Same motive = same killer

[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!

[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?

[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]

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.

[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?

[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.

[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?

[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?

[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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

I return to a point that i made before. If it is so glaringly obvious why do people disagree with you? Why is there a debate? Why your conclusion over theirs? Just because of apparent similarities in 2 crimes which you seem to think is so staggeringly remarkable that no other conclusion can be drawn. No, you cannot keep dismissing the chasm of differences Fish. You are picking and choosing what is important and what is not.

[harry]

Fisherman,
You wrote in a previous post that you didn't know me,so here is a photo.
You are not the kneeling person are you?.
Here is a question that you do not have to search for,and it is relevant.'What,in a murder trial is the first element that has to be proven'.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,
You wrote in a previous post that you didn't know me,so here is a photo.
You are not the kneeling person are you?.
Here is a question that you do not have to search for,and it is relevant.'What,in a murder trial is the first element that has to be proven'.

Why are they restraining you on the picture, Harry?

I don´t think that I am up for games like the ones you are suggesting. If you want to say that it is not proven in the torso cases that the victims were murdered, then say that right out and don´t beat about the bush.

Not that it will take us any further, since we all know out here that murder was not proven in any of the torso cases - albeit the classification in some of them WAS wilful murder.

The fewest speculate that they were not murders. The consensus has been that they were for the last 130 years.

[Fisherman]

I return to a point that i made before. If it is so glaringly obvious why do people disagree with you? Why is there a debate? Why your conclusion over theirs? Just because of apparent similarities in 2 crimes which you seem to think is so staggeringly remarkable that no other conclusion can be drawn. No, you cannot keep dismissing the chasm of differences Fish. You are picking and choosing what is important and what is not.

Am I? So you consider it trivial and commonplace when uteri are cut out, when hearts are excised and when abdominal walls are taken away in large flaps?

The disagreements you refer to are led on either by a humongous bias or by ignorance.

I have pointed out that there are no other two series of murders with as far-reaching similarities of so odd a character in the history of crime.

If that is correct, then there can be no doubt that we MUST accept that there was just the one killer.

If it is wrong, then my premise is wrong. And it is up to anybody to show me that it is wrong. The records are there, the listing are there of serial killers, so go ahead and disprove me.

So my certainty can be tested, to see if it is based on sound facts. Test away, Herlock.

Saying that other ripperologists disagree with me and claiming that as proof that I am wrong will never work. If it sounds presumptious on my behalf to say that they are wrong and I am right, then so be it. If it is rude not to take the side of the majority, then so be it. As long as I am correct in saying that the list of similarities ensures that one killer only is by far the most logical bid, then I am fine with being called rude and too unwilling to adjust to what others think.

[Fisherman]

I cannot understand why we are still discussing why dissimilarities are not as important as similarities.

I will once again examplify how it works.

Let´s imagine two murders that are hugely different in a large amount of respects:

Murder one: James Johnson, a 72-year old widower is murdered in Preston in June of 2019. He is found on the beach outside his house, lying beside his boat, where he has been working with the interior. His skull has been cracked by a blow with a rock, that is lying beside the body. Johnson was known to have no enemies, and he was well liked by everybody he knew.

Murder two: Misty Cole, a 21-year oldprostitute, is killed in November 2020, in London. She has a nasty reputation of robbing punters, she is known to have been involved in the drug trade and she was well and truly hated by her neighbours. She is found in her own apartment, naked on the bed. She has been strangled, and her abdomen has been opened up and the uterus is missing. Somebody has carved in the word "bitch" on her forehead with a knife.

Now, can two murders be much more dissimilar than these? The dissimilarities are total, different year, different place, different sex, different victimology, different murder methods, different generations, different social circumstances - different everything.

Is there any reason at all to suspect the same killer? No. None whatsoever.

Now, lets add a similarity. Let´s say that both victims had their right ear cut away, and that the killer had subsequently stitched up the wound before leaving the murder place.

What reaction would that cause among the police? Would they say "let´s forget about it, it is just a coincidence?" Or would they say "strange as it may seem, it nevertheless applies that the ear damage and ensuing stitching together of the wounds mean that we must work from the presumption that these two murders are somehow connected, although God knows how."

One single similarity will always outweigh all of the dissimilarities, if it is specific and peculiar enough and if the dissimilarities do not conclusively prove that there were two killers. Otherwise, it is up to the police to find out why an earcutting and woundstitching killer would kill two very different people in different towns and years.

[Sam Flynn]

Never mind the fictitious examples, Fish. Never mind the real examples of other crimes, for that matter. Neither will get us anywhere.

Why not just stick to the facts of the Ripper and Torso cases? And I mean the precise facts, not your interpretation of them. So for example, we say "West London" and "East London" when we refer to where the women met their end, not just "London" or "the same town". Similarly, we don't call the Torso Killer a "womb taker" because he only did that once. Oh, and of course we must speak of throat cutting (JTR) versus decapitation (torsos), and refrain from using the over-generalised and imprecise "neck cutting", and similar fudges.