Practicality or madness?

[Fisherman]

Dahmer committed all his murders in the same way irrespective of the time frame.

"Irrespective of the time frame"? Two minutes ago, it was the time frame that worried you, now it is the differences inbetween the murders?

And you say Dahmer killed all his victims in the same way? The first was bludgeoned unconscious with a dumbbell before being strangled, the second had his chest caved in and was beaten black and blue, blood seeping from his mouth, most others were drugged and strangled. One victim was killed by Dahmer slashing his arteries. Do you consider these murders ciommitted in the same manner, Trevor? Do explain how that works!

What you are suggesting between the Torsos and JTR shows us that they are totally different in so many ways for them not to be the same person responsible.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Us? Really?

[Trevor Marriott]

Us? Really?

Did he not commit the murders within the confines of his own house, does that not make then unique to him ? He then dismembered the bodies and kept the body parts in fridges and freezers in his house. His subsequent explanation for that was that he wanted to keep them for company.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Abby Normal]

Yes Fisherman,it does mean to imply,and yes you have implied that the torso killer and JTR were one and the same,that they can be compared to Gillis.I'll add one more name to the total,Cross.You haven't proved anything,and Iv'e never credited you for doing so,nor have I stated you claimed to have written such.That is your lie.
Reveal all you want,but first I suggest you check what imply means.
My dictionary states 'To hint,suggest indirectly,to indicate or involve as a consequence'. do not make yourself a bigger fool than you alreay have.

harry
you do understand that all fish is doing is comparing unknown serial killers to a known one who was interviewed to help us understand what makes them tick right? and to help shed light on the unknown killers. law enforcement, the fbi etc started using this technique years ago.

and your calling someone else foolish? and yet down the semantic rabbit hole and personal insults youve dragged yet another thread down into.

[Abby Normal]

Did he not commit the murders within the confines of his own house, does that not make then unique to him ? He then dismembered the bodies and kept the body parts in fridges and freezers in his house. His subsequent explanation for that was that he wanted to keep them for company.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

keep moving those goalposts trevor! youll get fish to miss one of these times. lol

[Abby Normal]

Once again, dissimilarities are interesting up to the point where rare similarities occur within two cases, or series of cases. I have explained - or tried to explain - this many times now, but I am happy to do so again:

Dissimilarities inbetween two theoretical cases:

One woman killed in Greenland in 1949, and a man killed in Tahiti in 1960.
The woman killed by strangulation, the man by gunshot.
The woman 103 years old, the man 20.
The woman a famous politician, the man a dishwasher.

Could it be more dissimilar? Surely the cases must be unconnected?

But what if both victims have had their abdominal organs removed, whereupon the killer has stitched the openings closed with copper thread?

Can you see how the dissimilarities become obsolete in such a case? Although there is just the one similarity?

In the cases we look at, the differences are not by any stretch of the imagination as big as they were in my example. We have the same gender, the same occupation of the victims, the same city, the same general timeframe, the same opening up of the abdominal cavity by a cut from pubes to breastplate. What differs is the fact that some victims were dismembered, but there may be many reasons for that, plus we have examples of killers who did dismember only some of their victims.
But both men were eviscerators, both men cut out colon sections, both men cut away abdominal walls and both men stole rings from their victims fingers. And we don´t even have a single other example of co-existing eviscerators in the same area. So why would we accept two eviscerators here - who did the exact same odd things??? In victorian London, at a time in which we have very few serial killers recorded?

You say the Ripper disembowelled whereas the Torso killer dissected. But we know that the Torso killer took out organs from his victims bodies, just like the Ripper did. Why would we claim that this was done in different manners in the two series? Why would we not admit that BOTH men actually disembowelled?
You claim that Jack "destroyed". Didn´t the Torso killer do that? He also cut open, he also took out organs and he FURTHERMORE cut his victims up in pieces. Who destroys more of the two..?

You see, I think you are a victim of generic thinking here, getting tangled up in perceived differences that were never there. And sadly, I think you are in plentyful company.

For the record, I don´t think that either the Ripper murders nor the Torso dittos were about destruction at all. I believe they were both about creating, actually.

hey fish
great post and well explained. i totally agree except for the last sentence. to me it seems it was more about pleasure derived from cutting up women, curiosity, what his cutting intruments could do, that sort of thing.perhaps some sexual componant involved with these acts.

but i know your keeping some ideas close to the vest. creating what??? part tossed in shelley estate have anything to do with this?? ; )

[Fisherman]

Did he not commit the murders within the confines of his own house, does that not make then unique to him ?

1. Yes, he confined his killing to his own house. But that was not what you merrily claimed, was it? No, you claimed that he killed in the same manner every time. Which he did NOT!

2. Does it make him unique to have killed all his victims in his own house? No, it does not. Others have done precisely the same.

He then dismembered the bodies and kept the body parts in fridges and freezers in his house. His subsequent explanation for that was that he wanted to keep them for company.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yes, but once again, this was not what your claim looked like. Your claim was that he killed in the same manner every time. If you are in any doubt whatsoever regarding this, here´s the exact quote:

"Dahmer committed all his murders in the same way irrespective of the time frame."

I am fine with discussing all angles of this, goalpost moving on your behalf and all, because it helps to highlight what I am suggesting. You formerly doubted that a killer exerted control over dead victims, but Dahmer is a good example to the contrary. Just like you say, he could not stand the idea of his lovers leaving him, and so he took control over that part by killing and even eating them. That way, he was guaranteed to have them close to himself. Control, Trevor; control.

[Fisherman]

hey fish
great post and well explained. i totally agree except for the last sentence. to me it seems it was more about pleasure derived from cutting up women, curiosity, what his cutting intruments could do, that sort of thing.perhaps some sexual componant involved with these acts.

but i know your keeping some ideas close to the vest. creating what??? part tossed in shelley estate have anything to do with this?? ; )

I do not rule out that he got satisfaction from cutting into flesh, Abby, and in a way, it can be reasoned that he did destroy (as in "take apart") the bodies he handled. But I believe we may compare it to chopping down a tree to get timber to build from. He shaped the bodies of his victims into something, and the Shelley Estate dumping may or may not be an ironic comment along the same lines. Although, as it has been pointed out, the Shelley Estate had a high ranking police officer tenant (unless I misremember), and so it cannot be ruled out that it was instead all linked to an effort to taunt the police à la the Whitehall case. If so, the irony of the Shelley connection was as unintended as it was spectacular. And of course, if the officer was the target, then I for one would love to know which cases he had covered and prosecuted in his career.

[Abby Normal]

I do not rule out that he got satisfaction from cutting into flesh, Abby, and in a way, it can be reasoned that he did destroy (as in "take apart") the bodies he handled. But I believe we may compare it to chopping down a tree to get timber to build from. He shaped the bodies of his victims into something, and the Shelley Estate dumping may or may not be an ironic comment along the same lines. Although, as it has been pointed out, the Shelley Estate had a high ranking police officer tenant (unless I misremember), and so it cannot be ruled out that it was instead all linked to an effort to taunt the police à la the Whitehall case. If so, the irony of the Shelley connection was as unintended as it was spectacular. And of course, if the officer was the target, then I for one would love to know which cases he had covered and prosecuted in his career.

Hi Fish

I do not rule out that he got satisfaction from cutting into flesh, Abby, and in a way, it can be reasoned that he did destroy (as in "take apart") the bodies he handled. But I believe we may compare it to chopping down a tree to get timber to build from. He shaped the bodies of his victims into something

got it. need to ruminate on this angle a bit more. Ive also considered that he was "building" something or using the parts along these lines ala gein, anatomical venus or even frankensteins monster (to take it to the extreme).

Although, as it has been pointed out, the Shelley Estate had a high ranking police officer tenant (unless I misremember), and so it cannot be ruled out that it was instead all linked to an effort to taunt the police à la the Whitehall case. If so, the irony of the Shelley connection was as unintended as it was spectacular. And of course, if the officer was the target, then I for one would love to know which cases he had covered and prosecuted in his career.

interesting indeed.

[jerryd]

I do not rule out that he got satisfaction from cutting into flesh, Abby, and in a way, it can be reasoned that he did destroy (as in "take apart") the bodies he handled. But I believe we may compare it to chopping down a tree to get timber to build from. He shaped the bodies of his victims into something, and the Shelley Estate dumping may or may not be an ironic comment along the same lines. Although, as it has been pointed out, the Shelley Estate had a high ranking police officer tenant (unless I misremember), and so it cannot be ruled out that it was instead all linked to an effort to taunt the police à la the Whitehall case. If so, the irony of the Shelley connection was as unintended as it was spectacular. And of course, if the officer was the target, then I for one would love to know which cases he had covered and prosecuted in his career.

Hi Christer.

The Shelley house was rented in 1889 by Sir Arthur Charles. He was appointed to the Queens Bench as a judge in 1887. He was away at the Isle of Wight during that summer.

[Fisherman]

[/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]

Hi Christer.

The Shelley house was rented in 1889 by Sir Arthur Charles. He was appointed to the Queens Bench as a judge in 1887. He was away at the Isle of Wight during that summer.

Ah, just the man I needed. Thanks, Jerry, I remember now, it was a judge. The same applies here though, of course - who had he sent down? One would like to know...

Can I ask you, how do you look upon the different options? Was it a body part hint towards a relative of the creator of Frankenstein, was it dig at the judicial system or was it a mere fluke?

[Fisherman]

Here he is, courtesy of Wikipedia:

Charles was educated at University College School and University College London, where he read Mathematics.^[1] He was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in 1862. He began his career as a law reporter, reporting on the Court of Exchequer.

His career at the bar was associated with ecclesiastical cases. As a junior, he appeared in many cases concerning ritualist controversies. In 1868, he appeared as a junior for Mr Charles, who was being tried in the Arches Court with Alexander Mackonochie for ritual practices, and remained involved with subsequent litigation. In 1874, he defended Mackonochie on new charges. Mackonochie subsequently refused to obey the Arches Court made against him, leading to his suspension for three years. Charles applied to the Queen's Bench Division for a writ of prohibition against the Arches Court on the grounds the latter had exceeded its authority: the application was denied by Cockburn CJ and Mellor J, against the dissent of Lush J.^[1]

Charles became a Queen's Counsel in 1877, and unsuccessfully contested the London University constituency as a Conservative in 1880. He was Recorder of Bath between 1878–87, Chancellor of Southwell Diocese between 1884–87, Commissary of Westminster between 1884–87.

He was appointed a Justice of the High Court of Justice in 1887 and assigned to the Queen's Bench Division, receiving the customary knighthood. In April 1895, Oscar Wilde was tried for sodomy and gross indecency for the first time before him. H. Montgomery Hyde described Charles' summing-up as "a fine example of judicial impartiality", although others were more critical. In the end, the jury was unable to agree, and Wilde was tried again and convicted the following month before Mr Justice Wills.

He resigned in 1897 for health reasons and was sworn of the Privy Council, but did not sit on the Judicial Committee. In 1899 he became Dean of the Arches, Master of the Faculties, and Auditor of the Chancery Court of York, succeeding to Lord Penzance, in front of whom Charles had often appeared at the bar. After the ritualist controversies of previous decades, Charles presided over the ecclesiastical courts during a period of relative quiet. He retired in 1903.^[1]

[jerryd]

Ah, just the man I needed. Thanks, Jerry, I remember now, it was a judge. The same applies here though, of course - who had he sent down? One would like to know...

Can I ask you, how do you look upon the different options? Was it a body part hint towards a relative of the creator of Frankenstein, was it dig at the judicial system or was it a mere fluke?

Christer,

I've looked at a lot of angles and a conclusion I have not reached. Sorry. But, taking into consideration the lay of the land, the Shelley estate was enroute either away from or on the way to the Albert Bridge where authorities felt some of Elizabeth Jacksons parts were thrown into the water. The east side of the estate, at the time, was bordered by the large Chelsea gardens. Jacksons torso (or part of it at least) was placed as we know in Battersea Park near some gardens. One angle I have looked at is either a gardener who might have taken care of both gardens or a Board of Works embankment employee. You know, of course, my suspicions on a certain man that may have taken that route to and from work at the vault at Whitehall.

There were a lot of significant people that lived in the immediate area including Oscar Wilde and Melville Macnaghten. Not that I think either were the ripper, by the way. The interesting part to me is more the involvement of the man that discovered the thigh, the reporter Claude Mellor. He subsequently gets involved in the Pinchin case as well.

I think we need to look further into the foot and leg that showed up a bit north (near Wandsworth Bridge) and how that got there. If parts were thrown from the Albert Bridge at about the same time, as the authorities suggest, how did the leg and foot flow one way up the river, and the rest the other way down the river?

[Fisherman]

Christer,

I've looked at a lot of angles and a conclusion I have not reached. Sorry. But, taking into consideration the lay of the land, the Shelley estate was enroute either away from or on the way to the Albert Bridge where authorities felt some of Elizabeth Jacksons parts were thrown into the water. The east side of the estate, at the time, was bordered by the large Chelsea gardens. Jacksons torso (or part of it at least) was placed as we know in Battersea Park near some gardens. One angle I have looked at is either a gardener who might have taken care of both gardens or a Board of Works embankment employee. You know, of course, my suspicions on a certain man that may have taken that route to and from work at the vault at Whitehall.

There were a lot of significant people that lived in the immediate area including Oscar Wilde and Melville Macnaghten. Not that I think either were the ripper, by the way. The interesting part to me is more the involvement of the man that discovered the thigh, the reporter Claude Mellor. He subsequently gets involved in the Pinchin case as well.

I think we need to look further into the foot and leg that showed up a bit north (near Wandsworth Bridge) and how that got there. If parts were thrown from the Albert Bridge at about the same time, as the authorities suggest, how did the leg and foot flow one way up the river, and the rest the other way down the river?

Rivers are strange vessels, Jerry - if you have ever flyfished one you will know. Backwaters are formed and things are sucked down towards the bottom, staying there for the longest time. The rules of nature, the way we want them to be, do not always apply.

Did you know that Arthur Charles was in fact involved in the case against Oscar Wilde at one time? I found out reading up on the judge. He seems to have been involved in many cases about ecclesiastics and ritualism (the reverse of Wilde, of course), and it makes for interesting reading.

What I found interesting about the estate was the significant distnce it was away from the bridge. To me, that possibly implies that the killer sought it out.

[Abby Normal]

Rivers are strange vessels, Jerry - if you have ever flyfished one you will know. Backwaters are formed and things are sucked down towards the bottom, staying there for the longest time. The rules of nature, the way we want them to be, do not always apply.

Did you know that Arthur Charles was in fact involved in the case against Oscar Wilde at one time? I found out reading up on the judge. He seems to have been involved in many cases about ecclesiastics and ritualism (the reverse of Wilde, of course), and it makes for interesting reading.

What I found interesting about the estate was the significant distnce it was away from the bridge. To me, that possibly implies that the killer sought it out.

yup and that the river and embankment was close on the other side of the road as he traveled with the part that significant distance and could have tossed it over there at any time along the way and it being probably an easier, safer and less problematic direction to toss the part too. the killer undoubtedly sought out the shelley estate.

[Abby Normal]

Christer,

I've looked at a lot of angles and a conclusion I have not reached. Sorry. But, taking into consideration the lay of the land, the Shelley estate was enroute either away from or on the way to the Albert Bridge where authorities felt some of Elizabeth Jacksons parts were thrown into the water. The east side of the estate, at the time, was bordered by the large Chelsea gardens. Jacksons torso (or part of it at least) was placed as we know in Battersea Park near some gardens. One angle I have looked at is either a gardener who might have taken care of both gardens or a Board of Works embankment employee. You know, of course, my suspicions on a certain man that may have taken that route to and from work at the vault at Whitehall.

There were a lot of significant people that lived in the immediate area including Oscar Wilde and Melville Macnaghten. Not that I think either were the ripper, by the way. The interesting part to me is more the involvement of the man that discovered the thigh, the reporter Claude Mellor. He subsequently gets involved in the Pinchin case as well.

I think we need to look further into the foot and leg that showed up a bit north (near Wandsworth Bridge) and how that got there. If parts were thrown from the Albert Bridge at about the same time, as the authorities suggest, how did the leg and foot flow one way up the river, and the rest the other way down the river?

well if it wasn't at the capriciousness of the rivers flows and currents, I would say it was intentionally brought there.