Same motive = same killer

[Fisherman]

Which i can only assume is me. No Fish, what im saying, and ill keep saying, is that you cant keep going on about ‘similarities’ whilst trying to airbrush the vast dissimilarities away. They point away from a connection.

No, Herlock, it was not you, it was Steve.

Dissimilarities can point away from a connection, but many do not point in any direction at all. But as I told you in the example with the cut off ears and the ensuing stitching up, all dissimilarities fade into oblivion when that happens.

Surely you can see this?

[Fisherman]

Were not you the one saying i was suggesting i knew better than the police earlier,
It seems you certainly do Christer.

You say to Trevor that you belive many police pondered a possible link, would you care to suggest who and provide evidence to back that up? Of is if purely suppersition

For many i would suggest at least 3- 4 examples to start with.

Steve

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.

[Fisherman]

He gave his opinion, not worth the paper it was written on. Doesnt matter how acclaimed he or anyone else is, or was. The same applies to all who come up with theories based on nothing more than personal opinions, Yours is based on your opinion, and the facts you have manipulated to fit your theory.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Which facts have I manipulated, Trevor? Answers, please!

[Trevor Marriott]

The bias is on your side, Steve - a big, fat negative bias, saying that we should not go with the logic but instead with itīs opposite pole.

Sorry, but thatīs what we have here. Plus an illogical poster who tries to turn it around by - for example - claiming that we can forget about the flaps, evidencewise. Thatīs one of the more disturbing moments of this debate, Iīd say.

Dear, dear me.

Are you aware, by the bye, that the much celebrated nestor of Ripperology, Richard Whittington-Egan, wrote that he was certain that the two series had the same originator?

He is very hard to call a biased good-for-nothing man. Thatīs why I mentioned it.

He gave his opinion, not worth the paper it was written on. Doesnt matter how acclaimed he or anyone else is, or was. The same applies to all who come up with theories based on nothing more than personal opinions, Yours is based on your opinion, and the facts you have manipulated to fit your theory.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Plus an illogical poster who tries to turn it around by - for example - claiming that we can forget about the flaps, evidencewise. Thatīs one of the more disturbing moments of this debate, Iīd say..

Which i can only assume is me. No Fish, what im saying, and ill keep saying, is that you cant keep going on about ‘similarities’ whilst trying to airbrush the vast dissimilarities away. They point away from a connection.

[Elamarna]

The bias is on your side, Steve - a big, fat negative bias, saying that we should not go with the logic but instead with itīs opposite pole.

Sorry, but thatīs what we have here. Plus an illogical poster who tries to turn it around by - for example - claiming that we can forget about the flaps, evidencewise. Thatīs one of the more disturbing moments of this debate, Iīd say.

Dear, dear me.

Are you aware, by the bye, that the much celebrated nestor of Ripperology, Richard Whittington-Egan, wrote that he was certain that the two series had the same originator?

He is very hard to call a biased good-for-nothing man. Thatīs why I mentioned it.

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

[Herlock Sholmes]

The case for was ptesented by Ed Stow, who made a good attempt to make the connections.
The denate was at times passonate, but always polite and respectful to each other.

For the record of the eight in attendence, one was for the link (Ed) one was open to it but not convinced and the other 6 to varing degrees saw no link.

According to your criteria all of those, not just me are either bias or ignorant.

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

[Elamarna]

"The police never suggested the series were linked"

That one?

I have answered it before - they were not up to scratch, Trevor. They had never seen cases like these, and they knew next to nothing about necrosadism, signature crimes, aggressive dismemerment and so on.

Apart from that, I think that many policemen pondered a possible link, but gave up on it on account of not being up to scratch as per the above.

Were not you the one saying i was suggesting i knew better than the police earlier,
It seems you certainly do Christer.

You say to Trevor that you belive many police pondered a possible link, would you care to suggest who and provide evidence to back that up? Of is if purely suppersition

For many i would suggest at least 3- 4 examples to start with.

Steve

[Fisherman]

Only in your opinion Christer, and thats the issue.

The differences are far more important than the superficial similarities you work with.
Give me something specific, rather than generic.

Did i say they were friends?

The point was that the evidence fails to convince the vast majority of researchers, few would i hope completely exclude the possibility, for such would exhibit a bias as big as that you have demonstrated abundantly today.


Steve

i

The bias is on your side, Steve - a big, fat negative bias, saying that we should not go with the logic but instead with itīs opposite pole.

Sorry, but thatīs what we have here. Plus an illogical poster who tries to turn it around by - for example - claiming that we can forget about the flaps, evidencewise. Thatīs one of the more disturbing moments of this debate, Iīd say.

Dear, dear me.

Are you aware, by the bye, that the much celebrated nestor of Ripperology, Richard Whittington-Egan, wrote that he was certain that the two series had the same originator?

He is very hard to call a biased good-for-nothing man. Thatīs why I mentioned it.

[Elamarna]

How many times have you pondered the idea that you could be wrong on this? It is not a case of me being very certain and you being hesitating, is it? The only difference is that I am not saying that you are too sure about things and will not yeld for anything in the world.

It is nevertheless true.

I have looked constantly for evidence to link the cases, there is no reason not to after all.
The point is that what you see as important does not convince the vast majority, and rather than look for further evidence all we get is the same over and over, and if we dare to disagree we are told we are bias and ignorant.

Now i fully understand this gets heated and sometimes things are said which are really not justified . However you seemingly apply that to any who will not accept your view.

Steve

[Fisherman]

In your inimitable journalistic way you find yet another way to deflect away from answering the post.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

"The police never suggested the series were linked"

That one?

I have answered it before - they were not up to scratch, Trevor. They had never seen cases like these, and they knew next to nothing about necrosadism, signature crimes, aggressive dismemerment and so on.

Apart from that, I think that many policemen pondered a possible link, but gave up on it on account of not being up to scratch as per the above.

[Trevor Marriott]

Actually, the indians were the ones saying "White man speaks with a forked tongue".

So - surprise, surprise - it is once again the other way around, Trevor.

In your inimitable journalistic way you find yet another way to deflect away from answering the post.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

Large sections of the abdominal wall were removed in the three cases I speak of.

You write that this is the commonest way to remove such flesh, to cut it out with subcutaneous tissue attaching.

What you do NOT write, it was never common at all to cut the abdominal wall away - on the contrary, it is extremely rare.

It is therefore not only a link between the series, but also a very important link.

Whether you and five of your friends agree or not is neither here nor there. It is not a popularity contest, it is about significant evidence in the Ripper/Torso cases.

Only in your opinion Christer, and thats the issue.

The differences are far more important than the superficial similarities you work with.
Give me something specific, rather than generic.

Did i say they were friends?

The point was that the evidence fails to convince the vast majority of researchers, few would i hope completely exclude the possibility, for such would exhibit a bias as big as that you have demonstrated abundantly today.


Steve

i

[Fisherman]

It works like this.

You form an opinion. Anyone who disagrees is biased or ignorant. Of course theres no possibility that you could be wrong. Harp on about ‘similarities’ but ‘explain away’ the differences with any fanciful arguements.

This is exactly like the Lechmere debate. You make up your mind and thats it. It must be true.

How many times have you pondered the idea that you could be wrong on this? ( I have asked myself that question a few times, but not lately - itīs always a "nope")
It is not a case of me being very certain and you being hesitating, is it? The only difference is that I am not saying that you are too sure about things and will not yeld for anything in the world.

It is nevertheless true.

[Fisherman]

Firstly Christer, you are not the police, but a researcher like any other,. If anyone can make a case to speak for the police it is the likes of Trevor, who actually was one.

When have the police said there are far reaching similarities in this case?
I mean the police as a organisation rather than individuals retired or still serving.

No you have taken what you would like to be the evidence and attempted to present it in a form to convince others, unfortunately for you that attempt is far from successful.

Steve

I donīt feel unfortunate at all. I feel that the argument I am making was long overdue and much needed.

Thatīs why I donīt listen to your attempts to try and belittle and dishearten, Steve. I find such things disinteresting at best.