Same motive = same killer

[Fisherman]

Talking of admitting of possibilities Fish isn’t it possible that Trevor’s last post might be a possible explaination of events?

Let me read it and see! I´ll get back to you - and Trevor.

[Fisherman]

I think you need to take a step back, take a deep breath and clear your head, and revisit the torsos again.

Looking at each one individually what do we have.

In every case, a dead female, who may have been murdered by a serial killer, or by a single killer, or may have died as a result of some medical procedure which may have just been being administered some noxious substance to procure an abortion. Can we conclusively prove any of them. The answer is no.!

If one or more were murdered as is being suggested, throat cutting or strangulation would not be relevant to the end result and either method cannot be proven despite all your arguments, because the heads were removed and that would remove any evidence of either.

Who ever then has charge of that body has an urgent need to dispose of it for obvious reasons. So what can be done, as Dr Biggs states and I think most will agree that there are only so many ways a body can be dismembered. The easiest is to cut it into 6 pieces. With that in mind we have to ask why would there be a need to open up the abdomens, thereby making disposal more difficult, and creating a bloody mess.

But we know that the torsos did have their abdomens opened up, but for what purpose, to remove organs, and take them away? well that is clearly not evident in most of the cases so that might rule out a serial killer taking organs. So one minus point to comparisons to the WM as per you theory.

Another minus point with regards to comparisons is that the heads of the torsos were missing, and why was that? Another means to hide the identity.
Certainly the WM did not make any attempt to hide the identity of any of the victims, nor did he make any attempt to lure them to anywhere for the purpose of dismemberment. They were murdered where they were found.

I personally think the answer to the torsos lies with the women themselves.

They were all believed to have been prostitutes, all relatively young in age, and they may have been in the very early stages of pregnancy, or believed they were pregnant. Jackson we know was heavily pregnant.

So if they sought help, and as a result of that help they died then, whoever administered whatever, or carried out some procedure would need to dispose of the body and hide the identity of that body.

These so called back street medicos were quite proficient when it came to medical knowledge, in fact one coroner did make mention of the fact that these back st medicos should not be underestimated as to their medical knowledge.

That being said we cannot discount the fact that having a dead body to dispose of to avoid prosecution, they would know how valuable organs were for research. So another plausible suggestion is that they opened up the abdomens if they had not been already opened up, and removed various organs to perhaps sell onto medical establishments.

One final minus point to note for comparisons to the WM. In those murders the abdomens of the victims were subjected to stabbing and mutilation. That does not appear to be the case of the Torsos.

So having taken a deep breath, and cleared you head. I hope you can now look at these torsos in a totally different light and take off those blinkers

There was no serial killer at work, and the similarities you seek to rely on do not stand up to close scrutiny

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

There was no abortion performed on Jackson, as per Bond.

Certainly the Pinchin Street woman was not pregnant, nor was the Rainham woman.

In Jacksons case, if he wanted to sell the uterus, why throw it away?

In The Pinchin Street case, why not take any organs at all?

In the Rainham case, why not take out all organs? Why the heart and the lungs only - since they were the only parts missing, together with a piece of the colon. And who would he sell the colon part to, Trevor? A colon collector? Or a partial colons collector, to be more precise?

The suggestion leaks worse than Bonnie and Clydes car would have after they were ambushed, if you filled it with water.

I don´t need to take a step back, Trevor. It was about time somebody took a step FORWARD.

[Trevor Marriott]

There was no abortion performed on Jackson, as per Bond.

Certainly the Pinchin Street woman was not pregnant, not was the Rainham woman.

In Jackons case, if he wanted to sell the uterus, why throw it away?

In The Pinchin Street case, why not take any organs at all?

In the Rainham case, why not take out all organs? Why the ehart and the lungs only - since they were the only parts missing, together with a piece of the colon. Who would he sell the colon part to, Trevor?

The suggestion leaks worse than Bonnie and Clydes car would have after they were ambushed, if you filled it with water.

I don´t need to take a step back, Trevor. It was about time somebody took a step FORWARD.

You are blind to the obvious

If you read my post I stated that in addition to abortion per-see. I also mentioned administering a noxious substance to procure an abortion.

In the case of Jackson,as Debs has stated her death may have been caused by others than a back st medic. As it appears from what Debs has found out the family and her partner did not want the baby.

So if that be the case it causes a big hole in your theory because you cannot keep citing her and what happened to her body, to link it to other torsos and the WM.

And Bond did initially believe she had been aborted, then changed his mind. How can you safely come to a positive conclusion on this when a doctor changes his mind in mid stream. Beyond a reasonable doubt springs to mind.

There could be any number of plausible explanations why organs were not taken from some of the bodies. And in the case where they were found missing, equally there are other plausible explanations.

You have to accept that it is your theory that has more holes in than a cullender, and these holes have been pointed out to you many times on here, yet still you ignore them bumbling on in your own inimitable way. There is not any hope of any compromise. You have set your stall out and no one is going to make you change your mind. We saw this with you and the Charles Cross debacle

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

Talking of admitting of possibilities Fish isn’t it possible that Trevor’s last post might be a possible explaination of events?

Indeed, kudos to Trevor for an excellent post. However, I would point out that many of the torso victims had no organs removed at all. The way Fisherman goes on, you'd swear that evisceration was a constant feature of the torso cases, but it wasn't by a long chalk.

[Fisherman]

You are blind to the obvious

If you read my post I stated that in addition to abortion per-see. I also mentioned administering a noxious substance to procure an abortion.

In the case of Jackson,as Debs has stated her death may have been caused by others than a back st medic. As it appears from what Debs has found out the family and her partner did not want the baby.

So if that be the case it causes a big hole in your theory because you cannot keep citing her and what happened to her body, to link it to other torsos and the WM.

And Bond did initially believe she had been aborted, then changed his mind. How can you safely come to a positive conclusion on this when a doctor changes his mind in mid stream. Beyond a reasonable doubt springs to mind.

There could be any number of plausible explanations why organs were not taken from some of the bodies. And in the case where they were found missing, equally there are other plausible explanations.

You have to accept that it is your theory that has more holes in than a cullender, and these holes have been pointed out to you many times on here, yet still you ignore them bumbling on in your own inimitable way. There is not any hope of any compromise. You have set your stall out and no one is going to make you change your mind. We saw this with you and the Charles Cross debacle

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

"If that is true it causes a big hole in your theory..."

Okay. And if it is not true?

I don´t agree that there are plausible explanations to why organs were not taken from the bodies, if - as you suggest - organ taking was the reason for killing the victims. If so, then there would have been all the time in the world to procure all the organs.

Hearing you say that there are holes in my theory is amusing. You were always good fun to read.

[Darryl Kenyon]

But the victims apart from the probable exception of Jackson where never identified so the perpetrator, if indeed there was only one obviously did a good enough job of concealing identity. This was an age before fingerprints etc
I really can't see someone carrying weighted parts of a body down to the Thames. It would be hard enough to take just the body parts there.
The body of the poor young lad whose torso was found in the Thames in 2007 as never been identified despite today's technology. And he was wearing bright orange shorts which someone on TV etc could possibly identify. Also the Whitehall mystery perpetrator probably left the body parts when and where he could. I can think of worse places of concealment than a vault on a construction site which may be being built over, and possibly not opened again.

[Fisherman]

Indeed, kudos to Trevor for an excellent post. However, I would point out that many of the torso victims had no organs removed at all. The way Fisherman goes on, you'd swear that evisceration was a constant feature of the torso cases, but it wasn't by a long chalk.

Nope. That is a blatant lie. I am saying that Jackson had her uterus removed together with her heart and lungs and part of the colon.

We know this.

I am aslo saying that the Rainham victim MAY have had heart and lungs and part of the colon removed - but we do not know this for sure. The organs were missing, that´s all we know.

Likewise, I am saying that the Whitehall torso lacked the uterus and "other organs", but it applies that we don´t know how they went missing.

I am therefore keepig to the truth, so I´d request that you honour that instead of misleading about me.

You´d do better to answer my questions instead of dreaming up things.

[Fisherman]

But the victims apart from the probable exception of Jackson where never identified so the perpetrator, if indeed there was only one obviously did a good enough job of concealing identity. This was an age before fingerprints etc

That is circular reasoning, Darryl. We know that there were moles an such that COULD have helped identify the victins. It seems more than luck than precautions to me. And I can be circular too: Jackson WAS identified, so the killer obviously dod not do a good job.

I really can't see someone carrying weighted parts of a body down to the Thames. It would be hard enough to take just the body parts there.

No? Have a look in the records how many weighed own bodies have been found there over the years, Darryl! I think you will find that this is much more common than floatinf the parts down the stream.

The body of the poor young lad whose torso was found in the Thames in 2007 as never been identified despite today's technology. And he was wearing bright orange shorts which someone on TV etc could possibly identify. Also the Whitehall mystery perpetrator probably left the body parts when and where he could. I can think of worse places of concealment than a vault on a construction site which may be being built over, and possibly not opened again.

There was never any intention to build it over. People don´t build cellar vaults to build them over, Darryl. And cellar vaults with tools lying around is a pretty good indication that the body MUST be found.
As for the boy in the Thames, it´s another case of luck that nobody recognized the shorts. That is not something one can count on.

[Sam Flynn]

I am therefore keepig to the truth, so I´d request that you honour that instead of misleading about me.

I said "the way Fisherman goes on about it, you'd think that evisceration was a constant feature", NOT that you actually said that all the torso victims had organs removed. So I was neither lying nor misleading.

To clarify: You "go on about" parallels with the Ripper case, and cite evisceration as one of those parallels, but we know that can't be in the least bit significant because it didn't happen that often in the torso cases. So why "go on about" evisceration as a link between the two series?

[Kattrup]

.
As for the boy in the Thames, it´s another case of luck that nobody recognized the shorts.

I think you mean bad luck!

[Fisherman]

I said "the way Fisherman goes on about it, you'd think that evisceration was a constant feature", NOT that you actually said that all the torso victims had organs removed. So I was neither lying nor misleading.

To clarify: You "go on about" parallels with the Ripper case, and cite evisceration as one of those parallels, but we know that can't be in the least bit significant because it didn't happen that often in the torso cases. So why "go on about" evisceration as a link between the two series?

Yes, I think you were VERY misleading. I have presented the facts, nothing else, so I am not prepared to have it inferred that I would have implied anything else.

I am in my full right to say that there were eviscerations in both series. It is a fact that there were.
And since we know that there were, that is a similarity between the series. Whether it is a perfect parallel or not, is another matter. As is the case with the cutting of the soft parts of the neck, it can be either way.
But that does not take away anything at all from the fact that there are mutilations and eviserations in both series.

You very apparently wish that there were no eviscerations and no mutilations in the torso series. You wish that there was no possibility of similarly cut necks. You wish that there had not been missing rings in both series, that there had not been opened up abdomens in both series and that there had not been abdominal walls taken away in flaps in both series.

But wishing is one thing, sticking with the facts is another. And claiming that we know that the similarities very never REAL similarities is a third, called misleading and lying.

[Trevor Marriott]

"If that is true it causes a big hole in your theory..."

Okay. And if it is not true?

I don´t agree that there are plausible explanations to why organs were not taken from the bodies, if - as you suggest - organ taking was the reason for killing the victims. If so, then there would have been all the time in the world to procure all the organs.

Hearing you say that there are holes in my theory is amusing. You were always good fun to read.

I dont suggest at all that organ taking was the motive,far from it in my opinion. It is your theory, but it doesn't stand up to close scrutiny because had one killer been responsible for the murders of these torsos,as you suggest, and part of the motive was organ removal then we would have seen that in all of his victims would we not ?

Its not rocket science

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

Spot on, Trevor. And with all that time and privacy on their hands, the perpetrator(s) could have made a VERY thorough job of removing organs indeed
.

[Fisherman]

I dont suggest at all that organ taking was the motive,far from it in my opinion. It is your theory, but it doesn't stand up to close scrutiny because had one killer been responsible for the murders of these torsos,as you suggest, and part of the motive was organ removal then we would have seen that in all of his victims would we not ?

Its not rocket science

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Well, you DID say that it was probably a series of unwanted pregnancies, and that if it was not that, then it could have been about selling organs, did you not?

I would like to point out that you are mistaken when you say that I think it was about organ taking, by the way. I don´t think that at all - to my mind, that was secondary. It´s Gareth who thinks the Ripper was about organ taking, not me. And he misses out on how the Ripper did so much more when given the opportunity.

I think it was all about disassembling women. The cutting and parting was more important than the organ taking, and the organ taking was not something the killer did because he wanted the organs, but instead because he liked the idea of the organs being removable.

So sometimes there would be organ removal, on other occasions there would be the removal of a face, or the cutting off of the limbs or cutting the breasts off and so on. Organ removal was but a part of the many possibilities he had at hand.

If you don´t understand me and have not even read my take on this - posted numerous times - then you should perhaps not try to make points from suggestions I have never made?

[Sam Flynn]

"And he misses out on how the Ripper did so much more when given the opportunity"

Like what? Disfiguring the face? Another thing which, for very obvious reasons, can not be claimed for the torso victims.

You really want to have your cake, don't you, Fish? When a torso has (some) organs extracted, it's because her killer was JTR. When a torso victim DOESN'T have any organs removed, it's because JTR was actually only interested in taking women apart!

Yours truly, Jack the Dismantler.