Same motive = same killer

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes, it is opinion that a single killer did for the canonical five. But that opinion is built on a factual ground, and it is the most likely thing that there WAS only one killer.

However, it is still not a proven thing. But where will we end up if we allow people to shout "liar" and "twister" when we wotk with factually based opinions that have been generally agreed upon as being our best and likeliest guess? Thatīs where the problem lies.

No the problem lies with with you and your failure to listed to or accept any other facts, whether they be medical or othewise which negates your beliefs

You keep banging on about my medical knowledge, but you seem to forget that you say a lot of things too where you have no expert knowledge or experience. Everyone out here is entitled to hold opinions of their own, and if we are to try and silence people for it on account of there being experts in the errand who may or may not differ with them, we are not doing ourselves any favours.

When I have a theory, you say that I should listen to others who know more.

And then you go on to say that the organs were taken from the Ripper victims long after their killed had fled the scene.

And I have backed it up with factual and medical evidence, and will cement it even more in the coming weeks when I publish more on the topic. With any theory the criteria is to prove or disprove.

What is the evidence to show the killer removed the organs. The only evidence is nothing more than inferences drawn by those at the time and by researcher ever since.

Whereas there is more than inferences to prove the contrary.

On these occasions, you seem very disinclined to listen to those who know more about such matters.

And you are not one of those I can assure you of that

When the day comes when you no more about criminal investigation and evidence gathering than me. I will show my bare backside in Trafalgar Square

Back to then drawing board, Trevor.

Yes thats where you need to go

[Fisherman]

As long as I am not in Trafalgar Square when you show your bare backside there, I really donīt care.

Then again, you have been butt naked out here for the longest time, so I should be used by now.

[Trevor Marriott]

As long as I am not in Trafalgar Square when you show your bare backside there, I really donīt care.

Then again, you have been butt naked out here for the longest time, so I should be used by now.

Not a chance in hell of it happening, while you keep playing at medical detectives.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[harry]

Fisherman,
The sad thing is that liars like you grace the same boards.

[Fisherman]

Not a chance in hell of it happening, while you keep playing at medical detectives.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

When there is not as much as a worn pair of socks at hand, you will have to stay naked, Trevor. Exposed, as it were.

But I would personally find it more rewarding if you could discuss the case issues instead. Nothing fancy, just not gabbing away about things that are of no value and instead prove how two cases can be as close in detail and not related.

That should be an appropriate task for a detective like you.

[Fisherman]

Anyone who checks out the EAR/ONS case will find out that once the detectives were pointed to the similarities inbetween the murder cases, it became very obvious to them that the had a serial killer on the loose.

The cases were spread over a large geographical area, so that common denomonator was not in place. What they had was basically the MO, where the killer creeps into houses in the middle of the night, where women are tied up and raped and subsequently beaten to death by blunt force trauma to the head, sometimes alone, sometimes together with their spouses.

That was it, and it was quite, quite enough. The police realized that there was not much of a chance that two killers would employ this pattern. It was a given, more or less, that one killer only was at large.

Wheras we are supposed to believe that two sexual mutilators, cutting the abdomen open, cutting out uteri, cutting away the abdominal walls, cutting through the soft part of the neck, targetting prostitutes and in al probability stealing rings from their fingers were at large in London in overlapping time periods.

The folly of this suggestion is amazing, and I am certain that it cannot take shape on any other forum than this type of boards, where people with fixed ideas will not abandon them, come what may.

I am just as certain that we can discover any amount of further similarities inbewteen the series, and it will not sway the naysayers anyhow. Because this is not a question of facts, but one of ideology.

[Sam Flynn]

"cutting through the soft part of the neck"?

The Ripper victims had their THROATS cut. The torso victims were DECAPITATED.

There's a world of difference.

[Fisherman]

"cutting through the soft part of the neck"?

The Ripper victims had their THROATS cut. The torso victims were DECAPITATED.

There's a world of difference.

Have I forgotten to tell you that there is every possibility that the torso victims FIRST had their necks/throats cut in an exactly similar fashion to the Ripper victims?

Or have you been told this before?

Then why are you going on about it?

What you do, is to tell us that you have always imagined that the deeds were different in this respect. But that is your imagination speaking, nothing else. There can be no knowing when in the process the spine was taken off, but we DO know that a knife was used before the saw came out, and we DO know that Phillips said that the cutting of the neck/throat was very similar inbetween Kelly and the Pinchin Street torso victim.

Maybe you forgot that too?

So itīs ether sticking with the evidence or predisposing that the severing of the spine was tied to the cutting of the neck in all cases, and not something that came afterwards. Thereīs a world of difference there too - there always is when comparing facts to imagination.

The cut neck/throat may well have been a way of killing and bleeding the victim in both series. You know that, you donīt like it, but since the medicos suggested that it was the torso killers way of killing just as it was the Ripperīs way of doing it, you are going to have to learn to live with it.

[Fisherman]

"cutting through the soft part of the neck"?

With the exception of Stride, which victim did not have the soft parts of the neck cut through?

[Sam Flynn]

Have I forgotten to tell you that there is every possibility that the torso victims FIRST had their necks/throats cut in an exactly similar fashion to the Ripper victims?

Don't write "necks/throats" - you're fudging things. Purposely.

As to "every possibility" - no proof whatsoever, so drop it. What we do know for a fact is that they were decapitated, and you should stick to that, instead of moving the goalposts to suit your argument.

What you do, is to tell us that you have always imagined that the deeds were different in this respect. But that is your imagination speaking, nothing else.

No. I am stating a fact. The torso victims were decapitated, period. The Ripper victims were not.

The cut neck/throat may well have been a way of killing and bleeding the victim in both series.

Who says the Ripper was interested in "bleeding" his victims? As he didn't intend to carry their bodies around, why should he have done so? The torso killers, on the other hand...

[Trevor Marriott]

Anyone who checks out the EAR/ONS case will find out that once the detectives were pointed to the similarities inbetween the murder cases, it became very obvious to them that the had a serial killer on the loose.

The cases were spread over a large geographical area, so that common denomonator was not in place. What they had was basically the MO, where the killer creeps into houses in the middle of the night, where women are tied up and raped and subsequently beaten to death by blunt force trauma to the head, sometimes alone, sometimes together with their spouses.

That was it, and it was quite, quite enough. The police realized that there was not much of a chance that two killers would employ this pattern. It was a given, more or less, that one killer only was at large.

Wheras we are supposed to believe that two sexual mutilators, cutting the abdomen open, cutting out uteri, cutting away the abdominal walls, cutting through the soft part of the neck, targetting prostitutes and in al probability stealing rings from their fingers were at large in London in overlapping time periods.

The folly of this suggestion is amazing, and I am certain that it cannot take shape on any other forum than this type of boards, where people with fixed ideas will not abandon them, come what may.

I am just as certain that we can discover any amount of further similarities inbewteen the series, and it will not sway the naysayers anyhow. Because this is not a question of facts, but one of ideology.

You are also forgetting that evidence now tends to show that the killer/s of Eddowes, Chapman, and Kelly did not remove their organs at the crime scenes.

As to Jackson there is enough for us now infer she was not a murder victim in any event.

Add all of these facts put together, and your theory is sunk without trace.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Don't write "necks/throats" - you're fudging things. Purposely.

As to "every possibility" - no proof whatsoever, so drop it. What we do know for a fact is that they were decapitated, and you should stick to that, instead of moving the goalposts to suit your argument.No. I am stating a fact. The torso victims were decapitated, period. The Ripper victims were not.Who says the Ripper was interested in "bleeding" his victims? As he didn't intend to carry their bodies around, why should he have done so? The torso killers, on the other hand...

Donīt - I repeat DON`T! - tell me what to write. And for your information, my conviction is that you want to mislead, not I. You are trying to make it out as if the cutting of the necks/throats differed a lot, but I ask you once again:

Is it not true that they may initially have been exactly the same: a knifecut through both the throat and the soft parts of the neck? Is it not true that all victims but for Stride had the soft parts of their necks cut? If you donīt answer, I will ask again. I want it to be perfectly obvious who goes with the facts here!

And why in the whole world would I drop the fact that the cuts can have been the same type when you refuse to drop the potentially totally misleading idea that the cuts were different in character? Why?

Before the spine was severed, it may well have been a case of the exact same measure, and you know that.

Those who say that the Ripper was interested in bleeding his victims are all those who have pointed to how he would have done so to avoid any blood splatter on his person. I believe you are amongst them. That is bleeding for a purpose.

[Fisherman]

You are also forgetting that evidence now tends to show that the killer/s of Eddowes, Chapman, and Kelly did not remove their organs at the crime scenes.

As to Jackson there is enough for us now infer she was not a murder victim in any event.

Add all of these facts put together, and your theory is sunk without trace.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Itīs wonder that your "theories" ever surfaced. If anything, they should never have left the bottom sediments way down on the bottom of the ocean. Then again, methane will rise to the surface when bubbling out of rotting carcasses lying on the bottom.

And no, there is no evidence that tells us that the organs were not removed at the crime scene and by the killer, Trevor. Just as there is no evidence telling us that Jackson was not a murder victim. Itīs just you drifting away with the fairies again.

[Fisherman]

No. I am stating a fact. The torso victims were decapitated, period.

And just how does that gainsay that the necks of the torso victims may have been cut Ripper-style BEFORE the decapitation? Please elaborate! It should be revealing.

EVERYBODY knows that the torso victims were decapitated, Gareth. Itīs not exactly new, is it? But EVERYBODY also knows that there are examples of killers who only occasionally dismember. What does that do to your thinking? Itīs sobering up time!

[Trevor Marriott]

Itīs wonder your "theories" ever surfaced. If anything, they should never have left the bottom sediments way down on the bottom of the ocean.

And no, there is no evidence that tells us that the organs were not removed at the crime scene and by the killer, Trevor. Just as there is no evidence teloing us that Jackson was not a murder victim. Itīs just you drifting away with the fairies again.

Well the fairies have been useful in the evidence gathering process a worthwhile acquisition to my team. They did tell me they were originally working for you, but resigned when you would not accept the evidence they gathered because it destroyed your theory

I am not going to hi jack this thread with regards to the organs issue, save to say that there will be more new facts and new evidence on this subject, which we be forthcoming in the next few weeks, which will add even more weight to what has already been produced to negate these original inferences.

Meanwhile perhaps you could enlighten us all as to what the evidence is to suggest the killer/s did take the organs from Chapman and Eddowes, other than the inferences, which this important part of the WM has been built upon.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk