sexually motivated serial killers

[Pcdunn]

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

No doubt, but did the Victorian police think of it that way, do you think?

[Trevor Marriott]

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

But you didn´t, 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. It´s an easy enough question.

You are taking this out of the real context. There is a difference between the term "specifically targeted" and the term "randomly targeted" the latter is what I would suggest is the case, based on the fact that besides those two wounds you refer to, other wounds were found on the victim which suggest that the victim was subjected to random wounds being inflicted as a result of perhaps a frenzied attack.

As stated previous the doctor makes no mention of these wounds you seek to rely on. You rely on Spratling who is not a medical man, and therefore what he says has to be taken on face value and not accepted as fact as you seem to want to do. Swanson only wrote from what he had been told, no doubt from Spratling.

The definition of genitalia is very specific and had the genitalia been targeted in the way you suggest the doctor would have mentioned this as it would have been significant, not only in this case but the others that followed.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott: You are taking this out of the real context.

Am I now? I would have thought that YOU were the one taking things out of context, adding your own thoughts on sexual motivations, speaking about Lechmere, going on about how unreliable I am and so on.

Me, I am saying one thing and one thing only: There were two stabs to the genitals of Nichols, whereas you said that her genitals were not specifically targetted.

That is the one thing I am discussing. Simple as that. And guess what? There WERE two stabs to her genitals!

There is a difference between the term "specifically targeted" and the term "randomly targeted"...

Yes, there is. But I don´t recall anybody questioning it?

...the latter is what I would suggest is the case, based on the fact that besides those two wounds you refer to, other wounds were found on the victim which suggest that the victim was subjected to random wounds being inflicted as a result of perhaps a frenzied attack.

Ah - but that, my friend, is not any fact at all. It is your interpretation only. And this is of course new to the discussion - Trevor Marriott suddenly gets to make the calls about which wounds were specifically targetting the different areas on the body, and which were collateral damage.
The crux with this new methodology of yours is that I do not agree. Not at all, in fact. Two (not one, two) stabs to a body where all the other damage was cuts and not stabs, both of them inflicted on the smallish area that were the genitals - and you think that he slipped and accidentally pointed his weapon towards the vagina and whoops, whoops; two wounds?

I think that is a very poor assessment, bordering on the ridiculous.

But let´s not quibble over this, and let´s just admit that neither you nor me can possibly KNOW the underlying reasons for these two stabs. All we can say is that they were there. And therefore it applies that the vagina WAS targetted, whether intentionally or unintentionally must remain an open question, although the implications speak more for an intention.

Anyway, that leaves us exactly where we started out:
You said that Nichols genitalia were not specifically targetted.
We cannot definitely know whether the stabs were dealt on purpose or not, but they were the only open wounds on the body outside of the abdominal carving and the cuts to the neck.
We must therefore accept that the wounds cannot in any way be ruled out as having been specifically targetting the genitals, and we may even deduce that this is the more likely explanation.

Therefore, Trevor, you have once again stepped in it.

As stated previous the doctor makes no mention of these wounds you seek to rely on. You rely on Spratling who is not a medical man, and therefore what he says has to be taken on face value and not accepted as fact as you seem to want to do. Swanson only wrote from what he had been told, no doubt from Spratling.

The definition of genitalia is very specific and had the genitalia been targeted in the way you suggest the doctor would have mentioned this as it would have been significant, not only in this case but the others that followed.

Once again, there was one place and one place only where Llewellyn would have been called upon to mention the full extent of the wounds, and that was in his autopsy report. And that report does not exist.
Futhermore, we can see from Dr Phillips dealing with Baxter that he - a seasoned police medico, who had seen most things - would NOT make the extent of the damages to the reproductive organs on Chapman public if he could avoid it. It was not until he was forced by Baxter that he told the whole story.
Would he have skipped it over in his autopsy report? Most certainly not. But it was not fit for public consumption.

So you are totally wrong here too, and you misunderstand the whole thing as so often. My personal guess is that you simply forgot about the wounds to Nichols private parts from the beginning, and then, when you were caught out, you tried to wriggle away from admitting it. Not least by claiming that I was the party "taking things out of context". Ridiculous, unworthy and soooo easily revealed.

If you want me to thrash you again over this matter, then do respond. Otherwise, deal with that serving of humble pie and try - for once - to learn from it.

Sorry, Trevor, but it is your own doing. If you had just wanted to discuss whether the Ripper was a sexually driven killer, I would have gone along with the suggestion that it would be hard to prove, and that there are indications to the contrary. And that would have been a much more rewarding discussion.

Discussing whether Nichols had two stabs to her private parts or not is simply useless - and boring.

[Abby Normal]

Trevor Marriott: You are taking this out of the real context.

Am I now? I would have thought that YOU were the one taking things out of context, adding your own thoughts on sexual motivations, speaking about Lechmere, going on about how unreliable I am and so on.

Me, I am saying one thing and one thing only: There were two stabs to the genitals of Nichols, whereas you said that her genitals were not specifically targetted.

That is the one thing I am discussing. Simple as that. And guess what? There WERE two stabs to her genitals!

There is a difference between the term "specifically targeted" and the term "randomly targeted"...

Yes, there is. But I don´t recall anybody questioning it?

...the latter is what I would suggest is the case, based on the fact that besides those two wounds you refer to, other wounds were found on the victim which suggest that the victim was subjected to random wounds being inflicted as a result of perhaps a frenzied attack.

Ah - but that, my friend, is not any fact at all. It is your interpretation only. And this is of course new to the discussion - Trevor Marriott suddenly gets to make the calls about which wounds were specifically targetting the different areas on the body, and which were collateral damage.
The crux with this new methodology of yours is that I do not agree. Not at all, in fact. Two (not one, two) stabs to a body where all the other damage was cuts and not stabs, both of them inflicted on the smallish area that were the genitals - and you think that he slipped and accidentally pointed his weapon towards the vagina and whoops, whoops; two wounds?

I think that is a very poor assessment, bordering on the ridiculous.

But let´s not quibble over this, and let´s just admit that neither you nor me can possibly KNOW the underlying reasons for these two stabs. All we can say is that they were there. And therefore it applies that the vagina WAS targetted, whether intentionally or unintentionally must remain an open question, although the implications speak more for an intention.

Anyway, that leaves us exactly where we started out:
You said that Nichols genitalia were not specifically targetted.
We cannot definitely know whether the stabs were dealt on purpose or not, but they were the only open wounds on the body outside of the abdominal carving and the cuts to the neck.
We must therefore accept that the wounds cannot in any way be ruled out as having been specifically targetting the genitals, and we may even deduce that this is the more likely explanation.

Therefore, Trevor, you have once again stepped in it.

As stated previous the doctor makes no mention of these wounds you seek to rely on. You rely on Spratling who is not a medical man, and therefore what he says has to be taken on face value and not accepted as fact as you seem to want to do. Swanson only wrote from what he had been told, no doubt from Spratling.

The definition of genitalia is very specific and had the genitalia been targeted in the way you suggest the doctor would have mentioned this as it would have been significant, not only in this case but the others that followed.

Once again, there was one place and one place only where Llewellyn would have been called upon to mention the full extent of the wounds, and that was in his autopsy report. And that report does not exist.
Futhermore, we can see from Dr Phillips dealing with Baxter that he - a seasoned police medico, who had seen most things - would NOT make the extent of the damages to the reproductive organs on Chapman public if he could avoid it. It was not until he was forced by Baxter that he told the whole story.
Would he have skipped it over in his autopsy report? Most certainly not. But it was not fit for public consumption.

So you are totally wrong here too, and you misunderstand the whole thing as so often. My personal guess is that you simply forgot about the wounds to Nichols private parts from the beginning, and then, when you were caught out, you tried to wriggle away from admitting it. Not least by claiming that I was the party "taking things out of context". Ridiculous, unworthy and soooo easily revealed.

If you want me to thrash you again over this matter, then do respond. Otherwise, deal with that serving of humble pie and try - for once - to learn from it.

Sorry, Trevor, but it is your own doing. If you had just wanted to discuss whether the Ripper was a sexually driven killer, I would have gone along with the suggestion that it would be hard to prove, and that there are indications to the contrary. And that would have been a much more rewarding discussion.

Discussing whether Nichols had two stabs to her private parts or not is simply useless - and boring.

Hi fish
You do know that arguing with a clown is pointless?
Unless you want a few laughs

[Fisherman]

Hi fish
You do know that arguing with a clown is pointless?
Unless you want a few laughs

An excellent point Abby, and one I will take unreservedly.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor Marriott: You are taking this out of the real context.

Am I now? I would have thought that YOU were the one taking things out of context, adding your own thoughts on sexual motivations, speaking about Lechmere, going on about how unreliable I am and so on.

Me, I am saying one thing and one thing only: There were two stabs to the genitals of Nichols, whereas you said that her genitals were not specifically targetted.

That is the one thing I am discussing. Simple as that. And guess what? There WERE two stabs to her genitals!

There is a difference between the term "specifically targeted" and the term "randomly targeted"...

Yes, there is. But I don´t recall anybody questioning it?

...the latter is what I would suggest is the case, based on the fact that besides those two wounds you refer to, other wounds were found on the victim which suggest that the victim was subjected to random wounds being inflicted as a result of perhaps a frenzied attack.

Ah - but that, my friend, is not any fact at all. It is your interpretation only. And this is of course new to the discussion - Trevor Marriott suddenly gets to make the calls about which wounds were specifically targetting the different areas on the body, and which were collateral damage.
The crux with this new methodology of yours is that I do not agree. Not at all, in fact. Two (not one, two) stabs to a body where all the other damage was cuts and not stabs, both of them inflicted on the smallish area that were the genitals - and you think that he slipped and accidentally pointed his weapon towards the vagina and whoops, whoops; two wounds?

I think that is a very poor assessment, bordering on the ridiculous.

But let´s not quibble over this, and let´s just admit that neither you nor me can possibly KNOW the underlying reasons for these two stabs. All we can say is that they were there. And therefore it applies that the vagina WAS targetted, whether intentionally or unintentionally must remain an open question, although the implications speak more for an intention.

Anyway, that leaves us exactly where we started out:
You said that Nichols genitalia were not specifically targetted.
We cannot definitely know whether the stabs were dealt on purpose or not, but they were the only open wounds on the body outside of the abdominal carving and the cuts to the neck.
We must therefore accept that the wounds cannot in any way be ruled out as having been specifically targetting the genitals, and we may even deduce that this is the more likely explanation.

Therefore, Trevor, you have once again stepped in it.

As stated previous the doctor makes no mention of these wounds you seek to rely on. You rely on Spratling who is not a medical man, and therefore what he says has to be taken on face value and not accepted as fact as you seem to want to do. Swanson only wrote from what he had been told, no doubt from Spratling.

The definition of genitalia is very specific and had the genitalia been targeted in the way you suggest the doctor would have mentioned this as it would have been significant, not only in this case but the others that followed.

Once again, there was one place and one place only where Llewellyn would have been called upon to mention the full extent of the wounds, and that was in his autopsy report. And that report does not exist.
Futhermore, we can see from Dr Phillips dealing with Baxter that he - a seasoned police medico, who had seen most things - would NOT make the extent of the damages to the reproductive organs on Chapman public if he could avoid it. It was not until he was forced by Baxter that he told the whole story.
Would he have skipped it over in his autopsy report? Most certainly not. But it was not fit for public consumption.

So you are totally wrong here too, and you misunderstand the whole thing as so often. My personal guess is that you simply forgot about the wounds to Nichols private parts from the beginning, and then, when you were caught out, you tried to wriggle away from admitting it. Not least by claiming that I was the party "taking things out of context". Ridiculous, unworthy and soooo easily revealed.

If you want me to thrash you again over this matter, then do respond. Otherwise, deal with that serving of humble pie and try - for once - to learn from it.

Sorry, Trevor, but it is your own doing. If you had just wanted to discuss whether the Ripper was a sexually driven killer, I would have gone along with the suggestion that it would be hard to prove, and that there are indications to the contrary. And that would have been a much more rewarding discussion.

Discussing whether Nichols had two stabs to her private parts or not is simply useless - and boring.

What is you problem, are you out with the fairies ?

You are making a big issue about two stab wounds to Nichols lower abdomen. You do not know where these stab wounds were in relation to the genital area, and they were not mentioned by the doctor as being in the genital area so clearly they were not inflicted directly at the vagina. In fact he makes no big issue of the wounds but you seem to want to for what reason I know not.

Had there been no other wounds to the abdomen then you may have a point, but when the victim was stabbed several times about the lower and upper abdomen you don't have a point, because those two wounds were not specifically targeted at that area of the abdomen.

Now that is my final word on the subject, take the blinkers off !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

What is you problem, are you out with the fairies ?

You are making a big issue about two stab wounds to Nichols lower abdomen. You do not know where these stab wounds were in relation to the genital area, and they were not mentioned by the doctor as being in the genital area so clearly they were not inflicted directly at the vagina. In fact he makes no big issue of the wounds but you seem to want to for what reason I know not.

Had there been no other wounds to the abdomen then you may have a point, but when the victim was stabbed several times about the lower and upper abdomen you don't have a point, because those two wounds were not specifically targeted at that area of the abdomen.

Now that is my final word on the subject, take the blinkers off !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Your final words?

Thankyou!!!

[DJA]

Hi fish
You do know that arguing with a clown is pointless?
Unless you want a few laughs

Even sharks wont eat them......'cause they taste funny.

[Rosemary]

Where

Which part of her genitals, may I ask? Or perhaps I should go back & read the coroner's reports & be quiet?

[Rosella]

Yes, just keep quiet! Seriously though, I recommend as a good read Tom Westcott's 'Old Wounds: Re-examining the Buck's Row Murder.' It was an article which originally appeared in 'Ripper Notes' periodical but it's available here on Casebook. It gives more than a bare reading of the coronial inquiry.

[Fisherman]

Which part of her genitals, may I ask? Or perhaps I should go back & read the coroner's reports & be quiet?

To be perfectly honest, it matters very little which exact part of her genitals we are speaking of. The reason being that we speak about the topic since it was claimed that Nichols genitalia were not specifically targetted by her killer, and this would go to strengthen the suggestion that the killer was not sexually motivated.

Of course, no matter which exact parts of the genitalia we are speaking of, it goes without saying that a sexual motivation can be argued to have been the ground for the stabs.

[John G]

I think it's worth quoting Donald Swanson's observations concerning the Pinchin Street Torso: "What becomes most apparent is the absence of attack upon the genitals as in the series of Whitechapel murders beginning in Bucks Row and ending in Miller's Court."

It does appear therefore that the higher echelons of the Metropolitan Police, who clearly would have had access to all of the reports, believed that the Whitechapel murders were probably sexually motivated.

[Rosemary]

Quiet

Yes, just keep quiet! Seriously though, I recommend as a good read Tom Westcott's 'Old Wounds: Re-examining the Buck's Row Murder.' It was an article which originally appeared in 'Ripper Notes' periodical but it's available here on Casebook. It gives more than a bare reading of the coronial inquiry.

Thanks, I read, and I shall just lurk

[Rosella]

Rosemary, I was joking about keeping quiet!

[Rosemary]

Valid point

Rosemary, I was joking about keeping quiet!

After reflection, you do have a point. I'm no ripperologist, just an ethno-historian of little to no to possibly ill repute (there's a prof of mine who'd resemble that remark) & other than deductive reasoning I can add little, really.