Same motive = same killer

[Sam Flynn]

Right and why didnt the ripper kill mary kelly and annie chapman out in the street? Pinchin torso dump is just like Berner st. "That'll scare em"? huh what are you a fish

An isolated railway arch is nothing like the busy entrance to a social club at going-home time, or the back doorstep of a densely tenanted house en route to the communal toilets at waking-up-for-work-and-going-for-a-pee time. As for Kelly, she was the only victim with a private room of her own.

[RockySullivan]

An isolated railway arch is nothing like the busy entrance to a social club at going-home time, or the back doorstep of a densely tenanted house en route to the communal toilets at waking-up-for-work-and-going-for-a-pee time. As for Kelly, she was the only victim with a private room of her own.

Correct sir and the arch was so isolated that there were 3 people right there when the pc found the torso

[Fisherman]

Perhaps "it" is not almost certain, but "I" am almost certain that he/they did, based on an entirely dispassionate consideration of the distribution of the body parts and the nature of the crimes themselves. Taking similar considerations into account, I have good reason to suspect that the Pinchin Street Torso crime was committed by an entirely different person, neither "the" Torso Killer nor Jack the Ripper.

"Perhaps" it is not almost certain? Perhaps?

If you can in any way substatiante how it IS almost certain, then by all means, do so.

If you can´t, then it is not almost certain.

It is that simple, really.

[Sam Flynn]

Correct sir and the arch was so isolated that there were 3 people right there when the pc found the torso

The three people concerned were not in the same archway, and were in various stages of slumber. Even if they were all fully alert, three rough-sleepers are nothing compared with the people who would have used the entrance to the Berner Street Club or the back yard of 29 Hanbury Street. Indeed, being a bit of a backwater, Pinchin Street would have been far less busy at the best of times than either Berner Street or Hanbury Street, and certainly quieter than the overcrowded Dorset Street.

[Sam Flynn]

"Perhaps" it is not almost certain? Perhaps?.

I'm being cautious in the interest of balance. I personally wouldn't qualify it with a "perhaps".

[RockySullivan]

The three people concerned were not in the same archway, and were in various stages of slumber. Even if they were all fully alert, three rough-sleepers are nothing compared with the people who would have used the entrance to the Berner Street Club or the back yard of 29 Hanbury Street. Indeed, being a bit of a backwater, Pinchin Street would have been far less busy at the best of times than either Berner Street or Hanbury Street, and certainly quieter than the overcrowded Dorset Street.

the men were very close by. what time was the torso found? clearly there were people around the area even in the early hours of the morning.

[Fisherman]

I'm being cautious in the interest of balance. I personally wouldn't qualify it with a "perhaps".

Why balance it if you are certain, Gareth? To look objective, although you are not?

Ripperology never seizes to astound me.

[Sam Flynn]

the men were very close by. what time was the torso found? clearly there were people around the area even in the early hours of the morning.

I can only go by what's in the inquest report, Rocky, and it appears that the whole area was, figuratively and literally, rather sleepy at the time, with very few people around. Even today, it remains a very quiet part of the East End.

[Sam Flynn]

Why balance it if you are certain, Gareth? To look objective, although you are not?

It's an opinion I arrive at from a dispassionate (ie objective) consideration of the information, entirely without preconceptions.

[Fisherman]

It's an opinion I arrive at from a dispassionate (ie objective) consideration of the information, entirely without preconceptions.

Maybe that´s what you feel. But if this is the case, then why did you say that "perhaps" it was not correct to say that it was almost a certainty that the killer lived in the western parts of London? And you spoke of "balancing" your take, all of a sudden!

That would be because you realized that people may disagree with you on totally fair grounds, right?

Like me, for example, who say that the killer MAY have lived it the west, that he MAY have lived somewhere else and had a bolthole in the west, that he MAY have travelled to the west because he wantes to parts to drift through the metropolis etcetera. All in all, meaning that we cannot BE "almost certain" since we do not have the facts.

It´s not as if you can say that any of my suggestions are wrong. Or as if you can quantify them.

All you can do is to say that you FEEL almost certain and then you must admit that this feeling is to a smaller or larger extent irrational. A hunch, as it were.

There is no escaping this, I´m afraid. Trying to wring the take "almost certain" into a stance of objectivity cannot be done, as it stands.

[Sam Flynn]

Not a "hunch", nor a "feeling", Fish. Just logic.

[Fisherman]

Not a "hunch", nor a "feeling", Fish. Just logic.

I´m sorry, Gareth, but the kind of "logic" you are employing here is nothing but a hunch.

When I say that you canot possibly know where the killer lived, that is a fact.

You can guess, but guessing is going by...correct, hunches!

So what we end up with is you bitterly complaining about how I am not objective, and then you present your guesswork as totally objective and based on non-passionate thinking...?

That´s quite rich, you know.

And that is even before we look at how you have blatantly stated that the torso killer was not an eviscerator, GUESSING that he had other reasons for taking out the uterus, heart and lungs from Liz Jacksons body.

It is not about any non-passionate thinking at all, Gareth. It is about VERY passionate hobbyhorses, unsubstantiable such beasts even.

If we look at my convictions, they are solidly grounded in named pieces of evidence, dovetailing one by one between the series.

THAT is non-passionate reasoning. It is grounded on facts.

Your reasoning is instead grounded on guesswork. You think you know that most dismemberers dump bodies in close proximity to their homes, and so it becomes a bear certainty that the torso killer did. And all the while, you have not presented a scintilla of evidence that this is so. It is nevertheless "logical" to you.

And you claim that the torso killer was not an eviscerator. Probaly based in the same sort of wishful thinking. There is certainly nothing factual at all to contradict that he was, on the other hand - it is PROVEN that he eviscerated Jackson.

And out of all of this, you want to create a picture of me being irresponsible and baised, whereas you are measured, non-passionate and logical.

That suggestion just crash-landed.

[RockySullivan]

I can only go by what's in the inquest report, Rocky, and it appears that the whole area was, figuratively and literally, rather sleepy at the time, with very few people around. Even today, it remains a very quiet part of the East End.

While that might be true, there was still 3 people sleeping in the surrounding arches. So that part of the desolate street was far from empty that morning.
Arnold says Backchurch Lane, Schwartz lived 1 block from the torso dump on Backchurch Lane and Ellen Street. Schwartz said the the man said Lipski and we find Lipski written in graffiti on Pinchin (also with John Cleary is a fool). Schwartz goes to the star. all that in mind and then like jerry pointed out, the day after the double event they find a torso in Whitehall. I know you think the pinchin torso is a copycat, but with that article Joshua Rogan found I just don't think that's possible.

[John Wheat]

And the fact that nobody is cheering you on speaks of what, John? Maybe how people won´t touch your arguing with a ten foot pole?

I just think no one can be bothered with the misrepresentations, half truths and downright lies you post. Which is why no one has leapt to your defence.

[Fisherman]

I just think no one can be bothered with the misrepresentations, half truths and downright lies you post. Which is why no one has leapt to your defence.

Yes, and that is probably why this thread has resulted in over 2000 posts; because nobody can be bothered.

Refresh my mind: how many posts did that thread of yours on Bury generate?

Now that you have been deservedly flattened, I will retract from any further debate with you for the time being. Quite frankly, it is below me.