Francis Hermans - Update - Solid evidence of him being in vicinity of torso murders.

[rjpalmer]

considering that Dr hebbert (you know, the dr who was there at the time and actually worked on the cases)was of the opinion that the torso c4 (as fish put the 87-89 cases-rainham, whitehall, jackson, pinchin) were cut similarily and done by the same man, I think we can be pretty confident in saying that they were all murdered by the same man.

Fair enough, Abby. Let's accept Hebbert's conclusion.

Now, did Hebbert also suggest the 'Ripper' killings were murdered by this unknown 'torso' killer? Or did he see medical dissimilarities? Or even psychological dissimilarities?

You see, I haven't forgotten our old friend Hermans.

We don't know if Hermans was even in London on the dates of any of the 'torso' cases, but he might have been.

Yet Fish doubts Hermans is a legitimate 'torso' suspect, because his Salt Lake crimes are allegedly too different from the London torso cases.

Yet, my hunch is that most people can see more potential similarity between Hermans' crimes and one or two of the London cases, then they can see between the London torso crimes and the murder of Polly Nichols.

If a person is going to dismiss a suspect because his crimes weren't "cookie cutter" enough, they shouldn't turn around and link two cases where the dissimilarities are even more evident.

Here's my view: a person willing to murder someone and cut them up is exceedingly rare. Thankfully!

To me, that rarity is far more relevant than any perceived differences in this or that crime.

So, if Fred Deeming is found to have been living next door to Liz Jackson (he wasn't), he's going to be among my suspects even if she wasn't buried under the floorboards.

Ditto Hermans and his stove in Salt Lake.

[Fisherman]

Fish calling Liz Jackson a prostitute doesn't "bother" me. That's missing the point.

I'm not going full-blown Hallie on him, I'm simply asking whether his label pre-determines his 'solution' to her murder.

No, you were not simply asking that, R J. You wrote:

"If Rubenhold and her supporters cried foul at calling 'The Five' prostitutes, what on earth would their reaction be to Ripper theorists calling the 'torso' victims prostitutes?

The majority of them were never even positively identified."

In writing that, you implicated that I would havce said that ALL the torso victims were prostitutes, and I never said that. I said that since we KNOW that the only identified victim WAS a prostitute, it MAy be that the killer targetted that category of women.

Why you would loose sleep over that kind of a suggestion is more than I understand.

Now, however, you want to move the goalposts and instead you ask:

Was she only a prostitute?

Was she not also an expecting mother?

Was she not also someone's girl friend?

I fail to see that I would have denied any of the first two points or claimed the third one for a fact. If you can substantiate that I would have done so, please show me where I did it.

He calls her a 'prostitute' and suggests she was killed by sexual serial killer.

She WAS a prostitute, R J, believe it or not. And the general assumption back in the day is that she WAS killed, not that she died some sort of accidental death. Plus since I link the Ripper deeds and the torso deeds together in my book, my assumption is that she was killed by a sexual serial killer.

I call her an expecting mother and suggest she was accidently killed by a clumsy abortionist.

Bond clearly withdrew the suggestion that she had died as the result of a failed abortion. And just how clumsy an abortionist are you suggesting? One that slipped and cut the heart out too? It´s not that you are not welcome to any idea you may have, but I am just as welcome to point to the flaws in it - these are public boards.
Do you have any suggestion why the hapless abortionist would pack up the uterus, placenta and cord inside the two flaps cut from the belly of Jackson before floating the parcel down the Thames? Or, for that matter, why he cut those flaps out at all? Standard abortion procedure, or?
And, since Hebbert certifies that the same man dealt with the other three victims too, had he mistaken them for pregnant women and tried his abortion practices on them? They were all cut in the exact same manner, remember.

A third theorists suggests she was a girlfriend, and suggests the boyfriend's alibi was bogus and it was a 'domestic' killing.

Labels might be fun.

But detectives are scared of them.

RP

Let´s just establish that "labels" are not the same thing as suggestions - other than when you describe my suggestions as labels.

[Fisherman]

Now, did Hebbert also suggest the 'Ripper' killings were murdered by this unknown 'torso' killer? Or did he see medical dissimilarities? Or even psychological dissimilarities?

Hebbert is well qualified medically, but not psychologically. This is a reoccurring theme throughout these cases. The concept of aggressive dismemberment was not known at the time, and so Hebbert did not have the tools to work with that we have today.

Here's my view: a person willing to murder someone and cut them up is exceedingly rare. Thankfully!

To me, that rarity is far more relevant than any perceived differences in this or that crime.

Eviscerating serial killers are even rarer, R J. Maybe you should apply that insight on these cases too...? And while yoou are at it, cnsider this too:

If the torso murders were - as seems probable - performed in a bolthole of some sort to which the killer could be linked, then the bodies HAD TO be moved away from that bolthole, or the killer would be detected.

This was never so in the Ripper killings.

One simple. purely practical difference clears away the whole "problem".

Try and clear away how abdominal walls were removed in both series, and see how easy that is! Try and explain why both series involved removal of the heart and the uterus. Try and explain why both series involved cutting from sternum to groin.

These are much more relevant factors than the perceived difference between street murders that did not involve dismemberment and likely bolthole murders that did.

Plus we know that Kelly and Chapman (and possibly Eddowes) involved failed efforts to decapitate (=dismemberment). The killer could not take a head of by means of a knife.
Curiously, that is the exact thing Hebbert says about the torso killer; in the Rainham case and the Whitehall case, he cut with a knife first but had to employ a saw to get the head off. In the Jackson case, he almost got there with the knife but couldn´t get through with it and once more he had to fetch the saw. But in September of 1889, ten months after the Kelly murder, where somebody had tried and failed to take the head off by means of a knife, he finally succeeded with the Pinchin Street woman.
So we have two serial killers who killed prostitutes, who eviscerated, who cut away abdominal walls, who cut from ribs to pubes, who stole rings from their victims - and who were both eager to but unable to take heads off by way of knife in 1888.

Surely, SURELY, they really MUST be totally different men. These are certainly all coincidences, nothing more!

Right?

[Trevor Marriott]

Eviscerating serial killers are even rarer, R J. Maybe you should apply that insight on these cases too...?

But body dealers and the illicit trade in bodies and body parts were not so rare.

So if there is a dead body the body parts that are required have to be removed, just how many different ways are there to remove body parts. So your argument about body parts being removed in the same way and points to one killer falls a bit flat.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

With respect, that has to be one of the most circular arguments I've ever encountered.

How do we know the torso cases were linked? Because the victims were prostitutes.

How do we know the victims were prostitutes? Because the cases were linked.

!


No, Fish calling Liz Jackson a prostitute doesn't "bother" me. That's missing the point.

I'm not going full-blown Hallie on him, I'm simply asking whether his label pre-determines his 'solution' to her murder.

Was she only a prostitute?

Was she not also an expecting mother?

Was she not also someone's girl friend?

He calls her a 'prostitute' and suggests she was killed by sexual serial killer.

I call her an expecting mother and suggest she was accidently killed by a clumsy abortionist.

A third theorists suggests she was a girlfriend, and suggests the boyfriend's alibi was bogus and it was a 'domestic' killing.

Labels might be fun.

But detectives are scared of them.

RP

Hi RJ

With respect, that has to be one of the most circular arguments I've ever encountered.

How do we know the torso cases were linked? Because the victims were prostitutes.

How do we know the victims were prostitutes? Because the cases were linked.

absolutely 100% incorrect. Thats not what im saying and i dont appreciate you mis representing my view.

The torsos are already linked because the hebbert said they were linked and they look linked because its four dismemberment murders of women in the same general time frame in the same general area.

and since they are already linked, regardless of what they did.. then its not a stretch to say that since the only one ided was known to prostitute herself, then the others might have too.

thats all im saying. no circular reasoning at all. I dont even care if any of the torso victims (or the ripper victims for that matter) are ever described as being prostitutes at all ever again-its not the point. but whatever you call them its the same victimology between jackson and the ripper victims, and more than likeley (because theyre already linked by murder MO) that jackson is the same victimology as the other torso victims.

'm not going full-blown Hallie on him, I'm simply asking whether his label pre-determines his 'solution' to her murder.

Was she only a prostitute?

Was she not also an expecting mother?

Was she not also someone's girl friend?

He calls her a 'prostitute' and suggests she was killed by sexual serial killer.

I call her an expecting mother and suggest she was accidently killed by a clumsy abortionist.

A third theorists suggests she was a girlfriend, and suggests the boyfriend's alibi was bogus and it was a 'domestic' killing.

Labels might be fun.

But detectives are scared of them.

yes she was those things too. and those men could be her killer-- but that dosnt preclude her from being killed by the torso serial killer though does it? as in-her boyfreind could have been the torso killer or the dr.

the main point im trying to make is that she is already linked to the other torso victims, whatever you call her, or whoever killed her.

IMHO it seems you are the one stuck on the label, i think hr is going to your head.

But detectives are scared of them

no they arent. you know how many detectives have used that word (or label as you like to call it) in describing victims and linking them via victimology? lol-no they are not scared of it. of course they know, and we know, that they can be mothers and girfreinds and wives etc, but its the prostituting activity and lifestyle that more often than not gets them into trouble, and thats why they use that word when describing them in the context of trying to solve the murder.

[Abby Normal]

Fair enough, Abby. Let's accept Hebbert's conclusion.

Now, did Hebbert also suggest the 'Ripper' killings were murdered by this unknown 'torso' killer? Or did he see medical dissimilarities? Or even psychological dissimilarities?

You see, I haven't forgotten our old friend Hermans.

We don't know if Hermans was even in London on the dates of any of the 'torso' cases, but he might have been.

Yet Fish doubts Hermans is a legitimate 'torso' suspect, because his Salt Lake crimes are allegedly too different from the London torso cases.

Yet, my hunch is that most people can see more potential similarity between Hermans' crimes and one or two of the London cases, then they can see between the London torso crimes and the murder of Polly Nichols.

If a person is going to dismiss a suspect because his crimes weren't "cookie cutter" enough, they shouldn't turn around and link two cases where the dissimilarities are even more evident.

Here's my view: a person willing to murder someone and cut them up is exceedingly rare. Thankfully!

To me, that rarity is far more relevant than any perceived differences in this or that crime.

So, if Fred Deeming is found to have been living next door to Liz Jackson (he wasn't), he's going to be among my suspects even if she wasn't buried under the floorboards.

Ditto Hermans and his stove in Salt Lake.

hi rj



yes i brought this exact same point up with fish earlier in the thread-I guess you missed it.

[Michael W Richards]

MR
i never said that both series of women MUST be prostitutes, nor did i say they were active.
learn how to read.

theres a reason i put you on ignore, so if you could kindly stop quoting/responding directly to my posts i would appreciate it.

"all the ripper victims were at one time prostitutes" Your words. Which is also incorrect. Stride was a registered prostituite at "one time", Mary worked in a brothel. The others did what was required to stay alive when needed, calling them Prostitutes...(which is used to define an Occupation).... is disrespecting them,... which is your way, and you demostrate it with every post.

Look at what your pen pal posted...read def 1a. Of course he deferred to a secondary meaning, which is very much his style too. Goofs.

[rjpalmer]

thats all im saying. no circular reasoning at all. I dont even care if any of the torso victims (or the ripper victims for that matter) are ever described as being prostitutes at all ever again-its not the point. but whatever you call them its the same victimology between jackson and the ripper victims, and more than likeley (because theyre already linked by murder MO) that jackson is the same victimology as the other torso victims.

Well, to keep the peace, I have too much fundamental disagreement with the ideas that you and Fisherman promote for me to continue.

Hebbert's only reason for suggesting that 4 of the torso cases were linked was the way in which the joints were disarticulated. It was on medical grounds.

The "victimology" had sod all to do with it, so to claim that one of the women was a known unfortunate means the other three might have been is your reasoning, not his. That's fine, but let's be clear on that point.

And where does Hebbert suggest these four women were the victim of a sexual sadist who targeted prostitutes?

Again, that's your suggestion, and Fish's suggestion, not his. So again, the alleged 'victimology' does not come into play.

Indeed, one of the victims was not accustomed to manual work. Show me an East End prostitute with a nice set of hands. The majority of them were scrubbers, manglers, bottle stopperers, etc.

no they arent. you know how many detectives have used that word (or label as you like to call it) in describing victims and linking them via victimology? lol-no they are not scared of it. of course they know, and we know, that they can be mothers and girfreinds and wives etc, but its the prostituting activity and lifestyle that more often than not gets them into trouble, and thats why they use that word when describing them in the context of trying to solve the murder.

Maybe in Hollywood.

The average murdered 'unfortunate' is not murdered by Ted Bundy; she's murdered by her ex, by her abusive boyfriend, or by her pimp. It's of course different in Hollywood shockumentaries, when the correct answer is always Ted Bundy.

Liz Jackson was pregnant.

So here's a research project for those willing to do it.

Make a study of pregnant women who were murdered in the Victorian era.

Then tell me how many were killed by their seducers, how many were killed by abortionists, and how many were killed by a lone sexual serial sadist who targeted prostitutes.

It aint even close.

Ciao.

[Fisherman]

But body dealers and the illicit trade in bodies and body parts were not so rare.

So if there is a dead body the body parts that are required have to be removed, just how many different ways are there to remove body parts. So your argument about body parts being removed in the same way and points to one killer falls a bit flat.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

How many ways are there to remove a body part? Many. One such way is to remove a uterus whole and another way is to remove it in pieces.

Why did the rascals who removed Eddowes´ uterus and kidney not remove them undamaged? I don´t think you have given us a useful answer to that riddle, Trevor? And once they failed to remove the left kidney in one piece, why did they not take the right kidney out to make good on their failure?

Why did they not take all the organs from her?

Why did they not take all organs from Chapman?

And Kelly? Were they in place in Dorset Street after the killer, extracting the organs and forgetting to bring them along as they left?

The only organ truly lacking in your theory is a brain, Trevor.

[Fisherman]

Well, to keep the peace, I have too much fundamental disagreement with the ideas that you and Fisherman promote for me to continue.

Hebbert's only reason for suggesting that 4 of the torso cases were linked was the way in which the joints were disarticulated. It was on medical grounds.

Of course. Has anybody argued anything else? Really? It was the cutting technique that lay behind Hebberts decision, not only the disarticulations though - the division of the neck and how the killer evolved as he tried it was the one point most prominently pressed.

The "victimology" had sod all to do with it, so to claim that one of the women was a known unfortunate means the other three might have been is your reasoning, not his. That's fine, but let's be clear on that point.

Once again, who in the whole world has argued that Hebbert used the victimilogy to make his call? Noone. Let´s try and be honest about that, please. It is Abby´s own take on things that victimology must be considered, and it is a very good point, of course. It is something that is very important in all cases of serial murder. But nobody is saying that Hebbert used it to establish a connection. He probably never thought much about it anyway.

And where does Hebbert suggest these four women were the victim of a sexual sadist who targeted prostitutes?

Does Abby say that he did suggest that? Or is it his own contention?

Again, that's your suggestion, and Fish's suggestion, not his.

Can you please quote me where I say that the torso killer was a sexual sadist who targetted prostitutes?

Why can you not be truthful about this? Because you are smoked the moment you tell the truth? The truth being that I said that the FACT that one of the torso killers victims was a prostitute MAY suggest that he targetted prostitutes! And I never said a word about sexual sadism, did I, R J?

So tell me: Why do you misrepresent me? what is the aim for it? And did you really think I would not brandish you for it? There was never a hope in hell for that, I´m afraid.

So again, the alleged 'victimology' does not come into play.

Not into what Hebbert said, but certainly into the overall issue. It always does in serial killer cases.

Indeed, one of the victims was not accustomed to manual work. Show me an East End prostitute with a nice set of hands. The majority of them were scrubbers, manglers, bottle stopperers, etc.

If that is your proof, then it is even more measly that I thought it would be. Has it occurred to you that women are not born prostitutes? That they actually turn to prostitution somewhere along the line? And has it occurred to you that women who are not used to manual labour may also turn prostitutes? Unless you are suggesting that rough and worn hands are what make women prostitute themselves...?

Do you?

If so, let me help you along by quoting a little something about Liz Jackson´s hands. Liz, the prostitute, you know? Here it is, from the Times, July 5, 1889:

Johanna Keefe, sister to last witness, said she had known Elizabeth Jackson and saw her at her sister’s, where she gave her some black cotton to sew a string on an under-garment, which witness identified, as well as the skirt and ulster. Having recapitulated much of the evidence given by her sister, she said she particularly noticed the hands of Elizabeth Jackson; they were very white and clean and nicely shaped, though the nails were bitten to the quick.

Furthermore, it is YOU, and distinctly NOT me, who are pushing the idea that I would have said that all the victims were prostitutes. I never did. I am very much aware of how for example Sutcliffe added unprostituted women into his mix, and I allow very much for how both the Ripper series and the torso ditto may have involved examples of the same.
But that does not alter how the proven fact that the only identified victim in the torso series WAS a prostitute tells us that the rest MAY also have been prostitutes. And it is a line of enquiry that any sober and thinking policeman would consider a likely suggestion for the simple reason that prostitution is the only occupation that carries a risk of being slain by a serial killer with it. No other earthly occupation has that hazard built into it.

And although it is a bugger, I am very, very, very, very sure that you know this full well. So how about acknowledging it as the risk factor it is, and admit that any serial killers victi who is a prostitute should represent a serious suggestion that the killer targets women of that particular occupation?

Maybe in Hollywood.

See the above. R J. Twice, if needed. And don´t forget to soak up what was said about Liz Jackson´s hands at that inquest!
Hollywood indeed!

The average murdered 'unfortunate' is not murdered by Ted Bundy; she's murdered by her ex, by her abusive boyfriend, or by her pimp. It's of course different in Hollywood shockumentaries, when the correct answer is always Ted Bundy.

Oh, please! I KNOW that serial murder is not as common as domestic murders. We all do. But since when does that erase serial murder?

Liz Jackson was pregnant.

So here's a research project for those willing to do it.

Make a study of pregnant women who were murdered in the Victorian era.

Then tell me how many were killed by their seducers, how many were killed by abortionists, and how many were killed by a lone sexual serial sadist who targeted prostitutes.

It aint even close.

Ciao.

That´s great, R J. A little more of those statistics, and you will wipe out serial killers from the face of earth.

And you speak Italian too! Do you know "deplorevole"?

[Abby Normal]

Well, to keep the peace, I have too much fundamental disagreement with the ideas that you and Fisherman promote for me to continue.

Hebbert's only reason for suggesting that 4 of the torso cases were linked was the way in which the joints were disarticulated. It was on medical grounds.

The "victimology" had sod all to do with it, so to claim that one of the women was a known unfortunate means the other three might have been is your reasoning, not his. That's fine, but let's be clear on that point.

And where does Hebbert suggest these four women were the victim of a sexual sadist who targeted prostitutes?

Again, that's your suggestion, and Fish's suggestion, not his. So again, the alleged 'victimology' does not come into play.

Indeed, one of the victims was not accustomed to manual work. Show me an East End prostitute with a nice set of hands. The majority of them were scrubbers, manglers, bottle stopperers, etc.




Maybe in Hollywood.

The average murdered 'unfortunate' is not murdered by Ted Bundy; she's murdered by her ex, by her abusive boyfriend, or by her pimp. It's of course different in Hollywood shockumentaries, when the correct answer is always Ted Bundy.

Liz Jackson was pregnant.

So here's a research project for those willing to do it.

Make a study of pregnant women who were murdered in the Victorian era.

Then tell me how many were killed by their seducers, how many were killed by abortionists, and how many were killed by a lone sexual serial sadist who targeted prostitutes.

It aint even close.

Ciao.

rj

Well, to keep the peace, I have too much fundamental disagreement with the ideas that you and Fisherman promote for me to continue.

Hebbert's only reason for suggesting that 4 of the torso cases were linked was the way in which the joints were disarticulated. It was on medical grounds.

The "victimology" had sod all to do with it, so to claim that one of the women was a known unfortunate means the other three might have been is your reasoning, not his. That's fine, but let's be clear on that point.

And where does Hebbert suggest these four women were the victim of a sexual sadist who targeted prostitutes?

Again, that's your suggestion, and Fish's suggestion, not his. So again, the alleged 'victimology' does not come into play.

Indeed, one of the victims was not accustomed to manual work. Show me an East End prostitute with a nice set of hands. The majority of them were scrubbers, manglers, bottle stopperers, etc.

wow youre on a roll with the mis representing today. what are you banging on about?!? when did I ever claim hebbert said they were linked by victimology? i said he linked them by the cutting/MO.
not sure why youre struggling with this.

Maybe in Hollywood.

The average murdered 'unfortunate' is not murdered by Ted Bundy; she's murdered by her ex, by her abusive boyfriend, or by her pimp. It's of course different in Hollywood shockumentaries, when the correct answer is always Ted Bundy.

Liz Jackson was pregnant.

So here's a research project for those willing to do it.

Make a study of pregnant women who were murdered in the Victorian era.

Then tell me how many were killed by their seducers, how many were killed by abortionists, and how many were killed by a lone sexual serial sadist who targeted prostitutes.

It aint even close.

Ciao.

uhh no. not hollywood-reality. would it make you feel better if we substituted the word prostitute for pink unicorn. good grief. of course detectives use the word prostitiute/prostitution when making links with crimes. just like they use the word drug user. or criminal. or was violent.

and yes we all know most people and women are murdered by someone they know and or involved with. we also know there are serial killers too. or are you trying to deny that now too?

Indeed, one of the victims was not accustomed to manual work. Show me an East End prostitute with a nice set of hands. The majority of them were scrubbers, manglers, bottle stopperers, etc

wow-i dont even know what to make of this one-ill leave it alone. but at least you acknowledge there were prostitutes in the east end.

sorry RJ its this type nonsense with the semantics /use of the word that sends us down the rabbit hole. and leads to the idocracy similar to whats happening with the banning of Dr Seuss books.

ciao yourself

[Trevor Marriott]

How many ways are there to remove a body part? Many. One such way is to remove a uterus whole and another way is to remove it in pieces.

Why did the rascals who removed Eddowes´ uterus and kidney not remove them undamaged? I don´t think you have given us a useful answer to that riddle, Trevor? And once they failed to remove the left kidney in one piece, why did they not take the right kidney out to make good on their failure?

Why did they not take all the organs from her?

Why did they not take all organs from Chapman?

And Kelly? Were they in place in Dorset Street after the killer, extracting the organs and forgetting to bring them along as they left?

The only organ truly lacking in your theory is a brain, Trevor.

My brain is highly active and more than a match to bring your madcap theories to task.

I fail to see what your reply and your insult has to do with my original post which was in relation to your suggestion that the torsos were the work of the same killer who was responsible for the WM by reason of your belief that the organs taken from the torsos were carried out in such a way to suggest it was the same killer and that this suggests that this shows they were all murdered by the same killer, and again you keep being told that murder cannot be established as fact in any of the torsos, other than opinion give by doctors based on nothing to support those opinions

Of course the facts surrounding the WM are so different that no one only you could suggest they were all killed by the same person and its time you woke up to that fact.

However I will reply to your post, you ask how many ways are there to remove specific organs well that would depend on the organ in question and the degree of difficulty in location and being able to remove that organ, and under what conditions, and whether speed for fear of detection was present.

You mentioned Chapman who was found to be missing a uterus but not only the uterus but with the Fallopian tubes attached. This clearly shows it was removed for medical research as confirmed by a modern day gynecologist.

Chapman and Eddowes were taken to two different mortuaries and again modern day medical experts state that two different methods of extraction were used to facilitate the uterus removal which clearly point to two different persons, that is also confirmed by the fact that the organs from Eddowes were damaged in the attempt to remove them and Chapmans wasnt. In Eddowes case the kidney was damaged. So we have two organs that were damaged so how could his have happened, The answer is twofold. either the person removing them was less experienced than the person who removed the organs from Chapman or the person removing the organs from Eddowes damaged them in haste for fear of detection

I will cover Kelly now it is a fact that all the body parts were strewn about the room and none were found to be missing according to Insp Reid. The doctors said no anatomical knowledge had been used to take out the organs. So if the killer was taking organs he could have had a field day by taking away almost every organ. But we see no evidence of that and we have no clear evidence what happened to the body when it left Millers Court other than it was taken to the mortuary.

I hope this helps to clear up these issues you have raised, but I fear that you will again bury your head in the sand and then come up with more questions in answer to questions which is a favorite trait of yours. As to the torsos perhaps when you come up with valid causes of death of these women people may then take you seriously, until then the other plausible explanations for their demise will continue to haunt you.


www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

My brain is highly active and more than a match to bring your madcap theories to task.

I fail to see what your reply and your insult has to do with my original post which was in relation to your suggestion that the torsos were the work of the same killer who was responsible for the WM by reason of your belief that the organs taken from the torsos were carried out in such a way to suggest it was the same killer and that this suggests that this shows they were all murdered by the same killer, and again you keep being told that murder cannot be established as fact in any of the torsos, other than opinion give by doctors based on nothing to support those opinions.

Since when do doctors base their views on nothing, Trevor? Charles Hebbert studied each cut extensively and he was able to say that the cuts in the four victims were similar in every respect.
That is not "nothing". It is powerful evidence.
And it is not as if there is only one way to cut somebody up. We know that Galloway, the examining medico in the Rainham case, was baffled by the exactitude and cleanliness of the cuts; straight angles, no fraying, all very exact. Seven cuts to disarticulate a joint, all of them neat and precise.
So we have a very unusual cutting technique and we have a total similarity between the bodies. We therefore have evidence that the women were killed by the same hand.

Of course the facts surrounding the WM are so different that no one only you could suggest they were all killed by the same person and its time you woke up to that fact.

Only me? You seem to have missed that the suggestion was pout forward back then and that is has been put forward afterwaards too, by for example Richard Whittington-Egan. And I can assure you that many people will accept it in days to come. I have little doubt that it will become middle-of-the-road stuff.

However I will reply to your post, you ask how many ways are there to remove specific organs well that would depend on the organ in question and the degree of difficulty in location and being able to remove that organ, and under what conditions, and whether speed for fear of detection was present.

You mentioned Chapman who was found to be missing a uterus but not only the uterus but with the Fallopian tubes attached. This clearly shows it was removed for medical research as confirmed by a modern day gynecologist.

Chapman and Eddowes were taken to two different mortuaries and again modern day medical experts state that two different methods of extraction were used to facilitate the uterus removal which clearly point to two different persons, that is also confirmed by the fact that the organs from Eddowes were damaged in the attempt to remove them and Chapmans wasnt. In Eddowes case the kidney was damaged. So we have two organs that were damaged so how could his have happened, The answer is twofold. either the person removing them was less experienced than the person who removed the organs from Chapman or the person removing the organs from Eddowes damaged them in haste for fear of detection

So, let´s see here - you say that two dofferent persons did the organ taking in Chapmans and Eddowes´ respective cases. And that explains the differences.

But it does. not explain why the cutter in Eddowes´ case damaged both of the organs he tried to take out, does it? Supposedly, your phantom cutter did what he did for financial gain. So why was he not more careful? And why did he not take out other organs, after having failed with the two first ones?
Moving onto Chaopman, the real elephant in the room comes into sight.
The killer cut her open from sternum to groin. At the scene, not in the mortuary.
He then proceeded to remove the intestines, by cutting them loose form the mesenteric attachments and throwing them up over Chapmans shoulder. At the scene, not in the mortuary. This gave free access to the innards, that were otherwise hidden by the intestines.
Basically, he opened the cookie jar, he cut the plastic lid inside the cookie jar open and lifted it away from the cookies ...
... and then he left, without having helped himself to the cookies.
This is why people say that your theory is ridiculous, Trevor. And I know, you don´t care that people claim this, you strive on anyway. We are the same in that respect. You say that if I had adjusted to your advice, people would perhaps listen to me. But just like you, I do not regard ripperology as a popularity contest. I call things as I see them-
So that´s where we are alike.
The difference between us is that you are in dire need of taking the advice to dump your theory, whereas I am in no such position at all. And that owes to how I am rational, whereas you are not.
There are very widereaching similarities between the two series. Eviscerating serial killers are very rare. That combination of matters points straight to a connection, regardless of how it hurts you to hear it.

I will cover Kelly now it is a fact that all the body parts were strewn about the room and none were found to be missing according to Insp Reid. The doctors said no anatomical knowledge had been used to take out the organs. So if the killer was taking organs he could have had a field day by taking away almost every organ. But we see no evidence of that and we have no clear evidence what happened to the body when it left Millers Court other than it was taken to the mortuary.

But the organs were taken out! And so, if you want to press ytour theory, you need to claim that Kelly was not slain by the same killer. She was instead killed by somebody else - who just happned to cut away the abdominal wall in large flaps, just as the case was with Chapman.
You see, the evidence is clear and unambiguous: Whoever killed Chapman also killed Kelly. And whoever that was, it was somebody who had a flair for cutting out organs. It is a no brainer.

I hope this helps to clear up these issues you have raised, but I fear that you will again bury your head in the sand and then come up with more questions in answer to questions which is a favorite trait of yours. As to the torsos perhaps when you come up with valid causes of death of these women people may then take you seriously, until then the other plausible explanations for their demise will continue to haunt you.


www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Valid causes of death? Phillips said in the Pinchin Street case that he believed that the cause of death was having the throat cut. And you? You harp on about how it is not proven.

Yawn. There is a difference between haunting and boring, you know.

[Trevor Marriott]

Valid causes of death? Phillips said in the Pinchin Street case that he believed that the cause of death was having the throat cut. And you? You harp on about how it is not proven.

Yawn. There is a difference between haunting and boring, you know.

And your replies are both predictable repetitive and boring.

Dr Biggs has told us that there are only so many ways to dismember a body and so you cannot on that basis prove that they were all dismembered by the same hand.

Furthermore he has also told us that many of the Victorian doctors opinions can now be regarded as simply guesswork yes you seem to want to stand by these opinions despite being told something to the contrary.

The explanation for the difference between the person who removed the organs from Chapman and the person who removed the organs from Eddowes has been explained to you they had to have must have been two different people.

If the organs found to be missing from Chapman and Eddowes were not taken by the killer, then there is the corroboration to Insp Reids statement that none of Kellys organs were taken away and besides there was no suggestion that any medical knowledge was shown in the removal of Kellys organs.

Might I suggest to take time to read up on the workings of body dealers and the illicit trade in bodies and body parts in particular female body parts on the LVP

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

And your replies are both predictable repetitive and boring.

Dr Biggs has told us that there are only so many ways to dismember a body and so you cannot on that basis prove that they were all dismembered by the same hand.

You can make clean cuts, and you can make frayed cuts, you can make straight cuts and you can make veering cuts, you can make deep cuts and you can make shallow ones, you can use six cuts to disjoint, or five, or seven, or eight, you can take apart a body at many places, you can saw through vertebrae and you can saw between them, you can ...

There are innumerable ways to take a body apart, Trevor, and Dr Biggs knows this too. If he does not, than he should change professions. Dr Hebbert knew this too. Otherwise, he would have said that the torso bodies were taken apart in the exact same manner as all other dismembered bodies for the reason that there are no to ways to do it. But no doctor would say such a thing.

The manner in whjich a body is cut up is completely and utterly instrumental in understanding how the cutting was done, what angling of the blade that was used, how much force was applierd, how skilled a cutter the person doing the cutting was and so on. Of course, if thwo bodies are cut un on ways that are in every respect similar, the inference must be that the cutter was the same person.

There is no further need for any doscusion of this. Take stock of it and stop misinforming about it.

Furthermore he has also told us that many of the Victorian doctors opinions can now be regarded as simply guesswork yes you seem to want to stand by these opinions despite being told something to the contrary.

"Many" of their opinions? Not all of them? Did he specify which exact opinions he spoke of? No? So you are only extending a generalized remark about how the victorians were not as advanced as we are to mean that all they did was guesswork?
I see.

These men were highly skilled medicos and they were quite capable of making comparisons between different kinds of wounds. End of.

The explanation for the difference between the person who removed the organs from Chapman and the person who removed the organs from Eddowes has been explained to you they had to have must have been two different people.

So if somebody cuts out a uterus without damaging it on one occasion, then he will do so on every occasion he tries it? Is that the basis on which your "fact" rests? he plain and simple truth is that we can not conclude any such thing at all. Nor did the contemporary medicos, although some allowed for two different killers. The same goes for todays students of the case - all things considered, our best guess is a common killer. Not two killers who opened up their respective victims´abdomens from sternum to groin and then abstained from taking any organs out.

If the organs found to be missing from Chapman and Eddowes were not taken by the killer, then there is the corroboration to Insp Reids statement that none of Kellys organs were taken away and besides there was no suggestion that any medical knowledge was shown in the removal of Kellys organs.

That reasoning is the same one that lies behind the theories of flying pigs, I´m afraid. And why on earth would we prioritize Reids ideas over the ideas of the rest of the people who - at the relevant stage - witnessed to the contrary?

Might I suggest to take time to read up on the workings of body dealers and the illicit trade in bodies and body parts in particular female body parts on the LVP

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

There are other matters that are much more urgent, Trevor. Starting with the ridiculous idea that a body cannot be cut up in many different ways, moving past the notion that victorian medicos were engaing in guesswork only and finishing at the whopper of a suggestion that there were numerous killers on the loose in Whitechapel in 1888 who generously opened women up to facilitate for organsnatchers to go about their business in the morgues. THAT, if anything, is "guesswork".
But I have told you all of this many times already, as has most posters out here, and we have all come to realize that it is like pouring water on a goose. All we get in return is the stale old mumbling about how we are not willing to offer a fresh look at things, instead opring for the same old, same old. The pathetic thing about that is how you are completely unwilling to accept anything, no matter how fresh it is, if it is not in line with the nonsense you tout.

I really should not get drawn into these discussions with you. Nor should anybody else. It is a complete waste of time and energy, and it offers a scene for ideas that have no place in the real world.

Goodbye.