A Human Tiger

[Fisherman]

CommercialRoadWanderer: Ok Fisherman, we are scratching the bottom of the barrell here, aren't we?

Actually, no. We are about halfway down only.

Let's cut it short, i'm tired or repeating myself. You think that the torso murder would gladly being to kill in the streets, to leave indentifiable victims behind and to take risk by exposing himself to witness or direct capture in spite of having, before that, killed in complete safety. Why he would have done that? Simply because he felt invincible. You don't have any proof that this is indeed what happened.

Donīt be silly now. Just as I canīt prove these matters, you canīt disprove them, so going down that lane is an exercise in futility.
You ask why a killer who has previously avoided risktaking (although we do not know anything at all about how risky the torso murders were) would suddenly accept killing at greater risk.
Do you think that there was never a serialist who killed with greater risk somewhere down the line? Are you convinced that the level of risk will never rise after the first murder? Is that it?
A serialist is normally somebody who is willing to set the norms of society aside in order to satisfy his own urges. Such a thing will always come with a risk. You seem to think that the urges will never change and that each killing satisfies the exact same urges and needs. But in reality, most serialists will change their agenda to a smaller or larger degree as they move along. That is why we so often see a progression in the violence as a murder series develops. As an aside, you may need to realize that such a progression is always the result of the killer feeling less and less inhibited and more and more invincible.
We often tend to expect the same pattern with each murder in a series, but I would warn very much against that.

I would rather think that we got murders here: one that possibly lure or kidnap victims into a place he possibly own or is otherwise extremely secure, to then dispose of their bodies in practically perfect safety, and another, the ripper, that use a different approach that is way more risky, and that may suggest that the ripper does not have a safe place where to lure victims, or is anyway unwilling or unable to use it. And no, i don't have proof of that too.

Donīt worry about the proof! Neither of us will be able to produce it. But you should worry about how you see the murders involved here. How do you know that the venue where the torso killer worked was "extremely secure"? And why do you say that the body parts were disposed off in "practically perfect safety"? The torso killer dumped the parts in varying places and at varying times. He entered the fenced off Scotland Yard building and found his way into the deepest recess and put a torso there, not knowing if he would be alone on the spot as he climbed the stairs and went out again. How is that "practically perfect safety"? He dumped parts in heavily police patrolled areas. How is that "practically perfect safety"? He entered parks and dumped parts, he threw them over the fence into gardens... How is that "practically perfect safety"? He placed a body in a vault beside another vault where people were sleeping rough. How is that "practically perfect safety"?

His bolthole - if he had one such and one such only - is an unknown entity. It could have been extremely safe or extremely risky. So we canīt tell what applies in that case. But we CAN tell that the dumpings were very risky excursions, where the killer seemingly chose taunting over security.

[Fisherman]

Nice try to turn the tables but it doesn't wash with me.

And I object to your insinuations, but it is par for the course with you. I have no hidden agenda when putting questions to Dr Biggs. The offer still stands or are you afraid of what the results may be, seeing as your theory has already been sunk without trace.

Put up or shut up !

www.trevormarriott

Yes, Trevor, if you were to ask the questions of Dr Biggs, I am afraid.

Can you explain why you are unwilling to let me do the asking myself?

[CommercialRoadWanderer]

CommercialRoadWanderer: In fact, when the ripper had the chance to kill Mary Kelly at her place, he took it. But he did not mutilate her as the torso murder would have done...

How do you know that...? How can you conclude what the torso killer would have done in Millers Court?

... and there is the possibility that he burned the heart instead of take it away. Which is infact the first thing I have said about the subject as a point about why the ripper and the Thames murder may not be the same.

Eh...what?

Whatever the ramification is, however, killing someone in a secluded but public place (or in a place you don't belong, with no informations about who is going to drop by, and when) is not the same as doing it in a place you may own and secure at your leisure.

But you donīt know that the torso killer owned the place where he killed his victims, do you? You make a lot of assumptions here with no substantiation.

I don't really think the torso had mutilated (and kept the parts of) his victims in a public but deserted place, without leaving any trace to be found.

So what are you saying? That he would not kill in a public place or that he would leave traces? One thing I recognize you are saying is that this is your take only - and thatīs fair enough. But precious little evidence.

It's a bit strange, moreover, that you keep repeating that the colon and the flaps may prove your point, while you justify any other less convenient element with the ripper wanting to try something different or feeling untouchable.

I donīt think it was "different" at all - I think there is a very clear line throughout. And the feeling of being invincible is a very common thing, present with many serialists, so it would not be odd in any way if this killer experienced the same thing.
The flaps and the colons MUST be repeated, for the very simple reason that they are two extremely rare features. If you disagree and claim they are common, then just say so. Otherwise you need to recognize that extremely rare features like these point to a shared identity, end of.

Ok Fisherman, we are scratching the bottom of the barrell here, aren't we?

Let's cut it short, i'm tired or repeating myself. You think that the torso murder would gladly being to kill in the streets, to leave indentifiable victims behind and to take risk by exposing himself to witness or direct capture in spite of having, before that, killed in complete safety. Why he would have done that? Simply because he felt invincible. You don't have any proof that this is indeed what happened.

I would rather think that we got murders here: one that possibly lure or kidnap victims into a place he possibly own or is otherwise extremely secure, to then dispose of their bodies in practically perfect safety, and another, the ripper, that use a different approach that is way more risky, and that may suggest that the ripper does not have a safe place where to lure victims, or is anyway unwilling or unable to use it. And no, i don't have proof of that too.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor Marriott: the 1873 torso is not a matter for discussion in the grand scheme of the those torsos between 1887-89.
Nothing on that torso was ever provided to him.

Then how the f-ck do you expect him to be able to comment on the whole case? Did you not take it upon yourself to tell me that since James Scobie was not given every last piece of information, his view was of no interest?
How has that suddenly changed?

But you are welcome to submit to me any questions for Dr Biggs

Nope, Trevor. I am not allowing you to ask the questions, and it should be perfectly understandable why. I have already told you that I donīt trust you to ask the correct questions and that I think that you are filtering the information Biggs is given in a biased fashion.

If you want the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, it should be in your best interest to give me direct access to Biggs and allow me to phrase the questions I want to ask, plus serve biggs with the information I fear he has been deprived of. Hereīs your chance to disprove that notion.

Nice try to turn the tables but it doesn't wash with me.

And I object to your insinuations, but it is par for the course with you. I have no hidden agenda when putting questions to Dr Biggs. The offer still stands or are you afraid of what the results may be, seeing as your theory has already been sunk without trace.

Put up or shut up !

https://www.trevormarriott

[Fisherman]

CommercialRoadWanderer: In fact, when the ripper had the chance to kill Mary Kelly at her place, he took it. But he did not mutilate her as the torso murder would have done...

How do you know that...? How can you conclude what the torso killer would have done in Millers Court?

... and there is the possibility that he burned the heart instead of take it away. Which is infact the first thing I have said about the subject as a point about why the ripper and the Thames murder may not be the same.

Eh...what?

Whatever the ramification is, however, killing someone in a secluded but public place (or in a place you don't belong, with no informations about who is going to drop by, and when) is not the same as doing it in a place you may own and secure at your leisure.

But you donīt know that the torso killer owned the place where he killed his victims, do you? You make a lot of assumptions here with no substantiation.

I don't really think the torso had mutilated (and kept the parts of) his victims in a public but deserted place, without leaving any trace to be found.

So what are you saying? That he would not kill in a public place or that he would leave traces? One thing I recognize you are saying is that this is your take only - and thatīs fair enough. But precious little evidence.

It's a bit strange, moreover, that you keep repeating that the colon and the flaps may prove your point, while you justify any other less convenient element with the ripper wanting to try something different or feeling untouchable.

I donīt think it was "different" at all - I think there is a very clear line throughout. And the feeling of being invincible is a very common thing, present with many serialists, so it would not be odd in any way if this killer experienced the same thing.
The flaps and the colons MUST be repeated, for the very simple reason that they are two extremely rare features. If you disagree and claim they are common, then just say so. Otherwise you need to recognize that extremely rare features like these point to a shared identity, end of.

[CommercialRoadWanderer]

In fact, when the ripper had the chance to kill Mary Kelly at her place, he took it. But he did not mutilate her as the torso murder would have done and there is the possibility that he burned the heart instead of take it away. Which is infact the first thing I have said about the subject as a point about why the ripper and the Thames murder may not be the same.

Whatever the ramification is, however, killing someone in a secluded but public place (or in a place you don't belong, with no informations about who is going to drop by, and when) is not the same as doing it in a place you may own and secure at your leisure. I don't really think the torso had mutilated (and kept the parts of) his victims in a public but deserted place, without leaving any trace to be found.

It's a bit strange, moreover, that you keep repeating that the colon and the flaps may prove your point, while you justify any other less convenient element with the ripper wanting to try something different or feeling untouchable.

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott: the 1873 torso is not a matter for discussion in the grand scheme of the those torsos between 1887-89.
Nothing on that torso was ever provided to him.

Then how the f-ck do you expect him to be able to comment on the whole case? Did you not take it upon yourself to tell me that since James Scobie was not given every last piece of information, his view was of no interest?
How has that suddenly changed?

But you are welcome to submit to me any questions for Dr Biggs

Nope, Trevor. I am not allowing you to ask the questions, and it should be perfectly understandable why. I have already told you that I donīt trust you to ask the correct questions and that I think that you are filtering the information Biggs is given in a biased fashion.

If you want the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, it should be in your best interest to give me direct access to Biggs and allow me to phrase the questions I want to ask, plus serve biggs with the information I fear he has been deprived of. Hereīs your chance to disprove that notion.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,

Why donīt you read The Silence of the Lambs instead?

Regards, Pierre

Does it involve a mask and scalp that was accidentally removed in the course of dismemberment?

Why donīt you read Cinderella? Itīs a start.

[Fisherman]

CommercialRoadWanderer: I thought it was clear by what I wrote, but again you seems capable to see nothing but criticism to your case.

Youīr kidding; I am VERY quick to spot when somebody endorses it...!

Whatever.

For me, the ripper killed his victims on the streets out of necessity, which means that he had no way to kidnap them or lure them elsewhere.

Of course he had - but he did not make use of it. There were more secluded spots than Bucks Row, for example; hundreds of staircases and vaults, deserted spaces underneath bridges and so on. The point being that he either was too disorganized to realize this, or he did not care, or he actually enjoyed the thought of being at risk. If you read about serial killers who are not caught and the development of their mindset, you will sooner or later come to the chapter where you are informed that many serialists develop a sense of Godlike invincibility. That may well have been a factor: "I can do what I want wherever I want", sort of.

The Thames murder, reasonably, would have had no reason to do that, since it's really likely that he had the means to do otherwise.

Yes, absolutely. But when you are handed a box of chocolates, do you always take the exact same chocolate or do you enjoy changing between the flavors? So very many serialists have killed within their comfort zone in most cases - but when the opportunity has come along, they have thrown caution to the wind and changed venues.

I don't see a killer capable of leave no crime scene and no victim name to suddenly change to an M.O. that left us with crime scenes, identity of the victims, and witness reports.

Who says he cared for a second? He discarded a face in 1873, apparently not caring if it was found and identified. He floated Jacksons parts down the Thames in her own ulster! He never tried to hide what he was doing; he put it on exhibition!

It's of course still possible that the Thames murder decided to haunt the streets for whatever reason: urge to kill, spreading terror, or anything else. But it's a possibility, not a certainty.

Of course it is not an absolute certainty. But it is not far from it, given the abdominal flaps and the colons! They speak a very clear language.

Ah, if you have an explanation for the ribs fact, I would like to know it if you are inclined to tell it.

Itīs in post 97!

[Trevor Marriott]

By the way, Trevor, I promise to accept whatever Biggs says - as long as I may provide the relevant information and ask the relevant questions.

For example, I can inform him about the mask that was found in 1873, and then I can ask him if it would have been produced "in the course of dismemeberment", as you propose.

Deal?

the 1873 torso is not a matter for discussion in the grand scheme of the those torsos between 1887-89.
Nothing on that torso was ever provided to him.

But you are welcome to submit to me any questions for Dr Biggs

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Pierre]

By the way, Trevor, I promise to accept whatever Biggs says - as long as I may provide the relevant information and ask the relevant questions.

For example, I can inform him about the mask that was found in 1873, and then I can ask him if it would have been produced "in the course of dismemeberment", as you propose.

Deal?

Hi Fisherman,

Why donīt you read The Silence of the Lambs instead?

Regards, Pierre

[CommercialRoadWanderer]

I thought it was clear by what I wrote, but again you seems capable to see nothing but criticism to your case. Whatever. For me, the ripper killed his victims on the streets out of necessity, which means that he had no way to kidnap them or lure them elsewhere. The Thames murder, reasonably, would have had no reason to do that, since it's really likely that he had the means to do otherwise. I don't see a killer capable of leave no crime scene and no victim name to suddenly change to an M.O. that left us with crime scenes, identity of the victims, and witness reports. It's of course still possible that the Thames murder decided to haunt the streets for whatever reason: urge to kill, spreading terror, or anything else. But it's a possibility, not a certainty.

Ah, if you have an explanation for the ribs fact, I would like to know it if you are inclined to tell it.

[Pierre]

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.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi,

Fisherman believes only in his own experts. The police investigator and the barrister. They are not underinformed or misinformed. By Fisherman himself. But none of them has said that Lechmere was Jack the Ripper.

Regards, Pierre

[Fisherman]

By the way, Trevor, I promise to accept whatever Biggs says - as long as I may provide the relevant information and ask the relevant questions.

For example, I can inform him about the mask that was found in 1873, and then I can ask him if it would have been produced "in the course of dismemeberment", as you propose.

Deal?

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott: 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.

I accept EVERYTHING Biggs has said. I think he has been underinformed, and that is why he has not been able to comment in a better informed manner. But overall, I donīt dount that he knows his game.
So give me that address, and we will see whether I am correct in stating that he has been underinformed/misinformed by you.

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

I think he has been underinformed/misinformed.

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

I donīt know his exact credentials, but I think that overall, he is qualified to give an expert opinion on many things. Not on the ones that he has not been fully and correctly informed on, though.

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.

Once again, if you are interested in the full and real picture, give me Biggsī address, and I will post the full wording of my questions and his answers. If you have been thorough and clear, you have absolutely nothing to fear, Trevor. And surely you have! Right?

So howīs it gonna be...?