A Human Tiger

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor Marriott: I brought this up in an attempt to dissuade you from yet again trying to enforce your misguided theory onto other posters.

Then it failed miserably, letīs agree on that!

What part of what Dr Biggs statement do you not understand ?

I am not the one with comprehension problems, Trevor.

he says quite clearly that you cannot determine anything from reading reports.

If he does, he is a fool. Of course you can determine a lot of things from reading reports. Why do you think Bond read the reports on the first four Ripper cases, if he knew it was to no avail? Donīt be stupid, please.

But yet again you think you know better, and keep bringing up the term panes of flesh and colon removal to try to show it is the work of one person.

Give me Biggs mail address and let me talk to him, and we will see who "knows better".

No point, you have made it clear that you do not accept what he says and this is not just in relation to these issue but on other matters connected to The WM which he has given opinions on. You have made it clear you think you know better than the experts.

Do you think that Dr Biggs has not read the same reports that you have?

Do you think he is not qualified to give an expert opinion based on what was before him?

If you believe in what you postulate then so be it, no one is going to change that, but perhaps you should desist in trying to force you misguided conclusions on others in the light of expert opinions which negate your conclusions.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

CommercialRoadWanderer: I don't know why the ribs were cut in that way nor i have the medical knowledge required to make an hypothesis of that sort.

It takes no medical knowledge to discuss why the space between the ribs was cut open. None whatsoever.

It's still easier, however, for me to suggest that the reason may have been anatomical: maybe the ripper was trying to accomplish something, then decided that that way was not going to work.

What was not going to work? If he thought he could extract organs through the opening, he need not have cut more than one such opening. He cut between three ribs. So that was not the issue.

He may have still though something like "let's try cut through these just because" out of medical curiosity or mere opportuntiy, but while, as i wrote before, i think that the cut to the leg may have sparked from his fantasy (leg are easily a sexual symbol) i'm way less confident about those.

Forget about the sexual implications. He cut out the liver, the spleen, the heart, the kidneys... non-sexually related organs, all of them. So we effectively KNOW that going for the sexually related parts only was not what he did - unless every single part of the body was sexually related to his mind.

I have however read a bit the material on this site about the torso murders and while it's seem to me that it was clearly the work a murder (though not necessarily only one itself), if the purpose is to make him and the ripper the same man, we have to still accept that a murder that was apparently able to not give any clue about when and where his crimes where committed or not even about the identity of his victim, was suddenly operating in a very different way. And then decided to not stalk the streets again but go back to the thames murders. Not an impossibility, of course.

"In a very different way"? How do you know that? There could have been heaps of similarities. So why predispose that the deeds were very different? BOTH killers cut the abdominal wall away in panes - how is that different approaches? Both men took out sections of the coloin - how is that different approaches? Both men cut the victims open from breastbone to pubes. Whereīs the difference? Both men took sexually and non-sexually related organs out. How does that differ?

One series was probably performed in some sort of bolthole, indoors, whereas the other took place in the open streets. But we know that one of the "open street" murders took place in a reasonably secluded backyard and one inside a room. So how large is that difference?

We also know that the killer dismembered the victims in one series, but as there is every chance that he did this within the realms of a place that could be tied to his person, just how strange is it that he chose to get rid of the victims by way of dismembering them in those cases? Who would be able to tie Bucks Row, Hanbury Street, Mitre Square and Dorset Street to a specific person?
If we should expect dismemberment in one series, my money would always be on the torso series.

After that, what is there to tell them apart?

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott: I brought this up in an attempt to dissuade you from yet again trying to enforce your misguided theory onto other posters.

Then it failed miserably, letīs agree on that!

What part of what Dr Biggs statement do you not understand ?

I am not the one with comprehension problems, Trevor.

he says quite clearly that you cannot determine anything from reading reports.

If he does, he is a fool. Of course you can determine a lot of things from reading reports. Why do you think Bond read the reports on the first four Ripper cases, if he knew it was to no avail? Donīt be stupid, please.

But yet again you think you know better, and keep bringing up the term panes of flesh and colon removal to try to show it is the work of one person.

Give me Biggs mail address and let me talk to him, and we will see who "knows better".

[CommercialRoadWanderer]

I don't know why the ribs were cut in that way nor i have the medical knowledge required to make an hypothesis of that sort. It's still easier, however, for me to suggest that the reason may have been anatomical: maybe the ripper was trying to accomplish something, then decided that that way was not going to work. He may have still though something like "let's try cut through these just because" out of medical curiosity or mere opportuntiy, but while, as i wrote before, i think that the cut to the leg may have sparked from his fantasy (leg are easily a sexual symbol) i'm way less confident about those.

I have however read a bit the material on this site about the torso murders and while it's seem to me that it was clearly the work a murder (though not necessarily only one itself), if the purpose is to make him and the ripper the same man, we have to still accept that a murder that was apparently able to not give any clue about when and where his crimes where committed or not even about the identity of his victim, was suddenly operating in a very different way. And then decided to not stalk the streets again but go back to the thames murders. Not an impossibility, of course.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor Marriott: The signature you refer to is one you have purportedly identified, but in fact it is not a signature as you have been told by experts.

Try and read my post again, Trevor. If you end up understanding it (fat chance...), you will see that far from presenting any signature, I am actually ASKING Pierre what he thinks is the signature.

What was done to the bodies was done in the course of dismemberment and to hide the identity of the deceased persons

That is nothing but a guess on your behalf. Find me another case where a colon has been severed in two places and removed "in the course of dismemberment" and I may - MAY - listen to you. Normally, there is absolutely no reason to do so, since you fail to understand the most basic of matters in these cases.
Once you have found a victim with a removed colon, I will ask you the next question: In which other case has the complete face and scalp, eyelids and -lashes still attached, come away from the skullbone as collateral damage caused in the "course of dismemberment"? Not even you would be ignorant enough to suggest that, one would have thought, but hey, Trevor Marriott is always there to surprise us! I wonder what the killer thought when he slipped with the knofe "in the course of dismemberment" and accidentally happened to cut away face and scalp?
Ask Biggs, Trevor. Aks him and find out if he believes that this was collateral damage!

What did Dr Biggs say in relation to trying to draw specific conclusions from simply reading a report

"I don’t think you can really determine intent with any degree of confidence by looking at the injury… let alone reading someone else’s description of it"

Dr Biggs speaks of a perceived "degree of confidence" here. Nobody but him and you do so, however. Me, and the other posters out here, are discussing other matters.
Can you explain to me why you bring this up, totally out of context as it is?

I brought this up in an attempt to dissuade you from yet again trying to enforce your misguided theory onto other posters.

What part of what Dr Biggs statement do you not understand ? he says quite clearly that you cannot determine anything from reading reports. But yet again you think you know better, and keep bringing up the term panes of flesh and colon removal to try to show it is the work of one person.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

he cut between three sets of ribs.
What does that mean? What did it produce?

I have an overall idea about why he did what he did to Kelly where this fits in ...

What are your thoughts on this? I agree that the presence of the torso killer in the East End is an unbelievable "coincidence", and probably no coincidence at all, being (most probably) separate crimes by the one individual.

I think the killer wanted to provide a possibility to look into the chest cavity and to define the design of the ribcage. (Itīs a good thing that I write "I think" here, before people pounce on me...!)

[TTaylor]

he cut between three sets of ribs.
What does that mean? What did it produce?

I have an overall idea about why he did what he did to Kelly where this fits in ...

What are your thoughts on this? I agree that the presence of the torso killer in the East End is an unbelievable "coincidence", and probably no coincidence at all, being (most probably) separate crimes by the one individual.

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott: The signature you refer to is one you have purportedly identified, but in fact it is not a signature as you have been told by experts.

Try and read my post again, Trevor. If you end up understanding it (fat chance...), you will see that far from presenting any signature, I am actually ASKING Pierre what he thinks is the signature.

What was done to the bodies was done in the course of dismemberment and to hide the identity of the deceased persons

That is nothing but a guess on your behalf. Find me another case where a colon has been severed in two places and removed "in the course of dismemberment" and I may - MAY - listen to you. Normally, there is absolutely no reason to do so, since you fail to understand the most basic of matters in these cases.
Once you have found a victim with a removed colon, I will ask you the next question: In which other case has the complete face and scalp, eyelids and -lashes still attached, come away from the skullbone as collateral damage caused in the "course of dismemberment"? Not even you would be ignorant enough to suggest that, one would have thought, but hey, Trevor Marriott is always there to surprise us! I wonder what the killer thought when he slipped with the knofe "in the course of dismemberment" and accidentally happened to cut away face and scalp?
Ask Biggs, Trevor. Aks him and find out if he believes that this was collateral damage!

What did Dr Biggs say in relation to trying to draw specific conclusions from simply reading a report

"I don’t think you can really determine intent with any degree of confidence by looking at the injury… let alone reading someone else’s description of it"

Dr Biggs speaks of a perceived "degree of confidence" here. Nobody but him and you do so, however. Me, and the other posters out here, are discussing other matters.
Can you explain to me why you bring this up, totally out of context as it is?

[Trevor Marriott]

Like taking away the abdominal wall in large panes and cutting out a section of the colon, you mean?

Or what do you think is the "signature" involved? Ripping the abdomen up from breastbone to pubes? Taking out organs? Cutting necks?

The signature you refer to is one you have purportedly identified, but in fact it is not a signature as you have been told by experts.

What was done to the bodies was done in the course of dismemberment and to hide the identity of the deceased persons

What did Dr Biggs say in relation to trying to draw specific conclusions from simply reading a report

"I don’t think you can really determine intent with any degree of confidence by looking at the injury… let alone reading someone else’s description of it"

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

The signature must be similar between the cases to a certain extent for an hypothesis about the same killer.
Regards, Pierre

Like taking away the abdominal wall in large panes and cutting out a section of the colon, you mean?

Or what do you think is the "signature" involved? Ripping the abdomen up from breastbone to pubes? Taking out organs? Cutting necks?

[Fisherman]

I have doubts, Fisherman, that the WH torso was moved because it wasn,t found. Encounters with the deposited body parts is typically immediate or near so. Altho there is the report coming from the men who dug around the area in Whitehall basement where the other body parts were discovered. They stated that one area smelled as tho something had been buried there. My reservation about assuming it was the torso (dug up and deposited by the Thames killer) is how there were different decomposition rates between the parts. I wouldn,t know if it being wrapped in a parcel and buried could cause ,that,.

Not disagreeing here, Robert - I just wanted to point out that we cannot treat it as a fact that the body was there all the time.

Personally, I think our best guess is that it was. But it is just a guess nevertheless.

[Fisherman]

CommercialRoadWanderer: If decades of research and readings gave you more elements to discuss about than the ones you are presenting here, then i will gladly read about those when and if you will provide them.

I was not speaking of myself only. I was simply saying that I find it a bit harsh to speak of anybody who has spent a lot of time researching the case as somebody who jumps to conclusions.

For you the similarity of the abdominal wounds are something that is almost only explainable with the ripper and the torso murder being one person.

Yes, thatīs is absolutely correct. It all boils down to the rarity of the details involved. If the correlation had been a ripped abdomen only, it would have been a lot more tenuous - but it would nevertheless point to a very possible connection.

But how many cases can you mention where the victim had her abdominal wall removed in large panes? And how many cases can you mention where a section of the colon was cut out and removed?

One such matter only is quite enough in my world to conclude that we are very probably speaking of the same killer. And when there are TWO such things, it is game over.

Let me try a question on you and see where you end up. You say that you think that the explorations on the body of Mary Kelly seem like curiosity to you.
The intercostals between the fourth, fifth and sixth ribs were cut through on the body. Can you identify any practical reasons for that? Or any other reasons? If he wanted to know how it feels to cut through an intercostal between two ribs, he could have done so and be done with it, but he cut between three sets of ribs.
What does that mean? What did it produce?

I have an overall idea about why he did what he did to Kelly where this fits in, and it would be interesting to hear what your take on it is. Any suggestions/thoughts/speculations are welcome!

[CommercialRoadWanderer]

And to me that means almost nothing. The signature must be similar between the cases to a certain extent for an hypothesis about the same killer. But if it is, it does not mean that Mr X is the killer. Two things being similar does not indicate the specific Mr X. It only indicates a possibility for the same killer, which could be Mr Z or T, and the hypothesis is hypothetical and preliminary. So you should try and disprove the hypothesis and if you canīt you are stuck with your silly data pointing to a specific killer. How very annoying. And especially if you find several bits of data. Then you have a hard time trying to get rid of them. They pile up like a small collection. Very silly.

Regards, Pierre

I don't think I got what you mean with your answer, but I don't have to disprove anything. I'm just telling you what I think, that does not mean that I have a case to defend because mine does not fit into yours or anything like that.

Currently I don't see the torso murder and the ripper as the same man. The least I can tell is that I will try to read more about the subject and eventually reconsider.

[Pierre]

If decades of research and readings gave you more elements to discuss about than the ones you are presenting here, then i will gladly read about those when and if you will provide them.

Then, what else i may say? For you the similarity of the abdominal wounds are something that is almost only explainable with the ripper and the torso murder being one person. For me, the possibility that the torso murders may have been perpetrated in a totally different situation or for different reasons is way too big to ignore.

And to me that means almost nothing. The signature must be similar between the cases to a certain extent for an hypothesis about the same killer. But if it is, it does not mean that Mr X is the killer. Two things being similar does not indicate the specific Mr X. It only indicates a possibility for the same killer, which could be Mr Z or T, and the hypothesis is hypothetical and preliminary. So you should try and disprove the hypothesis and if you canīt you are stuck with your silly data pointing to a specific killer. How very annoying. And especially if you find several bits of data. Then you have a hard time trying to get rid of them. They pile up like a small collection. Very silly.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

CommercialRoadWanderer: Oh well, since we are talking about that, there are some elements that may suggest that not even the C5 were killed by the same hand. Jumping straight to the conclusion that the ripper was indeed one, and even one with the torso murder, it's really too much for me.

Depends somewhat on the degree to which people are jumping to that conclusion. There can be no absolute certainty, but concluding that the most rational and logical solution is that we are dealing with one Ripper only is completely permissible to my mind - as long, that is, as we are discussing the cases where the victims had their abdomens ripped open. Tabram and Stride are two different cups of tea, although I count them in too.

The term "jumping to conclusions" is slightly derogatory when you speak of people who in many cases have spent decades of research and reading, by the way...

It seems to me, moreover, that for you the "we don't know the full story" element is actually something that encourages you to go a bit too far with your hypothesis, rather than the opposite, which is what for me is almost natural.

Now knowing is not knowing. Nobody is disputing that. But when not knowing is coupled with knowing that two murder series both involved the exact same, extremely rare elements, then it is anything but rash to point to a probable connection.

Well, there's nothing wrong in taking advantage of whatever you don't know to fill in with something you theorize, but over a certain degree (as with the "the ripper may have indulged a little dismemberment here and a little disembowelment there" idea) it's just not my cup of tea.

Tea comes in many flavours. So do serialists. Some of them dismember in one case but not in another. Some open up the abdomen in one case but not in an other. Ergo this MAY have applied to our cases too. After acknowledging that, we must look at the facts - are there commonalitites, similarities? And if there are, are there any common details that are rare or even extremely rare?

And there are such matters. How do you explain them? Mere coincidences?

Yes, everyone knows that it is "possible". No one disputes it, I think. But possibility is not evidence. It is the beginning where you start to search for it.

Regards, Pierre