Practicality or madness?

[Abby Normal]

And have a look: you finally get a little something right: Yes, Mary was not dismembered becasue the killer chose not to do so. However, as I have shown before, several killers have dismembered some victims while leaving others in one piece. In youyr world, that means that these killers suffered from severe szhizophrenia, I take it? Or amnesia, forgetting that they must dismember, perhaps?
Once again, you are being silly, uninformed and arrogant to top it off. It cannot dissolve the similarities, I´m afraid. And they will ALWAYS rule the day, when they are of the kind of character we are looking at here.

exactly fish-good post
I would just add if they were the same man, and his chop shop was not available and or he wanted to up the thrill factor, and thus decided to kill in the streets, then not dismembering could also be for the simple fact that it is not practical and of course riskier-he wouldn't really be able to safely carry around a saw, dismember in the open and carry limbs or a head away.

The urge is still there to cut up women yet the killers circs change. and he adapts. its not rocket science.

[Michael W Richards]

And have a look: you finally get a little something right: Yes, Mary was not dismembered becasue the killer chose not to do so. However, as I have shown before, several killers have dismembered some victims while leaving others in one piece. In youyr world, that means that these killers suffered from severe szhizophrenia, I take it? Or amnesia, forgetting that they must dismember, perhaps?
Once again, you are being silly, uninformed and arrogant to top it off. It cannot dissolve the similarities, I´m afraid. And they will ALWAYS rule the day, when they are of the kind of character we are looking at here.

On this bit above Fisherman, people who kill have compulsions, they do not change. If at any time a killer sought to dismember..had compulsions to do so, when presented with a perfect opportunity to do so, he will do again. There are no similarities other than both acts were committed indoors.

Now, on the bits you enclosed in my quote...
1.The killer may have dismembered over a period of days, ergo, he already had a place to leave the body. There is no compelling urgency there.
2.The parts dispersal was to make id difficult if not impossible, there is not one Canonical victim aside from Mary where that notion is present.
3.Telling me what other killers do and did is ineffective argumentation, and proves nothing. This Ripper man wasn't them.
4. Telling me that a comment of a "brazen killer" in the case of the Ripper murders is supposition is beyond ludicrous, and makes me understand how twisted this belief of yours had made your perspectives. Its a proven fact, not supposition Fisherman.
5. You keep saying "similarities", so you understand reality, there are no similarities between the Torso murders and the alleged Ripper murders other than the city they occurred in.
6. When you find a serial killer that kills very specifically 2 or 3 times you don't use multiple method killers as a comparative. Not much beyond common sense there.

You call me arrogant,...what tripe. You are the one telling people that dissimilar acts are similar because you say so, that all data gleaned from any murder since that supports any part of your wacky thesis is valid, and that the least probable is the most probable because you find it appears that way.

The facts are...there were Torso murders, and some Ripper murders, and many other unsolved murders totaling more than the first 2 combined. Trying to make these one mans work borders on madness, I suggest you revisit the facts and stop posting presumptive thesis drivel that we MUST look at just because you posted it, not because it has any merit at all.

[etenguy]

Once again, you are being silly, uninformed and arrogant to top it off. It cannot dissolve the similarities, I´m afraid. And they will ALWAYS rule the day, when they are of the kind of character we are looking at here.

You have made this point before, but the similarities to which you refer do not constitute the level of evidence required to state the two series were definitely committed by the same hand. That level of unique action that would override other considerations is not there. Rather, the similarities to which you refer do warrant exploration but in doing so the very clear dissimilarities also need to be explained before a conclusion can be reached. There is no point going over all these again (already covered in this thread) and you and I interpret the information we have differently, but to state that the link is clear and obvious and beyond challenge overstates the conclusion that can be drawn from the information available.

[seanr]

East London Press,

November 8,1884

Thank you Jerry and Abby.

Interestingly, you note the similarities and I note the difference. The head been stored in a period of time in carbolic acid. Which really does look like an attempt to conceal the identity to me.

[Fisherman]

On this bit above Fisherman, people who kill have compulsions, they do not change.

Once again, that is wrong. I have supplied examples of serial killers who changed inbetween dismembereing and not dismembering their victims, making your point worthless. Many killers change, owing to many things, sometimes it comes from within, other times it is led on by external factors to which they adapt. I wish you had been correct, becasue that would have facilitated catching these men, but sadly you are way off the mark.

it IS a If at any time a killer sought to dismember..had compulsions to do so, when presented with a perfect opportunity to do so, he will do again. There are no similarities other than both acts were committed indoors.

That is stupendous. Again. You pile the mistakes on each other. Cutting from sternuym to bow, why is that NOT a similarity? Taking away the abdominal flesh in sections, how on earth is that not a similarity? Cutting out the uterus and heart, how is that dissimilar? WHy wouod anybody want to listen to the kind of absolute balderdash you claim to be factual when it is nothing of the kind? Wake up, Michael!!

Now, on the bits you enclosed in my quote...
1.The killer may have dismembered over a period of days, ergo, he already had a place to leave the body. There is no compelling urgency there.

He ALWAYS dismembered in direct connection to killing the victim, though. That is proven by the muscle contraction present. Are you not aware of the particulars of the cases, Michael? The killer did NOT dismember over a period of days.

2.The parts dispersal was to make id difficult if not impossible, there is not one Canonical victim aside from Mary where that notion is present.

Difficult what? Impossible what? To find the parts? The absolute bulk of them WERE found and some of the parts HAD TO be found. Wakie-wakie!

3.Telling me what other killers do and did is ineffective argumentation, and proves nothing. This Ripper man wasn't them.

Whereas your telling me that killers never change is effective and truthful...? !!!!

4. Telling me that a comment of a "brazen killer" in the case of the Ripper murders is supposition is beyond ludicrous, and makes me understand how twisted this belief of yours had made your perspectives. Its a proven fact, not supposition Fisherman.

Then again, I did not tell you that the Ripper was not brazen, did I? In fact, that is a complete lie. I told you that it is pure supposition that this made him any different than the Torso killer who may also have been brazen!

5. You keep saying "similarities", so you understand reality, there are no similarities between the Torso murders and the alleged Ripper murders other than the city they occurred in.

As false as it is beyond stupid, I´m afraid.

6. When you find a serial killer that kills very specifically 2 or 3 times you don't use multiple method killers as a comparative. Not much beyond common sense there.

Once there are common very rare features, yo actually DO compare. You may not understand it, but it is nevertheless standard practice.

You call me arrogant,...what tripe. You are the one telling people that dissimilar acts are similar because you say so, that all data gleaned from any murder since that supports any part of your wacky thesis is valid, and that the least probable is the most probable because you find it appears that way.

I can afford to be arrogant, Michael. You can´t. My case is way better and I am familiar with the facts.

The facts are...there were Torso murders, and some Ripper murders, and many other unsolved murders totaling more than the first 2 combined. Trying to make these one mans work borders on madness, I suggest you revisit the facts and stop posting presumptive thesis drivel that we MUST look at just because you posted it, not because it has any merit at all.

You couldn´t tell madness from a cow´s behind, I´m afraid. You are embarrasing yourself now.

[Fisherman]

You have made this point before, but the similarities to which you refer do not constitute the level of evidence required to state the two series were definitely committed by the same hand.

I´m sorry, but I think they erase any reasonable doubt, so we just have to disagree on the point.

That level of unique action that would override other considerations is not there. Rather, the similarities to which you refer do warrant exploration but in doing so the very clear dissimilarities also need to be explained before a conclusion can be reached. There is no point going over all these again (already covered in this thread) and you and I interpret the information we have differently, but to state that the link is clear and obvious and beyond challenge overstates the conclusion that can be drawn from the information available.

Actually, no. The link would undoubtedly govern any police force in their work and it would stand up in a court of law too. It is that strong. The way I see it, the one forum that is least likely to realize this is Casebook and JTRforums, where prejudice and preconception makes people say funnny things. I just told Michael that there actually ARE similarities betwewen the series, something he effectively denies. That is a very good example of how much trust can be invested in these boards.

You choose another level: Of course there are similarities, many of them, but they are not convincing enough, you tell me. Well, I can only say that just as Michaels claim is ridiculous, so is yours, albeit to a less dramatic degree.

Show me two cases with as many and rare similarities inbetween them and where there is no link, and I will take much more interest in it. Before that, though: no, you are simply misrepresenting the evidence, either out of choice or out of lacking insight. Which might sound harsh and - of course - arrogant. Then again, a favourite theme out here is to paint me out as harsh, rash and arrogant, so be my guest!

[Fisherman]

exactly fish-good post
I would just add if they were the same man, and his chop shop was not available and or he wanted to up the thrill factor, and thus decided to kill in the streets, then not dismembering could also be for the simple fact that it is not practical and of course riskier-he wouldn't really be able to safely carry around a saw, dismember in the open and carry limbs or a head away.

The urge is still there to cut up women yet the killers circs change. and he adapts. its not rocket science.

I really don´t care if the variation between dismemberment and no dismemberment was down to locality, thrill factor or a misinterpretation of the Bhagavad Ghita - the one certainty we are left with is that the similarities do not allow for the series being unconnected, and so regardless if the explanation for the dissimilarities is a mundane or a whackily complicated one, it WILL be there.

[Fisherman]

Thank you Jerry and Abby.

Interestingly, you note the similarities and I note the difference. The head been stored in a period of time in carbolic acid. Which really does look like an attempt to conceal the identity to me.

This particular matter is one where both sides of the argument have merit, I feel. Yes, the use of carbolic acid does make it likely that the killer wanted to conceal the identity of the woman. And yes, the cutting is eerily similar to the one suffered by Eddowes.

A possible compromise could be that the victim had some sort of link to the killer in this particular case, but there may also be other explanations. Maybe he simply liked the idea of checking out what acid does to a head? Maybe he wanted to invoke more terror?

Other markers carry a lot more weigh, like the abdominal flaps and the eviscerations.

[Abby Normal]

Thank you Jerry and Abby.

Interestingly, you note the similarities and I note the difference. The head been stored in a period of time in carbolic acid. Which really does look like an attempt to conceal the identity to me.

hi seanr
yup perhaps. Or after he had his fun mutilating the face he wanted try something different-see what would happen with the acid, perhaps trying to see the skull without the flesh who knows? and if he was mainly trying to conceal identity- -why leave it (and the accompanying torso) in a place where it was quickly and easily found?

but I get your point.

[jerryd]

Thank you Jerry and Abby.

Interestingly, you note the similarities and I note the difference. The head been stored in a period of time in carbolic acid. Which really does look like an attempt to conceal the identity to me.

Hi Seanr.

I don't believe it was ever stated the head was stored in carbolic acid. Did I miss something? In fact, a news report on October 24th, 1884 says that Dr. Samuel Lloyd examined the parts and stated the face was smooth and the hair long and fair. The report I included here states the smaller parts were packed into something small and compressed down in a quantity of carbolic acid.

[Joshua Rogan]

The head been stored in a period of time in carbolic acid. Which really does look like an attempt to conceal the identity to me.

Carbolic is only a weak acid, and was used as a disinfectant. Most likely in this case used to cover the smell of decomposition. Note this press report from the site of the Pinchin Street torso;

'“Where was it found?” we asked one of the guards.
“Here. Just where you see the pink dust. It’s carbolic.”
“To cover the blood?”
“Blood – there weren’t no blood. It stunk. Move on, please.”'

[Abby Normal]

Hi Seanr.

I don't believe it was ever stated the head was stored in carbolic acid. Did I miss something? In fact, a news report on October 24th, 1884 says that Dr. Samuel Lloyd examined the parts and stated the face was smooth and the hair long and fair. The report I included here states the smaller parts were packed into something small and compressed down in a quantity of carbolic acid.

hi jerry
thanks! rereading the newspaper clip you provided to see that seanr did make that mistake (cmon seanr!?!?)about the head being in acid, i noticed the medicos say that the mutliations took place soon after death. another similarity to the other torso cases and the ripper.
fish, take note

[Abby Normal]

Carbolic is only a weak acid, and was used as a disinfectant. Most likely in this case used to cover the smell of decomposition. Note this press report from the site of the Pinchin Street torso;

'“Where was it found?” we asked one of the guards.
“Here. Just where you see the pink dust. It’s carbolic.”
“To cover the blood?”
“Blood – there weren’t no blood. It stunk. Move on, please.”'

interesting..
thanks for this JR!

[seanr]

Hi Seanr.

I don't believe it was ever stated the head was stored in carbolic acid. Did I miss something? In fact, a news report on October 24th, 1884 says that Dr. Samuel Lloyd examined the parts and stated the face was smooth and the hair long and fair. The report I included here states the smaller parts were packed into something small and compressed down in a quantity of carbolic acid.

`They incline to the opinion [...] that the small parts into which the body was cut up were compressed into something small [...] and compressed down in a quantity of carbolic acid'.

If the head was in a compressed and somewhat corroded / decayed state that would match with the description 'A skull with flesh still adhering to it'. I note from that the word 'skull' over 'head' but other than the casebook description of the case, I don't know the original source of this description.

[etenguy]

Which might sound harsh and - of course - arrogant. Then again, a favourite theme out here is to paint me out as harsh, rash and arrogant, so be my guest!

Thank you for the invitation to insult you.

Well, I am British, and given the standard of public debate in the UK recently, you could be forgiven for believing I would relish making personal attacks rather than debate the arguments you make, but that's not my thing.