Practicality or madness?

[Trevor Marriott]

Since Trevor is doing nothing here but stirring up trouble, maybe I should not comment. But I find it revealing and disturbing when an ex-murder squad copper claims that an extremely rare inclusion that is present within two murder series in the same town and general timeframe is only "a very tenuous link at best".

When we put our head in the sand like that, we represent the very worst of Ripperology.

If somebody says "Yes, it is a truly mindblowing similarity, but it may be just a coincidence nevertheless", then thatīs all fine. But opting for a whopper like the one Trevor opts for is doing our field of research no good at all. Anyone who does not understand how Ripperology works will, after having taken a look at that post, be quite satisfied that we are a bunch of clowns. They really cannot be asked to understand what most of us out here know: Trevor is perfectly aware that the abdominal flaps is an extremely powerful indication of a common killer, but he cannot bring himself to admit it.

Small wonder, then, that we get no recognition from other fields of research. Thank you, Trevor.

PS. Donīt bother to answer in your accustomed manner, Trevor. It will only make things worse. Ask a police investigator about it instead, and learn something about your trade. Itīs never too late - or so they say.

I am entitled to my professional opinion which I value much more than your misguided interpretation of the facts, and your opinions, which we have seen time and time again, not only with regards to this topic but with many other aspects on these murders.

On this topic, you continue to refer to abdominal flaps but the reality is that there can be different interpretations of the term abdominal flaps as you have been told by modern-day medical experts but because you have your head buried in the sand you will not accept or consider these but continue to blindly bumble on trying to make half-hearted attempts to show that every dismembered body or body parts found in the last 100 years was the work of the same killer when you can't even prove causes of death, and even worse is your feeble attempt to link these torsos to the killer who became known as jack the ripper.

Dr Biggs on flaps of skin
"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."

And who is is that has tried to prove a link between cases- none other than Christer from La la land !

The other sad fact is that there are others who actually believe you!

I hope your fishing skills are better than your investigative ones

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

I am entitled to my professional opinion...

Only, Trevor, it is an unprofessional opinion. To which you are indeed entitled.

[Trevor Marriott]

Only, Trevor, it is an unprofessional opinion. To which you are indeed entitled.

and Dr Biggs is his not a professional opinion also?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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?

[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.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[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.

[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?

[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]

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 ...

[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]

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.