thatīs all there is to it, really. No need to invest any more time in it.

[Michael W Richards]

Trevor, I am with you on many points. A list of "similarities" that makes possible suspects out of hundreds of local men...same area, place in time, targets being women caught out on the street after midnight.. is as useless as a theory that uses singular features found only on a very few victims within 2 distinctly different murder series to suggest both series were committed by one person. One "series" that lasts 2 1/2 months... and another over a decade long.

Not only not alike, but both quite obviously revealing vastly different activities, Methodologies, Styles.

You analysis of investigative sensibilities is most apt. But don't fret much, the support this has is weak and very limited, and surely to disappear in due time. The theory is built on imagination, not hard evidence. One more for the Smoke and Mirror clan.