Same motive = same killer

[Elamarna]

So you are instead a man who is very easily swayed by new ideas and who gladly changes his mind or has it changed for him?

Surprise of the day!

My views on most subjects, evolve and change fairly regularly.
For instance some of my research on Bucks Row, has caused me to reconsider some long held views, not linked to Lechmere, by the way.
That along with the failure of my laptop in Jan is the major reason for the delay. Happily now back on track, but a few months later than hoped for.

Steve

[Fisherman]

Not really addressing the incompatability of the two statements in my view, you obviously see it different.

The links you suggest are not common to even a majority of the cases..
Truefully we do not know the TK targetted working girls, only one is identified, such a statement is hence unprovable.
Steve

Sigh. The links do not need to be common to the majority of the cases. Once the link is very specific and odd, it is quite enough that it is represented in at least one case in each series. Like the uterus. Like the heart. Like the flaps.

From where does the nutty idea come that a similarity must be present in all cases before it can be used to compare to other series...? Really!

[Fisherman]

Shows how little you know me.


Steve

So you are instead a man who is very easily swayed by new ideas and who gladly changes his mind or has it changed for him?

Surprise of the day!

[Herlock Sholmes]

No, itīs me saying that. And I stand by it. As I say, the alternative is that you are discerning and well informed. And if you were, you would not reach the conclusion you do. You still root for the differences being as important as the similarities, even - and that is getting it all very wrong. But no matter how much I exemplify, you come back to it.

So instead of being discerning and well informed, I fnd that on this matter you are quite the contrary. There are only so many ways I can put that in words, and it does not encompass any exchange of niceties. But that is true for both sides!

And ill return the favour. If you werent so utterly biased and have an ego that cant countenance being wrong then people might be able to take part in less heated debates. Ive listened to Gareth and Steve’s take on the ‘similarities’ and ive heard yours. I agree with theres. I dont know where bias comes in but you obviously see it somewhere. Perhaps the fact that they both have medical backgrounds and knowledge leads me to favour their viewpoint over that of a journalist. Strange that.
Strange also how i refuse to believe that crimes get solved purely on statistics and likelihoods. 0r the fact that something may even be statistically rare but could still have occurred. Or the fact that you show the conspiracy theorists hatred of anything that might appear slightly coincidental.

Two series of crimes. One of which cant even definitely be called a series. One series exhibits all the characteristics of a series. You may choose to conveniently ignore this in favour of debatable similarities but that up to you. Its just a buffet with you. Pick what you want just to bolster your viewpoint. Others can view a bigger picture taking in all of the pros and cons and come up with an opinion. All of us ignorant, biased people who dare to disagree with the great Fish. Its a wonder you havent invented a ‘Torso Scam’ to prove your point.

[Elamarna]

I am suggesting that if there is one poster who would not accept lightly that the name he goes by is his own, then that poster is probably you.

Shows how little you know me.


Steve

[Elamarna]

And still they are: I am following "police logic" if you like, where the similarities tie cases together. However, as I said before, the police do not get it right all the time, BUT they overall use the correct logic all the time: similarities DO point to a connection, and the more they are and the more specific and odd they are, the more certain that connection becomes.

Not accepting that is - in my personal view - ignorant. Choosing not to accept it against better knowing is being biased.

I donīt think I am overstepping any lines by stating this - but I leave the door ever so slightly ajar for it to be a misleading approach in the case at hand. However, that risk is no larger than a fragment of a per cent in my eyes.

You DO realize that two killers in the same Victorian London mutilating, taking out uteri, taking out hearts, targetting prostitutes, having rings vanishing from their victims fingers and cutting away sections of the abdominal walls would be the greatest fluke ever in criminal history? That HAS dawned on you?

Not really addressing the incompatability of the two statements in my view, you obviously see it different.

The links you suggest are not common to even a majority of the cases..
Truefully we do not know the TK targetted working girls, only one is identified, such a statement is hence unprovable.




Steve

[Fisherman]

What are you suggesting ?

what ever point you think you are making is truly weird.


Steve

I am suggesting that if there is one poster who would not accept lightly that the name he goes by is his own, then that poster is probably you.

[Elamarna]

Itīs from 1873, Steve, not 1872. And my take is:

1873: doubtlessly linked.
1874: could be either way, but since the crime is rare, a probable link.
1884: a skilfully cut up and dismembered body speaks of a very probable link
1887: doubtlessly linked
1888, Whitehall: doubtlessly linked
1888, Jackson: doubtlessly linked
1889: skilfully cut up and dismembered = very probably linked

The Paris torso: most probably not linked
The Salamanca Place torso: most probably - almost certainly, even - unlinked

Christer

I had heard 1872 mentioned, which must therefore have been a mistake.
Do you ascribe any murders after 89 to the same hand?


Steve

And your list is what was expected.
Your "doubtlessly linked" are of course just opinion.

[Fisherman]

You mean you haven't heard of the 1872 Neasden torso mystery? I'd get onto it at once if I were you, Fish.

I must admit that I am very much unaware of that mystery. No doubt we all are, you included.

[Fisherman]

One would do Christer, if you did not make statements that those who do not accept your view are either bias or ignorant, i now see that has become ill informed.
Such statement servely undermine the statement that you accept you MAY be wrong.

The two statements do not appear on the surface to be compatible.


Steve

And still they are: I am following "police logic" if you like, where the similarities tie cases together. However, as I said before, the police do not get it right all the time, BUT they overall use the correct logic all the time: similarities DO point to a connection, and the more they are and the more specific and odd they are, the more certain that connection becomes.

Not accepting that is - in my personal view - ignorant. Choosing not to accept it against better knowing is being biased.

I donīt think I am overstepping any lines by stating this - but I leave the door ever so slightly ajar for it to be a misleading approach in the case at hand. However, that risk is no larger than a fragment of a per cent in my eyes.

You DO realize that two killers in the same Victorian London mutilating, taking out uteri, taking out hearts, targetting prostitutes, having rings vanishing from their victims fingers and cutting away sections of the abdominal walls would be the greatest fluke ever in criminal history? That HAS dawned on you?

[Sam Flynn]

Itīs from 1873, Steve, not 1872.

You mean you haven't heard of the 1872 Neasden torso mystery? I'd get onto it at once if I were you, Fish.

[Fisherman]

You may be bias, however you are not ignorant, far from it.

It does not follow of course that either is fully wrong or fully right, there are many alternatives.


For instance you stance appears to be all the torso bodies from 72 are connected.

Mine is i can see no link i see conclusive with the evidence presented so far.


The reality could be some are linked, bit the evidence is not clear yet, in which case there is a middle ground.


Steve

Itīs from 1873, Steve, not 1872. And my take is:

1873: doubtlessly linked.
1874: could be either way, but since the crime is rare, a probable link.
1884: a skilfully cut up and dismembered body speaks of a very probable link
1887: doubtlessly linked
1888, Whitehall: doubtlessly linked
1888, Jackson: doubtlessly linked
1889: skilfully cut up and dismembered = very probably linked

The Paris torso: most probably not linked
The Salamanca Place torso: most probably - almost certainly, even - unlinked

[Elamarna]

Last for now, Steves wording:

"Your bias appears to be that you cannot even comprehend that that your view may not be correct."

I have explained this a million times, Steve! I have said, over and over again, that I MAY be wrong - but it would mean that we are dealing with the most freakish false similarities in the history of crime.


It takes an earthquake for it not to be a single killer, but earthquakes do occur.

So yes, I may be wrong, and I can comprehend not only that but also a wide variety of other things. Maybe you need to respect that when I say it?

One would do Christer, if you did not make statements that those who do not accept your view are either bias or ignorant, i now see that has become ill informed.
Such statement servely undermine the statement that you accept you MAY be wrong.

The two statements do not appear on the surface to be compatible.


Steve

[Sam Flynn]

I MAY be wrong - but it would mean that we are dealing with the most freakish false similarities in the history of crime.

But your bias is revealed even in that short statement, Fish. Some of us genuinely see no significant similarities, freakish or otherwise.

[Elamarna]

You still fail to see the backside of the medal: If I donīt buy your **** and bull stuff, I am biased and at fault.

We have different views, and both cannot be right.

So one is wrong.

My money is firmly on that one being you.

You may be bias, however you are not ignorant, far from it.

It does not follow of course that either is fully wrong or fully right, there are many alternatives.


For instance you stance appears to be all the torso bodies from 72 are connected.

Mine is i can see no link i see conclusive with the evidence presented so far.


The reality could be some are linked, bit the evidence is not clear yet, in which case there is a middle ground.


Steve