Same motive = same killer

[Sam Flynn]

I also think that you need not emphasize BOTH the way you did.

I was on my phone, which somewhat restricts my options when it comes to FORMATTING.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrggggggggghhhhhhhhhhh?

Just to make it clear, when I type that, it's not for the fun of it - it's because I suffer badly from stress, and your confrontational, hectoring style causes me genuine physical pain. I'm not making it up.

[Fisherman]

Don't presume to know what I think about Debs. I hold her in high regard, and I greatly value her contributions.

Doing it again, are you? Once more, sit back and ask yourself: Have I said that I presume to know what you think about Debra?

The answer is no.

You yourself do however think that the suggestion of a shared identity is blaha-blaha, judging by your desparaging comments.

And Debra does not think the same.

You compared me to a list of charlatan Ripper writers, and I believe I am in my full right to refute that. Telling you that I was speaking of people like Debra when I spoke of giants, and pointing to how you seemingly differ totally from her take on things becomes very relevant at that stage.

Claiming that I somehow know what you think of Debra never was relevant at all.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: I was on my phone, which somewhat restricts my options when it comes to FORMATTING.

So that too was "collateral damage"? Just like the lost flesh from the Tottenham womans thigh?

Fine. As long as you admit that taking the flesh from one thigh is very much the same thing as taking it from two.

Just to make it clear, when I type that, it's not for the fun of it - it's because I suffer badly from stress, and your confrontational, hectoring style causes me genuine physical pain. I'm not making it up.

As opposed to your non-confrontational, non-insulting style? Much as you have made (the wrongful) point "He started it!", pointing a finger at me, I know from own experiences that you are ready to surface repeatedly whenever I post out here, and it often seems you do so to try to taunt and scorn.
Others - if anybody would be perversely interested in such a thing - may wish to judge what is hen and what is egg here. I can only work from what I see and feel.
To me, you were always the type of person who was helpful and kind - but that all changed when I decided on Lechmere being the only really good bid for the Ripper´s role. Since then, I have had barrels of **** poured over me, and you have sadly been helpful in that project.

Such things will irreversibly shape people. I know it has shaped me - I never expect an honest weighing of things, and I know that I will be attacked on all levels, including personal ones, when I give my view on things. I dare say that many people would have left Ripperology on the whole after having been subjected to what I have been subjected to, but I am not willing to give in to the lynch mob mentality that many times surfaces out here (expect a poster or two to chime in here and say "I you can´t take the heat, get out of the kitchen, sissy!")

I have no wish to cause anybody physical harm, so it saddens me to hear about your problems. But if we are to debate nicely, it will take an effort from BOTH sides. I´m very fine with the idea - it would be a nice change.

[Sam Flynn]

Doing it again, are you? Once more, sit back and ask yourself: Have I said that I presume to know what you think about Debra?

The answer is no.

The answer is "yes", a mere post or two ago.

I was more thinking of people like Debra Arif, who is very open to the suggestion of a shared identity. Little does she know that it makes her a laughing stock in your eyes.

[Sam Flynn]

As opposed to your non-confrontational, non-insulting style? I know from own experiences that you are ready to surface repeatedly whenever I post out here, and it often seems you do so to try to taunt and scorn.

I'm pointing out what I believe are flaws and/or weaknesses in arguments, as I would in similar instances, irrespective of who's putting those arguments forward. I usually manage to keep to the argument (e.g. preferring to use "it" rather than "you"), but it's tricky to do so consistently if people get on their high horse.

But if we are to debate nicely, it will take an effort from BOTH sides. I´m very fine with the idea - it would be a nice change

Agreed.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: Agreed.

Good. Let´s give it a try! And I cannot ride, so I have little use for any horse, high or low.

A thought: If we are to be nice, then maybe we should not begin by discussing horses?

[Michael W Richards]

On that note, since there is absolutely no way to determine what circumstances existed in the killings of the Torso murder cases, its impossible to know what the motivations were for those killings. The thread premise is after all is Why the women were killed. We have lots of circumstantial evidence in the case of The Canonicals to help along the way..although its often ignored due to preconceived theories.

[Fisherman]

On that note, since there is absolutely no way to determine what circumstances existed in the killings of the Torso murder cases, its impossible to know what the motivations were for those killings. The thread premise is after all is Why the women were killed. We have lots of circumstantial evidence in the case of The Canonicals to help along the way..although its often ignored due to preconceived theories.

We cannot know the motivation for either series, Michael. The thread aims to look at whether the similarities in the two series allow for an interpretation of just the one killer - which it does, although not all agree.

Once we work from the presumption of just the one killer, we also need to work from the presumption of the same motive.

To be fair, of course, I stated early on that the thread was misnamed. The name should have been "Same inspiration grounds - same killer". This on account of how I think we are looking at a common ground of inspiration behind how the dead bodies were treated. However, a common inspiration ground must of course not be the same thing as the motive.

[Sam Flynn]

This on account of how I think we are looking at a common ground of inspiration behind how the dead bodies were treated.

This would, presumably, be the idea that the intention was to shock? If that was the intention, then doesn't that equate to the motive, or at least part of it?

Leaving the psychology to one side, the mechanics of what happened to the bodies is that the torso victims were decapitated, sawn/chopped into multiple pieces, taken away from where they were murdered to be scattered in water and/or land. The Ripper victims were cut open and left where they were killed.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: This would, presumably, be the idea that the intention was to shock? If that was the intention, then doesn't that equate to the motive, or at least part of it?

I don´t think the primary intention was to shock, Gareth. As I said, I believe that there is a ritualistic element involved, and ritualistic elements are private affairs. I do, however, think that it looks like the perpetrator realized that there was a shock value to what he did, and that this made him embark on that train to some degree.

I am not saying that there may not be a clear coupling between inspiration ground and motive; there may well be. I am simply realizing that if this is NOT the case - and it need not be - then I have nailed my colours to the mast prematurely.

Leaving the psychology to one side, the mechanics of what happened to the bodies is that the torso victims were decapitated, sawn/chopped into multiple pieces, taken away from where they were murdered to be scattered in water and/or land. The Ripper victims were cut open and left where they were killed.

True enough (although you are forgetting that the torso victims were also opened up in a number of cases) - and both types serve well for what I have in mind. But I do think that the dismemberment was divided up in elements that were important to the ritual and purely practical cutting/dismembering. In other words, I think the Torso man used the bodies he aquired to do ritualistically led on cutting, which did not have to involve all parts of the body at all times. I have said before that I think that the reason that the 1873 victim was partly dismembered by neat disarticulation at some joints but by sawing at others is a very good example of how some cuts were tied to the ritual whereas others were not.

And yes, I can totally see if you think this sounds as whacky psychobabble, as you sometimes word it. I can only ask you to have some faith in me. I know that I have a strong case, I can say that much.

[Kattrup]

I am simply realizing that if this is NOT the case - and it need not be - then I have nailed my colours to the mast prematurely.

To nail one’s colours to the mast means (in this context) to display one’s beliefs openly.

Since you do not wish to reveal your theory about a common inspiration for both Torso and Ripper, it would seem the phrase is ill-fitting?

[Fisherman]

To nail one’s colours to the mast means (in this context) to display one’s beliefs openly.

Since you do not wish to reveal your theory about a common inspiration for both Torso and Ripper, it would seem the phrase is ill-fitting?

You probably misunderstood it all, Kattrup. I do not wish to say that I know that inspiration ground and motive are the same or overlap for the simple reason that I am not sure about the motive. I thought I was very clear about that? Meaning that if I did nevertheless DID say that there is a correlation, then I will prematurely have nailed my colours to the mast, since if it was later shown that there WAS no correlation between inspiration ground and motive, I would have been proven wrong. What is written on an internet forum never goes away - exegi monumentum aere perennius...

Nailing your colours to the mast means (in this context) to openly declare having knowledge about something. Since I do not know that I have that knowledge - and I am speaking about knowledge about the motive - I won´t declare that I do.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Fisherman,

We cannot know the motivation for either series, Michael. The thread aims to look at whether the similarities in the two series allow for an interpretation of just the one killer - which it does, although not all agree.

I would suggest old friend that we have circumstantial evidence, as I said last post, in some of the cases within the Canonical Group. That can often lead the way to a possible motive. We have 2 women that had just ended close relationships, 1 that seems to have a relationship that is not as close as portrayed by witnesses, 1 that is a woman who cleans "among the Jews", and is among the Jews at a Jewish club that had a large meeting and likely had large cleaning needs...dressed with a flower on her breast, and with mints in her hand.,...... and we have a victim killer while in her own bed undressed. None of those seem obviously to have fallen to a flap maker by default.

Once we work from the presumption of just the one killer, we also need to work from the presumption of the same motive.

Then I suggest we don't do that. Too presumptuous.

However, a common inspiration ground must of course not be the same thing as the motive

Agreed.

[Fisherman]

Michael!

We can discuss the viablity of suggested motives in absurdum, and we will never agree. So it would - at least to a degree - be time wasted.

The evidence of a single killer is overwhelming, so although we may not be able to discuss an overriding motive, I myself am convinced that such a creature is there.

[Sam Flynn]

The evidence of a single killer is overwhelming.

Not sure we share that view, Fish. I'd say that the evidence linking the JTR/torso series is rather tenuous, and there are many important differences.