Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Practicality or madness?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

    I seem to remember that you have put this forward before...?

    And I seem to remember that I told you that I do not care in the slightest what you think about it, as long as there is a more or less universal understanding that Jackson WAS killed? And I seem to remember that I also pointed out that the legal decision was that a murder had been committed?

    So what is it that makes you think that I would all of a sudden find your ideas in any way interesting? I donīt, simple as that.
    Well you know I am right, that is why you have no answer, and now show the proof that Jackson was murdered, and what her cause of death was?

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
      It seems the major argument against a common killer seems to begin with "I feel in my gut that these men were very different..."

      Whatever happened to evidence evaluation?
      Ok,...I can see, when all the know evidence is considered, that Jack the Ripper and The Disarticulator are very different. Better?
      Michael Richards

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

        Ok,...I can see, when all the know evidence is considered, that Jack the Ripper and The Disarticulator are very different. Better?
        No, itīs much worse, because you cannot see that. You get that faulty impression only. And, of course, you conveniently miss out on the similari... oh, wait - to you, there ARE no similarities. I forgot that.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

          Well you know I am right, that is why you have no answer, and now show the proof that Jackson was murdered, and what her cause of death was?

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
          I know that you are right? That would be the day!!

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

            No, itīs much worse, because you cannot see that. You get that faulty impression only. And, of course, you conveniently miss out on the similari... oh, wait - to you, there ARE no similarities. I forgot that.
            Of course there are Fisherman. Both men used knives. Both men killed in London in the LVP. Both men killed women.
            Michael Richards

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

              I think you either forgot or misunderstood the context of the eviscerations declaration to which I took issue Fisherman, you use that term when doing a broad comparative of the 2 distinctly individual series of murders, I surmise to demonstrate just how similar they actually are. I made you admit to the fact that its a very small number of eviscerations.

              You "made me admit" it? Have I ever said anything else? Unlike you, Michael, I keep close watch of the facts, so I think you may be misleading again. Donīt you grow tired of that kind of charading?

              It is not a definitive characteristic until it is.

              Have I denied that? Have I said "It is a definitive characteristic before it is"? More misleading.

              And as for the number of victims, you've lumped in enough, frequently enough, for me to use the word dozen cumulatively.

              Come on, show us where I have spoken of a dozen evisceration cases. Once you do, I will proclaim you the winner and leave the boards. Once you donīt, I will proclaim you a liar and stay put.

              Chance of a lifetime, is it not, Michael?


              First off, the "series" label is just based on theory to begin with, technically we don't have any solved murders within either "series", and no smoking gun evidence against any one man or group.

              Define "smoking gun evidence".

              I pointed out on another thread that the murders of Polly then Annie are more accurately characterized as victims of a Spree killer, because that fits the evidence better than just part of a longer series. That shortest of all intervals between kills is significant, the ensuing gap is therefore significant, and might well signal the end of the Jack that spawned all this.

              Why is the short gap significant? Dahmer had a nine year gap between his first two victims. How do you explain that?

              Things that happen that match things previously published....hardly a stone foundation for a "series" supposition.

              When two eviscerations follow each other in victorian London, that is a VERY good foundation for a series supposition. You have failed to realize that, but that is your problem, not mine.

              My issue with some of your posts is that you presume far too much, you mislead by virtue of some statements, and you've insisted that its the rest of us that just don't get it.

              Not all of you, Michael. Certainly, YOU donīt get it, but to elevate your take on things to speak of the rest of the boards as "we" is to make a grave mistake. And let me assure you, it is only if I am wrong that I can be misleading. Otherwise I am curing the misled, remember.

              The problem with building a case in order to support your own theory is that there is the tendency to play with the truth here and there, by omission or exaggeration, because there has to be a linear connection to your conclusions. Like starting the Jack the Ripper study searching for a man who killed 5 specific women in East London 130 odd years ago. Youll use only what supports that idea to build your case, ignorant of the fact that if your guess about how many women or which Five women is incorrect then the entire investigation is null and void, and will not provide any useful data.

              Balderdash, Iīm afraid. And from what seems to be a deeply frustrated poster.

              There is an explanation for every murder in that file. Each individual case problem has answers, each murder can be understood.

              By you?

              The key to this is a unbiased and objective investigation into all known aspects of the crimes.... individually.

              By you?

              You, "with one sweep of the knife", just carve out a large number of these cases at once and look to see if you can find a quote or a mention that helps prove the case. I object to that kind of approach. Each is unique, and if they are tied to another it will be by something tangible and provable. Solve one case first, then re-visit the group idea.

              So before we have absolute proof that a series of murders involving eviscerations and far-reaching mutilation IS a series, we should treat them as unconnected murders? I see. How wise. Itīs more or less like them individual Green River murders where the police worked from the idea of 49 killers - so as not to get the weird idea of a serial killer into their heads.
              Michael, you go about your business in your way and have your arse kicked for it, and let me go about my business in my way, the way, that is to say, that any police department go about these matters.


              The only murders I see as being almost certainly connected by killer if not yet proven are the first 2 Canonicals, which constitutes a Spree in Criminology, not a Series, and a series of disarticulation murders that may have begun a decade earlier.

              But I have just shown you that Chapman and Jackson have far more in common than Chapman and Nichols. Why not listen to the facts?

              Those sets have everything you need really...very specific kinds of deeds, Rare. Unique. Anything that comes after could have been dramatically influenced by the prior, graphically published details of the earlier deeds.

              Oh, itīs copycatting again, is it? If I do this, youīll do that, and if you do that, Iīll do this?

              Which would appear to some as continuing activity by the same person but with an evolving MO, Signature and other characteristics. To be compared with the data in contemporary studies of Modern day serial killer interviews, of course.

              Problem is, you first need a "series". Id suggest starting smaller.
              Thanks, but no thanks. The evidence is very clear, and I always prefer evidence over gut feelings.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by John G View Post
                I've just looked at the linked thread provided by Jerry and it makes for an interesting read. Debra Arif quotes Dr Hebbert at length, and he states unequivocally that the Torso series and Whitechapel series are not linked. For instance, he highlights the fact that there were major differences of both skill and technique. For instance:

                "These outrages were done by more than one man, the post-mortem examination showing very clearly that in one series the motive was the destruction of the identity of the person, and concealment of the crime. In the second, savage and singularly purposeless mutilation. The examination also proved the difference in skill and intention of the operator. In the first series, as I may put it, the women's bodies were skilfully divided into sections such as might be done by a butcher or a hunter, evidently for the purpose of easy carriage and distribution...in the other series, the women were horribly and unmercifully mutilated. Even the internal organs 2had been removed and taken away."

                His comments on the Kelly murder, which he attended:

                "A woman was killed in a room. After the most frightful mutliation and destruction of the body...There was nothimg to suggest any knowledge of anatomy or surgical skill. In fact, he had evidently attempted to remove the heart by cutting the ribs, and failing to do this, he had dragged it down through the midriff."

                As Debra concludes: " Those 3 posts are very telling to me, with an eyewitness, medically trained who says there are major differences of skill and technique."

                Yes, Hebbert adheres to the contemporary belief that dismemberment was always defensive. Phillips was much the same, speaking of a killer most wanton, thereby very much misjudging him in my eyes. Phillips also tells us that the cutting of Kellys neck is very similar to the cutting of the neck in the Pinchin Street case, but then he waves it away on account of how he did not know that a dismemberment can be aggressive and offensive. So letīs not think that the cutting technique as such was very different, shall we?

                What neither man explains is why two killers would both opt for taking away the abdominal flesh in large flaps, why the cut extended from sternum to bow in most cases, although it was completely unnecessary, most evidently so in the Pinchin Street case, and a few other bits and bobs.

                Are you still claiming that the Ripper is the most disorganized killer in history, by the way? I forgot one point earlier: it seems that this totally disorganized fellow brings a knife along on these occasions that is very well suited for eviscerating through itīs lenght, thinness, flexibility and sharpness. You know, I donīt rule out that a jury would look upon that as premeditation. And premeditation, and disorganized killers, well you know....

                Comment


                • Originally posted by John G View Post
                  I've just looked at the linked thread provided by Jerry and it makes for an interesting read. Debra Arif quotes Dr Hebbert at length, and he states unequivocally that the Torso series and Whitechapel series are not linked. For instance, he highlights the fact that there were major differences of both skill and technique. For instance:

                  "These outrages were done by more than one man, the post-mortem examination showing very clearly that in one series the motive was the destruction of the identity of the person, and concealment of the crime. In the second, savage and singularly purposeless mutilation. The examination also proved the difference in skill and intention of the operator. In the first series, as I may put it, the women's bodies were skilfully divided into sections such as might be done by a butcher or a hunter, evidently for the purpose of easy carriage and distribution...in the other series, the women were horribly and unmercifully mutilated. Even the internal organs 2had been removed and taken away."

                  His comments on the Kelly murder, which he attended:

                  "A woman was killed in a room. After the most frightful mutliation and destruction of the body...There was nothimg to suggest any knowledge of anatomy or surgical skill. In fact, he had evidently attempted to remove the heart by cutting the ribs, and failing to do this, he had dragged it down through the midriff."

                  As Debra concludes: " Those 3 posts are very telling to me, with an eyewitness, medically trained who says there are major differences of skill and technique."

                  hi John
                  yes this is definitely a kick to the one man theory, and one of the reasons why im not 100% convinced they were the same man. Point taken.
                  However, I think hebbert was a product of his times, and they simply didn't have the experience of what history has taught us about serial killers and the extent that they can do things very differently some times based on their personal circs and he certainly wasn't familiar with the offensive dismemberer type, so that may cloud his judgement somewhat.
                  But as I said point taken.



                  "Is all that we see or seem
                  but a dream within a dream?"

                  -Edgar Allan Poe


                  "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                  quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                  -Frederick G. Abberline

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                    A case like the Florida attack DOES look like a disorganized set of murders. A log was used to bash the skulls in, and that log was picked up outside the house, and so no premeditation was necessary. It looks like a case where the killer could not help himself, the way disorganized killers cannot do. He also took immense risks in continuing the attack on five women. So yes, it looks like a disorganized attack to me.
                    We must have different meanings attached to the word ‘mindset’, Christer, because I see Bundy’s mindset leading up and through the sorority house attacks in Florida as quite different from the one leading up to most of his previous murders. He needed his high and he needed it badly, so he got it by settling for a riskier approach. But at least it was an approach he had successfully used before. What I find interesting about this change is that it very much seems to have come about because of the fact that he hadn’t killed for 2.5 years and that he claimed that he’d intended to refrain from killing.

                    If Torso man and the Ripper are to be one and the same, this is the kind of external motive for change I’d be looking for. Something important must have happened in his situation, not only causing him to, temporarily, change his MO, but also considerably pick up the pace at which he struck. Obviously, what happened with Bundy isn’t the case with TM & the Ripper, because it seems the Whitehall victim was killed around the time that Nichols and Chapman were killed.

                    Last edited by FrankO; 01-22-2020, 03:52 PM.
                    "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
                    Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                      The day I join that club is the day Hell freezes over.
                      You could have fooled me, Christer!

                      "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
                      Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by FrankO View Post
                        We must have different meanings attached to the word ‘mindset’, Christer, because I see Bundy’s mindset leading up and through the sorority house attacks in Florida as quite different from the one leading up to most of his previous murders. He needed his high and he needed it badly, so he got it by settling for a riskier approach. But at least it was an approach he had successfully used before. What I find interesting about this change is that it very much seems to have come about because of the fact that he hadn’t killed for 2.5 years and that he claimed that he’d intended to refrain from killing.

                        If Torso man and the Ripper are to be one and the same, this is the kind of external motive for change I’d be looking for. Something important must have happened in his situation, not only causing him to, temporarily, change his MO, but also considerably pick up the pace at which he struck. Obviously, what happened with Bundy isn’t the case with TM & the Ripper, because it seems the Whitehall victim was killed around the time that Nichols and Chapman were killed.
                        Hi Franko
                        so why couldn't torsoripper change it up too based on his personal circs? the bundy sorority attack is an example I gave to show that serial killers can change it up so much that it looks like they make such dramatic change as to go from a highly organized killer to a highly disorganized one. not that I think either torsoman or the ripper were disorganized-they were both highly organized. Circumstance can have an influence. even the ripper looked like he had a disorganized attack with stride, eventhough the rest were the opposite.

                        He needed his high and he needed it badly, so he got it by settling for a riskier approach.
                        exactly. perhaps same with torsoripper-the ripper kills he didn't have his chop shop available but the urge is still there so he decided to change it up. and please note-I don't really think the ripper murders were necessarily more risky than torso ones for reasons I pointed out in an earlier post.

                        Bundys personal circs changes so his kills reflected that, could be same simple explanation for torsoman.
                        Last edited by Abby Normal; 01-22-2020, 04:28 PM.
                        "Is all that we see or seem
                        but a dream within a dream?"

                        -Edgar Allan Poe


                        "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                        quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                        -Frederick G. Abberline

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                          Thanks, but no thanks. The evidence is very clear, and I always prefer evidence over gut feelings.
                          You say you prefer evidence then present a case for a whole slew of unalike killings without anything but your "gut" feelings...are you reading your own posts pal?
                          Michael Richards

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                            Hi Franko
                            so why couldn't torsoripper change it up too based on his personal circs? the bundy sorority attack is an example I gave to show that serial killers can change it up so much that it looks like they make such dramatic change as to go from a highly organized killer to a highly disorganized one. not that I think either torsoman or the ripper were disorganized-they were both highly organized. Circumstance can have an influence. even the ripper looked like he had a disorganized attack with stride, eventhough the rest were the opposite.



                            exactly. perhaps same with torsoripper-the ripper kills he didn't have his chop shop available but the urge is still there so he decided to change it up. and please note-I don't really think the ripper murders were necessarily more risky than torso ones for reasons I pointed out in an earlier post.

                            Bundys personal circs changes so his kills reflected that, could be same simple explanation for torsoman.
                            Hello Abby,

                            You missed the part where the Whitehall victim was killed around the same time as Chapman. It would seem the “Torsoripper” did indeed have access to a chop shop at that time.

                            Comment


                            • What are the catalysts for modern day serial killers to have changed their activities, methods and even victim types? Fear of being caught by the repetition, by forensics, fear of having prey get away because they sense something is happening just like they have read about. Lots of reasons..including desires to try other methods, victim types, locations, etc....

                              So, which reason do people have for the man who kills strangers working the streets so he can cut into their abdomens suddenly decide to just cut someone once, or attack someone in their bed and empty their bodies of organs and tissue? Place the viscera around the body. Whats the catalyst? Im curious.

                              Bear in mind that after Pollys murder which was almost identical in nature to Annies and within 2 weeks of it, nothing significant changed. Same Victimology, same MO, same double cuts, same abdominal focus pm. And they had nothing on him. Zero evidence. So..his catalyst for changing is.....
                              Last edited by Michael W Richards; 01-22-2020, 07:07 PM.
                              Michael Richards

                              Comment


                              • So, which reason do people have for the man who kills strangers working the streets so he can cut into their abdomens suddenly decide to just cut someone once, or attack someone in their bed and empty their bodies of organs and tissue? Place the viscera around the body. Whats the catalyst? Im curious.

                                Hello Michael,

                                I have trouble with your use of the word "decide." Why do you assume one cut was a conscious decision and why would the killer care as long as that cut accomplished its purpose? Was being consistent his primary goal?

                                As for attacking someone in their bed the answer would be so that he could have more time to do what he wants with the victim. And are you suggesting that a killer who previously had removed kidneys and uteri would somehow be averse to emptying a body of organs and tissue because that somehow crossed a line?

                                c.d.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X