Same motive = same killer

[Fisherman]

And there Christer is the problem demonstrated by your own example.

That similarity is specific, a perfect round one-inch hile through the tongue.

And thats what you dont have in the torso/ripper cases.

You try throat/neck being cut, but there is no suriving evidence to show the actual cuts or technique used are alike or comparable.

You use flaps as if it has some specific meaning, but again it is such a general term it could mean things very diffent, not just in shape but in method of production.

You say 2 hearts were taken, however there is nothing to show the heart of Jackson was specifically targeted as with Kelly. And the method of removal does not appear to suggest a common perpetrator.

The rings are closer, but again it may just be robbery.

What you have not so far been able to demonstrate is a very specific example of a similarity like that in your example above.
That is the issue many of us have with your theory, if you could show a specific similarity people may start to consider the theory again.
But of course thats the point, you don't present anything that specific , because such does not exist.


Steve

Every similarity is more or less specific. The combination of uteri removal, heart removal and abdominal wall removal is a very specific coctail. In fact, the abdominal wall removal only is quite rare and specific. it is more than enough to "take the lead" in an investigation, Steve.

You say that there is no evidence telling us that then neck cutting was of the same type. Maybe you need to re-read the evidence therefore.

It matters not that we do not know the exact shape of the flaps. They were large and taken from the abdominal wall. Rare. Extremely so. Believing in two killer doing it at the same time would be believing in an even rarer thing.

Two hearts WERE taken. Interpretation only can tell them apart. And interpretation only is what you have.
I won´t go near it.

I have demonstrated very clear and specific . That was easy.

I have not satisfied you, since it is impossible. But since I knew that from the outset, I was not surprised. I ony press my pioint so as not to have people overly impressed by your reasoning. It smoulders away when looking at the facts, which is why I repeatedly add them.

[Fisherman]

Seems simple enough to me Fish.

1) You are not saying that the similarities are “so exact as to be beyond doubt.”

2) Or that we dont know “ to what degree the similarities were true or false similarities.”

These two statements dont even sound like you talking Fish!

1) You have said that the similarities are so fantastically rare its almost impossible for them to have been committed by different men.

2) And now you appear to be saying that the similarities ‘might’ be misleading?

None of this squares with the near certainty which you have shown throughout these debates. So certain in fact that you feel justified in saying that anyone that doesnt arrive at the same conclusion is either ‘biased or ignorant.’

1. We don´t KNOW how the similarities compared to each other. But we know they were there.

2. Of course we can´t tell to which degree each similarity was true or false. But we need to believe in them ALL being false to bring two killers on stage, and that does not work logically.

It all squares quite well with a verdict of nearly proven. But I am not going to start inventing facts or lying about what we have. Nearly proven is where it takes us - and that is fine by me.

It is fascinating to hear you say that this does not look like me - I have been saying this dozens of times. Presumably, you would prefer for me not to be discerning?

[Sam Flynn]

1. We don´t KNOW how the similarities compared to each other.

How can we know they were real similarities if we can't compare them? Actually, we can compare much of the evidence and, when we do, we frequently see material differences, not similarities, and these differences exist even within the alleged "similarities" themselves.

2. Of course we can´t tell to which degree each similarity was true or false. But we need to believe in them ALL being false to bring two killers on stage, and that does not work logically.

It's not just a question of the similarities being true or false, but of how real and significant they are. It is also important to bear the very real dissimilarities in mind.

It all squares quite well with a verdict of nearly proven.

Nowhere near.

[Fisherman]

How can we know they were real similarities if we can't compare them? Actually, we can compare much of the evidence and, when we do, we frequently see material differences, not similarities, and these differences exist even within the alleged "similarities" themselves.

The answer to the first question is easy: We can´t know that they were real similarities BECAUSE we cant compare them. But the mor similarities there are and the odder they are, the smaller the chance/risk of the similarities being false.

I don´t know what material differences it is you are talking about, so you need to expand on that. Especially the differences that exist within the similarities. My feeling is that it is once more a question of interpretations on your behalf, but you need to clarify at any rate.

It's not just a question of the similarities being true or false, but of how real and significant they are. It is also important to bear the very real dissimilarities in mind.

Of course the significance is of the utmost importance. And I know what the removal of organs like the uterus and the heart, the cutting of abdomens and the taking away of the abdominal wall adds up to - and it is not an abortion gone wrong.

I also think that it is far too convenient to just leave the Whitehall and Rainham victims to the side, claiming that Jackson was the only evisceration victim. They also lost organs, and not least in the Rainham case, we can see that there is a perfect parallel to Jackson - three torso sections, the thorax contents and part of the colon gone.How do we account for that if we don´t take the easy way out and say that it fell out all on it´own account, coincidentally representing the same organs (but for the uterus) that Jackson lost.

[Fisherman]

As for significance, I´d say that this is governed by the rarity and not foremost by the specificity - if every killer stamped "Made in Thailand" on their victims´ foreheads, it will be very unsignificant.

But if we can only find the very fewest of killers who take away the abdominal wall in sections, THEN we have significance!

Off for a day or two now.

[Elamarna]

Every similarity is more or less specific. The combination of uteri removal, heart removal and abdominal wall removal is a very specific coctail. In fact, the abdominal wall removal only is quite rare and specific. it is more than enough to "take the lead" in an investigation, Steve.

Please Christer, they are not specific at all they are generalisations. Can you really not see that. This continual "these are rare" applied to generic descriptions is not in the slightest convincing or compelling.

You say that there is no evidence telling us that then neck cutting was of the same type. Maybe you need to re-read the evidence therefore.

Not so. There is nothing in the evidence to say the same method is used.

It matters not that we do not know the exact shape of the flaps. They were large and taken from the abdominal wall. Rare. Extremely so. Believing in two killer doing it at the same time would be believing in an even rarer thing.

Two hearts WERE taken. Interpretation only can tell them apart. And interpretation only is what you have.
I won´t go near it.

I have demonstrated very clear and specific . That was easy.


If you are trying to show the similarities between flaps, you need to show what is meant by the term. You cannot do that other than in the most general fashion.


No you have not shown specifically the heart was targeted in the Jacksin case; if you truly beleive you have, rather than just saying so, you are i am very much afraid deluding and misleading yourself no one else. And note i am NOT saying you are trying to mislead anyone else. I have no doubt you beleieve what you write is true..

I have not satisfied you, since it is impossible. But since I knew that from the outset, I was not surprised. I ony press my pioint so as not to have people overly impressed by your reasoning. It smoulders away when looking at the facts, which is why I repeatedly add them.

No its not impossible,
The theory remains viable; however it at present fails in the the similarities are nowhere near clear or specific enough to support the conclusion you reach.
Earlier you gave an example of specific similarities in an hypocritical case which clearly suggested a real link. Thats all i am asking for here, and of course instead of producing such clear and well defined evidence, you list the same arguments yet again, the very arguments that fail to convince in the first place.

Of course you must reply, or else the outstanding and obvious weaknesses in the theory are cruely exposed. That does not mean the theory is wrong, purely that it cannot be proven in the slightest at PRESENT.


STEVE

[Herlock Sholmes]

How can we know they were real similarities if we can't compare them? Actually, we can compare much of the evidence and, when we do, we frequently see material differences, not similarities, and these differences exist even within the alleged "similarities" themselves.It's not just a question of the similarities being true or false, but of how real and significant they are. It is also important to bear the very real dissimilarities in mind.
Nowhere near.

[Fisherman]

Steve!

The types of damages listed by me are very rare inclusions in murders. It has nothing to do with how these inclusions are not described in detail, because no matter how that detailied description would have looked, the uteri and heart removal would STILL be very rare inclusions and the abdominal wall removal even rarer.
Trying to hide behind the lacking detail does not work for you.

I believe the neck cutting in the Pinchin Street case and the Kelly case was mentioned by Phillips as being much similar.

And you should not be confused or surprise by how I don´t alter my arguments from post to post. There is no reason to - I am perfectly fine with them as they are.

You don´t think they are "significant", but compared to your arguments and points they are a thousand times more significant.

Live on in denial, by all means. It leaves me decidedly unimpressed, but there´s always Gareth and Herlock applauding away, of course ...

[Elamarna]

Steve!

The types of damages listed by me are very rare inclusions in murders. It has nothing to do with how these inclusions are not described in detail, because no matter how that detailied description would have looked, the uteri and heart removal would STILL be very rare inclusions and the abdominal wall removal even rarer.
Trying to hide behind the lacking detail does not work for you.

I believe the neck cutting in the Pinchin Street case and the Kelly case was mentioned by Phillips as being much similar.

And you should not be confused or surprise by how I don´t alter my arguments from post to post. There is no reason to - I am perfectly fine with them as they are.

You don´t think they are "significant", but compared to your arguments and points they are a thousand times more significant.

Live on in denial, by all means. It leaves me decidedly unimpressed, but there´s always Gareth and Herlock applauding away, of course ...

That reply my friend highlights my very point.

Its not hiding behind lack of detail; its there are no details to support the theory.
It is not about denial, rather it is all to do with the objective assesment of the evidence.
I happily say a connection between the two series is possible, in particular the Torso's of the late 80's.
They are in the same city at the approximate same time.
They both involve cutting of the body.
Those are good but general links.

So for me it is wrong to rule out the possability, just as it is wrong to rule out Lechmere as the killer of Nichols.

However, again like the Nichols case, the detail present to take the case further is either too general or extrapolated beyond what is reasonable to assume from the evidence, if one is taking an objective stance.

You beleive, There was only one killer and he was Charles Lechmere
I do not see evidence to take either idea beyond the status of unproven theory.

We disagree, but we both know that anyway.


Steve

[Sam Flynn]

"the neck cutting in the Pinchin Street case and the Kelly case"

Kelly had her throat cut, the Pinchin St torso had been decapitated.

[Fisherman]

"the neck cutting in the Pinchin Street case and the Kelly case"

Kelly had her throat cut, the Pinchin St torso had been decapitated.

Yawn. It´s getting tedious. Both had the throat and the soft parts of the neck cut, and the Pinchgi STreet woman also had the spine severed. We do not know the timetable of the events. End of story.

[Fisherman]

That reply my friend highlights my very point.

Its not hiding behind lack of detail; its there are no details to support the theory.
It is not about denial, rather it is all to do with the objective assesment of the evidence.
I happily say a connection between the two series is possible, in particular the Torso's of the late 80's.
They are in the same city at the approximate same time.
They both involve cutting of the body.
Those are good but general links.

So for me it is wrong to rule out the possability, just as it is wrong to rule out Lechmere as the killer of Nichols.

However, again like the Nichols case, the detail present to take the case further is either too general or extrapolated beyond what is reasonable to assume from the evidence, if one is taking an objective stance.

You beleive, There was only one killer and he was Charles Lechmere
I do not see evidence to take either idea beyond the status of unproven theory.

We disagree, but we both know that anyway.


Steve

Evidence that takes soethng beyond unproven theroy makes it proven theory. And fact.

We all know that we can not reach that far.

But we CAN reach a point where we say that the coupling of the torso series and the Ripper ditto is in all probability a correct one.

How we lack the detail of the damage done does not alter that. The measures do not become "generic" in any other way than how we lack that detail. We DO however know, that the killer took out uteri, hearts and abdominal walls. That in itself is in no way generic. It represents a list of measures that are extremely rare in murder cases, no matter HOW it is done.

To believe in two serialists is a bit rich.

To beleive in two mutilating serialists is bonkers.

To believe in two serialists who both mutilated and eviscerated is worsa than that.

And when we add that they both took out abdominal walls, we are on safe ground saying that it was in all probability the same man who did it. No realistic doubt can be entertained.

Sorry, but sense must prevail.

[Elamarna]

Evidence that takes soethng beyond unproven theroy makes it proven theory. And fact.

We all know that we can not reach that far.

But we CAN reach a point where we say that the coupling of the torso series and the Ripper ditto is in all probability a correct one.

We MAY do, However Christer despite your obvious desire to claim such a point has been reached, it has not.

How we lack the detail of the damage done does not alter that. The measures do not become "generic" in any other way than how we lack that detail. We DO however know, that the killer took out uteri, hearts and abdominal walls. That in itself is in no way generic. It represents a list of measures that are extremely rare in murder cases, no matter HOW it is done.

Sorry but it is generic, general, which ever term we wish to use.


Uteri: the methods employed appear to be different, the Jackson uterus is discarded but the foetus it contained is gone. This suggests the motivation for the removal in the Jackson case may be different from that in the Ripper cases, where the uterus itself appears to be a target.

Your placeing them togeather as being significant ignores motive, which this thread is supposed to be about. It also ignores method.
It is a generic comparision.

Heart: in the Kelly case the heart is removed from the body, via the diaphragm. That is an unusual route to use, it suggests the heart is specifically targeted.
In Jackson, the entire thorax is emptied, heart and lungs, a different method of removal is used.
Once again saying that hearts are removed is a significant similarity ignores probable motive and certainly method.
It is a generic comparison.

Abdomen Wall: areas of flesh removed COULD be significant, if there was the slightest evidence that the areas were in anyway similar in size or shape, removed for the same reason or cut by a similar method.

None of which is the case. Your continual repeating it does not matter, actually well does not matter. It does not change the fact that you are using generic , simplistic terms such as "flap" and attempting to pass them off as being specific and significant
The comparison is again Generic.

The hypothetical case you suggested several days ago of victems link by a specific wound, a perfectly round hole in the tongue, is just what you need, indeed that you used it shows you are well aware of this, or else there was no need to use such a specific example.

To believe in two serialists is a bit rich.

To beleive in two mutilating serialists is bonkers.

To believe in two serialists who both mutilated and eviscerated is worsa than that.

And when we add that they both took out abdominal walls, we are on safe ground saying that it was in all probability the same man who did it. No realistic doubt can be entertained.

Sorry, but sense must prevail.

And again despite claiming you are objective in this case over and over again, you continue to show such is not truly so by saying to disagree with your view is "bonkers" or " worse than that".

And you finish by saying to doubt your view is not "realistic"


I have little doubt you fully beleive these comments, that is what obsesive subjectivty, in trying to fit facts to a preformed theory, always does.

If you had left the last section out of the post, one could happily just agree to disagree. Those last few lines, saying what they do show you have no intention of following that path, a great shame.


Steve

Why can you not just agree to disagree,

[Fisherman]

We MAY do, However Christer despite your obvious desire to claim such a point has been reached, it has not.

It ought to, however.

Sorry but it is generic, general, which ever term we wish to use.

There is nothing at all general about doing what was done to these victims. Not is it general to have two mutilators and eviscerators on the loose in Victorian London and in overlapping time periods.
You want to think that it is general, but it is nothing of the sort.

Uteri: the methods employed appear to be different, the Jackson uterus is discarded but the foetus it contained is gone. This suggests the motivation for the removal in the Jackson case may be different from that in the Ripper cases, where the uterus itself appears to be a target.
Your placeing them togeather as being significant ignores motive, which this thread is supposed to be about. It also ignores method.
It is a generic comparision.

I don´t "ignore" motive. I am very open to any such discussion, but I am also aware that we cannot possibly establish any motive. It will all be suggestions, far too often accompanied by that word you use: "appear".
You say that the damage is generic and then you suggest that what you find is the most logical solution to the uteri business tell the deeds apart. So one second you are opposed to suggesting anything at all on account of the generic factor, and the next, you suggest away based on what you think is logical.
You logic seems more attractive to you than mine, Steve.

As I keep telling you, the amassed evidence BEFORE you taint it with your suppositions and suggestions, is telling us that uteri, heart and abdominal walls were taken from bodies in two perceived series of murders. We need to look at that as a very clear link, and we need to do that WITHOUT any bedtime fairytales and suggestions. The simple facts, please!

Heart: in the Kelly case the heart is removed from the body, via the diaphragm. That is an unusual route to use, it suggests the heart is specifically targeted.
In Jackson, the entire thorax is emptied, heart and lungs, a different method of removal is used.
Once again saying that hearts are removed is a significant similarity ignores probable motive and certainly method.
It is a generic comparison.

See the above.

Abdomen Wall: areas of flesh removed COULD be significant, if there was the slightest evidence that the areas were in anyway similar in size or shape, removed for the same reason or cut by a similar method.

None of which is the case. Your continual repeating it does not matter, actually well does not matter. It does not change the fact that you are using generic , simplistic terms such as "flap" and attempting to pass them off as being specific and significant
The comparison is again Generic.

See the above.

The hypothetical case you suggested several days ago of victems link by a specific wound, a perfectly round hole in the tongue, is just what you need, indeed that you used it shows you are well aware of this, or else there was no need to use such a specific example.

I suggested that case not as a direct comparison, but as a clarification of exactly why similarities can clear away what people sense are hindersome differences.
You are most welcome to check how many cases there are of each damage, perfect, round holes in tongues and abdominal walls removed in large sections. Once you have the numbers, you may begin to see what I am saying.

And again despite claiming you are objective in this case over and over again, you continue to show such is not truly so by saying to disagree with your view is "bonkers" or " worse than that".

The two are not mutually exclusive. It is objective to say that the world is round and that people thinking it is flat are bonkers. However unfair it may seem to you.

And you finish by saying to doubt your view is not "realistic"

Because it is not. It is unrealistic per se to expect two mutilators and eviscerators in Victorian London in overlapping time periods. Of course, you prefer to make it look as if I am generally saying that disagreeing with me can never be sound. That is not a very nice tactic. Thankfully, it is easy to disclose.

I have little doubt you fully beleive these comments, that is what obsesive subjectivty, in trying to fit facts to a preformed theory, always does.

If you had left the last section out of the post, one could happily just agree to disagree. Those last few lines, saying what they do show you have no intention of following that path, a great shame.

It is YOU, not I who are trying to fit the facts to your thinking. I do n ot "interpret" the facts and put a spin on them. You do.

Why can you not just agree to disagree,

Oh, I disagree with you alright. Somebody has to, or we will very likely all be misled.

[Sam Flynn]

It is YOU, not I who are trying to fit the facts to your thinking. I do n ot "interpret" the facts and put a spin on them. You do.

The exact opposite is true. Why can't you see that "interpreting" the facts and spinning them is precisely what you do?