Originally posted by John G
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Same motive = same killer
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
-
Originally posted by RockySullivan View PostYou go through all the trouble of dismembering, spreading her parts all over and you are very focused on her private parts but you don't notice the underwear has L.E. Fisher written in it?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Fisherman View PostWhat did the medicos mean by flaps? That is the question - I did not invent the word, I use the same vocabulary as the medicos did. And they referred to sections of the abdominal wall.
I think I was the first person, many years ago, to draw attention to the "three flap" being a common factor in the Chapman and Kelly murders, and I kind of wish I'd kept my gob shut At any rate, I'm now less inclined to read much significance into this, especially in light of the fact that Eddowes' abdomen was opened more-or-less by a single incision, and that Nichols' abdomen had so many cuts that, had the killer taken it much further, we might have found four, five or more flaps being detached in her case.Kind regards, Sam Flynn
"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sam Flynn View PostBut what happened to the torso victims before they were dismembered and dumped? They might have been repeatedly raped or otherwise abused for a considerable time before their killers' purposes were served - that's what often happens in these cases. That would be a vastly different motive to those of the Whitechapel murderers. (Notice that I'm using plurals.)
The torso killers victims tell the same story as Jacks victims in this respect - neither man was a sadist, and both men made quick business of starting to cut after death.
If there was abuse, there would be signs of abuse. If there was torture it would show. It does not, so your suggestion has to remain a totally unsubstatiated one.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by John G View PostBut this is to ignore the fact that other body parts, including lungs, were removed from the Torso victims.
Whichever way we look at this, we are stuck with two murder series, where we in BOTH cases have removal of both sexually oriented and non-sexually oriented organs.
If you demand that the exact same organs must be taken away in the exact same fashion in every case, we are left with a series of single murders that all differ. We are left with no Ripper and no torso killer.
I think we must accept that the one and only clincher to look for is whether there are any truly odd ingredients present in BOTH series. And we DO have victims in both series having their rings taken from their fingers. We DO have victims in both series losing sections of their colons. And we DO have victims in both series having their abdominal walls removed in large flaps.
That puts the shared identity beyond reasonable doubt in my eyes.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Fisherman View PostIf there was abuse, there would be signs of abuse. If there was torture it would show. It does not, so your suggestion has to remain a totally unsubstatiated one.
Oh, and by the way, it's perfectly possible that they were tied up and used as a sex slave without any additional torture being necessary.Last edited by Sam Flynn; 10-09-2017, 04:33 AM.Kind regards, Sam Flynn
"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sam Flynn View PostIf the torso killers had their own premises (whether private residence or secure bolt-hole), why go to someone else's residence in the first place? Why take such a risk?
Originally posted by Sam Flynn View PostThat doesn't answer the second part of the problem, namely why someone so practised with the knife, as seen in the other torso murders, would make such a complete dog's-dinner of butchering Mary Kelly. (Or Eddowes, Chapman and Nichols for that matter.)
Comment
-
Originally posted by John G View PostSo you're giving precedence to a doctor who didn't even examine any of the victims, over Drs Philips and Bond, who both saw Torso and JtR victims but did not think the same killer was responsible.
By the way, I disagree that all evisceration cases are offensive mutilations. In respect of the Torso cases we're dealing with dismemberment victims, who's body parts were removed as part of the disposal process.
Gareth tells us that Dennis Nilsen took out the viscera to facilitate disposal. What he forgot to say is that Nilsen cut "his" victims up in miniscule parts, so as to be able to flush them down his toilet - it was when it clogged up he got caught.
That kind of removal of viscera is consistent with a defensive dismemberment - carving out the uterus without having to to enable disposal, is effectively not.
Comment
-
Originally posted by John G View PostSo you're giving precedence to a doctor who didn't even examine any of the victims, over Drs Philips and Bond, who both saw Torso and JtR victims but did not think the same killer was responsible.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View PostHas there ever been another serial murderer who used 2 completely different methods of disposal/display? I mean 2 clear consistent methods?
1. Kills in the street (MJK apart) and leaves the bodies on display in a twisted sexual pose.
2. Kills indoors, dismembers with skill, packages the body parts, dumps them.
Couldn't the fact that body parts were missing from the Torso's possibly suggest that they were used for medical experimentation (seeing as the cuts were apparently so professionally done?)
At the moment, for me, the two differences that I mention above trump all else by a mile. I just don't see the same man.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sam Flynn View PostAnd, furthermore, having hit upon the infinitely "safer" and sure-fire method of dismemberment and disposal at leisure, why would he suddenly engage in a brief flurry of hugely risky open-air attacks?
When Ted Bundy fled - why did he not go to Mexico and go into hiding? That would have been smarter than it was to kill in the US again, would it not? Why bite one of his victims in the buttock, leaving his toothmarks to send him to the electric chair? Dumb, eh?
Serial killers have over and over again witnessed about how they get to feel invincible, undetectable, God or whatever. We should learn from that.
Why did Kürten use so many different methods to kill, if he had found a working one? Why return to old methods?
Of course it is not to be expected that killers do these kinds of things - but they do nevertheless. And WHEN they do, how fortunate that they sometimes leave traces like cut away abdominal flaps, allowing us to follow their tracks!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Fisherman View PostGareth tells us that Dennis Nilsen took out the viscera to facilitate disposal. What he forgot to say is that Nilsen cut "his" victims up in miniscule parts, so as to be able to flush them down his toilet - it was when it clogged up he got caught.Kind regards, Sam Flynn
"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Comment
-
Originally posted by Fisherman View PostGiven that serialists with a large number of victims under their belt tend to get more and more cautious, that´s a great point (warning: irony).Kind regards, Sam Flynn
"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Comment
Comment