Same motive = same killer

[Fisherman]

Victimology means next to nothing when it comes to prostitute killings, Fish. Prostitutes are easy targets, picked on by ruffians and killers since time immemorial, and there were plenty of them in London. There were also many poor women who weren't prostitutes, others who were runaways, and a huge number of wives, girlfriends and mistresses all of whom could have fallen foul of the West London Torso Killer.

You need to take a long hard look at the correlation between prostitution and serial murder.
And then you need to take a long hard look at how you judge matters.
And then you need to adjust to reality.

It does not matter one iot that there were many women on the streets who could - in your mind - be suitable targets for the killer since we have no idea whether he actively sought out prostitutes or not. In which case it is of paramount interest if a victim had that background or not.

Until we know, my suggestion is that we do not drop our knowledge that 100 per cent of the victims that have been identified in the two series were prostituting themselves. Instead, we regard that as a potentially decisive and important factor. Thank you very much!

Anybody else out here who thinks that the prostitution factor is "irrelevant"?

[Fisherman]

Actually it is!
Its intreptation that the uteri removal of Jackson is for any other reason than removal of a unborn infant, it is interpretation that it is in anyway linked to or comparable to the removals from Chapman and Eddowes in either motive or procedure.


Steve

"For any other reason than removal of an unborn infant"?

It is "interpretation" not to agree with this?

I see. It explains a whole lot.

I always though that we worked from a perspective of no established knowledge about the exact reason why he took Jacksons uterus out. I sort of thought that was the starting point.

I have now been corrected - the starting point is that we know that he did so to remove the unborn infant.

Sweet Jesus. I didn´t think it had gone that far, I really did not. It is as interllectually corrupt as it can be, Steve. It is bonkers.

I am out for now. You need a cold bath and some afterthought. Or lots of it.

[Elamarna]

Which quote is that?

The one you posted yesterday, the police in Eslöv, you said they belived a link based on 5 files, i simply asked what those files were? What information did they contain?


1. you have had the links, and they are not supposed similarities. The one doing all the supposing is you. Like "strips", for example. I go with the facts, and the facts link Chapman, Kelly and Jackson and therefore the series.

if the "links" are not established as being significant, that is proven, which i hate to tell you they are not, they remain supposed.

2. Lechmere was at one of the murder scenes at the approxiamte time of the murder. That is a link to one series.

No that is a link to one murder, not a series. There are many researchers who beleive one hand is not responsible for all the c5, i am not one, but their views are not to be totally ignored.

Show me a link to Kelly, a direct link, not one based on supposition and interpretation.

I am reasoning on sound and viable grounds that the series are linked, and I am reasoning on sound and viable grounds that Lechmere was the killer. I have never said that I have definite proof of either thing, but I think that the evidence points in this direction.

So this is the last time you ask me for proof. It is an exercise in timewasting - and we all knew that before you opened your mouth.

No its not the last time i shall ask for proof to back unproven theories, if howevet you are not prepared to answer it speaks volumes.

You have no proof as you have just said, that is no issue, everyone is entitled to their theories.
However when you then say people are bias or ignorant/ill informaed when they will not accept said unproven theories one should expect serious questioning of ones views.

Steve

[Elamarna]

"For any other reason than removal of an unborn infant"?

It is "interpretation" not to agree with this?

I see. It explains a whole lot.

I always though that we worked from a perspective of no established knowledge about the exact reason why he took Jacksons uterus out. I sort of thought that was the starting point.

I have now been corrected - the starting point is that we know that he did so to remove the unborn infant.

Sweet Jesus. I didn´t think it had gone that far, I really did not. It is as interllectually corrupt as it can be, Steve. It is bonkers.

I am out for now. You need a cold bath and some afterthought. Or lots of it.

Not at all.
Only half a quote.the full quote:

"Its intreptation that the uteri removal of Jackson is for any other reason than removal of a unborn infant,. it is interpretation that it is in anyway linked to or comparable to the removals from Chapman and Eddowes in either motive or procedure."

Has a somewhat different meaning than that you imply, any reason for the removal is interpretation, however jackson was pregnant and the uterus was discarded minus said infant, removal of said infant must therefore be a high probability for removal. That of course is interpretation in itself, just as any other proposed reason is.
The point being that these "similarities" are at present not established as anything more than a superficial link.

However nice to see your training never fails you.


Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

. 2. Lechmere was at one of the murder scenes at the approxiamte time of the murder. That is a link to one series.

So was John Davis and Louis Diemschutz. Lechmere certainly was at the scene. He found the body. You categorically cannot link him to the other crimes though.

I am reasoning on sound and viable grounds that the series are linked, and I am reasoning on sound and viable grounds that Lechmere was the killer. I have never said that I have definite proof of either thing, but I think that the evidence points in this direction.

Nope. All that you have is that he was there (like Davis and Diemschutz). Thats all.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
I always though that we worked from a perspective of no established knowledge about the exact reason why he took Jacksons uterus out. I sort of thought that was the starting point.

I have now been corrected - the starting point is that we know that he did so to remove the unborn infant.

Sweet Jesus. I didn´t think it had gone that far, I really did not. It is as interllectually corrupt as it can be, Steve. It is bonkers.

How is it ridiculous to suggest that when a person removes the uterus of a pregnant women there may, just may be a connection between the two facts?

[harry]

Proofs is the correct term,as each element of the crimes have to be proven.
We have to resort to court terms,as the content of the discussion was admitted to a court,the Coroners court.So proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the full term.
One can see why you want to drop the PROOF part,but be my guest,if you drop it your arguements become meaningless.
As to your motive and killer,less said the better,it would be entering the world of idiotsy and fantasy
I'l probably be around for a while Fisherman,if only for the laughs your theory provides.

[Sam Flynn]

How is it ridiculous to suggest that when a person removes the uterus of a pregnant women there may, just may be a connection between the two facts?

Especially when only the foetus was found to be missing, the uterus itself staying with the dumped section of the body. This strongly indicates that the perpetrator wasn't concerned with the uterus, but its contents.

[Fisherman]

Proofs is the correct term,as each element of the crimes have to be proven.
We have to resort to court terms,as the content of the discussion was admitted to a court,the Coroners court.So proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the full term.
One can see why you want to drop the PROOF part,but be my guest,if you drop it your arguements become meaningless.
As to your motive and killer,less said the better,it would be entering the world of idiotsy and fantasy
I'l probably be around for a while Fisherman,if only for the laughs your theory provides.

No, we do not have to resort to court terms, since no court case is possible. He´s dead, you see.

[Elamarna]

Especially when only the foetus was found to be missing, the uterus itself staying with the dumped section of the body. This strongly indicates that the perpetrator wasn't concerned with the uterus, but its contents.

My point exactly Sir,

The response of course took half of a quote and such gives a very different impression of what was said. .


Steve

[Fisherman]

No its not the last time i shall ask for proof to back unproven theories, if howevet you are not prepared to answer it speaks volumes.

You have no proof as you have just said, that is no issue, everyone is entitled to their theories.
However when you then say people are bias or ignorant/ill informaed when they will not accept said unproven theories one should expect serious questioning of ones views.

Steve

There is no proof. End of. There is evidence pointing to a common originator, and very strongly so.

I do not have access to the Eslöv police files, I am going - as I clearly said - on the paper reports.

A link between two murder cases can link two series, full stop. If the series are not established, tnat does not take away from the link. Even if all other victims were killed by separate killers, we can link Kelly and Jackson. And Chapman, for that matter.

[Fisherman]

Not at all.
Only half a quote.the full quote:

"Its intreptation that the uteri removal of Jackson is for any other reason than removal of a unborn infant,. it is interpretation that it is in anyway linked to or comparable to the removals from Chapman and Eddowes in either motive or procedure."

Has a somewhat different meaning than that you imply, any reason for the removal is interpretation, however jackson was pregnant and the uterus was discarded minus said infant, removal of said infant must therefore be a high probability for removal. That of course is interpretation in itself, just as any other proposed reason is.
The point being that these "similarities" are at present not established as anything more than a superficial link.

However nice to see your training never fails you.


Steve

You wrote, and I quote exactly "Its intreptation that the uteri removal of Jackson is for any other reason than removal of a unborn infant"

Sure enough, you also said that OTHER things are interpretation , but you did say that it is interpretation that the uteri removal of Jackson is for any other reason than removal of an unborn infant.

So, as you may gather, the next time you try to spell the word "bias", I may feel slightly sick.

You now try to backtrack, but your own biasa betrays you when you say that "jackson was pregnant and the uterus was discarded minus said infant, removal of said infant must therefore be a high probability for removal."

What if the killer was not interested at all by the infant, and cut it out to discard it?

You see, Steve, what I have been saying from the outset still applies: When we look at all of this we need to keep a cool head and refrain from doing ANY interpretation that we then try to impose upon our opponents as a truth or a "near certainty".

The uterus was taken out. Full stop. The infant was removed from the uterus. Full stop. We do not know why the killer did what he did and why he did it the way he did. Full stop.

This is unbiased and matter-of-fact research, true to what we know instead of what we think we know. It is also why we can link the three crimes I mention in this way: all three victims had their uteri removed. Full stop.

[Fisherman]

Nope. All that you have is that he was there (like Davis and Diemschutz). Thats all.

Actually, I have a hell of a lot more, Herlock. A list of 30+ points was posted a year or so ago.

[Fisherman]

How is it ridiculous to suggest that when a person removes the uterus of a pregnant women there may, just may be a connection between the two facts?

Of course there MAY be a connection between the facts. But that does not allow us to say that it is biased not to work from it as a given fact. What Steve wrote was "Its intreptation that the uteri removal of Jackson is for any other reason than removal of a unborn infant".

That kind of narrows what is allowed in terms of free thinking, don´t you think? And narrowing what we are allowed to think is ridiculous.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Actually, I have a hell of a lot more, Herlock. A list of 30+ points was posted a year or so ago.

All quite easily refuted as far as i can recall.