Who did kill Nichols and Kelly ?

[Fisherman]

Is it just me, or did I read somewhere that Pierre accused David Orsam of obsessively following him around on the boards?

[Pierre]

Is it just me, or did I read somewhere that Pierre accused David Orsam of obsessively following him around on the boards?

Yes, Fisherman. And the reason for my interest in your theory is that you are so convinced when you have so little material, i.e. so few sources.

And therefore, I asked you what it would imply if you had sources for handedness and violence.

Do you have an interesting answer?

Regards, Pierre

[Fisherman]

Apparently, Pierre does not realize that Davids interest in himself may be grounded upon his own failure to produce a single source to bolster his claims.

Oh, well... not spending any more interest in it.

[Pierre]

Apparently, Pierre does not realize that Davids interest in himself may be grounded upon his own failure to produce a sigle source to bolster his claims.

Oh, well... not spending any more interest in it.

I asked you what it would imply if you had sources for handedness and violence.

Do you have an answer?

Regards, Pierre

[GUT]

Yes, Fisherman. And the reason for my interest in your theory is that you are so convinced when you have so little material, i.e. so few sources.

And therefore, I asked you what it would imply if you had sources for handedness and violence.

Do you have an interesting answer?

Regards, Pierre

At least Fish has produced sources, more than can be said for someone on these threads......

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor Marriott: There is no evidence that any other body part was "allegedly" taken away by the killer other than the uteri and a kidney.

Nor did I say so - I said that he plucked out and cut away a large variation of parts.

The other body parts you refer to were clearly damaged as part of the mutilations that were inflicted on the victims, the killer had no specific design on them, or ther fact that they were from a female victim. It seems you have come up with this idea to prop up the one killer theory which you firmly believe in.

Aha - so he just happened to cut out the spleen, the liver, the uterus etcetera from Kelly? That was collateral damage only? Like the breasts, taken away with circular incisions, both of them - he did not plan on that, they just happened to get in the way of his knife? And the parts under the head of Kelly crept in under her on their own? There was "no specific design" behind any of it?
A slight reconsideration may be called for here, Trevor.

Yes you are right, because you are now referring to a singular crime. That crime has many different traits to the other murders, suggesting that the killer of Kelly was not the killer of the other victims. So your one for all theory does not stand up on that basis.

As to organ removal with regard to Kelly, the killer had the opportunity of taking most of the body parts away with him having gone to great lengths to hack them out of the body. but no, nothing was taken away, not even the heart

And if you take out the organ removals as being the work of the killer, then that might be quite likely, which is what most have failed to do when assessing all of the murders.

I think everyone have considered the idea before discarding it.

I think the term blinkered approach is what is required !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

Trevor here we go again:

"As to organ removal with regard to Kelly, the killer had the opportunity of taking most of the body parts away with him having gone to great lengths to hack them out of the body. but no, nothing was taken away, not even the heart"


The data such as it is does not support your view that the above is a fact.

Indeed all we have from the time of the murder suggests the heart was taken.

This is my major objection with you. Giving opinions and claiming they are facts.

Steve

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott: There is no evidence that any other body part was "allegedly" taken away by the killer other than the uteri and a kidney.

Nor did I say so - I said that he plucked out and cut away a large variation of parts.

The other body parts you refer to were clearly damaged as part of the mutilations that were inflicted on the victims, the killer had no specific design on them, or ther fact that they were from a female victim. It seems you have come up with this idea to prop up the one killer theory which you firmly believe in.

Aha - so he just happened to cut out the spleen, the liver, the uterus etcetera from Kelly? That was collateral damage only? Like the breasts, taken away with circular incisions, both of them - he did not plan on that, they just happened to get in the way of his knife? And the parts under the head of Kelly crept in under her on their own? There was "no specific design" behind any of it?
A slight reconsideration may be called for here, Trevor.

Yes you are right, because you are now referring to a singular crime. That crime has many different traits to the other murders, suggesting that the killer of Kelly was not the killer of the other victims. So your one for all theory does not stand up on that basis.

The colon removal from Eddowes, her nose-tip being cut off, the removal of Chapmans uterus - I can list other items too. Kelly is interesting since if we have the same killer, we clearly have the fullest list of what he took an interest in when we look at this very case.

As to organ removal with regard to Kelly, the killer had the opportunity of taking most of the body parts away with him having gone to great lengths to hack them out of the body. but no, nothing was taken away, not even the heart.

I will let your guesswork about the heart pass under the radar, since it is uninteresting to a large degree. But you make a useful point - the killer took out organs that he did NOT bring along as he left. Ergo, taking organs out was more important to him/equally important to him as was bringing them along. He could do both, and my suggestion is that the organs he took, he took to enable him to remember and relive his opening up a body and possesing it in it´s entirety.
Can you understand what kind of paraphilia I am outlining here?

And if you take out the organ removals as being the work of the killer, then that might be quite likely, which is what most have failed to do when assessing all of the murders.

You yourself have failed to see my angle, Trevor.

I think everyone have considered the idea before discarding it.

I think the term blinkered approach is what is required !

And you live up to it.

[Pierre]

Trevor here we go again:

"As to organ removal with regard to Kelly, the killer had the opportunity of taking most of the body parts away with him having gone to great lengths to hack them out of the body. but no, nothing was taken away, not even the heart"


The data such as it is does not support your view that the above is a fact.

Indeed all we have from the time of the murder suggests the heart was taken.

This is my major objection with you. Giving opinions and claiming they are facts.

Steve

Hi Steve,

I have seen differing views on the question of the heart having been taken (away from the room).

What is your opinion on this?

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

I have seen differing views on the question of the heart having been taken (away from the room).

What is your opinion on this?

Regards, Pierre

My view Pierre has been stated on the forum many times.

The sources apart from a later interview with Reid, which is debatable on not only the time after the event it was produced but on some of the other details it contains, strongly suggest that the heart was not found in the room.

Yes there are some initial press reports it had been found, yet later reports correct this.

Bond is clear it is absent from the body and it is not listed by any at the scene at the time as being present in the room.

Taking all that into account I am, until such time as further data is found dispel the view, of the opinion that it was most probably absent.


Steve

[John G]

A more simpler explanation for the marked differences with regards to the organ removals, is that either there were two different killers, which I find hard to accept, because it would then involve two different and unconnected killers targeting the same organ, and that is highly improbable.

Besides if it were the same killer why take the same organ a second time?

The other more plausible explanation is that we know that the bodies of Chapman and Eddowes were taken to two different mortuaries. So if it is to believed that the organs were removed by bona fide medical personnel at both mortuaries, might explain the difference noted in the removal of the same organ from both bodies.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

What I do find interesting is that there are both modern and contemporary experts who believed that Chapman and Eddowes were eviscerated by someone with medical knowledge. However, in respect of Kelly, this is obviously not the case.

[Fisherman]

What I do find interesting is that there are both modern and contemporary experts who believed that Chapman and Eddowes were eviscerated by someone with medical knowledge. However, in respect of Kelly, this is obviously not the case.

How is that "obvious", John?

[Elamarna]

What I do find interesting is that there are both modern and contemporary experts who believed that Chapman and Eddowes were eviscerated by someone with medical knowledge. However, in respect of Kelly, this is obviously not the case.

Which of course is strange in itself considering that Eddowes also according to the experts demonstrated knowledge in cutting around the belly button. And additionally knowledge of the position of the kidney.

The view of skill seems to be based on Phillips description of the cuts.


Steve

[John G]

How is that "obvious", John?

Because no expert that I'm aware of believed that Kelly's murderer had medical knowledge. Now, my favourite suspect, Francis Thompson, trained for 6 years as a surgeon so, unlike Lechmere, he may have had the requisite knowledge.

Unfortunately, he's only closely connected to one murder site-Miller's Court- as he was probably resident at the Providence Row shelter, which obviously presents a problem.

[John G]

Which of course is strange in itself considering that Eddowes also according to the experts demonstrated knowledge in cutting around the belly button. And additionally knowledge of the position of the kidney.

The view of skill seems to be based on Phillips description of the cuts.


Steve

Hi Steve,

Yes, if anything the modern experts, at least, seem to believe more skill was demonstrated in the case of Eddowes than Chapman.