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 Abby Normal View Post
    Well then at least you admit then that torso man did not get rid of the bodies parts nearly as discreetly as he could?
    I'm not so sure I do, Abby. Scattering remains across a wide area, and/or dropping them in a river, seems a pretty canny way to dispose of evidence - one which has been adopted by a number of killers, which keeps open the possibility that separate perpetrators were instrumental in each case. Short of burying the bodies, I can't think of a much more discreet way of going about such a thing.
    Kind regards, Sam Flynn

    "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
      Winner winner chicken dinner
      LOL Thanks!

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
        Well, they have CCTV these days and DNA evidence. Even so it was 6 months before her head was found, by someone fishing.

        Wasn't the Rainham torso also (partially) dumped in the Regent's Canal and not discovered for several months?
        Yes. About a month and a half or so after the initial discovery in Rainham.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
          I'm not so sure I do, Abby. Scattering remains across a wide area, and/or dropping them in a river, seems a pretty canny way to dispose of evidence - one which has been adopted by a number of killers, which keeps open the possibility that separate perpetrators were instrumental in each case. Short of burying the bodies, I can't think of a much more discreet way of going about such a thing.
          Dam! thought I had ye!
          "Is all that we see or seem
          but a dream within a dream?"

          -Edgar Allan Poe


          "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
          quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

          -Frederick G. Abberline

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
            Hi Zena,

            Firstly, to be honest I think that Fish is making it sound a little easier than it probably was to get to where he dumped the body (underground/in the dark/tools and stuff lying around). I'm unsure but he may have had to go down a ladder carrying the parcel (in which case it would have probably been in near total darkness because even if he had a light with him how could he carry that and the parcel whilst negotiating a ladder.)
            Lower the torso on a rope first (or just throw it down), then climb down the ladder with a lantern on a rope around his neck. Or lower the lantern first, too. If the distance wasn't too far, the glow from the lowered lantern might be enough for him to see to climb down the ladder without mishap.

            Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
            He could have reconnoitred the site as you suggested.
            Unless he was already familiar with the site by working there or some other reason, I feel like that's the only way he could have done it if the place was such a hazardous maze as has been suggested. I mean, he had to be familiar with the place in some way before stumbling around with body parts that would give him away if he ran into someone or injured himself and couldn't get back out.

            Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
            The point that I make on this is that he could have disposed of that part in a thousand easier and less risky (risk of injury I mean) places. So why this site? For some reason I believe that the killer, whoever he was, had made up is mind that it had to be there. An obvious motive is to do with the police. A taunt perhaps? We can't know of course.
            Yes, I agree that it had to be there. Why it had to be there, we'll never really know.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Zena View Post
              Lower the torso on a rope first (or just throw it down), then climb down the ladder with a lantern on a rope around his neck. Or lower the lantern first, too. If the distance wasn't too far, the glow from the lowered lantern might be enough for him to see to climb down the ladder without mishap.



              Unless he was already familiar with the site by working there or some other reason, I feel like that's the only way he could have done it if the place was such a hazardous maze as has been suggested. I mean, he had to be familiar with the place in some way before stumbling around with body parts that would give him away if he ran into someone or injured himself and couldn't get back out.



              Yes, I agree that it had to be there. Why it had to be there, we'll never really know.
              Hi Zena

              Lower the torso on a rope first (or just throw it down), then climb down the ladder with a lantern on a rope around his neck. Or lower the lantern first, too. If the distance wasn't too far, the glow from the lowered lantern might be enough for him to see to climb down the ladder without mishap.
              yes,

              Unless he was already familiar with the site by working there or some other reason, I feel like that's the only way he could have done it if the place was such a hazardous maze as has been suggested. I mean, he had to be familiar with the place in some way before stumbling around with body parts that would give him away if he ran into someone or injured himself and couldn't get back out.
              yup. he knew the place. this is not random.

              Yes, I agree that it had to be there. Why it had to be there, we'll never really know.
              [/QUOTE]

              I think I know
              "Is all that we see or seem
              but a dream within a dream?"

              -Edgar Allan Poe


              "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
              quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

              -Frederick G. Abberline

              Comment


              • I like it, I admire the cut of your jib ladies and gents and so I shall respond!

                Interesting thread, nothing has roused my interest so much in years. I like to think that there is indeed a possibility that these crimes are connected, but if you believe this to be the case, then I think you must also adhere to the possibility that the killer relied largely on circumstance.

                The first thing that leapt to my mind was the possibility that some of these crimes were committed when the killer had both time and privacy, while with others, this was obviously not the case. Perhaps when he had a fixed abode, or when he was alone at his place of work, so that he had time to do as he wished. Perhaps the Ripper crimes were committed during times when he had no such luxury?

                I do not think we should give too much thought to the 'random' dumping of body parts either, what seems random to us, may well be a part of the 'cunning' plan in a mind that we cannot comprehend. What Nilson said,“The corpse is the dirty platter after the feast”, is nearer to the mark in this case I think.

                For decades we have all been the victims of circumstance, hardly looking beyond five unfortunate women who met their end in the grimy streets of the East End. But what if Jack predated 1888 in his nefarious work, what if the very nature of his crimes were, in fact, dictated by his circumstances at the time he killed?

                That would, as you ladies and gentlemen have begun to realize, give us a very different breed of killer indeed. Very well done
                protohistorian-Where would we be without Stewart Evans or Paul Begg,Kieth Skinner, Martin Fido,or Donald Rumbelow?

                Sox-Knee deep in Princes & Painters with Fenian ties who did not mutilate the women at the scene, but waited with baited breath outside the mortuary to carry out their evil plots before rushing home for tea with the wife...who would later poison them of course

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Sox View Post
                  I like it, I admire the cut of your jib ladies and gents and so I shall respond!

                  Interesting thread, nothing has roused my interest so much in years. I like to think that there is indeed a possibility that these crimes are connected, but if you believe this to be the case, then I think you must also adhere to the possibility that the killer relied largely on circumstance.

                  The first thing that leapt to my mind was the possibility that some of these crimes were committed when the killer had both time and privacy, while with others, this was obviously not the case. Perhaps when he had a fixed abode, or when he was alone at his place of work, so that he had time to do as he wished. Perhaps the Ripper crimes were committed during times when he had no such luxury?

                  I do not think we should give too much thought to the 'random' dumping of body parts either, what seems random to us, may well be a part of the 'cunning' plan in a mind that we cannot comprehend. What Nilson said,“The corpse is the dirty platter after the feast”, is nearer to the mark in this case I think.

                  For decades we have all been the victims of circumstance, hardly looking beyond five unfortunate women who met their end in the grimy streets of the East End. But what if Jack predated 1888 in his nefarious work, what if the very nature of his crimes were, in fact, dictated by his circumstances at the time he killed?

                  That would, as you ladies and gentlemen have begun to realize, give us a very different breed of killer indeed. Very well done
                  I love you*

                  *platonic, of course. heheheeehe

                  (ive been saying this for years,,,im not crazy after all!)

                  BTW were does Sox come from?? m love?
                  Last edited by Abby Normal; 10-11-2017, 06:41 PM.
                  "Is all that we see or seem
                  but a dream within a dream?"

                  -Edgar Allan Poe


                  "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                  quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                  -Frederick G. Abberline

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                    I love you*

                    *platonic, of course. heheheeehe

                    (ive been saying this for years,,,im not crazy after all!)

                    BTW were does Sox come from?? m love?
                    It's actually my real life nickname, I'm English but have a life long baseball obsession
                    protohistorian-Where would we be without Stewart Evans or Paul Begg,Kieth Skinner, Martin Fido,or Donald Rumbelow?

                    Sox-Knee deep in Princes & Painters with Fenian ties who did not mutilate the women at the scene, but waited with baited breath outside the mortuary to carry out their evil plots before rushing home for tea with the wife...who would later poison them of course

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Sox View Post
                      It's actually my real life nickname, I'm English but have a life long baseball obsession
                      sos mine.

                      White sox or black sox?
                      "Is all that we see or seem
                      but a dream within a dream?"

                      -Edgar Allan Poe


                      "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                      quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                      -Frederick G. Abberline

                      Comment


                      • Do not even mention the word prank.That's looking for problems.
                        Did not miner's lamps exist then? the sort that could be worn on the head leaving the arms free.
                        As for discretion,I tend to start with the disposer indoors,all parcelled up,and deciding how and where and why he was going to do next.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                          Whatever you meant by that, I'm certainly not doing any of it. I'm certainly not championing Trevor's ideas, nor his approach for that matter.
                          Well, you know, Trevor is the foremost proponent out here for the torso series perhaps not having been committed by one man only, and for the idea that there is no reason to regard the cases as murders.

                          He used to be, at least. It seems you may be taking over, by the looks of things.

                          That´s just fine by me. Each to his own.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                            You continually minimise or deny the glaring differences between the Ripper and Torso cases and posit the equivalent of Ptolemaic epicycles to explain away anomalies that might threaten your view of the universe. That's what's "kind of sad" here, not anything I've posted.
                            I am at total liberty to make my own calls about the differences between the series, Gareth. Over the years, the take I speak for has gained more and more proponents - and traction.

                            You apparently don´t like that. You would seemingly prefer if there was nobody speaking for a view you dislike. That´s what I find sad.

                            You rule out the opposing view by claiming it to be nearly impossible and "the equivalent of Ptloemaic epicycles", and that is in line with your overall stance. In your world, there was never a cut in the Ripper series that had any underlying meaning, it is all just a mayhem that needs no other explanation than yours: "Maybe that was the Rippers idea of fun", as you put it.

                            Any idea that the killer was driven by something else than a wish to satisfy his need for fun is a mockery of the truth to you. The fact that many other serialists have had such driving forces is shoved aside as mumbo-jumbo.

                            By accident or by design? An easy enough question for you to answer: it is always by accident. The colon section lying beside Eddowes was just some accident where the killer was cutting away, and whoops, there went the colon, to hell with that one.

                            The fact that at least three victims in these series had sections of their colons removed is coincidental - who the xxxx would want to cut a colon out, and get shite over his hands? That would be stupid.

                            The fact that three of the victims had their abdominal walls removed in these series is inconsequential - that´s something slaughterers do every day, and as expected as how a pizzabaker cuts his pizzas. Consequentially, it is of no relevance at all.

                            No such things yeld a clue. There is no connection at all between the killers desires and urges, other than when it comes to how he is angry and wants to destroy. Suggesting that there is a ritualistic behavior involved is outright whacky. It´s always simpler than that, for the simple reason that it must be.

                            You are welcome to your view. That was never a problem. It´s usually a useful enough view, even - in many serial killing cases, it works eminently.

                            The problem arises when you try to stop others from championing their views, and want to diminish the value of what they are proposing by mocking and scorning them, telling them that their thinking is more or less moronic.

                            That is where the sad thing comes in.

                            I will not call you whacky. I will not call you a moron. The most damning thing I will call you is narrowminded and somewhat unpolished these days.

                            But I will stand very much by what I have said: the two series have so many things in common that it is beyond doubt that they must be regarded as having been perpetrated by one and the same man. Ask any police investigator and he or she will say the same thing.

                            I will also say that there is very clear evidence pointing to the exact same inspiration ground for the two series, an inspiration ground that must be regarded as having caused a ritualistic behaviour on the killer´s behalf in combination with the cutting he did.

                            I cannot say that this inspiration ground is the same as the motive - the driving force is something I have no fully shaped idea about. It may be as simple as a hatred for women, and it may be tied to experiences in the killers background - it almost always is.

                            I suggest that you treat those who disagree with you with a bit more respect, and you will find that you will get respect back. The moment you call my suggestions whacky again, however, I will feel much less inclined to provide that respect. Since I do not wish to turn the boards into a manure-throwing arena, I will try to stay away from any exchange with you in such a case.

                            It is therefore your choice.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                              Debs - as I explained, I did not say that the torso dumpings were discreet, but that this method of disposal was comparatively more discreet than the public eviscerations perpetrated by the Ripper. A perfectly reasonable statement to make.

                              Fisherman, either through a misunderstanding and/or through wilful misrepresentation, made it appear that I'd claimed that dumping body-parts in rivers is discreet in its own right, whereas I never made such a simplistic claim. I'd appreciate it, therefore, if folks didn't put the words "discreet" or "discreetly" in quotation marks, because it might make it look like I did.
                              Much as you may have THOUGHT that you used the word "comparatively", you did no such thing.

                              You wrote that when you look at the torso mans dumpings you see something that borders on the discreet. You did NOT write "comparing it to the Ripper".

                              Im fine with you having failed to put your idea in comprehensible writing.

                              I´m not fine with having it hinted at that I would wilfully misrepresent you.

                              The best way out of this is for you to say "Oh, I apparently did not write tht it was a comparison, but that was how I meant it", and it will all be cleared up, no grudges.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                                Gentlemen, gentlemen. Please.

                                For what it’s worth I admit that there are obvious differences and obvious similarities.

                                I just lean to the similarities, and either side has no claim to the truth, we simply don’t know. This is a great and interesting thread, let’s not let it devolve into a mudslinging fight.
                                Seconded. Doing my very best to be a good boy.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X