Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Lipski

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

  • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
    Mike R asked: Why was Liz killed?

    Fisherman replied: I assume for the same reason - but the killer was interrupted.

    I cannot adequately express how frustrating this, sorry Fish, inane argument is. For the final time... hopefully.... There is NO evidence of any kind of interruption at all, in fact there is evidence that suggests she was possibly cut nearly 15 minutes before Louis says he arrived.

    Liz Strides murder was in and of itself a completed act, using all the known evidence.

    If you want to group Liz among women that were killed so they could be mutilated, like all the Canonicalists do, you will need to find an argument that can be supported by some kind of evidence. There needs to be some valid reason why there are no mutilations or attempts at same.

    Using a mere guess to support the theory isn't kosher anymore.
    And what praytell is the evidence that she was cut 15 minutes before Diemshitz arrived?
    "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 Harry D View Post
      Would you like some chips with all that salt?
      No, I would like for you to stop saying that I have claimed that the torso mans bolthole must have been in Whitechapel. It is that simple - I request that you do not lie about that.

      Do you think you can manage such a simple thing? It would be awfully nice if you did, but I have my doubts; you have failed twice so far.

      If you cannot manage to stop lying about it, then maybe you can explain to the rest of out here exactly WHY you lie about it?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
        Perhaps. But we just don't know for sure. it seems Torso man got around-parts were dumped all over. He didn't just confine himself to that vicinity and that's the main point I'm trying to make. He left his mark all over town -including the East End.
        Unless the killer had multiple boltholes, Jackson's murder would tend to place his dwelling further west than east.

        Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
        So in the scenario of the Torso man and the ripper being the same man, I suggest that he lived in close proximity to the ripper murders. Murders where he had no access to his bolt hole during those times, yet the urge was so great he still needed to do it and resorted to killing on the street. and or was "upping" the thrill by killing and mutilating in public.
        And I find it incongruous that a killer who took precautions to kill his victims in private, dismember their bodies, destroy their identities, and use dump sites across London, would be the same guy who attacked random women in high-risk locations that were not under his control.

        Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
        yes but it had post mortem mutilation to the abdomen as did all the torsos.
        Not even all the ripper victims had organs removed. so again, the killers of both series are all over the place
        With Nichols, the killer's signature was perhaps still evolving, or he was interrupted. Same deal with Stride. That's the risk you take when attacking women in public places. The Torso Killer didn't have that problem with the Pinchin St. victim, but for some reason he didn't procure any internal organs or butcher the body. The Torso killer was used to being alone with his victims, the Ripper wasn't - as evinced when he went to town on Mary Kelly. The escalation theory goes out the window when you throw the Torso series into the mix.

        Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
        but common denominator all had severe over kill post mortem mutilation to the mid section. and that in my mind potentially ties them all together as the same man.
        And I've provided examples of contemporaneous cases that also involved overkill/mutilation/dismemberment that weren't committed by the Torso Murderer. It's not enough to take such a broad definition and use it to conflate two contradictory series of murders.

        Comment


        • Hi Harry
          Unless the killer had multiple boltholes, Jackson's murder would tend to place his dwelling further west than east.
          not neccessarily. Jacksons murder would tend to place his dumping her further west than east. that's all we know.

          And I find it incongruous that a killer who took precautions to kill his victims in private, dismember their bodies, destroy their identities, and use dump sites across London, would be the same guy who attacked random women in high-risk locations that were not under his control.
          I would posit that that same guy didn't have access to his bolt hole during the ripper murders so he killed out in the streets. that scenario would dismiss any other incongruities!

          With Nichols, the killer's signature was perhaps still evolving, or he was interrupted. Same deal with Stride. That's the risk you take when attacking women in public places. The Torso Killer didn't have that problem with the Pinchin St. victim, but for some reason he didn't procure any internal organs or butcher the body. The Torso killer was used to being alone with his victims, the Ripper wasn't - as evinced when he went to town on Mary Kelly. The escalation theory goes out the window when you throw the Torso series into the mix.
          no it dosnt because the "escalation" comes into play with the ripper murders because hes learning how to kill on the streets more effectively. and I would say that he certainly went to town on the torso victims in terms of mutilations also!!

          And I've provided examples of contemporaneous cases that also involved overkill/mutilation/dismemberment that weren't committed by the Torso Murderer.
          who? beadmore and gill? who killed them?


          It's not enough to take such a broad definition and use it to conflate two contradictory series of murders.
          I don't think a post mortem mutilating serial killer of women that targets the abdomen is a broad definition at all. as a matter of fact these types of serial killers are quite rare.

          look at it this way. a man murders mary Kelly- post mortem splits her open down the abdomen, removing her walls in large flaps of skin to get at her insides.

          six months later another unfortunate is murdered has her abdomen split open post mortem removing large flaps of skin. and its a different man?

          can you really imagine two men, two different serial killers doing this? Operating in the same area?

          Look Harry. I see what your saying. I see the points in the differences you are highlighting. I really do. But the chances of two different men doing this major type of similar killing in the same general location, at the same time, targeting the same type of victim both series ending at the same time is too much for me to be mere coincidence.
          "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 Abby Normal View Post
            And what praytell is the evidence that she was cut 15 minutes before Diemshitz arrived?
            Has anyone actually read the case evidence? Blackwell estimated he arrived at 1:16 by his own watch, he stated at the Inquest that the woman had been cut 20 minute to 1/2 hour before his arrival....hence, 12:46-56. I said nearly 15 minutes.

            And I said that the time Louis says he arrived, not when he arrived.

            But that does illuminate some issues if you know what the other witnesses said.
            Michael Richards

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
              Has anyone actually read the case evidence? Blackwell estimated he arrived at 1:16 by his own watch, he stated at the Inquest that the woman had been cut 20 minute to 1/2 hour before his arrival....hence, 12:46-56. I said nearly 15 minutes.

              And I said that the time Louis says he arrived, not when he arrived.

              But that does illuminate some issues if you know what the other witnesses said.
              Hi Michael
              Ok I'm lost. so if Blackwell says she was cut at approx. quarter till one and Louis says he arrived at one and Schwartz says she saw stride get attacked by BS at about quarter till one, dosnt blackwells evidence jibe with schwartz-IE that BS man was the one who cut her at about quarter till one?
              "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 Michael W Richards View Post
                Has anyone actually read the case evidence? Blackwell estimated he arrived at 1:16 by his own watch, he stated at the Inquest that the woman had been cut 20 minute to 1/2 hour before his arrival....hence, 12:46-56. I said nearly 15 minutes.

                And I said that the time Louis says he arrived, not when he arrived.

                But that does illuminate some issues if you know what the other witnesses said.
                There seem to be two versions of what Blackwell said about the time of death. One says she had been dead "from 20 minutes to half an hour when I arrived", the other "I do not think the deceased could have been dead more than twenty minutes, at the most half an hour".

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                  The important thing about the Pinchin Street torso is that it was apparently carried manually to itīs dumping site. No cart was seen or heard, and no tracks found - but there were impressions of sack cloth on the skin of the torso.
                  So it seems it was carried to where it was dumped by the killer, meaning that it would not have come from afar.
                  My suggestion has always been that it came from 147 Cable Street.
                  Hi Fish keeping out of this on the whole. One interesting point you make. Why 147 cable street?


                  Steve

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
                    Hi Fish keeping out of this on the whole. One interesting point you make. Why 147 cable street?
                    Why not?

                    Seriously, because that was the address of Lechmeres mother at the time of the Pinchin Street torso deed. And we know that two years on, she was listed as a horse flesh dealer with her own business.

                    Suggestion - if the business was already up and running in September 1889 and if she ran it from her home, then there is a fair chance that there were finetoothed saws and sharp knives available at the address. And the implication is that the torso was carried manually in a sack to the dumping place, so we should accept that the distance it was carried was not a very long one.

                    In December of 1889, Joseph Forsdike (Maria Louisas third and final husband) died from senility and bronchitis, so he will have suffered a period of illness before that. Therefore, it may be that he was treated in hospital during periods, and that the apartment may have been empty for some time. In which case Charles Lechmere may have used it.

                    So thatīs why I favour 147 Cable Street as the place the Pinchin Street torso came from: because on the surface of things, once again Charles Lechmere has ties to a deed. It should be remembered that he himself lived in Pinchin Street as a child, and that Maria Louisa moved back there a couple of times, meaning that it will have been a street where he was well aquainted with the layout, including the railway arches.

                    Comment


                    • The police report on the finding of the Pinchin St torso has this to say;

                      "The question of how conveyed is in the region of theory, for if conveyed by cart, then no limit can be fixed, but if by hand about 250 yards would be the limit"

                      147 Cable Street was probably something like 500 yards from the archway.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
                        The police report on the finding of the Pinchin St torso has this to say;

                        "The question of how conveyed is in the region of theory, for if conveyed by cart, then no limit can be fixed, but if by hand about 250 yards would be the limit"

                        147 Cable Street was probably something like 500 yards from the archway.
                        What decided the limit, Joshua?

                        The distance looks more like around 350 yards in my book, by the way.

                        PS. Checked with Google Maps. They made it 0,2 miles, meaning around 320 meters.
                        Last edited by Fisherman; 03-24-2017, 03:58 AM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                          What decided the limit, Joshua?

                          The distance looks more like around 350 yards in my book, by the way.
                          I don't know, I just came across the reference and thought I'd share. Presumably the police thought anything more that 250 yards would be a very unlikely distance for someone to carry the remains of a body through the streets without exhausting themselves and/or attracting attention.

                          350 yards seems a very low estimate to me, but hey I've been wrong before. Do you have an exact location for no.147?
                          Google maps does say 0.2 miles, but then it says that for 106 Cable street too.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
                            I don't know, I just came across the reference and thought I'd share. Presumably the police thought anything more that 250 yards would be a very unlikely distance for someone to carry the remains of a body through the streets without exhausting themselves and/or attracting attention.

                            350 yards seems a very low estimate to me, but hey I've been wrong before. Do you have an exact location for no.147?
                            Google maps does say 0.2 miles, but then it says that for 106 Cable street too.
                            Not on my map, no - it says 0,1 mile for 106 Cable, Joshua. Todays 147 Cable street is situated 50 yards west of Cannon St Rd, and I suspect that matches the Victorian numbering, but since the houses are much newer, I am not 100 per cent sure. It will take a Goad map or something like that to establish.

                            As for how far the killer would have managed to carry the torso, we are speaking of a smallish woman, around 5,3 ft, and not very bulky. Maybe the part weighed, say, 25 kilograms. Maybe 30. Regardless of which, a strong fellow could have carried it from Cable Street to Buckingham palace, methinks. Regarding the attention part, it is hard to say where the limit goes - presumably when you are spotted. But when is that...?

                            Comment


                            • Ooh, found a map with 147 on, before it was demolished.

                              Georeferencer is an online tool that assigns geographical location to any image.


                              It is slightly closer than I thought, but whatever the exact distance, it's still outside the police search radius.

                              Maybe that's why they never caught the killer?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                                As for how far the killer would have managed to carry the torso, we are speaking of a smallish woman, around 5,3 ft, and not very bulky. Maybe the part weighed, say, 25 kilograms. Maybe 30. Regardless of which, a strong fellow could have carried it from Cable Street to Buckingham palace, methinks. Regarding the attention part, it is hard to say where the limit goes - presumably when you are spotted. But when is that...?
                                She was described variously as stout, and plump, and the arms were not removed, so I would personally go with your higher estimate. But agree, someone accustomed to heavy lifting could carry it a fair distance. Plus, of course, there's always the possibility that the torso man parked his transport somewhere nearby (but off PC Pennett's beat) and carried it only a short part of the way, once he saw the PC leave the area.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X