Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Practicality or madness?

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

  • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

    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.
    Were they? Im pretty sure Ive never seen any data that suggests any increase in serial killers based on anything other than increasing populations. People look for "serial connections" now, but maybe only when they had no other ideas, then. Interestingly in London at that time we have Chapman, who at least becomes a serial killer, not sure if Deeming has been proven to be in London at the time, but if so, him too...we have Ripper murders that most presume were serial killers work, an unconnected series of murders that involved Torsos, we have other Unsolved cases which some may or may not have been the work of a serial killer, multiple kill terrorists would qualify,...if you start beating the bushes you will see that serial murder wasn't unique to one man.

    Which should cause anyone a great deal of pause when suggesting otherwise.



    Michael Richards

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Kattrup View Post

      Quoting serial killers from the 1990s or studies about murders around the millennium proves or indicates nothing about London in 1888.
      I wish more people would adopt that philosophy, instead of using modern stats to justify a series. But as I pointed out, serial crime back then had no shortage of personelle.

      Michael Richards

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Kattrup View Post

        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.
        Bingo K!
        "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


        • I think this is a very hard question to answer. If we regard serial killing as an expression of inborn psychopathy, perhaps coupled with trauma to the head and other such physical factors, then we should have, relative to the population, the same amount of serial killers whatever era we look at.

          Then again, if serial killing is - to any degree - a cultural phenomenon, we get a very different picture. In the 70:s and 80:s, serial killers were the criminal equivalent of rock stars, to put it cynically. And such a thing would affect the total.

          There are also sociological factors to weigh in. If our modern times produce more broken homes, does that play a role? It can be either way: if people stayed together in dysfuctional marriages before, maybe that was a factor that actually raised the numbers?

          All in all, I would say that it is not a question that inspires much faith in the possibilities of getting things right. My general feeling is that we have a lot more serial killers today than we did in the 1880:s. I also think that if, for example, serial dismemberment/evisceration killers were proliferate back then, itīs odd that we donīt hear of the many victims found with emptied out abdominal cavities. Then again, the fact that we have yet to find two such creatures working simultaneously and in the same area surely must say a good deal about the rarity of these killers.

          To the mathematically gifted on this thread: thanks for clearing away 99 per cent of that hoard of serial killers! It will improve my sleep a whole deal.

          Comment


          • The question of identifying serial killers back in the 1880:s is an interesting one for many reasons. The area has a bearing for us, in our hunt for the Ripper/torso killer.

            I have heard a number of times - on this thread too - that "the police back then felt certain tnhat it was not the same killer, so why should we not listen to them, who were there and knew the facts?"

            Because, Iīd say, they knew CASE facts, but NOT the facts about how a serial killer functions.

            Serial murders are regularly motiveless murders - they are not about gaining money or getting back at people. They are about a wish to kill. And that psychological disposition was not on the map in the 1880:s. All murders had a motive, or so it was thought. That was why the Old Nichol gangs were interesting to the police - they provided a logical explanation to the Nichols murder.

            The Ripper changed the game. It was understood that this was a man "revelling in blood, a maniac" or something such. It was dawning on the police that the Ripper was killing for killings sake, a hideous thought in a society that blamed violent murders as atavisms - throwbacks in time. Which is why it was refreshing for them to at least lay down that the torso killings were - as they thought all dismemberments were - about hiding the identity of the victims and concealing the crimes.

            Accordingly, the two series could effectively not be coupled in the minds of the police and medicos of victorian London. And that is where we can make a huge difference, since we know that there is such a thing as aggressive, offensive dismemberment.

            Before the Ripper, the idea of serial killers who killed for the joy of it was absurd. After him, it was a reality. But the various facets of a serial killers face were only discerned over time, and the learning curve was a steep one.
            Last edited by Fisherman; 01-29-2020, 04:07 PM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

              I wish more people would adopt that philosophy, instead of using modern stats to justify a series. But as I pointed out, serial crime back then had no shortage of personelle.
              But "serial crime" is such a broad term. What sort of crime are we talking?

              If it's serial murder, then actually this kind of thing was unprecedented.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                The question of identifying serial killers back in the 1880:s is an interesting one for many reasons. The area has a bearing for us, in our hunt for the Ripper/torso killer.

                I have heard a number of times - on this thread too - that "the police back then felt certain tnhat it was not the same killer, so why should we not listen to them, who were there and knew the facts?"

                Because, Iīd say, they knew CASE facts, but NOT the facts about how a serial killer functions.

                Serial murders are regularly motiveless murders - they are not about gaining money or getting back at people. They are about a wish to kill. And that psychological disposition was not on the map in the 1880:s. All murders had a motive, or so it was thought. That was why the Old Nichol gangs were interesting to the police - they provided a logical explanation to the Nichols murder.

                The Ripper changed the game. It was understood that this was a man "revelling in blood, a maniac" or something such. It was dawning on the police that the Ripper was killing for killings sake, a hideous thought in a society that blamed violent murders as atavisms - throwbacks in time. Which is why it was refreshing for them to at least lay down that the torso killings were - as they thought all dismemberments were - about hiding the identity of the victims and concealing the crimes.

                Accordingly, the two series could effectively not be coupled in the minds of the police and medicos of victorian London. And that is where we can make a huge difference, since we know that there is such a thing as aggressive, offensive dismemberment.

                Before the Ripper, the idea of serial killers who killed for the joy of it was absurd. After him, it was a reality. But the various facets of a serial killers face were only discerned over time, and the learning curve was a steep one.
                absolutely fish
                The cops were unfamiliar with this type of thing, so there judgement was lacking in info and experience, that we now know.
                Also, Serial killing is a cultural thing (as well as personal/psychological-its nature and nurture) and many have made note of the influence of the industrial revolution on its rise. large amounts of people in crowded cities, more "leisure time", extreme poverty, common violence and child abuse, availability of bars and liquor, the rise and large concentration of destitute women and prostitutes (easy targets), newspapers/pulp fiction/books with salacious material IMHO gave rise to the conditions and opportunities for the birth and proliferation of the modern serial killer. But it didn't burst on the scene fully fledged and in the numbers we have now-it grew with the 1960s-80s being the high point. That said it started out slowly, with the numbers of serial killers in the 1880s very low and rare. Again pointing to the idea that two serial killers, rare post mortem types no less, operating in the same basic area and time frame, targeting the same type of victim would be a HUGE coincidence considering the rarity of serial killers in general. Add in the specific trademarks of both-post mortem mutilation, targeting the face and head, removing flaps of stomach flesh, vertical gash to midsection, removal of body parts and IMHO were probably not looking at a coincidence , but one man.
                "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 Harry D View Post

                  But "serial crime" is such a broad term. What sort of crime are we talking?

                  If it's serial murder, then actually this kind of thing was unprecedented.
                  Serial is 2 or more, Spree is 2.

                  Unprecedented historically?, no. Multiple murder cases pre Jack, lots. Technically the Train station Bombings were serial murder. Many multiple murderers existed in the 1880's, from places all around the world. Even the Barber of Fleet Street, (Sweeney Todd) was allegedly based on some real cases. You already have 1 known one living in Londons East End in 1888 at the time of both the Torsos and Jacky boy.

                  One that stands out is Mary Ann Cotton, England, hanged March 1873 for potentially killing 21 people, 11 of her own children

                  From Wikipedia there is a list of multiple murders pre 1900. Hence...serial killers. Look at it for yourself...its way to long to type them all myself.....

                  Once you've done that, does 1 man killing all the Ripper victims and all the Torsos seem logical now?
                  Michael Richards

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                    Serial is 2 or more, Spree is 2.

                    Unprecedented historically?, no. Multiple murder cases pre Jack, lots. Technically the Train station Bombings were serial murder. Many multiple murderers existed in the 1880's, from places all around the world. Even the Barber of Fleet Street, (Sweeney Todd) was allegedly based on some real cases. You already have 1 known one living in Londons East End in 1888 at the time of both the Torsos and Jacky boy.

                    One that stands out is Mary Ann Cotton, England, hanged March 1873 for potentially killing 21 people, 11 of her own children

                    From Wikipedia there is a list of multiple murders pre 1900. Hence...serial killers. Look at it for yourself...its way to long to type them all myself.....

                    Once you've done that, does 1 man killing all the Ripper victims and all the Torsos seem logical now?
                    Yes, eminently so. It does not come down to how there were multiple murderers before the Ripper, but instead to how there is not even today any record of two simultaneously working eviscerating serial killers in the same area.

                    I donīt think anybody would harbour the idea that there were no serial killers before 1888, Michael. I think I have made the point before, but here it is again: It is the rare and odd inclusions that are there in BOTH series that allows us to say beyond reasonable doubt that there was only one killer. Since you yearn for logic, that is by far the most logic solution.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                      Yes, eminently so. It does not come down to how there were multiple murderers before the Ripper, but instead to how there is not even today any record of two simultaneously working eviscerating serial killers in the same area.

                      I donīt think anybody would harbour the idea that there were no serial killers before 1888, Michael. I think I have made the point before, but here it is again: It is the rare and odd inclusions that are there in BOTH series that allows us to say beyond reasonable doubt that there was only one killer. Since you yearn for logic, that is by far the most logic solution.
                      Statistically, there could have been as many as 24 serial killers living in London in 1888. Rare and odd describes theories that presume that the actual number was one. Since there was one known to be there, without proof he was killing then but was executed for other later murders, I guess your suspect is then Chapman, not Lechmere. If you want to assume 1, ...or would that be 2 now? And the undiscovered Train Station bombers, one or 2 men there...multiple murders, and maybe still in London,...then there is Vasilev, thought to be in London during that time and a multiple murderer of street women. I could go on, but not for deaf ears.
                      Last edited by Michael W Richards; 01-29-2020, 07:05 PM.
                      Michael Richards

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                        Statistically, there could have been as many as 24 serial killers living in London in 1888. Rare and odd describes theories that presume that the actual number was one. Since there was one known to be there, without proof he was killing then but was executed for other later murders, I guess your suspect is then Chapman, not Lechmere. If you want to assume 1, ...or would that be 2 now? And the undiscovered Train Station bombers, one or 2 men there...multiple murders, and maybe still in London,...then there is Vasilev, thought to be in London during that time and a multiple murderer of street women. I could go on, but not for deaf ears.
                        I guess we differ in how I say that when we have two series that include all the similarities I have listed (for deaf ears) numerous times not, it is almost ceertainly a single killer - whereas your thoughts philander towards any of the other 23 serial killers that you loftily suppose were there.

                        I say that similarities speak of a similar source, and you say that similarities should encourage us to vote for dissimilar sources.

                        Thatīs really all there is to it.

                        I would be interested to see where it is listed that the Train Station bombers cut away abdominal walls in large flaps from the bomb victims, by the way.
                        Last edited by Fisherman; 01-29-2020, 07:42 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                          I guess we differ in how I say that when we have two series that include all the similarities I have listed (for deaf ears) numerous times not, it is almost ceertainly a single killer - whereas your thoughts philander towards any of the other 23 serial killers that you loftily suppose were there.

                          I say that similarities speak of a similar source, and you say that similarities should encourage us to vote for dissimilar sources.

                          Thatīs really all there is to it.

                          I would be interested to see where it is listed that the Train Station bombers cut away abdominal flaps in sections, by the way.
                          cmon fish
                          there was a veritable broadway musical of serial killers in London in the 1880s-all dancing around the foggy gas lit stage with there knives and body parts accompanied by jolly ladies of the evening like something out of Mary Poppins lol
                          "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 Abby Normal View Post

                            cmon fish
                            there was a veritable broadway musical of serial killers in London in the 1880s-all dancing around the foggy gas lit stage with there knives and body parts accompanied by jolly ladies of the evening like something out of Mary Poppins lol
                            Ah! The Abdominal Flap Show featuring reverend Bob on ... organ! A truly heartless performance.

                            How on earth could I forget that? Thanks for reminding me, Abby!

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                              ... whereas your thoughts philander towards any of the other 23 serial killers that you loftily suppose were there.
                              Fisherman, Its now apparent that you will intentionally misrepresent a post..you said the above in reaction to my post below...thats positive proof of a misrepresentation. Good luck with your theory. I cant debate with someone who just gave me **** because he twists what is said to fit his own agenda. Might want to revisit the "mistaken" impressions of what I said about other things to.

                              Statistically, there could have been as many as 24 serial killers living in London in 1888.





                              Michael Richards

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                                Fisherman, Its now apparent that you will intentionally misrepresent a post..you said the above in reaction to my post below...thats positive proof of a misrepresentation. Good luck with your theory. I cant debate with someone who just gave me **** because he twists what is said to fit his own agenda. Might want to revisit the "mistaken" impressions of what I said about other things to.
                                Statistically, there could have been as many as 24 serial killers living in London in 1888.




                                Michael, you are in no position whatsoever too speak of misrepresentations. You yourself tell us that statistically, there could have been as many as 24 serial killers living in London 1888, and that VERY much allows me to speak of you opting for any one of those characters being a possible participator in the Ripper/Torso murders. It is, as I say, a very lofty reasoning.

                                I can only think that you are so frustrated by your earlier mistake that you will now try to pounce on anything I say. It makes for sad reading.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X