Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Practicality or madness?

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

  • #61
    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
    The one we do know about lived and worked in and around the Chelsea area. No reason to suppose that the other torso victims - Pinchin excepted - weren't also from South West London. It's almost certain that the torso victims didn't know any of the C5; indeed, there's no guarantee that all the C5 knew each other, either.
    Yes, Jackson lived and worked in the Battersea/Chelsea area. But where she was picked up is another matter - that we don´t know.

    Not that the Torsoripper could not have picked her up anywhere, if he had transportation.

    There is no reason to rule that the other victims could not have come from any district in London, once again for the simple reason that we don´t know where they were picked up.

    And, once again, if the Torsoripper had transportation, they could have been picked up at Buckingham Palace which was a round three miles away from the Ripper grounds. No problem.

    The fact that most of the parts from these women were dumped in the West End is nothing but that - it tells us that they were dumped somewhere there. Nothing more. You are welcome to suggest that the killer lived there too, but not to imply that it is a near certainty. It is no such thing at all.

    The same goes for the Ripper victims and the Torso ditto - I think you may agree that not knowing the identities of the latter means that we will have a very hard time proving that it is "almost certain" that they did not know each other. The suggestion is quite preposterous and has nothing at all to do with serious research.

    It would be quite logical if they did not know each other, but it would not be impossible in any shape or form that they did. It´s one of many unknown and unweighable factors involved in the case. Personally, I am fine with any version, that they knew each other and had tea together on Fridays, or that they never saw each other at all and were totally ignorant of each others presence in London.

    I have no problem with that, I can take both versions in my stride. You, on the other hand, have a bias to feed - it is NOT comme il faut to suggest any link at all or even hint at such a possibility. And my, do you feed it!

    Once again, however, the aim of the thread is another one, clearly defined in my former post to you.
    Last edited by Fisherman; 11-03-2018, 04:09 AM.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Batman View Post
      Dr. Francis "Frank" E. Sweeney is the prime suspect. A bit like the Kozminski claim, when Sweeney committed himself, the murders 'stopped'.
      It was sweeney,
      "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


      • #63
        Originally posted by John G View Post
        Why is the onus of proof on me? What do you mean by " inclusions of similarities that are extremely rare and far reaching?

        Regarding similar agendas, I would largely disagree with that (not completely because in a previous post I referred to the possibility of Torso man being an offensive/defensive offender, and offensive dismemberment can be analogues with lust murder.)

        Personally I regard Torsoman as a unique and highly unususl killer. Organized, in the way JtR was not; defensive/cautious in the way he took precautions to prevent his victims from being identified; a ghoulish sense of humour, as evidenced by the fact that he was scattering body parts like pieces of a puzzle; and soneone who wss playing a kind of game with the police- I mean there can't be many serial killers who thought it would be a great whiz to bury body parts right under the noses of the police in their own headquarters!
        “Scattering body parts like pieces of a puzzle”. Love it!
        "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


        • #64
          I would think the primary reason why he kept the heads was to prevent direct identification, although other more morbid reasons can apply, the inference we should make is that he could be associated with these victims and is why he doesn't want them identified.
          Bona fide canonical and then some.

          Comment


          • #65
            The only victim JTR did not want identified was MJK. Torso murderer killed in the wealthy West End and and identification was zero in most cases. Did JTR and Torso killer know each other? Could MJK be connected because she at one point worked in an West End Brothel? But because she had absconded to the East End, JTR got to her first. Just a thought.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Busy Beaver View Post
              The only victim JTR did not want identified was MJK
              So he killed her in her own room?
              Kind regards, Sam Flynn

              "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                So he killed her in her own room?
                Lol.

                One could say maybe he was trying to obscure identity with attacking the face of eddowes, until MK. Then its apparent its escalation of fantasy.
                "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


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Batman View Post
                  I would think the primary reason why he kept the heads was to prevent direct identification, although other more morbid reasons can apply, the inference we should make is that he could be associated with these victims and is why he doesn't want them identified.
                  If the 1873 torso is part of the series - and I have little doubt that it is - then keep in mind that far from keeping or hiding the head, the killer actually cut the whole face and scalp away and threw it in the Thames. That is not effective identity hiding.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Busy Beaver View Post
                    The only victim JTR did not want identified was MJK. Torso murderer killed in the wealthy West End and and identification was zero in most cases. Did JTR and Torso killer know each other? Could MJK be connected because she at one point worked in an West End Brothel? But because she had absconded to the East End, JTR got to her first. Just a thought.
                    The West End and the East End were not impossible to commute inbetween, Mr Beaver. There were many people who did so on a daily basis - not least carmen...

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                      Lol.

                      One could say maybe he was trying to obscure identity with attacking the face of eddowes, until MK. Then its apparent its escalation of fantasy.
                      If he did not mind Nichols and Chapman and Stride (on the same night!) being ID:d, why would he mind Eddowes having her ID revealed?

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                        If the 1873 torso is part of the series - and I have little doubt that it is - then keep in mind that far from keeping or hiding the head, the killer actually cut the whole face and scalp away and threw it in the Thames. That is not effective identity hiding.
                        Really? I must have forgotten that and I read Trow.

                        Which discovery was that one?
                        Bona fide canonical and then some.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                          If he did not mind Nichols and Chapman and Stride (on the same night!) being ID:d, why would he mind Eddowes having her ID revealed?
                          Exactly.
                          "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


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Batman View Post
                            Really? I must have forgotten that and I read Trow.

                            Which discovery was that one?
                            Trow has it in his book - September 1873. If you have not read up about this victim, I recommend you do so. She is of the utmost importance.

                            Gordon does NOT have her in his book, for a very obvious reason. He opts for the Salamanca Place victim instead, and for just as obvious a cause...

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                              Trow has it in his book - September 1873. If you have not read up about this victim, I recommend you do so. She is of the utmost importance.

                              Gordon does NOT have her in his book, for a very obvious reason. He opts for the Salamanca Place victim instead, and for just as obvious a cause...
                              I read Gordon before Trow and might have just forgotten it (obviously have) and will look again in Trow.

                              Thanks.
                              Bona fide canonical and then some.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Batman View Post
                                I read Gordon before Trow and might have just forgotten it (obviously have) and will look again in Trow.

                                Thanks.
                                You´re welcome, Batman!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X