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

[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.

[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]

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.

[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]

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.

[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...!

[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.

[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.

[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"

[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]

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

[Trevor Marriott]

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

[Abby Normal]

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.

https://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.

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[rjpalmer]

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