Practicality or madness?

[Fisherman]

A further clarification of the control mechanism is expressed by for example the researcher A M Drukteinis who wrote "Serial murder - the heart of darkness" who writes that the ultimate expression of power over another another human being is the act of cannibalism. The victim is killed to allow for this act of taking total control over anoyher human being.
There is also Shirley Lynn Scott, author of "What makes Serial Killers Tick?", who writes about dismemberment as occuring "when the victim is alread dead, a time when the killer has ultimate control".
In "Necrophilic and necrophagic serial killers", Christina Molinari writes about how "necrophagia is an attempt to exert the ultimate control".

I could go on, page after page. The gist of the matter is that regardless if you agree or not, this is established knowledge and these are scientifically accepted facts.

To some killers, the fun - and joy of controlling - is over when the victim is dead. Typically, these killers do not inflict post-mortem damage.

To others, the fun - and joy of controlling - BEGINS when the victim is dead. And guess what? This is where post-mortem damage occurs.

[Trevor Marriott]

Absense of evidence does not equate evidence of absense. Have a look at the 1873 victim. The medicos noted apparent muscle contraction to a degree that led them to speculate that the dismemberment was started while the victim was still alive. However, it was also found out that the bllod had been totally drained from the body, there was not a drop to be found in any vessel. The conslusion was that the killer must have hung his victim up and bled her off.
This means that he killed her (likely by the blows to the temple that were found) and then he strung her up, probably by her feet. He then cut the neck and drained the blood out completely by leaving he hanging. Aftyer that, he cut her down, and set about dismembering her - so close in time to her death that there was very apparent muscle contraction afterwards!
That, Harry, is not a killer who spends a lot of time beating about the bush. It is the same type of killer as Gillis, who takes care of the practicalities first to enable him to as swiftly as possible move on to the main course.

These are the indications throughout. There are no signs of any torture on the bodies in the Torso series, and so we have to speculate that there may perhaps have been mental torture involved. This we cannot deny is a possibility. But what we actually have before speculation away are two series of murders where it seems the killers were both eager to procure a dead body to cut into. And we also have clear signs of mutual interests of an utterly and extremely rare character.

And you still have not produced a scrap of real evidence to show all of the torsos were as a result of them being murdered by a serial killer, let alone your feeble attempt to connect them to the Whitechapel murders

[Trevor Marriott]

To some killers, the fun - and joy of controlling - is over when the victim is dead. Typically, these killers do not inflict post-mortem damage.

To others, the fun - and joy of controlling - BEGINS when the victim is dead. And guess what? This is where post-mortem damage occurs.

And that post mortem damage you refer to is at times nothing more than dismemberment with a view to the disposal of the body and body parts.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

And that post mortem damage you refer to is at times nothing more than dismemberment with a view to the disposal of the body and body parts.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Really? So you are saying that as Sean Vincent Gillis cut the hands away from one of his victims - the hands and nothing but the hands, that is - he was in reality dismembering the body with the intent to facilitate disposal?

Trevor, there is such a thing as a pathological urge to cut a body in pieces with no intent at all to dispose of it. Take a look at Kelly - did the killer cut her innards out in order to facilitate disposal, wheeupon he changed his mind and decided to leave them in the room with the rest of the body?

If you think all dismemberment is always about disposal, you are really not read up enough to participate in a debate on these matters. It would put you on level with the victorians, knowledgewise. If you have nothing more than that to offer, then holding your tongue would be the best advice I have to offer. It is always better than to open your mouth and declare to the world that you do not know what you are talking about.

Claiming that dismemberment is "at times" only a means to dispose of bodies is as helpful as stating that the sky is sometimes blue. Itīs massively disingenuous, and you should be able to understand that.

[Fisherman]

And you still have not produced a scrap of real evidence to show all of the torsos were as a result of them being murdered by a serial killer, let alone your feeble attempt to connect them to the Whitechapel murders

The abdominal flaps are clear evidence of a connection with the Whitechapel cases, and those were murders. Therefore, we may bank on how the Torso MURDERS were more of the same. Equally, when there are signs of two hard blows to a temple, that is what is referred to as evidence of a violent death at the hands of an assailant.

But on the whole, there is no much use discussing these matters with you, is there? You make a mockery of the case as far as Iīm concerned, and although you will - of course - not agree with that, I am willing to bank on how most posters would agree with me over it. And thatīs good enough for me.

[Trevor Marriott]

The abdominal flaps are clear evidence of a connection with the Whitechapel cases, and those were murders. Therefore, we may bank on how the Torso MURDERS were more of the same. Equally, when there are signs of two hard blows to a temple, that is what is referred to as evidence of a violent death at the hands of an assailant.

But on the whole, there is no much use discussing these matters with you, is there? You make a mockery of the case as far as Iīm concerned, and although you will - of course - not agree with that, I am willing to bank on how most posters would agree with me over it. And thatīs good enough for me.

What you seek to rely on is nothing more than your opinion based on how you interpret the medical evidence from back then, modern day medical experts will disagree with you, and much of the doctors opinion from back then, so who is right you or the modern day medical experts?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

What you seek to rely on is nothing more than your opinion based on how you interpret the medical evidence from back then, modern day medical experts will disagree with you, and much of the doctors opinion from back then, so who is right you or the modern day medical experts?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Modern day medical experts will agree with me, just as modern day forensic psychatrists will - and modern day criminal investigators. The fact that you will not agree with me is something I tend to regard as a bonus and a further surefire indication of me being correct.

[Trevor Marriott]

Modern day medical experts will agree with me, just as modern day forensic psychatrists will - and modern day criminal investigators. The fact that you will not agree with me is something I tend to regard as a bonus and a further surefire indication of me being correct.

2020, and you are still as deluded as you were in 2019

[Fisherman]

2020, and you are still as deluded as you were in 2019

And that is where your "debating techniques" inevitably end up whenever you have been proven wrong.

So far, what you have brought to the debate is the earthshattering insight that "at times", dismemberment is about getting rid of a body. I mean... WOW, sort of!!!

Is there more of that kind of ingenious and groundbreaking thinking coming up? We are holding our respective breaths out here, Iīm sure.

[Abby Normal]

And you still have not produced a scrap of real evidence to show all of the torsos were as a result of them being murdered by a serial killer, let alone your feeble attempt to connect them to the Whitechapel murders

except that all the police and medical experts said the torso victims were a series killed by the same man. lol.

and the connection of similarities with the ripper series is extensive:
same location
same time frame
same victimology
all damage post mortem mutilation
no sign of torture
no sign of sexual abuse
knife used
faces targeted
abdomen targeted and specifically flaps of flesh removed from the stomach.
cutting off and away of internal and external body parts
medical/anatomical knowledge displayed
unsolved
remains left in shocking and public locations
both series end same time

[Fisherman]

Meanwhile, not to get too bogged down in the Marriottic way of looking at things, can the rest of you see how Gillis seems to make a very good comparison for the Ripper/Torso killer? That was the point I was originally making, and if it has something going for it, it puts a very different hue on matters than the one normally provided out here.
Harry spoke of how he thought that the type of killer who abducts victims are good examples of killers who strive to gain control over their prey. I wonder if he has considered how the Torso killer is sometimes depicted as a probable abductor - in which case one has to ask oneself why it is that this abductor seems not to have engaged in any physical tormenting of his victims at all. That makes it a pretty baffling coincidence - just like the Ripper, he abstains from those kinds of additions...?

Isnīt it odd that a man who does the same things to his victims as the Ripper did - cut from ribs to pubes, take out hearts, take out uteri, take away abdominal walls, cut with great knife skills, steal rings, remove colon sections, target prostitutes, cut faces, take away noses etcetera - is also the kind of killer who does not inflict any torture? How great was that chance?

And, reluctantly returning to the exploits of mr Marriott: which medico, forensic psychologist or criminal investigator would tell me that I have a bad case? I know that a number of "Ripperologists" would say so - but since when could they be relied upon...?

[Trevor Marriott]

And, reluctantly returning to the exploits of mr Marriott: which medico, forensic psychologist or criminal investigator would tell me that I have a bad case? I know that a number of "Ripperologists" would say so - but since when could they be relied upon...?

Dr Michael Biggs a modern-day forensic pathologist with the following qualifications:

2001 MB ChB – University of Dundee

2004 MRCS – Royal College of Surgeons of England

2013 FRCPath – Royal College of Pathologists

Registration and Memberships

General Medical Council

Royal College of Pathologists

British Association in Forensic Medicine

Faculty of Forensic and Legal Medicine

Royal College of Surgeons of England

All the various aspects of your theories have been put to him in detail. I guess you haven't bothered to read what he says in detail, or if you have you have chosen to purposely disregard what he says, because you know more than him.

All what he says not only about the torsos but the Whitechapel murders can be found in my book, along with other medical experts who have reviewed the medical evidence.

"Jack the Ripper-The Real Truth" is available in both paperback and kindle

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Jack-Ripper-Truth-Trevor-Marriott/dp/1728912997/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1IWTUTO1K3IEL&keywords=trevor+marriott&qid=1578067899&s=books&sprefix=Trevor+Ma%2Cstripbooks%2C231&sr=1-1

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

except that all the police and medical experts said the torso victims were a series killed by the same man. lol.

and the connection of similarities with the ripper series is extensive:
same location
same time frame
same victimology
all damage post mortem mutilation
no sign of torture
no sign of sexual abuse
knife used
faces targeted
abdomen targeted and specifically flaps of flesh removed from the stomach.
cutting off and away of internal and external body parts
medical/anatomical knowledge displayed
unsolved
remains left in shocking and public locations
both series end same time

And you are as deluded as Fisherman !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Abby Normal]

Meanwhile, not to get too bogged down in the Marriottic way of looking at things, can the rest of you see how Gillis seems to make a very good comparison for the Ripper/Torso killer? That was the point I was originally making, and if it has something going for it, it puts a very different hue on matters than the one normally provided out here.
Harry spoke of how he thought that the type of killer who abducts victims are good examples of killers who strive to gain control over their prey. I wonder if he has considered how the Torso killer is sometimes depicted as a probable abductor - in which case one has to ask oneself why it is that this abductor seems not to have engaged in any physical tormenting of his victims at all. That makes it a pretty baffling coincidence - just like the Ripper, he abstains from those kinds of additions...?

Isnīt it odd that a man who does the same things to his victims as the Ripper did - cut from ribs to pubes, take out hearts, take out uteri, take away abdominal walls, cut with great knife skills, steal rings, remove colon sections, target prostitutes, cut faces, take away noses etcetera - is also the kind of killer who does not inflict any torture? How great was that chance?

And, reluctantly returning to the exploits of mr Marriott: which medico, forensic psychologist or criminal investigator would tell me that I have a bad case? I know that a number of "Ripperologists" would say so - but since when could they be relied upon...?

hi fish
I know im preaching to the choir here, and I totally agree with you- but I just want to follow up on one point you raise re abduction. Ive seen it mentioned on here from time to time that the torso victims were abducted and that's a difference with the ripper series. To me this is patently absurd. There is absolutely no evidence there were any abduction involved and on the face of it-minus any mobile kidnapping aid like a self enclosed automobile that practically all abductors use today-the logistics of it then with the torso killer pretty much rule out that idea IMHO.

no, the most reasonable explanation is that torsoman used a ruse to get his victims where he wanted them-to his bolt hole chop shop-probably under the guise of work/prostitution/pay and they willingly went with him there.

Same as the ripper-ruse used to get victims to a location where he wanted them.

[Abby Normal]

And you are as deluded as Fisherman !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

nothing delusional about facts trevor, which is all I listed.