Same motive = same killer

[Fisherman]

Just checked, and I was incorrect on that point - the organs were found in a separate segment of the abdomen still attached to the thorax. They were nonetheless all accounted for, and the rest of my post was correct.

A large part of the colon was amiss, the rest was there. The Rainham victim and Eddowes also had parts of their colons cut out from their bodies.

[Fisherman]

I believe that there are quite a few links between Lincoln and Kennedy. One is, I believe, that Lincoln had a secretary called Mrs Kennedy and Kennedy had one called Mrs Lincoln.

Is that a TRUE link, however? Are these things relying on each others existance? No. Lincoln would have had his secretary called Kennedy even if Kennedy did not have a secretary called Lincoln.

But - and that is my point, with which you apparently agree - it is nevertheless a link, albeit a "false" one.

[Elamarna]

As long as we do not know why the uteri were removed, they form a very clear and very possibly true link. If you ask any detective how the cases are linked, he will answer "by the removal of the uteri, which was present in both cases".

Even if the link is a false one, it is actually nevertheless a link. Abraham Lincoln and John Fitzgerald Kennedy are linked in a way - can you guess how?

Writing in capital letters that an evident link is not a link does not work. Hooray for that!

Your continual reliance of hypothetical police, to back your view.
Two issues there.

The Police make many mistakes, the number of miscarriages of justic shows that. They are far from infaliable, and their word is not conclusive.

You are not a policeman . Any comments unless from specified officers are just your opinion.

Linking Lincoln and Kennedey,

Yes both men.
Both Heads of State.
Both Assinanated while in office, in public.
Both shot in the head


Really Christer that shows you links for what they are, superficial
It does not allow us to link the two killings to the same man, just as the links between Kelly and Jackson are superficial and do not allow us to link both to the same killer.

Steve

[Fisherman]

Your continual reliance of hypothetical police, to back your view.
Two issues there.

The Police make many mistakes, the number of miscarriages of justic shows that. They are far from infaliable, and their word is not conclusive.

You are not a policeman . Any comments unless from specified officers are just your opinion.

Linking Lincoln and Kennedey,

Yes both men.
Both Heads of State.
Both Assinanated while in office, in public.
Both shot in the head


Really Christer that shows you links for what they are, superficial
It does not allow us to link the two killings to the same man, just as the links between Kelly and Jackson are superficial and do not allow us to link both to the same killer.

Steve

So now we at least have you admitting that the cases are linked - although you prefer to believe the links are "superficial". It´s just another two cases, simultaneous such ones from the same town, where women have their uteri and hearts cut out and their abdominal walls cut away in flaps.

Move on everybody, nothing to see here.

Steve?

You are wrong.

[Sam Flynn]

A large part of the colon was amiss, the rest was there.

"The intestines had been removed, but the duodenum and a piece of the stomach remained." (Hebbert)

To help, it goes:

Stomach -> Duodenum -> Jejunum -> Ilium -> Ascending colon - > Transverse colon -> Descending colon -> Sigmoid colon -> Rectum

Only the bits in bold are mentioned as being present. Several metres of intestine were missing, not merely "a large part of the colon", and not just the colon either.

The Rainham victim... had [part of the colon] cut out from [her body].

"The small intestines, with the mesentery, are in situ, and appear healthy. There are a few remains of the transverse, ascending and descending parts of the colon, but the lower parts are absent" (Hebbert)

...looks like the colon was cut across, not a single tubular section cut out.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I just can’t see how Steve’s quotes hints at him trying to ‘set the rules’ of debate on interpretation? Am I missing something? Im generalising but Steve appears to be saying that we cannot be certain either way and so we make interpretations. The suggestion that the killer removed the uterus and the foetus from the uterus might be suggestive of a motive. He’s not saying it’s the only interpretation that should be considered.

Unless you’re talking about a different Steve

I’m talking about Lord Elamarna Of Buck’s Row

[Fisherman]

"The intestines had been removed, but the duodenum and a piece of the stomach remained." (Hebbert)

So "the organs were found in a separate segment of the abdomen still attached to the thorax" as you wrote before was not correct?

Anyways, the colon thing remains - all three victims, Jackson, Rainham and Eddowes lost part of their colons.

[Fisherman]

I just can’t see how Steve’s quotes hints at him trying to ‘set the rules’ of debate on interpretation? Am I missing something? Im generalising but Steve appears to be saying that we cannot be certain either way and so we make interpretations. The suggestion that the killer removed the uterus and the foetus from the uterus might be suggestive of a motive. He’s not saying it’s the only interpretation that should be considered.

Unless you’re talking about a different Steve

I’m talking about Lord Elamarna Of Buck’s Row

He wrote "Its intreptation that the uteri removal of Jackson is for any other reason than removal of a unborn infant"

Maybe he meant something else, but it didn´t come out very well, did it?

I am all for him having meant something else, by the way, since it would be much sounder.

Have you begun to reassess my foaming mouth yet?

[Elamarna]

Nope. No overreaction. Steve wants us all to work from the idea that the foetus was an important factor for the crime, and I am not allowing that. It remains unestablished and there must be learoom for us to reason that the pregnancy was of no importance to the killer.

No i don't.
In fact the statement had one purpose:

To show that NO reason is defintive for the removal of the the uterus in the Jackson case.
It achived the expected response.

Pray tell me how such is anymore unacceptable than your statement that there is a link between Kelly and Jackson and if we do not acknowledge such it is due to bias or ignorance.


My personal belief is that the pregnancy and foetus was the very reason for Jackson being chosen as a victim. I think he was overjoyed about the chance to kill a pregnant woman and open her - and the uterus - up.



I furthermore believe that the reason he had for doing this was the exact same reason he had for laying Kellys thigh (and the thigh is the part between the knee and the hio, Steve ) bare to the bone, for cutting away the face from the 1873 victim and for taking out the thorax contents from the Rainham victim.

[B]and that reason is?
Come on, tell us all.


But this is what I THINK, and I don´t aspire to have it taken down as facts or near certainties, since that would be twisting the evidence. Just as it would be twisting the evidence not to allow for other interpretations of the Jackson uterus removal than the one I beleive in, but will not present as a given fact or near certainty.

We can have our pet theories, but we cannot elevate them to truths. And before you say that I am trying to do so by identifying a common killer for the three victims I speak of, I must point out that there is a difference - there is very clear evidence supporting that take. At least it is clear before we impose a number of "interpretations" on it.

Its really funny to watch you try and make the foetus into an issue.
It seems you really have failed to grasp what my original post was about. Shame.
Fortunately it has achived what was it purpose very easily.

Its also funny and highly disingenuous to hear you claim you do not present theories as fact. You do it in constantly.

Steve

[Elamarna]

So now we at least have you admitting that the cases are linked - although you prefer to believe the links are "superficial". It´s just another two cases, simultaneous such ones from the same town, where women have their uteri and hearts cut out and their abdominal walls cut away in flaps.

Move on everybody, nothing to see here.

Steve?

You are wrong.

I have never said there are not superficial, insignificant similarites which you say link the cases you wish to continue using the term link when it shows nothing significant.

Again despite your claims of not forcing your view as fact you imply it yet again.

Steve

[Sam Flynn]

It´s just another two cases, simultaneous such ones from the same town, where women have their uteri and hearts cut out and their abdominal walls cut away in flaps.

Not simultaneous, but overlapping - one series with a leisurely cadence over years, the other a blitz lasting weeks.

Not the "same town", but two different parts of the then largest city in the world.

Not all had their uteri and hearts cut out.

Not all had their abdominal walls cut away (not even Jackson).

Not all flaps are the same.

[Fisherman]

Its really funny to watch you try and make the foetus into an issue.
It seems you really have failed to grasp what my original post was about. Shame.
Fortunately it has achived what was it purpose very easily.

Its also funny and highly disingenuous to hear you claim you do not present theories as fact. You do it in constantly.

Steve

Nope. I say that I myself regard it as beyond reasonable doubt that there was just the one killer. And then I go on to say that the door must be left ajar for a freakish coincidence.

That is not presenting a theory as a fact.

But it may be a bit too complex for you to see the difference? Or a tad too inconvenient to admit it?

It´s good that you tell us in retrospect what you meant when you said that "Its intreptation that the uteri removal of Jackson is for any other reason than removal of a unborn infant". Otherwise, such things risk being misunderstood.

Now, tell me why you find it "funny" that I "try to make the foetus into an issue". I´d like to hear your explanation to that, please.

[Fisherman]

Not simultaneous, but overlapping - one series with a leisurely cadence over years, the other a blitz lasting weeks.

Not the "same town", but two different parts of the then largest city in the world.

Not all had their uteri and hearts cut out.

Not all had their abdominal walls cut away (not even Jackson).

Not all flaps are the same.

Yes, overlapping - which is how I often word it.

Yes, the same town. Two parts of a town ARE parts of the same town, believe it or not.

Who said that all victims had their uteri and hearts cut out? I say that it ties some victims from BOTH serie together.

Who said all the victims had their abdominal walls cut out? I say that it ties some victims from BOTH series together.

No two flaps can be exactly the same, but overall, they may or may not have looked very much the same. The point being that you don´t know.

[Fisherman]

I have never said there are not superficial, insignificant similarites which you say link the cases you wish to continue using the term link when it shows nothing significant.

Again despite your claims of not forcing your view as fact you imply it yet again.

Steve

Again you mislead.

There ARE links, true or false. Before we can dismiss them, they must be proven false. Until that happens, they are quite likely true links, on account of being very, very, very, very, very rare matters.

[Sam Flynn]

Nope. I say that I myself regard it as beyond reasonable doubt that there was just the one killer. And then I go on to say that the door must be left ajar for a freakish coincidence.

That is not presenting a theory as a fact.

You're asserting the "freakish coincidence" as if it were a fact, but it's merely your interpretation.