Same motive = same killer

[Elamarna]

It is not quantifiable as such, but it is nevertheless a certainty that the more similarities there are and the more unusual they are, the greater the chance of a common killer.

If two women are strangled in Britain the same year, they MAY have the same killer.

If two women are strangled in Brixton the same week, both of them having had their uteri taken away and the abdominal wall removed, then that increases the likelihood of the same killer immensely, compared to the previous two cases.

It actually increases that likelihood to beyond the point of any reasonable doubt about that thing.

It is perhaps not science as such, but it is something that cannot be denied. Try, and weīll see!

There you see Christer is the issue for me:

Your example of 2, both strangled and mutilated in a small area such a Brixton, is not to me, comparable to murders spread over a large time period, and over what was at the time one of the largest metroplis's in the World.


Steve

[Fisherman]

So you have said for a very long time.
I look forward at some stage to seeing the proposed link.


Steve

You have already seen it, Steve. But not recognized it.

[Fisherman]

There you see Christer is the issue for me:

Your example of 2, both strangled and mutilated in a small area such a Brixton, is not to me, comparable to murders spread over a large time period, and over what was at the time one of the largest metroplis's in the World.


Steve

Do you understand and acknowledge the principle, Steve?

[Elamarna]

Sorry, but if you say that they must not be regarded as the same manīs work, you are wrong. You may well propose a gigantic fluke, but I would not recommend putting any sort of faith in it.

It is not a question of "can" or "may" - those are far too uncertain terms. It is a case of something that is beyond reasonable doubt, and that should rightfully be regarded as something that - short of the eighth wonder of the world - is the truth.

And that is where we differ is it not Christer,

Your degree of certainty on items for which there is no measurable evidence is to me, and I do not mean this rudely or insulting, beyond what a reasonable researcher should claim

However we are all different, and you have said before you believe I am too restrained or conservative in my approach. Such as us are unlikely to agree with those very different approaches to research.

Steve

[Elamarna]

Do you understand and acknowledge the principle, Steve?

Yes of course I do, but I do not see such applies in this particular set of cases.
Just because I do not agree it does not mean I am wrong, or that you are either.

It's that dreaded interpretation as you said yesterday I think.
If we all just agreed with each other, there would be no interest in the subject.


Steve

[Fisherman]

And that is where we differ is it not Christer,

Your degree of certainty on items for which there is no measurable evidence is to me, and I do not mean this rudely or insulting, beyond what a reasonable researcher should claim

However we are all different, and you have said before you believe I am too restrained or conservative in my approach. Such as us are unlikely to agree with those very different approaches to research.

Steve

There are many certainties that cannot be measured, Steve. if putting things in numbers is the only way for you to accept something, you will miss out on quite a few things.

As for the jibe about "reasonable researchers", Iīd say that if you were a policeman investigating two cases like these and did not accept how one killer only was the only reasonable solution, you would be incompetent and irresponsible.

And that is not rudely meant either. It is a useful piece of advice.

[Elamarna]

You have already seen it, Steve. But not recognized it.

Well that is very illuminating, it could be anything.,No doubt the dreaded different interpretations again will appear.

[Elamarna]

There are many certainties that cannot be measured, Steve. if putting things in numbers is the only way for you to accept something, you will miss out on quite a few things.

As for the jibe about "reasonable researchers", Iīd say that if you were a policeman investigating two cases like these and did not accept how one killer only was the only reasonable solution, you would be incompetent and irresponsible.

And that is not rudely meant either. It is a useful piece of advice.

That is your OPINION, and may or may not be true.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Yes of course I do, but I do not see such applies in this particular set of cases.
Steve

Basically meaning that you think that when three prostituted victims over a period of nine months, in the same city, are killed and:
-Have their necks cut
-Have their uteri taken out
-Have their abdomens ripped open from sternum to pelvis
-Have their abdominal walls cut away in large flaps

... then there is no need to make the assumption that the killer is one and the same. It is just as likely that two or three killers are responsible.

I can only say that when you reason that we are likely to disagree fortwith over this, you are hitting the nail on the head.

Good to hear, anyways, that you understand and acknowledge the principle. In spite of it being unscientific...

[Debra A]

Thanks, Steve,

Dr. Hebbert had this to say about the Whitehall case.

"As will be gathered from the description, the arm in the second case had been cut from the trunk in a precisely similar manner to that in the first case; in fact, as soon as I saw the arm I was struck by the close resemblance of the modes of separation, and the mutilation of the trunk was in every respect identical."

That leaves very little doubt Dr. Hebbert thought the Rainham case and Whitehall case were linked.

Jerry, there's little doubt that Hebbert thought Rainham, Whitehall, Elizabeth Jackson and Pinchin were a related series. He mentions the reasons in his Forensic essays published in 88 and 89. He even noted progression of skill in opening of the joints through the four cases. In his 1903 Criminology article he also says that the two series: 87-89 dismemberment cases and the Ripper murders, were two separate series with differing motives.

[Fisherman]

Jerry, there's little doubt that Hebbert thought Rainham, Whitehall, Elizabeth Jackson and Pinchin were a related series. He mentions the reasons in his Forensic essays published in 88 and 89. He even noted progression of skill in opening of the joints through the four cases. In his 1903 Criminology article he also says that the two series: 87-89 dismemberment cases and the Ripper murders, were two separate series with differing motives.

The exact same mistake is done today - we think that we can discern different motives behind the series. Itīs an easy enough mistake to make, but one I fear has cost the research dearly.

[Fisherman]

That is your OPINION, and may or may not be true.


Steve

That is another way of wording things that are almost certainly true, or true beyond reasonable doubt - it may or may not be true.

The things semantics can do for us!

[Debra A]

True, but that's the minimum size the slips could have been. They could also, between them, have comprised the entire front of the abdominal wall, from pubis via hip crests to sternum. Which might easily make them twice as long as their widest extent.



It would be handy for us if he had. But if you were attempting to remove an enlarged uterus and other internal organs from a body, would you widen your initial incision just a little bit, or as much as possible?

I agree JR.


One thing to consider is that the newspapers who reported on the first parcel find at Horsleydown describe it as containing a uterus and placenta and variously an "abdomen", "the lower portion of a woman's body", "the lower part of a woman's abdomen, cut in two", and similarly worded descriptions.

As I have mentioned many many times before in trying to convince that the uterus was removed from the body; the bony pelvis was found in the Thames at a much later date than the Horsleydown parcel.

The lower portion of the vagina and the front of the bladder were still in the bony pelvis.
In the Horsleydown parcel, the uterus still had the upper part of the vagina attached to it and the other portion of the bladder, showing these had been cut through to remove the uterus entirely from the pelvis.

If Elizabeth's unborn child had been removed from her uterus and thin slips of skin removed to facilitate removal of the foetus from the uterus, and these both done to facilitate dismemberment as suggested; why then go on to remove the uterus as well? An empty uterus is not an obstacle to dismembering and disposing of a body is it?


I think it was Mei Trow who gave the impression that the lower portion of Elizabeth's trunk was found entire with the uterus still in the pelvic cavity, this in incorrect.

The portions of flesh from the abdomen and the uterus had an inquest conducted at Wapping by Wynne Baxter and opened on June 6th. There was no medical evidence heard at that time, just the witness evidence regarding the finding of the parcel and what its contents were. This inquest was eventually closed in favour of the other inquest that had been opened in a different district on the portions of the same body found there.

[Debra A]

The exact same mistake is done today - we think that we can discern different motives behind the series. Itīs an easy enough mistake to make, but one I fear has cost the research dearly.

Just trying to put contemporary opinions out there, Christer.

[Fisherman]

One thing to consider is that the newspapers who reported on the first parcel find at Horsleydown describe it as containing a uterus and placenta and variously an "abdomen", "the lower portion of a woman's body", "the lower part of a woman's abdomen, cut in two", and similarly worded descriptions.

Thatīs as clear as anybody could ask for - nobody in their right mind would describe two narrow slips of flesh like "the lower part of a womanīs abdomen, cut in two".