Same motive = same killer

[Herlock Sholmes]

. Other people open to the idea are for example Gary Barnett, Joshua Rogan and Debra Arif, as I understand things.

Like Steve i also respect the three mentioned but do any of them approach the topic with the attitude “this is such an obvious foregone conclusion that you are either ignorant or biased if you dont agree?”

[Fisherman]

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

Yes, extremely foolish - it is quite obvious that it would be odd in the extreme if not a single copper entertained suspicion of a common originator of the crimes.
Which is of course what I have been saying all along.

[Fisherman]

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.

What was it Whittington-Egan said about Fidos book all those years ago? "I want to believe it - but I can not".

If it had been all the same to you, we would not have learnt the word "strip", Gareth. You are welcome to take that fight, but don´t pretend you are unbiased.

[Elamarna]

Yes, extremely foolish - it is quite obvious that it would be odd in the extreme if not a single copper entertained suspicion of a common originator of the crimes.
Which is of course what I have been saying all along.

Entertaing a suspicion is not the same as a certain fact, which is what you have implied.


Steve

[Fisherman]

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

I am sometimes flummoxed by how you sign with Steve - are you sure that your parents were telling the truth...? It may seem they did, but that could be a generic thing.

[Fisherman]

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


Steve

You still fail to see the backside of the medal: If I don´t buy your **** and bull stuff, I am biased and at fault.

We have different views, and both cannot be right.

So one is wrong.

My money is firmly on that one being you.

[Fisherman]

Like Steve i also respect the three mentioned but do any of them approach the topic with the attitude “this is such an obvious foregone conclusion that you are either ignorant or biased if you dont agree?”

No, it´s me saying that. And I stand by it. As I say, the alternative is that you are discerning and well informed. And if you were, you would not reach the conclusion you do. You still root for the differences being as important as the similarities, even - and that is getting it all very wrong. But no matter how much I exemplify, you come back to it.

So instead of being discerning and well informed, I fnd that on this matter you are quite the contrary. There are only so many ways I can put that in words, and it does not encompass any exchange of niceties. But that is true for both sides!

[Elamarna]

I am sometimes flummoxed by how you sign with Steve - are you sure that your parents were telling the truth...? It may seem they did, but that could be a generic thing.

What are you suggesting ?

what ever point you think you are making is truly weird.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Last for now, Steves wording:

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

I have explained this a million times, Steve! I have said, over and over again, that I MAY be wrong - but it would mean that we are dealing with the most freakish false similarities in the history of crime.
It takes an earthquake for it not to be a single killer, but earthquakes do occur.

So yes, I may be wrong, and I can comprehend not only that but also a wide variety of other things. Maybe you need to respect that when I say it?

[Elamarna]

You still fail to see the backside of the medal: If I don´t buy your **** and bull stuff, I am biased and at fault.

We have different views, and both cannot be right.

So one is wrong.

My money is firmly on that one being you.

You may be bias, however you are not ignorant, far from it.

It does not follow of course that either is fully wrong or fully right, there are many alternatives.


For instance you stance appears to be all the torso bodies from 72 are connected.

Mine is i can see no link i see conclusive with the evidence presented so far.


The reality could be some are linked, bit the evidence is not clear yet, in which case there is a middle ground.


Steve

[Sam Flynn]

I MAY be wrong - but it would mean that we are dealing with the most freakish false similarities in the history of crime.

But your bias is revealed even in that short statement, Fish. Some of us genuinely see no significant similarities, freakish or otherwise.

[Elamarna]

Last for now, Steves wording:

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

I have explained this a million times, Steve! I have said, over and over again, that I MAY be wrong - but it would mean that we are dealing with the most freakish false similarities in the history of crime.


It takes an earthquake for it not to be a single killer, but earthquakes do occur.

So yes, I may be wrong, and I can comprehend not only that but also a wide variety of other things. Maybe you need to respect that when I say it?

One would do Christer, if you did not make statements that those who do not accept your view are either bias or ignorant, i now see that has become ill informed.
Such statement servely undermine the statement that you accept you MAY be wrong.

The two statements do not appear on the surface to be compatible.


Steve

[Fisherman]

You may be bias, however you are not ignorant, far from it.

It does not follow of course that either is fully wrong or fully right, there are many alternatives.


For instance you stance appears to be all the torso bodies from 72 are connected.

Mine is i can see no link i see conclusive with the evidence presented so far.


The reality could be some are linked, bit the evidence is not clear yet, in which case there is a middle ground.


Steve

It´s from 1873, Steve, not 1872. And my take is:

1873: doubtlessly linked.
1874: could be either way, but since the crime is rare, a probable link.
1884: a skilfully cut up and dismembered body speaks of a very probable link
1887: doubtlessly linked
1888, Whitehall: doubtlessly linked
1888, Jackson: doubtlessly linked
1889: skilfully cut up and dismembered = very probably linked

The Paris torso: most probably not linked
The Salamanca Place torso: most probably - almost certainly, even - unlinked

[Sam Flynn]

It´s from 1873, Steve, not 1872.

You mean you haven't heard of the 1872 Neasden torso mystery? I'd get onto it at once if I were you, Fish.

[Fisherman]

One would do Christer, if you did not make statements that those who do not accept your view are either bias or ignorant, i now see that has become ill informed.
Such statement servely undermine the statement that you accept you MAY be wrong.

The two statements do not appear on the surface to be compatible.


Steve

And still they are: I am following "police logic" if you like, where the similarities tie cases together. However, as I said before, the police do not get it right all the time, BUT they overall use the correct logic all the time: similarities DO point to a connection, and the more they are and the more specific and odd they are, the more certain that connection becomes.

Not accepting that is - in my personal view - ignorant. Choosing not to accept it against better knowing is being biased.

I don´t think I am overstepping any lines by stating this - but I leave the door ever so slightly ajar for it to be a misleading approach in the case at hand. However, that risk is no larger than a fragment of a per cent in my eyes.

You DO realize that two killers in the same Victorian London mutilating, taking out uteri, taking out hearts, targetting prostitutes, having rings vanishing from their victims fingers and cutting away sections of the abdominal walls would be the greatest fluke ever in criminal history? That HAS dawned on you?