Same motive = same killer

[Herlock Sholmes]

Steve,

You have my undying approbation and esteem for your pertinacity in pursuance of some measure of ratiocination but it is apparent that you are pummeling an unanimated equine.

[Elamarna]

It ought to, however.

why? Because you say so?

There is nothing at all general about doing what was done to these victims. Not is it general to have two mutilators and eviscerators on the loose in Victorian London and in overlapping time periods.
You want to think that it is general, but it is nothing of the sort.

Again over simplification

I don´t "ignore" motive. I am very open to any such discussion, but I am also aware that we cannot possibly establish any motive. It will all be suggestions, far too often accompanied by that word you use: "appear".
You say that the damage is generic and then you suggest that what you find is the most logical solution to the uteri business tell the deeds apart. So one second you are opposed to suggesting anything at all on account of the generic factor, and the next, you suggest away based on what you think is logical.
You logic seems more attractive to you than mine, Steve.

As I keep telling you, the amassed evidence BEFORE you taint it with your suppositions and suggestions, is telling us that uteri, heart and abdominal walls were taken from bodies in two perceived series of murders. We need to look at that as a very clear link, and we need to do that WITHOUT any bedtime fairytales and suggestions. The simple facts, please!



See the above.




See the above.



I suggested that case not as a direct comparison, but as a clarification of exactly why similarities can clear away what people sense are hindersome differences.
You are most welcome to check how many cases there are of each damage, perfect, round holes in tongues and abdominal walls removed in large sections. Once you have the numbers, you may begin to see what I am saying.



The two are not mutually exclusive. It is objective to say that the world is round and that people thinking it is flat are bonkers. However unfair it may seem to you.



Because it is not. It is unrealistic per se to expect two mutilators and eviscerators in Victorian London in overlapping time periods. Of course, you prefer to make it look as if I am generally saying that disagreeing with me can never be sound. That is not a very nice tactic. Thankfully, it is easy to disclose.



It is YOU, not I who are trying to fit the facts to your thinking. I do n ot "interpret" the facts and put a spin on them. You do.



Oh, I disagree with you alright. Somebody has to, or we will very likely all be misled.

Its very clear from the reply Christer, that you have no specific counters to the points raised, just generic replies, lacking in detail.


It is not I who insist on over simplification of arguments!

It is not I who continually says those disagreeing with their view are "ignorant" or such a view is "bonkers".

I do not rule out Lechmere could have killed Nichols, I do however consider the theory as proposed by yourself to not be particularily strong.

I do not rule out the possability that TK could have been linked to JtR, however at present I see no strong evidence to support such.

Just as a matter of interest, which facts am I trying to fit to my thinking (actually the term used was theory, which is different to thinking)?

And what theory (or thinking) am trying to fit the facts too in your opinion?


Steve

[Elamarna]

Steve,

You have my undying approbation and esteem for your pertinacity in pursuance of some measure of ratiocination but it is apparent that you are pummeling an unanimated equine.

A need for Harrison, Barber again?


Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

A need for Harrison, Barber again?


Steve

I think so Steve

[Fisherman]

The exact opposite is true. Why can't you see that "interpreting" the facts and spinning them is precisely what you do?

Because I don´t.

I say hearts were taken.

You say hearts were taken but for differerent reasons, and that they were probably taken in different fashions too.

I say uteri were taken.

You say that they were taken but for different reasons; Jacksons uterus was taken on account of her pregnancy, and Chapmans and Kellys because the Ripper was a wild animal who could not help himself.

I say flaps from the abdominal walls were taken.

You say that they were taken for different reasons, Jacksons being taken away to facilitate to take her foetus out. And to boot, you claim that Jackons flaps were much smaller and narrower that Kellys, for example.

It should be quite, quite obvious who does the "interpreting" around here.

[Fisherman]

Its very clear from the reply Christer, that you have no specific counters to the points raised, just generic replies, lacking in detail.


It is not I who insist on over simplification of arguments!

It is not I who continually says those disagreeing with their view are "ignorant" or such a view is "bonkers".

I do not rule out Lechmere could have killed Nichols, I do however consider the theory as proposed by yourself to not be particularily strong.

I do not rule out the possability that TK could have been linked to JtR, however at present I see no strong evidence to support such.

Just as a matter of interest, which facts am I trying to fit to my thinking (actually the term used was theory, which is different to thinking)?

And what theory (or thinking) am trying to fit the facts too in your opinion?


Steve

Steve, what you are doing is to reason that in the large collections of serial killers who mutilated and eviscerated in the same town and time, this was probably one of the cases where two such killers were at large simultaneously.

What I am doing is to reason that since there are no occasions of serial killers who mutilated and eviscerated in the same town and time, there is no realistic reason to think it happened here either.

Basically that´s all that needs to be said.

A question: Are you aware of how rare mutilators/eviscerators are? I mean REALLY aware?

[Fisherman]

I think so Steve

Since neither of you would be able to tell a horse from a goat by the looks of things, it may be a very risky thing.

[Elamarna]

Steve, what you are doing is to reason that in the large collections of serial killers who mutilated and eviscerated in the same town and time, this was probably one of the cases where two such killers were at large simultaneously.

What I am doing is to reason that since there are no occasions of serial killers who mutilated and eviscerated in the same town and time, there is no realistic reason to think it happened here either.

Basically that´s all that needs to be said.

A question: Are you aware of how rare mutilators/eviscerators are? I mean REALLY aware?

We disagree on that 100%.

You present an interpretation of a limited data set(limited by when records started), that of serial killers.

Your continual presentation of such as if somehow this information is a set of rules which cannot be amended and in effect set in stones is touching.


Steve

[Elamarna]

Since neither of you would be able to tell a horse from a goat by the looks of things, it may be a very risky thing.

Once again totally incorrect.

Given my career, thats actually both comical and highly insulting at the same time.



Steve

[Fisherman]

Once again totally incorrect.

Given my career, thats actually both comical and highly insulting at the same time.



Steve

Tough choice - laugh or cry?

Did you ponder that I may think it insulting to be compared to a horse ready for slaughter? No?

[Fisherman]

We disagree on that 100%.

You present an interpretation of a limited data set(limited by when records started), that of serial killers.

Your continual presentation of such as if somehow this information is a set of rules which cannot be amended and in effect set in stones is touching.


Steve

It does not matter that the data is limited, Steve - it is nevertheless the route the police will take in an investigation: to look at the similarities and see if there is reason to suspect a common originator.

That IS set in stone. That IS how they do it. There is no other way to do it they can only go by the case facts and compare from case to case.

If you find that touching, then THAT is per se touching, strange as it may sound.

[Elamarna]

It does not matter that the data is limited, Steve - it is nevertheless the route the police will take in an investigation: to look at the similarities and see if there is reason to suspect a common originator.

That IS set in stone. That IS how they do it. There is no other way to do it they can only go by the case facts and compare from case to case.

If you find that touching, then THAT is per se touching, strange as it may sound.

Thats how the police do it!
Such does not matter, the number of miscarriagees of justice world wide shows they are far from infaliable and if following the methods you suggest that is no surprise.


However, you are not using case facts.
You are using generic terms and descriptions and saying that detail is unimportant.

Such is your right, i will always defend your right to present any theory you like; however without supporting evidence, which you simply do not have, such theories remain just that, possabilities in a long list of other possabilties.

Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

Tough choice - laugh or cry?

Did you ponder that I may think it insulting to be compared to a horse ready for slaughter? No?

I didnt compare you to a dead horse Fish. The phrase ‘flogging a dead horse’ means to ‘waste your time.’

[Elamarna]

Tough choice - laugh or cry?

Did you ponder that I may think it insulting to be compared to a horse ready for slaughter? No?

I considered that Herlocks post was about the idea, not the person.

The "dead horse" as in "flogging a dead horse" is normal used to refer to the futility of arguing ideas that are set,

Collins English Dictionary:

"If you say that someone is flogging a dead horse, you mean that they are trying to achieve something impossible. "

Its not normally, or ever as far as i am aware used to say a person is a dead horse.

Maybe its different in Sweden.
If you took it as a personal insult i am surprised given your career, but if that is the case i appologies for any offence you have taken.

Steve

[Elamarna]

I didnt compare you to a dead horse Fish. The phrase ‘flogging a dead horse’ means to ‘waste your time.’

Our posts Crossed, or is that Lechmered?


Steve