Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Lipski

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

  • Hello Michael,

    Schwartz didn't appear at the inquest because he was having an affair with Queen Victoria and they were afraid he might blurt it out. Can you prove me wrong? Of course not because NOBODY KNOWS why he did not appear so please stop implying that you somehow know. You are only speculating.

    c.d.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by c.d. View Post
      Hello Michael,

      Schwartz didn't appear at the inquest because he was having an affair with Queen Victoria and they were afraid he might blurt it out. Can you prove me wrong? Of course not because NOBODY KNOWS why he did not appear so please stop implying that you somehow know. You are only speculating.

      c.d.
      cd, this is simply a logical conclusion,..because I for one like using logic rather than pure speculation. Israels story, in written, oral or hieroglyphic form is not recorded at the Inquest. Fact. Israels story, if believed or not already proven inaccurate, would be essential in the question of whether Liz Stride might have been killed,...which is what the Inquest was for. He claims to have seen the victim minutes before her death, being assaulted no less.

      I know you like imagining that Liz's killer might have been interrupted, though there is no evidence of that at all..or that Israels account is trustworthy, despite the fact its not used at all to determine how she died at the Inquest...but you have no grounds for continually crapping on me for pointing out the actual facts.

      Liz died because someone cut her throat once...there is no evidence anything else was planned or intended to happen. There was no interruption...therefore, the lack of injuries is very significant. The fact that Israels story isn't present in any form at the Inquest means that it was not deemed to be helpful in the question of how she died, which is unthinkable if it was believed and supported by the authorities.

      These are not complicated riddles, they only become complicated when someone wishes the answers to add up to what they personally believe and they don't. So people assume 5 murders cause they want to believe in Jack, not because there is sufficient evidence to do so. And people assume interruptions because they believe Jack killed Liz, and that he would normally mutilate after cutting the throat.. And people assume Israel is important, despite the fact that not one witness that night sees or hears anything he says occurred, and that his story is not used at all in the Inquest.
      Michael Richards

      Comment


      • "I know you like imagining that Liz's killer might have been interrupted, though there is no evidence of that at all..or that Israels account is trustworthy, despite the fact its not used at all to determine how she died at the Inquest...but you have no grounds for continually crapping on me for pointing out the actual facts."

        I am not crapping on you, Michael. I agree with you 100% that Schwartz did not testify at the inquest. That is a fact. If you want to point out that that in and of itself is suspicious that is fine. But you insist on using that as proof that his story is made up that is simply being disingenuous.

        c.d.

        Comment


        • Can't be assed to get into a protracted point-by-point argument. However...

          Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
          Organized killing is much more about being in control.
          So why (in your opinion) did the Torso Killer put himself into an environment that he had little control over?

          Comment


          • Harry D: Can't be assed to get into a protracted point-by-point argument.

            Sure you can, Harry!

            However...

            There you go!

            So why (in your opinion) did the Torso Killer put himself into an environment that he had little control over?

            I think his priority number one was to gain control over the body of his victim. And I think he considered himself to be in control over the circumstances, no matter what, more or less. Of course, Bucks Row offered much more risk than a secluded indoors venue, but my guess is that the killer was not too worried about that - he felt he could handle whichever situation came along. And the reason for that was because he felt he was in control, in the driving seat, ruling what happened.

            Now, you may of course say that he could not rule what happened in Bucks Row, and factually, there can be no disagreement with that. However, what I am speaking about is not the factualities as we understand them, but instead how the killer interpreted the factualities in his own head. And in there, complete arrogance and narcissism will have prevailed, if I am correct, meaning that he would never feel that he was out of control.

            A typical example would be an open street killer who was able to bluff it out if he was caught redhanded, and to whom it never even occurred that he may be found out.

            I can think of one such possible example, actually ...

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
              Harry D: Can't be assed to get into a protracted point-by-point argument.

              Sure you can, Harry!

              However...

              There you go!

              So why (in your opinion) did the Torso Killer put himself into an environment that he had little control over?

              I think his priority number one was to gain control over the body of his victim. And I think he considered himself to be in control over the circumstances, no matter what, more or less. Of course, Bucks Row offered much more risk than a secluded indoors venue, but my guess is that the killer was not too worried about that - he felt he could handle whichever situation came along. And the reason for that was because he felt he was in control, in the driving seat, ruling what happened.

              Now, you may of course say that he could not rule what happened in Bucks Row, and factually, there can be no disagreement with that. However, what I am speaking about is not the factualities as we understand them, but instead how the killer interpreted the factualities in his own head. And in there, complete arrogance and narcissism will have prevailed, if I am correct, meaning that he would never feel that he was out of control.

              A typical example would be an open street killer who was able to bluff it out if he was caught redhanded, and to whom it never even occurred that he may be found out.

              I can think of one such possible example, actually ...
              If the goal was for the killer to have complete control of the victim, he wouldn't have killed them in locations with no guarantee of being undisturbed. Plenty of serial killers have a false sense of superiority. BTK was an arrogant SOB, but he still murdered all of his victims indoors. He didn't take to killing on the streets. We have to look at what the murders tell us about the killer, and in the Ripper's case the murders show little planning or organisation. They were random attacks on women who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Whereas the Torso murders have the hallmarks of a more organized serial killer.

              Disorganized serial killers have been known to evolve into organized ones, and vice-versa, due to various factors, but if the Torso & Ripper were the same man, then he appeared to flick back and forth between the two, which seems unlikely based on what we know.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                Batman: Fisherman,

                What is organized about murdering Eddowes and being literally a few meters away from a policeman's lamp in Mitre Sq.?

                Did I say that was organized? Or is it you suggesting that I somehow did? What seems organized to me in the Eddowes murder is how it seems she was chatted up by the killer, who made her feel secure with him - organized enough. He then took her away from the open street into the comparatively safer Mitre Square - organized enough. He chose the darkest corner - organized enough. He took a piece of apron with himself, probably for practical purposes - organized enough. He left no traces in Mitre Square - organized enough. He left unnoticed and made no commotion - organized enough. He did not shout out what he had done from the rooftops - organized enough.

                It is commonly said that the Torso killer was organized. I agree. But employing your tactics, I could ask "what was organized about cutting part of the colon away from a victim?", "what was organized about dumping a victim in identifiable clothes" or "what was organized about sawing off a limb on a victim he had already proven himself able to disarticulate?"

                We can go on like that for the longest time, and that is because some traits an organized killer have may look to a degree disorganized - as long as you don´t see the underlying reasons.

                JtR was boxed in. A few more steps and a PC would have caught him in the act.

                So you believe. I´m afraid it has never been proven, but even if it IS correct, it does not make the killer disorganized. It only makes him a killer who was willing to take risks - for organized OR disorganized reasons.

                If the neighbour next to Chapman's murder scene just looked over the fence he would have seen the ripper in the act.

                No, he would not, if you mean Cadosh. He would see Chapman, but not the killer, who was long gone by that time.
                But reardless of that, a whole score of very organized serial killers have killed in spots where they could have been spotted. That does not make them less organized if they had chosen themselves to take that risk. A disorganized killer, however, will normally not even know that there IS a risk.

                Schwartz saw a man assault Stride.

                A man who may or may not have been the killer, yes. And organized serial killers HAVE been caught in the act, or preparing for it. There is always the element of risk, and there is always the element of chance. If all organized serial killers were always inclined not to take a single risk, we would not be aware they existed.

                JtR was lucky. Not organized. Just very lucky.

                You are welcome to that misconception, Batman. Lucky he was indeed, but he was in all probability not a disorganized killer, but instead an opportunist with an urge to kill, a willingness to take risks and an arrogance that made him think he would always get away with it. Much the same as so many other serialists we know of - organized but reckless men.
                This reads like you completely reject the original investigation.

                The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook: An Illustrated Encyclopedia Paperback – 24 Jan 2002
                by Keith Skinner (Author), Stewart Evans (Author)

                There are more than enough documents there to compromise your interpretation of the Whitechapel murders.

                Do you really need to deny police beats, times, locations and all the viable witness accounts to make JtR organized?

                Disorganized offenders can be organized in some ways but that doesn't make them organized offenders that target a specific victim at a specific time/place. Why? The fantasy requires it. There ya go.

                This is not the case with JtR. He could not have known who had their doss money and who didn't for example. The double event in itself disorganized to the core.
                Last edited by Batman; 03-19-2017, 09:24 AM.
                Bona fide canonical and then some.

                Comment


                • I really don't get how some people can just gloss over the fact that someone leaving Stride's murder scene at the time of her death and walking towards Mitre Sq., MUST see Eddowes because she headed that way after coming out of the drunk tank. You can plot the courses and their intersections. Time Eddowes leaving drunk tank to TOD at Mitre Sq. Time walking from the TOD of Stride towards Mitre Sq. Draw a circle around the intersection. When do they both go into a window of each other? Near Mitre Sq.

                  There could have been 6 or even 10 people with their necks slashed at that night, but that isn't the point. The point is that the timing and distance between crimes at walking pace would infer that its the same assailant. We can rule out lots of proposed connections because of times and distances, some too far away, wrong times, etc,. for example... but you can't do this with the double event because it is right there. You can't rule out this connection between events because this goldilocks zone is as plain as day.
                  Bona fide canonical and then some.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Batman View Post
                    This reads like you completely reject the original investigation.

                    The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook: An Illustrated Encyclopedia Paperback – 24 Jan 2002
                    by Keith Skinner (Author), Stewart Evans (Author)

                    There are more than enough documents there to compromise your interpretation of the Whitechapel murders.

                    Do you really need to deny police beats, times, locations and all the viable witness accounts to make JtR organized?

                    Disorganized offenders can be organized in some ways but that doesn't make them organized offenders that target a specific victim at a specific time/place. Why? The fantasy requires it. There ya go.

                    This is not the case with JtR. He could not have known who had their doss money and who didn't for example. The double event in itself disorganized to the core.
                    Now, what parts of the original investigation do you think I am rejecting? I don´t think Chapman was killed in daylight, but then again, nor did Swanson.

                    So what is the problem you are having? Which police beats do I deny, which times, which locations?

                    You need to be a bit more specific in your criticism. As it stands, you are swinging wildly and not explaining what you are aiming for. Once you do, I can assure you that I have a perfectly feasible version of events.

                    Comment


                    • Harry D: If the goal was for the killer to have complete control of the victim, he wouldn't have killed them in locations with no guarantee of being undisturbed.

                      You are putting an unnecessary restraint on yourself, and the result is that you are missing out. Try to realize, Harry, that a confident killers´ultimate challenge would be to kill in public without getting caught.

                      You think it can only be the result of not having a safer place to kill in.

                      Instead, try and see it as a conscious choice on the killer´s behalf, and new avenues will open up.

                      Plenty of serial killers have a false sense of superiority. BTK was an arrogant SOB, but he still murdered all of his victims indoors. He didn't take to killing on the streets.

                      Kürten was an arrogant SOB who did. Try - if you can - to widen your perspective!

                      We have to look at what the murders tell us about the killer, and in the Ripper's case the murders show little planning or organisation.

                      No, Harry, they do not tell us either way. There may well have been lots of premeditation, there may have been a choice of venues, of killing method, a plan for the escape etcetera. We just don´t know, and so I cannot let you decide for me.

                      They were random attacks on women who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

                      They were completely methodical murders, following a plan that was repeated, they were silent murders, they were murders where the killer made his escape, they were murders with no clues left behind. A killer who has a plan for street killing can be just as organized as any other killer. He may well have abandoned a number of opportunitites because they were not to his liking. Once more, we don´t know.
                      You only think you do.


                      Whereas the Torso murders have the hallmarks of a more organized serial killer.

                      It is the same kind of murder, the same kind of damage, the same kind of abdominal wall procurement, the same stealing of rings etcetera. There is one difference only, and that is how the killer used a safe nest. The dismemberment was led on by that - to a degree. To another degree, another matter governed what he did - but he did the same to the Ripper victims.
                      Thing is, you have not realized what that was.

                      Disorganized serial killers have been known to evolve into organized ones, and vice-versa, due to various factors, but if the Torso & Ripper were the same man, then he appeared to flick back and forth between the two, which seems unlikely based on what we know.

                      Both series worked. Why would he not do both? Both allowed for his agenda. Why would he not do both? Once again, look at Kürten - he changed methods and changed back again. Silly him!

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                        Harry D: If the goal was for the killer to have complete control of the victim, he wouldn't have killed them in locations with no guarantee of being undisturbed.

                        You are putting an unnecessary restraint on yourself, and the result is that you are missing out. Try to realize, Harry, that a confident killers´ultimate challenge would be to kill in public without getting caught.

                        You think it can only be the result of not having a safer place to kill in.

                        Instead, try and see it as a conscious choice on the killer´s behalf, and new avenues will open up.

                        Plenty of serial killers have a false sense of superiority. BTK was an arrogant SOB, but he still murdered all of his victims indoors. He didn't take to killing on the streets.

                        Kürten was an arrogant SOB who did. Try - if you can - to widen your perspective!

                        We have to look at what the murders tell us about the killer, and in the Ripper's case the murders show little planning or organisation.

                        No, Harry, they do not tell us either way. There may well have been lots of premeditation, there may have been a choice of venues, of killing method, a plan for the escape etcetera. We just don´t know, and so I cannot let you decide for me.

                        They were random attacks on women who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

                        They were completely methodical murders, following a plan that was repeated, they were silent murders, they were murders where the killer made his escape, they were murders with no clues left behind. A killer who has a plan for street killing can be just as organized as any other killer. He may well have abandoned a number of opportunitites because they were not to his liking. Once more, we don´t know.
                        You only think you do.


                        Whereas the Torso murders have the hallmarks of a more organized serial killer.

                        It is the same kind of murder, the same kind of damage, the same kind of abdominal wall procurement, the same stealing of rings etcetera. There is one difference only, and that is how the killer used a safe nest. The dismemberment was led on by that - to a degree. To another degree, another matter governed what he did - but he did the same to the Ripper victims.
                        Thing is, you have not realized what that was.

                        Disorganized serial killers have been known to evolve into organized ones, and vice-versa, due to various factors, but if the Torso & Ripper were the same man, then he appeared to flick back and forth between the two, which seems unlikely based on what we know.

                        Both series worked. Why would he not do both? Both allowed for his agenda. Why would he not do both? Once again, look at Kürten - he changed methods and changed back again. Silly him!
                        Harry is absolutely correct: to argue that murdering a victim in public is the hallmark of an organised killer is just plain silly; as was your previous argument that Kelly's injuries demonstrated a high level of skill!

                        Regrettably, your obsession in trying to prove that Lechmere was some master criminal for the ages - Whitechapel murderer and Torso killer- is forcing you into more and more ludicrous positions.

                        Of course you totally ignore the obvious anomalies. Thus, you believe you've uncovered the first serial killer in history who alternated between two ritualistic behaviours; who alternated between being organized and disorganized; who alternated between being a commuter and a marauder; whose psychology kept changing,. I.e. from a killer who clearly enjoyed spending time with his victims-the Whitehall victim's body may well have been stored for 2 months- to a killer who just left women in the street.

                        No; all you do is focus on two words: abdominal and wall. And I've already explained to you why the three victims that were mutilated in that way was for three very different reasons. Would you like me to explain this to you again just in case you're struggling with the concept?
                        Last edited by John G; 03-19-2017, 10:17 AM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                          Now, what parts of the original investigation do you think I am rejecting? I don´t think Chapman was killed in daylight, but then again, nor did Swanson.

                          So what is the problem you are having? Which police beats do I deny, which times, which locations?

                          You need to be a bit more specific in your criticism. As it stands, you are swinging wildly and not explaining what you are aiming for. Once you do, I can assure you that I have a perfectly feasible version of events.
                          Why are you asking me to be more specific when you have already addressed my points with criticisms? You obviously know what they are to have done that.

                          You reject that Chapman's neighbour heard a voice say 'No!' and shortly after something hitting the fence. Do you reject it because this is the sort of evidence that we find with disorganized criminals who nearly get caught?

                          You reject that Stride was accosted by someone who was seen by a witness doing this. Is this because it isn't the behaviour of an organized criminal?

                          You reject that there is any evidence that police beats on Mitre Sq. would have encountered the ripper if they had stronger flashlights or walked on a few more meters, despite this event having a record of such beats. Is this because it isn't very organized for a killer to murder someone a few meters away from a beat officer on the look out for such things?

                          Jack the Ripper took risks well beyond what organized offenders do.

                          Anyway I just don't see how you can omit all these things when the original investigation didn't.
                          Bona fide canonical and then some.

                          Comment


                          • John G: Harry is absolutely correct: to argue that murdering a victim in public is the hallmark of an organised killer is just plain silly; as was your previous argument that Kelly's injuries demonstrated a high level of skill!

                            How good, then, that I am not arguing what you claim I am arguing. I am not saying that killing out in the street is typically organized behaviour - I am saying that an organized killer can kill out in the street, for reasons of feeling able to pull it off.

                            Regrettably, your obsession in trying to prove that Lechmere was some master criminal for the ages - Whitechapel murderer and Torso killer- is forcing you into more and more ludicrous positions.

                            I won´t grace that with an answer.

                            Of course you totally ignore the obvious anomalies. Thus, you believe you've uncovered the first serial killer in history who alternated between two ritualistic behaviours; who alternated between being organized and disorganized; who alternated between being a commuter and a marauder; whose psychology kept changing,. I.e. from a killer who clearly enjoyed spending time with his victims-the Whitehall victim's body may well have been stored for 2 months- to a killer who just left women in the street.

                            I have uncovered the first poster out here who fails to realize that there is no changing between two ritualistic behaviours - it is the SAME ritualistic behavior in both series. And it has nothing to do with the time spent or where the victims were killed.

                            No; all you do is focus on two words: abdominal and wall.

                            You´d do well to do the same a bit more often. Of course it is an outright lie to say that I focus on nothing else. Your ignorance is another center of attention for me.

                            And I've already explained to you why the three victims that were mutilated in that way was for three very different reasons. Would you like me to explain this to you again just in case you're struggling with the concept?

                            I´d prefer for you to think less of yourself. The idea that there were three different reasons behind that very odd detail says a lot more about your talent for solving crimes than it does about the reality of the case.
                            There´s no reason to comment any more on your efforts. They are at a level a kindergarten kid would be ashamed of. You must forgive me for not wanting to exchange any more with you over this.

                            Comment


                            • Batman: Why are you asking me to be more specific when you have already addressed my points with criticisms? You obviously know what they are to have done that.

                              Because I want to know what you are talking about. Please specify.

                              You reject that Chapman's neighbour heard a voice say 'No!' and shortly after something hitting the fence.

                              Do I? I can´t remember that, actually. What I reject is that what Cadosch possibly heard was the Chapman murder. And I don´t reject it categorically - but I do favour Phillips´ take on it.

                              Do you reject it because this is the sort of evidence that we find with disorganized criminals who nearly get caught?

                              No, I reject it because it is a ridiculous suggestion, given what Phillips said. And I don´t think we can judge organization/disorganization from the word "No".

                              You reject that Stride was accosted by someone who was seen by a witness doing this. Is this because it isn't the behaviour of an organized criminal?

                              What? I reject what? That Stride was accosted by BS man? Where on earth did you get that from?
                              What is this? It is getting more ridiculous by the minute!

                              You reject that there is any evidence that police beats on Mitre Sq. would have encountered the ripper if they had stronger flashlights or walked on a few more meters, despite this event having a record of such beats.

                              When did you loose it? I am saying that I am not certain that the killer was around as Harvey stood at the outlet of the passageway. I am not exactly denying that stronger light reveals more - if that is your general idea?

                              Is this because it isn't very organized for a killer to murder someone a few meters away from a beat officer on the look out for such things?

                              Batman, it is not whether a person comes upon you that decides if your deed is organized or disorganized. Maybe you need to ponder that?

                              Jack the Ripper took risks well beyond what organized offenders do.

                              And Sutcliffe? And Kürten? Were they disorganized killers? Or did they not take risks? Now, try to listen and understand what I am saying:
                              A disorganized killer is normally not aware that he takes risks. A killer who is aware that he takes risks, is normally not a typically disorganized killer.

                              Do you see how that works? It´s basically acknowledging that disorganized killers are cuckoo killers - they are mentally challenged killers. They act under a psychosis many times, and they are totally oblivious of risks, responsibilities and such things.

                              Anyway I just don't see how you can omit all these things when the original investigation didn't.

                              There is a lot of things you can´t see, apparently. The original investigation accepted Phillips bid that Chapman was killed before Cadosch went into his back yard. The original investigation allowed for another killer than BS man. The original investigation did not take for granted that Harvey was in Mitre Square together with the killer. The original investigation did, however, predispose that there was a good chance that the killer was mad and probably a foreigner. And if you read up on a phenomenon called criminal anthropology, you may begin to understand what was the underlying cause for that.

                              Then again, you may not understand a thing. Who knows. And here I was thinking Batman was a clever guy...
                              Last edited by Fisherman; 03-19-2017, 11:27 AM.

                              Comment


                              • I probably think this is more of a testimony as to how profiling isn't a science but very subjective.

                                It doesn't have much baring on a double event anyway as you can claim both are achievable by disorganized/organized.

                                I am much more interested in how the timing between events, distances and trajectories make it even more of a low probability that they are different killers. That probability is somewhere down near nil.
                                Bona fide canonical and then some.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X