Practicality or madness?

[FrankO]

Excuse me for the late reply, Christer; I had other things on my mind.

To me, all we can say is that Mary Kelly was reasonably aware about what happened since she was alive when she received that cut. Therefore, she may well have reacted to it by way of putting up some sort of fight. It is not all that hard to imagine, is it; the killer sneaks in, she awakes in her bed, sees him wielding a knife, puts her hand up in defense and gets that cut to the thumb in the process. She then puts her finger in his eye and cries "Oh, murder!", whereupon he puts his hand over her mouth, angles her head backwards and cuts her throat. Of course, that is only a suggestion, but I fail to see why it would not be a viable suggestion.

I haven’t said it’s not a viable suggestion, Christer. However, I simply see very little reason to believe that it did happen. But I’m glad that we agree that she was aware of what was happening, if only for a few seconds.

When it comes to the arm wounds, I always had a hard time regarding them as being defensive wounds. They are in the wrong place to be defensive wounds; normally, such wounds end up on the inside of the lower arm, not on the outside. This makes them so much the more interesting, since they seem to have been inflicted with no practical reason at all.

Then we see eye to eye on this, too!

But we do not know that it IS a "such" murder, do we?

We can only judge it by the looks and by the looks of it, it IS such a murder, meaning that the perpetrator, for whatever reason, did things so that it ended up looking like “such” a murder.

Not do we know if the killers intention was always to produce "such" murders.

That is correct, Christer. If the Ripper were to have had a go at another victim indoors, he would very likely not have done the exact same things, but I doubt that it would have looked a great deal different from what he did to MJK, considering what he did to his previous victims. But, you're right, we can't be sure of it.

The kind of murder you are referring to is a savage type of sexual attack with the intent to damage mainly the sexually oriented parts of the body, and I do NOT think myself that this was the case. If the element IS involved, then I believe it is only a partial explanation to what we see.

It doesn’t necessarily have to be a savage type of attack, as in, done by someone who isn’t much in control of himself; it’s an attack on those parts of the body that are attractive to the murderer, but I believe he may also do things for shock value or to make it, to his own mind at least, some sort of work of art. Jack Owen Spillman is an example of a killer who seems to fit this description and Samantha Bisset’s murder by Robert Clive Napper as well, as far as the “work of art” is concerned.

Now, Vernon Geberth; did he also say that "such" murders involve the taking out of inner organs in a manner that left them whole and seemingly undamaged? I bet he didnīt.

When talking about “such” murders, he does say that evisceration (removal of the viscera from the abdominal cavity) may take place and gives examples of evisceration cases and one in which inner organs were taken out and taken or thrown away, but, no he doesn’t mention whether they remained (or should be expected to remain) undamaged during or after that.

Did he urge us to expect the kiler to fashion a makeshift pillow from a breast, two kidneys and the uterus and put it under the victims head? Hardly.

He does say that ‘posing’ and ‘propping’ of the body may be expected, but doesn’t talk about posing of body parts in this respect. However, as an example he described a case that involved a victim whose breasts were cut off, one placed on the victims face and the other on her vagina. In another case he gave as an example of such murders, the perpetrator (Jack Owen Spillman) had cut out the vaginal area from one of his victims and placed in her mouth, while he had also cut off her breasts, which he transported to the bedroom and placed them on end tables on either side of the bed where the daughter's body was found. With the daughter of this victim he had done more or less the same; he put the excised piece of skin containing the vaginal area on the side of her face.

Did he say that we should expect the face to have been more or less cut away in "such" cases?

Actually, he does say that in “such” cases this is what sometime happens in cases of disorganized killers (“extreme assault of the face”), but he also says that anything a disorganized killer does may also be done by an organized one and vice versa. He also has an example of a killer who killed a victims somewhere and then brought her to an outdoors location and placed her in a degrading position, belly down, legs spread. The offender then scalped the victim and hung her hair on some debris at the scene. He also removed her breasts and eviscerated the victim's body.

Ironically, I believe the reason that the Kelly murder has always been looked upon as the pinnacle of evil and the most gruesome sight a policeman could encounter, is that the killer took great care to style the body scene in minute detail. What looks like mayhem is a carefully executed exhibition, if you ask me. But that is another matter!

I don’t argue with you on this one, because I, to a large degree, agree with your view.

If we are to draw close, then why not take a look at the Kingsbury Run killer, active 1934-39? Most victims were dismembered and found in pieces.

But in June of 1936, a victim was found with the body intact but for the head, that had been taken off. The body had, however, also been emptied of all itīs blood, like the 1873 torso victim. And in July of 1937, the killer had, around ten victims into the series, suddenly added a new element: he had gutted the abdomen and torn the heart out from that victim, a victim who was dismembered, by the way. The victim Edward Andrassy, found in September 1935, was found with the body completely intact - but beheaded and emasculated.
True, it is not the exact same - but the elements are there to a significant degree.

It is, indeed, a very interesting case, Christer. Especially reminiscent of the London torso murders and, much less so, of the Ripper murders.

Because the damage furthest removed from the core interests of a killer are the ones least likely to appear on a victim, and that means that such a victim should not be put forward as the best representation of what the killer will do if given the chance. Plus when we only have one single example in a series of these damages, we cannot know what is the reason for them being present.

I think you’re exaggerating a little here. Plus I’m not claiming to know the reason for why the Ripper did what he did to his victims; I’m just establishing that what was done to Mary Jane Kelly corresponds with what can be expected in “such” cases and that the prior murders are in line with what was done to her. At least according to what Vernon Geberth wrote about it.

[Michael W Richards]

Once again, should someone - unlikely though it may seem - arrive at the wrongful conclusion that I would have based my take of a common killer on any other similarities than the ones we have on record, then that somebody is of course deluding himself rather badly.

Once we wisely avoid entering any phantasyland of interpretations and instead cooly simply note that that abdominal flaps WERE taken from the abdomens of two or more victims in the same town and time, the rarity of the act points directly to a common perpetrator.
The inference is self-evident and indisputable.

I do hope nobody is so clueless as to claim the opposite!

" From your post 765 Fisherman, "...

If such a person - unlikely though it seems - should go a step further and claim that the taking away of the abdominal flaps in the same town and time would not indicate a common killer REGARDLESS of the exact apparition of the damage done, he or she is talking delusion one step further."

What you seem to be saying is that the differences cannot matter. If something happens that matches, in general terms, a description of an act that is found in prior cases, ...factors such as the size, shape, technique used, implement used, circumstantial evidence, location, ..all of that is meaningless when assessing who this perpetrator was. "Why,...well because he MUST be the same man regardless of all the other factors present and what they might reveal...because 2 or more men would never repeat something that they read about, or have their own inspirational reasons for doing those acts. Cant happen. So its gotta be the same man."

I am hoping you see how that is desperately clinging to a pre-existing premise, and has little to do with subjective review of all relevant data.

[Fisherman]

I wouldn't have you lump them in any way that you don't want, Christer. I myself would place them next to one another in chronological order, but that's me.

Okay. I was just a bit flummoxed by the phrase "lump them together in one pile". I thought it sounded kind of sloppy, like an unconsidered and lazy approach. And I can assure you that there is nothing at all sloppy or lazy about how I do the maths in this case. It involves looking t the cases next to another in chronological order, for example.
At the end of the day, if a case is to be made for a common originator, the similarities must be the factual evidence on which such a case is made.

[Fisherman]

To be fair and honest, you named what you believe can be construed as similarities, and taken some liberties while doing so. And you continue to personally attack rather than honestly place an argument for your case. There is sense of security doing that online I suppose.

So this cycle will end, Ill just ask you how many of the men investigating one or both of these series believed there was a link of the series by the injuries inflicted on the victims?

Actually, if somebody was to ask me the question: "How many of the men investigating one or both of these series believed there was a link of the series by the injuries inflicted on the victims?", I think I would answer that question in two ways.

First, I would point to how I repeatedly have said that there was virtually no chance that anybody in 1888 would think that the series were related for the simple reason that offensive dismemberment was not an identified paraphilia back then. When dismemberment occurred, it was ALWAYS reasoned that a wish to dispose of the parts or to hide the identity of the victim were the only underlying reasons. Therefore, we need not worry about how the victorians did not identify the series as connected - they were never going to do that.
A VERY interesting matter to look at in the context is Hebbert, who was as eager as anybody else to make a case for the torso murders being examples of a wish to dispose of the parts and to hide the identoty of the victims. In order to point out how very different the Ripper was, Hebbert speaks about how the Ripper was about destroying and desecrating his victims, and to really bring that message home, he writes that this hideous killer "even took out organs from his victims". This supposedly is the pinnacle of evil in Hebberts mind, but when pointing it out, he forgets that he himself has put his name to a paper where it is estblished that the Torso killer ALSO took out organs - he cut out the uterus, lungs and heart from the body of Elizabeth Jackson! And he may well have done much the same in the Rainham case, where heart and lungs were missing.

So the torso killer ALSO did that hideous thing: he removed organs. But in Hebberts mind, that was part of a defensive dismemberment (although Hebert was not aware of the term as such).

That is one of the things I would point out.

The other things I would point to is how some posters seem to think it is okay to push the idea that the police and medicos in 1888 must have been correct about two killers for the series, while at the same time they forward the idea of at least three, possibly four killer for the Ripper series, whereas MacNaghten said "The Ripper had five victims and five victims only" and Dr Bond asserted that the five murders Macnaghten spoke of wee unquestionably the work of the same killer.
What happens to the quality of the argument when the nposters who make it are willing to believe 100 per cent in the police and medicos in one case and then they throw the same sources to the wind in the next second?

Some small insights in the contemporary knowledge (or lack of it) of the driving forces behind the kind of murders we are dealing with, coupled with a little consistency and honesty in making an argument would be refreshing.

[Fisherman]

I suppose it's only really defensible if you subscribe to the interruption model.
It stands to reason the police at the time included it, another unfortunate with a slashed throat, right time and place, it's why we still include her now.
If she's another victim of the Whitechapel killer, then, like the torso cases, it's weighing up similarities and differences. Personally, I find the single cut on stride, although not the same as the other victims, is still sufficient to arouse suspicion. I can understand a random murder involving stabbing, grabbing, scratches and such, but a single, deep slash of the throat is worthy of consideration as by the same hand.
But if he wasn't disturbed or scared off, you'd have to assume there would at least be damage to the abdomen, in its absence it reduces her likelyhood as a victim.
It's difficult to include Stride without the interruption model, and it's tie in to a frustrated killer increasing the level of violence in Mitre Square.
That said though, maybe she was killed by him and not mutilated for reasons we'd never guess?
I'm not conclusive on this any more than other aspects of the case, but I personally err on the side of caution and don't include her.

Stride is and remains the weakest case. But there are strong reasons to include her. The deep cut to the neck, the victimology, the killers ability to kill silently in a public spot and the fact that we know that the Ripper was on the prowl on that very night, close by in both time and space, makes for a very reasonable case to include Stride. Whether we choose to accept these markers as enough or not is anybodyīs business, and I think strong points can be made in both directions.

[Fisherman]

" From your post 765 Fisherman, "...

If such a person - unlikely though it seems - should go a step further and claim that the taking away of the abdominal flaps in the same town and time would not indicate a common killer REGARDLESS of the exact apparition of the damage done, he or she is talking delusion one step further."

What you seem to be saying is that the differences cannot matter. If something happens that matches, in general terms, a description of an act that is found in prior cases, ...factors such as the size, shape, technique used, implement used, circumstantial evidence, location, ..all of that is meaningless when assessing who this perpetrator was. "Why,...well because he MUST be the same man regardless of all the other factors present and what they might reveal...because 2 or more men would never repeat something that they read about, or have their own inspirational reasons for doing those acts. Cant happen. So its gotta be the same man."

I am hoping you see how that is desperately clinging to a pre-existing premise, and has little to do with subjective review of all relevant data.

What if somebody would falsely claim that I am saying that the apparition of the flaps (and we know next to nothing about it) is of nbo importance?
Well, I would of course call it qualified and utter balderdash, since what I am saying is not that it does not matter - I am saying that regardless of how the flaps looked (and we know next to nothing about it, remember?), it remains that we know that there WERE large flaps cut from the abdomens of these women, and that means that they were likely the work of the same killer, REGARDLESS of the exact shape of the flaps.
In essence, the measure is so rare that pointing to how one flap may have been more oblong than another or two inches shorter than a third becomes a totally futile exercise if we think it will in anyway detract materially from the common killer suggestion. It is timewasting at itīs worst and incredibly misleading to speculate about such differences pointing away from a common killer.

Thatīs what I would say, and I would be 100 per cent correct.

[Fisherman]

Excuse me for the late reply, Christer; I had other things on my mind.

I haven’t said it’s not a viable suggestion, Christer. However, I simply see very little reason to believe that it did happen. But I’m glad that we agree that she was aware of what was happening, if only for a few seconds.

Then we see eye to eye on this, too!

We can only judge it by the looks and by the looks of it, it IS such a murder, meaning that the perpetrator, for whatever reason, did things so that it ended up looking like “such” a murder.

That is correct, Christer. If the Ripper were to have had a go at another victim indoors, he would very likely not have done the exact same things, but I doubt that it would have looked a great deal different from what he did to MJK, considering what he did to his previous victims. But, you're right, we can't be sure of it.

It doesn’t necessarily have to be a savage type of attack, as in, done by someone who isn’t much in control of himself; it’s an attack on those parts of the body that are attractive to the murderer, but I believe he may also do things for shock value or to make it, to his own mind at least, some sort of work of art. Jack Owen Spillman is an example of a killer who seems to fit this description and Samantha Bisset’s murder by Robert Clive Napper as well, as far as the “work of art” is concerned.

When talking about “such” murders, he does say that evisceration (removal of the viscera from the abdominal cavity) may take place and gives examples of evisceration cases and one in which inner organs were taken out and taken or thrown away, but, no he doesn’t mention whether they remained (or should be expected to remain) undamaged during or after that.

He does say that ‘posing’ and ‘propping’ of the body may be expected, but doesn’t talk about posing of body parts in this respect. However, as an example he described a case that involved a victim whose breasts were cut off, one placed on the victims face and the other on her vagina. In another case he gave as an example of such murders, the perpetrator (Jack Owen Spillman) had cut out the vaginal area from one of his victims and placed in her mouth, while he had also cut off her breasts, which he transported to the bedroom and placed them on end tables on either side of the bed where the daughter's body was found. With the daughter of this victim he had done more or less the same; he put the excised piece of skin containing the vaginal area on the side of her face.

Actually, he does say that in “such” cases this is what sometime happens in cases of disorganized killers (“extreme assault of the face”), but he also says that anything a disorganized killer does may also be done by an organized one and vice versa. He also has an example of a killer who killed a victims somewhere and then brought her to an outdoors location and placed her in a degrading position, belly down, legs spread. The offender then scalped the victim and hung her hair on some debris at the scene. He also removed her breasts and eviscerated the victim's body.

I don’t argue with you on this one, because I, to a large degree, agree with your view.

It is, indeed, a very interesting case, Christer. Especially reminiscent of the London torso murders and, much less so, of the Ripper murders.

I think you’re exaggerating a little here. Plus I’m not claiming to know the reason for why the Ripper did what he did to his victims; I’m just establishing that what was done to Mary Jane Kelly corresponds with what can be expected in “such” cases and that the prior murders are in line with what was done to her. At least according to what Vernon Geberth wrote about it.

It seems we agree on a number of matters that are in conflict with the victorian views of Kellys murder, not least. I find that good to know.

As for Geberth, my guess is that he knows less about the Kelly murder than both you and me... and I very much suspect that cutting away the vagina and putting it in a victimīs mouth is totally unrelated to what the Ripper did to Kelly, for the reason that I identify such a thing as being representative of an immense hatred for womanhood and/or the specific victim, whereas I see nothing of that sort at all in the Ripper victims, other than on a very superficial level.But I fully realize that the case of a similarity can be made - and indeed, SHOULD be made. Itīs just that I think there is very good reason not to believe in it.

I will not prolong the idea of the killer having gone to town on Kelly on account of her having kicked him in the nuts, because, as you well know, I donīt think this actually happened. But I nevertheless think it is sound not to rule out any other suggestions than the ones we favour personally! And yes, that brings us back, full circle, to Geberth, you, me and Kelly.

[Trevor Marriott]

What if somebody would falsely claim that I am saying that the apparition of the flaps (and we know next to nothing about it) is of nbo importance?
Well, I would of course call it qualified and utter balderdash, since what I am saying is not that it does not matter - I am saying that regardless of how the flaps looked (and we know next to nothing about it, remember?), it remains that we know that there WERE large flaps cut from the abdomens of these women, and that means that they were likely the work of the same killer, REGARDLESS of the exact shape of the flaps.
In essence, the measure is so rare that pointing to how one flap may have been more oblong than another or two inches shorter than a third becomes a totally futile exercise if we think it will in anyway detract materially from the common killer suggestion. It is timewasting at itīs worst and incredibly misleading to speculate about such differences pointing away from a common killer.

Thatīs what I would say, and I would be 100 per cent correct.

You are again getting carried away with this issue of the removal of the abdominal flaps, and creating an issue when there is no issue to be created, and where there is simply a more plausible explanation.

So you say these female torsos were as a result of them being murdered, and we know that in some cases evisceration took place, and we have to then ask what was the reason for the evisceration? But we cannot conclusively prove they were murdered!

But lets just deal with the fact that their deaths may have been as a result of other unknown medical factors and not murder.

So we have a scenario where someone has a dead body on their hands and a need to dispose of that body.

We know that body parts were in great demand for research, and a high price paid for individual body parts both legally, and illegally that is fully documented.

So in order to access the abdomen to remove body parts, the abdomen has to be opened. The first opening unless the abdomen is already open is a midline incision. The difficulty with one such incision is that it does not give full and open access to the whole abdomen.

So having made a midine opening the quickest and easiest option is to make a bigger opening by cutting flaps of skin either side of the original incision.

So you see Christer although the removal of flaps of skin is seen is some of these case, there is nothing sinister to connect the deaths to a serial killer, and a plauseible explanation for your take on the abdominal flaps.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

You are again getting carried away with this issue of the removal of the abdominal flaps, and creating an issue when there is no issue to be created, and where there is simply a more plausible explanation.

Carried away? Me? Surely, you are joking?
Of course there are alternative explanations. There always are. The abortionist idea, the alien visitor idea and a good few others. However, none of these suggestions are "more plausible" at all. Why would they be? The simpole truth is that once we have two cases of eviscerations/mutilations in the same town and time, the suggestion of a link is ALWAYS the most likely and plausible one. It is not until evidence emerges that disenables that solution that it can be disregarded. Up until that time, it is the expected truth and for eminent reasons.

So you say these female torsos were as a result of them being murdered, and we know that in some cases evisceration took place, and we have to then ask what was the reason for the evisceration? But we cannot conclusively prove they were murdered!

Actually, we do not have to ask what the reasons for the eviscerations were. What we must do is just to recognize that they were there. Once we start speculating about WHY they were there, we enter the field of - speculation. Which is a very different ballgame, and one where we may tread incredibly and sadly wrong.
Thatīs not to say that it is not fun to speculate - it is great fun, and we all engage in it. But mistaking our speculations for being better evidence than the factually existing evidence is foolhardy.

But lets just deal with the fact that their deaths may have been as a result of other unknown medical factors and not murder.

Speculation? Okay. Speculate away, but do so with the insight that the police and medicos jointly regarded them as murders, as did the courts in some cases.

So we have a scenario where someone has a dead body on their hands and a need to dispose of that body.

Which body are we speaking of? Any? Okay.

We know that body parts were in great demand for research, and a high price paid for individual body parts both legally, and illegally that is fully documented.

Indeed it is! Then again, we also know that people killed each other back then, as well as now. And we know that eviscerators existed back then, as now.

So in order to access the abdomen to remove body parts, the abdomen has to be opened. The first opening unless the abdomen is already open is a midline incision. The difficulty with one such incision is that it does not give full and open access to the whole abdomen.

It does give full access to the abdomen. What you mean by "open access" I canīt tell. Do you mean that more can be seen with the flaps removed? If so, I agree.

So having made a midine opening the quickest and easiest option is to make a bigger opening by cutting flaps of skin either side of the original incision.

Absolutely! Cutting away the abdominal wall does produce a larger opening. I am with you on that one.

So you see Christer although the removal of flaps of skin is seen is some of these case, there is nothing sinister to connect the deaths to a serial killer, and a plauseible explanation for your take on the abdominal flaps.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Ooooopsss!!! Thatīs where you go very badly wrong. The correlation in time and space very much tells us that it would be an incredible coincidence if the flaps were cut for different reasons and by different men. And how can we move to an assertion of "nothing sinister at all" from no evidence at all? I fail to understand that. What you seem to be suggestion is that although the Rippers flaptaking was sinister indeed, a possibility must exist that the flaptaking from Jackson was totally unsinister. And yes, philosophically reasoning, the possibility exists.

But to say that there is nothing sinister in it is to jump the gun big time. The general agreement is that the torso victims of 1887-1889 were by the same hand, that they were murders and that they were part of a VERY sinister spree of killings. Therefore, since there is nothing at all standing in the way of the Jackson flaptaking being more of the same, the logical conclusion must be that although you, strictly technically speaking, could be right, just about everything points to you instead being wrong.
You have allowed yourself to get carried away, simple as that.

[Trevor Marriott]

Ooooopsss!!! Thatīs where you go very badly wrong. The correlation in time and space very much tells us that it would be an incredible coincidence if the flaps were cut for different reasons and by different men. And how can we move to an assertion of "nothing sinister at all" from no evidence at all? I fail to understand that. What you seem to be suggestion is that although the Rippers flaptaking was sinister indeed, a possibility must exist that the flaptaking from Jackson was totally unsinister. And yes, philosophically reasoning, the possibility exists.

But to say that there is nothing sinister in it is to jump the gun big time. The general agreement is that the torso victims of 1887-1889 were by the same hand, that they were murders and that they were part of a VERY sinister spree of killings. Therefore, since there is nothing at all standing in the way of the Jackson flaptaking being more of the same, the logical conclusion must be that although you, strictly technically speaking, could be right, just about everything points to you instead being wrong.
You have allowed yourself to get carried away, simple as that.

I have no got carried away, my feet are firmly on terra firma !

When are you going to accept that in most of the torso cases there is no evidence to show they were murdered ! You cant have a serial killer until you can prove three or more murders.

Jackson was pregnant, and no foetus was ever found. All that points to the fact that her death could have been as a result of a failed back street medical procedure, and the need for her body to be disposed of by those carrying out that failed procedure for obvious reasons.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Abby Normal]

I have no got carried away, my feet are firmly on terra firma !

When are you going to accept that in most of the torso cases there is no evidence to show they were murdered ! You cant have a serial killer until you can prove three or more murders.

Jackson was pregnant, and no foetus was ever found. All that points to the fact that her death could have been as a result of a failed back street medical procedure, and the need for her body to be disposed of by those carrying out that failed procedure for obvious reasons.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

failed medical procedure? what would that have been trevor? abortion by cutting the baby out through the abdoman? good grief.

oh and "need for her body to be disposed" by those who did it. so dispose it by throwing some parts in the river, the torso in a park, and her leg in frankensteins garden. most of all parts that were found and led to her ID. some effective disposal there. your detective skills amaze me.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

It's a fair point to make, an exact cause of death can't be identified in the torso cases, primarily because they're cut into numerous pieces and missing heads, although one did show an impact mark on the temple of the face that was incredibly and bizarrely removed intact.
So, just out of curiosity, what non criminal death scenario might lead to dismemberment and some high profile disposal of parts?
The botched abortion idea isn't far fetched, it absolutely did happen at times, but there's a big gap between accidentally killing someone (albeit during an illegal operation) and cutting them up into numerous gory parts. And chucking bits into someone's garden where it's guaranteed to be found.
As such, if the torso victims weren't murdered, and only one was potentially an abortion, they likely still met a criminal death, which wouldn't rule out someone capable of murder.
And to place a corpse in the site of police HQ suggests a very real taunt/message, which kind of points to murder.
For the record, I'm not saying the cases are all linked, or that one man is responsible for both the torsos and the JtR killings, but regardless of that, I can't see how the women that ended up in pieces around London weren't murdered?

[Trevor Marriott]

failed medical procedure? what would that have been trevor? abortion by cutting the baby out through the abdoman? good grief.

oh and "need for her body to be disposed" by those who did it. so dispose it by throwing some parts in the river, the torso in a park, and her leg in frankensteins garden. most of all parts that were found and led to her ID. some effective disposal there. your detective skills amaze me.

You are still clown ! its a shame Barnum and Baileys no longer exist you would be a great asset

Many women in Victorian times died giving birth, when a person died someone had to bear the cost of a burial, so many who died were never officially recorded as dying and the body would simply be disposed of.

Does it not occur to your that by disposing of the body parts in different locations shows a need to hide the identity of that person.

Why would a killer go to those lengths when the body could have been deposited in its entirety at any location, and why would a killer be worried about hiding the identity of the victim? JTR was not worried about the identity of any of the victims, nor did he make any attempt to dispose of the victims after he murdered them, and his purported evisceration is suspect.

So there is no comparable MO between the two, but of course there is no real evidence to show that the majority of the torsos were the subject of murder

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

I have no got carried away, my feet are firmly on terra firma !

Thatīs not your feet on the ground, Trevor; itīs your head IN it, ostridge style.

When are you going to accept that in most of the torso cases there is no evidence to show they were murdered !

I have accepted that long ago, Trevor. Everybody with some insight into the cases knows it. The contempary police knew it. And nevertheless, they felt that there could be no realistic doubt that these were murders. It is the exact same thing in my case. And to be frank, to say that there is no evidence to show that they were murdered is wrong; it is absolute proof that is lacking. Signs of two hard blows to a temple is evidence that correlates well with the suggestion of murder, for example, although it is not absolute proof. Anyways, you can stop asking when I am going to accept something that Iīve accepted from day one.

You cant have a serial killer until you can prove three or more murders.

CONNECTED murders, Trevor. Which is why Jack the Ripper would not be a serial killer either, strictly speaking. Because we do not have the absolute proof that goes to show us that three or more of the C5 were killed by him. Thatīs how it goes with unidentified killers, but to most people it is no problem, nor should it be. The assumption that three or more of the C5 were killed by the same man is a very poignant and rational one, whereas the idea that they were killed by different people is much less so.
You may also be aware that many colleagues of yours, policemen investigating murder, have through the years used the phrase "That was when we knew we had a serial killler on our hands", although they had no established identity of a killer when they expressed this. This is down to how similarities inbetween murders committed in the same geographical area and time are quite enough to allow for the assumption of a common originator. In cases like these, people like you, popping up to make the point that it cannot be proven beyond any doubt are looked upon as ridiculous time wasters.

Jackson was pregnant, and no foetus was ever found. All that points to the fact that her death could have been as a result of a failed back street medical procedure, and the need for her body to be disposed of by those carrying out that failed procedure for obvious reasons.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yes, "all that" points to how Jackson CAN have been the victim of illegal abortion. But once we look at the damage done to the body, NOTHING points to anything but murder. And just as we today can see this, so could the contemporary medicos, who shunned the idea. Just because being pregnant puts you in a position where you CAN come in contact with illegal abortionists, that does not mean that you WILL do so. Nor does it mean that you cannot come in contact with a serial killer.
A question: Since you are eager as a beaver to tell me that I am not able to prove murder in the torso cases, why is it that you think that you will get away with claiming Jackson as being the victim of an illegal abortion when YOU cannot prove THAT? And when the medical evidence is in total conflict with the suggestion?
Are you somehow reasoning that you are likely to get away with it? If so, think again.
Or, to put it more bluntly: think.

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes, all that points to how Jackson CAN have been the victim of illegal abortion. But once we look at the damage done to the body, NOTHING points to anything but murder. And just as we today can see this, so could the contemporary medicos, who shunned the idea. Just because being pregnant puts you in a position where you CAN come in contact with illegal abortionists, that does not mean that you WILL do so. Nor does it mean that you cannot come in contact with a serial killer.
A question: Since you are eager as a beaver to tell me that I am not able to prove murder in the torso cases, why is it that you think that you will get away with claiming Jackson as being the victim of an illegal abortion when YOU cannot prove THAT? And when the medical evidence is in total conflict with the suggestion?
Are you somehow reasoning that you are likely to get away with it? If so, think again.
Or, to put it more bluntly: think.

Give it up and come back when you can prove that the victims were murdered, and show a cause of death to back it up, but I wont hold my breath waiting for your return.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk