Same motive = same killer

[Fisherman]

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

It is of no importance whatsoever that the police fail to get it right at times, because when they accept a single killer in cases like this, they do it on a basis of totally sound logical reasoning. What they leave place for - and have to leave place for - is a possibility that the case they are handling does not follow logic and statistics. There is and will always be such a risk, but it becomes smaller, the more similarities there are and the odder and more specific they are.
In our case, logic dictates one killer, therefore. It is dead simple.

I asked you earlier, and it seems you did not wish to answer, so here goes again: Are you aware of how really unusual and rare mutilation/evisceration murders are, Steve?

The police would be 100 per cent correct in regarding two cases such as ours as connected on that basis only, BEFORE realizing how many similarities there are.

[Fisherman]

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

Then by definition you DID compare me to a dead horse, which there was no sense in flogging, Herlock. The proverb uses that comparison as a generic one, to use Steves vocabulary. Harrison and Barber aside.

But never mind, I really do not care much about that. I am more intent on getting you to understand the rarity of the cases we are dealing with and which implications that carries.

[Fisherman]

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

Nah, just pointing out that we should maybe not turn this into a "You insulted me! No, YOU insulted ME!" business instead of looking at the case facts.

I am a lot harder to offend than that. I even like horses. Not necessarily dead ones, though.

[Elamarna]

It is of no importance whatsoever that the police fail to get it right at times, because when they accept a single kiler in cases like this, they do it on a basis of totally sound logical reasoning. What they leave place for - and have to leave place for - is a possibility that the case they are handling does not follow logic and statistics. There is and will always be such a risk, but it becomes smaller, the more similarities there are and the odder and more specific they are.

I asked you earlier, and it seems you did not wish to answer, so here goes again: Are you aware of how really unusual and rare mutilation/evisceration murders are, Steve?

The police would be 100 per cent correct in regarding two cases such as ours as connected on that basis only, BEFORE realizing how many similarities there are.

Yes i am fully aware.

Each post is the same Christer, you claiming your view is the correct view.
Tiresome, tideious and totally lacking in actual facts.

But carry on, i can do this all day, every day.



Steve

[Elamarna]

Nah, just pointing out that we should maybe not turn this into a "You insulted me! No, YOU insulted ME!" business instead of looking at the case facts.

I am a lot harder to offend than that. I even like horses. Not necessarily dead ones, though.

Hang on you were not insulted. You decided to say you were, and i accepted it may have been a language issue; however that is obviously not the case.

Insults and games is all i see.
I certainly see no looking at case facts, fantasy and suppostition maybe.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Yes i am fully aware.

Each post is the same Christer, you claiming your view is the correct view.
Tiresome, tideious and totally lacking in actual facts.

But carry on, i can do this all day, every day.



Steve

No, you canīt. You are not even trying.

Unless you mean that you can say no all day.

I can do that too, but I find it less than useful.

If you really - REALLY - know how rare mutilation/evisceration murders are, then why is it that you favour two killers? Iīll tell you why - because your, ehrm, "interpretation" of the cases tells you that this is the one exception to the rule.

It very probably isnīt, though, Steve. Regardless of what you do all day, every day. Some are wrong all day, every day.

And proud of it.

[Elamarna]

No, you canīt. You are not even trying.

Unless you mean that you can say no all day.


Not Trying? The purpose of the debate is not to agree with you.
The purpose of the debate is to objectively analysis the sources irrespective of where they point. That i can and do every day.

I can do that too, but I find it less than useful.

Nor is it useful to spout the same tired, fact lacking arguments on and on.

If you really - REALLY - know how rare mutilation/evisceration murders are, then why is it that you favour two killers? Iīll tell you why - because your, ehrm, "interpretation" of the cases tells you that this is the one exception to the rule.

It very probably isnīt, though, Steve. Regardless of what you do all day, every day. Some are wrong all day, every day.

And proud of it.

And again, its the same old, same old.
No facts, just your opinion. An opinion which comes before any facts because of the need for one killer.

And yes everyday you are indeed wrong.


Steve

[Fisherman]

And again, its the same old, same old.
No facts, just your opinion. An opinion which comes before any facts because of the need for one killer.

And yes everyday you are indeed wrong.


Steve

Hearts taken out - fact
Uteri taken out - fact
Abdominal walls cut away - fact
Rings missing - fact
Necks and throats severed - fact
Nosetips cut off - fact
Colon sections cut out - fact
Prostitute victims - fact
Both series in London - fact
Series overlapping - fact

No facts? Really?

The only "need" here is the two killer scenario. The one killer scenario is no need, but instead the scenario we work from - if we want to be credible.

Thatīs a fact too, by the way.

Apparently, you CAN do this all day - and get it wrong each time. "No facts" - dear me...

Goodnight.

[Varqm]

Coincidences.
-

[Varqm]

It's like butchers making similar cuts.

-

[Varqm]

Statistics are inapplicable to guilt.
We are dealing with people,who act randomly/unpredictably.Out of the blue one person decides this, another decides that then things happen.That's it,it has nothing to do with statistics.Then one has to find evidence for those crimes.

-

[harry]

If the prediction,as in post 4019,is correct,then the murder of Polly Nichols in 1888,should immediately have alerted,and convinced police ,that her murder was connected to the oveflapping,sorry overlapping,torso murders,and if not her death,then surely that of Annie Chapmn.What evidence is there that they did consider one person responsible for the two series?

[Fisherman]

If the prediction,as in post 4019,is correct,then the murder of Polly Nichols in 1888,should immediately have alerted,and convinced police ,that her murder was connected to the oveflapping,sorry overlapping,torso murders,and if not her death,then surely that of Annie Chapmn.What evidence is there that they did consider one person responsible for the two series?

Chapman was killed in September 1888, and Jackson was found the following summer. So the police cannot be hold accountable for not realizing in September of 1888 that another victim would be found with the abdominal wall cut away in 1889.

The question you forget to ask is why we do not have the police saying in November 1888 that Chapmans and Kellys deaths were connected since they both had the abdominal wall cut away.

The police were not up to scratch, for reasons earlier given.

[Fisherman]

Coincidences.
-

Ten of them? Not very likely, no.

But the important thing to remember is that since we cannot tell whether one or more of the similarities were coincidental, what we do until we know what applies is to work from the presumption of one killer only.

If we can dismiss that picture by actually proving that all the similarities are coincidental - not lead on, PROVE! - then a common originator remains the by far best bid.

[Fisherman]

It's like butchers making similar cuts.

-

No, itīs more like identical twin butchers with the same urges and paraphilia making the same cuts in the same area and time. Or like just the ONE butcher. Itīs anybodys guess which is the likelier thing.