OK Peter, let me respond with the way I see it and see if this makes sense to you:
1. You argue that police in 2011 discovered that JD#6 had an "ankle tattoo or other identifying mark", and therefore a second SK must have placed her ankle there only after the police began making discoveries along Ocean Parkway. You argue that the ankle would have decomposed to essentially bone, and therefore the ankle must have been kept in a freezer. As it turns out, this is based on bad information. Note:
"In the case of the unidentified Jane Doe, not only were her head and hands missing, but part of her lower right leg, leading police to believe at the time, the woman must have had an identifying mark or maybe a tattoo on her ankle. Comment: This information now negates your argument that body parts were somehow stored (i.e., in a "freezer") and only later placed along Ocean Parkway. Your argument and its conclusion are invalid because it is based on false premises.
Well, since you "spiced up" what I said with some of your own ingredients, it has now some lack of logic. I never said it would be necessarily preservation by freezing, I mentioned "preservation", freezing was only one possible example. So I ask you politely, not to mingle in what I said, your own stuff because then we are on the level of that "banker receipt" that lately went viral.
When it comes to the article, you linked, I had to blink a little. You noticed, that the author of that article refers to the situation much earlier, before the other body parts were even found? He ust copied from old archive articles there. He writes for example also, that JT's head would be missing, so no dentals. Well, we know they found that piece in the meantime.
Moreover, you may noticed, we miss of both women still some parts? The collections are not complete yet.
And I referred to the state of remains with little bones (children, hands, ankles, basically every body part with SMALL BONES ...) The point is, if an ankle, or a hand, or a knee or whatever, lays out there for years, first the remains will deteriorate through several stages till they are fully skeletized. After that, when also the sinew material is gone, the bones have no connection anymore. So if, and that's a big if already, the animals of the neighborhood (in the water, makes that crabs and fishes) didn't feed on it years before, latest at this point, the remains are spread out by weather (storms), animals and sometimes even trees growing right through them. All you can find after this point are long bones, skulls and if you have good climatic conditions, maybe some ribs and vertebrae.
So ... technically, nothing here is negated. It would be negated, if you could find anything, indicating, there were no small bones, but then, how would have one found a hand in the first place?
And another question: We know plastic can survive in nature for at least fifty years, but what do you think, how long can a plastic bag remain closed in the very same nature, if there is some tasty food for the local wildlife in it?
2. You argue that there are significant differences in the "signature" between Manorville and the victims found along Ocean Parkway. You argue that the serial killer can be classified as a "staging dismemberer", evidenced by Jessica Taylor's torso being prominently placed in Manorville. Let's just address the "staging" portion for a moment. If "staging" is evidence of the SK's signature, why wasn't JD#6 "staged"? Surely you would agree that she was killed by the same person that killed Jessica Taylor. There no evidence that JD#6 was staged in any way, since Jane Doe#6
"had been dead for several weeks before her nude, headless body was found, cut into pieces and stuffed in plastic bags". Even for Jessica Taylor, there are no clear signs of staging (posturing, object insertion) since
"police have said she was found on a plastic sheet as though someone dragged or pushed her out of the car and then drove off." The area where Jessica Taylor was found was extremely remote. It was not a popular dog walking trail, and there was no shock value to the public or to the police in placing the torso on a pile of sticks that had also been dumped in the area, probably by a local landscaper (wow, I just realized my latest POI is a former Manorville landscaper).
Can we agree, that you read at least the articles before you link them as arguments for whatever? It would make my life so much easier. JD6 (partially) was found by hunters. JT was found in a very remote location, her torso sitting on a pile of sticks (which establishes staging). Now, what are the odds in an area that big, that one is placed in an extreme remote local area (which was also regular dog walking path and had near to it the local wild trash disposal site, so it wasn't that remote at all) and one was found by hunters on their way to their blinds (meaning, also a way, that had some kind of regular traffic, unless you assume of course, hunters build everytime they go to the forest new blinds).
The other point is why staging. Staging doesn't serve the mere shock effect. That was in fact your theory, not mine. Staging serves as statement. The mutilation of the tattoo (without removing it), the placement of JT's torso on a pile of sticks, the parking of the trash bags with body parts right in the way of local (and regular) hunters, how many clues would you need?
On the other hand, I can't get right now this grin out of my face. You are aware, that the article you link all the time also includes the statement, they believe now in two serial killers? And that over the whole texts, you linked, not less than three different descriptions for how and where JT was found are included. She was, if I add your "sources" together dropped nude in a plastic bag without plastic bag remote from the next street right at the main road, sitting on a pile of sticks looking like she was just dropped out of a car. Hummm ... aside of the absolute physical impossibility for any physical body to be at the same time at different place ... can those writers make up their mind? And can you, before you use those articles as prove for whatever, read them an look where are the contradictions in them? My time is a bit limited and it's a waste of time, to show things to you you could have seen if you would have read the article completely.
I don't know, how you jump now to landscaper ... but then, at least that isn't entirely impossible.
So, after ignoring the contradictions in the articles you posted, ignoring three details, that tell us details about his behavior and a hefty misunderstanding about the reasons of staging, you displayed, you have proven nothing.
3. No let's talk about dismemberment. You argue that dismemberment is part of the SK's signature, and since you claim "signature = MO + ritual", we can assume that it's either part of the "ritual" or part of the M.O. You also argue that the Manorville serial killer is a staging dismemberer who prefer to use torsos as a way to make a statement. In Manorville, there was no "statement" made for JD#6. Dismemberment was purely a forensic countermeasure. For JD#6, you had a missing head (teeth), hands (fingerprints) and lower right leg that presumably contained a tattoo. For Jessica Taylor, you had a missing head, hands and certain tattoo removal. With both victims, you also had "concealment" of critical body parts in the "thicket" along Ocean Parkway. Dismemberment does not appear to play a role, other than as a forensic countermeasure. Dismemberment was not a "statement". As far as his signature, there is clear evidence that the M.O. changed from 2000 to 2003. He used plastic bags for JD#6, but later he used a plastic sheet for Jessica Taylor. The plastic sheet is additional evidence of a forensic countermeasure (i.e., keeping blood out of the car), further suggesting that he wasn't confined to a particular "ritual" or M.O. So we know for a fact this SK's M.O. can and did in fact change. What did not appear to change is the utilization of forensic countermeasures, and the utilization of Ocean Parkway. We know serial killer's can change, update and adapt their methods. A perfect example is Joel Rifkin, whose methods were all over the place. Some victims he bludgeoned, some he strangled. Some he dismembered, some he didn't. His third victim he didn't bother to dismember because the thought of it sickened him. Others he dismembered like a science project.
He heard on the news that one of his dismembered victims was HIV+, and had a panic attack. He started using oil barrels to stuff his victims inside, intact, giving up dismemberment completely. In the Joel Rifkin example, we have a dismemberer, doing it as a forensic countermeasure, who evolved his M.O. to become a non-dismemberer.
Uhhh, you assume, you assume more, then in the third sentence you take your own assumptions as fact, and that's it. Now you are at the conclusion (based on all of your assumptions), dismembering doesn't play another role as forensic countermeasure (thus ignoring all we had just above about staging, for example a torso on a pile of sticks, but that's only one point). Therefore, you conclude, it's possible he could have changed his MO.
Someone, who dismembers bodies has one, two or all three needs out of a selection of three reasons:
- forensic countermeasure
Since there was no concealment for the torsos, even not the one with the tattoo, we can dismiss this.
- ritualistic behavior
Typically, this kind of mere ritualistic behavior is concentrated rather on heads and hands than on bodies. Read Jeffrey Dahmer up as an example. Since the non-hidden parts were the torsos, not the heads, we can dismiss that.
- A high degree off sadism.
This includes often to start the dismemberment of the victims antemortem, but not exclusively because the dismembering also can serve as means to extend the destruction of a person beyond death. As we have seen in other cases with high end sadists, postmortem mutilation also happens occasionally.
So well, we know, he didn't care too much about forensic countermeasures. He parked at least two torsos in places where they had to be found. Maybe not the next hour, but soon. He did so in the era of DNA testing. So, by all means, there goes your idea of mere forensic counter measure. That's on the Dormer level. Saying, the perp is law enforcement because he made phone calls of less than three minutes as forensic countermeasure - in the era of electronic phone tracking which works mostly in the millisecond range, but only after all papers are filled out (which then takes a lot longer than 3 minutes).
4.Now let's talk about your argument that the Manorville serial killer falls into the "staging dismemberer" category, and is motivated by "making a statement" (i.e., to police, the public) or a group (i.e., prostitutes). According to the FBI and to a symposium of criminal behaviorist experts: "Over the past twenty years, law enforcement and experts from a number of varying disciplines have attempted to identify specific motivations for serial murderers and to apply those motivations to different typologies developed for classifying serial murderers. These range from simple, definitive models to complex, multiple-category typologies that are laden with inclusion requirements.
Most typologies are too cumbersome to be utilized by law enforcement during an active serial murder investigation, and they may not be helpful in identifying an offender......Serial murder crime scenes can have bizarre features that may cloud the identification of a motive. The behavior of a serial murderer at crime scenes may evolve throughout the series of crimes and manifest different interactions between an offender and a victim."
That's a very complex way to say "I don't care for what I dn't understand". Which at least explains, why the time to catch a serial killer for the FBI has almost doubled since the end nineties.
So, what you're basically saying is, you don't see it, so it's too complex to be considered? Seriously? Politeness would refrain me to make such a statement about you, even I admit to feel occasionally the urge. But this time, you did it yourself, so no way to stop from declaring publicly your limited capacities.
My Conclusion:
Your argument that there are two distinct serial killers (Manorville & GB4) is poorly supported by the information you've presented. The M.O. of the Manorville serial killer involved primarily forensic countermeasures, not staging, dismemberment or ritualistic torso handling. Given that the forensically important body parts were discarded along Ocean Parkway, we are also informed that concealment was part of the M.O. of the Manorville serial killer. We see the M.O. change from 2000 to 2003 with respect to both location (slightly different location in Manorville for JT) and manner (plastic bags vs. plastic sheet). The fact that additional bodies were discovered precisely within a 2-mile stretch of a Ocean Parkway which has a 31 mile perimeter, combined with the fact that the most recent 4 victims from 2007-2010 were camouflaged with burlap (i.e., concealment) is enough to reasonably surmise that there is a single killer. I'm not crazy here, and I'm not alone in this assessment. Police have stated this.
Other criminal profilers and behavioral analysts have stated this. For us, there was clearly an evolution. I agree with you that some things don't change, namely the underlying reason why the guy kills in the first place (the motivation). But the signature can definitely change. Like Joel Rifkin, the LISK clearly altered his M.O. The LISK came to eventually skip dismemberment and utilize concealment alone within the specific 2 mile stretch of Ocean Parkway, an effective tactic learned by successfully employing it for the forensically important elements of his 2000 and 2003 victims. As to the question of "who else can we include as victims", the answer is I'm not sure. In addition to the Manorville and GB4 victims, I believe we can also include the Asian male. Rifkin bludgeoned, Rifkin strangled. It was a minor difference in the way he "interacted" with his victims, some of whom fought back fiercely and were able to injure him. I can also reasonably include both Baby Doe and Jane Doe#10, albeit with less certainty. I'm not convinced we have enough information to say whether or not JD-9098 and Atlantic City are related, so I suppose we at least agree on that point.
YOUR conclusion is based on your assumption from your paragraphs 2. to 4. You had not only to ignore even the content of the articles you linked, to come to those "conclusions", I have also, for the umpteenth repeat of this loop explained, where you are wrong and for what reasons. Forensic countermeasure by putting the torsos out in the open, yeah, right!
Furthermore, you ignored any mentioning of other behavioral indicators like kill speed, stability of signature, reactive behavior, different victimology, different comfort zones and his little break times, he took. Well, technically, you have ignored everything, that doesn't support your theory of the SK is a duck (sorry, I still can't come over THAT logic glitch in your former posts)
However, this has been amusing, but I lack the time to continue this discussion style in all eternity. Therefore I suggest, you work your angle, I work mine and as usual, in like 15-20 years, when they finally catch one of them (as we learned from your link, they tend to ignore what they don't understand), the one, who was wrong pays the other one a beer.
lease:
