Do Some People Really Believe the Earth Is Flat?

[Herlock Sholmes]

They used to have a lot more members, but some have fallen off

[Harry D]

Nicely done. However depending on who you talk to, the actual number of Unsolved in the files ranges from 11 to 13. You've identified the 3 eviscerations,...so why are they part of a group of Five then? I may be getting on in years, but it seems to me that if your contention is that these rather unique murders should be grouped with murders that were not unique...like Liz Strides for example...the rationale must then be that this particular killer didn't eviscerate all the time. Like Fisherman contends also applies to Torso Man...he contends he didn't disarticulate all the time, even when given the obvious opportunity to do so like in Mary Kellys case.

When there is deviation from a pattern there must be a catalyst of some sort for it, so....why would the killer change back and forth, from severe wounds and made privately over days, or made in minutes out in public, to barely fatal wounds made in mere seconds. Then back again.

Anyone who wants this proposed long run by one killer to be acceptable to the mainstream academics must answer why there are such substantial differences. And by just citing Ted Bundy they effectively sidestep the question, they do not answer it. What someone else did decades before or decades after these murders isn't relevant until an apples to apples comparison reveals grounds for pre-supposing such a killer.

Its like declaring the end of a detective story before its been fully read, based solely on how other detective stories concluded.

You suggested that the preponderance of unresolved murders would support the notion of multiple eviscerators in the area, when in fact only three of the victims fall into that bracket. You know full well the reasoning behind the five "canonical" victims (give or take Stride) is based on the signature elements, MO and escalations in violence.

Both the contemporary and modern consensus is that a string of murders were the work of one serialist. Individuals will differ on the exact victim tally but we're mostly agreed there was a serial killer active in Whitechapel in 1888. To compare this consensus to "flat-earthers" is laughable, but it seems the irony is lost on you. It's the multi-killer theorists who are part of a crackpot fringe.

[Michael W Richards]

You suggested that the preponderance of unresolved murders would support the notion of multiple eviscerators in the area, when in fact only three of the victims fall into that bracket. You know full well the reasoning behind the five "canonical" victims (give or take Stride) is based on the signature elements, MO and escalations in violence.

Both the contemporary and modern consensus is that a string of murders were the work of one serialist. Individuals will differ on the exact victim tally but we're mostly agreed there was a serial killer active in Whitechapel in 1888. To compare this consensus to "flat-earthers" is laughable, but it seems the irony is lost on you. It's the multi-killer theorists who are part of a crackpot fringe.

You say..."there was a serial killer active in Whitechapel in 1888." Ive never ever disagreed with that Harry. Ive disagreed with the Canonical Group of Five, which is not ready for assembly as a string of signature elements, MO and escalation. The Canonical Group is a theory that is widely believed, there are no finite answers on any of these murders as individual acts yet, how can one presume to know 5 are connected to each other with the differing evidence physically and the in some cases vastly different circumstantial evidence. And then what of the much larger number that are still left unsolved in the file. Doesn't that file itself reveal multiple killers in London East End during the relevant period?

Its about Belief Harry, which is what the thread asks about another subject... granted, but the emotional choice, or spiritual one I suppose, is what makes some of the things I mentioned Believed yet Unproven. Like the Flat Earth theory was before science corrected it. And a Canonical Five is factual.

[Harry D]

You say..."there was a serial killer active in Whitechapel in 1888." Ive never ever disagreed with that Harry. Ive disagreed with the Canonical Group of Five, which is not ready for assembly as a string of signature elements, MO and escalation.

I was led to believe that you think Jacob Isenschmid (or someone like that) killed Nichols and Chapman. I always thought that three or more murders constituted a series?

[Michael W Richards]

I admit that for a long time Ive left open the possibility that Jacob did do at least Annies kill, which by logical extension, would mean he probably killed Polly first. They are so close in all relevant aspects that I cant imagine them not being by one man. I believe 2 or more constitutes a "series", but as is being discussed on another thread, 2 can be a Spree killer, rather than a serial killer, so Im not sure how those 2 fit together under a descriptive category. But I have to admit also that Kate Eddowes murder, and perhaps Alice Mackenzies murder might well be by the same person. Polly to Annie... then Kate to Alice. Its worth pondering.

The position I have therefore is that 2, perhaps 3, within the "Canonical Group" were by one man, and he may have killed others outside the group. That leaves a hell of a lot of unsolved murders to explain.

[Michael W Richards]

I just made a list of serial killers on another thread that did not change anything dramatic...so whose argument holds up again?


But you fail to recognize the ones that do. So I would say that your argument fails.

c.d.

My argument doesn't fail at all cd, it actually proves that some serial killers do not change their methods or approaches to a great extent. Just like I said. If you want to contend that this one in particular did, seems to me you bear the burden of proving that. Saying that he changed from Liz to Kate isn't going to work by the way.

[c.d.]

You are correct that some serial killers do not change their methods. But then again some do. I am not saying that the Whitechapel murder did only that such a thing is possible which you seem loath to admit.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

You are correct that some serial killers do not change their methods. But then again some do. I am not saying that the Whitechapel murder did only that such a thing is possible which you seem loath to admit.

c.d.

If the only thing you have to suggest that certain murders are linked with others is because some murderers have killed dramatically differently from kill to kill cd, then Ill probably take issue with that.

[mpriestnall]

"Do some people really believe the earth is flat?"

Maybe it's a fake movement to discredit conspiracy theories/theorists in general?

Martyn

[Michael W Richards]

"Do some people really believe the earth is flat?"

Maybe it's a fake movement to discredit conspiracy theories/theorists in general?

Martyn

A generous suggestion.

[mpriestnall]

A generous suggestion.

That's me to a fault!

[Harry D]

I admit that for a long time Ive left open the possibility that Jacob did do at least Annies kill, which by logical extension, would mean he probably killed Polly first. They are so close in all relevant aspects that I cant imagine them not being by one man. I believe 2 or more constitutes a "series", but as is being discussed on another thread, 2 can be a Spree killer, rather than a serial killer, so Im not sure how those 2 fit together under a descriptive category. But I have to admit also that Kate Eddowes murder, and perhaps Alice Mackenzies murder might well be by the same person. Polly to Annie... then Kate to Alice. Its worth pondering.

The position I have therefore is that 2, perhaps 3, within the "Canonical Group" were by one man, and he may have killed others outside the group. That leaves a hell of a lot of unsolved murders to explain.

Two items do not constitute a series. Has to be three or more.

I'm not in the business of changing people's minds. There's no point going around in circles with the same old back-and-forth. You think there were multiple eviscerators popping up within a few weeks of each other, whereas I see an obvious spike in evisceration murders caused by one serialist. Let's leave it at that.

[Michael W Richards]

Two items do not constitute a series. Has to be three or more.

I'm not in the business of changing people's minds. There's no point going around in circles with the same old back-and-forth. You think there were multiple eviscerators popping up within a few weeks of each other, whereas I see an obvious spike in evisceration murders caused by one serialist. Let's leave it at that.

Fair enough Harry. Evicerations alone do not marry murders by murderer, nor are they the most relevant aspect of them. The REASON for what happens is. Ive pointed out on numerous occasions that when we see a specific Victimology, method of acquisition, of dispatch, of pm focus, and within 2 weeks, there is something that can be learned about that man.

Namely...the killer sets out to kill someone, without having a specific target, but rather to be attuned to seize an opportunity when he believes it presents itself. He kills strangers, no emotional component, and he kills so he can cut into a female abdomen. We might presume that was the goal with Polly also, but the chosen location and timing of passerby's prevented his completing his objective.

That's shows us he is not immune to mistakes. That he chooses streetwalkers because they are out alone late at night, they are strangers to him, and they are women.

Throwing that information in the waste basket in favour of adding a woman with one cut and a woman in her own bed who is taken apart to a growing list of victims isn't something I choose to do. But anyone who groups the women based only on cuts does. WHY matters, HOW and WHAT doesn't matter as much.. unless the specific wounds haven't already been headlines in the recent papers locally.

[rjpalmer]

Flat Earth researcher "Mad" Mike Hughes, dead at 64.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51602655

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

And the world keeps spinning.........around? across?