Alice McKenzie - some details not seen before

[Fisherman]

The same could be said for your illogical reasoning suggesting that the torsos and the WM were committed by the same person and I will leave it there.

This topic has been done to death over the past few years

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I fear you are wrong on all counts, Trevor.

There is nothing illogical in suggesting that people who sustain the same kind of damage, damage that is furthermore extremly rare, are in all probability victims of the same killer. It is claiming that these similarities are of no importance at all that lacks logic.

Furthermore, the topic has not been done to death by any means. Just wait and see.
You may of course say "no" and put your head in the sand, but to be quite frank that is of no consequence at all.

[Trevor Marriott]

Indeed! And I actually challenge it - the suggestion that the Ripper and the Torso killer are one and the same is a prime example of that.



Sorry, but no. I am not speaking about these matters at all. I am speaking about how there are very clear similarities. Proven similarities. Factually and historically recorded similarities.

You are doing something totally different - you are asking "what if" about a number of things that have nothing at all to do with my reasoning.

"What if" you are wrong, Trevor? "What if" your kind of reasoning has no place in this discussion?

The same could be said for your illogical reasoning suggesting that the torsos and the WM were committed by the same person and I will leave it there.

This topic has been done to death over the past few years

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

History is there to be challenged not readily accepted without question, especially where the ripper murders are concerned.www.trevormarriott.co.ukk

Indeed! And I actually challenge it - the suggestion that the Ripper and the Torso killer are one and the same is a prime example of that.

If Jackson was not a murder victim and Kelly’s heart was not taken away and the organs not taken away from Eddowes and chapman it opens up a whole new ball game does it not, and we do have evidence in support of the above.

Even if you don’t agree with all it still weakens your similarities and you cannot compare with any certainty
www.trevormarriott.co.ukk

Sorry, but no. I am not speaking about these matters at all. I am speaking about how there are very clear similarities. Proven similarities. Factually and historically recorded similarities.

You are doing something totally different - you are asking "what if" about a number of things that have nothing at all to do with my reasoning.

"What if" you are wrong, Trevor? "What if" your kind of reasoning has no place in this discussion?

[John G]

That’s of course if people agree with all of your “similarities” and a single killer

Take Jackson and Kelly out of the equation and where does it leave you.?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I don't think it's as simple as that, Trevor. I don't agree with Christer, but the argument, concerning Chapman, Kelly and Jackson, is not easy to break [and Dr Biggs, for instance, doesn't even consider it]. It really isn't.

[Trevor Marriott]

With Chapman...?

But why would I take them out of the equation? The whole suggestion I am making builds on these three victims, so why on earth would I remove two of them? You are not making much sense here, Trevor.

The similarities I speak of are not suggestions, they are facts:

All victims DID have their necks cut very deeply.
All victims DID have their abdomens ripped from sternum to pelvis.
All victims DID have their uteri taken out.
All victims DID have their abdominal walls cut away in large flaps.
All victims WERE been prostitutes.

These are established facts, on historical record. Why would I take away two of the victims? How can we compare if we use only one victim?

History is there to be challenged not readily accepted without question, especially where the ripper murders are concerned.


If Jackson was not a murder victim and Kelly’s heart was not taken away and the organs not taken away from Eddowes and chapman it opens up a whole new ball game does it not, and we do have evidence in support of the above.

Even if you don’t agree with all it still weakens your similarities and you cannot compare with any certainty

https://www.trevormarriott.co.ukk

[Fisherman]

That’s of course if people agree with all of your “similarities” and a single killer

Take Jackson and Kelly out of the equation and where does it leave you.?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

With Chapman...?

But why would I take them out of the equation? The whole suggestion I am making builds on these three victims, so why on earth would I remove two of them? You are not making much sense here, Trevor.

The similarities I speak of are not suggestions, they are facts:

All victims DID have their necks cut very deeply.
All victims DID have their abdomens ripped from sternum to pelvis.
All victims DID have their uteri taken out.
All victims DID have their abdominal walls cut away in large flaps.
All victims WERE been prostitutes.

These are established facts, on historical record. It´s not a question about whether we can "agree" with them or not. They are given facts, beyond the process of agreeing or disagreeing.

So why would I take away two of the victims? How can we compare if we use only one victim?

[Trevor Marriott]

I pointed out earlier that throatcutting is something that is not all that uncommon, so we agree on that score. And of course, if we have a set of throatcuttings, the mode in which it has been done will have to govern whether we think it is just the one or more killers.
However, in the Chapman/Kelly/Jackson cases, we have:
All victims having had their necks cut very deeply.
All victims having had their abdomens ripped from sternum to pelvis.
All victims having had their uteri taken out.
All victims having had their abdominal walls cut away in large flaps.
All victims having been prostitutes.
... and when there are so many similarities, we are faced with a dramatical increase in the risk that we have just one killer. Indeed, since much of the damage is very, very rare, tghe suggestion of two or three killers cannot be taken seriously, as far as I´m concerned. That´s why I keep sayin that in these three cases, the fact that one victim was dismembered represents a dissimilarity that can be easily explained, and that cannot alter the verdict of a single killer.

That’s of course if people agree with all of your “similarities” and a single killer

Take Jackson and Kelly out of the equation and where does it leave you.?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[John G]

Looking forward to it, John!

Thanks Christer, much appreciated.

[John G]

Hi Trevor,

Thanks for the reply. Nervously out of interest, didn't Dr Biggs acknowledge that he'd only been involved in a handful of dismemberment cases, suggesting that he was relatively inexperienced in this area?

I think we can all agree that, if say, you have a spate of throat cuttings, there is no proof that the same killer was involved. That doesn't mean that we can't make a judgment based upon the balance of probability. For instance, a number of prostitutes were strangled in Ipswich within a short time frame and, not surprisingly, it turned out the same killer was responsible!

Correction: It should be "just out of interest." Predictive text issue!

[Fisherman]

Hi Trevor,

Thanks for the reply. Nervously out of interest, didn't Dr Biggs acknowledge that he'd only been involved in a handful of dismemberment cases, suggesting that he was relatively inexperienced in this area?

I think we can all agree that, if say, you have a spate of throat cuttings, there is no proof that the same killer was involved. That doesn't mean that we can't make a judgment based upon the balance of probability. For instance, a number of prostitutes were strangled in Ipswich within a short time frame and, not surprisingly, it turned out the same killer was responsible!

Exactly so, John - and strangulation remains the probably most common mode of killing manually.
If we had added an element of specific mutilation to the strangulations, then that would have clinched the matter beyond reasonable doubt, at least to my mind. Let´s say that the cases involved the genitals being cut. No policeman in his right mind would have any doubt about the significance of that. And although mutilation in uncommon, it is a lot more common than eviscerations!

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer,

Yes, I appear to have misunderstood your point. I would agree that unusual similarities are highly significant and, in this regard, the "triumvirate argument" is obviously important, and not at all easy to break down. That is why I am planning to address the point with a detailed post.

Looking forward to it, John!

[Fisherman]

Look at it in a different light if three women had their throats cut by three different killers, or by one killer would the throat cutting look the same, because you cant pointin to one or three killers, because how they were each cut would be determined by the killer, and his victim, and how he was able to cut the throat of each victim.

So it is wrong to try to suggest that by reading the reports it can be determined that it was one or more killers, Dr Biggs concurs on this.

And i think you will find that the throat cutting was an accepted way of killing someone in Victorian times, and even further back in time than that.

Today more victims die by stabbing than by having their throats cut

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I pointed out earlier that throatcutting is something that is not all that uncommon, so we agree on that score. And of course, if we have a set of throatcuttings, the mode in which it has been done will have to govern whether we think it is just the one or more killers.
However, in the Chapman/Kelly/Jackson cases, we have:
All victims having had their necks cut very deeply.
All victims having had their abdomens ripped from sternum to pelvis.
All victims having had their uteri taken out.
All victims having had their abdominal walls cut away in large flaps.
All victims having been prostitutes.
... and when there are so many similarities, we are faced with a dramatical increase in the risk that we have just one killer. Indeed, since much of the damage is very, very rare, tghe suggestion of two or three killers cannot be taken seriously, as far as I´m concerned. That´s why I keep sayin that in these three cases, the fact that one victim was dismembered represents a dissimilarity that can be easily explained, and that cannot alter the verdict of a single killer.

[John G]

Look at it in a different light if three women had their throats cut by three different killers, or by one killer would the throat cutting look the same, because you cant pointin to one or three killers, because how they were each cut would be determined by the killer, and his victim, and how he was able to cut the throat of each victim.

So it is wrong to try to suggest that by reading the reports it can be determined that it was one or more killers, Dr Biggs concurs on this.

And i think you will find that the throat cutting was an accepted way of killing someone in Victorian times, and even further back in time than that.

Today more victims die by stabbing than by having their throats cut

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

Thanks for the reply. Nervously out of interest, didn't Dr Biggs acknowledge that he'd only been involved in a handful of dismemberment cases, suggesting that he was relatively inexperienced in this area?

I think we can all agree that, if say, you have a spate of throat cuttings, there is no proof that the same killer was involved. That doesn't mean that we can't make a judgment based upon the balance of probability. For instance, a number of prostitutes were strangled in Ipswich within a short time frame and, not surprisingly, it turned out the same killer was responsible!

[John G]

On that last point of yours, you may have misunderstood me, John. I am not saying that similarities are more important per se than dissimilarities - I am saying that a connection is always based on similarities and that dissimilarities can have a smaller or larger impact on the issue. The more similarities there are and the more unusual the similarities are, the more likely it becomes that we have just the one killer.
Surely you agree about that?

Hi Christer,

Yes, I appear to have misunderstood your point. I would agree that unusual similarities are highly significant and, in this regard, the "triumvirate argument" is obviously important, and not at all easy to break down. That is why I am planning to address the point with a detailed post.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Christer,

Thanks for the reply, and it's great to see you posting again! I hope to respond in detail shortly, i.e. sometime over the Easter period. However, I will say that this is an extremely complex subject, and full of minefields for the unwary! Moreover, whatever we disagree on, I'm sure we can agree that this was a very unusual period in history for rare murders and, clearly, not all of the victims can be attributed to a single killer. Obviously a line has to be drawn somewhere, but determining who to include in the canon, and who to exclude, is no easy matter.

You've made an interesting argument, based upon the "triumvirate" of Kelly, Chapman and Jackson. As you know, I've previously argued that the Torso murders were not "lust killings",l, as most of the C5 appear to be, but examples of defensive dismemberment . However, I now believe that argument is flawed, and defensive/offensive dismemberment is far more likely: this is significant, because offensive dismemberment would encompass lust murders. Nonetheless, there are major differences in respect of three aforementioned victims, and I also plan to address this issue in detail.

Finally, I would disagree that similarities are more important than differences, if that is what you're arguing. For instance, in every instance where a murder has been attributed to JtR, or where he's been named a possible candidate, the targeting of the neck is a "similarity". However, it is certain that not all of these victims can have been murdered by the same killer, otherwise William Bury would have to be the perpetrator, except it's a physical impossibility for him to have killed everyone!

Look at it in a different light if three women had their throats cut by three different killers, or by one killer would the throat cutting look the same, because you cant pointin to one or three killers, because how they were each cut would be determined by the killer, and his victim, and how he was able to cut the throat of each victim.

So it is wrong to try to suggest that by reading the reports it can be determined that it was one or more killers, Dr Biggs concurs on this.

And i think you will find that the throat cutting was an accepted way of killing someone in Victorian times, and even further back in time than that.

Today more victims die by stabbing than by having their throats cut

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk