Ripper Victim?

[Chava]

However in the putative last kill of the series, the uterus is left in the presence of the body. The heart may have been taken, although there is some disagreement on this. We can see a progression from Nicholls on through to the Kelly killing. I don't see any compelling evidence to suggest that Tabram can be ruled out as the first victim, killed before he worked out quite what it was he wanted beyond killing.

[Shelley]

Assumptions

Realistically speaking it's hardly a real dead cert of an assumption to kill a victim to obtain organs. My personal opinion is that a real assumption is indeed the idea of a Trophy.

[Ally]

[QUOTE=Shelley;81922]Ally,

Also Trophy taking is an assumption too. Trophies have also been external items, either body parts or ' objects, belonging items that is of the victim '.

That's why I said "could have been" the idea of assumption is implied by those words. I am not making a direct statement. You are the one presuming that it is signature.

I have yet to find a live victim with a killing due to extracted organs from the victim to be in all certainty a Trophy, the kill was neccessary to obtain organs.

I am not even sure that was English much less what you were attempting to say. Are you saying you've never found a person who was attacked by a serial killer and had one of their organs removed and left alive? Because you know I would agree with that because the idea is ridiculous.

You are presuming that the objective was to obtain the organs. There is no evidence of this. If he HAD to take organs, he could have easily taken them from Polly if indeed that was his main objective. There was nothing preventing him from doing so if that was his main objective. The fact that he didn't take them then probably means the idea had not occurred to him yet, because there was nothing physically presenting him from doing so, and there wasn't a dramatically steep learning curve to take place between her and Chapman.

[Shelley]

[QUOTE=Ally;81926]

Ally,


That's why I said "could have been" the idea of assumption is implied by those words. I am not making a direct statement. You are the one presuming that it is signature.


I am not even sure that was English much less what you were attempting to say. Are you saying you've never found a person who was attacked by a serial killer and had one of their organs removed and left alive? Because you know I would agree with that because the idea is ridiculous.

You are presuming that the objective was to obtain the organs. There is no evidence of this. If he HAD to take organs, he could have easily taken them from Polly if indeed that was his main objective. There was nothing preventing him from doing so if that was his main objective. The fact that he didn't take them then probably means the idea had not occurred to him yet, because there was nothing physically presenting him from doing so, and there wasn't a dramatically steep learning curve to take place between her and Chapman.

Ally,
Forgive me here if i may be presumming but i think you are connecting the word Victim with just killers. Also i am annoyed that you make an insulting remark that ' I'm not sure that was English much less...' I am English thankyou very much Ally, and you have just annoyed me. But i'll pass on to:
I said I have yet to find a live victim with a killing due to extracted organs.

All victims, whether it is rape, an assault or murder are alive to begin with

So Which bit do you not comprehend Ally?. That Victims are not alive to start with before they are killed, or the fact that some victims don't always wind up dead?

Also whilst i'm here as a Reminder the killing of Tabram was successful in MO so i wouldn't think there was need to change MO in the case of Nicholls so no i do not agree that Tabram can not be ruled out. As you have stated in earlier posts Ally. Tabram was dead due to a stab to the heart & blood loss, Nicholls was dead due to a cut throat. Plus Ally you cannot pressume that if the killer had wanted to take organs from Polly he would have done so, not so, you don't know what time he had with the victim Polly. But before you say i presume to his wanting to take organs from Polly, it would be logical to presume that was the effort intended and an opinion in which i am entitled too. As in the case of Stride some may lean towards her being a JTR victim with that time allowance. An opinion i grant but opinions can be valid at times.

[Shelley]

For Ally

[QUOTE=Shelley;81922]Ally,

I have yet to find a live victim with a killing due to extracted organs

Here is the quote, statement from my post that you responded to Ally uneccessary. Take a look and read again, please.

[Shelley]

Victims

Oh fiddle dee dee! I forgot to mention that victims from all walks of life can be victims of not only murder & violence, domestic violence, theft, burgularly, fraud, bullying ( and sexual bullying). can't think of anymore others at the moment as that is what i've been concentrating on so far.

An odd notion, that not all victims wind up DEAD.

[Chava]

Actually Llewellyn thought that Nicholls' death came as a result of the abdominal wounds rather than the wound in the throat. The coroner disagreed with him. There must have been some reason why Llewellyn believed that. If he was right, then there could be a similarity between the Tabram and Nicholls murders.

Also, we have nothing to suggest that the killer thought Tabram's death was 'successful'. Largely because we cannot agree whether this death was part of a series. If it was a rage killing, as so many people believe, then it was a one-off, and the MO could only be considered 'successful' because the killer got away with it. If it was part of a series, there is still nothing to suggest that the killer wouldn't consider his MO and refine it in order to be more effective.

[Ally]

Shelley,

Are you by any chance wearing a tin foil hat while you are typing out your replies? What the holy hell are you talking about? We are talking about serial killers. We are not talking about robbers or rapists or muggers. We are talking
about serial killers. And no sweetheart, there is no such thing as a "live victim of a killing". Killing victims are, by the definition, dead.

[Shelley]

Shelley,

Are you by any chance wearing a tin foil hat while you are typing out your replies? What the holy hell are you talking about? We are talking about serial killers. We are not talking about robbers or rapists or muggers. We are talking
about serial killers. And no sweetheart, there is no such thing as a "live victim of a killing". Killing victims are, by the definition, dead.

Ally,
You had no need to use my statement as a nit pick, it is not my problem if you do not understand the word Victim properly and in an English sentence too. What's with the tin foil bit????? I will also remind you that the 17 Victims of Victorian London which casebook has listed, at least one of those Victims was known to survive. Ally what the hell are you talking about, of course when a person is killed they are a dead victim. It's is not my problem if you can't understand an English sentence, not one modified by Americans in any case who don't speak English properly anyway. I will repeat it with extended vocabulary to help

I have yet to find a live victim with a killing DUE to extracted organs...here's the added bit ' In Victorian London around the time of JTR when he struck '

Also what's with the Sweetheart Ally? Just so you know i'm not Male.
What's with you Ally? I'm sorry but i have no idea what you are talking about at all. All i mentioned in my other post, that you seem to be having a pop at with, and not entirely devoted to serial killers, or even killers, even so, the crime of Killing does come into crime and so does the victimisation of other crimes too, so i really don't know about your post Ally. And Ally......I never stated a ' live victim of a killing ' in it's entirety....don't chop my sentence down! Anyone can do that and make it read something different.

[Ally]

Ben, are you out there?

I would like to introduce you to Shelley. I think you two will be very happy together and have many long and productive and repetitive conversations. Enjoy.

[Malcolm X]

I have yet to find a live victim with a killing DUE to extracted organs...here's the added bit ' In Victorian London around the time of JTR struck '

[/I][/B].

Hi Shelley

i dont understand that either, do you mean:-

``i have yet to find a live victim after an organ has been removed in 1888``

[Shelley]

Ben, are you out there?

I would like to introduce you to Shelley. I think you two will be very happy together and have many long and productive and repetitive conversations. Enjoy.

Ally,

Shut up for Goodness sake!

[Shelley]

Hi Shelley

i dont understand that either, do you mean:-

``i have yet to find a live victim after an organ has been removed in 1888``

Malcom X,
What bit did you not understand it's perfectly clear Malcom. I am talking of a death caused by an extraction of an organ...With the word DUE.
For what it's worth;
A Victim died Due to a cut throat
A Victim died DUE to excessive blood loss.

It really is silly that people don't understand words like DUE and VICTIM you know.


Someone please make a good post & stop being silly, and that someone isn't, it appears to be Ally, at present.
Plus your bit at the top on this post, in the Quote is not my quote anyway.

[Ally]

No what's really silly is freaking morons who even when told by separate people that her meaning isn't clear, continues to think the problem is with other people's reading skills and not with her own retarded iteration. If two different people tell you it's not clear, here's a clue, it's not clear.

And what you quoted Malcolm saying is not supposed to be your quote idiot. It's his interpretation of what you might mean. Because once again, sweetheart, it's not clear.

[Malcolm X]

i cant be bothered with this anymore sorry..... life's too short and i'm off to work.