Torso Murders

[Fisherman]

Double posting...

[Fisherman]

Harry: The problem with Cross is there is no evidence he lied.No evidence he was with Nichols before or at the time of death.No evidence of motive,no evidence of intent,no evidence of a weapon.Need I go on.You Fisherman may not need evidence to accuse,but a court would need evidence,so would the police,and I suggest,so would most posters.What is possible to have happened,is immaterial,it's what did happen that counts.Cross says he was on his way to work and found a body.There is nothing to dispute that.
There is even less information when it comes to tying Cross to the torso crimes.

There is MORE tying Lechmere to the cases than any other suspect. That is what counts.

You forgot to comment on the folly of pointing out that there are more innocent explanations than guilt ones. Hopefully what I said sunk in.

You write that what may have happened is immaterial and that it is only what DID happen that counts. It is a gloriously gifted statement - but it fails to take in the teeny weeny detail that we actually donīt know what happened. That is why we are here, instead of fishing.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor Marriott:

It is you that is spouting off about a serial killer the onus is on you to prove it, and the onus is for everyone who does not concur with you to disprove it. Its all about assesing an evaluating the facts from both sides of the argument, and as it stands the balance of probability is in favour of there being no killer.

No, Trevor, it is not. That balance made the inquests go for a verdict of wilful murder in three cases, and going on about how mad that is will never change this fact. Others disagree totally with you, and think that the verdict should have been the same in the other cases too.
We also know that the 1873 victim received two blows in quick succession to the temple that - accordoing to Dr Kempster - probably killed her. So we do have very clear indications of foul play. Taken together with how the bodies of the victims were treated, the implications point to murder.

Exactly, but you seem to be under the impression they were, and that is the backbone of your theory.So all you have is a statement that flaps of skin were cut from the abdominal walls, nothing else. That is not enough to make a judgement and say there is a direct link. How do you know it is rare what is there to make that call? You dont know it is extremely rare because you dont know what was actually done all you have is what has been written and that is not enough to decide on.

Yes it is. It is clearly stated that the abdominal walls of Chapman, Kelly and Jackson were removed. It is clearly stated that they were removed in large panes or flaps. No such thing could be collateral damage, so we know it was intentionally done. The exact apparition of the flaps is of no interest, it is quite enough to know that the abdominal walls were cut away and removed.

Whay you need to do is ask yourself WHY anybody would remove an abdominal wall by cutting it away in two, three or four large panes. Why would an - ehrm - "abortionist" do that?

Finding it a difficult question, are we?

I can explain precisely why a killer like the Ripper/Torsoman would do it.

You have just shot yourself in the foot with that reply. Clean cuts = no murder, and the need to dispose of a body that died by other means

Ah, what a gloriously simple world you live in! But you forget that regardless of the exactitude of the cutter, cuts were made that have no ties to surgery or back-street abortions at all, Trevor.
Answering that you risk to put a bullet through your brain. That is because your foot is in your mouth, where it belongs.

I am not concerned with the torsos out side of 1887/89. If you are going to link them together then how can you explain that victim was hit over the head and that was evident and seen by the doctors yet supposedly according to you the same killer killed all the others yet we see no evidence of that same M.O.

This back street abortion issue had got blown up out of all proportions. It is just one of a number of other plausible explanations as to what may have caused the deaths other than murder.It is not the main alternative to murder

You are seeing things that are not there to be seen, and they are clouding you ability to look at these in an unbiased fashion. You were obsessed with Lechmere now that obsession has spilled over to these torsos. I think you may be unknowingly be suffering from OCD -

"OCD symptoms can range from mild to severe. Some people with OCD may spend an hour or so a day engaged in obsessive-compulsive thinking and behaviour, but for others the condition can completely take over their life."

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Pierre]

harry;381986]

The problem with Cross is there is no evidence he lied.

Correct.

No evidence he was with Nichols before or at the time of death.

Correct.

No evidence of motive,

Correct.

no evidence of intent,

Correct.

no evidence of a weapon.

Correct.

Need I go on.You Fisherman may not need evidence to accuse,but a court would need evidence,so would the police,and

I suggest, so would most posters.

Correct.

What is possible to have happened,is immaterial,it's what did happen that counts.

Correct.

Cross says he was on his way to work and found a body.There is nothing to dispute that.

Correct.

There is even less information when it comes to tying Cross to the torso crimes.

Correct.

Another problem is that we are not doing a police investigation here. We are performing an historical investigation. So the only material we have is historical material left to us from the past.

There are both problems and possibilities with such a material.

Regards, Pierre

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott: I am not concerned with the torsos out side of 1887/89. If you are going to link them together then how can you explain that victim was hit over the head and that was evident and seen by the doctors yet supposedly according to you the same killer killed all the others yet we see no evidence of that same M.O.

Well, Trevor, I kind of put that down to how the heads were not found. And if the heads are not found, it is really, really hard to check the temples for blows.
I think we may also need to accept that a killer must not kill all his victims in the same way. There are many examples of this, as you may be aware of.

This back street abortion issue had got blown up out of all proportions. It is just one of a number of other plausible explanations as to what may have caused the deaths other than murder.It is not the main alternative to murder.

What is, then?

You are seeing things that are not there to be seen, and they are clouding you ability to look at these in an unbiased fashion. You were obsessed with Lechmere now that obsession has spilled over to these torsos. I think you may be unknowingly be suffering from OCD -

"OCD symptoms can range from mild to severe. Some people with OCD may spend an hour or so a day engaged in obsessive-compulsive thinking and behaviour, but for others the condition can completely take over their life."

Well, I can always put that suggestion to the administrators of the boards, and we can see if they agree. Generally speaking, I donīt think we should try and diagnoze the posters that do not agree with us as being mentally challenged.

I mean, I donīt go around calling you mentally challenged or sick because you disagree with me. I put it down to a lack of knowledge, quite simply. Whether this in itīs turn owes to sickness, a lacking intellect or having been disinclined to learn is not something we should discuss publically.

Now, Trevor, I would like for you to say whether you think that the large panes of skin with subcutaneous tissue attached, taken from the abdominal walls, were the result of somebody slipping with the knife (nine times...), or whether you accept that it was intentionally done. If the latter applies, I want to know what kind of failed medico or abortionist would do such a thing - and why.
I think the time has come to look at your cards more closely on this count.

[Fisherman]

Correct.



Correct.



Correct.



Correct.



Correct.

Need I go on.You Fisherman may not need evidence to accuse,but a court would need evidence,so would the police,and



Correct.



Correct.



Correct.



Correct.

Another problem is that we are not doing a police investigation here. We are performing an historical investigation. So the only material we have is historical material left to us from the past.

There are both problems and possibilities with such a material.

Regards, Pierre

Pierre, unless you have noticed yourself, you are dealing with people who have infinitely more knowledge about the case than you have. Admittedly, that does not go for all posters out here, but it goes for a fair number of them.

For you to try and "correct" them, if you will, is a bit rich. It is a little bit like a seven-year old child taking it upon himself to correct his teacher.

Please note that I am not specifically talking about myself here - I leave it to others to decide for themselves whatever level of knowledge I may have. And in that vein, I feel justfied to make the call that your contributions to the boards tell a story of woefully lacking insights into the case.

Maybe you need to weigh that in before you try to advice and criticize others?

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor Marriott: I am not concerned with the torsos out side of 1887/89. If you are going to link them together then how can you explain that victim was hit over the head and that was evident and seen by the doctors yet supposedly according to you the same killer killed all the others yet we see no evidence of that same M.O.

Well, Trevor, I kind of put that down to how the heads were not found. And if the heads are not found, it is really, really hard to check the temples for blows.
I think we may also need to accept that a killer must not kill all his victims in the same way. There are many examples of this, as you may be aware of.

This back street abortion issue had got blown up out of all proportions. It is just one of a number of other plausible explanations as to what may have caused the deaths other than murder.It is not the main alternative to murder.

What is, then?

You are seeing things that are not there to be seen, and they are clouding you ability to look at these in an unbiased fashion. You were obsessed with Lechmere now that obsession has spilled over to these torsos. I think you may be unknowingly be suffering from OCD -

"OCD symptoms can range from mild to severe. Some people with OCD may spend an hour or so a day engaged in obsessive-compulsive thinking and behaviour, but for others the condition can completely take over their life."

Well, I can always put that suggestion to the administrators of the boards, and we can see if they agree. Generally speaking, I donīt think we should try and diagnoze the posters that do not agree with us as being mentally challenged.

I mean, I donīt go around calling you mentally challenged or sick because you disagree with me. I put it down to a lack of knowledge, quite simply. Whether this in itīs turn owes to sickness, a lacking intellect or having been disinclined to learn is not something we should discuss publically.

Now, Trevor, I would like for you to say whether you think that the large panes of skin with subcutaneous tissue attached, taken from the abdominal walls, were the result of somebody slipping with the knife (nine times...), or whether you accept that it was intentionally done. If the latter applies, I want to know what kind of failed medico or abortionist would do such a thing - and why.
I think the time has come to look at your cards more closely on this count.

As no one other than you seems to suggest something sinister regarding these flaps of skin, which I note you have now changed to panes of skin I will put them down to part of the dismemberment process.

As I said previous all you are left with is a brief description of these pieces of flesh that were removed. You haven't seen them, there are no photographs to show the size of them, there is nothing to show they were large or small or how they were cut away.

Again, you cant see the wood for the trees with regards to alternative methods of death and a need to dispose of a body, other than murder.

From an earlier post of mine which you seem to have missed !!!!!!!!!!!!

Figures for 1882 show that in 1882 547 bodies were fished out of the thames of which 277 had open verdicts recorded against them. That is at least one a day. As to how many of those bodies were dismembered the answer is not known. I wouldn't mind betting quite a considerable amount for open verdicts to have been recorded.

Lets hypothesise and ask if only 5% of those recovered bodies were dismembered, and females that amounts to 27 females, were they all murdered in that 12 month period ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Harry D]

Trevor, how do you believe these torso victims met their ends? Botched abortions? Accidental deaths? Suicides? You're all for telling us what ain't, but you've yet to offer an alternative.

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott: As no one other than you seems to suggest something sinister regarding these flaps of skin, which I note you have now changed to panes of skin I will put them down to part of the dismemberment process.

I take that to mean that they were intentionally dismemebered, then. Or are you saying that they were collateral damage?
I am not sure, but it seems you are intentionally vague on the subject, so you need to specify: intentional or accidental.

Panes or flaps, it does not matter. They were large, so both descriptions work.

As I said previous all you are left with is a brief description of these pieces of flesh that were removed. You haven't seen them, there are no photographs to show the size of them, there is nothing to show they were large or small or how they were cut away.

Yes, there is. They are described as large. Furthermore, it is said that the abdomional was cut away. Not partly cut away. So they must have been large.

If you are having trouble understanding all of this - or remembering it - I can dig the material out. But you really should be read up on it before debating it, Trevor.

Again, you cant see the wood for the trees with regards to alternative methods of death and a need to dispose of a body, other than murder.

Yes I can. Nor is it hard to do so. But in these cases, I agree with the press, the police, the public, history, Mei Trow, Michael Gordon, Debra Arif and scores of ripperologists and historians - they were murders.

From an earlier post of mine which you seem to have missed !!!!!!!!!!!!

Figures for 1882 show that in 1882 547 bodies were fished out of the thames of which 277 had open verdicts recorded against them. That is at least one a day. As to how many of those bodies were dismembered the answer is not known. I wouldn't mind betting quite a considerable amount for open verdicts to have been recorded.

Lets hypothesise and ask if only 5% of those recovered bodies were dismembered, and females that amounts to 27 females, were they all murdered in that 12 month period ?

I miss very little, Trevor, and Iīve seen your post. Are you trying to say that the Torso cases are statistically unlikely to be murders? I hope not - it would be totally disingenuous since serial killers are statistically unexpected creatures from the start.

[Fisherman]

Trevor!

Since you are too lazy to do it yourself, and since you have shown yourself ignorant on the matter, here is how I know that the flaps were large and represented the full abdominal wall, more or less:

Dr Bond on Kelly: The skin & tissues of the abdomen from the costal arch to the pubes were removed in three large flaps.

Dr Hebbert on Jackson: The flaps of skin and subcutaneous tissue consisted of two long, irregular slips taken from the abdominal walls. The left piece included the umbilicus, the greater part of the mons veneris the left labium majus, and labium minus. The right piece included the rest of the mons veneris, the right labium majus and minus, and part of the skin of the right buttock. These flaps accurately fitted together in the mid-line, and laterally corresponded to the incisions in the lower pieces of the trunk.

Dr Phillips on Chapman: The abdominal wall had been removed in three portions, two taken from the anterior part, and the other from another part of the body. There was a greater portion of the body removed from the right side than the left. On placing these three flaps of skin together, it was evident that a portion was wanting.

So, Trevor, where do you go from here? You have just been revealed as being badly informed, and it has been proven that the flaps in all three cases were large and that their removal seemingly left the abdominal cavity totally open.

Now that your ramblings have been shown to hold no water at all, whatīs your next step? Another diagnosis of some mental illness on my behalf, is that it?

Or will you simply concede that you were recklessly underinformed, claiming that there is no knowing that the flaps were large?

The suspense is killing me.

[Fisherman]

By the way, Trevor, least you are planning on telling us that the abdominal flaps were accidentally cut out, you may need to listen to what Phillips said:

"The mode of removal of the abdominal wall indicated a certain anatomical knowledge".

Useful knowledge, that!

[Trevor Marriott]

By the way, Trevor, least you are planning on telling us that the abdominal flaps were accidentally cut out, you may need to listen to what Phillips said:

"The mode of removal of the abdominal wall indicated a certain anatomical knowledge".

Useful knowledge, that!

Yes shame you mi-understood it again where does it mention flaps or as you are now calling them panes

And I said in the course of dismemberment didnt mention any accident

I would quit now if I were you, its all falling apart

In fact I will quit. I dont want to keep putting you to the sword !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Robert St Devil]

Is there anything linking these victims or revealing about the ,mm&m, by the aspect that the victims were found wrapped in undergarments(ie. chemise), mary kelly included? I,d have to make a list of which ones.

[Fisherman]

Yes shame you mi-understood it again where does it mention flaps or as you are now calling them panes

And I said in the course of dismemberment didnt mention any accident

I would quit now if I were you, its all falling apart

In fact I will quit. I dont want to keep putting you to the sword !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hahaha!!! "To the sword"!!!

Running like a hare, Trevor, that is what you are.

As I said, it makes no difference what we call the parts of skin, flaps or panes. They were - as I just proved, in spite of how you claimed it was an unknown entity - large pieces of skin and tissue, covering the abdominal cavity but getting "removed".

So yes, they were taken away as part of the dismemberment, and therefore intentionally. The person who did it decided to take away the abdominal wall from Jackson, Chapman and Kelly, and unless you can show a precedence from the botched operations world, you are toast in this debate.

Then again, you were burnt toast when you entered it!

I would say that if any parallel can be found, it will be found amongst the rank of killers. Murderers, with an interest of taking people apart.But I am anything but certain that anyone can offer an example.

It will be a very, very rare detail, and it therefore points straight to a shared indentity of the killer of Chapman, Kelly and Jackson.

That is funny, is it not? But not nearly as funny as you "putting me to the sword"! Priceless, Trevor!! Laugh of the month!

[Fisherman]

Letīs throw this guy into the mix, from the other forum:

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=25691

A family man. An eviscerator. A dismemberer. A killer who preyed on sex workers.

Who would have thought it...?