Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Francis Hermans - Update - Solid evidence of him being in vicinity of torso murders.

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

  • rjpalmer
    replied
    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
    thats all im saying. no circular reasoning at all. I dont even care if any of the torso victims (or the ripper victims for that matter) are ever described as being prostitutes at all ever again-its not the point. but whatever you call them its the same victimology between jackson and the ripper victims, and more than likeley (because theyre already linked by murder MO) that jackson is the same victimology as the other torso victims.
    Well, to keep the peace, I have too much fundamental disagreement with the ideas that you and Fisherman promote for me to continue.

    Hebbert's only reason for suggesting that 4 of the torso cases were linked was the way in which the joints were disarticulated. It was on medical grounds.

    The "victimology" had sod all to do with it, so to claim that one of the women was a known unfortunate means the other three might have been is your reasoning, not his. That's fine, but let's be clear on that point.

    And where does Hebbert suggest these four women were the victim of a sexual sadist who targeted prostitutes?

    Again, that's your suggestion, and Fish's suggestion, not his. So again, the alleged 'victimology' does not come into play.

    Indeed, one of the victims was not accustomed to manual work. Show me an East End prostitute with a nice set of hands. The majority of them were scrubbers, manglers, bottle stopperers, etc.


    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
    no they arent. you know how many detectives have used that word (or label as you like to call it) in describing victims and linking them via victimology? lol-no they are not scared of it. of course they know, and we know, that they can be mothers and girfreinds and wives etc, but its the prostituting activity and lifestyle that more often than not gets them into trouble, and thats why they use that word when describing them in the context of trying to solve the murder.
    Maybe in Hollywood.

    The average murdered 'unfortunate' is not murdered by Ted Bundy; she's murdered by her ex, by her abusive boyfriend, or by her pimp. It's of course different in Hollywood shockumentaries, when the correct answer is always Ted Bundy.

    Liz Jackson was pregnant.

    So here's a research project for those willing to do it.

    Make a study of pregnant women who were murdered in the Victorian era.

    Then tell me how many were killed by their seducers, how many were killed by abortionists, and how many were killed by a lone sexual serial sadist who targeted prostitutes.

    It aint even close.

    Ciao.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael W Richards
    replied
    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
    MR
    i never said that both series of women MUST be prostitutes, nor did i say they were active.
    learn how to read.

    theres a reason i put you on ignore, so if you could kindly stop quoting/responding directly to my posts i would appreciate it.
    "all the ripper victims were at one time prostitutes" Your words. Which is also incorrect. Stride was a registered prostituite at "one time", Mary worked in a brothel. The others did what was required to stay alive when needed, calling them Prostitutes...(which is used to define an Occupation).... is disrespecting them,... which is your way, and you demostrate it with every post.

    Look at what your pen pal posted...read def 1a. Of course he deferred to a secondary meaning, which is very much his style too. Goofs.

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

    Fair enough, Abby. Let's accept Hebbert's conclusion.

    Now, did Hebbert also suggest the 'Ripper' killings were murdered by this unknown 'torso' killer? Or did he see medical dissimilarities? Or even psychological dissimilarities?

    You see, I haven't forgotten our old friend Hermans.

    We don't know if Hermans was even in London on the dates of any of the 'torso' cases, but he might have been.

    Yet Fish doubts Hermans is a legitimate 'torso' suspect, because his Salt Lake crimes are allegedly too different from the London torso cases.

    Yet, my hunch is that most people can see more potential similarity between Hermans' crimes and one or two of the London cases, then they can see between the London torso crimes and the murder of Polly Nichols.

    If a person is going to dismiss a suspect because his crimes weren't "cookie cutter" enough, they shouldn't turn around and link two cases where the dissimilarities are even more evident.

    Here's my view: a person willing to murder someone and cut them up is exceedingly rare. Thankfully!

    To me, that rarity is far more relevant than any perceived differences in this or that crime.

    So, if Fred Deeming is found to have been living next door to Liz Jackson (he wasn't), he's going to be among my suspects even if she wasn't buried under the floorboards.

    Ditto Hermans and his stove in Salt Lake.
    hi rj



    yes i brought this exact same point up with fish earlier in the thread-I guess you missed it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

    Hi Abby,

    With respect, that has to be one of the most circular arguments I've ever encountered.

    How do we know the torso cases were linked? Because the victims were prostitutes.

    How do we know the victims were prostitutes? Because the cases were linked.

    !


    No, Fish calling Liz Jackson a prostitute doesn't "bother" me. That's missing the point.

    I'm not going full-blown Hallie on him, I'm simply asking whether his label pre-determines his 'solution' to her murder.

    Was she only a prostitute?

    Was she not also an expecting mother?

    Was she not also someone's girl friend?

    He calls her a 'prostitute' and suggests she was killed by sexual serial killer.

    I call her an expecting mother and suggest she was accidently killed by a clumsy abortionist.

    A third theorists suggests she was a girlfriend, and suggests the boyfriend's alibi was bogus and it was a 'domestic' killing.

    Labels might be fun.

    But detectives are scared of them.

    RP
    Hi RJ

    With respect, that has to be one of the most circular arguments I've ever encountered.

    How do we know the torso cases were linked? Because the victims were prostitutes.

    How do we know the victims were prostitutes? Because the cases were linked.
    absolutely 100% incorrect. Thats not what im saying and i dont appreciate you mis representing my view.

    The torsos are already linked because the hebbert said they were linked and they look linked because its four dismemberment murders of women in the same general time frame in the same general area.

    and since they are already linked, regardless of what they did.. then its not a stretch to say that since the only one ided was known to prostitute herself, then the others might have too.

    thats all im saying. no circular reasoning at all. I dont even care if any of the torso victims (or the ripper victims for that matter) are ever described as being prostitutes at all ever again-its not the point. but whatever you call them its the same victimology between jackson and the ripper victims, and more than likeley (because theyre already linked by murder MO) that jackson is the same victimology as the other torso victims.

    'm not going full-blown Hallie on him, I'm simply asking whether his label pre-determines his 'solution' to her murder.

    Was she only a prostitute?

    Was she not also an expecting mother?

    Was she not also someone's girl friend?

    He calls her a 'prostitute' and suggests she was killed by sexual serial killer.

    I call her an expecting mother and suggest she was accidently killed by a clumsy abortionist.

    A third theorists suggests she was a girlfriend, and suggests the boyfriend's alibi was bogus and it was a 'domestic' killing.

    Labels might be fun.

    But detectives are scared of them.
    yes she was those things too. and those men could be her killer-- but that dosnt preclude her from being killed by the torso serial killer though does it? as in-her boyfreind could have been the torso killer or the dr.

    the main point im trying to make is that she is already linked to the other torso victims, whatever you call her, or whoever killed her.

    IMHO it seems you are the one stuck on the label, i think hr is going to your head.


    But detectives are scared of them
    no they arent. you know how many detectives have used that word (or label as you like to call it) in describing victims and linking them via victimology? lol-no they are not scared of it. of course they know, and we know, that they can be mothers and girfreinds and wives etc, but its the prostituting activity and lifestyle that more often than not gets them into trouble, and thats why they use that word when describing them in the context of trying to solve the murder.
    Last edited by Abby Normal; 03-02-2021, 05:26 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

    Eviscerating serial killers are even rarer, R J. Maybe you should apply that insight on these cases too...?
    But body dealers and the illicit trade in bodies and body parts were not so rare.

    So if there is a dead body the body parts that are required have to be removed, just how many different ways are there to remove body parts. So your argument about body parts being removed in the same way and points to one killer falls a bit flat.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 03-02-2021, 05:06 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

    Now, did Hebbert also suggest the 'Ripper' killings were murdered by this unknown 'torso' killer? Or did he see medical dissimilarities? Or even psychological dissimilarities?

    Hebbert is well qualified medically, but not psychologically. This is a reoccurring theme throughout these cases. The concept of aggressive dismemberment was not known at the time, and so Hebbert did not have the tools to work with that we have today.

    Here's my view: a person willing to murder someone and cut them up is exceedingly rare. Thankfully!

    To me, that rarity is far more relevant than any perceived differences in this or that crime.
    Eviscerating serial killers are even rarer, R J. Maybe you should apply that insight on these cases too...? And while yoou are at it, cnsider this too:

    If the torso murders were - as seems probable - performed in a bolthole of some sort to which the killer could be linked, then the bodies HAD TO be moved away from that bolthole, or the killer would be detected.

    This was never so in the Ripper killings.

    One simple. purely practical difference clears away the whole "problem".

    Try and clear away how abdominal walls were removed in both series, and see how easy that is! Try and explain why both series involved removal of the heart and the uterus. Try and explain why both series involved cutting from sternum to groin.

    These are much more relevant factors than the perceived difference between street murders that did not involve dismemberment and likely bolthole murders that did.


    Plus we know that Kelly and Chapman (and possibly Eddowes) involved failed efforts to decapitate (=dismemberment). The killer could not take a head of by means of a knife.
    Curiously, that is the exact thing Hebbert says about the torso killer; in the Rainham case and the Whitehall case, he cut with a knife first but had to employ a saw to get the head off. In the Jackson case, he almost got there with the knife but couldnīt get through with it and once more he had to fetch the saw. But in September of 1889, ten months after the Kelly murder, where somebody had tried and failed to take the head off by means of a knife, he finally succeeded with the Pinchin Street woman.
    So we have two serial killers who killed prostitutes, who eviscerated, who cut away abdominal walls, who cut from ribs to pubes, who stole rings from their victims - and who were both eager to but unable to take heads off by way of knife in 1888.

    Surely, SURELY, they really MUST be totally different men. These are certainly all coincidences, nothing more!

    Right?


    Last edited by Fisherman; 03-02-2021, 05:10 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

    Fish calling Liz Jackson a prostitute doesn't "bother" me. That's missing the point.

    I'm not going full-blown Hallie on him, I'm simply asking whether his label pre-determines his 'solution' to her murder.

    No, you were not simply asking that, R J. You wrote:

    "If Rubenhold and her supporters cried foul at calling 'The Five' prostitutes, what on earth would their reaction be to Ripper theorists calling the 'torso' victims prostitutes?

    The majority of them were never even positively identified."


    In writing that, you implicated that I would havce said that ALL the torso victims were prostitutes, and I never said that. I said that since we KNOW that the only identified victim WAS a prostitute, it MAy be that the killer targetted that category of women.

    Why you would loose sleep over that kind of a suggestion is more than I understand.


    Now, however, you want to move the goalposts and instead you ask:

    Was she only a prostitute?

    Was she not also an expecting mother?

    Was she not also someone's girl friend?

    I fail to see that I would have denied any of the first two points or claimed the third one for a fact. If you can substantiate that I would have done so, please show me where I did it.

    He calls her a 'prostitute' and suggests she was killed by sexual serial killer.

    She WAS a prostitute, R J, believe it or not. And the general assumption back in the day is that she WAS killed, not that she died some sort of accidental death. Plus since I link the Ripper deeds and the torso deeds together in my book, my assumption is that she was killed by a sexual serial killer.

    I call her an expecting mother and suggest she was accidently killed by a clumsy abortionist.

    Bond clearly withdrew the suggestion that she had died as the result of a failed abortion. And just how clumsy an abortionist are you suggesting? One that slipped and cut the heart out too? Itīs not that you are not welcome to any idea you may have, but I am just as welcome to point to the flaws in it - these are public boards.
    Do you have any suggestion why the hapless abortionist would pack up the uterus, placenta and cord inside the two flaps cut from the belly of Jackson before floating the parcel down the Thames? Or, for that matter, why he cut those flaps out at all? Standard abortion procedure, or?

    And, since Hebbert certifies that the same man dealt with the other three victims too, had he mistaken them for pregnant women and tried his abortion practices on them? They were all cut in the exact same manner, remember.

    A third theorists suggests she was a girlfriend, and suggests the boyfriend's alibi was bogus and it was a 'domestic' killing.

    Labels might be fun.

    But detectives are scared of them.

    RP
    Letīs just establish that "labels" are not the same thing as suggestions - other than when you describe my suggestions as labels.
    Last edited by Fisherman; 03-02-2021, 05:09 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • rjpalmer
    replied
    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

    considering that Dr hebbert (you know, the dr who was there at the time and actually worked on the cases)was of the opinion that the torso c4 (as fish put the 87-89 cases-rainham, whitehall, jackson, pinchin) were cut similarily and done by the same man, I think we can be pretty confident in saying that they were all murdered by the same man.
    Fair enough, Abby. Let's accept Hebbert's conclusion.

    Now, did Hebbert also suggest the 'Ripper' killings were murdered by this unknown 'torso' killer? Or did he see medical dissimilarities? Or even psychological dissimilarities?

    You see, I haven't forgotten our old friend Hermans.

    We don't know if Hermans was even in London on the dates of any of the 'torso' cases, but he might have been.

    Yet Fish doubts Hermans is a legitimate 'torso' suspect, because his Salt Lake crimes are allegedly too different from the London torso cases.

    Yet, my hunch is that most people can see more potential similarity between Hermans' crimes and one or two of the London cases, then they can see between the London torso crimes and the murder of Polly Nichols.

    If a person is going to dismiss a suspect because his crimes weren't "cookie cutter" enough, they shouldn't turn around and link two cases where the dissimilarities are even more evident.

    Here's my view: a person willing to murder someone and cut them up is exceedingly rare. Thankfully!

    To me, that rarity is far more relevant than any perceived differences in this or that crime.

    So, if Fred Deeming is found to have been living next door to Liz Jackson (he wasn't), he's going to be among my suspects even if she wasn't buried under the floorboards.

    Ditto Hermans and his stove in Salt Lake.

    Leave a comment:


  • rjpalmer
    replied
    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

    with all due respect rj, who gives a rats arse what hr and her supporters think? theyre on the wrong side of the truth to begin with.. all the ripper victims were at one time prostitutes, whether they were all actively prostituting when they met their killer or not(i have my doubts about stride and kelly).

    and re the torso victims... the one who was ided, jackson, was known to prostitiute herself, so its not really a stretch to assume the others were also. and why werent the others ided rj? i would suppose that a prostitutes lifestyle would lead to that... transient, high risk, nobody cares about them enough to come forward, or other prostitutes who dont want to get involved with the police.

    but if the word and label bothers you, then substitute it with destitute, or unfortunate, the main point is that the victimology is the same.
    Hi Abby,

    With respect, that has to be one of the most circular arguments I've ever encountered.

    How do we know the torso cases were linked? Because the victims were prostitutes.

    How do we know the victims were prostitutes? Because the cases were linked.

    !


    No, Fish calling Liz Jackson a prostitute doesn't "bother" me. That's missing the point.

    I'm not going full-blown Hallie on him, I'm simply asking whether his label pre-determines his 'solution' to her murder.

    Was she only a prostitute?

    Was she not also an expecting mother?

    Was she not also someone's girl friend?

    He calls her a 'prostitute' and suggests she was killed by sexual serial killer.

    I call her an expecting mother and suggest she was accidently killed by a clumsy abortionist.

    A third theorists suggests she was a girlfriend, and suggests the boyfriend's alibi was bogus and it was a 'domestic' killing.

    Labels might be fun.

    But detectives are scared of them.

    RP

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

    considering that Dr hebbert (you know, the dr who was there at the time and actually worked on the cases)was of the opinion that the torso c4 (as fish put the 87-89 cases-rainham, whitehall, jackson, pinchin) were cut similarily and done by the same man, I think we can be pretty confident in saying that they were all murdered by the same man.
    Well you would, but they only gave an opinion, they were not able to give a cause of death, and if you are going to say someone has been unlawfully killed you have to show a cause of death because there are other plausible explanations for their deaths other than murder.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    And furthermore, there is no direct evidence to show the torsos were actually murdered. In some of the torso cases, the coroner's court verdict was "found dead" and the rest a verdict of murder was brought in purely on an opinion given by a doctor based on nothing to support that opinion, So how and why did they change from one verdict to another, when nothing changed as far as the evidence to show foul play was concerned.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    considering that Dr hebbert (you know, the dr who was there at the time and actually worked on the cases)was of the opinion that the torso c4 (as fish put the 87-89 cases-rainham, whitehall, jackson, pinchin) were cut similarily and done by the same man, I think we can be pretty confident in saying that they were all murdered by the same man.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post


    If Rubenhold and her supporters cried foul at calling 'The Five' prostitutes, what on earth would their reaction be to Ripper theorists calling the 'torso' victims prostitutes?

    The majority of them were never even positively identified.
    And furthermore, there is no direct evidence to show the torsos were actually murdered. In some of the torso cases, the coroner's court verdict was "found dead" and the rest a verdict of murder was brought in purely on an opinion given by a doctor based on nothing to support that opinion, So how and why did they change from one verdict to another, when nothing changed as far as the evidence to show foul play was concerned.

    It has been proven in the 21st Century that the opinions given by Victorian doctors back in 1888 are at times nothin more than guesswork yet we still researchers relying heavily on evidence from these doctors.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 03-02-2021, 02:58 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Just noted you beat me to it, Abby. Well done!

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    If we could now return to the subject of the thread and leave the sadness from the last posts behind - wouldnīt it be wonderful?

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    The word unfortunate was used as a euphemism for women who resorted to prostitution. What charactereised an un fortunate was that she engaged in sex for money. Engaging in sex for money is prostituting yourself. Of course, women were many times left with no other possibility to get money in Victorian London, but that does not change the fact that being an unfortunate was being a prostitute.

    This is something f ex the Oxford Dictionary is quite aware of:

    "Meaning of unfortunate in English: unfortunate

    Pronunciation /ʌnˈfɔːtʃ(ə)nət/


    See synonyms for unfortunate

    ADJECTIVE
    • 1Having or marked by bad fortune; unlucky.
      ‘there'd been an unfortunate accident’
      More example sentences
    • Synonyms
      1. 1.1Not indicating a good chance of success; inauspicious.‘the delay at the airport was an unfortunate start to our holiday’
        More example sentences
        Synonyms
      2. 2Regrettable or inappropriate.
        ‘his unfortunate remark silenced the gathering’
        More example sentences
        SynonymsNOUN
        • 1A person who suffers bad fortune.
          ‘those unfortunates whose lives are marred by poverty’
          More example sentences
        • 2archaic A person who is considered immoral or lacking in religious faith or instruction, especially a prostitute"

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X