Same motive = same killer

[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 it´s opposite pole.

Sorry, but that´s 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. That´s one of the more disturbing moments of this debate, I´d 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. That´s why I mentioned it.

[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

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

Sorry, but that´s 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. That´s one of the more disturbing moments of this debate, I´d 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. That´s 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]

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

[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 it´s opposite pole.

Sorry, but that´s 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. That´s one of the more disturbing moments of this debate, I´d 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. That´s 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

[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!

[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]

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]

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

The police in Eslöv had five fires and they said that they would be flummoxed if there was not a connection.

How is that for generic, Steve?

So, should the Eslöv police be ashamed or are they following a logical pattern telling them that crimes of a similar nature occurring in the same city at the same time will more often than not have the same originator?

Your bias lies in how you are inable to accept the simplest of logic if it speaks for a single killer, whereas you are very accomodating when it comes to disallowing it.

Some time back, you chose the wording "strips" for the Jackson flaps, and when I pointed it out, you said that you think slips are narrower than strips. Regardless, you opted for the term coined by Gareth in an effort to twist the evidence.

That is how bias looks. Take a look in a mirror and you will get another view of it.

It is interesting how it is comme il faut to call ME biased, whereas indignation has people crying their eyes out when they are met with the same accusation.

You shiver with discomfort when you hear the phrase "biased or ignorant" from me. But hey, if you are NOT biased or ignorant, then you are discerning and knowledgeable. And discerning and knowledgeable people reach logical and wise conclusions.

I can see how you would like for me to say that I think that is what you have done, but I don´t think that at all. I think you have reached lousy conclusions, removed from all logic and painfully ignorant of the rate of dismemberment, mutilation and evisceration cases.

And so I say that. Even if it hurts to hear, and is not in any way promoting friendship and cameraderie. I never argue a case with that aim, because I think it is to do the topic a disservice. If I find that something lacks quality and insight, then I say so.

[Fisherman]

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

Other people open to the idea are for example Gary Barnett, Joshua Rogan and Debra Arif, as I understand things. I am happy to stand corrected if that is wrong, but overall I have the feeling that they find the suggestion a good and useful one.

Now, those determined NOT to link the series are you, Gareth and Steve...

[Elamarna]

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.

The Typo correction is always a good one.

It is obviously Supposition from the context i would say.

I see you attempt to turn it aroun, classic!

It was YOU who said MANY.

I asked for evidence of this because i assumecthat you were talking of actual officers, not hypothetical ones.


At no point have I said not a single officer in 88 may have beleied this, because such a statement without facts would be foolish.



Steve

[Sam Flynn]

Now, those determined NOT to link the series are you, Gareth and Steve...

Speaking for myself, it's by no means the case that I'm determined to not link the JTR and torso cases - I just don't see any significant reason to link them at all.

Indeed, I don't even see that all the torso cases are linked, as I see the Pinchin Street torso as probably the work of a different hand. A reasonable argument can be made to link some, if not all, of the West End torso cases, but the solitary East End case was, in my view, a one-off perpetrated by neither the Torso "Killer" nor JTR.

[Elamarna]

Other people open to the idea are for example Gary Barnett, Joshua Rogan and Debra Arif, as I understand things. I am happy to stand corrected if that is wrong, but overall I have the feeling that they find the suggestion a good and useful one.

Now, those determined NOT to link the series are you, Gareth and Steve...

And they are 3 individuals i greatly respect, that however does not mean we will always agree.

Please be aware, i am NOT determinded not to link, i am just not convince, which i have said many times; there is a very big difference.

Steve

[Elamarna]

The police in Eslöv had five fires and they said that they would be flummoxed if there was not a connection.

How is that for generic, Steve?


Which files did they have and what information was contained in them may one ask?

Pray tell me how that relates to evidence of similarities being generic rather than specific?
I asked for police who agreed with your view and you have supplied an example, that is all.

So, should the Eslöv police be ashamed or are they following a logical pattern telling them that crimes of a similar nature occurring in the same city at the same time will more often than not have the same originator?

What has ashamed got to do with the issue, total irrelevant to the debate.

Your bias lies in how you are inable to accept the simplest of logic if it speaks for a single killer, whereas you are very accomodating when it comes to disallowing it.

Your bias appears to be that you cannot even comprehend that that your view may not be correct.

Some time back, you chose the wording "strips" for the Jackson flaps, and when I pointed it out, you said that you think slips are narrower than strips. Regardless, you opted for the term coined by Gareth in an effort to twist the evidence.

That is how bias looks. Take a look in a mirror and you will get another view of it.

Pot calling the kettle back. I still see no evidence.

It is interesting how it is comme il faut to call ME biased, whereas indignation has people crying their eyes out when they are met with the same accusation.

It was you you claimed those who do not agree are either bias or ignorant, stop playing the victim, its most unbecoming.

You shiver with discomfort when you hear the phrase "biased or ignorant" from me. But hey, if you are NOT biased or ignorant, then you are discerning and knowledgeable. And discerning and knowledgeable people reach logical and wise conclusions.

And it goes on, if we do not accept one view, we are wrong. Poor research is produced by such an approach.

I can see how you would like for me to say that I think that is what you have done, but I don´t think that at all. I think you have reached lousy conclusions, removed from all logic and painfully ignorant of the rate of dismemberment, mutilation and evisceration cases.

And so I say that. Even if it hurts to hear, and is not in any way promoting friendship and cameraderie. I never argue a case with that aim, because I think it is to do the topic a disservice. If I find that something lacks quality and insight, then I say so.

And I feel exactly the same about your efforts, confirmation bias at every single turn and a closed mind.


Steve