Tweet
Originally posted by Elamarna
View Post
I'll say one thing for Pierre he can spot a liar.
Cheers John
-
Hi Steve and Abby
I'll say one thing for Pierre he can spot a liar.
Cheers John -
John G: Hi Fish,
Dr Phillips clearly believed that Chapman's killer had surgical knowledge, which is why the police responded by investigating suspects with medical knowledge-I believe they identified three suspects.
And Trevor's experts concluded that both Eddowes and Chapman had had their organs expertly removed, i.e. by someone with human anatomical knowledge.
Let´s look at a snippet from the Chapman inquest! Here it is:
Was there any anatomical knowledge displayed? - I think there was. There were indications of it. My own impression is that that anatomical knowledge was only less displayed or indicated in consequence of haste. The person evidently was hindered from making a more complete dissection in consequence of the haste.
[Coroner] Was the whole of the body there? - No; the absent portions being from the abdomen.
[Coroner] Are those portions such as would require anatomical knowledge to extract? - I think the mode in which they were extracted did show some anatomical knowledge.
There we are: Baxter was not impressed by the portions excised, but instead of HOW they were excised. In other words, the knifework was what impressed him. We all know that he said that it was how the killer managed to take out the uterus, part of the vagina and part of the bladder "with one sweep of the knife". We also all know that no surgeon would take these parts out they way they were taken from Chapman.
Galloway came closer (I think it was him) when he said that no surgeon would be as skilled with the knife as the torso killer, and that the latter therefore would probably be a butcher with lots of cutting experience; much more experience than a surgeon has. In the end, Galloway settled for some anatomical insights, but not from being a surgeon. And I agree very much with that.
The cause of death was never established in the Torso cases.
And the police never doubted that they were murder cases. Lacking parts disenabled them to prove their point. It was either murders or a case of a man aquiring dead bodies while they were still warm, and subsequently cutting them up.
There is no p roof that the Torso killer intentionally mutilated anyone, apart from the purpose of dismemberment. If you believe otherwise, please cite medical authority.
The heart and lungs were removed from the Rainham victim, as per the medicos. Liz Jacksons uterus was taken out from her body together with the placenta and chord, and packed up in a parcel together with the abdominal flaps. How do you propose to show us that this was not intentionally done...?
The Rainham victim's uterus wasn't removed, whereas it could be argued JtR specifically targeted the organs of reproduction.
That is plain wrong. He targetted Eddowes´ kidney and all the inner organs of Kelly. Plus he took out two uteri. That means that the majority of the organs he took out were non-sexually oriented. And you know what? The exact same goes for the torso killer. And you know what more? The torso killer took out the uterus from Jackson, putting that murder on par with the Chapman and Eddowes murders.
THAT is the truth. Or do you oppose it?
And apart from Jackson and Rainham, did any of the the other victims have missing organs?
Yes.
Not that that would prove they were retained by the perpetrator-they could have been lost in transit, for instance, or simply discarded.
Absolutely. So what we need to ask us is this: We KNOW that the torso killer cut out the uterus from the body of Jackson. We KNOW that the Whitehall victims uterus was missing. Given our knowledge about what he did to Jackson, which is the best bid for what happened to the Whitehall uterus? That the killer took it out or that it was loist in transit?
Loss of part of the colon, in respect of some of the victim's, doesn't tie the "series" together, just three victims. And there could be alternative explanations as to why this happened.
Yes, it ties victims from two series together. How does that NOT mean that it ties the series together? And how do the alternative explanations look? How did not one but three victims come to loose parts of their colons, if they were not consciously removed?
Liz Jackson was identified by shear luck. The perpetrator obviously made every effort to disguise her identity, hence the retention of the head-although unlike JtR, you could argue part of his signature involved storing the head.
"Every effort"? Does that comprise how he packed her parts in an ulster she was well known to have worn? And how he provided undergarments with a name in them?
Is that how a killer who makes "every effort" to conceal what he has done goes about things?
Moreover, he floated her down the Thames! And he knew from experience that the parts would be found. Is that how a killer with an intent to hide things go about it?
She had scars on her forearm, distinctive scars. That was how she was ultimately identified. Would a killer who made "every effort" to hide his victims identity provide that clue to the police?
Some rethinking is in order here. Again.
Comment
-
Elamarna: Thats my point Fisherman, how can we compare facial mutilations when the heads on the whole are missing? How can we claim there are similarities?
Why bring it up, then? The face of the 1873 victim WAS cut away, and two Ripper victims had their faces cut.
But there are massive OTHER similarities. How about speaking about them instead?
Oh no,you don't get away with that, using that argument it is possible to say any murder which took place during the time frame of the Torso murders was linked.
That is stretching the known details to fit a theory, and is not a significant similarity as you well know.
How can an overlapping time schedule NOT allow for a shared indentity? How is that "stretching the details" to fit a theory?? And how are the details "stretched"? Were the times NOT overlapping, all of a sudden?
I think you are outwitting somebody here - yourself. The two murder series both happened wthin the time frame of 1873-1889. They may therefore have the same originator.
It is stretching the limits to say bodies found all over London, which at the time was one of the largest, if not the largest City in the world, are in the same geographical location as those found in the small area of Whitechapel.
Again is is stretching the facts, actually it is more than stretching.
It is nothing of the sort. The murders took place in London, and that means that the originator may well have been the same.
Both points are excellent points, the geographical consistency and the time consistency. Neither oarameter is proof, but for anybody assuming a shared identity, they are 100 per cent in line with the assumption.
Yes, in a very dark, rarely visited, by the workers own admissions, area.
It WOULD be found. There was no chance it would NOT be found.
Yes it is scattering the body parts, hiding the murder site, hiding the rest of the body and certainly not putting it on display!
It is not hiding at all. The mere suggestion is laughable. It is shouting out what had happened, and you should know it.
Yes of course it is, if not washed up or found, it may be eaten by fish, and will certainly be washed out to the estuary, if not the sea itself.
Again hiding the murder site, hiding the id and certainly not openly on display!
But flaunting that a murder had taken place! Plus the killer leart from experience that the parcels WOULD generally be found. So he obscured the murder place, but ensured that the deeds would not go unnoticed.
As for hiding the ID, he failed miserably with Jackson.
Yes, an attempt to hide the identity of the victim.
By handing in the full face? Maybe you need to reconsider that? it goes without saying that the act of cutting a face from the skull in an extremely meticulous manner is about something else altogether. If he wanted to osure the ID, he would do a better job by bashing the skull in with a stone. It would take all of two seconds. He spent an eternity cutting the face off, PRESERVING the traits for posterity.
Sorry fisherman, I do not see any guarantee of a shared id.
I do, so don´t grieve too much.
You have a theory and that is fine.
However it is wrong to claim as you do, that it is proven they are the same person in both sets of murders, that is a personal view, which you attempt to portray as accepted fact.
I accept it. I know quite well that there are those who do not, so I am not illuding myself. Nor am I attempting to portray anything at all as fact. I amsaying that there is enough in it to make the call, as far as I can tell. If others disagree, they are as entitled to that stance as they are wrong.
I am certainly not being being ridiculous; while I admire the work you put into this case;, the obsession with proving one man as the killer, blinds one, a case of not seeing "the wood for the trees".
That´s YOUR stance. Don´t try to pass it off as "accepted fact", Steve.
And as we have discussed before removing the abdominal walls is the easiest way of removing internal organs, we do not have sufficient information to say the cuts are similar, which again we have been over before.
The removal of flaps of abdominal wall does not prove the same person!
Where are the examples I asked for? Of other instances when this happened to other murder victims? Instead of blithely trotting on about how unsignificant it is,you would do well to back that up.
My money is on a failure on your account in that respect. And if you should find one single case, you will similarly find that it is an extremely rare case.
What you are saying is that when TWO such extremely rare cases occur at the same time in the same city, there will be two killers, not one. There will be two extremely skilled knifesmen who both cut from sternum to pelvis, who both eviscerate their victims and cut parts of colons out, who both take out sexually and non-sexually oriented parts and who both prey on prostitutes.
Yeah, right.
Comment
-
Why were the heads removed from the torsos? There is more than one answer.Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
The first is to hide the identity of that person.
But why? again we can speculate
If the victim was murdered as a result of a domestic incident, then it is clear that there would be a need to hide the identity of the victim for fear of the victim being traced back to the perpetrator. But as we dont know the identities we cannot say for sure.
Your belief is that they were all murdered by the same hand. if that be the case, then we have to ask why then would the killer want to hide the identities? If these were random killings in line with the Whitechapel murders as you suggest, why go to all the lengths to not only remove the heads but to dismember the bodies. The Whitechapel killer did not do that did he?
A second explanation as to why the identity of the torsos were hidden relates to bodies being used for medical research. We know that bodies could be acquired for medical research from post mortem rooms. We also know that after acquisition it was the responsibility of those in possession of the bodies to dispose of them thereafter. Parcel them up and throw them in the thames to avoid burial costs could be the explanation.
This theory might explain the deliberate mid line incisions from sternum to pubes and the removal of some of the internal organs.this practice is exactly how the abdomen would be opened by medicos and not a killer carrying out a frenzied attack on a victim as was the case of the Whitechapel murderer.
As to heads well the brain has always been a complex organ, and so much more detailed research was carried out by surgeons and doctors back then, so the heads would likely be retained as against the rest of the body. So nothing sinister there is there?
The final explanation which has been controversial with some, is death from some medical procedure or condition connected to pregnancy and abortions carried out by back street medicos. If a victim dies at the hands of one of these back st medicos, there would have been an obvious need to dispose of the body for fear of prosecution, so that would entail dismembering the body to hide its identity to prevent it being traced back to the medico. This scenario would be even more enhanced if the victim had died at the medicos premises.
Elizabeth Jackson case clearly suggests the above scenario.
As has been pointed out to you many times your theory that the torsos were murdered by the same hand as the Whitechapel women is without foundation because again you cannot prove they were murdered. To say the police thought they had been murdered is not evidence.
If all crimes were detected on solely what a police officer believed there would be no un detected crimes would there. Instead we have a detection rate here in the UK of on average around 35% of all reported crimes.
Comment
-
Trevor Marriott: Why were the heads removed from the torsos? There is more than one answer.
The first is to hide the identity of that person.
But why? again we can speculate
If the victim was murdered as a result of a domestic incident, then it is clear that there would be a need to hide the identity of the victim for fear of the victim being traced back to the perpetrator. But as we dont know the identities we cannot say for sure.
It was established that the head would sink if thrown into the Thames, so this remains the obvious bid. The Tottenham torso was found entirely on land - and in that case, the head had been disposed of together with the rest. There is no reason not to believe this happened in the other cases too.
Otherwise, I agree: there are no certainties in this neck of the woods.
Your belief is that they were all murdered by the same hand.
It is, yes.
if that be the case, then we have to ask why then would the killer want to hide the identities?
But again, we don´t know this. The Tottenham head was still with the remains, and the reast of the heads could have been dumped with the remains of the other victims, with no interntion whatsoever to hide the identities. One of the victims where the skull was gone, had had the face and scalp cut carefully from the bone, so far from hiding the ID, it was floated to posterity down the Thames.
If these were random killings in line with the Whitechapel murders as you suggest, why go to all the lengths to not only remove the heads but to dismember the bodies. The Whitechapel killer did not do that did he?
A dismemberment is carried out for one of two reasons, mainly:
1. To facilitate for disposal.
2. Because the killer wants to dismember.
The wish to dispose of a body is normally knit to how that body cannot be left on the premises where it was killed, since that wil give away the killer. If a husband kills his wife, he will have a hard time explaining to the neighbours why the Mrs lies dead in the living room. So he decides to get her out of the flat, but cannot do so undetected if he flings her over his shoulder and marches out. THAT is why he ultimtely decides to cut her uo in little pieces.
You DO se this, yes?
Now, did the Whitechapel killer have this need? Would the location of the corpse give him away? No.
That´s problem solved for you, Trevor!
A second explanation as to why the identity of the torsos were hidden relates to bodies being used for medical research. We know that bodies could be acquired for medical research from post mortem rooms. We also know that after acquisition it was the responsibility of those in possession of the bodies to dispose of them thereafter. Parcel them up and throw them in the thames to avoid burial costs could be the explanation.
I will leave that uncommented on, since it was established that the victims did not come from any medical research facilities. I honestly think that you are the one and only person ascribinf to this nonsense, Trevor.
This theory might explain the deliberate mid line incisions from sternum to pubes and the removal of some of the internal organs.this practice is exactly how the abdomen would be opened by medicos and not a killer carrying out a frenzied attack on a victim as was the case of the Whitechapel murderer.
... who nevertheless did the exact same thing - opened up from sternum to pubes. In spite of not being a medico! And there are traits with the torsos that are anything but consistent with medical exercises.
As to heads well the brain has always been a complex organ, and so much more detailed research was carried out by surgeons and doctors back then, so the heads would likely be retained as against the rest of the body. So nothing sinister there is there?
Good luck with that one!
The final explanation which has been controversial with some, is death from some medical procedure or condition connected to pregnancy and abortions carried out by back street medicos. If a victim dies at the hands of one of these back st medicos, there would have been an obvious need to dispose of the body for fear of prosecution, so that would entail dismembering the body to hide its identity to prevent it being traced back to the medico. This scenario would be even more enhanced if the victim had died at the medicos premises.
Elizabeth Jackson case clearly suggests the above scenario.
It was established that it was not any abortion in the Jackson case. The time has come to get real.
As has been pointed out to you many times your theory that the torsos were murdered by the same hand as the Whitechapel women is without foundation because again you cannot prove they were murdered. To say the police thought they had been murdered is not evidence.
The fact that I cannot prove that they were murdered has nothing to do with the viability of the comparison. And the comparison is beyond reasonable dispute.
If all crimes were detected on solely what a police officer believed there would be no un detected crimes would there. Instead we have a detection rate here in the UK of on average around 35% of all reported crimes.
How totally uninteresting and irrelevant. My whole scenario rests on the assumption that the police failed.
Comment
-
I'm hoping someone sensible other than myself will return to this thread. Lechmere responsible for two series of murders. Get real he was a witness who found one body. The Torso Murders never happened. This theory is just as fanciful.Comment
-
Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
I do wish people would read what a reply says and why before passing comment.
I did not bring it up, it was Abby who said that facial mutilations were a similarity, I was just pointing out that such a comment was hard to back up with evidence.
steveComment
-
Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
Please, just what are you saying i am trying to pass off as "accepted fact"?
I see no facts suggested, just an opinion on what happens when one becomes one eyed on a subject.
The attempt at a smart crack reply actually achieves nothing, and just demonstrates the point i raised..
There really is no need for it is there?
SteveComment
-
That´s just fine, Steve. The crux of the matter, though - as I pointed out - is that there WAS facial damage done to women in both series.Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
In the Riper series, all we know is that there was facial damage to two out of a handful oc victims. The comparison os therefore relevant.
And - as I also pointed out - there are very many other common factors, that cannot, ought not and will not be skipped over.Comment
-
For the record, when someone is reminiscing, as Reid is in this instance, it is a secondary source.Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View PostComment
-
Elamarna: Please, just what are you saying i am trying to pass off as "accepted fact"?
I am not saying that you are passing anything off as "accepted fact" - I am warning against such a thing. It was a tongue-in-cheek remark, led on by how you first said that I am passing things off as accepted fact (which I am not) and then went on to try and convince the boards that I am so infatuated with Lechmere that I cannot think straight. I would have preferred a fairer discussion; starting out by claiming your opponent is not fully reliable is not a nice thing to do.
You see, I CAN think VERY straight and I dislike hints in any other direction. You disagree with what I think, and that is fine, but you need to realize that this may well owe to a disability on YOUR behalf to think straight.
I see no facts suggested, just an opinion on what happens when one becomes one eyed on a subject.
So it is not a fact that women in both series had their abdominal walls removed in large panes?
It is not a fact that women from both series had parts of their colons removed?
It is not a fact that both killers cut victims open from sternum to pelvis?
It is not a fact that medicos judged both killers to be so skilled with the knife as to compete with a surgeons ability?
It is not a fact that both killers took away both exually and non-sexually related body parts from their victims?
Is that what you are claiming, Steve? Or are you saying that you did not claim as a fact that I am too infatuated with Lechmere to be a useful discussion partner? if so, good on you.
The attempt at a smart crack reply actually achieves nothing, and just demonstrates the point i raised..
There really is no need for it is there?
You have so far managed to claim that the geographical correlation and the time correlation are of no consequence and you have seemingly denied the existence of numerous very clear facts. I find it a bit hard to discuss with somebody with that kind of an agenda. But we´ll get it straightened out, no doubt.
PS. Where are the examples of people who removed the abdominal walls in large panes from their victims...?
Last edited by Fisherman; 08-26-2016, 02:54 AM.Comment
-
It's ludicrous. Fisherman can barely make a case for Lechmere murdering Nichols but he's now the Ripper AND the Thames Torso Killer.Originally posted by John Wheat View PostComment
-
[QUOTE=Jon Guy;391043]For the record, when someone is reminiscing, as Reid is in this instance, it is a secondary source.[/QUOTE
Of course it's not secondary he was there at the time of the murder he was directly involved
Comment
-
[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;391047]So Dew memoirs are a primary source? Would that be correct?Originally posted by Jon Guy View PostComment
-
The main matter argued here is that the Ripper and the torso killer were one and the same, not that Lechmere was responsible in both instances. Personally, I think he was.Originally posted by Harry D View Post
However, what you are supposed to assess - whether the two series had the same originator - is not dependent on Lechmere at all. And the evidence for it is rich.
Don´t thank me, I´m just happy to be able to help out.Comment
Comment