Same motive = same killer

[Fisherman]

Yes,I know you mentioned it the first time,Fisherman,just wanted you to repeat, so that there can be no doubt about what you did write.
No matter how many times I fall,I always land on my feet.
Trevor has already told why your claims of murder would fail,in respect of the torso victims,in a murder trial.No need for me to repeat.
These people who support you.None has gone as far as proven beyond a reasonable doubt,your words,so a claim of support is false.you are on your own.
Medical evidence apart,and it has been shown it is not conclusive,what other link supports a connection between all the crimes and a criminl,and can be classed as exclusive to all other facts.

I fail to see what your problem is. We all know that murder has not been conclusiverly proven, and we all know that I am the one saying that personally, I find it beyond reasonable doubt that there was just the one killer.
If you find that hard to swallow, then maybe you need to find another hobby. Like parachuting or something. It will also provide you with a tumble and drag you downwards, but there are always airplanes, Harry.

[Fisherman]

No one as said all, such would be unrealistic to expect.
The examples you have used to attempted to show a link are not clearly established, hence why we are debating.

I would expect there to be more than the scant few examples used to link all the cases.

Steve

What is not "clearly established"?

Did or did not Kelly, Chapman and Jackso have their abdomens opened?

Did or did not they all have their uteri cut out?

Did or did not they all loose parts or all of their abdominal walls?

Did or did not they all prostitute themselves?

Did or did not Kelly and Jackson have the heart taken out?

I have said on numerous occasions that I am not linking all the cases - I am linking the SERIES by means of linking a few cases from both of them, namely Chapman, Kelly and Jackson. These cases are extremely closely related as per the above, and they contain extremely unusual and odd damage, to my mind putting in well beyond reasonable doubt that they fell prey to the same man.

In not a single case can it be proven that the similarities are "false" similarities, and so until that happens, we cannot work from any other logically based presumption than that of one killer only.

That is what I am saying.

[Fisherman]

One rule for Fish again

Patience and manners go out of the window when you call people (including myself) ignorant and biased because they come to a different conclusion to yourself. It happened all the time in the Lechmere threads and its happened here. You obviously have some issue with people that dont agree with you. What happened to the image of the phlegmatic Swedes

I am calling the stance that there were two killers ignorant OR biased, I am not calling you ignorant and biased on the whole. I am ignorant about a lot of things myself, like tropical diseases, how to cook ants and car repairs. It is not a damning thing, because we must be ignorant about something, all of us. I am biased about numerous things too, like football (damn you, Real Madrid - may Liverpool bring you down!), as I am sure most of us are. Not least are you certain that I am dreadfully and foully biased in the Ripper matter.

A little less drama, please?

[Fisherman]

I don’t know what significance of the ‘DO’ part of the question in capitals is?

I don’t claim that my current role as a full-time carer for my terminally ill father allows me any greater or lesser insight into these cases.

Thats probably true, although caring for a terminally ill parent does make you think a lot. That, at least, was how it worked for me all those years ago when my father was taken ill and left us. I was 21 at the time, and not a day goes by when I do not think of him - and that is as it should be.

Some things call for a temporary seize-fire, at the very least. Right now, out of all of us battling it out here, it seems you have the only really important job. I wish you all the best.

[Sam Flynn]

"Did or did not Kelly, Chapman and Jackso have their abdomens opened?"

Yes, in different ways, and probably for different reasons. And the majority of Ripper victims suffered a similar fate, whereas only a small minority of the torso victims did.


"Did or did not they all have their uteri cut out?"

Yes, but Jackson was pregnant, and her emptied uterus was left with the section of her abdomen. Strictly speaking, her killer took away her baby, not her uterus. Besides, once again, the uterus was only removed in a small minority of the torso victims.


"Did or did not they all loose parts or all of their abdominal walls?"

Jackson's abdominal wound was less severe and more localised than any of the 4 canonical Ripper victims who sustained abdominal wounds.


"Did or did not they all prostitute themselves?"

Irrelevant. Prostitutes are easy, and traditional, targets for murder and misfortune.


"Did or did not Kelly and Jackson have the heart taken out?"

Jackson had her entire thorax emptied, and it's by no means certain that her heart was specifically targeted. Indeed, it's quite probable that her heart and lungs were removed as a "job lot". Not so Kelly, whose heart was in any case removed from below after cutting through the diaphragm, whereas Jackson's diaphragm was intact. Furthermore, apart from uterus (i.e. foetus) and intestines, all of Jackson's abdominal organs remained in place.

[Sam Flynn]

... oh, and apart from the Pinchin Street case, all the torso victims were dispatched in West London, certainly under cover, and probably on private premises. With a saw involved in most, if not all, cases.

[Sam Flynn]

... and they were dismembered and decapitated.

[Sam Flynn]

... over a long period of time.

[Fisherman]

"Did or did not Kelly, Chapman and Jackson have their abdomens opened?"

1. Yes, in different ways, and probably for different reasons. And the majority of Ripper victims suffered a similar fate, whereas only a small minority of the torso victims did.


"Did or did not they all have their uteri cut out?"

2. Yes, but Jackson was pregnant, and her emptied uterus was left with the section of her abdomen. Strictly speaking, her killer took away her baby, not her uterus. Besides, once again, the uterus was only removed in a small minority of the torso victims.


"Did or did not they all loose parts or all of their abdominal walls?"

3. Jackson's abdominal wound was less severe and more localised than any of the 4 canonical Ripper victims who sustained abdominal wounds.


"Did or did not they all prostitute themselves?"

4. Irrelevant. Prostitutes are easy, and traditional, targets for murder and misfortune.


"Did or did not Kelly and Jackson have the heart taken out?"

5. Jackson had her entire thorax emptied, and it's by no means certain that her heart was specifically targeted. Indeed, it's quite probable that her heart and lungs were removed as a "job lot". Not so Kelly, whose heart was in any case removed from below after cutting through the diaphragm, whereas Jackson's diaphragm was intact. Furthermore, apart from uterus (i.e. foetus) and intestines, all of Jackson's abdominal organs remained in place.

1. Your saying that there was "probably" different reasons for the opening up of the abdomens is not an argument that can be allowed. There are no probabilities, other in our minds. All we can say is that the abdomens were opened up. That is what we know, and that is what we work with.
It is interesting how you say that they were opened up in different ways - normally you are keen to say that there are only so many ways an abdomen an be opened up? That backfires now, Gareth.
There is no reason to think that a killer must open abdomens up in the same way from case to case, and there is no reason to think that there were substantial differences in how it was done in these cases. In the end, what remains is that opening up the abdomens of women you have slain is extremely unusual, and so we should not expect too may such men to be on the loose in Victorian London. One, tops, sort of.
You say that "only a small minority" of the torso victims suffered this fate, but that is of course not true. The Rainham victim had her front opened as did Jackson. The Whitehall victim was divided through the torso, and so her abdomen was also opened up albeit in another fashion, and the uterus was missing from her together with other parts. The 1873 victim suffered the same sort of division, and that means that a clear majority of the torso victims had been cut so as to allow access to the abdominal contents.
If you had been awake, however, you would have noted that the killer did not go for the abdomional contents every time - he sometimes preferred the thorax contents, as in the Rainham case. He is able to do more tha one thing. He cannot be dismantled by saying "that did not happen every time", Gareth. He is complex. He has varying aims. He disassembles women, and eviscerations and dismemberment and mutilation are nothing but different parts of that. Think big, please - it helps, promise.

2. You have no idea whether the killer was after the uterus, the foetus or the combination, It is all guesswork on your behalf. Go by the facts, please, and not by your vivid imagination. Each and every false similarity you perceive must be proven before it can be ruled out. So far, none of them has.
It also needs to be said - again, apparently - that there need not be the same damage to each victim before it represents a point of comparison. Throw single examples out and you throw important evidence out. That is a dumb thing to do, even if you consider it necessary to try and diminish my case. It won´t work this time either.

3. Let´s be frank here: Stop pretending you know the extent of Jacksons wound. You don´t. And in the end, it is not about the appearance of the wound - it is about the fact that it was there. BOTH serie involve abdomional flap cutting, no matter how hard you try to make out as if it differed wildly inbetween cases. It´s much like saying that sawing off ten inches of a leg is totally different from sawing off seven or nineteen inches. It is becoming pathetic, Gareth.

4. You go tell the police that it is irrelevant when prostututes disappear from the streets. Tell them that there is no reason to think that prostitutes are being specifically targetted just because they disappear in numbers. Tell them that prostitution and prostitution victims are so commonplace that we can never read anything at all into itwhen prostitutes disappear.
Once you have done that, you can get real. It´s about time.
Prostitutes are favourite hunting targets for serial killers and have always been. When women who are killed turn out to be prostitutes, that is an immensely important clue to what kind of person the police are dealing with

5. Tried angle: The rest of the deeds differed in many respects, so we may look away from how both victims had their hearts taken out.
Sterling stuff, detective Wiliams, sterling stuff.

[Fisherman]

... oh, and apart from the Pinchin Street case, all the torso victims were dispatched in West London, certainly under cover, and probably on private premises. With a saw involved in most, if not all, cases.

Yes. No obstacle whatsoever.

[Fisherman]

... and they were dismembered and decapitated.

Yes. No obstacle whatsoever.

[Fisherman]

... over a long period of time.

Yes. No obstacle whatsoever.

[harry]

I have no problem Fisherman.Same motive=same killer is your title for the thread.Seems the problems are yours.What was the motive,who was the killer?
What are the proofs?Aside from me,appears you are having an awfull problem convincing people you have given the answers,'Beyond reasonable doubt'.You did claim that didn't you?

[Fisherman]

I have no problem Fisherman.Same motive=same killer is your title for the thread.Seems the problems are yours.What was the motive,who was the killer?
What are the proofs?Aside from me,appears you are having an awfull problem convincing people you have given the answers,'Beyond reasonable doubt'.You did claim that didn't you?

The motive was an urge to disassemble women and the killer was Charles Lechmere.

There is no proof (singularis, not proofs), but if you are going to ask for proof, we can all pack up and leave. You first, Harry.

To me, the shared identity is beyond reasonable doubt. That is what I have said and keep saying. It is not the same as having a court decision stating this.

So there is really nothing for you to gab on about. Not that such things will stop you, but...

[Elamarna]

What is not "clearly established"?

Did or did not Kelly, Chapman and Jackso have their abdomens opened?

Did or did not they all have their uteri cut out?

Did or did not they all loose parts or all of their abdominal walls?

Did or did not they all prostitute themselves?

Did or did not Kelly and Jackson have the heart taken out?

I have said on numerous occasions that I am not linking all the cases - I am linking the SERIES by means of linking a few cases from both of them, namely Chapman, Kelly and Jackson. These cases are extremely closely related as per the above, and they contain extremely unusual and odd damage, to my mind putting in well beyond reasonable doubt that they fell prey to the same man.

In not a single case can it be proven that the similarities are "false" similarities, and so until that happens, we cannot work from any other logically based presumption than that of one killer only.

That is what I am saying.

I am say yet again that a definitive link between what you cite as similarities has not been established, you saying it has does not make it so Christer.

It may be for you, i accept that, you must accept others do not agree.


Steve