Practicality or madness?

[Fisherman]

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.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You must have misundersttod everything, Trevor. I donīt NEED any prrof of murder nor any cause of death to back up reasoning about the torso series as a string of murders - it is an accepted thing and has been an accepted thing since they happened. Just as pointing out that no absolute proof is there has been a ridiculous thing to do for just as long.

I also pointed out to you that it seems a tad inconsistent on your behalf to claim a disrespect for the evidence on behalf of those who regard the torso series as a string of murders (and that means just about everybody who has heard of them), while at the same time you claim that Jackson was the victim of an illegal abortion on zero evidence.

Why should you have any say at all about these things, when adopting that kind of ping-pong level of evidence requirement? It is an argumentation level that makes Swiss cheese look pretty solid.

[FrankO]

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.

Me too, Christer.

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.

I agree that Geberth very likely knows less about the Kelly murder than you & I do. To what extent putting a piece of vagina into the mouth of a victim and placing cut-off breasts in specific places on the crime scene is unrelated to what the Ripper did to Kelly is, of course, impossible for us to know. However, I think we can safely assume that both the Ripper and Jack Spillman weren’t very fond of women in general. My own guess is that both hate/anger towards women and curiosity about/interest in the female body played a large part in the murders they committed. Perhaps in the case of the Ripper the accent was more on the curiosity/interest part and in Spillman’s case more on the hate/anger part, but that’s just a guess.

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.

If you think that, because of the odd similarities, Kelly’s killer must also have killed the 1873 victim, then I can understand that you don’t believe in Kelly’s murder being similar to, for instance, Spillman’s murders. I respect that and look forward to, some day, hearing the reason why we should compare Kelly to the 1873 victim (and not Jackson).

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.

That’s no problem for me, so, for now, we’ll leave it at that. It's been good discussing things with you.

[Fisherman]

If it was not for my suggestions about how the 1873 torso murder and Kellys murder are connected, I think we may very well have been at the exact same spot, Frank. The reasons for my take on that matter is what - to a large extent - makes me say that our man was primarily somebody who took an interest in the female anatomy and who worked to a ritualistic scheme in many a way.

As always, you make sound and good points in an in formed and reflective manner. Itīs an enriching privilege discussing the case with you. It would be good to meet you some day, if the opportunity comes along!

[Trevor Marriott]

You must have misundersttod everything, Trevor. I donīt NEED any prrof of murder nor any cause of death to back up reasoning about the torso series as a string of murders - it is an accepted thing and has been an accepted thing since they happened. Just as pointing out that no absolute proof is there has been a ridiculous thing to do for just as long.

I also pointed out to you that it seems a tad inconsistent on your behalf to claim a disrespect for the evidence on behalf of those who regard the torso series as a string of murders (and that means just about everybody who has heard of them), while at the same time you claim that Jackson was the victim of an illegal abortion on zero evidence.

Why should you have any say at all about these things, when adopting that kind of ping-pong level of evidence requirement? It is an argumentation level that makes Swiss cheese look pretty solid.

It is an accepted thing only by you and your other deluded followers. Come up with evidence to show they were murdered, and by a serial killer, and then you might be belived. I think you also have missed the fact that in some of the torsos the coroners court verdict was "found dead" and in the ones where they recorded murder they were unable to come up with a cause of death to even back that up.

What made them change from found dead to murder when there was nothing to show murder? You have continually been told by modern day medical experts that Victorian doctors opinions were nothing more than guess work, and that everyone believed what they said back then, but 131years later we dont have to believe them and there is evidence to show they were wrong and that you are wrong, accept it an move on

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

It is an accepted thing only by you and your other deluded followers.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Then it seems that I am the rest of the deluded pack amount to some 99 per cent of the voters. And you still have not told us how it is that you are allowed to claim illegal abortion for Jackson while I am not allowed to agree with those 99 per cent. Any suggestions?

[Abby Normal]

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?

hi al
all very good points but i would ask how is jackson in any conceiveable way a botched abortion? what specific scenario can you envision?

[Abby Normal]

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

give me one reasonable scenario where jackson could be considered a botched abortion.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

hi al
all very good points but i would ask how is jackson in any conceiveable way a botched abortion? what specific scenario can you envision?

Hi Abby,
I can't. I don't think it was. I really just meant, as an alternative to outright murder, abortion gone bad is not a bad idea, if an idea's needed. Only applies to Jackson though. Take away murder and failed abortion, then what? Natural causes? I'm not wholly convinced that the lack of incontrovertible proof of murder means it's more probable it never happened, particularly when the heads were never recovered. How many non murdered people ended up dismembered and dumped all over the shop?

[Fisherman]

Hi Abby,
I can't. I don't think it was. I really just meant, as an alternative to outright murder, abortion gone bad is not a bad idea, if an idea's needed. Only applies to Jackson though. Take away murder and failed abortion, then what? Natural causes? I'm not wholly convinced that the lack of incontrovertible proof of murder means it's more probable it never happened, particularly when the heads were never recovered. How many non murdered people ended up dismembered and dumped all over the shop?

Indeed! What I think we must weigh in when trying to understand the approach of the contemporary police and medicos, is that the psychopathology of an offensive dismemberer was not on their maps. Dismemberment was not something that was carried out by "maniacs, revelling in blood, as Anderson out it. No, dismemberers were all calculating people who had a motive for killing. The abortion idea fits the bill, as would things like economical gain and so on. One must realize that it was accepted that the 1887-89 cases were all the deeds of the same man, and so it could be ruled out that they were the work of a jilted husband and so on; the motive must have been another one. Of course, sexually motivated deeds could not be ruled out, and certainly were not either, but the gist of the matter is that the police accepted that there was a reason for the murders, and that the ensuing dismemberment was nothing but a means to get rid of the evidence.
Therefore, it was never realized that the underlying pathology in the Ripper series and the torso ditto could be one and the same - a wish to procure dead female bodies to cut into and handle at will. To the police, the exact thing that they horrified realized that the Ripper was, was the only thing that the torso killer could not possibly be. Cutting INTO a body could well be sexually motivated, but cutting UP a body could not.
That was why the abortion idea was aired, but luckily, it was evident that it was never about an abortion in Jacksons case. And the other bodies were certainly not about botched abortions, so the suggestion was kind of dead in the water from the outset. Byt it left the police reaching for other motives in what will have been by and large motiveless deeds, tradition ally speaking. Dismemberment as a murder motive - or part of it - in itself was unheard of.

[Trevor Marriott]

Then it seems that I am the rest of the deluded pack amount to some 99 per cent of the voters. And you still have not told us how it is that you are allowed to claim illegal abortion for Jackson while I am not allowed to agree with those 99 per cent. Any suggestions?

Because there is no evidence to show she was murdered, and there is another more plausible explanation for her death

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Exactly why is it more ”plausible”, Trevor?

[Kattrup]

give me one reasonable scenario where jackson could be considered a botched abortion.

She and her boyfriend want to shunt the baby. They go to an abortionist who administers a potion meant to induce abortion. Instead, she dies.

Big trouble. To disguise the crime, the abortionist disposed of her body, as alluded to by the coroner.

[Fisherman]

After having cut out the phoetus from the womb and removed the heart and lungs. And then the body is dumped in Jacksons own clothing. And a leg is thrown over the fence into the Shelley estate.
Yeah, right.

[Fisherman]

And then the same killer goes on to dismember the Pinchin Street victim, cutting the abdomen open and leaving the organs inside, nothing taken, no pregnancy.
An effort to confuse the police, perchance?

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

She and her boyfriend want to shunt the baby. They go to an abortionist who administers a potion meant to induce abortion. Instead, she dies.

Big trouble. To disguise the crime, the abortionist disposed of her body, as alluded to by the coroner.

Hi Kattrup,
It's a sound and plausible theory, it happened. Does it explain the torso series? Does it explain Jackson? A back street abortionist accidentally kills her, the next logical step is to cut out the feotus, dismember the body and sling a limb over a garden wall?
A botched abortion would have been a capital offense, so disposal is highly likely, but it's as hard to prove in Jackson's case as murder, and how does that relate to the other cases?