Practicality or madness?

[Fisherman]

You have now.

[John G]

dismember

[ dis-mem-ber ]SHOW IPA
SEE SYNONYMS FOR dismember ON THESAURUS.COM

---

verb (used with object)

1. to deprive of limbs; divide limb from limb: The ogre dismembered his victims before he ate them.
2. to divide into parts; cut to pieces; mutilate.

Yes, you're technically correct, although I haven't seen a murder described as a dismemberment crime with such a small level 9f dismemberment.

[Fisherman]

I cannot be any clearer than my last post. So Ill just have to assume you didn't read it. I never said you claimed a dozen eviserations ever, so stop posting that falsehood now...or be reported.You said the Torso Murders and The Ripper murders have a common element...one being eviscerations. That's 12 victims total. I pointed out accurately that only some Canonicals have that, so its not a link between the "series"...its a potential link between victims.

You make a claim, someone points out a flaw in it, and you then attack the person pointing that out and lie about what they said. My god... this is the most childish exchange Ive ever had with a grown up.

You made the claim, you were wrong not qualifying it, and now you've been outed as someone who posted incorrectly and is petulant and will fabricate something to discredit someone else. That's what you want?

Never ever accused you of claiming 12 were eviscerated, never, not once. So stop claiming it NOW..and consider yourself lucky youre lying about me from across the pond.

"3 canonicals were eviscerated. Just 3. Not a dozen victims, like you've espoused on other threads..."

You see, I am claiming nothing at all, Michael. The claiming is all on your behalf.

I have no wish to discredit anyone. I loathe anyone who does so without reason. Otherwise, we would not be having this discussion.

If you now post that you do not say that I have claimed that a dozen victims were eviscerated, thatīs fine. And correct. But to say that you have never said so is simply wrong. Whether it was down to an unlucky wording or not is not for me to say. I can only read what is posted. If you had written "3 canonicals were eviscerated. Just 3. And there were not a dozen victims, like you've espoused on other threads...", you would have been in the clear.

But you didnīt, did you?

Thatīs all there is to it. Try to be more careful in the future, and unfortunate matters like this will hopefully not taint the discussion.

PS. It of course also needs to be said that you cannot know whether there were a dozen victims or not, but thatīs another matter.

[Michael W Richards]

There is certainly madness in this thread, but its mostly from the author. Signing off on this one.

[Michael W Richards]

It is really very, very simple, Michael.

If anybody (regardless of how they relate to the stock market) can interpret "3 canonicals were eviscerated. Just 3. Not a dozen victims, like you've espoused on other threads..." as anything else than you saying that I would have claimed on other threads (plural) that a dozen victims were eviscerated, then let that anybody come forward and make his (or her) case.

For yourself, it is even easier: You have seen me claim on other threads (once again plural) that there was a dozen evisceration victims - or so you say. All you have to do to prove your case is to find one of those threads (plural), copy and paste and show us all where I said this.

It hastens somewhat though, because I want this out of the world; the sooner the better.

I cannot be any clearer than my last post. So Ill just have to assume you didn't read it. I never said you claimed a dozen eviserations ever, so stop posting that falsehood now...or be reported.You said the Torso Murders and The Ripper murders have a common element...one being eviscerations. That's 12 victims total. I pointed out accurately that only some Canonicals have that, so its not a link between the "series"...its a potential link between victims.

You make a claim, someone points out a flaw in it, and you then attack the person pointing that out and lie about what they said. My god... this is the most childish exchange Ive ever had with a grown up.

You made the claim, you were wrong not qualifying it, and now you've been outed as someone who posted incorrectly and is petulant and will fabricate something to discredit someone else. That's what you want?

Never ever accused you of claiming 12 were eviscerated, never, not once. So stop claiming it NOW..and consider yourself lucky youre lying about me from across the pond.

[John G]

Hi John
I think the ripper series is seven victims-the c5 plus tabram and Mackenzie and the torso series is the ones you mention although I have a little bit of doubt (not much) about tabram and the 73/74 torsos so My tally for the torsoripper would be 11-14 total victims.

which is right about average kills for a serial killer.

Hi Abby,

I would say that 11-14 victims was on the exceptionally high side. According to Radford University/FGCU Serial Killer Database in the 2010s only 13% killed 5 or more victims. To be fair for the 1900s 42% killed 5 or more, but even then I would have thought more than 10 would be very unusual.

These are US statistics though. My instinct is that Uk statistics would be considerably less

[Fisherman]

Did you lose all your money in the stock market, or have something catastrophic happen to a house pet Fisherman? This indignation seems extremely over the top, and misplaced since it was just posted that the Canonical Group...which you've said you buy into...and the Torsos,...which John pointed out number 7, not just the 4 I cited, total 12 murders. Just like I said....you do know a dozen is 12, right?

Misrepresenting what I say isn't going to make anyone an ally either, I never,ever said you stated there were a dozen eviscerations, not once .....but since you feel like posting that just the same, find me that quote since your being such an ass about this. FIND IT NOW, or retract all the crap you've accused me of. I have said you consider those injuries as common elements between the 2 series....., and I pointed out that in just the Canonical Group, (5 murders) alone... they are not.

I have said that you use "eviscerations" as a common element among the murders you want to group together, and I pointed out they are not a common element even in the Canonical Group alone.Read what is written.

I really don't care that you are throwing some porridge around, but you can stop blaspheming me without proof now please.

I said a dozen, The Canonical Group plus Torsos makes 12. I said you use eviscerations to cite common elements between the Ripper cases (which are assumed to be 5 victims), and the Torso....completely ignoring that the Canonical Group of Five are the Jack the Ripper murders. Not just the eviscerations with Jack the Rippers kills, (3), which you now claim you meant I suppose.

It is really very, very simple, Michael.

If anybody (regardless of how they relate to the stock market) can interpret "3 canonicals were eviscerated. Just 3. Not a dozen victims, like you've espoused on other threads..." as anything else than you saying that I would have claimed on other threads (plural) that a dozen victims were eviscerated, then let that anybody come forward and make his (or her) case.

For yourself, it is even easier: You have seen me claim on other threads (once again plural) that there was a dozen evisceration victims - or so you say. All you have to do to prove your case is to find one of those threads (plural), copy and paste and show us all where I said this.

It hastens somewhat though, because I want this out of the world; the sooner the better.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi John
I think the ripper series is seven victims-the c5 plus tabram and Mackenzie and the torso series is the ones you mention although I have a little bit of doubt (not much) about tabram and the 73/74 torsos so My tally for the torsoripper would be 11-14 total victims.

which is right about average kills for a serial killer.

That's what happens when speculation runs rampant. This is about predicting outcomes while just throwing dice, not about solving crimes.

Like I said to Fisherman, solve 1, then talk about 12 using what you learned from 1. As it is, no-one knows anything about the real killer because everyone throws dice about the length of a "series". It isn't a "series" until it is.

[Abby Normal]

There was actually 7 London Torso victims over that period. The 1873 and 1874 cases, 4 cases 1887-1889, and the 1884 Tottenham Torso. I believe Christer thinks all of these are, or maybe connected.

Hi John
I think the ripper series is seven victims-the c5 plus tabram and Mackenzie and the torso series is the ones you mention although I have a little bit of doubt (not much) about tabram and the 73/74 torsos so My tally for the torsoripper would be 11-14 total victims.

which is right about average kills for a serial killer.

[Michael W Richards]

And there we are - Michael Richards is unable to admit that he lied about me in post 356, and so I will until further notice regard him as being VERY loose with the truth. Which is a pity, and completely unneccessary.

The crap about me referring to how the eviscerations are important in establishing how many killers there likely were is a sorry excuse for an unforgiveable behaviour. Of course I regard the eviscerations as important in this regard, but that certainly does not mean that I would have "espoused on other threads" that there were a dozen evisceration murders!

What a sad rot this ripperology business becomes when posters lie and refuse to own up to it in retrospect. The one TRULY remarkable statement that can be made on eviscerations in the era we are researching is when Michael himself believes that the four established evisceration murders within the two series (Chapman, Eddowes, Kelly and Jackson) were perpetrated by four different eviscerators! And DO correct me if I am wrong, Michael, in which case I will do the right thing and correct myself and apologize to you.

If there is nothing else, be on your way, please. This is not what the boards are meant for.

Did you lose all your money in the stock market, or have something catastrophic happen to a house pet Fisherman? This indignation seems extremely over the top, and misplaced since it was just posted that the Canonical Group...which you've said you buy into...and the Torsos,...which John pointed out number 7, not just the 4 I cited, total 12 murders. Just like I said....you do know a dozen is 12, right?

Misrepresenting what I say isn't going to make anyone an ally either, I never,ever said you stated there were a dozen eviscerations, not once .....but since you feel like posting that just the same, find me that quote since your being such an ass about this. FIND IT NOW, or retract all the crap you've accused me of. I have said you consider those injuries as common elements between the 2 series....., and I pointed out that in just the Canonical Group, (5 murders) alone... they are not.

I have said that you use "eviscerations" as a common element among the murders you want to group together, and I pointed out they are not a common element even in the Canonical Group alone.Read what is written.

I really don't care that you are throwing some porridge around, but you can stop blaspheming me without proof now please.

I said a dozen, The Canonical Group plus Torsos makes 12. I said you use eviscerations to cite common elements between the Ripper cases (which are assumed to be 5 victims), and the Torso....completely ignoring that the Canonical Group of Five are the Jack the Ripper murders. Not just the eviscerations with Jack the Rippers kills, (3), which you now claim you meant I suppose.

[Fisherman]

"Serious discussion" eh...You have used the term "eviscerations" everytime you cite what you believe are similarities between the Ripper cases and the Torso cases Fisherman, but you've never quantified that comparative, so when I take you to take you to task on it, you now believe you can solicit apologies for comments based on that lack of attention to detail. Nope. If you say eviscerations, better state which those are, because the Canonical Group alone, which you have said you believe in, had just 3 of them.

Your lack of specificity offers the opportunity to have someone take you to task, so don't play victim, or superior scholar with me.

Eviscerations took place with a number of killings. When they are absent you can just ignore that. Accepting a linkage between some of an assumed group with another assumed group isn't proving anything.

And there we are - Michael Richards is unable to admit that he lied about me in post 356, and so I will until further notice regard him as being VERY loose with the truth. Which is a pity, and completely unneccessary.

The crap about me referring to how the eviscerations are important in establishing how many killers there likely were is a sorry excuse for an unforgiveable behaviour. Of course I regard the eviscerations as important in this regard, but that certainly does not mean that I would have "espoused on other threads" that there were a dozen evisceration murders!

What a sad rot this ripperology business becomes when posters lie and refuse to own up to it in retrospect. The one TRULY remarkable statement that can be made on eviscerations in the era we are researching is when Michael himself believes that the four established evisceration murders within the two series (Chapman, Eddowes, Kelly and Jackson) were perpetrated by four different eviscerators! And DO correct me if I am wrong, Michael, in which case I will do the right thing and correct myself and apologize to you.

If there is nothing else, be on your way, please. This is not what the boards are meant for.

[Michael W Richards]

Michael, I have no problems speaking of how I believe a common killer would have been responsible of around a dozen murders or so. That is not the issue here, and it never was.

The issue is that you claimed in post 356 that I have "espoused on other threads" that there were a dozen or so EVISCERATION victims. Here is the relevant part of that post:

"Again Fisherman....how many eviscerations are there, and how many other victims do you group based on those kills.

Spoiler alert....3 canonicals were eviscerated. Just 3. Not a dozen victims, like you've espoused on other threads..."

I donīt like these kinds of things. I like them even less when the ones posting them will not take responsibility for them. If I was to say that there were a dozen evisceration victims, I would look very ignorant and stupid. And I donīt like the idea of people thinking that I am either of those things. Itīs much the same as when somebody says that I beleive that one killer was responsible for every murder in victorian London. And one of the ones who have said such a thing is you, Michael.

These boards are meant for a serious discussion, and no serious discussion can be had when posters make false allegations like these. That is why I want you to retract them. I am even willing to word it for you:

"Oh, right, yes, I see now that it came out wrong. Of course you have never said that there were twelve evisceration murders in the period we discuss. My mistake, I will try not to repeat it. Sorry about that."

You see, it really is no harder than that. It stings for some little time, but frankly, the sting of not owning up to what we say should feel a lot worse.

"Serious discussion" eh...You have used the term "eviscerations" everytime you cite what you believe are similarities between the Ripper cases and the Torso cases Fisherman, but you've never quantified that comparative, so when I take you to take you to task on it, you now believe you can solicit apologies for comments based on that lack of attention to detail. Nope. If you say eviscerations, better state which those are, because the Canonical Group alone, which you have said you believe in, had just 3 of them.

Your lack of specificity offers the opportunity to have someone take you to task, so don't play victim, or superior scholar with me.

Eviscerations took place with a number of killings. When they are absent you can just ignore that. Accepting a linkage between some of an assumed group with another assumed group isn't proving anything.

[Michael W Richards]

There was actually 7 London Torso victims over that period. The 1873 and 1874 cases, 4 cases 1887-1889, and the 1884 Tottenham Torso. I believe Christer thinks all of these are, or maybe connected.

Ok....my talley was off, so that makes 12 murders that Fisherman thinks were by one man, and here I was accusing him of 12 victims.

[Fisherman]

You accept a Canonical Group theory..in that those Five women were killed by one man, you add to that the Torso murders, which started in 1873 and ran until 1899 comprising 4 victims, you cited eviscerations as something you use to group some women, so lets add Alice to that list...which makes it 10 now.

So my apologies if my exaggerated count misrepresented your actual Talley of 10.

Not one Canonical solved yet and you've simply doubled the run by one man anyway. Id say your off by at least 6.

Michael, I have no problems speaking of how I believe a common killer would have been responsible of around a dozen murders or so. That is not the issue here, and it never was.

The issue is that you claimed in post 356 that I have "espoused on other threads" that there were a dozen or so EVISCERATION victims. Here is the relevant part of that post:

"Again Fisherman....how many eviscerations are there, and how many other victims do you group based on those kills.

Spoiler alert....3 canonicals were eviscerated. Just 3. Not a dozen victims, like you've espoused on other threads..."

I donīt like these kinds of things. I like them even less when the ones posting them will not take responsibility for them. If I was to say that there were a dozen evisceration victims, I would look very ignorant and stupid. And I donīt like the idea of people thinking that I am either of those things. Itīs much the same as when somebody says that I beleive that one killer was responsible for every murder in victorian London. And one of the ones who have said such a thing is you, Michael.

These boards are meant for a serious discussion, and no serious discussion can be had when posters make false allegations like these. That is why I want you to retract them. I am even willing to word it for you:

"Oh, right, yes, I see now that it came out wrong. Of course you have never said that there were twelve evisceration murders in the period we discuss. My mistake, I will try not to repeat it. Sorry about that."

You see, it really is no harder than that. It stings for some little time, but frankly, the sting of not owning up to what we say should feel a lot worse.

[Fisherman]

Thanks for this. Unless I've got it wrong he only removed the hands and feet from the first victim. Not sure I'd classify that as a dismemberment, but I suppose it all comes down to definition.

dismember

[ dis-mem-ber ]SHOW IPA
SEE SYNONYMS FOR dismember ON THESAURUS.COM

---

verb (used with object)

1. to deprive of limbs; divide limb from limb: The ogre dismembered his victims before he ate them.
2. to divide into parts; cut to pieces; mutilate.