Practicality or madness?

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

But there is no evidence to show that the torsos were murder victims by reason of no causes of death were firmly established, and no evidence to show that a killer was responsible for dismembering the bodies! Its a wild speculative theory. You are making a sweeping statement back it up with real evidence if you can? You have been listening to Christer for too long !

And I have put forward a plausible explanation for the cutting of the abdominal walls and their removal

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

But there is no evidence to show that the torsos were murder victims by reason of no causes of death were firmly established, and no evidence to show that a killer was responsible for dismembering the bodies! Its a wild speculative theory. You are making a sweeping statement back it up with real evidence if you can? You have been listening to Christer for too long !

And I have put forward a plausible explanation for the cutting of the abdominal walls and their removal

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor, anybody can come up with alternative reasons for anything. But the fact of the matter is that as long as we do not KNOW why the abdominal walls were removed, we must look upon them as being linked. The reason for that is how incredibly rare eviscerating serial killers are - to find two such people in the same town and time, doing the same VERY odd things to their victims is never going to be likely. The solution with just the one killer is the only realistic bet. We cannot go "Wait! I can think up another solution" and think it alters the picture, because it doesn´t.

Dislike it, by all means - but don´t tell me that your view is based on sound police thinking and experience, because NO policeman has ever experienced what you suggest.

[Michael W Richards]

Trevor, anybody can come up with alternative reasons for anything. But the fact of the matter is that as long as we do not KNOW why the abdominal walls were removed, we must look upon them as being linked. The reason for that is how incredibly rare eviscerating serial killers are - to find two such people in the same town and time, doing the same VERY odd things to their victims is never going to be likely. The solution with just the one killer is the only realistic bet. We cannot go "Wait! I can think up another solution" and think it alters the picture, because it doesn´t.

Dislike it, by all means - but don´t tell me that your view is based on sound police thinking and experience, because NO policeman has ever experienced what you suggest.

Huh? That's one of the most ridiculous things ever posted about this implausible scenario. When you do not know something one cannot then presume any extrapolated position using that unknown data. Meaning...until you know why they were done, you have no way of marrying them. Just like your line that" one killer is the only realistic bet"...more accurately, its one of a myriad of speculative answers based on questions raised by incomplete or unclear data. The least likely one.

State whatever you like, just don't have the arrogance to suggest its the "only realistic bet" just because you say so.

[Fisherman]

For those not in the know, I do not answer any posts by Michael Richards. If anybvody should want to know my views on what he says, just ask, and I will answer you instead.

[Abby Normal]

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 don´t 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 doesn´t.

It´s dead simple, really. Or it would have been, had this not been Ripperology.

indeed fish. unfortunately too many people have dead set preconceived theories and or alterior motives to even admit the obvious.

[Trevor Marriott]

WARNING GRAPHIC IMAGES

Trevor, anybody can come up with alternative reasons for anything. But the fact of the matter is that as long as we do not KNOW why the abdominal walls were removed, we must look upon them as being linked.

But that link does not have to point to a serial killer does it?

The abdomens were cut open and panes of abdominal flesh were cut away for no other reason than to access the abdominal cavity, for the purpose of accessing organs because we know the viscera and organs were found missing from some of the torsos. Now making one midline incision for that purpose would prove difficult as the attached pictures shows. But removing panes of flesh either side of the incision makes the abdomen and organs removal quickly and easily accessible. As I have highlighted in black

I doubt a killer having killed and wanted to dispose of the body by dismemberment would want to make that disposal more difficult by going to great lengths to open up the abdomen cutting away panes of flesh, etc unless of course, he was seeking out organs, but then if that were the case we would have seen the same MO in all of the torsos and the Whitchapel victims, if we are to believe your lone serial killer theory.

Changing topic momentarily

The second pics shows the panes of abdominal flesh you seek to rely on, and you can see that by removing them it is easier to access the abdomen and the organs.

In Pic 1 the bottom end of the ruler is indicating where the kidney is located just for those who suggest it would be easy to locate and remove a kidney from Eddowes in almost total darkness.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

But that link does not have to point to a serial killer does it?

Of course not - anybody who feels it is a good idea can of course cut away part of the abdominal wall from any random corpse. However, it occurred to me that since we KNOW that we have a serial killer (Jack the Ripper) who engages in cutting away the abdominal wall from some of his victims, then once we find dead people who the police believe have been killed and who are ruled occasions of murder by an inquest and who have had large panes of flesh cut from THEIR abdominal walls, then we are looking at a very, very, very, very high likelihood of the cutter being the same person.
The criticism against my way of thinking seems to be "just because they all had large panes cut away from their abdominal walls, that does not mean that the same man must have done it!", and technically speaking, that is correct - anybody who feels it is a good idea CAN of course cut away part of the abdominal wall from any random corpse. Plus we MAY perhaps have two serial killers and eviscerators operating, who - it just so happens - accidentally do the exact same very rare things to their victims. But these are the only options for those who want different cutters, keep that in mind! And the likelihoods are easily weighed against each other.

The abdomens were cut open and panes of abdominal flesh were cut away for no other reason than to access the abdominal cavity, for the purpose of accessing organs because we know the viscera and organs were found missing from some of the torsos. Now making one midline incision for that purpose would prove difficult as the attached pictures shows. But removing panes of flesh either side of the incision makes the abdomen and organs removal quickly and easily accessible. As I have highlighted in black

Trevor, we have been over this time and time again: you do not need to cut away the abdominal wall to access the innards. Remember Ed Gingerich? There is also Fritz Haarmann, who simply cut a cross, and emptied the bellies of his victims. And - not least - as there ARE a number of eviscerators through history, why is it that none of them seem not to have cut the abdominal walls away? And - not least - if two guys were to independently arrive at the conclusion that cutting away the abdominal walls in sections would be a good idea, then just how likely is it that these two guys would be doing it in late victorian London? BOTH OF THEM? AT THE SAME TIME??
We need to be rational, realistic and logical here! If it renders people sleepless to admit that I have a very good point, then fine: let them speculate about two cutters to their hearts´delight - but DON´T tell me that it is in any way as likely or even likelier than a single cutter!!!

I doubt a killer having killed and wanted to dispose of the body by dismemberment would want to make that disposal more difficult by going to great lengths to open up the abdomen cutting away panes of flesh, etc unless of course, he was seeking out organs, but then if that were the case we would have seen the same MO in all of the torsos and the Whitchapel victims, if we are to believe your lone serial killer theory.

What we would see in the series is not what we want to see - it is what the killer wanted to do that we would see, Trevor. If you were right, we would have a deep gash in the belly of the Pinchin Street woman, we would have lacking organs from her body, we would have her arms cut off and we would fiond parts from her in the Thames. But we don´t. Because the killer opted for another scenario. But it was nevertheless the same killer, as per Hebbert, who had no doubts about it whatsoever!

Changing topic momentarily

The second pics shows the panes of abdominal flesh you seek to rely on, and you can see that by removing them it is easier to access the abdomen and the organs.

And all the time I know that seemingly, only these two (ehrm...) killers would have realized that. In the same town. At the same time. It´s idle speculation on your behalf, Trevor, and even if it WAS true, then all we can say is that our SINGLE killer seemed to think that he would facilitate getting at the innards by cutting away the abdominal walls in BOTH series. It is not as if the trait per se tell the series apart, is it?

In Pic 1 the bottom end of the ruler is indicating where the kidney is located just for those who suggest it would be easy to locate and remove a kidney from Eddowes in almost total darkness.

The kidney sits to the side of the body, right? NOT along the midline! And nevertheless, the Ripper took away the abdominal wall when removing the midline-placed uterus from Chapman, while he did NOT cut away the abdominal wall when he took out the side-placed kidney from Eddowes. How does that fit with what you are saying, Trevor? Shoukld it not be the other way around? Actually, you should look at Fosters drawing of Eddowes. It shows how the cut in her belly first went straight down, and then veered off much to the right side of her body as it travelled downwards. But, you know what, Trevor? It was her LEFT kidney that was taken.
How on earth does that work? Could he really get at the left kidney without taking away the abdominal wall? And with the cut being to the RIGTH side of her body?
Yes, he could. And he did.
You see, the killer does not care about what we want him to do, and what kind of logic and working ethics and practices we ascribe to him. He does what he wants to to, and care not about us.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It is time, Trevor. Time for you as an ex-copper to admit that what the police searches for when they suspect a serial killer is SIMILARITIES within the murders. And that when the similarities are numerous and some of them very rare, the police will work from the assumption of a common killer.
Either this is how the police works and reasons, or I have misunderstood it capitally.

Which is it?

[Trevor Marriott]

It is time, Trevor. Time for you as an ex-copper to admit that what the police searches for when they suspect a serial killer is SIMILARITIES within the murders. And that when the similarities are numerous and some of them very rare, the police will work from the assumption of a common killer.
Either this is how the police works and reasons, or I have misunderstood it capitally.

Which is it?

I have already gone to great lengths to explain what could be plausible explanations for the similarities, but these similarities are not present in all the murders you suggest relative to both the torso series and the WM series. That absence is crucial when you are trying to prove one killer because you would expect the one killer to adopt the same similar MO. But there is no specific identifiable MO because to prove a serial killer you first have to prove murder and again as I keep saying you can not do that with any certainty and furthermore there is no evidence to show causes of death. But there is evidence to show that organs and the heads were removed and as is known organs were a saleable commodity in 1888 for medical research

I am not naive to believe that amongst these torsos one or perhaps even two were as a result of perhaps some form a domestic incident but to suggest all were murdered is a step too far.

Instead of you keep banging on about the same serial killer responsible for murdering all the torsos over a 50 year period, you might be advised to tone it down a bit and refer to the torsos as "The Thames Torso Mysteries" because that's all they are mysteries.

Yous should also take more note of what modern-day medical experts tell us about the medical aspect of both the torso and the WM, instead of forming your own medical perspectives on these issues because they are the experts you are not.

And I like other on here see no point in continuing to argue with you on these points because you leary are not going to consider alternatives to your serial killer theory

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

I have already gone to great lengths to explain what could be plausible explanations for the similarities, but these similarities are not present in all the murders you suggest relative to both the torso series and the WM series. That absence is crucial when you are trying to prove one killer because you would expect the one killer to adopt the same similar MO. But there is no specific identifiable MO because to prove a serial killer you first have to prove murder and again as I keep saying you can not do that with any certainty and furthermore there is no evidence to show causes of death. But there is evidence to show that organs and the heads were removed and as is known organs were a saleable commodity in 1888 for medical research

Trevor, if we have five cases of murder, a woman in 1989, killed by shotgun, a man in 1992, strangled, a boy in 1995, run over intentionally, a girl in 1996, hit over the head with a hammer and a dog in 2000, poisoned, they are as disparate as they could be. But if all of these cases had an extremely rare inclusion, say that they had a capital "Z" burnt into their foreheads, guess what happens? Will all of the very large dissimilaritie rule the day? Or will that burnt in "Z" do it?

Think real hard about that for a minute!

I am not naive to believe that amongst these torsos one or perhaps even two were as a result of perhaps some form a domestic incident but to suggest all were murdered is a step too far.

The 87-89 torsos were all cut up by the same man. How that lands us in one or two of them being domestics and the other ones murders, I fail to see. Let´s make use of the facts, shall we?

Instead of you keep banging on about the same serial killer responsible for murdering all the torsos over a 50 year period, you might be advised to tone it down a bit and refer to the torsos as "The Thames Torso Mysteries" because that's all they are mysteries.

All unsolved murders are mysteries, Trevor. That is why these murders carry that term.

Yous should also take more note of what modern-day medical experts tell us about the medical aspect of both the torso and the WM, instead of forming your own medical perspectives on these issues because they are the experts you are not.

Like how Biggs speaks about small tongues connecting two pieces of flesh as "flaps", you mean?

And I like other on here see no point in continuing to argue with you on these points because you leary are not going to consider alternatives to your serial killer theory

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Oh, but you are once more wrong, Trevor: the reason that I am convinced of a single killer is because I HAVE considered the alternatives - and decided that they have nothing going for them.
If you should come up with yet another alternative - like how somebody could have made abdominal flap icecream in 1887-89, and ran out of raw material - I will certainly give that alternative due consideration too.

It´s when somebody comes up with the idea that rare and odd inclusions in. a series of murders are more likely to be coincidental than not that we should start worrying!

Now I´ve got a little gardening to do, so I will leave you to it. The best of luck!

[Trevor Marriott]

Oh, but you are once more wrong, Trevor: the reason that I am convinced of a single killer is because I HAVE considered the alternatives - and decided that they have nothing going for them.
If you should come up with yet another alternative - like how somebody could have made abdominal flap icecream in 1887-89, and ran out of raw material - I will certainly give that alternative due consideration too.

It´s when somebody comes up with the idea that rare and odd inclusions in. a series of murders are more likely to be coincidental than not that we should start worrying!

Now I´ve got a little gardening to do, so I will leave you to it. The best of luck!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

All unsolved murders are mysteries, Trevor. That is why these murders carry that term.

That not true for a start they are both different

Murder - the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
Mystery - something that is difficult or impossible to understand or explain.

Trevor, if we have five cases of murder, a woman in 1989, killed by shotgun, a man in 1992, strangled, a boy in 1995, run over intentionally, a girl in 1996, hit over the head with a hammer and a dog in 2000, poisoned, they are as disparate as they could be. But if all of these cases had an extremely rare inclusion, say that they had a capital "Z" burnt into their foreheads, guess what happens? Will all of the very large dissimilaritie rule the day? Or will that burnt in "Z" do it?

But none had a Z burnt on their foreheads so a useless comparison

The 87-89 torsos were all cut up by the same man. How that lands us in one or two of them being domestics and the other ones murders, I fail to see. Let´s make use of the facts, shall we?

You keep being told that there is no evidence to show the torsos were the subject of homicide so you cannot say that one man was responsible, you need to stop making these wild speculative suggestions because there are no details of how they died. So it is wrong for you to keep suggesting they were murdered.

It´s when somebody comes up with the idea that rare and odd inclusions in. a series of murders are more likely to be coincidental than not that we should start worrying!

There is nothing rare and odd with how the bodies were dismembered it's just your theory, as you have been told by medicals experts there are only so many ways to dismember a body.

[Fisherman]

That not true for a start they are both different

Murder - the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
Mystery - something that is difficult or impossible to understand or explain.

So you have never seen the term "murder mystery" then...? Let´s google the combination of those two words... let´s see, ah! Around 23 million hits, Trevor.
That kind of nullifies yur point, I´m afraid. And why would anybody be surprised? We - the rest of the population of the planet - all KNOW that there are murder mysteries.

But none had a Z burnt on their foreheads so a useless comparison

Nope. Whether we have a burnt in "Z" or a taken away abdominal wall matters little, since they are both rare in the extreme. Actually, I believe it is MORE prevalent with messages written on murder victims than it is with removed abdominal walls. So it is not a mere example we are talking about - it´s a principle that I would have expected an ex murder squad cop to be aware of.

You keep being told that there is no evidence to show the torsos were the subject of homicide...

And you keep being told that such is the sentiment of just about everybody who looks into these cases, but that does not seem to help.

There is nothing rare and odd with how the bodies were dismembered it's just your theory, as you have been told by medicals experts there are only so many ways to dismember a body.


www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Then provide me with all those many examples of serial murder series where the abdominal walls were cut away in sections outside of our two series, and you will have proven your point.
Fail to do so, and you will have proven mine: That this IS an extremely rare and odd inclusion.

Plus, of course, the torso murders did NOT adjust to the common way of cutting up bodies, not in skill and not in which parts were cut, so that alone tells us that there are innumerable ways to cut up a body. But no way to make you see the simplest of things.

Sad, that.

[Trevor Marriott]

Then provide me with all those many examples of serial murder series where the abdominal walls were cut away in sections outside of our two series, and you will have proven your point.
Fail to do so, and you will have proven mine: That this IS an extremely rare and odd inclusion.

But it doesn't prove it was done by a serial killer that's just what you believe, you are trying to put square pegs in round holes, drop the serial killer belief. How do you know they did not die as a result of other means previously discussed, the answer is you don't. You are hell-bent on trying to prove a serial killer and you cant do it. The facts you seek to rely on are nothing more than very weak tenuous links.

Plus, of course, the torso murders did NOT adjust to the common way of cutting up bodies, not in skill and not in which parts were cut, so that alone tells us that there are innumerable ways to cut up a body. But no way to make you see the simplest of things.

If different methods of dismemberment were used that points to different people, the same as we have with Eddowes and Chapman where 2 different methods were used to remove the uterus in both cases that points to different people!

What is the common-sense way? You remove the arms and the legs and take off the head, you are then left with 6 items for disposal all very easy to dispose of either together or individually. But all very bulky to carry and dispose of, so these can be cut again, which is what we see with some of the torsos different ways equal different people!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Then provide me with all those many examples of serial murder series where the abdominal walls were cut away in sections outside of our two series, and you will have proven your point.
Fail to do so, and you will have proven mine: That this IS an extremely rare and odd inclusion.

But it doesn't prove it was done by a serial killer that's just what you believe, you are trying to put square pegs in round holes, drop the serial killer belief. How do you know they did not die as a result of other means previously discussed, the answer is you don't. You are hell-bent on trying to prove a serial killer and you cant do it. The facts you seek to rely on are nothing more than very weak tenuous links.

It actually comes very close to proving that it was done by a serial killer, Trevor. We have three cases, which is the requirement, and the measure is pretty damn rare, meaning that the likelihood of two or more persons getting that same idea in the same town and time is minuscule. Ergo, since we know that Chapman and Kelly were killed, we may conclude that Jackson was almost certainly ALSO killed (because all three had their abdominal walls taken away, among many other similarities) and by the same man. That is what you learnt when you worked as a murder squad cop, remember? Or should have learnt.

Plus, of course, the torso murders did NOT adjust to the common way of cutting up bodies, not in skill and not in which parts were cut, so that alone tells us that there are innumerable ways to cut up a body. But no way to make you see the simplest of things.

If different methods of dismemberment were used that points to different people, the same as we have with Eddowes and Chapman where 2 different methods were used to remove the uterus in both cases that points to different people!

What is the common-sense way? You remove the arms and the legs and take off the head, you are then left with 6 items for disposal all very easy to dispose of either together or individually. But all very bulky to carry and dispose of, so these can be cut again, which is what we see with some of the torsos different ways equal different people!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The differences in measures within Eddowes and Chapman are overridden by the fact that eviscerating serial killers are rarer than hen´s teeth, Trevor. We can be reasonably certain that Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly were slain by the same man, at the very least. We should not expect the killer to extract organs in the exact same way every time unless it was ritually governed or if he was a medico. Neither must apply. What applies is that we know of no two cases of serial killers and eviscerators in the same general area and time throughout history. The importance of that fact should surely sink in at SOME stage?

There is no common-sense way of dismembering a body, by the way. It in not an example of sense in any way. What there is, is a common way of doing it, and that way is the six-part division with sloppy cutting and no eviscerations.

What is NOT common is to cut away a face and scalp in one whole "mask", to cut in perfect, straight angles, to cleanly disarticulate, to cut away the abdominal wall, to leave the arms on a torso, to dispose of parts in various locations, both landbound and in a river, to put parts in the cellar of the Scotland Yard, to cut a fifteen inch long, shallow opening into the abdomen, to cut away colon sections, to take out hearts and lungs, to extract uteri etcetera, etcetera.
These are all rare inclusions, unexpected ones, and they all belong to the same set of victims. One can learn from that or one can go "There is only so many ways to dismember a body".

It is anybody´s choice.

[FrankO]

Since we have been discussing the abdominal flaps on this thread, I thought I´d put this snippet out here. It is from the Morning Advertiser of the 3rd, and it describes the mutilation of the Whitehall victim: "In cutting off the legs a portion of the abdomen had been cut away".

I just read this, Christer. Maybe I'm missing something, but my first reaction is: how, in the name of god, would they ever able to conclude the above if they didn't have the lower part of the trunk, nor the upper part of the legs?!?

But, supposing it WAS possible for them to make such a conclusion, I would think they were talking about part of the abdominal wall rather than innerds, because I simply cannot see cutting out innerds as a sort of accidental by-product of cutting off the legs.

[Trevor Marriott]

The differences in measures within Eddowes and Chapman are overridden by the fact that eviscerating serial killers are rarer than hen´s teeth, Trevor. We can be reasonably certain that Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly were slain by the same man, at the very least. We should not expect the killer to extract organs in the exact same way every time unless it was ritually governed or if he was a medico. Neither must apply. What applies is that we know of no two cases of serial killers and eviscerators in the same general area and time throughout history. The importance of that fact should surely sink in at SOME stage?

There is no common-sense way of dismembering a body, by the way. It in not an example of sense in any way. What there is, is a common way of doing it, and that way is the six-part division with sloppy cutting and no eviscerations.

What is NOT common is to cut away a face and scalp in one whole "mask", to cut in perfect, straight angles, to cleanly disarticulate, to cut away the abdominal wall, to leave the arms on a torso, to dispose of parts in various locations, both landbound and in a river, to put parts in the cellar of the Scotland Yard, to cut a fifteen inch long, shallow opening into the abdomen, to cut away colon sections, to take out hearts and lungs, to extract uteri etcetera, etcetera.
These are all rare inclusions, unexpected ones, and they all belong to the same set of victims. One can learn from that or one can go "There is only so many ways to dismember a body".

It is anybody´s choice.

But all the dissimilarities between the various torsos and the WM victims point to different persons who carried out the dismemberments and in the case of the Wm victims, there is no evidence of any specific dismemberment.

If I am going to dismember a body and I do it in a way that suits its purpose, why am I going to change that method the next time? not logical. The torsos were dismembered as you say in different ways!

The back street medicos who clearly from time to time administered females with a noxious substance which resulted in their deaths would need to dispose of the body quickly and in a way that it could not be traced back to them, so scattering the parts in different places makes it more difficult for the authorities to identify the body and to trace it back, that's why no heads were ever found These type of persons would know the value of organs for medical research and likely as not take the organs from the dead body and sell them on, in particular, the heads

Now can I prove any of this? Well, it is well documented that there were many back street medicos who gave substances to people for varying reasons and we know that abortion was one of their specialities, and we know Jackson was pregnant so there is a lot to corroborate the suggestion. more so I would suggest than your mythical serial killer.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk