Same motive = same killer

[Fisherman]

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?

[Elamarna]

I am sometimes flummoxed by how you sign with Steve - are you sure that your parents were telling the truth...? It may seem they did, but that could be a generic thing.

What are you suggesting ?

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


Steve

[Fisherman]

Like Steve i also respect the three mentioned but do any of them approach the topic with the attitude “this is such an obvious foregone conclusion that you are either ignorant or biased if you dont agree?”

No, it´s 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!

[Fisherman]

And I feel exactly the same about your efforts, confirmation bias at every single turn and a closed mind.


Steve

You still fail to see the backside of the medal: If I don´t 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.

[Fisherman]

And they are 3 individuals i greatly respect, that however does not mean we will always agree.

Please be aware, i am NOT determinded not to link, i am just not convince, which i have said many times; there is a very big difference.

Steve

I am sometimes flummoxed by how you sign with Steve - are you sure that your parents were telling the truth...? It may seem they did, but that could be a generic thing.

[Elamarna]

Yes, extremely foolish - it is quite obvious that it would be odd in the extreme if not a single copper entertained suspicion of a common originator of the crimes.
Which is of course what I have been saying all along.

Entertaing a suspicion is not the same as a certain fact, which is what you have implied.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Speaking for myself, it's by no means the case that I'm determined to not link the JTR and torso cases - I just don't see any significant reason to link them at all.

Indeed, I don't even see that all the torso cases are linked, as I see the Pinchin Street torso as probably the work of a different hand. A reasonable argument can be made to link some, if not all, of the West End torso cases, but the solitary East End case was, in my view, a one-off perpetrated by neither the Torso "Killer" nor JTR.

What was it Whittington-Egan said about Fidos book all those years ago? "I want to believe it - but I can not".

If it had been all the same to you, we would not have learnt the word "strip", Gareth. You are welcome to take that fight, but don´t pretend you are unbiased.

[Fisherman]

The Typo correction is always a good one.

It is obviously Supposition from the context i would say.

I see you attempt to turn it aroun, classic!

It was YOU who said MANY.

I asked for evidence of this because i assumecthat you were talking of actual officers, not hypothetical ones.


At no point have I said not a single officer in 88 may have beleied this, because such a statement without facts would be foolish.

Steve

Yes, extremely foolish - it is quite obvious that it would be odd in the extreme if not a single copper entertained suspicion of a common originator of the crimes.
Which is of course what I have been saying all along.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. Other people open to the idea are for example Gary Barnett, Joshua Rogan and Debra Arif, as I understand things.

Like Steve i also respect the three mentioned but do any of them approach the topic with the attitude “this is such an obvious foregone conclusion that you are either ignorant or biased if you dont agree?”

[Elamarna]

The police in Eslöv had five fires and they said that they would be flummoxed if there was not a connection.

How is that for generic, Steve?


Which files did they have and what information was contained in them may one ask?

Pray tell me how that relates to evidence of similarities being generic rather than specific?
I asked for police who agreed with your view and you have supplied an example, that is all.

So, should the Eslöv police be ashamed or are they following a logical pattern telling them that crimes of a similar nature occurring in the same city at the same time will more often than not have the same originator?

What has ashamed got to do with the issue, total irrelevant to the debate.

Your bias lies in how you are inable to accept the simplest of logic if it speaks for a single killer, whereas you are very accomodating when it comes to disallowing it.

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

Some time back, you chose the wording "strips" for the Jackson flaps, and when I pointed it out, you said that you think slips are narrower than strips. Regardless, you opted for the term coined by Gareth in an effort to twist the evidence.

That is how bias looks. Take a look in a mirror and you will get another view of it.

Pot calling the kettle back. I still see no evidence.

It is interesting how it is comme il faut to call ME biased, whereas indignation has people crying their eyes out when they are met with the same accusation.

It was you you claimed those who do not agree are either bias or ignorant, stop playing the victim, its most unbecoming.

You shiver with discomfort when you hear the phrase "biased or ignorant" from me. But hey, if you are NOT biased or ignorant, then you are discerning and knowledgeable. And discerning and knowledgeable people reach logical and wise conclusions.

And it goes on, if we do not accept one view, we are wrong. Poor research is produced by such an approach.

I can see how you would like for me to say that I think that is what you have done, but I don´t think that at all. I think you have reached lousy conclusions, removed from all logic and painfully ignorant of the rate of dismemberment, mutilation and evisceration cases.

And so I say that. Even if it hurts to hear, and is not in any way promoting friendship and cameraderie. I never argue a case with that aim, because I think it is to do the topic a disservice. If I find that something lacks quality and insight, then I say so.

And I feel exactly the same about your efforts, confirmation bias at every single turn and a closed mind.


Steve

[Elamarna]

Other people open to the idea are for example Gary Barnett, Joshua Rogan and Debra Arif, as I understand things. I am happy to stand corrected if that is wrong, but overall I have the feeling that they find the suggestion a good and useful one.

Now, those determined NOT to link the series are you, Gareth and Steve...

And they are 3 individuals i greatly respect, that however does not mean we will always agree.

Please be aware, i am NOT determinded not to link, i am just not convince, which i have said many times; there is a very big difference.

Steve

[Sam Flynn]

Now, those determined NOT to link the series are you, Gareth and Steve...

Speaking for myself, it's by no means the case that I'm determined to not link the JTR and torso cases - I just don't see any significant reason to link them at all.

Indeed, I don't even see that all the torso cases are linked, as I see the Pinchin Street torso as probably the work of a different hand. A reasonable argument can be made to link some, if not all, of the West End torso cases, but the solitary East End case was, in my view, a one-off perpetrated by neither the Torso "Killer" nor JTR.

[Elamarna]

Is "suppersition" supposition or superstition? If it is the former, then yes, what is led on when one says "I think that..." is a supposition. If your supposition that not a single police in London ever speculated about a link, then that will have to stand for you.

The Typo correction is always a good one.

It is obviously Supposition from the context i would say.

I see you attempt to turn it aroun, classic!

It was YOU who said MANY.

I asked for evidence of this because i assumecthat you were talking of actual officers, not hypothetical ones.


At no point have I said not a single officer in 88 may have beleied this, because such a statement without facts would be foolish.



Steve

[Fisherman]

So the two voices at the moment who are determined to link the two series are Fish and Ed Stow

Other people open to the idea are for example Gary Barnett, Joshua Rogan and Debra Arif, as I understand things. I am happy to stand corrected if that is wrong, but overall I have the feeling that they find the suggestion a good and useful one.

Now, those determined NOT to link the series are you, Gareth and Steve...

[Fisherman]

One mans view is just that, no matter how respected, just a personal opinion.

Saying you are certain is one thing, saying those who disagree are bias or ignorant shows something different.

What bias do i have Christer?
My nature is to reject arguments without overwhelming evidence, if that is bias so be it.
However it applies all aspects of Ripper studies, not just the Torsos or Christer.

As i previously said show me something specific, something tangible and i will say yes,

But you have not, its all generic.


Steve

The police in Eslöv had five fires and they said that they would be flummoxed if there was not a connection.

How is that for generic, Steve?

So, should the Eslöv police be ashamed or are they following a logical pattern telling them that crimes of a similar nature occurring in the same city at the same time will more often than not have the same originator?

Your bias lies in how you are inable to accept the simplest of logic if it speaks for a single killer, whereas you are very accomodating when it comes to disallowing it.

Some time back, you chose the wording "strips" for the Jackson flaps, and when I pointed it out, you said that you think slips are narrower than strips. Regardless, you opted for the term coined by Gareth in an effort to twist the evidence.

That is how bias looks. Take a look in a mirror and you will get another view of it.

It is interesting how it is comme il faut to call ME biased, whereas indignation has people crying their eyes out when they are met with the same accusation.

You shiver with discomfort when you hear the phrase "biased or ignorant" from me. But hey, if you are NOT biased or ignorant, then you are discerning and knowledgeable. And discerning and knowledgeable people reach logical and wise conclusions.

I can see how you would like for me to say that I think that is what you have done, but I don´t think that at all. I think you have reached lousy conclusions, removed from all logic and painfully ignorant of the rate of dismemberment, mutilation and evisceration cases.

And so I say that. Even if it hurts to hear, and is not in any way promoting friendship and cameraderie. I never argue a case with that aim, because I think it is to do the topic a disservice. If I find that something lacks quality and insight, then I say so.