Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Torso Murders

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

  • Pierre: Hi Fisherman,

    I hear you are convinced that the same person killed Jackson, Chapman and Kelly. You induce that from the way of cutting, which is one part of the signature. So letīs say that is your hypothesis.

    Not entirely true, Pierre; I conclude that it was IN ALL PROBABILITY the same killer owing not to the way of cutting, but instead owing to how these women had their abdominal walls removed in large panes.

    Is it also your hypothesis that the same person killed these three women?

    Absolutely. Doubtlessly. Emphatically. I make it a 97, 44 per cent chance. Just about.

    If it is, which I believe, and if you hypothesize that Lechmere was the killer, which I think you do - are there any sources connecting Lechmere to any of these three murders?

    I reason like this:

    Lechmere is the probable killer of Nichols.

    If he killed Nichols, he was in all probability the Ripper, and killed a number of other women too.

    Two of these women were Chapman and Kelly, tied together very clearly by their cut-away abdominal walls.

    Since Jackson suffered the same fate, I am very nearly certain that she was killed by the exact same man.

    Since all the torso murders are very similar, involving lots of cutting skill, I am of the meaning that one killer was responsible for the so called Ripper killings as well as for the so called Torso killings.

    Charles Lechmere fits the bill agewise, having been 24 in 1873, when the first torso murder, definitely knit to the Kelly murder was perpetrated.

    ... but how these two murders are related is something I will not tell you. You must do a little bit of the work too, you see.

    What you think of the theoretical and academical implications is - I am sad to say - of very little interest to me.

    Sorry about that, but I thought Iīd be proactive.
    Last edited by Fisherman; 05-22-2016, 11:59 AM.

    Comment


    • [QUOTE=Fisherman;381935]Pierre: Hi Fisherman,

      I hear you are convinced that the same person killed Jackson, Chapman and Kelly. You induce that from the way of cutting, which is one part of the signature. So letīs say that is your hypothesis.

      Not entirely true, Pierre; I conclude that it was IN ALL PROBABILITY the same killer owing not to the way of cutting, but instead owing to how these women had their abdominal walls removed in large panes.
      OK, but the abdominal walls were removed by cutting, werenīt they? So you just want to be more specific, I guess, and say they were cut away in large panes?

      Is it also your hypothesis that the same person killed these three women?

      Absolutely. Doubtlessly. Emphatically. I make it a 97, 44 per cent chance. Just about.
      That is a very high percentage but there can be no substantial significance to the sum after the decimal mark.

      If it is, which I believe, and if you hypothesize that Lechmere was the killer, which I think you do - are there any sources connecting Lechmere to any of these three murders?

      I reason like this:

      Lechmere is the probable killer of Nichols.
      Step 1 (spurious step).

      If he killed Nichols, he was in all probability the Ripper, and killed a number of other women too.
      This should have been step 2 but it is step 5 (including Kelly) or even step X, including "other women too".

      How did you manage to get to level 5 when you did not manage level 2, 3, 4 and 5 first? And how do you get to level X from the spurious level 1?

      If you play data games you will not win. You are stuck at the first level forever.

      Please give me a source which indicates that Lechmere was in Hanbury Street, in Berner Street, in Mitre Square and in Millerīs Court.


      Show me that your man is at level 2, 3, 4 and 5. And that he is at level X!

      Because all we know is that he is not even at level 1, but that you have found what we sociologists call a spurious relationship.

      General example

      An example of a spurious relationship can be illuminated by examining a city's ice cream sales. These sales are highest when the rate of drownings in city swimming pools is highest. To allege that ice cream sales cause drowning, or vice versa, would be to imply a spurious relationship between the two. In reality, a heat wave may have caused both. The heat wave is an example of a hidden or unseen variable, also known as a confounding variable.
      (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spurious_relationship)

      With reservations for the fact that these relationships are statistical, you have it in your qualitative thinking.


      Two of these women were Chapman and Kelly, tied together very clearly by their cut-away abdominal walls.
      But not "tied together very clearly" by Lechmere!

      Since Jackson suffered the same fate, I am very nearly certain that she was killed by the exact same man.
      Yes! Sure! But now we are at level 6 - and we have not even managed the first level!

      Since all the torso murders are very similar, involving lots of cutting skill, I am of the meaning that one killer was responsible for the so called Ripper killings as well as for the so called Torso killings.
      Sadly enough, that might be a historical fact. But you have not established it as such a fact. Please do. No one would be happier than me.

      Charles Lechmere fits the bill agewise, having been 24 in 1873, when the first torso murder, definbitely knit to the Kelly murder was perpetrated.
      "Agewise"? From where do you have the idea that you know the age of the killer?

      ... but how these two murders are related is something I will not tell you. You must do a little bit of the work too, you see.
      So you believe that Kelly were "related" to the case in 1973. OK. I will read about that case. But if it is the flaps in the signature again, that is no evidence that Lechmere was the person who killed them.

      What you think of the theoretical and academical implications is - I am sad to say - of very little interest to me.

      Sorry about that, but I thought Iīd be proactive.

      Sure. But it is in the interest of the truth.

      Regards, Pierre
      Last edited by Pierre; 05-22-2016, 12:25 PM.

      Comment


      • [QUOTE=Pierre;381937]
        Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
        Pierre: Hi Fisherman,

        I hear you are convinced that the same person killed Jackson, Chapman and Kelly. You induce that from the way of cutting, which is one part of the signature. So letīs say that is your hypothesis.



        OK, but the abdominal walls were removed by cutting, werenīt they? So you just want to be more specific, I guess, and say they were cut away in large panes?

        Is it also your hypothesis that the same person killed these three women?



        That is a very high percentage but there can be no substantial significance to the sum after the decimal mark.

        If it is, which I believe, and if you hypothesize that Lechmere was the killer, which I think you do - are there any sources connecting Lechmere to any of these three murders?



        Step 1 (spurious step).



        This should have been step 2 but it is step 5 (including Kelly) or even step X, including "other women too".

        How did you manage to get to level 5 when you did not manage level 2, 3, 4 and 5 first? And how do you get to level X from the spurious level 1?

        If you play data games you will not win. You are stuck at the first level forever.

        Please give me a source which indicates that Lechmere was in Hanbury Street, in Berner Street, in Mitre Square and in Millerīs Court.


        Show me that your man is at level 2, 3, 4 and 5. And that he is at level X!

        Because all we know is that he is not even at level 1, but that you have found what we sociologists call a spurious relationship.

        General example

        An example of a spurious relationship can be illuminated by examining a city's ice cream sales. These sales are highest when the rate of drownings in city swimming pools is highest. To allege that ice cream sales cause drowning, or vice versa, would be to imply a spurious relationship between the two. In reality, a heat wave may have caused both. The heat wave is an example of a hidden or unseen variable, also known as a confounding variable.
        (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spurious_relationship)

        With reservations for the fact that these relationships are statistical, you have it in your qualitative thinking.




        But not "tied together very clearly" by Lechmere!



        Yes! Sure! But now we are at level 6 - and we have not even managed the first level!



        Sadly enough, that might be a historical fact. But you have not established it as such a fact. Please do. No one would be happier than me.



        "Agewise"? From where do you have the idea that you know the age of the killer?



        So you believe that Kelly were "related" to the case in 1973. OK. I will read about that case. But if it is the flaps in the signature again, that is no evidence that Lechmere was the person who killed them.



        Sure. But it is in the interest of the truth.

        Regards, Pierre
        I see - so I donīt know that Lechmereīs age fits the scenario, whereas you know how to guard the truth...!

        Itīs good to know that you around to take that upon yourself.

        By the way, the exact percentage number I gave was meant ironically. I have a penchant for irony, you see.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by jerryd View Post
          Trevor,

          You can't prove it wasn't a murder, either. So why continually belittle those that think murder is a possibility? Personally, I see a lot more evidence that weighs toward murder than not, including the verdicts in three of the torso cases of "Wilful murder".
          I suggest you take a look at how those verdicts of wilful murder came to be arrived at, and see what evidence there was for the coroner to suggest, or direct the jury to give those verdicts !

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
            I suggest you take a look at how those verdicts of wilful murder came to be arrived at, and see what evidence there was for the coroner to suggest, or direct the jury to give those verdicts !

            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
            I have. Many times!

            Comment


            • Originally posted by jerryd View Post
              I have. Many times!
              Then you will have read that with regards to those between 1887/89 no specific causes of death could be established. So of those where wilful murder was recorded those verdicts are unreliable and the jury wrongly directed.

              For further information bodies and body parts were quite common occurrences. I am led to believe that the thames watermen were paid Ģ5. for every body/body part recovered.

              Figures for 1882 show that in 1882 547 bodies were fished out of the thames of which 277 had open verdicts recorded against them. That is at least one a day. As to how many of those bodies were dismembered the answer is not known. I wouldn't mind betting quite a considerable amount for open verdicts to have been recorded.

              Dont know if there are any figures available for the ensuing years.

              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

              Comment


              • That for every element of guilt one can suggest against Cross,there is an even larger number that proves innocence. While all the torso murders certainly show signs of unlawfull killing,alternatives to murder have been given.Without a cause of death,it would be quite hard to prove murder,and only a court could decide,on the evidence to hand,and what circumstances prevailed at time of death,what type of crime was committed.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                  Then you will have read that with regards to those between 1887/89 no specific causes of death could be established. So of those where wilful murder was recorded those verdicts are unreliable and the jury wrongly directed.

                  For further information bodies and body parts were quite common occurrences. I am led to believe that the thames watermen were paid Ģ5. for every body/body part recovered.

                  Figures for 1882 show that in 1882 547 bodies were fished out of the thames of which 277 had open verdicts recorded against them. That is at least one a day. As to how many of those bodies were dismembered the answer is not known. I wouldn't mind betting quite a considerable amount for open verdicts to have been recorded.

                  Dont know if there are any figures available for the ensuing years.

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                  So why did the police of the time think they were murdered? Why were the police interested in those victims? Your point about a considerable amount of the bodies in the Thames being dismembered is pure speculation.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by harry View Post
                    That for every element of guilt one can suggest against Cross,there is an even larger number that proves innocence.
                    That is no rocket science, Harry. The scenario suggesting murder is a closed one, where the elements are predetermined. There will always be unlimited innocent options in an open scenario. It is either he lied because he was the killer (single option) or he did not lie, he lied because he was late, because he liked lying, because he lied to all pc:s, he always lied between 3 and 4 am, he lied on Fridays etc.
                    Realizing this is nothing you should market as pointing to innocence. If it was so, nobody would ever be guilty of anything, since the innocent options always outweigh the single guilty option.
                    We need better reasoning than that, Harry. It is pretty lame.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by John Wheat View Post
                      So why did the police of the time think they were murdered? Why were the police interested in those victims? Your point about a considerable amount of the bodies in the Thames being dismembered is pure speculation.
                      The last part of your post is exactly the answer I expected from one who supports this serial killer theory. I could say to you and those who support that serial theory that it is pure speculation.

                      The police of the day, did not link any of the deaths to the Whitechapel murders, nor did they think any of the torsos were the work of a serial killer. They were there, they had access to all the evidence.

                      Much play on here has been made about these flaps of skin, but not a mention by any victorian doctor that they were all cut in the same way as is being suggested on here and therefore point to the same person doing the cutting.

                      On the subject of cutting it is suggested that many of the cuts were clean cuts. Well there is a simple explanation- a long sharp knife, Go buy a joint of beef from the supermarket take it home and in order to make it go further cut it in half, with a sharp knife this is easily achieved with a clean cut!

                      Yes it may be pure speculation but when you have such a large number of verdicts being recorded as open verdicts you have to sit up and take note. If the bodies recovered were intact then the doctors would no doubt have been able to determine causes of death.

                      Lets hypothesise and ask if only 5% of those recovered bodies were dismembered, and females that amounts to 27 females, were they all murdered in that 12 month period ?

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                      Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 05-22-2016, 11:52 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Trevor Marriott: I could say to you and those who support that serial theory that it is pure speculation.

                        Answer: And I could say to you that the idea that there was no serial killer is pure speculation. Or do you disagree?

                        Much play on here has been made about these flaps of skin, but not a mention by any victorian doctor that they were all cut in the same way as is being suggested on here and therefore point to the same person doing the cutting.

                        Answer: We do not know that they "were cut in the same way", nor do we need to know that. We DO know that the abdominal walls were removed in large panes, we DO know that such a thing does not come about accidentally, we DO know that it is extremely rare and we DO therefore know that a link is established.[B]

                        On the subject of cutting it is suggested that many of the cuts were clean cuts. Well there is a simple explanation- a long sharp knife, Go buy a joint of beef from the supermarket take it home and in order to make it go further cut it in half, with a sharp knife this is easily achieved with a clean cut!

                        Answer: Odd, then, that Dr Biggs is so emphatic about how dismemberment murders are always unclean and sloppy matters...?
                        Last edited by Fisherman; 05-23-2016, 12:01 AM.

                        Comment


                        • reality check !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                          Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                          Trevor Marriott: I could say to you and those who support that serial theory that it is pure speculation.

                          Answer: And I could say to you that the idea that there was no serial killer is pure speculation. Or do you disagree?

                          It is you that is spouting off about a serial killer the onus is on you to prove it, and the onus is for everyone who does not concur with you to disprove it. Its all about assesing an evaluating the facts from both sides of the argument, and as it stands the balance of probability is in favour of there being no killer.

                          Much play on here has been made about these flaps of skin, but not a mention by any victorian doctor that they were all cut in the same way as is being suggested on here and therefore point to the same person doing the cutting.

                          Answer: We do not know that they "were cut in the same way", nor do we need to know that. We DO know that the abdominal walls were removed in large panes, we DO know that such a thing does not come about accidentally, we DO know that it is extremely rare and we DO therefore know that a link is established.[B]

                          Exactly, but you seem to be under the impression they were, and that is the backbone of your theory.So all you have is a statement that flaps of skin were cut from the abdominal walls, nothing else. That is not enough to make a judgement and say there is a direct link. How do you know it is rare what is there to make that call? You dont know it is extremely rare because you dont know what was actually done all you have is what has been written and that is not enough to decide on.

                          On the subject of cutting it is suggested that many of the cuts were clean cuts. Well there is a simple explanation- a long sharp knife, Go buy a joint of beef from the supermarket take it home and in order to make it go further cut it in half, with a sharp knife this is easily achieved with a clean cut!

                          Answer: Odd, then, that Dr Biggs is so emphatic about how dismemberment murders are always unclean and sloppy matters...?

                          You have just shot yourself in the foot with that reply. Clean cuts = no murder, and the need to dispose of a body that died by other means
                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                          Comment


                          • The problem with Cross is there is no evidence he lied.No evidence he was with Nichols before or at the time of death.No evidence of motive,no evidence of intent,no evidence of a weapon.Need I go on.You Fisherman may not need evidence to accuse,but a court would need evidence,so would the police,and I suggest,so would most posters.What is possible to have happened,is immaterial,it's what did happen that counts.Cross says he was on his way to work and found a body.There is nothing to dispute that.
                            There is even less information when it comes to tying Cross to the torso crimes.

                            Comment


                            • Trevor Marriott:

                              It is you that is spouting off about a serial killer the onus is on you to prove it, and the onus is for everyone who does not concur with you to disprove it. Its all about assesing an evaluating the facts from both sides of the argument, and as it stands the balance of probability is in favour of there being no killer.

                              No, Trevor, it is not. That balance made the inquests go for a verdict of wilful murder in three cases, and going on about how mad that is will never change this fact. Others disagree totally with you, and think that the verdict should have been the same in the other cases too.
                              We also know that the 1873 victim received two blows in quick succession to the temple that - accordoing to Dr Kempster - probably killed her. So we do have very clear indications of foul play. Taken together with how the bodies of the victims were treated, the implications point to murder.

                              Exactly, but you seem to be under the impression they were, and that is the backbone of your theory.So all you have is a statement that flaps of skin were cut from the abdominal walls, nothing else. That is not enough to make a judgement and say there is a direct link. How do you know it is rare what is there to make that call? You dont know it is extremely rare because you dont know what was actually done all you have is what has been written and that is not enough to decide on.

                              Yes it is. It is clearly stated that the abdominal walls of Chapman, Kelly and Jackson were removed. It is clearly stated that they were removed in large panes or flaps. No such thing could be collateral damage, so we know it was intentionally done. The exact apparition of the flaps is of no interest, it is quite enough to know that the abdominal walls were cut away and removed.

                              Whay you need to do is ask yourself WHY anybody would remove an abdominal wall by cutting it away in two, three or four large panes. Why would an - ehrm - "abortionist" do that?

                              Finding it a difficult question, are we?

                              I can explain precisely why a killer like the Ripper/Torsoman would do it.

                              You have just shot yourself in the foot with that reply. Clean cuts = no murder, and the need to dispose of a body that died by other means

                              Ah, what a gloriously simple world you live in! But you forget that regardless of the exactitude of the cutter, cuts were made that have no ties to surgery or back-street abortions at all, Trevor.
                              Answering that you risk to put a bullet through your brain. That is because your foot is in your mouth, where it belongs.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                                The last part of your post is exactly the answer I expected from one who supports this serial killer theory. I could say to you and those who support that serial theory that it is pure speculation.

                                The police of the day, did not link any of the deaths to the Whitechapel murders, nor did they think any of the torsos were the work of a serial killer. They were there, they had access to all the evidence.

                                Much play on here has been made about these flaps of skin, but not a mention by any victorian doctor that they were all cut in the same way as is being suggested on here and therefore point to the same person doing the cutting.

                                On the subject of cutting it is suggested that many of the cuts were clean cuts. Well there is a simple explanation- a long sharp knife, Go buy a joint of beef from the supermarket take it home and in order to make it go further cut it in half, with a sharp knife this is easily achieved with a clean cut!

                                Yes it may be pure speculation but when you have such a large number of verdicts being recorded as open verdicts you have to sit up and take note. If the bodies recovered were intact then the doctors would no doubt have been able to determine causes of death.

                                Lets hypothesise and ask if only 5% of those recovered bodies were dismembered, and females that amounts to 27 females, were they all murdered in that 12 month period ?

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                                I have never said the killing's were related to Jack the Ripper. I don't believe they were. However its obvious the victims were dismembered and murdered.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X