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

[Fisherman]

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

[Fisherman]

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

[Fisherman]

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"

[Abby Normal]

can we (me included) please move the current discussion about use of the word prostitute to another thread if we want to continue with it. weve gotten way off track.

[Abby Normal]

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.

[Fisherman]

There is one occupation and one occupation only that carries with it a raised risk of getting targetted by serial killers. That occupation is - of course - prostitution. Bank workers, shoe saleswomen, contortionists, ventriloquists, chauffeurs, actors, cleaners, carpenters, football players, frog catchers or tennis proīs or ANY OTHER OCCUPATION we may suggest does not carry a raised risk level of being targetted by serial killers.

But loads of serial killers have targetted prostitutes, some because they disliked them, others because they are easliy accessible at nighttime and willing to steal away into secluded spots with nobody at all around.

The logical conclusion we may arrive at - that is "may", some never arrive at any logical conclusions at all - when dealing with this knowledge, is that much as we ought not say "she was a fridge repairswoman, so it may be that the killer targets fridge repairswomen", we CAN say that a serial killer where we only have the occupation for one victiom and that occupation is prostitution, may well be targetting prostitutes.

In any sane universe, this should go without saying. But this is no sane universe.

To boot, it is ONLY, and I repeat ONLY, when somebody categorically claims that a serial killer who has killed a prostitute MUST be targetting prostitutes that criticism should be levelled against that claim. I specifically and clearly said that since the only victim identified was a prostitute, it MAY BE that the killer targetted women from this category.

In any sane universe, that is a very logical thing to say, given the above. It actually NEEDS pointing out, since prostitution is such an important factor within the realms of sexual serial murder.

But again, this is no sane universe, is it? Here, it is claimed that I am making the inference that we should extrapolate ALL things linked to one murder victim out of four to the other three victims as well.

Which is not sound. Which is not sane. And, most importantly, I have never said anything of the kind, so it is not true either. Of course.

To take things one step further and imlpy that I - or anybody else for that matter - would have said that the torsos and the canonical Ripper victims were all prostitutes is even less sound, sane and true.

To think that I have to explain these things...!

[Michael W Richards]

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.

Single, unemployed women who had no permanent residence were Unfortunates. Women who sold sexual services on the streets at night did include some Unfortunates, but the 2 are not synomomous. Only 2 of the Canonical victims were actively soliciting..whether Unfortunates acting as Prostitutes that night or whatever you want to call it, but there is no evidence that rhe remaining 3 were doing that also. So...within just the Canonical Group, there are Unfortunates and Prostitutes...which were not the same thing. Thats not the same Victimology. Nor are women in age range from 26-27 to almost 50 the same.

So claiming that the Tosros and the Canonical Group were all active prostitutes must be incorrect.

[Abby Normal]

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.

The moment you label your victim a 'prostitute,' then you are looking for a killer of prostitutes, whether that is the correct solution or not.

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.

[Michael W Richards]

How on Godīs green earth can it not be allowed to say that going on what we know, there is reason to think that the killer may - MAY - have targetted prostitutes? Explain that to me please!

Your claiming that the attributes of 25% of a given group allow for speculation that those attributes apply to the remaining 75%? That we use a minority fraction to determine the majorities characteristics? I suppose thats a starting point for a theory...if you can then find evidence that supports the whimsical acceptance of that premise as a sound basis for a working theory... or are you, once again,... just building on quicksand.

The mere fact that you dont have any problems with offering a over arching psuedo theory based on pure speculation for its foundations shows that you have no intention of being accurate. Just noticed.

[Fisherman]

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.

The moment you label your victim a 'prostitute,' then you are looking for a killer of prostitutes, whether that is the correct solution or not.

”We have reason to think the killer may have killed prostitutes”.

What is the problem you are having with that, R J? The one identified victim was a prostitute, therefore we DO have reason to believe the killer MAY have targetted prostitutes.

This you reproduce into something totally different; that I would have said or implied that prostitution was a given factor. And of course, Michael is quick to pounce on such a distortion of what I said, since it suits his purposes. It is a complete and pityful shambles and it is in total conflict with what the boards should be about.

Sometimes I despair about the ability to reason soundly out here. Must it always be about misrepresenting things?

There were four "canonical" victims in the torso series. One of them was a prostitute. Of the other three, we donīt know what and who they were.

How on Godīs green earth can it not be allowed to say that going on what we know, there is reason to think that the killer may - MAY - have targetted prostitutes? Explain that to me please!

The kind of problem that you describe, R J, only arises when people like Michael writes "As Annies case reveals both the murder and the cuts were done ONLY to achieve an objective, not to satisy some bizzare cutting fetish."

THAT is elevating a hunch into established, ironclad and unshakable fact. Suggesting that a killer MAY have targetted prostitutes when we know that the only identified victim in a series of four murders WAS a prostitute belongs to another category of arguments altogether: the rational and discerning category.

This is all I have to say about the matter, and since I am getting on agewise, I will spend no further time on this kind of hapless discussion. I therefore leave the matter entirely to you, and you must decide for yourself how to go about it. Me, Iīm emphatically out.

[Michael W Richards]

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.

The moment you label your victim a 'prostitute,' then you are looking for a killer of prostitutes, whether that is the correct solution or not.

I know Im hard on The Fisherman rj, but its for the reasons like the one you cite above. Presumptives into empiracals. As far as I can see its not possible to even state that all the Canonicals were prostitutes. In fact only 2 stated themselves that they were solicicting on the night they were killed, Annie and Polly. The 2 most likely to have been linked by a single killer in my estimation. By The Victimology..matching...the MO...matching...the unusually deep throat cuts in duplicate...matching, the sequencing..subdue, cut throat twice, spread legs, mutilate abdomens..matching....there is very little difference in these 2 kills other than the extent of the final injuries. The one that had less was its appears to be a first kill and out on an openended street, the second with more severe cutting, in a private backyard. Easy to understand escalated wounds in that context. And to suspect that the killer was seeking strangers.

If more people used actual evidence to extrapolate on instead of extrapolating on speculation...oh what world it would be.

[rjpalmer]

Plus we have reason to think that the killer may have killed prostitutes.

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.

The moment you label your victim a 'prostitute,' then you are looking for a killer of prostitutes, whether that is the correct solution or not.

[Michael W Richards]

Thanks for another example of what I just stated.

The point I was REALLY making wat that people DID feel the smell,

Evidence? Or your take on it?

The idea that noone would do so in a large city is a non-starter, Iīm afraid.

Evidence? Or your take on it?

One would think that a killer would be more cautious than that, but no, they are not.

And Your expertise and training on how killers think is...?

In my eyes, he remains a very improbable candidate for the Torso killerīs role.

Finally, a statement that is real...its just your opinion.

If you made better points and actually used evidence I would take you for more than a self absorbed attention seeker.

[Michael W Richards]

Michael, I normally avoid any sort of debate with you, for reasons well known to those who have followed our exchanges. One reason for this is how you - one of the true zealots of ripperology - take it upon yourself to accuse others of being too fixed in their judgments.

This time, you say that my argument about aggressive dismemberment is "baseless".

What you disregard is how I VERY clearly say that it SEEMS to me that we are dealing with aggressive dismemberment when it comes to the Thames Torso killer. Not that it is an established fact.

I ground my take on many things, for example the fact that the killer dismembered his victims in immediate connection to the murders. Dismemberment murders that are carried out in order to hide the deed or identity of the victim are typically affairs where time passes between the murder and the dismemberment.
There is also the fact that the killer meticulously cut away a scalp and face from the skull of a victim. That is not in line with classical dismemberment murders designed to hide the deed or the identity of the victim.
We also have a case where the arms were left on the torso, something that does not lend itself very well to either a suggestion of trying to facilitate transport or hide an identity. We have another case where one leg was left attached to the body.
And, of course, we have eviscerations, with a uterus packed up inside two flaps of skin from the abdomen of a woman together with the cord and placenta.
And we have exceedingly skilful cutting.
And we have lots and lots of body parts accounted for.
Plus we have reason to think that the killer may have killed prostitutes.

None of these things sit at all well with the suggestion of classical dismemberment deeds, designed to hide the murders or the identity of the victim. They all, however, sit perfectly well with the concept of aggressive dismemberment.

This is why I say that it SEEMS that the killer engaged in aggressive dismemberment. I think I have a very good case for it, but I do not exaggerate things, because I do not think it would be wise to do so.

And you, Michael?

You say, and I quote:

"As Annies case reveals both the murder and the cuts were done ONLY to achieve an objective, not to satisfy some bizzare cutting fetish."

As if this was in any way an established fact. Which it is not. Neither you nor me can say whether what happened to Chapman was led on by a wish to procure the uterus or by a wish to cut up a body. Neither me nor you know the mindset or the aims of the killer as he stepped into the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street. And to boot, even if he HAD decided to try and procure the uterus from Chapman, such a thing can be an example of aggressive dismemberment just the same! What you seem to forget is that the killer also cut away the abdominal cover from Chapman, leaving it on the murder site apart from one part of it - was that also only done to achieve the objective to get at the uterus? Which can be accessed without such a thing?

The one thing that tells us apart, Michael, is that you claim for a fact that you do know the intentions and motivations of the killer, while I acknowledge that we can only speculate abiut it and base those speculations on the few facts that are available to us. And this you describe as ME being the one overstepping the line...?

The moral of pointing this out to you should be simple enough: A dogmatic zealot should not preach caution to those who are much ahead of himself in that respect.

Having explained this to you, I will now return to my favourite form of debating with you - which is to abstain from it.

Fisherman, all I did was to point out the very obvious fact that in the vast majority of cases involving dismemberment it was done for one of 2 reasons. To conceal the identity of the victim, or to dispose of the body clandestinely. You suggested that dismemberment was a primary goal...without any evidence. You suggest a man as a Suspect based on proximities, and you disregard the evidence that show us that Torso's were happening before and after the alledged Ripper killings.

What I suggested by Annie was a summation of Dr Phillips assessement of the wounds made...someone far better than you or I to do so. There were no meaningless cuts...and the object of the whole matter was the uterus. Which he took intact. Yet you say we cant be sure. Well, the attending physician at her pm could, so your opinion on this means squat.

Thats a killer obsessed with female organs, or internal cutting, neither of which are relevant when considering a man who in hiding cuts off limbs.

Saying you have a made a "good case" is just you saying it. It is meaningless because you offer no proof other than your hunches.

If you were a real man and want to debate issues, stop pretending you have any evidence of anything, and cite evidence other than your interpretations of evidence. The fact that you dont debate my posts is a reflection of your own narcissm and feelings of superiority over others. Ive many times put you in your place and you come back with " Ive proven that already", or that Im being unfair with you. Well, a fair assement of your theorizing is that its a belief system that chooses to exist without any foundations in evidence.

[Abby Normal]

Michael, I normally avoid any sort of debate with you, for reasons well known to those who have followed our exchanges. One reason for this is how you - one of the true zealots of ripperology - take it upon yourself to accuse others of being too fixed in their judgments.

This time, you say that my argument about aggressive dismemberment is "baseless".

What you disregard is how I VERY clearly say that it SEEMS to me that we are dealing with aggressive dismemberment when it comes to the Thames Torso killer. Not that it is an established fact.

I ground my take on many things, for example the fact that the killer dismembered his victims in immediate connection to the murders. Dismemberment murders that are carried out in order to hide the deed or identity of the victim are typically affairs where time passes between the murder and the dismemberment.
There is also the fact that the killer meticulously cut away a scalp and face from the skull of a victim. That is not in line with classical dismemberment murders designed to hide the deed or the identity of the victim.
We also have a case where the arms were left on the torso, something that does not lend itself very well to either a suggestion of trying to facilitate transport or hide an identity. We have another case where one leg was left attached to the body.
And, of course, we have eviscerations, with a uterus packed up inside two flaps of skin from the abdomen of a woman together with the cord and placenta.
And we have exceedingly skilful cutting.
And we have lots and lots of body parts accounted for.
Plus we have reason to think that the killer may have killed prostitutes.

None of these things sit at all well with the suggestion of classical dismemberment deeds, designed to hide the murders or the identity of the victim. They all, however, sit perfectly well with the concept of aggressive dismemberment.

This is why I say that it SEEMS that the killer engaged in aggressive dismemberment. I think I have a very good case for it, but I do not exaggerate things, because I do not think it would be wise to do so.

And you, Michael?

You say, and I quote:

"As Annies case reveals both the murder and the cuts were done ONLY to achieve an objective, not to satisfy some bizzare cutting fetish."

As if this was in any way an established fact. Which it is not. Neither you nor me can say whether what happened to Chapman was led on by a wish to procure the uterus or by a wish to cut up a body. Neither me nor you know the mindset or the aims of the killer as he stepped into the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street. And to boot, even if he HAD decided to try and procure the uterus from Chapman, such a thing can be an example of aggressive dismemberment just the same! What you seem to forget is that the killer also cut away the abdominal cover from Chapman, leaving it on the murder site apart from one part of it - was that also only done to achieve the objective to get at the uterus? Which can be accessed without such a thing?

The one thing that tells us apart, Michael, is that you claim for a fact that you do know the intentions and motivations of the killer, while I acknowledge that we can only speculate abiut it and base those speculations on the few facts that are available to us. And this you describe as ME being the one overstepping the line...?

The moral of pointing this out to you should be simple enough: A dogmatic zealot should not preach caution to those who are much ahead of himself in that respect.

Having explained this to you, I will now return to my favourite form of debating with you - which is to abstain from it.

well said fish. you are of course, totally correct.
like a strictly defensive dismemberer is going to leave limbs on the the body, or dump a body in the middle of pinchin street, or leave a head on a sidewalk, or make exteraneous post mortem mutilations that have nothing to do with trying to hide the identity or that aids in removal.