torso maps

[Trevor Marriott]

Oh, I think reality is something I master a lot better than you, Trevor. I have never said that the organs were all lost to eviscerations, but instead very clearly noted that it is only in Jacksons case that we can be definitely sure of it. I know it and I respect it, although I personally think that the logical deduction is that the Rainham victims heart was taken by the killer, just as Frank van Oploo agreed about a few posts back. The damage is very much a carbon copy of Jacksons fate. That, however, does not lead me to say that it must have been an evisceration.

So what is your problem? Where am I not complying with reality? Explain to me, Trevor!

The reality is that you are not prepared to consider other plausible explanations for the torsos other than murder by a serial killer, despite what is put before you, you keep coming back with the same old same, flaps flapping in the wind, which you believe proves that they were all murdered, and by the same hand.

Dr Biggs has explained the term flaps, but again you choose to bury your head in the sand and ignore what he says in favor of your own interpretation which as someone who is not medically trained is of little evidential value. Both Debra and myself have gone to great lengths to try to prove or disprove the belief that Jackson was the victim of a serial killer.

Jackson would appear to be your ace card, but in fact she is one of the easiest of the torsos found to eliminate from the suggestion that she was murdered by a serial killer, but of course you are never going to agree with that because to do so kicks a great big hole in your whole misguided theory about these torsos.

You should spend less time trying to belittle posters who disagree with you, and more time in doing further research into other ways these women could have died, the term "prove or disprove" should be something you should bear in mind along with "Beyond a reasonable doubt"

But I fear we are likely to see pink pigs flying before that happens

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

I don't have an issue with the word, but the significance invested in it. There are only so many ways to name pieces of flesh.

It seems to me you are only saying that it is not a technical term in order to try and nullify it´s value as evidence.

And all the while, we all, each and every one of us, know that the doctors spoke of how the abdominal wall had been taken away in large sections of flesh, cut out together with the subcutaneous tissue.

It was like opening up a can of corned beef and throwing the lid away.

This we all know, this we all realize. Nobody can say to what exact extent the "lids" were taken away, but the general principle is easy enough to understand and it is beyond doubt that substantial amounts of the abdominal wall were removed in each of the three cases.

And all you have to offer is "flaps is no technical term". As if that took away the significance of it all.

The abdominal wall was removed in all three cases. Removing the abdominal wall from victims is a very rare thing to do. The conclusion must therefore be that it is by far more likely with a single operator than two men, coming up with this completely weird and odd idea with no correlation whatsoever. And hey, it seems they were both able to cut out uteri and hearts too - of course, with no correlation at all in those cases either.

Can´t you see that you are producing the epitome of a lost cause?

[Fisherman]

The reality is that you are not prepared to consider other plausible explanations for the torsos other than murder by a serial killer, despite what is put before you, you keep coming back with the same old same, flaps flapping in the wind, which you believe proves that they were all murdered, and by the same hand.

Dr Biggs has explained the term flaps, but again you choose to bury your head in the sand and ignore what he says in favor of your own interpretation which as someone who is not medically trained is of little evidential value. Both Debra and myself have gone to great lengths to try to prove or disprove the belief that Jackson was the victim of a serial killer.

Jackson would appear to be your ace card, but in fact she is one of the easiest of the torsos found to eliminate from the suggestion that she was murdered by a serial killer, but of course you are never going to agree with that because to do so kicks a great big hole in your whole misguided theory about these torsos.

You should spend less time trying to belittle posters who disagree with you, and more time in doing further research into other ways these women could have died, the term "prove or disprove" should be something you should bear in mind along with "Beyond a reasonable doubt"

But I fear we are likely to see pink pigs flying before that happens

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Don´t tell me that I am not able to consider your ideas, Trevor. The mere fact that I say that they are bonkers proves that I HAVE considered - and totally rejected - them.

[Harry D]

At the end of the day, we're all just grasping in the dark. Yes, we can make educated guesses based on criminal profiling and identifiable patterns of behaviour but none of us know how many kills he notched up, or if there was two killers or several. "Killer did x therefore he must always do x" is faulty reasoning. Personally, I don't think the likes of Tabram, Mylett, McKenzie, Coles, and the Torsos can be definitively ruled out, as we don't know the exact circumstances behind those murders. And yes I believe the torsos were all murders, and not botched abortions/accidental deaths, as the bodies were not always chopped up & dumped as a practical matter.

[Harry D]

These murders were exceedingly rare. Yes, we have some one-offs outside of London (Ellen Bury, Jane Beadmore, John Gill) but to have two sets of gruesome murders localised in the same city (and crossing over in the same district) is incredible and should not be taken lightly. Yes, there are obvious differences to both series. However, I think Fisherman is right inasmuch that the similarities are more striking.

[Sam Flynn]

Sorry, Harry, but there are no striking similarities as far as I can see. Only striking differences.

[Fisherman]

These murders were exceedingly rare. Yes, we have some one-offs outside of London (Ellen Bury, Jane Beadmore, John Gill) but to have two sets of gruesome murders localised in the same city (and crossing over in the same district) is incredible and should not be taken lightly. Yes, there are obvious differences to both series. However, I think Fisherman is right inasmuch that the similarities are more striking.

Thanks for that vote of confidence, Harry! What really strikes me is actually the diversity of the similarities. I mean, what are the implications of the removal of a uterus, traditionally speaking? Well, it´s tied to maternity, to the reproductive organs, and psychologists sometimes reason that killers taking it out are getting back at womanhood or manifesting a wish that they were never born - all sorts of "psychobabble" as Gareth likes to put it.

Contrary to that, the removal of a heart is something entirely different, reasonably led on by other reasons. Aquiring the victims strenght is one explanation, a wish to own the victims soul is another. How much thruth there is to that is open to questioning, but it remains that it seems a fair bid that uteri and hearts have different implications and arguably, they respond to different wishes on behalf of the killer.

The taking away of the abdomen in flaps is yet again something entirely different. It is unneccesary for practical reasons, a large gash enables any killer to take all organs out anyway. But it does open the abdomen up to visual inspection! It lays the innards bare and produces a window into the body.

There is absolutely no reason to presume that any of these three matters would lead to any of the others. It does n ot follow that a uteri taker will take the heart or take away the abdominal wall. They are three varying matters, seemingly unrelated to each other in terms of implications.

And that means that when we have two series of cases that involve all three ingredients, well then we must accept that three uniquely rare matters, seemingly totally unrelated to each other but nevertheless present in two simultaneous and geographically overlapping series, put it beyond reasonable doubt that the originator is the same.

It´s not just the similarities - it is also the varying implications of them.

[Fisherman]

Sorry, Harry, but there are no striking similarities as far as I can see. Only striking differences.

So the extracted uteri are not a striking similarity?

The taken out hearts are not a striking similarity?

The taking away of the abdominal walls in large parts is not a striking similarity?

This never existed, it never took place? Or it did, but magically, it does not represent a collection of very rare and striking similarities?

Or is it the "it didn´t happen in every case" again?

Let there be light, Gareth. You managed to admit that Jacksons uterus was taken out by her killer, although it took years of anguish. You are on your way. Complete the journey.

[Sam Flynn]

"The taking away of the abdomen in flaps is yet again something entirely different"

Jackson's abdomen was NOT "taken away", and there is no significance in the word "flaps". Two pieces of flesh from her lower abdomen - classified as slips, or strips, by Hebbert - were cut away, and that's as far as it goes.

[Fisherman]

"The taking away of the abdomen in flaps is yet again something entirely different"

Jackson's abdomen was NOT "taken away", and there is no significance in the word "flaps". Two pieces of flesh from her lower abdomen - classified as slips, or strips, by Hebbert - were cut away, and that's as far as it goes.

Yes, if we disregard that Hebbert said that they were "two large flaps" and if we equally disregard that the papers said that the flaps represented the lower abdomen of Jackson (or only abdomen, no "lower" remark included) and if we hold our hands over our ears, close our eyes and gently rock from side to side, repeating "It could not be, it could not be, it could not be...", then yes, it is as far as it goes.

It is abominable research, sorting away the major part of the evidence, but I guess it´s each to his own in that case.

PS. The flaps were never classified as slips OR STRIPS by Hebbert. That - too - is abominable research and does not belong to any serious discussion. If you keep to the truth you will not have to suffer having these "points" dragging your credibility in the dirt.

[Abby Normal]

I don't have an issue with the word, but the significance invested in it. There are only so many ways to name pieces of flesh.

Not really sam
They could be described any number of ways, and the killer cut away at the abdoman and removed them in this very specific way.
I cant really see two different killers doing this very specific thing.

[Trevor Marriott]

Don´t tell me that I am not able to consider your ideas, Trevor. The mere fact that I say that they are bonkers proves that I HAVE considered - and totally rejected - them.

The you are even more naive, and deluded than I imagined.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Michael W Richards]

So the extracted uteri are not a striking similarity?

With 2 Canonical murders, yes.

The taken out hearts are not a striking similarity?


With just 1 Canonical, yes.

The taking away of the abdominal walls in large parts is not a striking similarity?


With 1 Canonical, yes.

This is the thing Fisherman, matching something by using only a small sample of the whole isn't very convincing. Particularly when we have a senior medical expert state that it appears as if Annies uterus was specifically targeted.

There is no evidence in any of these other murders that a targeted approach to obtaining a singular organ was evident.

[Fisherman]

The you are even more naive, and deluded than I imagined.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Maybe you have difficulties establishing levels of naivety and delsuion, Trevor? Some people have.

[Sam Flynn]

Not really sam
They could be described any number of ways, and the killer cut away at the abdoman and removed them in this very specific way.

I'm not referring to the ways in which the flesh was removed, but the flesh itself. If someone's going to cut off pieces of flesh then, irrespective of how it was done, they're only pieces of flesh at the end of the day, no matter what you call them.

There is nothing in the least bit technical or definitive about the term "flaps" - it's only a label, and there's nothing to be read into a pressman or a doctor choosing that word over "piece", "slip", "strip" or "portion". Any number of people who have had flesh removed from their abdomen could have the flesh that was removed classified in either one or all these ways, and the labels chosen would be entirely arbitrary and irrelevant.

Fisherman's continuing to imbue the word "flaps" with significance is therefore as groundless as it is irritating.