Same motive = same killer

[Fisherman]

Didnt you say a while ago that you had other info that you were holding back?

I did, yes. There is what seemingly is a common factor behind the appearances of the victims. It has to do with the inspiration grounds for the deeds, and I find it quite compelling myself.

That, however, was never a guarantee that others would be swayed in equal degree ...

[Fisherman]

Lets be honest here guys, any and i mean any section of abdomen cut away could by Christer's definition be termed flaps.
Steve

The question need not come up, since we know that it was the abdominal WALL the flaps were cut from. That rules out all the other parts of the abdomen.

It deserves mentioning that I was not the one who introduced the term "flaps" - it was the medicos back in the late 19:th century.

[Elamarna]

Oh, no - I am not alone in my thinking. But basically, if you beleive in two killers, you ARE biased or ignorant. I could lie about it, I suppose, to ease the pain - but why would I?

Any researcher who says those who hold a different opinion, without solid evidence to support their own view, are either bias or ignorant, has truly lost the ability to carryout objective researcher or logical thinking.

Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

I can do so against the backdrop of how we can identify the man behind the torso deeds as the man against the Ripper deeds, on account of how there are numerous very odd similarities inbetween the series.

BOTH series have inclusions of taken out uteri, abdominal walls being cut away in large flaps, hearts being taken out and so on. Since both the perceived series appeared at the same time and in the same town, it is extremely indicative of a common originator (you should know, having been a copper yourself, Trevor - must I teach you your job?).

So there you are - we know that the Ripper victims were murdered, and since the same man apparently perpetrated the torso series too, it stands to reason that the police and medicos at the time and the historians ever after have been absolutely correct in naming the torso series one of murders. And that is why not just I, but close to all who have studied these cases, speak of a serial killer when we speak of the torso man. Itīs a fair bet that wonīt change.

But what you rely on is nothing more than opinions past and present, all sadly lacking in primary evidence to back up those opinions to prove that the torsos were all the subject of a singular serial killer.

Yes, verdicts of wilful murder were brought in on several of the bodies, but as is known wilful murder encompasses death through other means other than murder. Which is clearly the case of Jackson, and you might want to read Debs posts on forums on the Jackson case very informative, and goes to what I have been saying from the outset that Jackson was not a murder victim, remove her from you list of similarities and your therory doesnt look so good.

And I keep saying that no specific causes of death were identified in any of the torsos, so again the verdicts were wrong in my opinion because there was no cause of death discovered. The proper verdicts should have either been an open one, or as was the case with many of the bodies fished out of the river "Found dead"

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

The question need not come up, since we know that it was the abdominal WALL the flaps were cut from. That rules out all the other parts of the abdomen.

It deserves mentioning that I was not the one who introduced the term "flaps" - it was the medicos back in the late 19:th century.

What do you mean need not come up?

Its not a question but a legitamate practical/anatomical/surgery or butchery point.

You obviously do not wish to even look at the point!

The abdomenial wall? Yes the whole of the area commonly referred to as the abdomen.

The back is rarely refered to as the abdomen, so that leaves the sides and the front, what other parts are you thinking of?

Steve

[Fisherman]

Any researcher who says those who hold a different opinion, without solid evidence to support their own view, are either bias or ignorant, has truly lost the ability to carryout objective researcher or logical thinking.

Steve

The similarities inbetween the series IS solid evidence. We know for certain that these similarities were present and we know that no comparable set of odd differences has been found in any other two cases of serial murder, so we are on safe ground when saying that one killer only is the only logical solution.

You should also be aware that objective reseach (I am not the one interpreting away here) and logical thinking ( I am the one sticking with the statistics) are the prime factors behind my position.

Sluggish, unsubstantiated denial was never my thing anyway.

[Fisherman]

What do you mean neex not come up?

Its not a question but a legitamate practical/anatomical/surgery or butchery point.

You obviously do not wish to even look at the point!

The abdomenial wall? Yes the whole of the area commonly referred to as the abdomen.

The back is rarely refered to as the abdomen, so that leaves the sides and the front, what other parts are you thinking of?

Steve

I was rather wondering which parts YOU were thinking of, since you spoke of the "abdomen" and not the abdominal wall. The last time somebody tried to make a meal out of this was when Gareth said that the journalists were not to be relied upon since they said that the two flaps made up the lower part of a womans abdomen. AHA! Said Gareth - the cheating bastards are talking about the abdomen when we know it was only the wall that was cut! So therefore, the journalists were not to be taken seriously!

You see, it is antics like these that make me a bit wary about people speaking about how I would call any part cut from "the abdomen" a flap. And that is why I say that there need be no such discussion, since the wall only was what is being scrutinized.

If you still donīt get what I am saying, you must rephrase your question, Steve.

If you are saying that we cannot compare the flaps, then I have said that long before you. And I have added that the true issue is that there were substantial flaps cut away from the abdominal wall in wach of the three cases I refer to, and REGARDLESS OF THE SHAPE OF THE FLAPS, this is a mindblowing similarity of a practice that is utterly rare.

[Fisherman]

But what you rely on is nothing more than opinions past and present, all sadly lacking in primary evidence to back up those opinions to prove that the torsos were all the subject of a singular serial killer.

Yes, verdicts of wilful murder were brought in on several of the bodies, but as is known wilful murder encompasses death through other means other than murder. Which is clearly the case of Jackson, and you might want to read Debs posts on forums on the Jackson case very informative, and goes to what I have been saying from the outset that Jackson was not a murder victim, remove her from you list of similarities and your therory doesnt look so good.

And I keep saying that no specific causes of death were identified in any of the torsos, so again the verdicts were wrong in my opinion because there was no cause of death discovered. The proper verdicts should have either been an open one, or as was the case with many of the bodies fished out of the river "Found dead"

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor, it is not "clearly the case" that Jackson was not murdered. Not in the universe I am living in.

[Fisherman]

Why do I have this sinking feeling that the debate is about to become one of semantics again...?

[Elamarna]

The similarities inbetween the series IS solid evidence. We know for certain that these similarities were present and we know that no comparable set of odd differences has been found in any other two cases of serial murder, so we are on safe ground when saying that one killer only is the only logical solution.

You should also be aware that objective reseach (I am not the one interpreting away here) and logical thinking ( I am the one sticking with the statistics) are the prime factors behind my position.

Sluggish, unsubstantiated denial was never my thing anyway.

My dear Christer,

You have said anyone who disagree with your view is either ignorant or bias. Twice i believe?

You are interpreting , all the way, no hard facts to back ypu

Quoting you are using statisics does not show logical thinking, it again is about interpreting a very limited data set, no more than a hundred or so years out of human history, the way that you wish to.

The truth is that anyone who makes such statements about those who disagree is abdicating the position of serious objective researcher.


Steve

[Elamarna]

I was rather wondering which parts YOU were thinking of, since you spoke of the "abdomen" and not the abdominal wall. The last time somebody tried to make a meal out of this was when Gareth said that the journalists were not to be relied upon since they said that the two flaps made up the lower part of a womans abdomen. AHA! Said Gareth - the cheating bastards are talking about the abdomen when we know it was only the wall that was cut! So therefore, the journalists were not to be taken seriously!

You see, it is antics like these that make me a bit wary about people speaking about how I would call any part cut from "the abdomen" a flap. And that is why I say that there need be no such discussion, since the wall only was what is being scrutinized.

If you still donīt get what I am saying, you must rephrase your question, Steve.

If you are saying that we cannot compare the flaps, then I have said that long before you. And I have added that the true issue is that there were substantial flaps cut away from the abdominal wall in wach of the three cases I refer to, and REGARDLESS OF THE SHAPE OF THE FLAPS, this is a mindblowing similarity of a practice that is utterly rare.

Its not a question, it a statement of fact, any section of the abdomenial wall which is removed could be refered to as a flap if one wanted. Its a generic term and completely and absolutely worthless as it stands for ANY comparision between cases.

Steve

[Elamarna]

Why do I have this sinking feeling that the debate is about to become one of semantics again...?

No its not semantics, ypu said if anyone did not accept YOUR opinion they are either bias or ignorant.

The quote was:

"But basically, if you beleive in two killers, you ARE biased or ignorant. I could lie about it, I suppose, to ease the pain - but"




That very comment displays both of the attributes you ascribe to those who disagree with you.



Steve

[Fisherman]

Its not a question, it a statement of fact, any section of the abdomenial wall which is removed could be refered to as a flap if one wanted. Its a generic term and completely and absolutely worthless as it stands for ANY comparision between cases.

Steve

In which respect?

In the respect that we cannot know that the flaps were similar?

Or in the respect we cannot know that flaps were cut away from the abdominal wall?

Like I said, I had that sinking feeling that the debate was about to go semantic.

[Fisherman]

No its not semantics, ypu said if anyone did not accept YOUR opinion they are either bias or ignorant.

The quote was:

"But basically, if you beleive in two killers, you ARE biased or ignorant. I could lie about it, I suppose, to ease the pain - but"


That very comment displays both of the attributes you ascribe to those who disagree with you.

Steve

Oh, you are trying the "illusions of grandeur" angle again...! Sorry, Steve, it is not a question about agreeing or not agreeing with me. It is a question of agreeing or not agreeing with the kind of logic the police employs in cases like these.
I agree with how the police work.

But YOU seem to think you are better than them? (hint, hint; illusions of grandeur...)

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, it is not "clearly the case" that Jackson was not murdered. Not in the universe I am living in.

Well we all know that you are Living in your own world of fantasy you have just confirmed it

Go and reads Debs posts on forum

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk