Same motive = same killer

[Fisherman]

Ok, hypothetically speaking then.

2 series of fires.

Both series in different areas of the same city.
One series happens within a few streets of each other.
Both show different methods.
One series start minor but increase in seriousness while the other shows no increase.
One series has an additional factor when compared with the other.

Yet one crime from each series show some similarities. Do we throw out all of the dissimilarities because of similarities in one pair?

That depends on the type of similarity.

If the similarity consists of how matches of a very rare type, originating from WWI, have been used in both these cases, then the police will immediately suspect a common originator, Herlock.

Or if a 7 foot man has been seen running from both sites, singing "Waltzing Matilda", the same thing applies.

It is a question of the rarity and specificity of the similarity. There are similarities that will outweigh any dissimilarities that are not factually unbridgeable. And we don´t have any unbridgeable dissimilarities in our case, do we?

It is very, very rare with killers who take out uteri. It is very, very rare with killerswho take away hearts. And killers who cut away the abdominal wall in large flaps are practically speaking unheard of.

So EACH OF THESE PARAMETERS would have the police thinking that the same killer was responsible. Combine the three, and there is not a copper in the whole wide world who would not swear to it. And for extremely sound reasons.

You know, there are moments when I cannot believe that there is even a discussion about this, let alone a very heated one.

As I say, the similarities must be proven to be false before there is any reason at all to speculate about two killers. There was just the one, and he was into disassembling women. That is what the evidence tells us, and it is a fantastic thing that we may now conclude this. It will revolutionize how we look upon this man, and it will provide us with tools allowing us to come a lot closer to who he was.

Let´s not throw that away.

[Fisherman]

But what Fisherman can't see is that dismemberment is not the same as evisceration, so his analogy with arson is invalid.

Of course I don´t confuse dismemberment and evisceration, Gareth. Where on earth did you get that from?

And any analogy with any type of crime is very valid, one we realize that a spree or series of crimes of the same general kind in the same area and at the same time will ALWAYS make the policespeculate of a common originator. Arson or not.

How´s it going with the yes/no questions? Can I have an answer to mine, please? With no deflections?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ok, hypothetically speaking then.

2 series of fires.

Both series in different areas of the same city.
One series happens within a few streets of each other.
Both show different methods.
One series start minor but increase in seriousness while the other shows no increase.
One series has an additional factor when compared with the other.

Yet one crime from each series show some similarities. Do we throw out all of the dissimilarities because of similarities in one pair?

[Sam Flynn]

Fish, the answer is obvious as you well know. 5 fires, one town, same timescale, with just one at a different time of the day.

But what Fisherman can't see is that dismemberment is not the same as evisceration, so his analogy with arson is invalid.

[Fisherman]

Fish, the answer is obvious as you well know. 5 fires, one town, same timescale, with just one at a different time of the day. Of course its reasonable to say that its possible that they are the work of the same man.

But if there were four fires started on wasteland within a small localised area in the late evening/early hours and there was one fire started in a school, mid-morning 3 miles away from the other fires we would suspect a different perpetrator.

But they don´t say it is "possible", Herlock. They say that they would be flummoxed if it was NOT the same man. In other words, far from being a mere possibility, it is the police´s bet that it IS the same perp.
By the way, there ARE three very closely connected fires (a playing ground, a container fire and a garage fire) in terms of distance, whereas one (another garage fire) is further afield, and the fifth and latest struck more than two miles away from the "epicenter" and burnt down a whole block.

Of course you are right - it is the similarities (setting fires in this case) that rule the day here, and that is why the police opt for a single perpetrator.

I wonder what they would have guessed if they had had two women killed with the kind of damage I listed? I mean, if one of them was dismembered and the other not?

[Fisherman]

Am I not going to get a single yes or no question? Not one?

I´m off to the gym now. You can try me when I return.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There´s nothing wrong with keeping an eye on the alternatives, Herlock. If it can be proven that the dismilarities are not true similarities, plan B (two killers) must be explored.

But that lies in the future.

You have not answered me what your take is on the Eslöv police. Why do you suppose they say that they cannot imagine that there is no connection inbetween the five fires they have had recently?
What could be the cause of such a statement? What led it on? On what type of experience are they grounding the idea? A lack of matches in Eslöv? Any thoughts?

Fish, the answer is obvious as you well know. 5 fires, one town, same timescale, with just one at a different time of the day. Of course its reasonable to say that its possible that they are the work of the same man.

But if there were four fires started on wasteland within a small localised area in the late evening/early hours and there was one fire started in a school, mid-morning 3 miles away from the other fires we would suspect a different perpetrator.

[Fisherman]

Why is it Fish thats its completely relevent when discussing ‘likelihood’s’ of the similarities of mutilations and yet we are wasting our time discussing likelihoods in any other sphere?

Is it likely that the killer stored the bodies for a period of time rather than ‘kill, dismember and distribute all in one day? - i would suggest that it is likely.

If bodies required ‘storage’ does that reduce the likelihood that these premises were ‘shared? - i would suggest that it would.

Does the need for storage eliminate the possibilty of a premises being used out of hours? - yes it would.

The alternative likelihood therefore would appear to be be that the killer either owned his own premises or had permanent and sole access to them. If this was the case then the question has to be asked - why did he not avail himself of these premises everytime rather than morph into Jack?

I dont see anything wrong with looking along these lines except for the fact that the ‘likelihood’ points away from TK and Jack being one and the same.

There´s nothing wrong with keeping an eye on the alternatives, Herlock. If it can be proven that the similarities are not true similarities, then plan B (two killers) must be explored.

But that lies in the future.

You have not answered me what your take is on the Eslöv police. Why do you suppose they say that they cannot imagine that there is no connection inbetween the five fires they have had recently?
What could be the cause of such a statement? What led it on? On what type of experience are they grounding the idea? A lack of matches in Eslöv? Any thoughts?

[Fisherman]

No it isn't, especially when the dissimilarities are huge and the similarities are superficial, irrelevant and/or exaggerated.

That is 100 per cent true - if the dissimilarities are unbridgeable and the similarities superficial, small and irrelevant, one must go with the dissimilarities.

However, this is not the case here. I know that you have made a lot of nifty suggestions about how superficial and irrelevant the similarities were, but the truth is that no such thing has been or will be established.

To be more precise, we are speaking of two kinds of similarities: real similarities and false ones (similarities that only seem to be similarities, but are really not).

In the case at hand, there is no proof either way. We only know that there are many and rare similarities - true OR false.

And before it can be proven that they are false (which will never happen, by the way), we can only say that we KNOW that
-uteri were taken
-abdomens were opened up
-neck and throats were cut
-rings disappeared from victims fingers
-large flaps of flesh and subcutaneous tissue were cut away from the abdominal walls
-hearts were taken away
-lungs were either taken away or torn away
-victims were prostitutes

You are predisposing that these similarities are all, each and every one of them, false, but you cannot prove your point in one single case. So accordingly, we must regard the cases as extremely clearly connected until that happens. The fewest murder series have so many and so odd similarities tying them together. Normally it is about bashed in heads and/or strangulations and rapes, end of story. But we have an abundance of very rare similarities. We should count ourselves lucky, not sulk and say "NO!"

That´s how we do it, that´s how the police do it, and that stands until further notice. You effort to stop a logical and long overdue process are however noted as a side remark in the protocol; fair´s fair.

How about the yes and no questions? We will get VERY far in no time at all, I promise!

[Sam Flynn]

It is choosing dissimilarities over similarities, which is doing things backwards.

No it isn't, especially when the dissimilarities are huge and the similarities are superficial, irrelevant and/or exaggerated.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. We won´t get anywhere with this kind of discussion. Yes, the killer would probably have preferred a private bolthole, and no, that does not mean that he must have used such a location.
The "likelyhood" questions, if you like, are secondary. They remain so. What we can see is that IN SPITE of perceived differences, we NEVERTHELESS have overwhelming similarities that tell us that perceived differences have been overcome.

Why is it Fish thats its completely relevent when discussing ‘likelihood’s’ of the similarities of mutilations and yet we are wasting our time discussing likelihoods in any other sphere?

Is it likely that the killer stored the bodies for a period of time rather than ‘kill, dismember and distribute all in one day? - i would suggest that it is likely.

If bodies required ‘storage’ does that reduce the likelihood that these premises were ‘shared? - i would suggest that it would.

Does the need for storage eliminate the possibilty of a premises being used out of hours? - yes it would.

The alternative likelihood therefore would appear to be be that the killer either owned his own premises or had permanent and sole access to them. If this was the case then the question has to be asked - why did he not avail himself of these premises everytime rather than morph into Jack?

I dont see anything wrong with looking along these lines except for the fact that the ‘likelihood’ points away from TK and Jack being one and the same.

[Fisherman]

How about answering my question/s, Gareth? Yes or no?

It is looooooooooong overdue now. People will think that you cannot answer.

Me, I can answer any yes or no question you can think of. Try me.

[Fisherman]

Good questions, Josh. My take on it below:No sign of that whatsoever. If there had been, we might expect to have seen greater consistency between each and every case. As it is, we don't even get much consistency in terms of the manner of dismemberment, never mind evisceration.
Almost certainly. Removing certain viscera would make the pieces easier to transport (lighter, less messy) and/or reduce a mass of readily-decomposable soft tissue before it started to stink.

you dont KNOW if there was a consistency. If we had known for sure that the Rainham and Whitehall torsos were eviscerated, your point here would have gone out of the window.
And to be frank, once we know quite well that the killer removed the organs from Jackson, it becomes a very good bet that this was the case with the Rainham and Whitehall victims too. Not least since the Rainham victim was disassembled in the same manner and lost the same organs, but for the uterus.

As for your "almost certainly", that is just wrong. End of. No such certainty is within sight. It is nothing but a hope on your behalf, and a forlorn one at that. Your unwillingness to acknowledge for years that the uterus was taken out by the killer in Jacksons behalf tells the whole story about how you weigh these matters up.

[Fisherman]

A couple of points:

Firstly on your suggestion Fish that the killer might have had shared access to a building or possibly access to premises out of work hours. Its seems likely to me that the TK wouldnt have distributed the body parts on any kind of ‘milk run.’ More likely that they would have been distributed over a period of days which means that the bodies would have had to have been stored. This surely speaks against a shared premises or access to out-of-hours premises? Of course there is also the risk of leaving incriminating evidence to possibly be found by someone else with access to the building; blood, a small item of clothing or property; a leg( )

We won´t get anywhere with this kind of discussion. Yes, the killer would probably have preferred a private bolthole, and no, that does not mean that he must have used such a location.
The "likelyhood" questions, if you like, are secondary. They remain so. What we can see is that IN SPITE of perceived differences, we NEVERTHELESS have overwhelming similarities that tell us that perceived differences have been overcome.

Secondly, i think i can say with confidence that no one seriously ascribes any significance to the locations of the ripper murders unless someone subscribes to some kind of black magic solution. The only suggested significance is that their proximity suggests one killer. The ripper killed where he was taken by his victim; it made no difference to him where it was as long as he had enough time and privacy to do what he wanted to do. How do we square this with the Whitehall Torso where the killer negotiated a veritable assualt course of dangers to place the Torso where it was found.

If the Whitehall torso was killed in a safe location, the killer will then have pondered his options about where to dump her. We know that he dumped on land and in the river, so he clearly was able and willing to do more than he needed to. The Scotland Yard building was a placing that would guarantee maximum press coverage. If he wanted that, it was a clever move on his behalf.
He risked a lot when killing in the streets, and he reisled a lot when dumping in Whitehall. There is still no obstacle that cannot be overcome, is there? It is all about perceived differences and not recognizing the very wide similarities for what they are. It is choosing dissimilarities over similarities, which is doing things backwards.

[Sam Flynn]

Good questions, Josh. My take on it below:

Is this evidence of the dismemberer showing a special interest in these organs

No sign of that whatsoever. If there had been, we might expect to have seen greater consistency between each and every case. As it is, we don't even get much consistency in terms of the manner of dismemberment, never mind evisceration.

or were they removed when necessary because they were cut (or to avoid cutting them) as part of the process of reducing the torsos to more managable sized pieces?

Almost certainly. Removing certain viscera would make the pieces easier to transport (lighter, less messy) and/or reduce a mass of readily-decomposable soft tissue before it started to stink.