Lipski

[Harry D]

Could you be for real and stop putting words in my mouth, Harry? It is a pathetic lie that I would have "asserted" that the bolthole was "situated in Whitechapel or nearby". I said it MAY have been the case that the bolthole was there, and I said this on account of how you earlier wrongfully claimed that the torso killer killed all over town, something that we cannot possibly know. All that can be said is that it is much likelier that all his victims were killed in one and the same spot - wherever that was.
It is exactly this kind of thing that makes me dislike so much out here. Do not misrepresent me, PLEASE!!

Pot, kettle.

I never said the Torso killer murdered "all over town", I said that unlike the Ripper murders he didn't confine his murders to Whitechapel. That's not the same thing now, is it?

[Fisherman]

Pot, kettle.

I never said the Torso killer murdered "all over town", I said that unlike the Ripper murders he didn't confine his murders to Whitechapel. That's not the same thing now, is it?

You were (erroneously) going by the dumping sites, which were all over town, so no, there is no case of pot and kettle. You were the only one lying. Itīs discussion over on that point for me, so if you want to go on waffling about it, do feel free. That does not include misrepresenting, though.

[Batman]

Chapman?

Yes it's Chapman.

The book is called Aristotle's Works. He had only a few books in his collection. It was banned.

Contains content like this...

http://www.barterbooks.co.uk/catalog/images/books/g4847b.jpg

http://img.auctiva.com/imgdata/3/4/3/9/0/1/webimg/818879887_o.jpg

[Abby Normal]

Pot, kettle.

I never said the Torso killer murdered "all over town", I said that unlike the Ripper murders he didn't confine his murders to Whitechapel. That's not the same thing now, is it?

Hi Harry
We don't know where torso man lived, picked up his victims, nor do we know where his bolt hole was. all we know is where he dumped them.

For all we know he may have lived in the west end, picked them up in the west end and killed them in the west end.

For all we know he may have lived in the east end, picked them up in the East End and killed them in the East end.

The parts were all over, that's all we know.

one thing we can say is that the pinchin street torso was found in the East End-and compared to the other torso cases, seems to be the one that was dumped more hastily than the others-maybe suggesting that this one he had to get rid of in a hurry. Thereby implying that he lived (and/or had his murder bolt hole) nearest to this dump site-in the east end. It was also the last victim of torso killer, so that may have something to do with it being hastily dumped.

[Abby Normal]

Yes it's Chapman.

The book is called Aristotle's Works. He had only a few books in his collection. It was banned.

Contains content like this...

http://www.barterbooks.co.uk/catalog/images/books/g4847b.jpg

http://img.auctiva.com/imgdata/3/4/3...18879887_o.jpg

interesting-Chapman-who also probably had some level of surgical skill.

[Fisherman]

Hi Harry
We don't know where torso man lived, picked up his victims, nor do we know where his bolt hole was. all we know is where he dumped them.

For all we know he may have lived in the west end, picked them up in the west end and killed them in the west end.

For all we know he may have lived in the east end, picked them up in the East End and killed them in the East end.

The parts were all over, that's all we know.

one thing we can say is that the pinchin street torso was found in the East End-and compared to the other torso cases, seems to be the one that was dumped more hastily than the others-maybe suggesting that this one he had to get rid of in a hurry. Thereby implying that he lived (and/or had his murder bolt hole) nearest to this dump site-in the east end. It was also the last victim of torso killer, so that may have something to do with it being hastily dumped.

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.

[Harry D]

Hi Harry
We don't know where torso man lived, picked up his victims, nor do we know where his bolt hole was. all we know is where he dumped them.

For all we know he may have lived in the west end, picked them up in the west end and killed them in the west end.

For all we know he may have lived in the east end, picked them up in the East End and killed them in the East end.

The parts were all over, that's all we know.

one thing we can say is that the pinchin street torso was found in the East End-and compared to the other torso cases, seems to be the one that was dumped more hastily than the others-maybe suggesting that this one he had to get rid of in a hurry. Thereby implying that he lived (and/or had his murder bolt hole) nearest to this dump site-in the east end. It was also the last victim of torso killer, so that may have something to do with it being hastily dumped.

Hello, Abby.

Just to reiterate, if Elizabeth Jackson's last known address was in Chelsea, and most of her remains were found dumped in that vicinity, that would suggest that she was targetted and murdered in that neck of the woods. Of course, that's an unpalatable idea for Fisherman because he needs all of the Torso victims to be lured to Whitechapel to meet their maker.

I'm not sure we can say for certain that the Pinchin St. Torso was hastily discarded. Wasn't it estimated that the victim had been dead for at least 24 hours before discovery? And yet the body wasn't subjected to anywhere near the kind of intense mutilation that Mary Kelly suffered. The stomach was slashed, but no internal organs were taken, the breasts were still intact, and the head and limbs had been neatly removed.

[Fisherman]

Harry D: Hello, Abby.

Just to reiterate, if Elizabeth Jackson's last known address was in Chelsea, and most of her remains were found dumped in that vicinity, that would suggest that she was targetted and murdered in that neck of the woods. Of course, that's an unpalatable idea for Fisherman because he needs all of the Torso victims to be lured to Whitechapel to meet their maker.

If you are a complete moron, then try not to flaunt it. I am perfectly fine with the torso man having his bolthole anywhere. He had a horse and carriage, so he was able to travel. So stop lying about me, and what I think. You WILL be revealed. Every time.

[Michael W Richards]

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.

[Fisherman]

Michael W Richards: 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.

Well, Michael, I think I am entitled to assume whatever I want. And my assumption IS that Stride was a Ripper victim, and that she was killed with the intention to eviscerate her. There is actually nothing illegal or illogical about that assumption, and it was indeed shared by the contemporary police just as it is shared by most people today, right or wrong.

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

Thatīs an odd thing to say: Using all the known evidence. How about the evidence that is NOT known, then? And what is "the known evidence"? Should we always assume that no murder is interrupted, and that "the known evidence" always involves the killers full intent?
That doesnīt work for me.

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.

Okay. Liz was an East End prostitute who had her neck cut deeply in an attack that was seemingly too quiet to make people hear it. Just like the other Ripper murders.

There needs to be some valid reason why there are no mutilations or attempts at same.

Okay - the killer was interrupted. Thatīs a very valid reason. There is no evidence to prove it, but there is no evidence to prove that the killer never aimed to eviscerate either. So we are left on equal footing in that respect.

Using a mere guess to support the theory isn't kosher anymore.

Thatīs a tad ridiculous, and for two reasons:

1. Since the killer was never caught, we donīt know which murders were included in his tally. Given this, it is not unreasonable to suggest that Stride belonged to the series, seeing as she had her neck cut by a silent killer.

2. I am not "using" Stride to "support my theory". There can be no definite ruling out or ruling in of her, just at there can be no such thing for any of the victims. Thatīs what happens when the killer is not caught. There are extremely strong reasons to count Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly as victims of the same man, and a less strong but nevertheless quite powerful reason to do the same with Stride. As long as I donīt claim it as a certainty that she belongs to the series, there is nothing at all not "kosher" about suggesting her as a Ripper victim.

[Abby Normal]

Hello, Abby.

Just to reiterate, if Elizabeth Jackson's last known address was in Chelsea, and most of her remains were found dumped in that vicinity, that would suggest that she was targetted and murdered in that neck of the woods. Of course, that's an unpalatable idea for Fisherman because he needs all of the Torso victims to be lured to Whitechapel to meet their maker.

I'm not sure we can say for certain that the Pinchin St. Torso was hastily discarded. Wasn't it estimated that the victim had been dead for at least 24 hours before discovery? And yet the body wasn't subjected to anywhere near the kind of intense mutilation that Mary Kelly suffered. The stomach was slashed, but no internal organs were taken, the breasts were still intact, and the head and limbs had been neatly removed.

Hi Harry

Just to reiterate, if Elizabeth Jackson's last known address was in Chelsea, and most of her remains were found dumped in that vicinity, that would suggest that she was targetted and murdered in that neck of the woods.

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.

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.

I'm not sure we can say for certain that the Pinchin St. Torso was hastily discarded. Wasn't it estimated that the victim had been dead for at least 24 hours before discovery? And yet the body wasn't subjected to anywhere near the kind of intense mutilation that Mary Kelly suffered. The stomach was slashed, but no internal organs were taken, the breasts were still intact, and the head and limbs had been neatly removed

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-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.

[Harry D]

If you are a complete moron, then try not to flaunt it. I am perfectly fine with the torso man having his bolthole anywhere. He had a horse and carriage, so he was able to travel. So stop lying about me, and what I think. You WILL be revealed. Every time.[/B]

Would you like some chips with all that salt?

[Abby Normal]

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.

Uh how about the witnesses then?
Even if he wasn't interrupted, the witness descriptions alone indicate it was probably the same man who killed eddowes.

To me it seems like you are the one who is fixated on one single thing-no interruptions!
Even though the witness -you know eye witness testimony - you know perfectly legal and valid evidence of Schwartz states he interrupted the attack of stride by a man.

[c.d.]

"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."

Hello Michael,

You are arguing that if there is no evidence for an interruption that it could not possibly have happened and that simply is not true. If her killer was Jack and he was scared off there would be no evidence for it at all yet it would have happened. He is not going to leave a damn note explaining why he did not mutilate her.

As for the 15 minute argument that assumes that Stride's killer was there for that entire period and if in fact he had been scared off then the whole no mutilation no Jack argument becomes moot.

c.d.

[c.d.]

I don't think we have to limit ourselves to an actual interruption when searching for possible reasons why Stride's killer did not mutilate her. There is always good old paranoia. If he is caught he is most certainly hanged. He is close to a lighted club where he can hear voices and where someone may come out at any minute. It might have been an unplanned spur of the moment killing and he quickly came to realize that he was in a precarious situation.

And we always have to keep in mind that Stride was not the only woman in Whitechapel so not mutilating her in no way meant that he could not partake of that particular pleasure that night.

c.d.