Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Same motive = same killer

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

  • Elamarna: Christer we still do not agree on this issue of "Flaps". I doubt unless there is new evidence we ever will.

    So please don't claim it is "conclusive evidence" because for others it is not.

    I´m afraid I cannot honour that request. It is the exact kind of evidence that would be used to put a case beyond reasonable doubt. It goes without saying that it COULD be two killers who got the same weird idea into their heads, but legally speaking, I believe such a suggestion would not appeal to a jury at all.

    I know some posters I deeply respect agree with you, no matter.
    Say that "you beleive it's conclusive" but at least aknowledge that others strongly disagree and that some of those views are not a knee jerk reaction.

    I know others disagree. The thing is, they can´t actually disagree about the evidence as such, since they have never seen it. Nor have I. What they disagree about is my assertion that no matter the shape or size of the flaps, it nevertheless remains that the practice as such - to cut away the abdominal wall in a few large flaps - is enough to put the case beyond resonable doubt.
    They - and you - are welcome to disagree, but I would like to see what a seasoned attorney had to say about it.

    Anyway we have debated this many times and I see no need to replay that over Ah a.
    I find the thread good reading and it must be one of the fastest growing threads ever?

    That could well be.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Harry D View Post
      Fisherman, Mr Richards doesn't even believe the Ripper series was the work of one killer, good luck convincing him that the same man did the Torsos!
      When the going gets tough, the tough get going. I always loved a tough challenge. Plus I have a soft spot for Michael, who is a very nice guy. That should make for a useful debate, and I already have my next move planned...

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
        What they disagree about is my assertion that no matter the shape or size of the flaps, it nevertheless remains that the practice as such - to cut away the abdominal wall in a few large flaps - is enough to put the case beyond resonable doubt.
        Who said anything about LARGE flaps? The only one who fits into that category is Mary Kelly.

        As a thought-experiment, substitute "corpse" for "orange", and "removal of abdominal flaps" with "peeling". How many different ways of peeling an orange are there? If you were to find two partly-peeled oranges, both of which had had some of the skin peeled off in segments with a knife, would you think that it was beyond doubt that the same person peeled them?

        NB: you found the fruit in a densely populated city, with one orange found in one district, and the other in a different borough 12 miles away.
        Kind regards, Sam Flynn

        "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
          Elamarna: Christer we still do not agree on this issue of "Flaps". I doubt unless there is new evidence we ever will.

          So please don't claim it is "conclusive evidence" because for others it is not.

          I´m afraid I cannot honour that request. It is the exact kind of evidence that would be used to put a case beyond reasonable doubt. It goes without saying that it COULD be two killers who got the same weird idea into their heads, but legally speaking, I believe such a suggestion would not appeal to a jury at all.

          I know some posters I deeply respect agree with you, no matter.
          Say that "you beleive it's conclusive" but at least aknowledge that others strongly disagree and that some of those views are not a knee jerk reaction.

          I know others disagree. The thing is, they can´t actually disagree about the evidence as such, since they have never seen it. Nor have I. What they disagree about is my assertion that no matter the shape or size of the flaps, it nevertheless remains that the practice as such - to cut away the abdominal wall in a few large flaps - is enough to put the case beyond resonable doubt.
          They - and you - are welcome to disagree, but I would like to see what a seasoned attorney had to say about it.

          Anyway we have debated this many times and I see no need to replay that over Ah a.
          I find the thread good reading and it must be one of the fastest growing threads ever?

          That could well be.
          May I be truly cinical and suggest that the legal profession and truth are often entirely different matters.



          Steve

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
            May I be truly cinical and suggest that the legal profession and truth are often entirely different matters.
            Steve
            You may! That is, if I am allowed to be truly rational and say that verdicts worded "beyond reasonable doubt" will have many, many years of knowledge, experience and practice behind them, handed down over centuries of studies of human behavior.

            We are not talking about law-wringing here, Steve.

            Comment


            • [QUOTE=Sam Flynn;432459]Who said anything about LARGE flaps? The only one who fits into that category is Mary Kelly.

              You may by now have noticed that Jacksons flaps were described as large by Hebbert. So the answer to your question is that - Hebbert did.

              As a thought-experiment, substitute "corpse" for "orange", and "removal of abdominal flaps" with "peeling".

              No, thank you. This is not a question of oranges - or pizzas. It is a question of something very, very rare as opposed to something very, very common. I find the comparisons totally unrealistic and misleading.

              How many different ways of peeling an orange are there? If you were to find two partly-peeled oranges, both of which had had some of the skin peeled off in segments with a knife, would you think that it was beyond doubt that the same person peeled them?

              If you found two dead women in the same city with their abdominal walls cut away in flaps, would you say "Oh, women are killed by the millions by millions of killers in this town every year, and they all cut away the abdomen in flaps because that is how you get into a womans innards, so anybody could have done this"?

              That, my friend, is what your oranges and pizzas amount to. That is how relevant your comparison is. And if you try apples or Danish pastry the next time, please be adviced that you will be equally quickly revealed.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                Nilsen did not burn the bodies in his backyard, but instead on common ground in direct proximity to his lodgings. I absolutely fail to see why Lechmere or anybody else could not have made a bonfire, and fed it with whatever they chose to. Either in his backyard or somewhere else.

                The notion that it would be impossible is totally untenable. It would carry risks, but so would any discarding of body parts. It´s anybodys choice, but burning bodies is an age-old method, employed in every civilization throughout history.
                Fish, how do you fail to see? Are you blind as a goddamn bat dude? The killer was excellent at dumping parts discreetly and without being seen. The opposite of setting up a ******* bonfire.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by RockySullivan View Post
                  Fish, how do you fail to see? Are you blind as a goddamn bat dude? The killer was excellent at dumping parts discreetly and without being seen. The opposite of setting up a ******* bonfire.
                  You do not have to be that gracious and acknowledging, Rocky.

                  Incidentally, what we were discussing was whether the suggestion of a bonfire was plausible as an alternative for making bodies go away. That has nothing at all to do with how excellent the killer was or was not when it comes to dumping parts discreetly. We all know he chose that way to do it, but the discussion was one of alternative methods.

                  I like you too, by the way.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                    You do not have to be that gracious and acknowledging, Rocky.

                    Incidentally, what we were discussing was whether the suggestion of a bonfire was plausible as an alternative for making bodies go away. That has nothing at all to do with how excellent the killer was or was not when it comes to dumping parts discreetly. We all know he chose that way to do it, but the discussion was one of alternative methods.

                    I like you too, by the way.
                    Fish, I was trying to explain it's not feasible to make a body disappear in the urban areas. You used bonfire as an example that it isn't. I thought we were talking about realistic ways to make a body disappear. It's possible to just leave the body under the bed. But it's not an efficient way to get rid of a body. So no a bonfire wouldn't work in a place like whitechapel.

                    Comment


                    • RockySullivan: Fish, I was trying to explain it's not feasible to make a body disappear in the urban areas.

                      I am aware of that. It was precisely therefore I brought up Dennis Nilsen as an example of somebody who was of another opinion - and acted upon it.

                      You used bonfire as an example that it isn't.

                      I actually listed three different ways that the torso killer COULD have used as an alternative way of disposing of his victims, all three methods being more efficient in making the body parts disappear from sight than the method the torso killer used.

                      I thought we were talking about realistic ways to make a body disappear, not any possible way under the sun.

                      A bonfire was realistic enough for Nilsen. And I assure you that many, many people have disappeared under the surface of the Thames on account of having been dumped and weighted down successfully. What you need to do is to read up on these matters; how have killers gone about disposing of their victims over the years? Did Christie feel he had to dismember and dump the bodies he wanted to get rid of? No, he placed them in the walls or dug them down. How did Fred West go about it? He dug them down. People have been placed under floorboards, under slabs of stone in the garden, under a layer of concrete in the cellar - you name it. There are many, many ways to dispose of a body that does not require you to dismember it and float it down the Thames, giving away what has transpired.

                      It's possible to just leave the body under the bed. But it's not an efficient way to get rid of a body.

                      It´s not getting rid of a body at all. It is keeping it. Like Dahmer did in Milwaukee, for example.

                      And I still like you!
                      Last edited by Fisherman; 10-12-2017, 11:47 AM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by RockySullivan View Post
                        Fish, I was trying to explain it's not feasible to make a body disappear in the urban areas. You used bonfire as an example that it isn't. I thought we were talking about realistic ways to make a body disappear. It's possible to just leave the body under the bed. But it's not an efficient way to get rid of a body. So no a bonfire wouldn't work in a place like whitechapel.
                        Hi Rocky
                        torsoman had his own place and obviously knew how to cut up a body. If he really wanted to make the victim disappear he could have.

                        Just cut them up more into smaller pieces, carry them to the river and dump it in-fish food.

                        speaking of fires-since torso had his own place he more than likely had a fireplace. just get a big fire going and burn them.
                        "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


                        • The Ripper was smart, if he lived anywhere like Whitechapel he wouldn't a bonfire, wouldn't weight down. Let's point out one thing about Dennis Nilsen ok, he got caught.

                          He wouldn't burn bodies and wouldn't anchor the parts down because he was good at disposal.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                            Hi Rocky
                            torsoman had his own place and obviously knew how to cut up a body. If he really wanted to make the victim disappear he could have.

                            Just cut them up more into smaller pieces, carry them to the river and dump it in-fish food.

                            speaking of fires-since torso had his own place he more than likely had a fireplace. just get a big fire going and burn them.
                            I really think people don't get how hard it is to make a body disappear. Fish food is another not efficient option. Clearly there was a limited time the torso ripper could keep the victims as they were quickly dismembered and disposed of before they could smell too strongly.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by RockySullivan View Post
                              The Ripper was smart, if he lived anywhere like Whitechapel he wouldn't a bonfire, wouldn't weight down. Let's point out one thing about Dennis Nilsen ok, he got caught.

                              He wouldn't burn bodies and wouldn't anchor the parts down because he was good at disposal.
                              He was much better at disposal than at hiding what he had done, though.

                              And Nilsen did not get caught on account of the bonfire that turned six people to cinder and ash - he got caught when clogging up the toilet in his house.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                                There are many, many ways to dispose of a body that does not require you to dismember it and float it down the Thames, giving away what has transpired.

                                Killed used smart methods and didn't get caught unlike the bad example you gave. Ripper victims were killed to minimize time spent with dead body and eliminate risk associated with storing, dismemberment and disposal. NOT for some stupid public shock art project

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X