Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJettSet27
...I mean, since when have we characterized a serial killer by how many confirmed kills and unconfirmed kills he has done? Just because it is practically set in stone that Jack killed these five, no more, NO LESS, doesn't mean that he didn't kill more. Ted Bundy is a good example. That man has most likely killed way more than confirmed, but we're not saying that NO WAY did Ted Bundy not kill more than THIS MANY.
Sigh. I need to quit using the internet. It raises my blood pressure.
|
As long as we are going there, H.H. Holmes "admitted" to way more crimes than could be confirmed but much evidence suggests he may have harmed as many as near two hundred individuals. And if you are familiar with him and the story, it kind of would make sense that the number be so high.
Also in the past few years, there has been some vague weird theory floating around that he (Holmes) and Jack the Ripper may have actually been the same person... Which is particularly ludicrous, but then again logic doesn't really make money.
But then I really wonder:
why the need to make H. H. Holmes any more bizarre?
…ahem. Tangent sorry.
So... about that sky. It's um, up there alright...
