Originally posted by Sam Flynn
View Post
It is interesting how you say that they were opened up in different ways - normally you are keen to say that there are only so many ways an abdomen an be opened up? That backfires now, Gareth.
There is no reason to think that a killer must open abdomens up in the same way from case to case, and there is no reason to think that there were substantial differences in how it was done in these cases. In the end, what remains is that opening up the abdomens of women you have slain is extremely unusual, and so we should not expect too may such men to be on the loose in Victorian London. One, tops, sort of.
You say that "only a small minority" of the torso victims suffered this fate, but that is of course not true. The Rainham victim had her front opened as did Jackson. The Whitehall victim was divided through the torso, and so her abdomen was also opened up albeit in another fashion, and the uterus was missing from her together with other parts. The 1873 victim suffered the same sort of division, and that means that a clear majority of the torso victims had been cut so as to allow access to the abdominal contents.
If you had been awake, however, you would have noted that the killer did not go for the abdomional contents every time - he sometimes preferred the thorax contents, as in the Rainham case. He is able to do more tha one thing. He cannot be dismantled by saying "that did not happen every time", Gareth. He is complex. He has varying aims. He disassembles women, and eviscerations and dismemberment and mutilation are nothing but different parts of that. Think big, please - it helps, promise.
2. You have no idea whether the killer was after the uterus, the foetus or the combination, It is all guesswork on your behalf. Go by the facts, please, and not by your vivid imagination. Each and every false similarity you perceive must be proven before it can be ruled out. So far, none of them has.
It also needs to be said - again, apparently - that there need not be the same damage to each victim before it represents a point of comparison. Throw single examples out and you throw important evidence out. That is a dumb thing to do, even if you consider it necessary to try and diminish my case. It won´t work this time either.
3. Let´s be frank here: Stop pretending you know the extent of Jacksons wound. You don´t. And in the end, it is not about the appearance of the wound - it is about the fact that it was there. BOTH serie involve abdomional flap cutting, no matter how hard you try to make out as if it differed wildly inbetween cases. It´s much like saying that sawing off ten inches of a leg is totally different from sawing off seven or nineteen inches. It is becoming pathetic, Gareth.
4. You go tell the police that it is irrelevant when prostututes disappear from the streets. Tell them that there is no reason to think that prostitutes are being specifically targetted just because they disappear in numbers. Tell them that prostitution and prostitution victims are so commonplace that we can never read anything at all into itwhen prostitutes disappear.
Once you have done that, you can get real. It´s about time.
Prostitutes are favourite hunting targets for serial killers and have always been. When women who are killed turn out to be prostitutes, that is an immensely important clue to what kind of person the police are dealing with
5. Tried angle: The rest of the deeds differed in many respects, so we may look away from how both victims had their hearts taken out.
Sterling stuff, detective Wiliams, sterling stuff.
) may ask?
Leave a comment: