Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

This doesnīt bode well!

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
    Dennis Rader
    Good example, although I believe, as pointed out in an earlier post, after he was caught he said he was planning to kill again. Of course, many serial killers are never caught, so there's always a possibility that they stopped killing and lived to a ripe old age.
    Last edited by John G; 09-29-2015, 09:08 AM.

    Comment


    • #17
      Congratulations on the new Lechmere thread/sub-board Fish. Richly deserved.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
        Dennis Rader
        Now name a serial killer who committed murders anywhere near as violent as the Ripper and lived on to a ripe old age as a family man.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Harry D View Post
          Now name a serial killer who committed murders anywhere near as violent as the Ripper and lived on to a ripe old age as a family man.
          Has it occurred to you, Harry, that we can divide the serial killers into two groups:

          1. Those who are caught, and...
          2. Those who are not caught

          The intersting thing about group 2 is that it involves hundreds and hundreds of perpetrators. In the US only, there are dozens of them operating as we speak.

          This has been so for many decades.

          Why do you suppose that these men are never caught? We can clearly see that many of them stop their activities, at least in the surroundings where they are known to have worked.

          Have they all been run over by trucks? Did they all contract the plague and died?

          Many of them have perpetrated extremely gruesome deeds. Some have been active for long stretches of time - and then they stop. Many times, the killings simply taper off, becoming more and more rare, like a slowly disappearing dripping from a pipe.

          In some cases, we can see killers who are active for ten, twenty years before they go off the radar.

          If they started killing in their thirties, they have reached their fifties by then. And the sexual drive has diminished. So if the sexual drive was what made them kill in the first place, then their incentive has gone.

          Join up the dots, and you may begin to see a picture that is important to understand when commenting on this.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by John G View Post
            Congratulations on the new Lechmere thread/sub-board Fish. Richly deserved.
            Many thanks, John!

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
              Has it occurred to you, Harry, that we can divide the serial killers into two groups:

              1. Those who are caught, and...
              2. Those who are not caught

              The intersting thing about group 2 is that it involves hundreds and hundreds of perpetrators. In the US only, there are dozens of them operating as we speak.

              This has been so for many decades.

              Why do you suppose that these men are never caught? We can clearly see that many of them stop their activities, at least in the surroundings where they are known to have worked.

              Have they all been run over by trucks? Did they all contract the plague and died?

              Many of them have perpetrated extremely gruesome deeds. Some have been active for long stretches of time - and then they stop. Many times, the killings simply taper off, becoming more and more rare, like a slowly disappearing dripping from a pipe.

              In some cases, we can see killers who are active for ten, twenty years before they go off the radar.

              If they started killing in their thirties, they have reached their fifties by then. And the sexual drive has diminished. So if the sexual drive was what made them kill in the first place, then their incentive has gone.

              Join up the dots, and you may begin to see a picture that is important to understand when commenting on this.
              You dodged the question.

              Jack the Ripper wasn't your average serial killer. Look at what remained of Mary Kelly and tell me that the individual who did that could retire to a quiet family life.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Harry D View Post
                You dodged the question.

                Jack the Ripper wasn't your average serial killer. Look at what remained of Mary Kelly and tell me that the individual who did that could retire to a quiet family life.
                I donīt think that the person who killed Kelly came from a quiet family life. I donīt think that the person who killed Kelly returned to a quiet family life.

                But I do know that John Eric Armstrong and Dennis Rader were thought to live quiet family lives before they were exposed.

                If they had NOT been exposed, then how do you think they would have gone down in history?

                Correct, they would not. What they would leave after themselves would be an indication that we were dealing with quiet family men who would harm nobody.

                We know next to nothing about the life Lechmere lived with his family. He may have been tormenting them on a daily basis, and he may have been seen as a complete terror in the neighbourhood - we just donīt know.

                Conversely, he may have treated his wife with respect only and he may have been regarded as a very nice neighbour.

                Would that clear him, do you think? Then think again, for this is the precise kind of life Peter Kürten led, and the exact impression he gave.
                Underneath the surface, however, he was something very much out of the ordinary.

                Freeing Lechmere cannot be based by any lofty suppositions about him having been a good guy since the surface never lies, Harry.

                Iīll tell you one more thing: I have never dodged a question out here, and I donīt intend to do so now. I avoid answering the odd poster, but anybody who takes a liking to these posters questions can pick them up and put them to me.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                  I donīt think that the person who killed Kelly came from a quiet family life. I donīt think that the person who killed Kelly returned to a quiet family life.

                  But I do know that John Eric Armstrong and Dennis Rader were thought to live quiet family lives before they were exposed.

                  If they had NOT been exposed, then how do you think they would have gone down in history?

                  Correct, they would not. What they would leave after themselves would be an indication that we were dealing with quiet family men who would harm nobody.

                  We know next to nothing about the life Lechmere lived with his family. He may have been tormenting them on a daily basis, and he may have been seen as a complete terror in the neighbourhood - we just donīt know.

                  Conversely, he may have treated his wife with respect only and he may have been regarded as a very nice neighbour.

                  Would that clear him, do you think? Then think again, for this is the precise kind of life Peter Kürten led, and the exact impression he gave.
                  Underneath the surface, however, he was something very much out of the ordinary.

                  Freeing Lechmere cannot be based by any lofty suppositions about him having been a good guy since the surface never lies, Harry.

                  Iīll tell you one more thing: I have never dodged a question out here, and I donīt intend to do so now. I avoid answering the odd poster, but anybody who takes a liking to these posters questions can pick them up and put them to me.
                  Problem is, your "answers" make no sense. Yet, people say you are smart guy. If that's true....then I can only assume you don't believe this tripe yourself.

                  Will you debate me in Baltimore, then? I'll even come to the next UK convention and do it there, as well. But I think Baltimore is great opporutnity. Agreed? I bet we'll be good friends, after all.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Yay! Congratulations, Fisherman!

                    (I don't post much, but I've been following the Cross/Lechmere threads for a few years now. I find the theory intriguing. Glad he'll have his own section now.)

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Well Fish you got him on the suspects board.
                      G U T

                      There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        >>Well Fish you got him on the suspects board.<<

                        That's weird, I thought I was the one that suggested it?
                        dustymiller
                        aka drstrange

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
                          That's weird, I thought I was the one that suggested it?
                          Bravo to you as well.



                          Nice team work!
                          I’m often irrelevant. It confuses people.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
                            >>Well Fish you got him on the suspects board.<<

                            That's weird, I thought I was the one that suggested it?
                            It has been raised before though.
                            G U T

                            There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Zena View Post
                              Yay! Congratulations, Fisherman!

                              (I don't post much, but I've been following the Cross/Lechmere threads for a few years now. I find the theory intriguing. Glad he'll have his own section now.)
                              Thanks, Zena - I often wonder how many people there are out there who are like you in this respect. Donīt hesitate to join the discussion, should you want to!

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by GUT View Post
                                Well Fish you got him on the suspects board.
                                Letīs just hope I donīt manage to get him off them again...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X