Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Same motive = same killer

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    Unlike you, who can sit here all day, every day I still have a life

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    Any plans for it?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Varqm View Post
      -- Only the differences in skill is relevant,skill could have been observed by Hebbert looking at the body parts and cuts, but the mindsets could not have been observed so this was an "intelligent guess" by Hebbert and must be put aside.Don't you agree with Hebbert that the skill set between the ripper and torso killer were different?
      As I said, what was referred to was probably the dismemberment part, and we all know that the Ripper never got around to showing off on that score.

      Otherwise, I donīt think Hebbert says much about the quality of the cutting as such. Phillips does - and he says that Kelly and the Pinchin Street woman were cut in a very similar fashion. Maybe you should take stock of that?

      We should also not forget that the Ripper worked under time pressure and probably in much worse lighting conditions. That too may have had an effect.

      My overall impression was always one where a lot of reluctant admiration was expressed about the speed and quality of the Rippers work. To a large degree, speed is what tells a good cutter from a bad one - no hesitation, just sweeping and precise cuts.

      I think both men may well qualify as good cutters in that respect.

      Plus what I always say applies here too - any perceived differences in skill will have their explanation. It may well be that some people were so convinced that a dismemberer must be a practical type of killer, that they read in things in the cutting that were not there.

      The only explanation for the many and rare similarities, though, is that there was just the one killer. Thatīs the long and the short of things. Trying to find various explanations, or as you put it "intelligent guesswork" (Lord knows that not every suggestion I have seen and heard falls into that category), is not a viable thing to do.
      It will take proof to the contrary or at least evidence of a similar type of affair where there were absolutely mindblowing similarities in heaps before that changes in my world.

      You see, every time I hear "but look, hereīs another difference!", I find that it is doing things backwards. There MUST be differences but there must not be similarities. Putting the horse before the cart is not how to do things.

      Comment


      • The only explanation for the many and rare similarities, though, is that there was just the one killer. Thatīs the long and the short of things. Trying to find various explanations, or as you put it "intelligent guesswork" (Lord knows that not every suggestion I have seen and heard falls into that category), is not a viable thing to do.
        It will take proof to the contrary or at least evidence of a similar type of affair where there were absolutely mindblowing similarities in heaps before that changes in my world.
        So why is it then a perfectly ‘viable’ thing to do to come up with various explainations for the many differences? This means that we have to come up with a 100% concrete proof that similarities could not have occurred (impossible) and yet to explain away the differences any old piffle will do. Looks like youve chosen the best side of the arguement to be on Fish. If only life was so simple.
        Regards

        Herlock






        "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
          So why is it then a perfectly ‘viable’ thing to do to come up with various explainations for the many differences? This means that we have to come up with a 100% concrete proof that similarities could not have occurred (impossible) and yet to explain away the differences any old piffle will do. Looks like youve chosen the best side of the arguement to be on Fish. If only life was so simple.
          Life IS that simple, Herlock. Some are in denial about it, but that is of little use. The killer gave away that it was him in both series by including a dozen or more similarities in both series, and to boot, he saw to it that many of the similarities were not trivial, like a blow to the head or a kick on the shin. Instead he offered up uterus removals, abdomen openings, cut necks, taken out hearts and lungs, VERY rare inclusions by any stretch. And as if he thought "maybe that is not enough?", he added cutting away the abdominal flesh in flaps too!

          What more would he have to do to make you realize that we have only one killer on the loose? Tattoo "Made in Malaysia" on the eyeballs? Or maybe that would not be enough since there was dismemberment in one of the series only, a surefire indication of wildly different men...?

          We really could ask for no more, and it really is very simple. To make a ripperologist who has decided to go with another option realize and admit this is a much harder task.

          Goodnight.
          Last edited by Fisherman; 04-24-2018, 01:55 PM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
            Life IS that simple, Herlock. Some are in denial about it, but that is of little use. The killer gave away that it was him in both series by including a dozen or more similarities in both series, and to boot, he saw to it that many of the similarities were not trivial, like a blow to the head or a kick on the shin. Instead he offered up uterus removals, abdomen openings, cut necks, taken out hearts and lungs, VERY rare inclusions by any stretch. And as if he thought "maybe that is not enough?", he added cutting away the abdominal flesh in flaps too!

            What more would he have to do to makeyou realize that we have only one killer on the loose? Tattoo "Made in Malaysia" on the eyeballs?

            We really could ask for no more, and it really is very simple.

            Goodnight.
            And yet again a strop because someone disagrees.

            I dont know why anyone in the history of ripper studies has ever dared to doubt that Jack and TK were one and the same. Its so obvious that it simply cannot be doubted. And yet, for all this time people (intelligent, knowledgable people) have done just that. Two people could not possibly have committed similar mutilations. End of.

            Where have i heard this tone before.........
            Regards

            Herlock






            "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
              And yet again a strop because someone disagrees.

              I dont know why anyone in the history of ripper studies has ever dared to doubt that Jack and TK were one and the same. Its so obvious that it simply cannot be doubted. And yet, for all this time people (intelligent, knowledgable people) have done just that. Two people could not possibly have committed similar mutilations. End of.

              Where have i heard this tone before.........
              Iīm sorry if you find the simple truth a hard pill to swallow. Itīs all very fine that you point out that people disagree with me, but that does not diminish the number of similarities. Nor does it make the similarities any less unusual.

              You call it a strop from my side, but it really is not. It is a simple acknowledgement of the facts and how they relate to statistics. The result is a completely overwhelming safety that there can only have been one killer.

              I have taken a lot of abuse myself for calling a duck a duck - it has been said that I am deliberately misleading and I have been called all sorts of things.

              Adding things up, that means very little, just as it means very little that you are now having another try at painting me out as somebody with a "tone" that does not belong out here.

              Whatever tone I have, has been shaped over the years of discussing with other ripperologists, some of whom have been less than friendly.

              None of that takes away from the sum of similarities. None of it diminishes the unusual character of the similarities.

              Some will not accept the obvious, and that is the way things work in ripperology. For me, it is something I find unappealing but I have long since realized that it is the way of things.

              The good thing about it is that I do not necessarily have to worry about people disagreeing, since I am aware that disagreements out here are not shaped by the facts only.

              It is case closed for me, Herlock. Disagree away, if you wish. Applaud away when people say "but there were differences too!", and ask away if I am deluded enough to think I am better suited to decide in this then they are. Listen to whomever you want. And if you want to shoot the messenger instead of the message, by all means fire away!

              Been there, done that.

              It is an easy enough issue and there is only one logical solution. The rest are illogical solutions, in conflict with all we know.

              Now I really need some sleep.
              Last edited by Fisherman; 04-24-2018, 02:27 PM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                That should be interesting. Why not post it right away, though?
                As promised the replies from Dr Biggs on two questions I was asked to put to him. One from yourself, the second from Debs, and the third I threw in for good measure again on the issue of flaps of skin which you are fixated with

                Debs/Fishermans Questions- Both on the same topic

                Debs
                Q "With regards to the dismemberment cases you have experience of; how common was removal of all the limbs through disarticlulation of the joints, as opposed to just sawing through a thigh bone etc. ?

                Fishermans
                Q "Are you of the opinion that dismemberment murder cases led on by a deeply rooted psychological urge within the killer to cut into a body are likely to produce other results than dismemberment cases where the sole reason for the dismemberment is a wish to conceal the identity of the victim or facilitate the disposal of the remains?

                Dr Biggs reply incorporating both questions

                A. “The first question about disarticulation of joints versus sawing of bone raises an interesting point that I’m afraid I can’t answer conclusively one way or the other. That is to say that often the dismemberment is done by someone without prior knowledge, experience or planning, who begins trying to saw and then realises it is quite difficult in reality… and that simply cutting through the joints turns out to be a much quicker, easier way of doing things. This change of tack can arise quite intuitively during the process, so we often see several abortive attempts at sawing through bone, followed by successful disarticulation by cutting through joints.”

                “These days, power tools make it much easier to go through the bone itself, but ‘back in the day’ I suspect they would have had only hand saws / knives available. A failed attempt at sawing, followed by disarticulation, would tend to imply naivety on the part of the dismemberer, as anyone with medical / abattoir / butchery experience would ‘probably’ go straight for the simpler solution. However, a lack of initial sawing doesn’t automatically indicate prior knowledge, as it could simply indicate that no saw was available to begin with and that the perpetrator just used what they had to hand (or they just got lucky first time with their chosen strategy).

                So to sum up, these days we see a mix of dismemberment by sawing and direct disarticulation of joints (the sawing often involves some sort of power tool or similar), but we can make no assumptions about the knowledge (or otherwise) of the perpetrator based on their technique.”

                “Similarly, most cases of true ‘dismemberment’ are for the purposes of making bodies easier to store, transport and dispose of rather than being representative of a desire to cut for cutting’s sake. There may be deliberate disfigurement or destruction of features, but this is usually an attempt to make successful identification difficult. There are people out there who like to cut ‘for fun’ (whether before or after death), but these tend to be recognisable as acts of true ‘mutilation’ rather than ‘dismemberment’. The two scenarios can of course co-exist within the same body, making things tricky to interpret!”

                Trevors Question
                Q. “I also have an ambiguity for you to try to explain regarding the term used by doctors back then. It is in relation to the term "flaps of skin" Now I know you did go to lengths to explain what you interpreted flaps of skin previously”

                A. “As for the abdominal flaps, there is nothing that would ‘necessitate’ removal of the abdominal wall in large flaps, as we are able to get all the bits and pieces we need out of the body though a single incision that removes no abdominal wall tissue (even in very well-padded individuals)."

                "However, we know what we are doing, and are aiming to achieve the minimal damage to the body and best possible cosmetic outcome after reconstruction. If the abdominal wall tissue (skin, muscles, etc.) is ‘in the way’ of a person unconcerned about causing damage or achieving good cosmetic result after reconstruction, then it might be cut away and “discarded” in large chunks (a.k.a. ‘flaps’) as a quick and dirty means to an end by someone who doesn’t really know what they are doing. So my interpretation is that ‘flaps’ again is simply a descriptive term that bears no real additional information other than to suggest perhaps an inexpert procedure by someone unaccustomed to medical / surgical / etc. work.”

                I hope that goes some way to answering your questions?

                I’m not sure if you’ll be interested, but this comprehensive textbook of dismemberment was published last year:

                https://www.amazon.co.uk/Criminal-Di.../dp/B071VVBXH3

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                  Iīm sorry if you find the simple truth a hard pill to swallow. Itīs all very fine that you point out that people disagree with me, but that does not diminish the number of similarities. Nor does it make the similarities any less unusual.

                  Unusual yes maybe....but impossible, no.

                  You call it a strop from my side, but it really is not. It is a simple acknowledgement of the facts and how they relate to statistics. The result is a completely overwhelming safety that there can only have been one killer.

                  No its not. Crime solving by numbers....an obsession with statistics. “Overwhelming safety that there can only have been one killer,” is a gross exageration.

                  I have taken a lot of abuse myself for calling a duck a duck - it has been said that I am deliberately misleading and I have been called all sorts of things.

                  Its always Fish the victim. Ive debated with you before and its usually you that adopts the ‘tone first.’

                  Adding things up, that means very little, just as it means very little that you are now having another try at painting me out as somebody with a "tone" that does not belong out here.

                  Ditto above

                  Whatever tone I have, has been shaped over the years of discussing with other ripperologists, some of whom have been less than friendly.

                  Whenever i have disagreed with you it has always been you that has adopted the ‘how dare you disagree with my FACTS and impeccable interpretations of events’ tone.

                  None of that takes away from the sum of similarities. None of it diminishes the unusual character of the similarities.

                  Substitute ‘similarities’ for ‘dissimilarities.’

                  Some will not accept the obvious, and that is the way things work in ripperology. For me, it is something I find unappealing but I have long since realized that it is the way of things.

                  And i find it ‘unappealing’ that something ‘obvious’ to a few ‘has’ to be accepted by everyone.

                  The good thing about it is that I do not necessarily have to worry about people disagreeing, since I am aware that disagreements out here are not shaped by the facts only.

                  Of course they dont. Everyone else is either stupid or biased.


                  It is case closed for me, Herlock. Disagree away, if you wish. And if you want to shoot the messenger instead of the message, fire away.

                  Case closed everyone. I give you the Ripper/Torso Killer.....Charles Lechmere. Now stop disagreeing.


                  Been there, done that.

                  Now I really need some sleep.
                  And i need to stop posting on threads where, for some, disagreement equals stupidity or bias.
                  Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 04-24-2018, 02:52 PM.
                  Regards

                  Herlock






                  "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

                  Comment


                  • Hi Debs. I'm confused. About Elizabeth Jackson. When the report states that the left piece included the umbilicus, it's referring to Elizabeth's navel (or belly button), right? I'm trying to 'draw out' the shape of the flaps based on which portions of her body where reportedly attached to each side. And also-because if it is describing her navel, once again we have a killer who tends to skirt his cuts around the umbilicus/navel.
                    there,s nothing new, only the unexplored

                    Comment


                    • Something else a little misleading?
                      Rings were taken from the fingers.Where is the evidence for this.How can it be known there were rings on the fingers to take?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Robert St Devil View Post
                        Hi Debs. I'm confused. About Elizabeth Jackson. When the report states that the left piece included the umbilicus, it's referring to Elizabeth's navel (or belly button), right? I'm trying to 'draw out' the shape of the flaps based on which portions of her body where reportedly attached to each side. And also-because if it is describing her navel, once again we have a killer who tends to skirt his cuts around the umbilicus/navel.
                        Hi RSD,

                        I tried to draw the flaps here, http://forum.casebook.org/showthread...aps#post434293 (post #1561) from and illustration Debs made of where the body had been divided (yellow boxes). I may have gone a bit too high on the topside, but you can get the idea.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by harry View Post
                          Something else a little misleading?
                          Rings were taken from the fingers.Where is the evidence for this.How can it be known there were rings on the fingers to take?
                          Hi Harry,

                          I know you don't like references to Dr. Hebbert but... in the case of Elizabeth Jackson:

                          The bruise on the back of the left ring finger might have been made by the forcible removal of the ring.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                            "Are you of the opinion that dismemberment murder cases led on by a deeply rooted psychological urge within the killer to cut into a body are likely to produce other results than dismemberment cases where the sole reason for the dismemberment is a wish to conceal the identity of the victim or facilitate the disposal of the remains?

                            Dr Biggs reply:

                            "... most cases of true ‘dismemberment’ are for the purposes of making bodies easier to store, transport and dispose of rather than being representative of a desire to cut for cutting’s sake. There may be deliberate disfigurement or destruction of features, but this is usually an attempt to make successful identification difficult. There are people out there who like to cut ‘for fun’ (whether before or after death), but these tend to be recognisable as acts of true ‘mutilation’ rather than ‘dismemberment’. The two scenarios can of course co-exist within the same body, making things tricky to interpret!”
                            So, Biggs points out that normally, dismemberment is about practical matters. And he adds that there may be additions serving the purpose of making an identification impossible.
                            So that is about the same thing: practicality.

                            This is all very uncontroversial.

                            Then he arrvies at my question and delivers the answer: There are people out there who like to "cut for fun", he says.
                            Okay. I donīt think that it is always for fun, it is a deeply rooted urge and a serious matter for the cutter, but letīs go with the doctorīs terminology anyway.
                            He then delivers the solution about what is the result when such a person is responsible for the cutting: "these tend to be recognisable as acts of true mutilation rather than dismemberment".

                            Thatīs probably very close to the truth. And indeed, we do see examples of "true mutilation" with the Torso killer, the opening up of the abdomen, the taking out of organs, the cutting away of the abdominal wall und so weiter.

                            So basically, I find that Biggs is in agreement with me - not all cases of dismemberment are caused by people who are likely to cut up the body for practical reasons only, and thus the appearance of the outcome can differ a whole lot.

                            What Biggs does not touch on is the dismemberment procedure as such. If we were to rule out any mutilation and ONLY go by the parting of the body, will differing mindsets produce different outcomes? Well, we already know that this is so, and we can see examples of it in the torso cases, where the parting of the body went to lenghts that are normally not seen in dismemberment cases.

                            But I am happy to have Biggs recognizing that urge killers who dismember are very likely to add inclusions of mutilation that go beyond any practical considerations. Which is the case in the torso matter, where AT LEAST a uterus, a heart and two lungs were plucked out, together with the abdominal walls.

                            Biggs tells us that it can be difficult to tell practical cases and urge cases apart, and that probably owes to how a practical killer may cut away parts that can give the identity away. So we may find mutilation on a practically dismembered body too. Which is true.
                            But no killer tries to hide the identity of a victim by taking out the heart and the lungs, so the torso cases are urge cases.

                            I also like how Biggs says “As for the abdominal flaps, there is nothing that would ‘necessitate’ removal of the abdominal wall in large flaps, as we are able to get all the bits and pieces we need out of the body though a single incision that removes no abdominal wall tissue (even in very well-padded individuals)."
                            This is what I have pointed out for the longest. I only wish Biggs had said something about how unusual the matter is.

                            At any rate, Trevor, thank you - worth waiting for.





                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                            [/QUOTE]

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                              And i need to stop posting on threads where, for some, disagreement equals stupidity or bias.
                              Lack of insight or bias. I donīt think that you, Gareth or Steve are in any way stupid. Quite the reverse, actually.

                              But you DO take a stance that is the exact opposite of the one I consider the only reasonable one, and I cannot cheer that on, can I?

                              Nor can I say that we are as likely to be correct, all of us, in a democratic spirit. We are not, as far as I am concerned, and it would be untrue and misleading on my part if I claimed to think we are. I think you are wrong (not stupid, but wrong), and I can back that up with all the similarities. You think that all the similarities will have alternative interpretations - I donīt.

                              Anyone is perfectly welcome to their view, but that includes me. And anyone is perfecly welcome to defend their view, and that includes me too. If you dislike that, there is nothing much I can do about it.

                              Comment


                              • Herlock!

                                To further underline how I am reasoning, I would like you to imgaine that two dead women are found in the same town and time period. They have been killed by having been strangled, the commonest method (or one of them at least) to kill.

                                In itself, two strangled women in the same town and time period will have the police thinking of a very possible connection, m ind you! But it is not conclusive as such.

                                Now, letīs take any of the inclusions from my three-victim comparison Chapman-Kelly-Jackson!
                                Letīs say that the two women found strangled both had had rings taken from their fingers. What do you think that would mean to the police?

                                Of course, we can offer the explanation that both killers were also robbers, and that would go some way to explain things.

                                Now, letīs instead say that the two women found strangled had had part of their right buttocks cut away. Same thing, the police would go Wow! - and we could come up with at least some sort of explanation. Perhaps. Not that I know what it would look like, but anyway.

                                Or letīs say that the two strangled women had both had their uteri stolen from their bodies. Does anybody at all think that the police would NOT work from the idea of a common killer if that was the case? And still, we can offer some sort of explanation, of course, not least if one of the women was pregnant!

                                Taken one and one, alternative explanations may be tempting to serve.

                                But taken together? No way!

                                If the police finds two strangled women with stolen rings, cut off nosetips, taken uteri, opened abdomens, missing hearts and lungs, missing abdominal walls, part of the buttocks removed - the they will inevitably believe in one killer only. Moreover, they will be right.

                                And if one of the women was also dismembered? Well, then they will say "He dismemered this one", not "There are two killers on the prowl".

                                The sheer amount of very odd similarities clinches that.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X