Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Same motive = same killer

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

  • Can we please not claim that the Torso killer "did all he could to obliterate his victims identities"? He left clothing that belonged to the victims with the police,
    Holy Christer this is like the "you don't know the know the torsos were murdered" but worse

    Comment


    • How many were actually identified?
      Regards

      Herlock






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

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
        How many were actually identified?
        Is this a rhetorical question? 1.

        Comment


        • I might have misunderstood your last but one post Rocky?

          I was responding to the suggestion that because he left some items of clothing he was not trying to 'obliterate' their identities. If he was trying to leave them identifiable he did a pretty poor job.
          Regards

          Herlock






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

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
            I might have misunderstood your last but one post Rocky?

            I was responding to the suggestion that because he left some items of clothing he was not trying to 'obliterate' their identities. If he was trying to leave them identifiable he did a pretty poor job.
            I thought that was what you meant. It seems like maybe the killer dismembering and dispersing remains was to put distance between the place she was last seen or would be reported missing from and where she ended up.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
              I would vote for the intact one when it comes to carrying - just fling it over your shoulder and that´s it.
              What? And risk detection?
              And it is of course easier to scatter a cut up body than a whole one, since whole bodies have to be cut up before you even can scatter them.
              Spot on. So the cutting up of the body has more to do with the practicalities of scattering it, than with any desire to create a "floating horror-show".
              What this has to do with anything else, however, I don´t know.
              It has to do with this: you're looking at this from the point of view of the discoverer(s) of the body; I'm looking at it from the point of view of the person who wants to dispose of the body. It's the latter who dumped it in the Thames.
              Kind regards, Sam Flynn

              "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                How many were actually identified?
                One of them, which goes to show that the killer did not do all he could to obliterate the identities of his vioctims. I think we both know that the number of identified women hinges on many factors. One key factor when people are not identified may well be that they are prostititutes, shunned by their own families and so nobody will come forward and identify them.
                The only thing we can do is to look at whether the killer left body marks intact, whether he allowed for possessions of the victims to be found, whether he succesfully made the bodies disappear and so on, and this killer was clearly lax in that department.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                  One of them, which goes to show that the killer did not do all he could to obliterate the identities of his vioctims. I
                  On the contrary, it shows that the police got lucky in only one out of a number of instances, and that the body dumpers did a pretty good job of anonymising their victims.

                  Had it not been for the scar on Jackson's wrist, the existence of which may not even have been known to her killer, her positive identification would have been made even more difficult, if not impossible.
                  Last edited by Sam Flynn; 10-15-2017, 12:39 AM.
                  Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                  "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                    One of them, which goes to show that the killer did not do all he could to obliterate the identities of his vioctims. I think we both know that the number of identified women hinges on many factors. One key factor when people are not identified may well be that they are prostititutes, shunned by their own families and so nobody will come forward and identify them.
                    The only thing we can do is to look at whether the killer left body marks intact, whether he allowed for possessions of the victims to be found, whether he succesfully made the bodies disappear and so on, and this killer was clearly lax in that department.
                    Fish can I suggest another hobby? Clearly you are not good at this one. I see a profitable future for you in wanking. You are regressing at a rate I've never seen before. The killer went to extreme lengths to hinder identification of his victims, and you say because 1 victim was identified he was clearly lax in that department? I'm not sure if you are just doing that "suspect book" kind of arguing where you just say whatever complete bullshit you can come up with to fit who you pretend the killer is or if you are really this out of touch with reality. It is beyond obvious the killer went to extreme lengths to prevent identification. The only victim who was identified was done so because of a different name than her own on her underwear. We've also tried to explain to you that you can't make a body disappear in this setting but you seem unable to come to terms with the truth.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                      On the contrary, it shows that the police got lucky in only one out of a number of instances, and that the body dumpers did a pretty good job of anonymising their victims.

                      Had it not been for the scar on Jackson's wrist, the existence of which may not even have been known to her killer, her positive identification would have been made even more difficult, if not impossible.
                      It's almost depressing at this point isn't it? His main argument is that the killer "didn't make bodies disappear". But he wasn't able to give any real example of what the killer could have done. Can you try to explain this to him, Sam? I'm talking to a can of sea chicken at this point. Surely fish can't really think that a bonfire in whitechapel would be a method the killer would use, or any of the other vague examples he gave such as "sack with rocks" ha ha.

                      Comment


                      • Sam Flynn: What? And risk detection?

                        But that was not what you asked. You asked whether an intact body or a body cut up in pieces is easiest to carry. So I answered that question. And now you are moving the goalposts in retrospect. That´s poor debating, Gareth, and you should know it.

                        Spot on. So the cutting up of the body has more to do with the practicalities of scattering it, than with any desire to create a "floating horror-show".

                        Oh no, no, no. You are oversimplifying things grotesquely. Jesus, Gareth, surely you are not THAT narrowminded?
                        Let me explain this to you in a bit more detail!

                        A killer who wants to get rid of a body CAN to that specific end decide that it is a good idea to cut the body up in pieces on order to be able to scatter it, yes.
                        But that is using one parameter only, which is not the way to go about these things at all.

                        You are proposing that the killer probably lived in the west. The logic is as simple as could be expected - the parts were seemingly dumped there.
                        Hey! That´s not a bad idea at all!
                        You are furthermore reasoning that the killer had a bolthole in the west where he probably killed and definitely cut up the victims. Same reason given - the parts were thrown in the river in the west. One more point for the Welsh home team!

                        So far - and based on the parameters given only - I agree! Two great and simple points, based on logic.

                        Now, over to the less logical matters involved here.

                        The picture that has emerged is one of a killer who has a bolthole at, say somewhere close to where the Wandle joins the Thames. Today, there is a small road called Smuggler´s Way down there, and that sounds so atmospheric that I suggest we place him there. It would provide him with a 100 yard walk down to the River, and we know that the police believed that the parts from the 1873 victim were thrown in the water around this very spot.

                        Now, if all things were simple and - as you say - spot on, we should expect the killer to dump all his parts from this spot, since this was where he lived, and it´s where he lives that governs where he dumps, right?

                        But what happens when we know that he suddenly started dumping from numerous other sites? Why would he dump from Albert Bridge, a couple of miles away? Because he did not want to give away where he lived? But if that is the case, why dump from where he lived in the first place?

                        Maybe he never DID live in Smuggler´s Way?

                        Maybe he NEVER dumped from where he lived?

                        But then what happens to the suggestions that he lived in the west?

                        And what if we look at the dumping in Regents Canal, at St Pancras Lock? It was some six miles from Smuggler´s Way, as the crow flies. But only three or four miles from Mitre Square!

                        So what is happening here? It seems the west end address of the killer is dissolved. It seems he chose a large number of dumping sites along the Thames, and that he was willing to travel some distance away from the Thames, to dump at St Pancras Close.

                        Unless, of course, he LIVED at St Pancras Close? That would be logical, since he dumped there. Or?

                        Conclusion: Most parts were dumped in the Thames, but the dumping sites chosen do not nearly allow us to conclude that he lived by the River. We only know he used the Thames. But he also used Regents Canal, New Scotland Yard, the Shelley Estate, Battersea Park and Pinchin Street. He therefore travelled all over London, but always kept the Thames in the overall picture.

                        My suggestion is that he did this because it was the best opportunity London offered to scatter his body parts throughout central London. If he wanted to scare people is written in the stars - he may just have wanted some sort of recognition. But that is the long and the short of it anyway.

                        We have come a long way from your simplistic killer now, Gareth. We have gone from a practical man, making things as simple as possible, to a man who did not make anything at all as simple as possible, who went to extreme lenghts, in fact, to dispose of his body parts, who is not known to actively have tried to weigh down a single one of his parcels, who got heaps of paper coverage for what he did when a weighing down could have ensured that not a syllable was written, and who is generally accepted as probably having wanted to make some sort of point when he carried a torso to the New Scotland Yard building and placed it there.

                        Plus we have the odd fact that one arm and one leg was ALSO found in the cellar vault, and these parts had almost certainly been in place there longer than the torso. That means that the killer will have sought out the vault twice, not once, making it even more probable that he ascribed a meaning to his choice of dumping site.

                        What was he doing there, three miles from Smuggler´s Way? Oh, right, we just decided that he may not have lived in Smugglers way - he lived close to St Pancras Lock. But St Pancras Lock is also a fair few miles away from Whitehall.
                        So maybe he lived in Whitehall? Yes, that must be it!

                        This killer was willing to travel all across London to have his work made public. If you want to make your work public and use the fact that the Thames will distribute body parts throughout central London, you had better do your dumping to the west. If you want to maximize the number of places where your parts can float ashore, then what you need to do is to dump in the west, but from different places and at different points of time.

                        Now, tell me again, what was it this killer did...?

                        It has to do with this: you're looking at this from the point of view of the discoverer(s) of the body; I'm looking at it from the point of view of the person who wants to dispose of the body. It's the latter who dumped it in the Thames.

                        As you will be aware of now, saying that the killer "dumped in the Thames" does not even begin to look at the whole picture. And not looking at the whole picture is the main reason for getting things wrong.
                        Last edited by Fisherman; 10-15-2017, 01:19 AM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                          On the contrary, it shows that the police got lucky in only one out of a number of instances, and that the body dumpers did a pretty good job of anonymising their victims.

                          Had it not been for the scar on Jackson's wrist, the existence of which may not even have been known to her killer, her positive identification would have been made even more difficult, if not impossible.
                          The point of the matter is that the killer could have made it impossible for the police to "get lucky". He could have abstained from using the clothing tied to the victim.

                          There is no way around that, I´m afraid. The reason the police "got lucky" was that they were diligent enough to realize that the clothing could help them ID the woman, and so they made the details of the clothing public.

                          To me, that is first class police work.

                          To you, it is luck.
                          Last edited by Fisherman; 10-15-2017, 01:14 AM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by RockySullivan View Post
                            Fish can I suggest another hobby? Clearly you are not good at this one. I see a profitable future for you in wanking. You are regressing at a rate I've never seen before. The killer went to extreme lengths to hinder identification of his victims, and you say because 1 victim was identified he was clearly lax in that department? I'm not sure if you are just doing that "suspect book" kind of arguing where you just say whatever complete bullshit you can come up with to fit who you pretend the killer is or if you are really this out of touch with reality. It is beyond obvious the killer went to extreme lengths to prevent identification. The only victim who was identified was done so because of a different name than her own on her underwear. We've also tried to explain to you that you can't make a body disappear in this setting but you seem unable to come to terms with the truth.
                            The rest of you are welcome to join Rocky in his debating techniques, if you wish.

                            My own take is that posts like this one do not deserve to be posted at any public forum at all.

                            Rocky, shape up and you can parttake in the discussion out here to the full. Otherwise, there are arenas that are more suited for the kind of libellous slander you are posting here.

                            I don´t think that you should speak of a "we" by the way, since I am sure that much as other posters also disagree with me, they will actually feel ashamed about how you go about trying to word your frustration. Embarrased on your behalf, as it were.

                            If anybody disagrees, I´d like to hear it. Should we call other posters braindead and wankers and wish them dead beause they do not agree with us? Or should we argue our cases with other means?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                              The point of the matter is that the killer could have made it impossible for the police to "get lucky". He could have abstained from using the clothing tied to the victim.
                              Indeed, but why should he have done so necessarily? Kill, dismember, scatter, dump - job done. At least the body wasn't lying around in the killer's house, garden shed or whatever.
                              There is no way around that, I´m afraid. The reason the police "got lucky" was that they were diligent enough to realize that the clothing could help them ID the woman, and so they made the details of the clothing public.

                              To me, that is first class police work.

                              To you, it is luck.
                              Indeed, first class police work, but they were lucky on this one occasion that they were fortunate enough to have something to go on, and even that could very easily have led nowhere.
                              Last edited by Sam Flynn; 10-15-2017, 01:24 AM.
                              Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                              "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                              Comment


                              • Sam Flynn: Indeed, but why should he have done so necessarily? Kill, dismember, scatter, dump - job done. At least the body wasn't lying around in the killer's house, garden shed or whatever.

                                He should have done so to disenable the police to "get lucky". That was the whole point of the argument, and the one and only thing we were discussing, was it not? I pointed out to you that the police did a sterling job tracking Jacksons identity down with the aid of the clothing left with the body parts, whereas you thought it only amounted to "getting lucky".

                                Indeed, first class police work, but they were lucky on this one occasion that they were fortunate enough to have something to go on. It could very easily have led nowhere.

                                Once again, what are you trying to do? Persuade me that leaving named clothing with body aprts from a murdered woman is no big deal? And now you are changing the tune to saying that the police "were fortunate"? Once again, the police do not sit back and rely on fortune to do their work for them. They research whatever clues a killer is dumb/careless/indifferent enough to leave, and that go to prove beyond any doubt at all that he has NOT done all he could to obliterate the identity of the woman.
                                Shall we go on with other wordings about this, or can we now agree that the killer goofed up? And that luck and fortune had nothing to do with the police solving the identity of Jackson - that it was instead good, solid police work that did the trick?
                                Your reasoning is very backwards - he did all he could to obliterate the identities, and if he didn´t, then it was simply bad luck on his behalf and good luck on the police´s end that it was cleared up.
                                With that kind of reasoning, either you win or I loose.
                                Last edited by Fisherman; 10-15-2017, 01:32 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X