sexually motivated serial killers

[Trevor Marriott]

Do you have Llewellyns report at hand, Trevor?

No, I didnīt think so.

But you are nevertheless suggesting that Spratling misreported the stabs to the genitalia, as if it was a certainty. You claim confidently that there was no attack to Nichols genitalia.

Why would I - or anybody else - accept that this is the correct view, when the evidence is directly contradictory to it?

I donīt disagree that sexual motivation should preferably be visible in all victims in a series. But once again: that is not what we are discussing, is it?

I would in this context only add that using the approach that only attacks on the genitalia reveals a sexual motivation is rather care- and reckless.

Colicott, if you remember him, stabbed girls in their bottoms. Does the lack of an attack to the genitalia tell us that he was not sexually motivated?

Does taking the feet off from a victim not fall into the category of sexual crimes - if the perpetrator is a foot fetischist?

How is that for looking at the overall picture?

In the Ripper killings, with the one exception of Stride, the lower abdomen was laid open, and the lower abdomen contains the reproductive organs. In two cases, the uterus was taken, in three it was cut out.

Add the stabs to Nichols genitalia that Spratling and Swanson conjured up , and you will have a pretty decent case for a sexually motivated serialist.

But letīs not delve into all of that. Letīs just concentrate on how you wrote that Nicholsī genitalia was not specifically attacked. Was that really so, Trevor? Iīll leave you to ponder that question.

Fish you have previous for readily accepting experts opinions without question if it suits you purpose !

As to what Dr Llewellyn said the inquest report is right before your eyes you only have to look to find it, you will never make a detective

But I will help here is the link

http://www.casebook.org/official_documents/inquests/inquest_nichols.html

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[John G]

I should also point you in the direction of Dr Llewellyn who makes no specific mentions of wounds to the genitalia in the case of Nichols nor does he pass any opinion that the crime was sexually motivated.

If you are talking about a sexually motivated killer then you have to look at the overall picture with regards to all the victims, what can been seen in one should be seen in others if the work of the same killer, but that is not the case.

Now who is wrong?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hello Trevor,

I would agree that the ritual can evolve or become more elaborate; In fact, this applies to the vast majority of serial killers. I would therefore completely reject the argument that each victim should have the same injuries if they are to be regarded as the work of the same serial killer; such an argument is clearly completely ludicrous and unsupported by precedent. In fact, Schlesinger (2010) refer to one serial killer who progressed from genital mutilation to body dismemberment: clearly a far greater level of evolution than we see from Tabram through to Kelly.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Trevor,

I would agree that the ritual can evolve or become more elaborate; In fact, this applies to the vast majority of serial killers. I would therefore completely reject the argument that each victim should have the same injuries if they are to be regarded as the work of the same serial killer; such an argument is clearly completely ludicrous and unsupported by precedent. In fact, Schlesinger (2010) refer to one serial killer who progressed from genital mutilation to body dismemberment: clearly a far greater level of evolution than we see from Tabram through to Kelly.

John
But we have no real evidence of specific genital mutilation, we simply have stab wounds in the victims to the upper and lower abdominal areas. Not specific genital targets.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[John G]

John
But we have no real evidence of specific genital mutilation, we simply have stab wounds in the victims to the upper and lower abdominal areas. Not specific genital targets.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor,

We have evidence that the organs of reproduction were targeted, I.e in respect of Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly.

[Fisherman]

Fish you have previous for readily accepting experts opinions without question if it suits you purpose !

As to what Dr Llewellyn said the inquest report is right before your eyes you only have to look to find it, you will never make a detective

But I will help here is the link

http://www.casebook.org/official_documents/inquests/inquest_nichols.html

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It would have been a lot easier to just say "Yes, you are correct, I forgot that Nichols had her genitals stabbed".

It would have saved us heaps of time, and you would look a lot better in the eyes of discerning posters.

It is in black and white, it is irrefutable and nobody has gainsaid it for 127 years: Polly Nichols had two stabs to her genitalia.

Whatever other views you may have about me, the thread, the boards or the world and the universe as a whole is neither here nor there.

End of discussion.

[Trevor Marriott]

It would have been a lot easier to just say "Yes, you are correct, I forgot that Nichols had her genitals stabbed".

It would have saved us heaps of time, and you would look a lot better in the eyes of discerning posters.

It is in black and white, it is irrefutable and nobody has gainsaid it for 127 years: Polly Nichols had two stabs to her genitalia.

Whatever other views you may have about me, the thread, the boards or the world and the universe as a whole are neither here nor there.

End of discussion.

Nichols had several parts of her body stabbed her genitals were not specifically targeted. As you have seen the doctor makes no reference to those two genitalia wounds you seek to rely so heavily on. If he had thought the killer was sexually motivated or the wounds were sexually motivated I would have expected him to mention it.

Now the sooner you grasp that fact, the sooner you will understand the crimes and be able to asses and evaluate the evidence relating to those crimes, instead of bumbling blindly along talking about a mythical sexually motivated killer.

End of discussion

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[John G]

Nichols had several parts of her body stabbed her genitals were not specifically targeted. As you have seen the doctor makes no reference to those two genitalia wounds you seek to rely so heavily on. If he had thought the killer was sexually motivated or the wounds were sexually motivated I would have expected him to mention it.

Now the sooner you grasp that fact, the sooner you will understand the crimes and be able to asses and evaluate the evidence relating to those crimes, instead of bumbling blindly along talking about a mythical sexually motivated killer.

End of discussion

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Dr Llewellyn didn't even notice that Nicholls had been mutilated! Anyway, perhaps the social proprieties of the day inevitably meant that certain details would be omitted.

[Trevor Marriott]

Dr Llewellyn didn't even notice that Nicholls had been mutilated! Anyway, perhaps the social proprieties of the day inevitably meant that certain details would be omitted.

He did when he later viewed the body and when he gave his inquest testimony.

Those social proprieties were certainly not omitted in the murders that followed.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[John G]

He did when he later viewed the body and when he gave his inquest testimony.

Those social proprieties were certainly not omitted in the murders that followed.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But not when he first viewed the body! The Annie Chapman inquest is instructive when considering the importance that medical professionals attached to observing what they considered to be the necessary social proprieties, although to be fair they clearly considered it injudicious to reveal too many details to to the general public. It also illustrates how the coroner, the redoubtable Wynne Baxter, was becoming increasingly frustrated with this approach:

Dr Phillips: "When I come to speak of the wounds on the lower part of the body I must again repeat my opinion that that it is highly injudicious to make the results of my examination public. These details are only fit for yourself, sir, and the jury, but to make them public would simply be disgusting."

Coroner: "We are here in the interest of justice and must have all the evidence before us. I see, however, there are several ladies and boys in the room, and I think they might retire."

Dr Phillips: "In giving these details to the public I believe you are thwarting the ends of justice."

Coroner: "We are bound to take all the evidence in the case, and whether it be made public or not is a matter of the responsibility of the press."

[Fisherman]

Nichols had several parts of her body stabbed her genitals were not specifically targeted. As you have seen the doctor makes no reference to those two genitalia wounds you seek to rely so heavily on. If he had thought the killer was sexually motivated or the wounds were sexually motivated I would have expected him to mention it.

Now the sooner you grasp that fact, the sooner you will understand the crimes and be able to asses and evaluate the evidence relating to those crimes, instead of bumbling blindly along talking about a mythical sexually motivated killer.

End of discussion

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I will waste just a little more of my time on you, Trevor, but then itīs over and done with.

You now write:

Nichols had several parts of her body stabbed her genitals were not specifically targeted.

This is - of course! - absolute nonsense and bonkers. We KNOW for a fact that her genitals WERE targetted. Twice, even!

What you COULD argue would be that her genitals were not solely focused upon by the killer, but no, you stick with the rustiest guns in the whole wild west and keep claiming that her genitals were not "specifically" targetted. I am sorry, but the rest of the Western hemisphere knows that they were. If we were to reason that they were not specifically targetted, then what the heck WAS?

The abdomen? Six or so cuts. The neck? Two cuts. The genitals? Two stabs.

These three areas were ALL specifically targetted, since they were ALL hit more than once. That is the exact meaning of "specifically targetted": When you CONCENTRATE on an area, and prove your interest in it by adding more than one wound. Specifically. Targetted. See?

Donīt try and teach me how to assess and evaluate these matters. In fact, donīt try and teach anybody - you have not proven yourself able enough in that department. Instead, you have managed to get yourself tangled up helplessly in the absolute basics of the case, and once you are caught in that situation, trousers around the ancles, you resort to "explanations" like "Spratling and Swanson got it wrong" and you try to wriggle away from the focus of the issue.

Well, you will have to do that wriggling on your very own fortwith. My time is far too valuabale to spend on antics like these.

And thatīs not saying that my time is valuable at all.

[Trevor Marriott]

I will waste just a little more of my time on you, Trevor, but then itīs over and done with.

You now write:

Nichols had several parts of her body stabbed her genitals were not specifically targeted.

This is - of course! - absolute nonsense and bonkers. We KNOW for a fact that her genitals WERE targetted. Twice, even!

What you COULD argue would be that her genitals were not solely focused upon by the killer, but no, you stick with the rustiest guns in the whole wild west and keep claiming that her genitals were not "specifically" targetted. I am sorry, but the rest of the Western hemisphere knows that they were. If we were to reason that they were not specifically targetted, then what the heck WAS?

The abdomen? Six or so cuts. The neck? Two cuts. The genitals? Two stabs.

These three areas were ALL specifically targetted, since they were ALL hit more than once. That is the exact meaning of "specifically targetted": When you CONCENTRATE on an area, and prove your interest in it by adding more than one wound. Specifically. Targetted. See?

Donīt try and teach me how to assess and evaluate these matters. In fact, donīt try and teach anybody - you have not proven yourself able enough in that department. Instead, you have managed to get yourself tangled up helplessly in the absolute basics of the case, and once you are caught in that situation, trousers around the ancles, you resort to "explanations" like "Spratling and Swanson got it wrong" and you try to wriggle away from the focus of the issue.

Well, you will have to do that wriggling on your very own fortwith. My time is far too valuabale to spend on antics like these.

And thatīs not saying that my time is valuable at all.

As you do always you twist things around to suit your own purpose. You don't listen and you certainly don't understand.

If a victim is randomly stabbed as it would appear these victims were with stab wounds in various parts of the body, Just because two of those wounds were in the lower abdomen as far as Nicholls is concerned that doesn't point to a sexually motivated crime in the grand scheme of things. By your logic we should forget about all the other wounds and cuts and only focus on the wounds that were around the lower part of the abdomens of the victims.

None of the victims vaginas were mutilated or stabbed for that matter, no attempts made to mutilate breasts. (leaving Kelly out of this argument for obvious reasons) Had that been the case then you might have a point.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor,

We have evidence that the organs of reproduction were targeted, I.e in respect of Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly.

Well that's only relevant if it can be conclusively proved that these were removed by the killer from Chapman and Eddowes, and that cannot be done. Kelly is a different kettle of fish.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

As you do always you twist things around to suit your own purpose.
www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Look, Trevor, I gave you a chance to back off that you really should have taken.

But you didnīt, did you?

So okay:

You said that there were no specific wounds to Nichols genitalia.

I said that Spratling and Swanson both reported that there were two stabs to her private parts.

I said that it therefore means that you were wrong in saying that there were no specific wounds to Nichols genitalia.

Now you are going to tell me how that is "twisting things around" to suit my purpose. No wriggling, no changing of the subject, no goalpost moving, just a short, honest answer please: How is it twisting things to point out that there were two stabs to Nichols vagina reported, and how is it twisting things to say that you were therefore wrong to say that there were NO specific wounds to her genitalia?

Over to you, Trevor. Itīs an easy enough question.

[Pcdunn]

"No connexion"

Just wondering on what basis do you think that the authorities did not believe that this was not sexually motivated at the time?

I believe I've read in one of the inquests that there was no "evidence of connexion" (I.e., sexual congress) on the body, so I suppose I thought that meant the authorities ruled out a rapist.

What do you folks think, may I ask? I know there's a mention of one suspect being "sexually insane"-- whatever that means...

[GUT]

I believe I've read in one of the inquests that there was no "evidence of connexion" (I.e., sexual congress) on the body, so I suppose I thought that meant the authorities ruled out a rapist.

What do you folks think, may I ask? I know there's a mention of one suspect being "sexually insane"-- whatever that means...

I think though Dunny that there is a difference between sexually motivated and rape.