Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Practicality or madness?

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

  • Originally posted by John G View Post

    I don't think Kelly's organs were carefully extracted. Dr Bond conducted the autopsy and concluded the perpetrator had no skill at all, not even that of a horse slaughterer. Dr Hebbert confirmed the killer was unskilled.

    Thus, the lung seemed to have been ripped out: " The lower part of the lung was broken and torn away (per Dr Bond.) Then there's the heart: "In fact, he evidently had attempted to remove the heart by cutting the ribs and, failing to do this, he had dragged it down through the midriff." (Per Dr Hebbert). What's even more extraordinary, from a single killer perspective, is that in Rainham, an earlier crime, the heart was apparently removed, with no indication of it just being ripped out, as clearly happened with Kelly.

    You've also referred to the Golden State killer, and this case perfectly highlights one of my serious concerns with the single killer theory. Here we have a perpetrator consistently breaking into victims homes, I.e. not taking the risk of attacking victims in public. However, if there was a single killer, we have would have to accept that he alternated between attacking victims in public, spending time mutilating them (thus increasing the level of risk), without apparently any concern for being interrupted, or the presence of witnesses, with the far more organized approach of abducting victims, or luring them away to his dismemberment site, preventing identification, and then disposing of the remains without attracting the attention of a single witness. Not only that, the disorganized street killer version of himself is confined to an incredibly small geographical area, despite the fact that, as a single killer, he would have been active over a much bigger range, I.e. as demonstrated by the organized version of himself whilst on his dismemberer guise. Not surprisingly, no serial killer in history has operated with anything like this bizarre, and completely confusing, type of MO.
    ​​​
    hi john

    I.e. not taking the risk of attacking victims in public.
    The GSK also attacked people outdoors, including chasing down a couple outside in a neighbor hood and killing them, also shooting someone else outside at another crime scene, he even tried to abduct a girl pulling her outside. so you are wrong about the GSK only attacking indoors.
    Last edited by Abby Normal; 01-23-2020, 03:06 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 FrankO View Post
      Hi Abby,
      I more or less said that Torso man could have changed to another approach, but if he did, then it has to be something like what happened with Bundy: he hadn’t killed for 2.5 years (because he was in jail) and was unable to restrain himself once he’d broken out (perhaps also due to the stress he experienced as a fugitive), even though he claimed he had decided to stay away from criminal activity.

      We know this sort of situation doesn’t apply to Torso man & the Ripper, as the former killed the Whitechapel victim around the time Nichols & Chapman were killed. For this same reason and the fact that he seems to have stored the body of the Rainham victim for some months and the fact that there were no other Ripper-type murders in the 15 years since 1873, it also seems quite unlikely to me that the change was brought about because he sometimes didn’t have access to his “chop shop”.

      Hi Franko
      then it has to be something like what happened with Bundy: he hadn’t killed for 2.5 years (because he was in jail) and was unable to restrain himself once he’d broken out (perhaps also due to the stress he experienced as a fugitive), even though he claimed he had decided to stay away from criminal activity.
      Yes that makes logical sense but who knows? maybe it had nothing to do with not killing for a while or being a fugitive. maybe he got wasted and went on a drunken rage. maybe he got caught beating off in a campus bathroom and was angry about it. who knows?

      bottom line, it was totally disorganized attack, and totally different than his previous MO. it just emphasizes that killers change based on their circs, sometimes dramatically.

      so whether it was torsoman not having his chop shop available, or wanting to up the thrill factor, or whatever, we can speculate all we want but the fact remains they can and do change their tactics depending on their personal circs which all the point im trying to make.

      "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

        Me too - at times. For example, if you do not wish as of now to tell me what you think the perceived two killers respective mindsets were accordiong to you, I can wait.
        Bear with me, Christer - I'm working on it.

        "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
          I hope you agree that the sorority attacks would have looked totally disorganized, Frank?
          Except for the fact that he struck in the dead of night (no pun intended) and took the log of wood away with him, it looked quite unorganized, yes.

          The factor behind this radical change in how he chose his victims was how his ego could not stand having been called a coward. Nothing more dramatic that that. But apparently, it was "important" enough for him, right?
          Yes, this is the kind of external reason (meaning, not coming from within himself) I’d be looking for. Something that pushed him off the trail he was following, if you will. It doesn’t have to be something dramatic, just an external influence. The thing with DeAngelo is, of course, that it didn’t make him change his attacks as drastically as Torso man/the Ripper.

          So! Letīs put DeAngelo on the streets of London and let him overhear how people say that the Torso killer is a coward for abducting women and killing them in a secure abode. He does not dare to face down the people on the streets, for they would have showed him!
          Possible, because anything is possible, although I don’t see a controlling man like DeAngelo so easily giving up a great deal of his control. But anyway, I get what you mean.

          Of course, this is just a suggestion of mine, there may have been a thousand other explanations behind it.
          Something I've been thinking of is that his Ripper-style murders may have been induced by alcohol. Possibly someone close/important to him (temporarily) left him, died, betrayed him, hurt or offended him, which made him take to drinking. Again, I don't believe that something from within himself caused the change (something like: let's try this for a change or one of your suggestions: lets dare the people of London for a while).

          If you would care to, Frank, I would like to hear what you think the Torso killers mindset was - and what the Ripper mindset was. In which ways do you think they must have differed? You see, to me both mens mindset was quite simply to procure a woman to kill so as to allow them to cut into the body post-mortem, and do what they wanted to it.
          First of all, I see that I didn’t attach the correct meaning to the word mindset and you did, so, sorry for the confusion. It turns out that we agree on the mindset of both men: they wanted to procure a woman to kill, etc.

          What I had in mind was their mental states Of course I don’t pretend to know their mental states, but the two series suggest two different mental states to me.
          The main difference in these mental states would be that the Ripper was willing to take huge risks, as anybody could have walked into the crime scene at any time with him still there; he seems to have been in a state where his driving force was much stronger than his care to minimize risks as much as he could. His need for a fix was much bigger than his care for safety. He didn’t care to put much thought or action into the murders beforehand. That sort of thing.

          Torso man seems to have been much more patient and in control of himself and very likely did put a good deal of thought into the murders beforehand and also took care that his victims would not easily be identified and then traced back to him.


          "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

            Simplicity. Gotta love it, Harry.
            Simplicity...how about a diabolical, multi-morphing killer doing diametrically opposed activities? You guys sure like imagining a guy who changes his hat every five minutes. Dramatically. As for how many victims you've suggested, I suppose its only what....8-9...the license and sarcasm is because even Five is unsupportable. Im sure you have more youd like to include though.
            Michael Richards

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

              There are serial killers who have moved between far more separate killing methods, like Coral Watts and Peter Kürten. There are those who have moved inbetween dismembering and not dismembering, like Tsutomu Miyazaki. The assumption that the Ripper was disorganized is an assumption only, and if he was disorganized, he still seemingly:
              - Lured the victims into empty places away from the public
              - Managed to sneak away in time when there was a risk to get caught
              - Left no traces at the sites
              - Brought along a blade suited for eviscerations

              This is a killer that you have dubbed "the worlds most disorganized killer", until suddenly loosing interest in commenting on it. How about doing so now? A truly disorganized killer will kill in public, will not even try to flee, will leave all sorts of traces and will not premeditate by bringing along a weapon. Maybe the time has come for you to admit that you were being a country mile off the mark? And once you admit that (as if anybody ever admitted anything out here...), you may perhaps see what it does to this last "point" of yours?
              Miyazaki dismembered his last victim. Not aware he dismembered anyone else, at least not for disposal purposes. It's pure speculation that JtR lured his victims away. He must have got close to getting caught in the act several tines-in fact, you actually believe he was-by Paul. Very little in the wat of precautions were taken-he could easily gave been interrupted at Hanbury Street and Mitre Square, for example. I'm not sure what ia meant by not leaving traces at the scene.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                hi john



                The GSK also attacked people outdoors, including chasing down a couple outside in a neighbor hood and killing them, also shooting someone else outside at another crime scene, he even tried to abduct a girl pulling her outside. so you are wrong about the GSK only attacking indoors.
                Hi Abby,

                Are you referrimg to the Maggiores? Because I believe he was only suspected of that offence.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Harry D View Post



                  My only guess would be that the killer (emphasis on singular) had certain physical and psychological triggers which caused the Ripper series. Previously, the Thames Torso killer might have lived in a neighbourhood that wasn't a fitting stomping ground for slaying prostitutes outdoors and disappearing into the night, like Whitechapel was. It could be that Tabram's murder was unplanned and not premeditated, hence the wild, frenzied nature of the crime. It was the first instance the Thames Torso killer had struck outdoors, outside of his usual comfort zone. He gradually grew in confidence and daring, becoming more methodical and putting his butchery skills to proper use. I know this could apply to someone irrespective of whether he was also the Thames Torso killer or not. If the psychological triggers were no longer there, or the Ripper outdoor murders were getting too close for comfort, he may have decided to dial it back and stick to the Torso series.
                  Hi Harry,

                  I don't believe that JtR specifically targeted prostitutes, just victims who were vulnerable. There must have been plenty of places in London, apaet dtom Whitechapel, that were suitable for targeting victims outdoors, i e. Battersea Park, frequented by Elizabeth Jackson. I don't think Whitechapel was an ideal place to be targeting victims outdoors, i e. as it was an overcrowded urban location. It became even less suitable following the earlier murders, with a large increased police presence and local population on high alert.
                  Last edited by John G; 01-23-2020, 07:13 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by John G View Post

                    Miyazaki dismembered his last victim. Not aware he dismembered anyone else, at least not for disposal purposes. It's pure speculation that JtR lured his victims away. He must have got close to getting caught in the act several tines-in fact, you actually believe he was-by Paul. Very little in the wat of precautions were taken-he could easily gave been interrupted at Hanbury Street and Mitre Square, for example. I'm not sure what ia meant by not leaving traces at the scene.
                    Its not pure speculation that JtR lured his victims away, its almost certain he was led in the first 2 cases, and just got antsy waiting for the right spot in Bucks Row. Fiorst kill and all. Oh yeah...his first since he changed from making Torsos 10 years earlier.
                    Michael Richards

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                      Its not pure speculation that JtR lured his victims away, its almost certain he was led in the first 2 cases, and just got antsy waiting for the right spot in Bucks Row. Fiorst kill and all. Oh yeah...his first since he changed from making Torsos 10 years earlier.
                      BS man certainly didn't lure Stride away, and was so organized he assaulted her in front of two witnesses and outside a busy club!

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by John G View Post

                        Miyazaki dismembered his last victim. Not aware he dismembered anyone else, at least not for disposal purposes.
                        Miyazaki killed four girls. He dismembered the first and the last victim. So now you know.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by FrankO View Post
                          [/B]Except for the fact that he struck in the dead of night (no pun intended) and took the log of wood away with him, it looked quite unorganized, yes.

                          Yes, this is the kind of external reason (meaning, not coming from within himself) I’d be looking for. Something that pushed him off the trail he was following, if you will. It doesn’t have to be something dramatic, just an external influence. The thing with DeAngelo is, of course, that it didn’t make him change his attacks as drastically as Torso man/the Ripper.

                          Possible, because anything is possible, although I don’t see a controlling man like DeAngelo so easily giving up a great deal of his control. But anyway, I get what you mean.

                          Something I've been thinking of is that his Ripper-style murders may have been induced by alcohol. Possibly someone close/important to him (temporarily) left him, died, betrayed him, hurt or offended him, which made him take to drinking. Again, I don't believe that something from within himself caused the change (something like: let's try this for a change or one of your suggestions: lets dare the people of London for a while).

                          First of all, I see that I didn’t attach the correct meaning to the word mindset and you did, so, sorry for the confusion. It turns out that we agree on the mindset of both men: they wanted to procure a woman to kill, etc.

                          What I had in mind was their mental states Of course I don’t pretend to know their mental states, but the two series suggest two different mental states to me.
                          The main difference in these mental states would be that the Ripper was willing to take huge risks, as anybody could have walked into the crime scene at any time with him still there; he seems to have been in a state where his driving force was much stronger than his care to minimize risks as much as he could. His need for a fix was much bigger than his care for safety. He didn’t care to put much thought or action into the murders beforehand. That sort of thing.

                          Torso man seems to have been much more patient and in control of himself and very likely did put a good deal of thought into the murders beforehand and also took care that his victims would not easily be identified and then traced back to him.

                          All in all, a good post in many regards, Frank. But you still end up believing that your take on the respective mental states of what you think are two killers is more likely to carry weight than the actual evidence. And I really donīt think that we should weigh things up like that - although it is of course something you must make your own calls about.

                          I would like to make sort of a comparison at this stage, involving a good many facts and just a little supposition. Itīs about Liz Jackson. I would like to move back in time to the moment when the killer first set about cutting her, macabre though it may sound.

                          Now, we do not know what killed Liz Jackson. It could have been, as was suggested in these cases, by way of cutting her neck. Letīs assume that this was so. If it is true, then we have the killer taking a knife to her throat and cutting it open. We know that her head was taken off by means of a saw, so two implements where used, and I am going to suppose that the sawing only occurred at a later stage, in combination with the dismemberement of her body.
                          But that is for later, as of now, we only have a woman with her neck cut, lying on her back. The killer then cuts her abdomen open. We know that this preceded the dismemberment, because the flaps from the abdomen were not divided in bits, they were two long slips, and they fitted the trunk parts nicely. So the cut to the abdomen, from sternum to groin, as well as the cutting away of the flaps came before the dismemberment.
                          It was these cuts that allowed the killer to reach into her and cut her uterus out, something we know he did. And this is where we get to my supposition. I am going to make the assumption that he cut the uterus out before he cut out the heart and lungs.
                          And this is the exact moment we stop. What do we have?

                          We have a woman lying on her back. Her neck has been cut and she has had her abdomen opened up all the way from the chest down to the groin. The abdominal wall has been removed, and two large flaps of abdominal flesh lying beside the body bear witness to that. Furthermore, her uterus has been cut out of her body. There are no other cuts to the body, no cuts to the hands and arms received while trying to fend the assailant off. There are no visible signs of any torture inflicted, it seems as if the killer simply made quick business of killing the woman to be able to move on to the eviscerations.

                          Can you think of any parallel case to this, Frank? Can you see how - if the uterus was cut out first - Jackson will at this exact stage have been a copy of Annie Chapman? And to boot, both women will also at this stage have had their rings stolen from their fingers by the perpetrator. And it is not a case of Chapman having been sloppily cut and Jackson cleanly so - the flaps were described as irregular. It is only when he dismembers that the killer cuts cleanly and in straight lines.

                          Once this is realized, I think I would have a hard time to convince myself that these parallel scenes were created by people of fundamentally different mental dispositions.
                          Last edited by Fisherman; 01-24-2020, 07:01 AM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                            Simplicity...how about a diabolical, multi-morphing killer doing diametrically opposed activities? You guys sure like imagining a guy who changes his hat every five minutes. Dramatically. As for how many victims you've suggested, I suppose its only what....8-9...the license and sarcasm is because even Five is unsupportable. Im sure you have more youd like to include though.
                            I am happy to comment on that once you have answered my question about where it is you claim that I have said that a common killer eviscerated a dozen victims. First things first, Michael!

                            Comment


                            • In both the Rainham and Kelly cases the heart was said to be absent. However, if the perpetrator was responsible for removing the heart from the Rainham victim he must have done so with a degree of skill. This is how Dr Hebbert describes the way in which the thoracic cavity (the cavity containing the heart and lungs) was accessed in that case:

                              " First the thorax had been cut above, through the body of the fifth dorsal vertebrae, and below, through the body of the third lumbar vertebrae, the bones having flat but somewhat rough surfaces, and through the skin and other tissues by a series of more or less clean-cut inclusions, so that the fourth left rib and fifth right rib had been left, and the sternum below the articulations of these ribs. Thr diaphragm was intact, but the lung, heart and other thoracic viscera were absent."

                              Now contrast that relatively skilled approach with the complete mess that Kelly's murderer makes when trying to access the heart (as described previously), making a completely botched attempt intially, followed by a second crude attempt.

                              The important question therefore is this: if there was a single perpetrator, then having successfully removed the heart in the Rainham case, using a degree of skill, how could he have become remarkably de-skilled, to the point that he doesn't know what he's doing, just a year later when attempting to remove the heart from Kelly?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                                I am happy to comment on that once you have answered my question about where it is you claim that I have said that a common killer eviscerated a dozen victims. First things first, Michael!
                                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 Richards

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X