Same motive = same killer

[Trevor Marriott]

Strange how that coincides with my request to provide him with a list of similarities and THEN ask him if there is reason to connect the cases....

You can thank you other deluded follower on here for that !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

You can thank you other deluded follower on here for that !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor, I donīt have "followers". You make me sound like a one man sekt.

I agree with a lot of people owing to their using common sense and relying on typical police methodology. Thatīs about it.

But itīs a shame that you do not take the opportunity to allow for Biggs to once and for all decide on the full material. Thatīs not Abbys fault, it is yours.

[Joshua Rogan]

In connection with the bruised ring finger, this report of Dr Kempster's inquest evidence from the Evening Standard 17th June 1888 suggests it can't have been inflicted much earlier than a day or two before the body was examined;

"When he first examined the ring finger there was no bruise, but one appeared later on, and was noticed by him upon subsequent examination."

Dr Bond, in the same report;

"There were no marks, scars, or bruises upon the body, except a mark on the ring finger of the left hand, which must have been caused by the removal of the ring after death."

Of course, it's possible perhaps that Jackson caused the bruise herself removing a tight ring from her swollen finger (she was pregnant after all). But it must have been very close to when she met her end.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, I donīt have "followers". You make me sound like a one man sekt.

I agree with a lot of people owing to their using common sense and relying on typical police methodology. Thatīs about it.

But itīs a shame that you do not take the opportunity to allow for Biggs to once and for all decide on the full material. Thatīs not Abbys fault, it is yours.

He has decided on the full material both on The WM and the torsos. But you dont, and wont accept what he says, so go find your own forensic pathologist.

I think Dr Biggs would be most upset to read what Abby has said about him when he has put a lot of time and effort into trying to assist us.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

He has decided on the full material both on The WM and the torsos. But you dont, and wont accept what he says, so go find your own forensic pathologist.

I think Dr Biggs would be most upset to read what Abby has said about him when he has put a lot of time and effort into trying to assist us.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I have found "my own" pathologist, Jason Payne-James.

I cannot take responsibility for what others think and say about Dr Biggs. As I said, I think he is quite reliable and knowledgeable, but I do think you have asked him the wrong questions at times, and that you have misunderstood the answers on some occasions. What Biggs certainly have not done is to dismiss my thinking on the flaps and the connections between the cases.

Still, thatīs water under the bridge now if Biggs will not reappear. Which would be a pity.

[Fisherman]

In connection with the bruised ring finger, this report of Dr Kempster's inquest evidence from the Evening Standard 17th June 1888 suggests it can't have been inflicted much earlier than a day or two before the body was examined;

"When he first examined the ring finger there was no bruise, but one appeared later on, and was noticed by him upon subsequent examination."

Dr Bond, in the same report;

"There were no marks, scars, or bruises upon the body, except a mark on the ring finger of the left hand, which must have been caused by the removal of the ring after death."

Of course, it's possible perhaps that Jackson caused the bruise herself removing a tight ring from her swollen finger (she was pregnant after all). But it must have been very close to when she met her end.

Thanks for that clarification, Joshua!

[Trevor Marriott]

I have found "my own" pathologist, Jason Payne-James.

I cannot take responsibility for what others think and say about Dr Biggs. As I said, I think he is quite reliable and knowledgeable, but I do think you have asked him the wrong questions at times, and that you have misunderstood the answers on some occasions. What Biggs certainly have not done is to dismiss my thinking on the flaps and the connections between the cases.

Still, thatīs water under the bridge now if Biggs will not reappear. Which would be a pity.

No one will ever do that, because you are fixated with this fantasy signature, and MO, same as you were fixated with Charles Cross, and no one is ever going to change that. So there is no point in anyone trying.

I am certainly not going to discuss these torsos with you any more. I have better things to so than waste my valuable time. The other posters who continue to sabre rattle with you might be well advised to take the same course of action to avoid becoming comatose

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

No one will ever do that, because you are fixated with this fantasy signature, and MO, same as you were fixated with Charles Cross, and no one is ever going to change that. So there is no point in anyone trying.

I am certainly not going to discuss these torsos with you any more. I have better things to so than waste my valuable time. The other posters who continue to sabre rattle with you might be well advised to take the same course of action to avoid becoming comatose

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You know what, Trevor? As it stands, you are 100 per cent correct - nobody is going to change my mind on grounds of the kind of arguments that have been made so far.

It will take an addition of further material pointing away from my conclusions to do so.

If that happens, itīs another matter.

But not now. Not even nearly. The evidence is totally stacked against it as it stands.

[Abby Normal]

I think you should read the book first before you pre judge it the author is a medical forensic professor and far more intelligent than you are ever likely to be

The reality is that you and Fisherman cannot accept the fact that Dr Biggs has negated the main issues, which have been put forward to suggest the torsos were murdered and murdered by the same killer.

I think as a forensic pathologist Dr Biggs just has the edge and medical knowledge over you, Fisheman and the other deluded individuals who follow him. Your statement just goes to show what a clown you are.

And as of now I will not be publishing any further information from him.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

go take your ball and go home then you sniveling twit. personally I'm not impressed by any insight he has provided. he may be a forensic pathologist, but apparently his historical knowledge of the ripper and torso cases isn't up to snuff, especially since its been filtered through you.

hey trevor what does he think of your idea that the organs of the ripper victims were not removed at the scenes? LOL.

your the biggest joke in ripperology and everyone knows it.

Yes,go home and plagerize another book and sell a few more t- shirts why don't you.

[Herlock Sholmes]

No Herlock, i would never go that far.

He MAY have been, but much of the "evidence" used in the Documentary, over which I accept Christer had no control, is either misleading or totally inaccurate.

He is as good a suspect as several others and cannot be ruled out; however it fair to say I do not see the evidence to make a particularly strong case against him.

Thats a fair summary of my position.

Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

go take your ball and go home then you sniveling twit. personally I'm not impressed by any insight he has provided. he may be a forensic pathologist, but apparently his historical knowledge of the ripper and torso cases isn't up to snuff, especially since its been filtered through you.

hey trevor what does he think of your idea that the organs of the ripper victims were not removed at the scenes? LOL.

your the biggest joke in ripperology and everyone knows it.

Yes,go home and plagerize another book and sell a few more t- shirts why don't you.

I guess thats me off your xmas card list !

What does Dr Biggs think about my suggestion?

He says

"The possibility that the organs were removed at the mortuary prior to the autopsies (i.e. that they were pilfered for some medical purpose) is not something I had thought about before. That sort of thing certainly wouldn’t happen today (not in my mortuary anyway!), but as for back then? I suppose anything is possible."

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Abby Normal]

I guess thats me off your xmas card list !

What does Dr Biggs think about my suggestion?

He says

"The possibility that the organs were removed at the mortuary prior to the autopsies (i.e. that they were pilfered for some medical purpose) is not something I had thought about before. That sort of thing certainly wouldn’t happen today (not in my mortuary anyway!), but as for back then? I suppose anything is possible."

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No not at all. Pm your address and your back on!

Thanks for providing mr. Biggs assessment of your idea.

Have a safe weekend Trevor.

[harry]

Fisherman.
Me go away. Where should I go,to join you in fantasy land maybe.
Better you answer the questions I posed you,than set yourself up as someone who decides who goes or stays.
No ,your problem is your claims of proving beyond reasonable doubt,and rings taken from fingers,stated by you as facts,have been debunked.now I observe,from your last post to me,you are trying to lie your way out of stating those claims wer'nt made.Wont work
If I l eave,it will be on Trevor's advice.You are not worth wasting time onI will however answer the honest posters.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman.
Me go away. Where should I go,to join you in fantasy land maybe.
Better you answer the questions I posed you,than set yourself up as someone who decides who goes or stays.
No ,your problem is your claims of proving beyond reasonable doubt,and rings taken from fingers,stated by you as facts,have been debunked.now I observe,from your last post to me,you are trying to lie your way out of stating those claims wer'nt made.Wont work
If I l eave,it will be on Trevor's advice.You are not worth wasting time onI will however answer the honest posters.

If you find me not worth wasting time on, that would be equivalent to your going away.

I will take that any day in the week.

[Fisherman]

Since I now have Harrys word that he will not engage in debate with me - he considers that wasting his valuable time - I will take the opportunity to further elaborate on the rings.

On Chapmans rings, Philip Sugden writes: "An abrasion over the head of the proximal phalanx suggested that the killer had wrenched the rings from her finger".

Sugden, you twister, you! Nothing at all of that character is suggested, she could have taken them off herself!

Richard Jones sees it: "The brass rings ... had evidently been torn from her fingers..."

Thatīs not true at all, why would she tear them from her fingers to pawn them? Drama Queen!

Bill Beadle writes: "Earlier, we noted the discovery of two cheap rings, which could have been those taken from Annie Chapman..."

Taken from? TAKEN FROM!!?? How DARE he? Liar!

On Jacksons ring, R Michael Gordon writes: "The killer had removed her ring..."

What a crock of shite! The misleading weasel!

Since Joshua kindly provided information that tells us that Jacksons ring was probably removed from her finger very close in time to her death, it deserves saying that Martin Fido has this to say about Chapmans rings:
"Donovan and other occupants of 35 Dorset Street confirmed that she had been wearing the brass rings when she left..."

Meaning that the suggestion that she could have sold or pawned them the week before seems decidedly outdated by now.

Fido then goes on to say that if Chapman had not sold them on the night, "they had probably been stolen by her murderer" - which of course is going way too far. Fido needs to be severely thrashed across the bum, thatīs what I say! Taking liberties, he is!

And with this small collection of lying, cheating and misleading authors (not), I leave it to those who read the thread to decide for themselves exactly which kind of misleading and twisting it is that plagues this errand.