Same motive = same killer

[Herlock Sholmes]

And I have never called YOU one. And we would both be wrong if we did.

I didnīt say that you did call me an idiot - but it has been done nevertheless.

But i, along with Steve, Gareth and Trevor, am either biased or ignorant!

So thats ok then

[Fisherman]

But i, along with Steve, Gareth and Trevor, am either biased or ignorant!

So thats ok then

I think you are, Iīm afraid. Not ignorant as in stupid, but ignorant as in "do/will not understand how this particular matter works".

And if you ask me "But YOU do???", the answer is yes.

It works both ways, actually: You donīt think that I understand how it works, do you?

[Herlock Sholmes]

It is not collateral damage we are speaking of. It is about the intentional cutting away of large sections of the abdominal wall, Herlock.

And are there such a huge variety of ways of achieving this that 2 can be definitely identified as being by the same perpetrator?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think you are, Iīm afraid. Not ignorant as in stupid, but ignorant as in "do/will not understand how this particular matter works".

And if you ask me "But YOU do???", the answer is yes.

It works both ways, actually: You donīt think that I understand how it works, do you?

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.

[Elamarna]

Steve, if you cannot stand the contemporarily used "flap", then by all means use another word. Say, for example, that sections of the abdominal wall with subcutaneous tissue were cut away from the abdominal walls of these three women.

The outcome is the same: it is extremly rare and therefore a connection between the series. One of many, I might say.

In your view my friend, in your view.

Of course the actual point is glossed over, and we revert to semantics, which was not the point i was raising.

What you attempt to do is show that the removal of any tissue from the area of the abdomen indicates a definate, undeniable link and such is not the case.

Your own post makes a point very clear, these are full depth sections of tissue, the simplist and most obviously form for tissue removal.

If we had a situation where say the skin, was removed seperate from the underlying tissue
, i would be the first to sit up and say "something here" for such would be highly unusual and show a common skill set and intent.
What we do have are possibly differing generic cuts, which show no link other than the abdomen is cut.
While this alone could show a possible link, we do not have enough evidence to draw that conclusion, the descriptions are non specific.

More importantly, the doctors examining, noteably Hebbert did not see a common link.


I fully support any individuals right to push their own ideas and theories, however for a researcher of your status and background to say:

"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"

Goes far beyond that.


I attended, a interim meeting of the Whitechapel society on saturday, where to topic was this very issue, was there a link between the two sets of "murders" (sorry Trevor, but easier to use that term here)

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.


Steve

[Elamarna]

If I told you that the world was flat - would you respect it?

The police make mistakes, yes - but it is not a mistake on their behalf to say that far-reaching similarities inbetween cases point to a connection.

In some cases, the police will overrate either the similarities or the dissimilarities and reach the wrong conclusion. But when there are as many similarities as is the case now, one would have to forgive them if they opted for one killer and got it wrong - they would have used all the ampirical knowledge at hand and they WOULD have opted for the logical and better solution.

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

[Elamarna]

I think you are, Iīm afraid. Not ignorant as in stupid, but ignorant as in "do/will not understand how this particular matter works".

And if you ask me "But YOU do???", the answer is yes.

It works both ways, actually: You donīt think that I understand how it works, do you?

Actually i think you understand completely Christer, however that does not matter because you are convinced you are correct.



STEVE

[Fisherman]

In your view my friend, in your view.

Of course the actual point is glossed over, and we revert to semantics, which was not the point i was raising.

What you attempt tp do is show that the removal of any tissue from the area of the abdomen indicates a definate, undeniable link and such is not the case.

Your own post makes a point very clear, these are full depth sections of tissue, the simplist and most obviously form for tissue removal.

If we had a situation where say the skin, was removed seperate from the underlying tissue
, i would be the first to sit up and say "something here" for such would be highly unusual and show a common skill set and intent.
What we do have are possibly differing generic cuts, which show no link other than the abdomen is cut.
While this alone could show a possible link, we do not have enough evidence to draw that conclusion, the descriptions are non specific.

More importantly, the doctors examining, noteably Hebbert did not see a common link.


I fully support any individuals right to push their own ideas and theories, however for a researcher of your status and background to say:

"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"

Goes far beyond that.


I attended, a interim meeting of the Whitechapel society on saturday, where to topic was this very issue, was there a link between the two sets of "murders" (sorry Trevor, but easier to use that term here)

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.


Steve

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.

[Fisherman]

Actually i think you understand completely Christer, however that does not matter because you are convinced you are correct.
STEVE

If you think I understand completely how it works, then how can I be wrong? Similarly, how could you have a hope in hell to be right? (not that you have one, realistically speaking).

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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.

[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