Lipski

[Fisherman]

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 ...

[Harry D]

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

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?

[c.d.]

"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.

[Michael W Richards]

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.

[c.d.]

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.

[Michael W Richards]

Schwartz saw a man assault Stride.

Yes Batman, someone calling himself Israel Schwartz gave a statement Sunday night that suggests he saw Liz Stride in an altercation with someone, and that 2 other people were in the immediate area. That's what it is...a story. One that was not used in any form at the Inquest, and one that seems to have been constructed to cast suspicion from someone at the club to someone offsite. An anti-Semite to boot.

Its very likely that Israel, if that was his name, claimed to see something based upon his friendship with Woolf Wess and the club, not based on actual events seen. Its also probable that his friend translated.

[Fisherman]

So, Gareth, when are you going to comment on the list I provided?

[Fisherman]

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 donīt 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. Iīm 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.

[Batman]

Fisherman,

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

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

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

Schwartz saw a man assault Stride.

JtR was lucky. Not organized. Just very lucky.

[Fisherman]

Harry: You just don't get it, Fisherman. Organized serial killers need control over the crime scene.

Harry, please donīt tell me that I "donīt get it". To begin with, the distinction between organized and disorganized is not a very commong way of determining the mindset of a killer today. That has itīs reasons - it is not as simple as some think to divide killers up in categories.
If a killer decides to kill a victim out in the open street because he likes the idea of doing that, he can be very "organized" just the same. Others will kill on a whim, and it may be that it happens in the open street, but this time it will be "disorganized".
On the net, there is a site where it is said about disorganized killers that "the disorganized offender is psychotic with non-existent social skills." But you may take it from me that psychotic killers are normally not quiet, cautios men with a propensity to clear away all traces of their activities!
Myself, I would say that the Ripper looks to me like a perfectly "organized" man, but with a trait that is quite common with many serialists - a growing confidence resulting in a recklessness that will manifest itself in killing in public places, leaving traces behind etcetera - but not on account of being psychotic but instead on account of believing that you are able to get away with anything at all.

Believe me, Harry. I do get it. I have gotten it for decades on end. Maybe itīs time you got that.

Why would a killer who dismembers his victims in private and dumps the body parts here and there, suddenly go out into the streets and start slashing up women with policemen around the next corner?

Because he can. Because he wants to add to the appeal of killing. Because he wants to demonstrate his superiority. Because he has wondered what kind of rush it will give him. Because he wants recognition. For starters.

You might argue that he didn't have a choice.

I might, but I wonīt. I think he DID have a choice.

Perhaps he didn't have access to the facilities all year around, etc.

Once again, I donīt see street killing as something a killer would only choose given no other options. It can be seen as step-up, a graduation, a mockery of those who repeatedly fail to catch you.

In that case, it doesn't necessarily follow that the organized serial killer would suddenly go against his instincts and thrust himself into a much riskier environment.

Organized killing is not solely about optimizing safety and minimizing risk, Harry. Organized killing is much more about being in control.

The Ripper most likely did what he did because he had no opportunity to do his grisly deeds in private. The Torso Killer did.

I disagree, Harry, for reasons mentioned above. Whether you get it or not, I canīt say.

[Harry D]

You just don't get it, Fisherman. Organized serial killers need control over the crime scene. Why would a killer who dismembers his victims in private and dumps the body parts here and there, suddenly go out into the streets and start slashing up women with policemen around the next corner? You might argue that he didn't have a choice. Perhaps he didn't have access to the facilities all year around, etc. In that case, it doesn't necessarily follow that the organized serial killer would suddenly go against his instincts and thrust himself into a much riskier environment. The Ripper most likely did what he did because he had no opportunity to do his grisly deeds in private. The Torso Killer did.

[Fisherman]

But they didn't.

Go back to my list and tell me where you disagree. It should be interesting. Once we look at these details - you seemingly avoid that, though - the picture is a very clear one.

[Fisherman]

Harry D: I'm talking about the planning, as well as the execution, Fish.

What do you know about the planning, Harry? I myself know not a iot about it. I only see what he did, and how he was quite methodical in that part.

The Thames Torso murderer must have killed his victims in private, he had control of the crime-scene and was able to dismember the victims to his heart's content.

What makes you think it was the dismembering and not the eviscerations that was what he was after, Harry?

He covered up the identities for whatsoever reason and dumped the body parts.

Sorry, but you donīt know that he did cover up any identities at all. He cut off the heads, but you can do that for a number of reasons. And he left moles and scars and clothes, so he seems to have been unconcerned about the ID issue. As for dumping the body parts, itīs either that or keeping them. The Ripper never had to solve that problem, did he?

The Ripper was an efficient killer but he attacked mainly in the open, exposing himself to all kinds of close calls, and he seemed to enjoy leaving his victims out on display.

Leaving a torso in the cellar vaults of the Scotland Yard building is as much displaying as any killer can attain. The Ripper killed out in the open AND inside, so he could do it both ways.

Criminal profilers came up with a 'mixed' typology for serial killers who straddle the line between organised and disorganised, but that's a killer whose murders contain elements of both types, not a killer who switches back and forth between the two, sometimes within a matter of weeks.

The only switching there was, was how the Torso killer killed inside, and so he had to dispose of the parts. The rest is the same thing.

I'm not willing to buy the 'confluence of evil' idea in respect of the Ripper murders being carried out by different individuals, but I can accept that the Ripper & Torso killers weren't the same fella.

I canīt. They obviously were. I asked Gareth if he had any example of two serialists in the same city and era, where there were som many similarities as there is here. Do you have such an example, Harry?

It's not like there weren't other serial killers contemporaneous with the Ripper (Cream, Klosowski), or there weren't murderers capable of post-mortem mutilations (William Bury, William Waddell), so it's certainly not a stretch for there to be an overlap between the Ripper & Thames Torso series.

...but once we list the similarities, things are stretched way beyond credibility. Sorry. Same man.

[Fisherman]

Ive defended the Organized side here too Fish, but I'm wondering whether Ordered is a better term. I think I see methodical behavior.

Yes, indeed there is a very methodical behaviour. Which was why I was surprised to see Harry claim the direct opposite.

[Sam Flynn]

I take it you think the Torso killer was highly organized? So tell me why the two killers inflicted the same kind of damage on their victims, John?

But they didn't.