Tweet
Herlock!
Let´s begin with four bits where you speak of likelihoods or perceived such ones.
1. I would suggest very likely because that is what he did in a series of murders which show every sign of being connected as a series. He did it because that was what he wanted or needed to do. This has to be the likeliest conclusion.
2. But again, as you often cite likelihoods, serial killers usually choose a similar MO (not always of course) but usually. So, for me, the likelihood is that he didnt change. Any suggestion that he did has to rely on ‘leaps’ to come up with a reason.
3.This is no big deal to you as a few possible similarities in 2 crimes are no big deal for me. Id say that if he wanted to dismember for pleasure its likelier that he would have wanted to do it in all the cases.
4. Again im only talking likelihood. Surely its likelier than someone killing at someone elses property where he might inadvertantly leave evidence to be found.
What I think we must be able to do, is to accept that what we think is the more likely thing may not have been the choice of the killer. It is not likely that people will cut up and mutilate each other, but that does not equate that it never happens. Take point 4, for example. If the killer was poor, had an urge to kill and if his only option to kill indoors was to use premises that others used too - would that prevent him from killing or would he use the means that were open to him? I think that such a thing cannot be ruled out at all, and indeed, there are examples where people have killed in such premises.
As I keep banging on about, once we realize that there were very far-reaching similarities inbetween the series, and that some similarities were extremely unusual matters, then we cannot weigh likelihoods the way you do. The time has come to instead look for impossibilities, if we want to dispell the one killer scenario.
COULD he have used premises that were not his own? Yes, of course he could, just as he could have used private ones.
COULD he dismember some and others not? Absolutely, there are examples (like Paul Bernardo) who show us that this is a reality.
It is not until we find something that makes a real obstacle instead of a perceived one that we can say that there were probably two killers.
Jack the Ripper got attention from his murders but not from a series that were considered unconnected. They were accredited to another.
COULD it be that he was so fond of having that extra time with the torso victims that he did not want to give them up in favour of more publicity causing murders? Yes, of course it could be like that. It is no obstacle!
But it can be considered unlikely as he would have used it all the time. Why kill on the streets at the risk of being caught. Any alternative scenario is mere speculation to make TK fit.
Here, you take things one step further - you say that any speculation that a killer could risk more at times can only be "mere speculation to make TK fit".
That kind of points me out as somebody tampering with the evidence.
There is no room for such a thing. What there is room for, is to say that if there was a TK, then he would be able to kill both indoors in what we think (but don´t know) was relative safety AND outdoors, involving a raised risk level.
What we then must ask ourselves is "Is such a thing possible? And are there other examples of killers who have avoided risk at some times and taken large risks on other occasions?" The answer is of course "yes" on both counts.
And what I am doing is not "fitting the evidence", but instead pointing out that there is no unsurmountable obstacle involved, and that means that the suggestion of TK cannot be discarded on this basis.
Obviously, I am always going to ask myself "Does this fit with the TK suggestion", but there is no other way of testing the theory. It is a sad day when it is said that such a thing equals "fitting the evidence".
The ‘little or no planning’ point is surely argued against by the fact that he was ever caught. We would have to ascribe a huge level of luck to him. Call me cynical Fish but this ‘poor, working class man with access to a place after closing time’ sounds very much like you-know-who?
I don´t think that he WAS somebody who planned poorly or not at all, Herlock. I only pointed out that it cannot be ruled out and that the age-old picture of the Torso killer is one we made ourselves, basing it on very little knowledge.
I think that the killer was a streetwise, cunning, totally unafraid killer who was able to improvise himself out of trouble if it came his way. I don´t think there was much pre-planning in either series, since I believe that both series were examples of killing strangers, more than likely (but not neccessarily) prostitutes in each case. I think that both series were also examples of opting for whoever came along, and then going about the business.
It is an extremely common scenario when we look at serialists killing prostitutes. There is no real planning when it comes to who gets targetted, but there may well be a path to follow once there is a victim procured.
I, and i suspect the majority, will disagree with you Fish and you cant put that all down to stubborness or bias. Its simply nowhere near as obvious that you are making this out to be. Unlikely things happen; coincidences happen. Basing a whole supposition on mutilations and knife-work in the case of two crimes compared with the vast differences is for me flimsy grounds.
In todays newspaper where I live, there was an article about how there has been five fires recently in the town of Eslöv (covering about four times the size of Whitechapel). The fires had all been set by somebody, and the first four occurred at dawn, so people spoke of "the dawn pyromaniac". The fifth occurred at dusk, and the police commented like this: "Although the timing is not the same, we find it hard to believe that there is no connection".
How many people have matches at home? How commmon is arson, compared to mutilation murders and dismemberments?
My question to you, Herlock, is this: Why do you suppose that the police say that they find it hard to believe that there is no connection? This is a question I would very much like you to answer!
When it comes to how many agree with me out here and how many do not, I can only once more point out that when Galileo said that the earth was round, NOBODY agreed. Some truths take time to implement.
As for bias out here, I would like to point out that it is a "truth" amongst many posters here that I am not to be trusted since I try to "fit the evidence" - you will recognize the wording, Herlock.
John Wheat, Mike Hawley, Trevor Marriott, Iconoclast (I think that´s the guy believing in Maybrick, right?), Wyatt Earp, Colin Bridewell (who roots for Cadosh) and a fair few others are not to be trusted either, being suspectologists. It is fair game to call all suspectologists "fitters of evidence", regardless of how well read up and honest they are: they are outcasts anyway.
Similarly, there are many, many out here with no suspect, but who have put their reputations at stake by saying that the case will never be solved, and many of these people will be biased in that direction - the puzzle must NOT be solved, because that will make them wrong.
Two weeks ago, Gareth Williams acknowledged for the first time that Liz Jacksons uterus was reasonably taken out by the killer, by answering a question from Debra Arif with the wording "It would appear so".
All the years leading up to this has seen him not acknowedging this! I find that remarkable beyond comprehension. We all know that her uterus was packed up together with the abdominal flaps, the cord and placenta and thrown in the Thames - and still somebody is so dead set on denying ANYTHING that may point to the torso killer being a mutilator and eviscerator, that he is ready to deny that the uterus was taken out...?!!
This is the level of "truth" that we are looking at out here, so I really don´t worry all that much about being disagreed with. I hope you can see why.
It is the same thing with Lechmere - out here. But look at the comments about the docu! A very large amount of people say that they are now content that the case is solved! I much prefer their judgment, and that of experts with no bias and no earlier interest in the case. Like Andy Griffiths, who told me in private that he thought we may well have found the solution to the case. It was very obvious that he was not expecting that.
I continue to see these two series as unconnected Fish. And i doubt if you will come anywhere near convincing anything like a majority or even a significant amount of people.
But you are still talking about people on the boards, Herlock! My thought is that a lot of people out here agree with me, but they do not voice it very much, since I take care of sticking my neck out. Certainly a fair few loudvoiced people disagree with me - but I think that they can look forward to a future where the world outside hardcore ripperology will regard it as a given that there was just one killer. If five fires in Eslöv are reasonably connected, then two murders in London (Jackson, Kelly) where the killer cuts the neck (yes, Gareth!), opens the abdomen, takes out the uterus, takes away the heart and cut away the abdominal wall in large flaps from two prostitutes cannot possibly be a case of unrelated murders. There is no way, absolutely no way whatsoever, around that.
Let´s begin with four bits where you speak of likelihoods or perceived such ones.
1. I would suggest very likely because that is what he did in a series of murders which show every sign of being connected as a series. He did it because that was what he wanted or needed to do. This has to be the likeliest conclusion.
2. But again, as you often cite likelihoods, serial killers usually choose a similar MO (not always of course) but usually. So, for me, the likelihood is that he didnt change. Any suggestion that he did has to rely on ‘leaps’ to come up with a reason.
3.This is no big deal to you as a few possible similarities in 2 crimes are no big deal for me. Id say that if he wanted to dismember for pleasure its likelier that he would have wanted to do it in all the cases.
4. Again im only talking likelihood. Surely its likelier than someone killing at someone elses property where he might inadvertantly leave evidence to be found.
What I think we must be able to do, is to accept that what we think is the more likely thing may not have been the choice of the killer. It is not likely that people will cut up and mutilate each other, but that does not equate that it never happens. Take point 4, for example. If the killer was poor, had an urge to kill and if his only option to kill indoors was to use premises that others used too - would that prevent him from killing or would he use the means that were open to him? I think that such a thing cannot be ruled out at all, and indeed, there are examples where people have killed in such premises.
As I keep banging on about, once we realize that there were very far-reaching similarities inbetween the series, and that some similarities were extremely unusual matters, then we cannot weigh likelihoods the way you do. The time has come to instead look for impossibilities, if we want to dispell the one killer scenario.
COULD he have used premises that were not his own? Yes, of course he could, just as he could have used private ones.
COULD he dismember some and others not? Absolutely, there are examples (like Paul Bernardo) who show us that this is a reality.
It is not until we find something that makes a real obstacle instead of a perceived one that we can say that there were probably two killers.
Jack the Ripper got attention from his murders but not from a series that were considered unconnected. They were accredited to another.
COULD it be that he was so fond of having that extra time with the torso victims that he did not want to give them up in favour of more publicity causing murders? Yes, of course it could be like that. It is no obstacle!
But it can be considered unlikely as he would have used it all the time. Why kill on the streets at the risk of being caught. Any alternative scenario is mere speculation to make TK fit.
Here, you take things one step further - you say that any speculation that a killer could risk more at times can only be "mere speculation to make TK fit".
That kind of points me out as somebody tampering with the evidence.
There is no room for such a thing. What there is room for, is to say that if there was a TK, then he would be able to kill both indoors in what we think (but don´t know) was relative safety AND outdoors, involving a raised risk level.
What we then must ask ourselves is "Is such a thing possible? And are there other examples of killers who have avoided risk at some times and taken large risks on other occasions?" The answer is of course "yes" on both counts.
And what I am doing is not "fitting the evidence", but instead pointing out that there is no unsurmountable obstacle involved, and that means that the suggestion of TK cannot be discarded on this basis.
Obviously, I am always going to ask myself "Does this fit with the TK suggestion", but there is no other way of testing the theory. It is a sad day when it is said that such a thing equals "fitting the evidence".
The ‘little or no planning’ point is surely argued against by the fact that he was ever caught. We would have to ascribe a huge level of luck to him. Call me cynical Fish but this ‘poor, working class man with access to a place after closing time’ sounds very much like you-know-who?
I don´t think that he WAS somebody who planned poorly or not at all, Herlock. I only pointed out that it cannot be ruled out and that the age-old picture of the Torso killer is one we made ourselves, basing it on very little knowledge.
I think that the killer was a streetwise, cunning, totally unafraid killer who was able to improvise himself out of trouble if it came his way. I don´t think there was much pre-planning in either series, since I believe that both series were examples of killing strangers, more than likely (but not neccessarily) prostitutes in each case. I think that both series were also examples of opting for whoever came along, and then going about the business.
It is an extremely common scenario when we look at serialists killing prostitutes. There is no real planning when it comes to who gets targetted, but there may well be a path to follow once there is a victim procured.
I, and i suspect the majority, will disagree with you Fish and you cant put that all down to stubborness or bias. Its simply nowhere near as obvious that you are making this out to be. Unlikely things happen; coincidences happen. Basing a whole supposition on mutilations and knife-work in the case of two crimes compared with the vast differences is for me flimsy grounds.
In todays newspaper where I live, there was an article about how there has been five fires recently in the town of Eslöv (covering about four times the size of Whitechapel). The fires had all been set by somebody, and the first four occurred at dawn, so people spoke of "the dawn pyromaniac". The fifth occurred at dusk, and the police commented like this: "Although the timing is not the same, we find it hard to believe that there is no connection".
How many people have matches at home? How commmon is arson, compared to mutilation murders and dismemberments?
My question to you, Herlock, is this: Why do you suppose that the police say that they find it hard to believe that there is no connection? This is a question I would very much like you to answer!
When it comes to how many agree with me out here and how many do not, I can only once more point out that when Galileo said that the earth was round, NOBODY agreed. Some truths take time to implement.
As for bias out here, I would like to point out that it is a "truth" amongst many posters here that I am not to be trusted since I try to "fit the evidence" - you will recognize the wording, Herlock.
John Wheat, Mike Hawley, Trevor Marriott, Iconoclast (I think that´s the guy believing in Maybrick, right?), Wyatt Earp, Colin Bridewell (who roots for Cadosh) and a fair few others are not to be trusted either, being suspectologists. It is fair game to call all suspectologists "fitters of evidence", regardless of how well read up and honest they are: they are outcasts anyway.
Similarly, there are many, many out here with no suspect, but who have put their reputations at stake by saying that the case will never be solved, and many of these people will be biased in that direction - the puzzle must NOT be solved, because that will make them wrong.
Two weeks ago, Gareth Williams acknowledged for the first time that Liz Jacksons uterus was reasonably taken out by the killer, by answering a question from Debra Arif with the wording "It would appear so".
All the years leading up to this has seen him not acknowedging this! I find that remarkable beyond comprehension. We all know that her uterus was packed up together with the abdominal flaps, the cord and placenta and thrown in the Thames - and still somebody is so dead set on denying ANYTHING that may point to the torso killer being a mutilator and eviscerator, that he is ready to deny that the uterus was taken out...?!!
This is the level of "truth" that we are looking at out here, so I really don´t worry all that much about being disagreed with. I hope you can see why.
It is the same thing with Lechmere - out here. But look at the comments about the docu! A very large amount of people say that they are now content that the case is solved! I much prefer their judgment, and that of experts with no bias and no earlier interest in the case. Like Andy Griffiths, who told me in private that he thought we may well have found the solution to the case. It was very obvious that he was not expecting that.
I continue to see these two series as unconnected Fish. And i doubt if you will come anywhere near convincing anything like a majority or even a significant amount of people.
But you are still talking about people on the boards, Herlock! My thought is that a lot of people out here agree with me, but they do not voice it very much, since I take care of sticking my neck out. Certainly a fair few loudvoiced people disagree with me - but I think that they can look forward to a future where the world outside hardcore ripperology will regard it as a given that there was just one killer. If five fires in Eslöv are reasonably connected, then two murders in London (Jackson, Kelly) where the killer cuts the neck (yes, Gareth!), opens the abdomen, takes out the uterus, takes away the heart and cut away the abdominal wall in large flaps from two prostitutes cannot possibly be a case of unrelated murders. There is no way, absolutely no way whatsoever, around that.
)
Comment