Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Can George Chapmam reform himself to being a calculating poisoner seven years later?.

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

  • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
    That was never contested, however whether such "extracurricular" crimes constitute a sublimation of a need to kill, or whether such activities are independent manifestations of a damaged personality, is a moot point. Rader strikes me as a complete knob, the type who could have "terrorised" people before, during and after the point at which he became BTK. Likewise Bundy, I seem to recall, was already committing petty crimes before he started killing.

    Whether these non-homicidal crimes were substitutes for murder or not, the evidence that such killers change from committing one qualitatively different form of murder to another remains rather thin on the ground.
    Since you have an immutable unchanging MO/Signature for serial killers. Let's put this to the test.

    Are the non-canonical JtR victims, JtR victims or not?

    What about the canonical ones? Are they all his victims or not?

    IMO, both MO and Signature evolve and change. They are not static even in this case.

    EARONS changed his signature from shooting his victims to bashing their heads in. He even changed signature when we was ONS.

    Sunday, December 30, 1979
    Offerman and Manning were shot in the head.

    Tuesday, August 19, 1980
    Keith & Patrice Harrington were bludgeoned to death.

    Firearms to logs of wood and lamps.

    ONS attacks were not even formally linked at the start, let alone formally linked to the EAR.
    Bona fide canonical and then some.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Batman View Post
      Since you have an immutable unchanging MO/Signature for serial killers. Let's put this to the test.

      Are the non-canonical JtR victims, JtR victims or not?

      What about the canonical ones? Are they all his victims or not?

      IMO, both MO and Signature evolve and change. They are not static even in this case.

      EARONS changed his signature from shooting his victims to bashing their heads in. He even changed signature when we was ONS.

      Sunday, December 30, 1979
      Offerman and Manning were shot in the head.

      Tuesday, August 19, 1980
      Keith & Patrice Harrington were bludgeoned to death.

      Firearms to logs of wood and lamps.

      ONS attacks were not even formally linked at the start, let alone formally linked to the EAR.
      The original murders committed by De Angelo were more like manslaughter. Presumably, he did not intend to kill Snelling and the Maggiores, but instead shot his way out of trouble.
      Offerman and Manning were then found shot, but this time, it seems De Angelo was in control and chose to kill them. Previous experience was used, and he shot them.
      All the ensuing ONS murders involve bludgeoning to death, so my conclusion would be that he discovered that he liked to kill but he did not get all he wanted out of it with Offerman/Manning. Once he came up with the bludgeoning, he found that this was what floated the boat for him, and so he stuck to it fortwith.
      It really is not all that strange, it´s all about evolving the way I see it.

      What you are suggesting is that there was always a possibility that De Angelo would take a long break of many years, and then the urge would come over him again and he would return to murder - but he would not do wat he enjoyed before, bludgeon strangers he had stalked to death. No, he would engage in relationships with women, and he would slowly poison them.

      These matters are as far apart as one can imagine, more or less, and the whole idea lacks credibility.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Batman View Post
        Since you have an immutable unchanging MO/Signature for serial killers.
        To be clear, I'm not claiming absolute immutability, only that violent "blitz" murders carried out in public are qualitatively light-years removed from slow poisoning in a domestic setting.
        Are the non-canonical JtR victims, JtR victims or not?
        Probably not, in my view.
        What about the canonical ones? Are they all his victims or not?
        Possibly not Stride.
        IMO, both MO and Signature evolve and change. They are not static even in this case.
        All the Whitechapel murders conform to a pattern of violent blitz attacks involving knives and bloodshed. At a high level, they are qualitatively similar, albeit not in the finer detail. They are a different "species" of murder, if you like, than poisoning.
        EARONS changed his signature from shooting his victims to bashing their heads in. He even changed signature when we was ONS.

        Sunday, December 30, 1979
        Offerman and Manning were shot in the head.

        Tuesday, August 19, 1980
        Keith & Patrice Harrington were bludgeoned to death.

        Firearms to logs of wood and lamps.
        They're still sudden, violent acts, though, aren't they?
        Kind regards, Sam Flynn

        "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
          1. We don´t know.

          2. We don´t know.

          3. We don´t know.

          Its a matter of personal opinion, and it is up to each and every one to decide for themselves how much the evidence, the presented and the held back, is worth.

          My own stance goes like this:

          1. Yes, there are non-canonical victims that are victims of Jack.

          2. Yes, Stride was killed by Jack.

          3. After Mary Kelly, he goes on torso killing, which satisfies more or less the exact same urges within him as did the Ripper killings.

          Regardless if I am correct or not, it still stands that a serial killer coming from eviscerations and gut rippings is totally unlikely to embark on a second serial killer career ten years after, this time as a poisoner.

          Sorry, but no fraying the end of the cloth will change that.
          I am using your criteria of immutable signatures for Lust murders. Yet by using your criteria when applied with my questions apparently you end up...

          'We don't know'.

          All I can derive from that is that your original criteria regarding MOs and Signatures for Lust murderers aren't even sufficient to segregate non-canonical victims from canonical ones.

          How can that be if your own criteria has gone to great lengths to constrain itself around specific types of murders (lust killings) that can't change?

          Irrespective of MO changes to poisoners, your criteria as it stands doesn't even seem to be able to handle the Whitechapel murders.

          If it can't do that, what good is it in considering potential suspects with a background in any form of murder?
          Last edited by Batman; 10-17-2018, 02:19 AM.
          Bona fide canonical and then some.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
            It really is not all that strange, it´s all about evolving the way I see it.

            What you are suggesting is that there was always a possibility that De Angelo would take a long break of many years, and then the urge would come over him again and he would return to murder - but he would not do wat he enjoyed before, bludgeon strangers he had stalked to death. No, he would engage in relationships with women, and he would slowly poison them.

            These matters are as far apart as one can imagine, more or less, and the whole idea lacks credibility.
            Aside from the fact that evolving MOs/Signatures means they are not immutable, the reason why EARONS changed to bashing heads in from shooting was that there was another serial killer on the loose at the time bashing heads in. The ONS bashing crimes were confused with the bedroom basher. He changed his MO and signature to further confuse investigators. He kept doing it because he was getting away it.

            Shooting your victims is not up close and personal like bashing heads. They are two very different methods of murder. That's why they were never connected... but are in fact connected, as evidenced from DNA.
            Bona fide canonical and then some.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
              so my conclusion would be that he discovered that he liked to kill but he did not get all he wanted out of it with Offerman/Manning. Once he came up with the bludgeoning, he found that this was what floated the boat for him, and so he stuck to it fortwith.
              If he discovered he liked to kill when he shot Snelling, then the EAR crimes would have been homicide crimes. They were not. They were rapes and home invasions. He only shot when cornered. He shot and killed Snelling. Shot and missed McGowan. Shot and killed both Brian and Kate Maggiore. Shot at a paperboy. So he had three homicides as VR/EAR and yet he is not murdering his targets until he becomes ONS. Then he is shooting them. Then he changes again to bludgeoning. The signatures different. Same person.
              Bona fide canonical and then some.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Batman View Post
                If he discovered he liked to kill when he shot Snelling, then the EAR crimes would have been homicide crimes. They were not. They were rapes and home invasions. He only shot when cornered. He shot and killed Snelling. Shot and missed McGowan. Shot and killed both Brian and Kate Maggiore. Shot at a paperboy. So he had three homicides as VR/EAR and yet he is not murdering his targets until he becomes ONS. Then he is shooting them. Then he changes again to bludgeoning. The signatures different. Same person.
                Again, these are all sudden, violent crimes.
                Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                  Again, these are all sudden, violent crimes.
                  The "Blitzing" or "Suddenness" of an attack is not emotionally fulfilling. It is just an MO. A means to an end which isn't achieved by this alone. Evidently, for JtR the blitzing for MJK involves her already being prostrate and no need to be slammed down like the others. He uses a sheet to blitz her this time. Again, this is just MO. It also explains why the double event is viewed as JtR murders. We see the MO with Stride but not the signature. No emotional satisfaction. He moved on.

                  This type of MO is almost certainly variable and more important, not necessary under all environmental conditions as seen from Kelly being already lying down.

                  He doesn't need Blitzing to emotionally satisfy him.
                  Bona fide canonical and then some.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Batman View Post
                    I am using your criteria of immutable signatures for Lust murders. Yet by using your criteria when applied with my questions apparently you end up...

                    'We don't know'.

                    All I can derive from that is that your original criteria regarding MOs and Signatures for Lust murderers aren't even sufficient to segregate non-canonical victims from canonical ones.

                    How can that be if your own criteria has gone to great lengths to constrain itself around specific types of murders (lust killings) that can't change?

                    Irrespective of MO changes to poisoners, your criteria as it stands doesn't even seem to be able to handle the Whitechapel murders.

                    If it can't do that, what good is it in considering potential suspects with a background in any form of murder?
                    You are not using "my criteria". Just as the case is with Gareth, you are INVENTING criteria on our respective behalfs.

                    What I say is that many things are theoretically possible but practically more or less impossible. That means that I have safeguarded myself from any such antics as you are now employing. Of course we don´t know that the C5 are all the Rippers work or that none of the others are his. It would be utterly stupid to claim otherwise. That, however, does not mean that it is a toss-up. The likelihood of two eviscerators killing away in the same smallish area and time is a miniscule one, and there are enough likenesses inbetween the murders to make them a very fair bet for a common originator. That, by the way, is why Jack is considered a historical fact for most discerning researchers.

                    I am not the problem here - you are. Once somebody says "If Ted Bundy could steal, then George Chapman could well have evolved from eviscerator to poison killer, the need for a reality check becomes dire.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Batman View Post
                      If he discovered he liked to kill when he shot Snelling, then the EAR crimes would have been homicide crimes. They were not. They were rapes and home invasions. He only shot when cornered. He shot and killed Snelling. Shot and missed McGowan. Shot and killed both Brian and Kate Maggiore. Shot at a paperboy. So he had three homicides as VR/EAR and yet he is not murdering his targets until he becomes ONS. Then he is shooting them. Then he changes again to bludgeoning. The signatures different. Same person.
                      The examples of serial killer who evolved are numerous. This is another one, and there is nothing at all strange about it. De Angelo also - very typically - went through a time cycle that started with burglaries and went over rapes to murder. Likewise, as a killer, his murders increased in savagery and violence.

                      It is a schoolbook example of how many serialists evolve. Sadly, though, it is not a schholbook example of how serialists will evolve BACKWARDS developing a taste for much less violent murders as they go along. I cannot think of any serial killer who de-escalated in terms of violence applied throughout his series, much less any such creature who performed TWO wildly different types of murder series, locking onto a very specific method of killing in each series and keeping to it, but producing one initial series that was extremely intimate and violent whereas the following series was totally distanced and calculatingly cool.

                      CAN it happen? Yes, theoretically it can.

                      WILL it happen? No, practically speaking, it will not. Try as you might.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                        You are not using "my criteria". Just as the case is with Gareth, you are INVENTING criteria on our respective behalfs.

                        What I say is that many things are theoretically possible but practically more or less impossible. That means that I have safeguarded myself from any such antics as you are now employing.
                        Could you please give an example of what is theoretically possible but practically more or less impossible? I find this to be a contradiction but depends on how you are using theory and possible. A theory is supposed to be congruent with reality and possible,not impossible. It isn't just imaginary or impractical but is supposed to be real and practical. Next step is finding evidence to support the theory.

                        Of course we don´t know that the C5 are all the Rippers work or that none of the others are his. It would be utterly stupid to claim otherwise. That, however, does not mean that it is a toss-up. The likelihood of two eviscerators killing away in the same smallish area and time is a miniscule one, and there are enough likenesses inbetween the murders to make them a very fair bet for a common originator.
                        Now, here you are saying that there are some likenesses between the murders to associate them, but you know that the variations are there, not just in MO but Signature. It's a much wider criterion to say 'some likenesses' than a 'mutilator can't become a poisoner'. The latter is invoked when you want your criteria to be extremely constrained and pinpoint specific, but then when you are asked about the other murders, the criteria isn't pinpointing specific but floaty and free to adapt.

                        You also know that the murders after MJK were not as violent and some didn't involve mutilations at all, which is the signature.

                        So here you are even suggesting that the signature need not be the same either, just enough likenesses to associate them and that the population density and time frame further support that. However, notice how the omission of even the signature allows for that.

                        Four of the C5 show signatures. Many of the non-canonical murders don't.

                        Your position on a ripper being fixed in mutilations isn't born out in practice. It is this hypothesis here that becomes impractical. Moreso as you have identified the problem of multiple-killers making it impractical. In the end, you end up accepting what I have said all along. That there is NO barrier to any MO change or Signature change. There doesn't even have to be a signature.

                        I am not the problem here - you are. Once somebody says "If Ted Bundy could steal, then George Chapman could well have evolved from eviscerator to poison killer, the need for a reality check becomes dire.
                        I don't even think they have to kill. Which is why the BTK example was provided. It demonstrates the emotional need he was getting from violent strangulation crimes was satiated over the course of 14 years in a totally different environment involving different MOs and signatures.

                        Furthermore, and this is really an issue you have to think about, is that Modus Operandi and Signature are not exclusive to serial killers. It applies to any crime. So even if one of them is involved a spate of other crimes, those crimes may every well be linked up by a different MO and signature... which could well explain Chapman poisonings.

                        Anyway, you seem to think because H.H.Holmes is able to juggle around a load of ways to kill people from poisoning to burning alive that you now have the added criteria of straight de-escalation from mutilation to poisoning, despite the murders after MJK showing signs of de-escalation themselves and plenty of serial killers who went from horrifically violent crimes to ones that were not so violent before they were caught.

                        Seems to me that this criteria for why Chapman can't be JtR gets suddenly very wishy-washy when it comes to addressing the JtR crimes themselves or other serial murders.
                        Bona fide canonical and then some.

                        Comment


                        • I believe desalvo, the boston strangler went back to raping only after the murders, and there are examples of others doing similar, but they were all in the killers "wheelhouse". to go to poisoning from post mortem mutlation is very extreme. IMHO not impossible though, especially if you look at all else chapman had going for him as a ripper suspect, not least of all that of all the suspects, he is proven to be a man capable of serial murder.

                          IMHO to rule him out based on extreme change in MO/sig is a bit hasty.
                          "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


                          • Originally posted by Batman View Post
                            Could you please give an example of what is theoretically possible but practically more or less impossible? I find this to be a contradiction but depends on how you are using theory and possible. A theory is supposed to be congruent with reality and possible,not impossible. It isn't just imaginary or impractical but is supposed to be real and practical. Next step is finding evidence to support the theory.



                            Now, here you are saying that there are some likenesses between the murders to associate them, but you know that the variations are there, not just in MO but Signature. It's a much wider criterion to say 'some likenesses' than a 'mutilator can't become a poisoner'. The latter is invoked when you want your criteria to be extremely constrained and pinpoint specific, but then when you are asked about the other murders, the criteria isn't pinpointing specific but floaty and free to adapt.

                            You also know that the murders after MJK were not as violent and some didn't involve mutilations at all, which is the signature.

                            So here you are even suggesting that the signature need not be the same either, just enough likenesses to associate them and that the population density and time frame further support that. However, notice how the omission of even the signature allows for that.

                            Four of the C5 show signatures. Many of the non-canonical murders don't.

                            Your position on a ripper being fixed in mutilations isn't born out in practice. It is this hypothesis here that becomes impractical. Moreso as you have identified the problem of multiple-killers making it impractical. In the end, you end up accepting what I have said all along. That there is NO barrier to any MO change or Signature change. There doesn't even have to be a signature.



                            I don't even think they have to kill. Which is why the BTK example was provided. It demonstrates the emotional need he was getting from violent strangulation crimes was satiated over the course of 14 years in a totally different environment involving different MOs and signatures.

                            Furthermore, and this is really an issue you have to think about, is that Modus Operandi and Signature are not exclusive to serial killers. It applies to any crime. So even if one of them is involved a spate of other crimes, those crimes may every well be linked up by a different MO and signature... which could well explain Chapman poisonings.

                            Anyway, you seem to think because H.H.Holmes is able to juggle around a load of ways to kill people from poisoning to burning alive that you now have the added criteria of straight de-escalation from mutilation to poisoning, despite the murders after MJK showing signs of de-escalation themselves and plenty of serial killers who went from horrifically violent crimes to ones that were not so violent before they were caught.

                            Seems to me that this criteria for why Chapman can't be JtR gets suddenly very wishy-washy when it comes to addressing the JtR crimes themselves or other serial murders.
                            An example? In theory, you may be right, but practically, you won´t be.

                            I have my specific picture of what constitutes the true common denominator within the Ripper murders, but I am not going to give it away, I´m afraid. I think a very close description would be that the murders were all about deconstructing women, and such things can come in many shapes, as you will understand.
                            I think I have a pretty good idea about what the killer did and why he did it, but I am not inclined to tell anybody about it just yet.
                            You seem to think that I believe that we are speaking of a narrow scope of actions of behalf of the Ripper? We are emphatically not - there are many results possible if he worked to the agenda I think he did.

                            Who are the plenty serial killers who went from horrific violence to much less so before they were caught? I´d like to know. And where there any of them who also went from hands-on, intimate violence to distanced violence, à la Chapman...? My money is on that question ending up with a "no" as an answer. With the added assertion that this has nothing to do with how it COULD have happened anyway.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                              I believe desalvo, the boston strangler went back to raping only after the murders, and there are examples of others doing similar, but they were all in the killers "wheelhouse". to go to poisoning from post mortem mutlation is very extreme. IMHO not impossible though, especially if you look at all else chapman had going for him as a ripper suspect, not least of all that of all the suspects, he is proven to be a man capable of serial murder.

                              IMHO to rule him out based on extreme change in MO/sig is a bit hasty.
                              The change of MO/sig is not going to become smaller because Chapman had other things going for him, Abby. Just because he lived in the area, that change will not become easier to bridge. Just because he poisoned his partners, that change is not easier to accept.

                              The metamorphosis as such remains a complete anomaly, regardless of how we know other things about Chapman that are applicable in a theory.

                              Comment


                              • I completely overlooked this point.

                                If JtK wanted to murder his partners he wouldn't rip them up would he?

                                That would be a dead give away WHO JtR is

                                He HAS to change MO and Signature if he wants to murder them.

                                There you have it.

                                A solid reason why JtR could turn poisoner. Precisely because he NEEDS to change MO due to his association with the targets.

                                Ta-da.

                                Should have been more obvious.

                                Explains why BTK didn't kill his targets because he was working in the area. He would be a potential candidate. Putting him on the map for the BTK crimes.
                                Bona fide canonical and then some.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X