Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Paris Torso Mystery

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

  • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

    You said that it was quite obvious that the two series were not connected. That is saying that it is impossible. If you have now changed your mind, that is very wise of you.

    And always remember that when we are dealing with uncaught killers, we cannot establish 14 month gaps. We do not have all the facts - but we know that there are no given schedules for any serial killer.


    I have not changed my mind.

    There is at least a 14-month gap between the first two murders in your series, with the first involving use of a bolthole and transport, but the second involving neither.

    That suggests two different murderers.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post



      I have not changed my mind.

      There is at least a 14-month gap between the first two murders in your series, with the first involving use of a bolthole and transport, but the second involving neither.

      That suggests two different murderers.
      I dont care if you think you changed your mind or not. I pointed out that you first said that it is quite obvious that there were two killers, only to then admit that you cannot know this.

      That is changing your mind.

      You regard a potentially trivial matter as a huge obstacle, and skip over what would be the greatest coincidence in criminal history.

      Once I know that, I kind of loose the will to discuss it any further. It is quite obvious - as a wise man put it - that your detective skills are on holiday. Lets hope they enjoy it, and goodnight to you.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

        I dont care if you think you changed your mind or not. I pointed out that you first said that it is quite obvious that there were two killers, only to then admit that you cannot know this.

        That is changing your mind.

        You regard a potentially trivial matter as a huge obstacle, and skip over what would be the greatest coincidence in criminal history.

        Once I know that, I kind of loose the will to discuss it any further. It is quite obvious - as a wise man put it - that your detective skills are on holiday. Lets hope they enjoy it, and goodnight to you.


        I think it is obvious, I have not changed my mind, and I have never claimed to know things I cannot know.

        A gap of 14 months between two murders committed by the Whitechapel Murderer would not be considered to be a trivial matter by most students of the murders.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post



          I think it is obvious, I have not changed my mind, and I have never claimed to know things I cannot know.

          A gap of 14 months between two murders committed by the Whitechapel Murderer would not be considered to be a trivial matter by most students of the murders.
          YOU think it is obvious. But you gorgot to tell us thst it was a privste take, did you not? You said it IS obvious, not that it was merely your own thougths.

          Getting it wrong is fine. Persisting to claim you didnt is less fine.
          ”X was the killer”.
          ”I am personally convinced thst X was the killer”.

          Can you spot the difference?
          Last edited by Fisherman; 12-14-2023, 06:49 AM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post
            Thanks, RD.

            Since the Whitechapel Murders took place during the period in which the Torso Murders were committed, then the murderer - if he were the same person - would have changed his M.O. back and, moreover, wold have variously been mobile or pedestrian.

            How likely is that?
            Far more likely than you're assuming.

            Studies of sexual serial murders have demonstrated that they exhibit a wide range of modus operandi, each of which is associated with specific situational and contextual factors. Your theoretical position on M.O. is not supported by empirical studies, i.e. the actual crimes of sexual serial murderers.

            It is the ritualistic behaviour or signature, whatever you want to call it, that links a series of crimes. Even then, that behaviour is not rigid.

            To illustrate: post-mortem mutilation and body posing would suggest a link among crimes; whether or not the post-mortem mutilation involved the abdomen or the sexual regions would be of secondary importance, as would 'slashing', 'cutting' or 'stabbing'.

            It follows that the idea that Martha, for example, was at the hands of the WM and the WM went on to perfect his technique, is not necessarily the case at all. It's equally likely, if not more so, that Martha and say Catherine were expressions of the same desire and deriving the same pleasure, no 'improvement' in the technique. At its root, the link is post-mortem mutilation involving the abdomen and the sexual regions and body posing, and that is far more telling than the mode of attack.

            To get back to the TM, as said, MO is dependent upon specific situational and contextual factors and we see that in the murder of Mary. There, you have evidence of a different approach. The murders wouldn't be ruled out as linked based upon indoors/outdoors.

            This is why post mortem mutilation is a significant factor when discussing whether or not the WM and TM murders are linked, along with location and proximity in time.

            To my mind, the TM crime that is closest to the WM is the Pinchin Street murder: post-mortem mutilation, location, proximity in time; the torso being placed to cause shock and horror, just as the WM posed his victims for the same purpose.

            It is actually a very similar crime; never in the history of England have two different sexual serial murderers carried out such crimes (with the aforementioned criteria in mind).

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

              YOU think it is obvious. But you gorgot to tell us thst it was a privste take, did you not? You said it IS obvious, not that it was merely your own thougths.

              Getting it wrong is fine. Persisting to claim you didnt is less fine.
              ”X was the killer”.
              ”I am personally convinced thst X was the killer”.

              Can you spot the difference?


              Unlike some other people, I have never stated that a particular named person was the killer.

              When I wrote that something was obvious, I was not naming nor accusing any particular person of anything.

              It was obvious that in saying that something was obvious, I was expressing an opinion.


              There is a thread on this forum devoted to discussion of the six-week gap between the double murder and the murder of Kelly.

              If people think that that gap needs explaining, what must they think of the 14-month gap in your series?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post



                Unlike some other people, I have never stated that a particular named person was the killer.

                When I wrote that something was obvious, I was not naming nor accusing any particular person of anything.

                It was obvious that in saying that something was obvious, I was expressing an opinion.


                There is a thread on this forum devoted to discussion of the six-week gap between the double murder and the murder of Kelly.

                If people think that that gap needs explaining, what must they think of the 14-month gap in your series?
                Nope, did not work this time either. Writing that something is "quite obvious" is the same thing as writing that something is completely clear, and in both cases, it applies that we need to say that this is something we THINK - otherwise, we have presented something that is pure (and bad, in this case) speculation as a fact.

                You can try again to make it go away, but it won't.

                On the other hand, you have clarified that what you meant was to present your personal take on things, and so I am fine with having helped you get that in print. We all know now where you are coming from. My personal take is that we can be more than 99 per cent certain of a common killer, so that should illustrate just how "quite obvious" your take on this is. You have likely not been around for as long as I have on these forums, but I can tell you that a decade or two ago, it was considered blasphemy to suggest a common killer. Today, the view is a very common one, and for eminent reason. So again, when you speak of what you think is "quite obvious", you need to point out that this is just your own view.

                As for the 14 month gap you speak of, that is totally uninteresting once we know that there are serial killers who have 14 YEAR gaps within their killings. And just as I have pointed out to you before (maybe you missed it...?), there is actually not a proven 14 month gap at all. The killer may have packed a number of murders into that period - but we may be unaware of those murders. True, we do not have any known carbon copy murders in the period, but it is not as if there is any lack of disappearances in a metropolis of Londons size. Any one of those could be a murder.

                It also applies that in many, many cases of serial murder, once the killer is caught, he is able to add numerous murderes to his tally that the police never linked up with him before, for whatever reason, geographical of physical, for example.

                If you are really having such difficulty to swallow this, I can make you even more nervous by adding that I am firmly believing (note how this differs from claiming it as something "quite obvious"!) that the common ripper and torso killer was responsible for the 1873 Battersea Torso murder. How is that for a gap, Private Investigator 1!!!

                Jeffrey Dahmer killed his first victim in 1978. The second victim fell prey in 1987, nine years later. Then it escalated.

                Gary Ridgway is listed as having killed 16 victims in 1982, 25 in 1983, 2 in 1984, none in 1985, 1 in 1986, 1 in 1987, 1 in 1990 and 1 in 1998. Dear me - there is a one year gap in 1985. And a two year gap in 1988-89. And a SEVEN YEAR GAP in 1991-97!!!

                Sure not? SURELY NOT?!! How is that even possible?

                Because serial killers are not statistical robots, that is why. Read Fleetwood Macs insightful post 155, and you will give yourself a decent chance to learn how these things work in real life.
                Last edited by Fisherman; 12-14-2023, 06:03 PM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                  Because serial killers are not statistical robots, that is why.


                  Elizabeth Jackson solicited in the West End.

                  The Whitechapel Murderer operated in the East End.

                  You can call that a trivial discrepancy if you like, but that is no more convincing than to claim that on his way home from his mother's house one Sunday morning, Lechmere made a detour one mile westwards to the City of London before heading North East to Spitalfields and finally heading home in an easterly direction to Bethnal Green.

                  It is obviously far fetched.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post



                    Elizabeth Jackson solicited in the West End.

                    The Whitechapel Murderer operated in the East End.

                    You can call that a trivial discrepancy if you like, but that is no more convincing than to claim that on his way home from his mother's house one Sunday morning, Lechmere made a detour one mile westwards to the City of London before heading North East to Spitalfields and finally heading home in an easterly direction to Bethnal Green.

                    It is obviously far fetched.
                    Jackson did indeed solicit outside of the East end area.

                    On that basis, I can see your point.

                    However, the Pinchin Street torso was dumped firmly in the East End.

                    Therefore, the argument that Jackson couldn't possibly have been a victim of the WM because she wasn't in the East End, is diminished somewhat if we include the Pinchin Street Torso.

                    Unless the Torso killer took a woman from the West side of London and deliberately dumped her in Pinchin St as a message to the Ripper as to who was really the bigger fish.

                    If not, then we would need to consider the Pinchin St torso as a Ripper victim based solely on the West End vs East End logic.

                    We have the Torso killer who operated across London.
                    We have the WM who concentrated his offenses in the East End

                    ​​​​​​What links these geographically?

                    The railways, canals and the river.

                    The question is not necessarily whether the Ripper was also the torso killer, it's whether the more accomplished and established Torso Killer chose to focus a portion of his spree in the East End and gain infamy under the name of Jack the Ripper?

                    ​​​​​​
                    The Pinchin St torso connects both series of murders, and on that basis it becomes even more likely that it was the very same man that was responsible for both series of murders.

                    RD
                    "Great minds, don't think alike"

                    Comment


                    • I take your points, RD.

                      I would, however, pose the following question: if the Whitechapel Murderer operated in the West End, could one not reasonably expect him to have committed Whitechapel-style murders in the West End?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post



                        Elizabeth Jackson solicited in the West End.

                        The Whitechapel Murderer operated in the East End.

                        You can call that a trivial discrepancy if you like, but that is no more convincing than to claim that on his way home from his mother's house one Sunday morning, Lechmere made a detour one mile westwards to the City of London before heading North East to Spitalfields and finally heading home in an easterly direction to Bethnal Green.

                        It is obviously far fetched.
                        So it seems you have now given up on the "I never said it was a fact" matter and the 14 month gap. Good!

                        You now instead bring up another matter: Liz Jackson solicited in the West End, you say.

                        And the Whitechapel killer operated in the East End.

                        Let´s remind you of what you formerly stated in another post: The Torso killer had transport.

                        That means that this killer had a means to traverse London from East to West.

                        Now, would or would not a man living in the East End, and who had a means of transport like, say, a horse and cart, be able to pick up a woman in the West End, take her to a bolthole somewhere, kill her and then dump the body parts?

                        Or would a man living in the East End only be able to and interested in killing women who walked the East End streets? Would Battersea, three miles or so from Whitechapel, where Jackson was known to solicit be too far off for an East End killer to pick up women?

                        It is of course also not established where Jackson met her killer. Although she was known to spend her time in Battersea and she was seen thee on the evening of the 3rd of June, it cannot be excluded that she encountered her killer elsewhere at a later stage.

                        All in all, the point you make is therefore not in any way conclusive. And I don't think we can look away from the fact that Jackson:

                        -Was a prostitute.

                        -Had her abdomen cut open from sternum to groin.

                        -Had her uterus cut out.

                        -Had her throat severed.

                        -Had her abdominal wall cut away if two large panes.

                        -Had her ring stolen from her finger.

                        -Was killed by a man who was skilled with his knife.

                        I mean, if we are to speak about looking away from matters that are anything but trivial, then I find you take the lead by a country mile. Explain the above, if you can. And tell us why we should accept that this was the only case ever found of two simultaneously working eviscerating serial killers in the same geographical area.

                        Those points are nigh on inexplicable, I find, whereas we can explain how an East End killer may - MAY - have procured a victim from the West End: by using a horse and cart, for example.

                        Which is the more unlikely thing? A set of mind-blowing coincidences of an extremely rare character - or a horse and cart?

                        Any thoughts?

                        PS. The Rookie Detectives argument about the Pinchin Street victim is of course also a very good one.


                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post
                          I take your points, RD.

                          I would, however, pose the following question: if the Whitechapel Murderer operated in the West End, could one not reasonably expect him to have committed Whitechapel-style murders in the West End?
                          The problem is that HE would have known what was "reasonable", not we.

                          It would perhaps also be reasonable to suggest that he should have stuck with either Torso killings or Ripper killings. But it would equally have been reasonable to suggest that Peter Kürten should have stuck with hammer murders. Or knife murders. Or strangulations. Or... The Duesseldorf police thought they were looking for four killers, when it was in fact just the one.
                          The police were not unreasonable at all.
                          They were perfectly reasonable.
                          But entirely wrong.
                          And that is the rub. It is not for us to conclude what an uncaught serial killer would or would not have thought "reasonable".

                          My own thoughts about this often revolve around possible explanations for the two variations, if we want to call them variations. What we do know is that the torso murders preceded the Ripper murders. We would therefore desire an explanation of some sort for why he took up another line of killing, if you will. And personally, I think it may have to do with the publicity the Tabram murder gained. It overshadowed the coverage of the Rainham deed by miles.

                          Sexual serial killers are very often proud of what they do, and they want recognition for it. I am reasoning that it may well be that once the killer saw the coverage the Tabram deed got - regardless if it was himself who did it or not - he decided to take his murders to the open East End streets.

                          If this was so, one must say that it worked for him: the series evoked a historically unrivaled interest in the press.

                          It is of course only a theory, but it is a theory that offers one of many possibilities for what some see as an unbridgeable matter. It is anything but unbridgeable. It may for example well be that all of the torso victims were procured in the East End, although Liz Jacksons case seem to militate against the notion at first sight. Alternatively, the killer may have had a bolthole in the Western parts of London, but lived in the East End, and alternated between West End Murders and East End murders.

                          Regardless, the rare, rare similarities in between the damage done to the victims of the series urges us to accept that there is likely an explanation to it, complicated or totally mundane.

                          Let´s send off by introducing Donald "Pee-Wee Gaskins", an American South Carolina serial killer who divided his victims up in two categories, "coastal kills" and "serious murders". The latter ones were murders where Gaskins knew the victims, and the former ones were murders where he picked up anonymous women and killed them on long trips he made along southern roads and freeways.

                          So two series, one in the part where he lived and worked, and the other one, using transport, many miles away from his home.

                          Sound familiar?
                          Last edited by Fisherman; 12-14-2023, 08:42 PM.

                          Comment



                          • If the Whitechapel and London Torso murders are really linked by a set of mind-blowing coincidences, why is it that so few writers are convinced of any connection?

                            You have mentioned the Pinchin Street case.

                            If that murder was committed by the Whitechapel Murderer, then why did he not mutilate the victim's genitals?

                            Comment


                            • Old habits die hard. But you can look forward to more and more students of the case accepting a very likely link. As you can see out here, the ocean liner is turning. And it is about time. As for writers accepting a common killer, they were always there, and their tally is growing. I am proud of being one of them myself. More will follow, now that the cat is out of the bag.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post
                                If the Whitechapel and London Torso murders are really linked by a set of mind-blowing coincidences, why is it that so few writers are convinced of any connection?

                                You have mentioned the Pinchin Street case.

                                If that murder was committed by the Whitechapel Murderer, then why did he not mutilate the victim's genitals?
                                We cannot know - but we can speculate: the killer wanted recognition for being the originator of both series. That, I believe, is why she was a hybrid, if you will. A very apparent torso victim, dumped in Ripper territory with a shallow blueprint Ripper cut to the abdomen.

                                It even made the police speculate that it was a case of the Torso killer trying to emulate the the Rippers work!
                                That is a very much more unlikely explanation than the simple one of a common originator. But the victorian police was unaware of the concept of aggressive dismemberment, so they were hampered in their reasoning.

                                We don't have that obstacle.
                                Last edited by Fisherman; 12-14-2023, 09:29 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X