Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

torso maps

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

  • It’s must be considered a little surprising that something so ‘obvious’ has been completely missed or disregarded by the overwhelming vast majority of ripperologists and criminologists over the ensuing 130 years. You would have thought that it would have become a commonly conceded point by now; a foregone conclusion. Maybe there is a conspiracy afoot to protect the ripper from additional opprobrium? It may be true, it may not be, but to infer that it’s obviously true surely insinuates that the vast majority of people showing an interest in these cases are not taking an honest approach?
    Regards

    Herlock






    "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
      Quite so, Herlock. Open-air disembowelment and evisceration in a public street would be vastly more risky than discreetly dumping bits of body into a river or a deserted building.
      It’s a point that really shouldn’t require any emphasis Gareth. It’s about as obvious as it gets.
      Regards

      Herlock






      "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
        It’s must be considered a little surprising that something so ‘obvious’ has been completely missed or disregarded by the overwhelming vast majority of ripperologists and criminologists over the ensuing 130 years. You would have thought that it would have become a commonly conceded point by now; a foregone conclusion. Maybe there is a conspiracy afoot to protect the ripper from additional opprobrium? It may be true, it may not be, but to infer that it’s obviously true surely insinuates that the vast majority of people showing an interest in these cases are not taking an honest approach?
        It just suits Fisherman's crackpot theory that Charles Lechmere was the Ripper and the Torso Killer.

        Comment


        • . It's hard to equate the risks honestly. It's hard to say that the double event was less risky than any torso murders. But the rippers murders were only possible in the end east, an area of sex workers on the dark streets. Likewise the annie chapman murder in the backyard was pretty risky too. There are a number of reasons the dismemberment murders could have continued but the main is the killer chose victims who were likely dismembered to hide their identity so they could possibly be victims who could be traced back to him. But the important question is what is present in both series that could point to a motive?
          But we surely have to say that the ripper murders were more risky. Can this point be argued against with reason? TK surely killed indoors, out of the sight of others where he wouldn’t have been disturbed. We cant believe that he killed outdoors then chucked the corpse over his shoulder before marching off to his bolt-hole. The TK murders and the ripper murders are massively different in almost every respect. This leads us to believe that they were killed by different people.
          Regards

          Herlock






          "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

          Comment


          • Originally posted by John Wheat View Post
            It just suits Fisherman's crackpot theory that Charles Lechmere was the Ripper and the Torso Killer.
            Hi John,

            I certainly feel that Fish believes that he’s found ‘something’ that in some way links Lechmere with the Torso Killings (perhaps some disused Pickfords building that he ‘might’ have had access to?). If this is the case he’s yet to reveal it. Perhaps he was hoping that the majority would agree that the ripper and TK were one and the same before he reveals?
            Regards

            Herlock






            "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
              Quite so, Herlock. Open-air disembowelment and evisceration in a public street would be vastly more risky than discreetly dumping bits of body into a river or a deserted building.
              Deserted building, Gareth? Which case was that?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                [/COLOR][/B]

                I see no links apart from coincidental ones.
                Sam Flynn: And even those aren't particularly compelling on closer inspection.


                How do you conclude that the abdominal flap cutting was a "coincidental" similarity, Herlock?

                What evidence is there to prove that the taking of the hearts and the uteri was coincidental only?

                You don´t ike it when I speak of "perceived differences", but these are the matters I speak of. You ascribe motives to the deeds and they differ - in your mind. Parceived differences, therefore.

                As for Gareths remark, it´s the same thing. He speaks of a "closer inspection" he never did - and that cannot be done.

                The heart removal may have been done for the exact same reasons, and there may have been massive differences in how it was done. We don´t know.

                The same goes for the uteri removal.

                The same goes for the flaps.

                There is no possibility to make a "close inspection". All we can say is that even if there MAY have been different reasons for the matters, the better guess is that there was not. The reason for that is that we should not expect to find two eviscerating heart- and uteri removers, and we certainly should not expect two men to cut away the abdomen in flaps from their victims in the same city and at overlapping times. When we have these overlaps in time, geography and VERY unusual damage, the logical conclusion must always be that we have one killer only. From there, it follows that the underlying reasons for the deeds will correlate too.

                It is simple logic, and it takes a lot to be overthrown. Nothing has come even close to do so, thus far.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                  It never ceases to amaze me how often having a ‘closed mind’ is always the fall back accusation from those who dislike being disagreed with. I disagree because I’ve viewed the facts and come to a conclusion. As I do with all subjects. I’m not ideologically committed the Canonical Five, I believe it likeliest though. I could be wrong. We all could. But accusations of ‘closed minds’ or bias’ or ‘ignorance’ just succeed in making me wonder why some people are so passionate about certain aspects of Ripperology? Passion is emotion. Why an emotional attachment to an idea? Surely that’s more likely to produce bias than anything?

                  I’ll make a few statements, not ones of guaranteed, unequivocal truths, but ones that appears to me to be quite reasonable and logical.

                  I would suggest that it would be overwhelmingly likely that TK performed his dismemberment indoors.

                  Therefore I would suggest that it would have been overwhelmingly likely that TK had access to premises, and for more than one day at a time as he distributed the body parts over a period of time and he would have required ‘storage space.’

                  And therefore again it would have been overwhelmingly likely that he would have had sole access to these premises as he wouldn’t have wanted a friend or associate ‘dropping in’ and finding a partially dismembered corpse.

                  Therefore isn’t it at least a reasonable question to ask: why didn’t he avail himself of these premises during the Ripper murders. If it’s suggested that he only later came into possession of the premises then aren’t we at least justified in pointing out that there would have been no overlap in the two series if that was the case?

                  But of course this can be ignored by more ‘open-minded’ posters.
                  "Overwhelmingly likely"? What is overwhelmingly likely is that when we have similar types of very rare damage in cases overlapping in time and geography, we have just the one killer. Some minds ARE closed to that logical conclusion, no matter what you say.

                  I do believe myself that the torso man had access to more or less proivate premises, or premises where he could rely on being left alone for periods of time. But the conclusion I draw from that is not that it makes the similarities go away, but instead that there will be a reason for why he used those premises only on certain occasions.

                  It is decidedly odd, but in no way as impossible as two killers replicating extremely odd measures on their respective victims.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                    Why was it that, when he did have access to his "chop shop" (love that phrase!), he didn't commit anything like the Ripper crimes in the vast majority of his murders? Even in the minority of torso victims who were eviscerated, the resemblance with the Ripper eviscerations are readily explained by other means, if not completely superficial.
                    Readily explained? We can always dream up "explanations". But when you try to explain why there is not another case of two eviscerating serial killers overlapping, you fail.
                    Much as we must always look at all possibilities, it is not wise to work from the idea that two series involving the kind of damage these series do MUST be unconnected! It is doing things COMPLETELY backwards.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Harry D View Post
                      Heirens was probably innocent, though.
                      Many serial killers have calimed innocence. But there was fingerprint evidence, witnesses pointing him out and when he claimed to have thrown the knife he dismembered the little girl with on some train tracks (if I remember correctly), that knofe was found afterwards, and it was shown to have been stolen from the same person Heorens stole a gun from. That gun was used in another attack on a woman, who was shot and wounded through a window. The gun was later found in Heirens possesion and positively matched to the attack.

                      I would not say "probably innocent", therefore, but instead quite likely guilty.

                      In the end, there are other examples of killers who sometimes dismember, other time not. It is a non-issue in this context, therefore.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                        Besides, killing two women and leaving them otherwise intact is one thing, but I can understand why he dismembered the third victim, a 6 year old girl. Being a killer of adults is one thing, but who wants to admit to being a child killer? No wonder he decided to chop her up and scatter the remains.
                        "Psychobabble". Now, who invented that term?

                        Why did he not dig the body down, quite simply? A smallish body is easily enough buried or sunk to the bottom of the sea.

                        Dismembering is very unusual, Gareth, let´s keep that in mind.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                          Why is it that we can make any ‘perhaps’ or ‘what if’ or ‘its not impossible that...’ or ‘ we weren’t there so we can’t [B]know[/B or produce any alternative scenario to ‘explain’ the huge differences in method between Jack and TK and yet when we talk about any possible similarities in mutilations between one Torso victim and Kelly then we are expected to accept that this proves that both sets of murders were obviously the work of the same man?
                          Because there is overlap in a number of very, very unusual matters.

                          If one man had taken away the feet and the other gouged the eyes out.

                          If one man had opened the adomens and the other opened the heads.

                          For example.

                          If there were no overlaps, Herlock.

                          Then it would be easier to make a case for two killers - but the best guess would STILL be one killer only!

                          But when these victims had hearts taken, uteri taken, their abdomens cut open and their abdomens cut away in flaps, then they were practically marked "Killed by the same man".

                          Two men CAN decide to burn "Für Elise" into the foreheads of their victims in the same city and time, without the murders being connected - theoretically. But practically, it must be ruled out.

                          The same thing goes for these two series. They were branded "same killer", and that will not go away because we can suggest various different reasons for what happened to them.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by RockySullivan View Post
                            The ripper victims were murdered in the street at night, except for Kelly. It's very possible their killer was a stranger, perhaps not as likely in the Kelly murder. It's not necessarily that the torso killer knew all the victims, but this IS THE method very commonly used for preventing identification. It may be these victims could be traced back to him, not necessarily that they knew each other
                            Personally, I think the dismemberments were partly ritual, partly a means of disposal. And I don´t think the killer was all that interested in hiding the identities.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                              It’s must be considered a little surprising that something so ‘obvious’ has been completely missed or disregarded by the overwhelming vast majority of ripperologists and criminologists over the ensuing 130 years. You would have thought that it would have become a commonly conceded point by now; a foregone conclusion. Maybe there is a conspiracy afoot to protect the ripper from additional opprobrium? It may be true, it may not be, but to infer that it’s obviously true surely insinuates that the vast majority of people showing an interest in these cases are not taking an honest approach?
                              It has not been missed or disregarded. When Debra Arif read Hebbert, she immediately pointed to the possibility, years ago. Before, that, Hebbert was not studied by Ripper students, and so the conclusions could not be drawn.
                              Once Debra Arif pointed it out, it was met by massive criticism that was never grounded in any useful facts.
                              Since that, many people have discovered the value of Debras work, whle others have hidden their heads in the sand like ostridges.
                              It was only a few months ago that Gareth admitted that the Torso killer took the uterus out of Jacksons body. Before that, he apparently did not accept it - God only knows on what grounds. Can you think of any?

                              That should provide you with a useful picture of the proceedings. Please don´t say that it is only now that the penny has dropped.

                              Comment


                              • Done for the week - I´m off to non-computer country tomorrow.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X