Practicality or madness?

[Fisherman]

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

I can tell you without a smidgeon of a doubt that Biggs would agree with me that there are so far-reaching similarities between the Ripper slayings and the Torso murders as to speak clearly for a connection.

In fact, so would anybody versed in these matters. End of.

[Fisherman]

If the ripper was prowling the streets looking for a would be victim such as a woman prostituting herself. It would be the woman that would take him to a location which she knew and not as you suggest.

https://www.trevormarrriott.co.uk

If the Ripper/Torso killer approached a prostitute and offered her a large sum of money for her to follow him to his place and service him there, what obstacle is it you perceive for her to do so, Trevor? I can see one such obstacle only - it would be in conflict with how you want the two killers not to be one and the same.

[Fisherman]

I will not propose that I am an expert on these matters. I will also say I have no doubts there are numerous members on this site with excellent knowledge on these cases.

However I will point out the statement of blows to the temple in the torso killers case. As opposed to the strangulation used by JTR.

While I agree that a killers method may change over a period of time. What we do know is that JTR only used strangulation when first attacking his victims.

The torso killer and JTR may be the same person but imo that is a glaring contradiction in the M.O. of the murders.

MK114

Martha Tabram received a blow to her head. Of Nichols, it was said that "There was a bruise running along the lower part of the jaw on the right side of the face. That might have been caused by a blow from a fist or pressure from a thumb."

[Fisherman]

I should've added that while I think the killer may have seen one or more anatomical Venus wax models it may not necessarily have been in London. I'm also minded to think the killer may have been drawn to Whitechapel rather than born and bred in the area so could have seen an exhibition elsewhere in Europe as well as or rather than London.

Of course - this must remain an open question. Personally, I am quite convinced that the killer was an Eastender, but I cannot provide absolute proof.

[Fisherman]

abdomen targeted and specifically flaps of flesh removed from the stomach. - It is hard to say that the abdomen was targeted by the torso killer given the bodies were dismembered, but making flaps to gain access to the innards is a similiarity - but then how else might someone do that?

Iīll pick this point out, Etenguy. You lead on here that any eviscerator of the abdominal cavity must take away the abdominal flesh in order to gain access to the innards. There has been a fair number of eviscerators of the abdominal cavity over the years - these people are of course rare in the extreme, but they DO exist every now and then. What they never seem to do, however, is to remove the abdominal flesh before getting at the innards. The reason is simple - they donīt have to. Cutting the abdomen open is all it takes. Ed Gingrich made a seven inch cut to his wifes abdomen and extracted all of her organs through that hole - ALL of them!
So the two questions I want answered here are these:

1. Accepting that eviscerators are extremely rare - how likely it is that two such persons would surface in the same city and at the same time in late victorian London? I can provide the answer myself: It is incredibly unlikely. In fact, so far, nobody has supplied any example of two eviscerators in the same area and time at all, and so it would be a singuarly rare thing.

2. Accepting people taking away the abdominal wall are extremely rare within the trade of eviscerators, just how likely is it, if we were to for the first time in history have two eviscerators working alongside each other in the same time and city, that this unique occurrence would involve two takers away of abdominal walls?

You see, Etenguy, it is not in any way likely at all. It would arguably be the largest fluke in criminal history.

And that is BEFORE we add that

- BOTH men, it just so happens, were deemed skilled in anatomy by medicos
- BOTH men, it just so happens, took away colon sections
- BOTH men, it just so happens, took out uteri and hearts
- BOTH men, it just so happens, cut from pubes to ribs
- BOTH men, it just so happens, targetted prostitutes
- BOTH men, it just so happens, employed a knife in a very skilled manner
- BOTH men, it just so happens, took rings from their victims fingers

So before we arrive at these incredible similarities, you must first clear the abdominal flesh hurdle.

And you canīt, can you? It is actually very clear evidence of a common killer, and I have no doubt at all that it would be used to convict in any court of law.

[Fisherman]

I'd suggest caution in the belief the Torso cases were in the same locality as the Ripper, despite the obvious proximity of the Pinchin Street torso.

The torso in Whitehall Mystery was placed under the site for New Scotland Yard over the same weekend as the double event. As the arm had been found on the 11th of September but the evidence places the torso being put in the vault no earlier than the 29th. With the arm found in Southwark on the 29th (presumably placed there on or around the 28th?). Estimating the distance between Whitechapel and Norman Shaw Buildings today, it's about a fifty minute walk. Not prohibitively far, although one scarcely pictures the perpetrator traipsing across London on foot, carrying the torso. If all this is attributable to one man, with the two dump sites and two murders, he certainly had a busy weekend - and clearly had means to travel fair distances to accomplish his grim tasks. One might suggest a single perpetrator would need a fair amount of time on their hands over that particular weekend to accomplish all this.

The torso and body parts of the earlier Rainham Mystery may have been found in East London, but Rainham is nowhere near the East End. I don't know if this will help with a sense of scale, but in modern London fare zones, Whitechapel is Zone 2 and Rainham is all the way out in Zone 6.

I donīt think we can speak decisively about where the cases "were" for the simple reason that we have absolutely no idea where the Torso victims were picked up and where they were killed. All we know is where they were dumped. Actually, the Pinchin Street victim may have been picked up in St JamesīPark and the Rainham victim in Millers Court.

Ergo, all we have to go on is the inherent similarities in the murders as such. The geography is useless if we base it on the dumping sites.

A question that can and should be asked is this one: Accepting that the killer had transport means - and it seems that MUST be accepted - why would he take the parts to the western parts of London and dump them there when taking them to the eastern part would increase his chances of the parts disappearing? Is it not true that a killer who wanted to have the parts found would do well to not sink them down, but instead let them float right through London?

The dates you speak of do not in any way prohibit a common killer, of course.

[Fisherman]

I still have difficulty in understanding how control,as Fisherman explains it,is relevent.It can be said that almost all murderers have control of their victims,before or after death,so 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.But then,most of us old posters are quite aware that most of what Fisherman claims is of similar content.

Please, PLEASE be a bit more fair, Harry. Did I REALLY say that it is proven that Gillis and the Ripper were the same sort of person? Really? Or did I say that I BELIEVE that they MAY have been the same type? That I find it likely? Which is it?

You throw forward this absolute untruth and then you add that what I say is normally "of the similar content".

How am I supposed to defend myself against these kinds of accusations, Harry? Can you please help me out?

We must try and be fair and not to twist what others say if we are to have any sort of chance of an honest exchange out here. The site is riddled with people disregarding that fact, and adding to this does us no favours whatsoever.

Returning to your initital question, control is relevant in the sense that violent sexual crime is more or less always about control. But whereas 99, 9 per cent of that control is normally exerted in cases where the victim is still alive, everything seems to point to how the Ripper, the Torso killer and Sean Vincent Gillis all are examples of cases where the victims are murdered BEFORE the control phase begins.

I am therefore pointing to a very small cadre of killers, an exceedingly rare one, and I am saying that it seems to me that we are dealing with this cadre of killers in all three cases. And if we ARE, then we have come a long way to understanding the pathology of the man (or as some will have it: men) we are looking for, just as we have come a long way to establishing that the Ripper and the Torso killer were in all probability the same man.

Nota Bene, I am NOT saying that it is a proven thing! I am saying that it seems to be the absolutley likeliest solution.

[Trevor Marriott]

If the Ripper/Torso killer approached a prostitute and offered her a large sum of money for her to follow him to his place and service him there, what obstacle is it you perceive for her to do so, Trevor? I can see one such obstacle only - it would be in conflict with how you want the two killers not to be one and the same.

But we know the WM were committed in the street that is a fact ! and unique to those murders.

There is no evidence to suggest where the deaths of the torso victims occurred, that is also a fact, certainly no evidence to suggest they were murdered in the street and dismembered in the street, and in many of the case no evidence at all to prove they were murdered by a serial killer.

There are other equally plausible alternatives to suggest how they died outside of at the hands of a serial killer

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Martha Tabram received a blow to her head. Of Nichols, it was said that "There was a bruise running along the lower part of the jaw on the right side of the face. That might have been caused by a blow from a fist or pressure from a thumb."

You have no evidence to show that any of these injuries were caused by the killer, that is another fact. and no direct evidence to show any of them were strangled first.

On these issues both you and other rely on nothing more than conjecture !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[seanr]

I donīt think we can speak decisively about where the cases "were" for the simple reason that we have absolutely no idea where the Torso victims were picked up and where they were killed. All we know is where they were dumped. Actually, the Pinchin Street victim may have been picked up in St JamesīPark and the Rainham victim in Millers Court.

Ergo, all we have to go on is the inherent similarities in the murders as such. The geography is useless if we base it on the dumping sites.

A question that can and should be asked is this one: Accepting that the killer had transport means - and it seems that MUST be accepted - why would he take the parts to the western parts of London and dump them there when taking them to the eastern part would increase his chances of the parts disappearing? Is it not true that a killer who wanted to have the parts found would do well to not sink them down, but instead let them float right through London?

The dates you speak of do not in any way prohibit a common killer, of course.

The geography is not useless based on the dumping sites for it illustrates the person disposing of the body was either local to those locations or was able to travel to them whilst concealing a body. In the case of the Whitehall torso, it was found in a vault hidden well enough inside of a building site that the employees were hidden their tools there to prevent them being stolen.
If we were to reason the Whitehall victim had been murdered in Whitechapel and then dumped in said vault, we have the person who dumped the body carrying it across London perhaps on foot, in the public transport such as tram or train or in their own cart, perhaps walking on the building the site and then bumbling around in the dark until they find a vault which suits their purpose.
On the face of it, seems far more likely whoever placed the torso there knew exactly where to find the vault.

Of course, the dates do not prohibit a common killer but they are far from proving the case either. If it is all attributable to one man we may have an astonishing map of his movements over the weekend of the 28th - 30th September, 1888.

[seanr]

I'm pretty sure if the murderer of Julia Martha Thomas had not been found in 1879, the case would be considered among the victims of the 'Thames Torso Murderer' in modern times.

[Trevor Marriott]

WARNING GRAPHIC IMAGES

Iīll pick this point out, Etenguy. You lead on here that any eviscerator of the abdominal cavity must take away the abdominal flesh in order to gain access to the innards. There has been a fair number of eviscerators of the abdominal cavity over the years - these people are of course rare in the extreme, but they DO exist every now and then. What they never seem to do, however, is to remove the abdominal flesh before getting at the innards. The reason is simple - they donīt have to. Cutting the abdomen open is all it takes. Ed Gingrich made a seven inch cut to his wifes abdomen and extracted all of her organs through that hole - ALL of them!
So the two questions I want answered here are these:

1. Accepting that eviscerators are extremely rare - how likely it is that two such persons would surface in the same city and at the same time in late victorian London? I can provide the answer myself: It is incredibly unlikely. In fact, so far, nobody has supplied any example of two eviscerators in the same area and time at all, and so it would be a singuarly rare thing.

2. Accepting people taking away the abdominal wall are extremely rare within the trade of eviscerators, just how likely is it, if we were to for the first time in history have two eviscerators working alongside each other in the same time and city, that this unique occurrence would involve two takers away of abdominal walls?

You see, Etenguy, it is not in any way likely at all. It would arguably be the largest fluke in criminal history.

And that is BEFORE we add that

- BOTH men, it just so happens, were deemed skilled in anatomy by medicos
- BOTH men, it just so happens, took away colon sections
- BOTH men, it just so happens, took out uteri and hearts
- BOTH men, it just so happens, cut from pubes to ribs
- BOTH men, it just so happens, targetted prostitutes
- BOTH men, it just so happens, employed a knife in a very skilled manner
- BOTH men, it just so happens, took rings from their victims fingers

So before we arrive at these incredible similarities, you must first clear the abdominal flesh hurdle.

And you canīt, can you? It is actually very clear evidence of a common killer, and I have no doubt at all that it would be used to convict in any court of law.

They say one pic is worth a thousand words.

I have attached two post mortem pictures I had taken as part of negating the killer removing the organs issue, and to show the degree of difficulty in locating and removing the organs in the dark, but they are both relevant to your abdominal flaps issue.

In the first photo it shows a standard post mortem midline incision used to open up the abdomen, and clearly one can see the degree of difficulty in any procedure thereafter, and therefore the none medical way to gain entry to rest of the abdomen the organs would be to cut away flaps of the abdominal wall from either side of the first incision.

The medical way would be to use retractors to hold back the abdomen for the doctors to be able to work on or remove organs. But of course if a person had died under unusual circumstances, and the organs were required for medical research the quick and easy way to access them would be to cut away the flaps from the abdomen.

With regards to some of the torsos we know that in some cases internal organs were missing !

Moving on and staying with pic 1 the ruler shows exactly where the kidney would be located.

picture 2 which shows the degree of difficulty in trying to access the kidney through a midline incision without using retractors to hold back the abdomen, remember Eddowes only had one wound which opened the abdomen, which penetrated the abdominal wall deep enough fr the intestines tp either be taken out, or they recoiled.

I hope this helps you and others understand the same problem you clearly have not fully identified both with the torsos and the WM.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

You have no evidence to show that any of these injuries were caused by the killer, that is another fact. and no direct evidence to show any of them were strangled first.

On these issues both you and other rely on nothing more than conjecture !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It would be immensely helpful if you were able to read and understand what is said out here, Trevor. But it seems you are not? Anyways, I will help out:

It was said in a post that the two series are probably not connected because in the Torso series, there is evidence that one victim suffered two blows to her temple whereas the Ripper - according to the poster - used strangulation to kill his victims.

I pointed out that there is evidence that some of the Ripper victims also may have suffered blows to their heads.

Accordingly, there can be no certainty division of the series on these grounds.

Can you see how that works?

[Trevor Marriott]

It would be immensely helpful if you were able to read and understand what is said out here, Trevor. But it seems you are not? Anyways, I will help out:

It was said in a post that the two series are probably not connected because in the Torso series, there is evidence that one victim suffered two blows to her temple whereas the Ripper - according to the poster - used strangulation to kill his victims.

I pointed out that there is evidence that some of the Ripper victims also may have suffered blows to their heads.

Accordingly, there can be no certainty division of the series on these grounds.

Can you see how that works?

I am quite clear but it seems you are still in cloud cuckoo land !

I dont know why I or anybody else continues to challenge you because it is clear that whatever is said is not going to change what you wrongly believe

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

But we know the WM were committed in the street that is a fact ! and unique to those murders.

Unique? So no other murder victim has been done for out in the streets? Baffling indeed!

Of course it is not unique at all to kill in the open streets. Where did you get that from? Why, the exact same well stocked cupboard of mistakes where you get so much else from, of course!

Actually, since we do not know where the Torso victims wee slain, they may have been slain in Buckingham Palace, in a public loo in Chelmsford, in Madame Tussauds - or in the open streets of the East End. Once we donīt know, we donīt know. The only difference we DO know of is that the Torso victims were dismembered and dumped in places where they were not killed. That is what we know. The rest, we DONīT know.

It is a very good guess that they were dismembered and transported to the dumping sites on account of a wish on behalf of the killer not to have them linked to his person - but that is a guess only.

This is what we can say. The rest, we canīt say. We can only speculate. And speculation can lead us wrong.

There is no evidence to suggest where the deaths of the torso victims occurred, that is also a fact, certainly no evidence to suggest they were murdered in the street and dismembered in the street, and in many of the case no evidence at all to prove they were murdered by a serial killer.

Ah - good! So you DO realize that it is folly to claim that we have any idea where they were killed. Then you must also agree that there is no geographical obstacle to accept that they could have been killed by the same man!

There are other equally plausible alternatives to suggest how they died outside of at the hands of a serial killer

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No, there are no such equally plausible alternatives. There are a number of LESS plausible alternatives, but the contemporary standing point was that they were murders.