Same motive = same killer

[Fisherman]

Very quickly:

Lee - raped, stabbed, beat and strangled. No mutilations and/or dismemberment.

Gillis: Stabbed, slashed, mutilated and dismembered. Apparently ate parts of his victims.

Very different creatures, therefore.

If Gillis had been a raper, stabber, strangler and beater, then (depending on how he did it) he could have been mistaken for Lee, but on very common grounds:
Beating, stabbing, strangling and raping is par of the course for the typical serialist.
Mutilating and dismembering is not.

One more observation: One victim only of the ten or so victims of Lee had her throat (that´s whay it said, Gareth) cut.

That kind of makes Harry D:s point of how a serial killer may change things a very good one.

[Sam Flynn]

You mean you didn´t know?

No, I didn't. And I'm still not convinced. Read on...

Yes, indeed there are such people. It´s time for me to post the Huffington Post article again, it seems:

What's with the somewhat peevish-sounding "it seems"? I told you that I skip most of your posts, so don't think I ignored that one the first time round. Truth is, I never read it.

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/dr-...b_1577919.html

Thanks, that's interesting, although the article does suggest that there's a lot more to these murders than you suppose. Did you read the paragraph fully? There's a whole lot more than the mere chopping-off of limbs going on here:

"The third most common category is usually referred to as an 'offensive' mutilation where the dismemberment is in fact the real purpose of the murder all along, and these include lust and necro-sadistic murders. Those driven by primarily sexual motives mutilate the corpse in characteristic ways, Konopka, Kunz and colleagues report, for example severing genital organs or breasts. Some perpetrators pull out abdominal organs through the disfigured genital tract. Death by strangling is apparently very common in this kind of homicide."

Perhaps they had in mind the second definition of dismember in the OED, i.e. "to divide into parts or sections, so as to destroy integrity; to cut up, cut to pieces, mangle, mutilate"?

Be that as it may, the elephant in the room, as many of us have been telling you all along, is noted in the selfsame article: "possibly the most common [category of dismemberment] is referred to by Forensic Specialists as 'defensive' because the motive is to assist in hiding or moving the body, or getting rid of evidence, or making identification of the victim more difficult."

[Fisherman]

No, I didn't. And I'm still not convinced. Read on...What's with the somewhat peevish-sounding "it seems"? I told you that I skip most of your posts, so don't think I ignored that one the first time round. Truth is, I never read it.Thanks, that's interesting, although the article does suggest that there's a lot more to these murders than you suppose. Did you read the paragraph fully? There's a whole lot more than the mere chopping-off of limbs going on here:

"The third most common category is usually referred to as an 'offensive' mutilation where the dismemberment is in fact the real purpose of the murder all along, and these include lust and necro-sadistic murders. Those driven by primarily sexual motives mutilate the corpse in characteristic ways, Konopka, Kunz and colleagues report, for example severing genital organs or breasts. Some perpetrators pull out abdominal organs through the disfigured genital tract. Death by strangling is apparently very common in this kind of homicide."

Perhaps they had in mind the second definition of dismember in the OED, i.e. "to divide into parts or sections, so as to destroy integrity; to cut up, cut to pieces, mangle, mutilate"?

Be that as it may, the elephant in the room, as many of us have been telling you all along, is noted in the selfsame article: "possibly the most common [category of dismemberment] is referred to by Forensic Specialists as 'defensive' because the motive is to assist in hiding or moving the body, or getting rid of evidence, or making identification of the victim more difficult."

It is truly an elephant, Gareth. I have pointed it out numerous times, since it is so very obvious - most dismemberment killings are practical ones.

Those that involve mutilation and eviscerations are not, however.

Broadly speaking, that´s how it works. And the torso killings do not fall into the practical category on account of statistics - it falls in the paraphilia category on account of the facts.

And no, "they" did not have in mind the second definition. If they did, they would not have placed it in the third definition, methinks.

But they could have worded it all very badly and gotten it wrong - journalists and all that.

[Sam Flynn]

It is truly an elephant, Gareth. I have pointed it out numerous times, since it is so very obvious - most dismemberment killings are practical ones.

Those that involve mutilation and eviscerations are not, however.

Broadly speaking, that´s how it works.

And no, they did not have in mind the second definition. If they did, they would not have placed it in the third definition, methinks.

Methinks not because, as I said, there's a whole lot more than the mere chopping-off of limbs going on here:

"The third most common category is usually referred to as an 'offensive' mutilation where the dismemberment is in fact the real purpose of the murder all along, and these include lust and necro-sadistic murders. Those driven by primarily sexual motives mutilate the corpse in characteristic ways, Konopka, Kunz and colleagues report, for example severing genital organs or breasts. Some perpetrators pull out abdominal organs through the disfigured genital tract. Death by strangling is apparently very common in this kind of homicide."

Since when were the breasts a "limb"? Since when were the genitals a "limb"? Since when were abdominal organs a "limb"? Since when were genital tracts, disfigured or otherwise, a "limb"? I doubt that the contributors to that article would classify them as such, so they can't be referring to dismemberment - in the strict sense of limb-removal - as the purpose of these murders.

Meanwhile, in a parallel universe: "Yup, sarge. Sure looks like the Green Bay arm-chopper has struck again"

[Fisherman]

Methinks not because, as I said, there's a whole lot more than the mere chopping-off of limbs going on here:

"The third most common category is usually referred to as an 'offensive' mutilation where the dismemberment is in fact the real purpose of the murder all along, and these include lust and necro-sadistic murders. Those driven by primarily sexual motives mutilate the corpse in characteristic ways, Konopka, Kunz and colleagues report, for example severing genital organs or breasts. Some perpetrators pull out abdominal organs through the disfigured genital tract. Death by strangling is apparently very common in this kind of homicide."

Since when were the breasts a "limb"? Since when were the genitals a "limb"? Since when were abdominal organs a "limb"? Since when were genital tracts, disfigured or otherwise, a "limb"? I doubt that the contributors to that article would classify them as such, so they can't be referring to dismemberment - in the strict sense of limb-removal - as the purpose of these murders.

Meanwhile, in a parallel universe: "Yup, sarge. Sure looks like the Green Bay arm-chopper has struck again"

Since when do people say "the dismemberment is in fact the real purpose of the murder all along" if they don´t mean it?

You may need to read more and "interpret" less. Don´t give up, it will come to you.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Has anyone? Was there ever a "serialist" out there who was such a wanker that he only killed people purely because he wanted to chop their arms off?

I can recall the famous ‘one-arm bandit’ Gareth but never a double version

[Fisherman]

I can recall the famous ‘one-arm bandit’ Gareth but never a double version

I can actually sense a two-man bandit at work too, so you may have a point.

Now, sit yourself down and read the article and we may get somewhere.

[Abby Normal]

That I can!

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/dr-...b_1577919.html

thank you fish
extremely interesting.

[Fisherman]

thank you fish
extremely interesting.

My pleasure, Abby - hey, maybe that did not come out right...?

[Herlock Sholmes]

That article has a familiar ring to it Fish. Did you ever post it on a Lechmere thread? Im just wondering where i ‘might’ have read it before?

[Fisherman]

That article has a familiar ring to it Fish. Did you ever post it on a Lechmere thread? Im just wondering where i ‘might’ have read it before?

I don´t recall it, actually. But I searched the boards and found that Magnotta has been written about on Casebook, the same year that the article in Huffington post was written (2012). Maybe that is what made you recognize the name?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don´t recall it, actually. But I searched the boards and found that Magnotta has been written about on Casebook, the same year that the article in Huffington post was written (2012). Maybe that is what made you recognize the name?

It could have been

[Robert St Devil]

That I can!

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/dr-...b_1577919.html

Hello Fisherman. I thought #5 was interesting; it reminded me of Roy Demeo. He was an American mafia enforcer from the 70s whose signature method of murder was dismemberment and disposal in and around the New York City area. Classifying him as a serial killer will depend on your own definition but, by some accounts, he and his crew accounted for over 200 murders. His method of dismemberment came to be known as The Gemini Method; and, it was inspired and refined by him based on his early training as a butcher. One point in the procedure caught my attention; how, after shooting the person in the head, another member would stab the person in the heart to stop it from pumping blood (which brought Marta Tabram's murder to mind); after that point, they would bleed and dismember the body He also found that, once the neck had been cut down to the bone, breaking off the head was as easy as snapping a pencil in two. And he also shared a similar quality of wanting to parcel the dismembered parts.

What I can't seem to classify about him is if any of this served a paraphilia, or a savage power lust, or an intimidation device, or an egomania, or a "rational" service provided to his particular industry, or....

[harry]

Fisherman,
Never mind the quality,answer the substance.I was replying in kind to your post of 3172. Where are the proofs? Hebbert writes of similaritie.You or your supporters care to state a case of murder that was decided on a basis of proved beyond a reasonable doubt, where similarities was the evidence?
Yes such evidence can be tendered,but on it's own, without proofs of it's,and other elements of the crime,it is useless.
By the way,i quite liked your reference to you and a banana.I have an opinion you were skinned long ago.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,
Never mind the quality,answer the substance.I was replying in kind to your post of 3172. Where are the proofs? Hebbert writes of similaritie.You or your supporters care to state a case of murder that was decided on a basis of proved beyond a reasonable doubt, where similarities was the evidence?
Yes such evidence can be tendered,but on it's own, without proofs of it's,and other elements of the crime,it is useless.
By the way,i quite liked your reference to you and a banana.I have an opinion you were skinned long ago.

If I ever find any substance, I will answer. If the substance is that you have found out all on your own that there is no proven case of a shared identity, well...
What IS the substance?