Practicality or madness?

[Michael W Richards]

Before I get unjustly accused of something else here, just popped in to say that ANYTHING that had historic precedent and was publicized...like taking rings, cutting stomach flaps..that may even go for creating Torsos for that matter...could be a result of the influence by what was previously written about.

[Fisherman]

Before I get unjustly accused of something else here, just popped in to say that ANYTHING that had historic precedent and was publicized...like taking rings, cutting stomach flaps..that may even go for creating Torsos for that matter...could be a result of the influence by what was previously written about.

If you are proposing copycat thinking here, it applies that the two series would in that case borrow from each other. It is not the case of any one way copycatting - if it ever happened - it is a case of mutual loans. Which makes it hard in the extreme to believe in.

I really hope, by the way, that nobody is unjustly accusing you of something. I would never do so myself.

[Michael W Richards]

I believe what Im suggesting Fisherman is that murderous acts that are known publicly are often seen in other subsequent murders as a result of conscious or subconscious influence. I can cite 3 multiple murder cases in Toronto in recent history that share common traits that were almost certainly ideas that prior news events revealed. Ill use the FBI Serial killer data since everyone likes imagining a solo serial killer here, at least for Jacks presumed list, ... the FBI estimates that .0006% of a given population are serial killers using modern case histories, since greater London in 1888 was around 4 million, that makes 2,400 possible serial killers. In London, not including any commuters.

Ill let that sit quietly for a minute. Its important to digest properly.

As for the recent skirmish Fish, I have no further comment than I know what I said and its evident that its not what you heard.

[Fisherman]

I believe what Im suggesting Fisherman is that murderous acts that are known publicly are often seen in other subsequent murders as a result of conscious or subconscious influence. I can cite 3 multiple murder cases in Toronto in recent history that share common traits that were almost certainly ideas that prior news events revealed. Ill use the FBI Serial killer data since everyone likes imagining a solo serial killer here, at least for Jacks presumed list, ... the FBI estimates that .0006% of a given population are serial killers using modern case histories, since greater London in 1888 was around 4 million, that makes 2,400 possible serial killers. In London, not including any commuters.

Ill let that sit quietly for a minute. Its important to digest properly.

I am sure that there are also numbers representing who many of the tally of serial killers are eviscerators. Perhaps a few dozen of the 2400? The one problem I am having then is why there are not a number of eviscerated victims that dovetails with that number in London of 1888, let alone in the adjacent years.
Where are the scores of such victims? Where are the many examples of eviscerating serial killers popping up yearly by the hundreds in New York city, In Tokyo, in Toronto...?

My genuine feeling is that reality is normally more worthy of consideration when we want to establish the real facts than any lofty juggling with numbers.

As for the recent skirmish Fish, I have no further comment than I know what I said and its evident that its not what you heard.

Well, we both know what you said, don´t we? You said: ""3 canonicals were eviscerated. Just 3. Not a dozen victims, like you've espoused on other threads..."

That is what you said. Word by word. What you meant by it seems somehow to be something entirely different, which makes me think that it is always preferable to say what you think if you want people to understand what you are after.

I would not have any problems at all accepthing that you may have said one thing and meant another, such things happen. But when there is no forthcoming admission of having worded yourself badly, but instead accusations of me having lied coupled with assertions that I am lucky to have an ocean betwen the two of us, I am not going to meekly accept such things, I´m afraid.

I for one am more than willing to pass no further comment in the errand, not least becasue it has nothing to do with what we should discuss out here. But that would predispose that you at the very least have the good sense not to bring it up any further yourself.

[Michael W Richards]

Ok....you want to go through it again,... you used eviscerations in a post as part of a list that connects the Ripper series with the Torsos, I of course jumped in....much to my regret now, and pointed out that ONLY 3 Canonicals had that, therefore it cannot be considered a common element among the 2 series....which total a dozen victims between them. How that then became me suggesting you espoused 12 evisceration murders is still beyond me, but it is what it is. When you persistently accused me of that I got pissed off. That's the reality. Im no longer preoccupied with making sure you understand that's what happened. So....I think, enough.

[Fisherman]

Ok....you want to go through it again,... you used eviscerations in a post as part of a list that connects the Ripper series with the Torsos, I of course jumped in....much to my regret now, and pointed out that ONLY 3 Canonicals had that, therefore it cannot be considered a common element among the 2 series....which total a dozen victims between them. How that then became me suggesting you espoused 12 evisceration murders is still beyond me, but it is what it is. When you persistently accused me of that I got pissed off. That's the reality. Im no longer preoccupied with making sure you understand that's what happened. So....I think, enough.

"ONLY 3 Canonicals had that, therefore it cannot be considered a common element among the 2 series....which total a dozen victims between them."

THAT works.

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

THAT does NOT work.

If you had used the first wording, you would not have had me breathing down your neck. Using the wording you actually DID use, you were guaranteed to get that precise result.

And no, I do NOT want to "go through it again", Michael. YOU brought it up again, not me. I specifically said that it would be eminent sense on your behalf NOT to go through it again.

That stands, by the way. A good idea would be for you to instead comment on the statistics matter. It is threadrelated and therefore welcome.

[Joshua Rogan]

I believe what Im suggesting Fisherman is that murderous acts that are known publicly are often seen in other subsequent murders as a result of conscious or subconscious influence. I can cite 3 multiple murder cases in Toronto in recent history that share common traits that were almost certainly ideas that prior news events revealed. Ill use the FBI Serial killer data since everyone likes imagining a solo serial killer here, at least for Jacks presumed list, ... the FBI estimates that .0006% of a given population are serial killers using modern case histories, since greater London in 1888 was around 4 million, that makes 2,400 possible serial killers. In London, not including any commuters.

Ill let that sit quietly for a minute. Its important to digest properly.

Are you sure about your maths?

[Michael W Richards]

sigh.....the "not a dozen victims" refers to the 2 series of victims combined. I should have written "So, in conclusion.." before it I suppose in retrospect. Since eviscerations comprise only 3 Canonicals, and since that means that The Ripper series as a whole cannot be included with the Torsos based on a common element of "eviscerations, then it shouldn't be on any list comparing the 2 complete series's. Which you put it on anyway. Had you used "some" when referring to Canonicals, it would have saved us and everyone else all this bs.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Are you sure about your maths?

It's 24 isn't it? I'm not great with the whole number magic.
2,400 potential killers, minimum of two kills each, so not a kick in the arse of 5,000 victims? Seems a bit steep.

[Michael W Richards]

Sorry, 24 should be the total. Didn't pay enough attention to what I was writing, Im at work and have interruptions. My apologies. 24.

[Joshua Rogan]

It's 24 isn't it? I'm not great with the whole number magic.

That's what I make it too. It's still a fair few though, especially if they all live on your street.

[DJA]

A 2011 study found 70% of female serial killers to be nurses.

[Michael W Richards]

Yeah Josh, it is a lot, although what I wrote would have one on every corner. Maybe shouldn't post from work...

With 24 potential Killers at Large, I wont say Men at Large because I don't know what male/female ratio exists there, but there is ample reason to imagine some working at the same time. At least 1 of them worked within a square mile, in the East End.

[Abby Normal]

That's what I make it too. It's still a fair few though, especially if they all live on your street.

id subtract another at least percentage point for every hundred years ago taking into consideration the serial killer phenomena was in its infancy and incredibly rare.

which brings up another thing that seems to be glossed over or down right forgotten. serial killers back then were much much rarer than they are in modern times.

[Kattrup]

id subtract another at least percentage point for every hundred years ago taking into consideration the serial killer phenomena was in its infancy and incredibly rare.

which brings up another thing that seems to be glossed over or down right forgotten. serial killers back then were much much rarer than they are in modern times.

Glad you mention it, as has been pointed out many times but not taken onboard by some: serial killer behaviour, serial killer statistics, number of serial killers are not constants.

Serial killers are not robots but products of a society.

Quoting serial killers from the 1990s or studies about murders around the millennium proves or indicates nothing about London in 1888.