Same motive = same killer

[Fisherman]

So please refrain from the continual ‘hurt feelings’ ploy when people disagree with you.

When people disagree with me in a less hurtful way, that will happen. As of now, I am being called idiot for not agreeing.

[Fisherman]

Does it have anything to do with Lechmere?

No. Lechmere is a candidate, of course, not least on account of his age (most fall away with the 1873 victim, whereas others, like Tumblety, do so with the later victims), but the factor I am referring to is in no way tied to Lechmere.

Actually, I much prefer not to bring Lechmere into the discussion of the Ripper/Torso series.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. I did, yes. There is what seemingly is a common factor behind the appearances of the victims. It has to do with the inspiration grounds for the deeds, and I find it quite compelling myself.

That, however, was never a guarantee that others would be swayed in equal degree

Does it have anything to do with Lechmere?

[Herlock Sholmes]

. But basically, if you beleive in two killers, you ARE biased or ignorant. I could lie about it, I suppose, to ease the pain - but why would I?

So please refrain from the continual ‘hurt feelings’ ploy when people disagree with you.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Does one really need to mske this any simpler.

Its not about similarity or differences or where the section is cut from.

If you cut away and remove from the rest of the body a section of the abdomenial wall, it can legitmately be reffered to as a "flap".

Therefore any attack to the abdomen which resulted in a section being cut away could be by your definition said to be a link, its so wide anything can be included .


STEVE

Ive always refrained from the ‘flap’ issue so im glad to hear my ‘layman’ doubts voiced by Steve.
How many ways are there to ‘damage’ the walls of an abdomen? Surely, when setting out to cause all manner of internal carnage, some damage to the walls is likely? Why talk as if this is some kind of ‘done deal’ signature?

[Elamarna]

Oh, you are trying the "illusions of grandeur" angle again...! Sorry, Steve, it is not a question about agreeing or not agreeing with me. It is a question of agreeing or not agreeing with the kind of logic the police employs in cases like these.
I agree with how the police work.

But YOU seem to think you are better than them? (hint, hint; illusions of grandeur...)

what you have said completely displays "delusions of grandeur "

The police make mistakes, always have always will, to try and hide behind such makes it even worse.


Its really very simple, any researcher in serious academia who made such comments as:

"But basically, if you beleive in two killers, you ARE biased or ignorant. I could lie about it, I suppose, to ease the pain - but"

would undoubtedly be shunned by their peers, and rightly so as they display no respect for other views.

Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

Oh, you are trying the "illusions of grandeur" angle again...! Sorry, Steve, it is not a question about agreeing or not agreeing with me. It is a question of agreeing or not agreeing with the kind of logic the police employs in cases like these.
I agree with how the police work.

But YOU seem to think you are better than them? (hint, hint; illusions of grandeur...)

But the police never suggested the crimes were linked.

Instead of being a fisherman you should have been a red indian, they were known to speak with a forked tongue 😛

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

In which respect?

In the respect that we cannot know that the flaps were similar?

Or in the respect we cannot know that flaps were cut away from the abdominal wall?

Like I said, I had that sinking feeling that the debate was about to go semantic.

Does one really need to mske this any simpler.

Its not about similarity or differences or where the section is cut from.

If you cut away and remove from the rest of the body a section of the abdomenial wall, it can legitmately be reffered to as a "flap".

Therefore any attack to the abdomen which resulted in a section being cut away could be by your definition said to be a link, its so wide anything can be included .


STEVE

[Fisherman]

Well we all know that you are Living in your own world of fantasy you have just confirmed it

Go and reads Debs posts on forum

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I already have. And I know quite well that she does not rule out murder in any way. And that is because, like me, she knows quite well that such cannot be done.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, it is not "clearly the case" that Jackson was not murdered. Not in the universe I am living in.

Well we all know that you are Living in your own world of fantasy you have just confirmed it

Go and reads Debs posts on forum

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

No its not semantics, ypu said if anyone did not accept YOUR opinion they are either bias or ignorant.

The quote was:

"But basically, if you beleive in two killers, you ARE biased or ignorant. I could lie about it, I suppose, to ease the pain - but"


That very comment displays both of the attributes you ascribe to those who disagree with you.

Steve

Oh, you are trying the "illusions of grandeur" angle again...! Sorry, Steve, it is not a question about agreeing or not agreeing with me. It is a question of agreeing or not agreeing with the kind of logic the police employs in cases like these.
I agree with how the police work.

But YOU seem to think you are better than them? (hint, hint; illusions of grandeur...)

[Fisherman]

Its not a question, it a statement of fact, any section of the abdomenial wall which is removed could be refered to as a flap if one wanted. Its a generic term and completely and absolutely worthless as it stands for ANY comparision between cases.

Steve

In which respect?

In the respect that we cannot know that the flaps were similar?

Or in the respect we cannot know that flaps were cut away from the abdominal wall?

Like I said, I had that sinking feeling that the debate was about to go semantic.

[Elamarna]

Why do I have this sinking feeling that the debate is about to become one of semantics again...?

No its not semantics, ypu said if anyone did not accept YOUR opinion they are either bias or ignorant.

The quote was:

"But basically, if you beleive in two killers, you ARE biased or ignorant. I could lie about it, I suppose, to ease the pain - but"




That very comment displays both of the attributes you ascribe to those who disagree with you.



Steve

[Elamarna]

I was rather wondering which parts YOU were thinking of, since you spoke of the "abdomen" and not the abdominal wall. The last time somebody tried to make a meal out of this was when Gareth said that the journalists were not to be relied upon since they said that the two flaps made up the lower part of a womans abdomen. AHA! Said Gareth - the cheating bastards are talking about the abdomen when we know it was only the wall that was cut! So therefore, the journalists were not to be taken seriously!

You see, it is antics like these that make me a bit wary about people speaking about how I would call any part cut from "the abdomen" a flap. And that is why I say that there need be no such discussion, since the wall only was what is being scrutinized.

If you still don´t get what I am saying, you must rephrase your question, Steve.

If you are saying that we cannot compare the flaps, then I have said that long before you. And I have added that the true issue is that there were substantial flaps cut away from the abdominal wall in wach of the three cases I refer to, and REGARDLESS OF THE SHAPE OF THE FLAPS, this is a mindblowing similarity of a practice that is utterly rare.

Its not a question, it a statement of fact, any section of the abdomenial wall which is removed could be refered to as a flap if one wanted. Its a generic term and completely and absolutely worthless as it stands for ANY comparision between cases.

Steve

[Elamarna]

The similarities inbetween the series IS solid evidence. We know for certain that these similarities were present and we know that no comparable set of odd differences has been found in any other two cases of serial murder, so we are on safe ground when saying that one killer only is the only logical solution.

You should also be aware that objective reseach (I am not the one interpreting away here) and logical thinking ( I am the one sticking with the statistics) are the prime factors behind my position.

Sluggish, unsubstantiated denial was never my thing anyway.

My dear Christer,

You have said anyone who disagree with your view is either ignorant or bias. Twice i believe?

You are interpreting , all the way, no hard facts to back ypu

Quoting you are using statisics does not show logical thinking, it again is about interpreting a very limited data set, no more than a hundred or so years out of human history, the way that you wish to.

The truth is that anyone who makes such statements about those who disagree is abdicating the position of serious objective researcher.


Steve