Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

torso maps

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

  • "And that neither man was into physical torture"

    You speak of "sticking to the facts WITHOUT any extras". Well, what's this business about lack of (published evidence for) physical torture, then, if not an "extra"?
    Kind regards, Sam Flynn

    "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

    Comment


    • "And we should accept that two men had a flair for hearts and uteri in late victorian London"

      Where do the majority of the torso cases demonstrate this alleged flair?
      Kind regards, Sam Flynn

      "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

      Comment


      • Originally posted by RockySullivan View Post
        Which cut are you referring to Sam, you'll have to be a little more clear. The cuts that Wescott suggests are an accident on Nichols or the one that Keppel claims was a slip on the Pinchin victim?
        Well Sam? isnt it funny how two different victims have abdominal wounds explained away as accidents or scratches by later authors.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
          "And we should accept that two men had a flair for hearts and uteri in late victorian London"

          Where do the majority of the torso cases demonstrate this alleged flair?
          You just don't understand basic math, do you? Just because something happened once doesn't mean it didn't happen. the JTR series and the Torso series both include the removal of hearts & uteri.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
            "There is not a single parallel case in the recorded history of crime, where two eviscerating serial killers have roamed the same area at the same time."

            The Torso cases cannot be classified as the work of an "eviscerating serial killer", because there were no serial eviscerations, and the perpetrator(s) did not roam the "same area". As to the "same time", this was in all likelihood due to the fact that the two series overlapped; series which, furthermore, showed distinctly different cadences.
            A bit lame - but that is what you are leftwith, I´m afraid.

            To begin with, I did not say a "serial eviscerator". I said an eviscerating serial killer. And the torso killer was a serial killer who eviscerated at least one victim and quite possibly at least three.
            Whether the perpetrators roamed the same area or not is an unknown factor, but we do know that the murder spots and dumping grounds were within walking distance of each other and that the torso killer dumped one body in Pinchin Street, right in the middle of the Ripper area. You can go on forever about how your personal belief is that the torso killer never went east of Liverpool Street station, and it will amount to nothing.
            The timings do overlap, just as you say. And that allows totally for a common originator. Why the perceived Ripper series played out in a few months only, we don´t know, but it certainly is no obstacle to the idea of a common originator.

            And that is what your misgivings amount to.
            1.Dismemberments - and we have examples of serial killers who moved in and out of that practice.
            2. Dumping performed away from the Ripper territory - and the killer could quite easily have reached all dumping spots from Whitechapel, in a matter of an hour or so if he used a horse and cart. And dumping away from the murder spots was always wise if you wanted to conceal that spot.
            3. A time table where the Ripper murders span a short period and the torso ditto a long one. But overall, the emphasis of both series lie around 1888, and why could there not be a specific reason for the street murders that is undisclosed to us? A personal decision based on something we have no idea about?
            That would be a lot less strange than two serialists taking abdomens away in flaps from their victims, purely by chance.

            You are going to need a whole lot more to make any sort of case.
            Last edited by Fisherman; 08-06-2018, 01:15 AM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
              "And that neither man was into physical torture"

              You speak of "sticking to the facts WITHOUT any extras". Well, what's this business about lack of (published evidence for) physical torture, then, if not an "extra"?
              The "extra" is when we say that there were different reasons for the lack of signs of physical torture in both series. Not when we acknowledge the facts. That can never be bringing extras on stage.

              All that is done courtesy of the anti-brigade - small as it is.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                "And Charles Lechmere´s age does not have to be twisted either, to fit in with the 1873-1889 murder series"

                And many millions of others fit the same criteria.
                Yes! But Kosminski, Chapman, Bury, Tumblety and a whole lot of others end up with the short straw in hand.
                And out of the millions you speak of, only one man was found alone with Polly Nichols in Bucks Row, at the approximate time of her death. Found as in "found by Robert Paul to be standing where the body was" and alone as in "not being accompanied by any other person before Paul arrived". Meaning that he could well have been the killer of Nichols.
                How many of those millions of people can fill those shoes?
                Let´s not play the fool if we can avoid it.
                Last edited by Fisherman; 08-06-2018, 01:07 AM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                  "And we should accept that two men had a flair for hearts and uteri in late victorian London"

                  Where do the majority of the torso cases demonstrate this alleged flair?
                  They don´t have to. It is proven that the torso killer actively chose to cut the uterus out from Jackson, and he equally removed the heart from her body. Once we know that, the killer becomes a uterus and heart remover, somebody who was willing and able to do these things. It is not as if his (perhaps) not doing it in the majority of the cases makes it go away that it is proven that he did so in one case - at least.
                  And once he did, he offered a prime opportunity to link himself to the Ripper murders, for the plain and simple reason that serial killers who take out uteri and hearts are very, very rare. So rare, in fact, that it seems there were never two such beasts overlapping in time and space throughout recorded history.
                  Last edited by Fisherman; 08-06-2018, 01:13 AM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                    They don´t have to. It is proven that the torso killer actively chose to cut the uterus out from Jackson, and he equally removed the heart from her body. Once we know that, the killer becomes a uterus and heart remover, somebody who was willing and able to do these things. It is not as if his not doing it in the majority of the cases makes it go away that it is proven that he did so in one case - at least.
                    And once he did, he offered a prime opportunity to link himself to the Ripper murders, for the plain and simple reason that serial killers who take out uteri and hearts are very, very rare. So rare, in fact, that it seems there were never two such beasts overlapping in time and space throughout recorded history.
                    As you keep being told that there is overwhelming evidence, which points to Jackson not being a murder victim. Why do you keep ignoring these facts ?

                    In addition, you also keep ignoring the fact that there is no hard evidence to show the other torsos were the subject of murder.

                    As to the verdicts which were brought in in some of the cases, those being "wilful murder" these verdicts were arrived at solely on the doctors inquest testimony, which was nothing more than their opinions, as there was no medical evidence to show they had been murdered. The juries were effectively asked to agree with the doctors, despite there being no evidence to support their opinions.

                    Its time you woke up to reality, and accepted some of these facts which negate your Torso serial killer theory.

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                      As you keep being told that there is overwhelming evidence, which points to Jackson not being a murder victim. Why do you keep ignoring these facts ?

                      In addition, you also keep ignoring the fact that there is no hard evidence to show the other torsos were the subject of murder.

                      As to the verdicts which were brought in in some of the cases, those being "wilful murder" these verdicts were arrived at solely on the doctors inquest testimony, which was nothing more than their opinions, as there was no medical evidence to show they had been murdered. The juries were effectively asked to agree with the doctors, despite there being no evidence to support their opinions.

                      Its time you woke up to reality, and accepted some of these facts which negate your Torso serial killer theory.

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                      There is no overwhelming evidence that Jackson was not a murder victim. That is why I ignore the suggestion.

                      I ignore the overall suggestion of the torso women not being murder victims for the same reason - I think it is a far better suggestion that they WERE murdered, and as you know, they were legally declared murder victims in a number of cases, whereas the consensus in the other cases was that they were murdered, but the evidence was not enough to conclude it.

                      So that is why I - and reasonably 99 per cent out here - fail to accept the idea that they were anything but murder victims.

                      That is what is defined as reality by most researchers, and none of us feel we need to wake up. If that ever changes, I´ll be in touch.
                      Last edited by Fisherman; 08-06-2018, 01:51 AM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                        Herlock, I really don´t think it is a good idea to claim that I am more or less lying and misleading about the case, all in order to try and twist matters into some sort of propaganda for Lechmere as the Ripper, that I am zealous and arrogant - and that you are only defending your poor self against my unfair onslaught.

                        That is a pathetic picture, and one that will immediately be recognized as such by those who scrutinize it.

                        I show reasonably curtesy to posters that show a modicum to myself. This has long not been the case with you. I’ve never made any claims to superior knowledge I just claim the right to disagree. The only ‘pathetic picture’ is one of someone who believes himself infallible. Someone who can look at 130 years old evidence; evidence that is debated (by Gareth, by Trevor and by others) and say that there’s no point in disagreeing. It’s all so obvious. Well it’s all so obvious that the majority appear to disagree with you. Of course that doesn’t mean that you are wrong but it points to the fact that things aren’t clear. The absolute best you can do is to discuss likelihood’s and even that is frought with dangers.


                        You are quite simply defending a cause that should be abandoned, the quicker the better - but you either fail to see it or you simply won´t admit to it. Instead, you try to turn the table on me, by claiming that "anyone who is absolutely ‘confident’ as you are that Jack and TK were one and the same borders delusional."

                        And there we have it. Basically it’s “you really should stop disagreeing with me because I’ve studied the evidence and come to a conclusion and I’m obviously correct.” Anyone is free to judge that attitude. As I’ve seen you build a case from next to nothing against Lechmere you will excuse me if I don’t take your opinion as gospel (again, just like the majority of ripperologists.


                        There is not a single parallel case in the recorded history of crime, where two eviscerating serial killers have roamed the same area at the same time.

                        It is only recently that the case is being made for TorsoRipper so what if there was a parallel case somewhere that’s gone unresearched; one where certain details have not been picked up on. Do we have records of every single case of murder in every single country that have been studied and cross-checked in detail? Have things ever happened for the first time? Oh and Gareth’s point about the term ‘eviscerating’ serial killer.

                        But it borders on delusion to draw any conclusions from this fact.

                        It borders on delusion to claim it as fact and not to say, at best, “I think that this explaination is likeliest.”


                        Case after case have been accepted as being the work of the same man on very much smaller similarities then the massive ones we have at hand here.

                        Not as massive as the differences. But oh, I forgot, those aren’t as important are they? This isn’t the case of a killer alternating between knife and gun and strangulation. The ripper murders are so specific that they stand out as a connected series. The Torso killings don’t fit and that is a problem which can’t be overridden by ‘similarities.’ Of course the similarities require discussion but it’s ludicrous to say that they are more important than the dissimilarities unless they were so transparently a signature (such as a shape carved onto the flesh or evidence that a very unusual weapon was used in all cases) that it was beyond argument.

                        But it borders on delusion to accept that eviscerations, uteri taking, heart taking and the cutting away of the abdominal walls points straight to a common originator.

                        No it’s not. We have a vastly different set of murders in Whitechapel so it’s at the very, very least possible. You are much too easily convinced. I wonder why?

                        Instead, we should accept that the flaps were collateral damage, all of them - they just happened to come off as the killer poked about inside his victim. Ooops, there goes the stomach wall! In two pieces!
                        And we should accept that two men had a flair for hearts and uteri in late victorian London. And we should accept that both men liked opening up abdomens all the way from ribs to groin. And that they both sought prey from within the ranks of prostitutes. And that neither man was into physical torture. And that both men made a fast business of killing and cutting, connecting the two parts immediately.

                        I only said that the legendary ‘flaps’ could have been collateral damage. Gareth has countered the above points far better than I could.

                        Otherwise, we are bordering on delusion. And we are only doing so because we want to twist the facts to fit our own thinking.

                        If the cap fits....

                        Meanwhile, in a parallel universe, nobody has to twist any fact at all to see that the two series fit together. Nothing has to be changed, no collateral damage flaps have to be invented, no massive coincidences have to be at play - it works perfectly and effortlessly WITHOUT any twisting. And Charles Lechmere´s age does not have to be twisted either, to fit in with the 1873-1889 murder series that emerges when we put one and one together and reach two - without adding anything at all in the shape of collateral damage, coincidences and accusations of those who stick with the facts WITHOUT any "extras" being dishonest.

                        And yet again the collosally different mo’s are dismissed off-hand. Any off-the-peg scenario will do. The killer had some time-share mini-mortuary and when that was being used by someone else the killer went to kill 5 women within a few streets of each other leaving them displayed after killing them in the streets (yes, except for Kelly.) That’s reasonable of course, but similaritiies of injuries in a couple of murders....no chance! The whole debate neatly sewed up to suit one side.

                        Good day to you.
                        You are the man on a mission Fish, not me. You are the one amongst all the complexities and the interpretations and the debated facts that stands up and says ‘look chaps, please stop arguing, I’ve sorted it all out and you know that I’m never wrong.’ Unfounded confidence. And do you have form for this? Now that we come to mention it you do. Very few accept your Lechmere the ripper theory (and with very sound reason) and yet for you, it’s game over. Fish has spoken. So you’ll have to pardon me that your ‘confidence’ doesn’t impress.
                        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 Fisherman View Post
                          True - that is the ony certain case. But once we have it, we know beyond doubt that we are dealing with a killer who DID engage in eviscerations. So why would we not accept that there is quite a likelihod that the Whitehall uterus and the Rainham heart went missing for the same reason, a reason we have established as existing?
                          Quite a possibility? But not quite a likelihood, because we know that the Rainham heart and Whitehall uterus were not cut out through the cut to the abdomen; in the Whitehall case there wasn’t even a cut to the abdomen. Another thing is that Torso Man, as far as we know, didn’t cut out any organs through the opened abdomen until after the Ripper scare had subsided and he did it only once. To me, this is important, as we know the Ripper was primarily interested in what was beneath the skirts of his victims and only cut organs out by opening up the abdomen.
                          I would personally add another thing to the discussion: I don´t think the combined killer (if he existed, and I am convinced that he did) was intent on evicerations as some sort of ultimate goal. I think that it was about the scope of possibilities offered by the combination of a knife and a body. Which is also why I think that he was more likely to eviscerate in the Ripper cases, since that was something that the time allowed for. Compare that to, for example, the meticulous cutting away of the face in the 1873 torso case; I don´t think that was as likely to happen to a Ripper victim as a torso victim, where there was more time on offer and where he could do things that were timeconsuming, plus he could take his time to make the cuts very clean and exact.
                          I keep saying that the Ripper murders are Torso murders light. I think that is a very apt descrition, actually.
                          Knowing that you attach decisive weight to the statistics about mutilating serial killers, it’s logical that you would add and suggest these things, Christer. To me, the ‘combined killer’, as you call him, becomes sort of too mechanical. I, like I’ve written before, place much more credence in the pattern that can be gleaned from the Ripper murders and see too little of that in the torso murders as we know them.
                          "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
                          Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by FrankO View Post
                            Quite a possibility? But not quite a likelihood, because we know that the Rainham heart and Whitehall uterus were not cut out through the cut to the abdomen; in the Whitehall case there wasn’t even a cut to the abdomen. Another thing is that Torso Man, as far as we know, didn’t cut out any organs through the opened abdomen until after the Ripper scare had subsided and he did it only once. To me, this is important, as we know the Ripper was primarily interested in what was beneath the skirts of his victims and only cut organs out by opening up the abdomen.
                            In the average case, I think you would have had a good point. But not here. In my world, this killer would actually entertain an interest in how many ways a woman could be cut and in how many ways organs could be removed. I think that is what tells the Ripper/Torso killer apart from most serial killers - but not all of them. Look at how the torso killer cuts his victims up in varying ways, some in many oarts, some having a leg left, some havig the arms attached, some cut diagonally, some straight off. Why would he do that, if he simply did it for practical reasons or had a closed MO? Why not the classical parts, torso, arms,legs, head, every time? What possible reasons can there be for this? Did he forget how to sever arms before dumping the Pinchin Street torso? Or was something else at play? I certainly think so.

                            The Torso killer may well have cut out organs before the Ripper scare. The Rainham heart and lungs were missing and that victim is a very close parallel to Jackson in many a respect, so I think it must be considered a very good possibility that both women had their organs removed by the killer.
                            Personally, I don´t think the Ripper was primarily interested in what was beneath the skirts of his victims. Or, to be more precise, I think he was interested in taking his victims apart and the abdominal cavity lends itself to that practice in a very pedagogical manner. But he also cut the flesh from the buttocks of Kelly, cut away flesh from her thigh, cut Eddowes´ face substantially, severing the nose (after a failed attempt) and so on. And much as the expression lends itself to pointing to the reproductive organs, he took away a kidney from Eddowes.
                            It is not until we learn from these matters that we can begin to understand the underlying paraphilia and inspiration grounds if you ask me.
                            We have the same odd diversion of interest with the torso murders. One second, he cuts the uterus out, answering to a classical paraphilia. The next, he meticulously cuts away the face, eyelids and -lashes included! What paraphilia does that fuel, Frank?
                            There is actually a very tempting suggestion for an answer to that, that not only covers these matters but also has parallels.

                            Originally posted by FrankO View Post
                            Knowing that you attach decisive weight to the statistics about mutilating serial killers, it’s logical that you would add and suggest these things, Christer. To me, the ‘combined killer’, as you call him, becomes sort of too mechanical. I, like I’ve written before, place much more credence in the pattern that can be gleaned from the Ripper murders and see too little of that in the torso murders as we know them.
                            Maybe one has to see what I am seeing before the parts fall into their respective places, I don´t know. I can only urge you not to look at either man as somebody to whom it was of the essence to get at the reproductive organs only, and then work from that insight. And you have to admit that even if we were to accept that this was the only recorded instance of two eviscerating serial killers working the same general area in the same approximate time, it would be odd in the extreme if both men answered to an agenda of not only targetting the reproductive area, if both men cut out organs of both sexual and non-sexual character - and just by happenstance took away the abdominal walls in large flaps from victims in both series.

                            The odds are astronomical, Frank. Astronomical. There is an end to what we can allow for in terms of similarities. It does not make the case less strange, but it is nevertheless a reality and a wake up call.
                            Last edited by Fisherman; 08-06-2018, 04:22 AM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                              You are the man on a mission Fish, not me. You are the one amongst all the complexities and the interpretations and the debated facts that stands up and says ‘look chaps, please stop arguing, I’ve sorted it all out and you know that I’m never wrong.’ Unfounded confidence. And do you have form for this? Now that we come to mention it you do. Very few accept your Lechmere the ripper theory (and with very sound reason) and yet for you, it’s game over. Fish has spoken. So you’ll have to pardon me that your ‘confidence’ doesn’t impress.
                              More things said about me that are not true. Does it please you to do that? To claim that I would have said that I´m never wrong? To paint me out as deluded? With illusions of grandeur?

                              It does not belong to a serious discussion, and it ends here.

                              Comment


                              • "I keep saying that the Ripper murders are Torso murders light"

                                Disembowelment and/or evisceration in a public place (Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes) and the extensive evisceration and de-fleshing of an another victim (Kelly) is a "light" version of dismemberment and occasional (limited) evisceration indoors? Hardly. If you ask me, the torso victims were the ones who got off lightly in comparison; although I wouldn't classify them as "Ripper murders light", but as another type of murder entirely.
                                Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                                "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X