Same motive = same killer

[Sam Flynn]

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

Coincidences, exaggerations or overgeneralisations - fact

Also, it is emphatically NOT a fact that the 1873 torso victim had her "nosetip cut off". Quite the opposite, in reality - it was the UPPER part of her nose that was missing, not the tip.

[Fisherman]

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.

-

It has a whole lot to do with statistics when it comes to how the police do their work.

You say that we are dealing with people who act randomly/unpredictably. To me, it seems they are doing nothing of the sort - if one of them does a very odd thing, it seems the other will do the same very odd thing too.

That´s not unpredictability, it´s more like predictability.

The fact that it CAN happen theoretically is what allows you to express your view. The fact that it will virtually never happen is what tells me that you are with an almost 100 per cent certainty wrong.

[Fisherman]

Coincidences, exaggerations or overgeneralisations - fact

Then you should have no problems proving that. Facts are proven matters, see.

Then, when you have proven your suggestion (which is all it amounts too), we can discuss the 1884 Tottenham case - which was the one I was referring to.

And THEN we can discuss wether it is the cutting away of a nose that matters - or the exact amount of millimeters that were cut off.

Now, PROVE that the facts - which they are - I listed are "coincidences, exaggerations or overgeneralizations"!

Oh, but you can´t, can you? You just made it up, didn´t you?

The shame, Gareth. The shame.

[Sam Flynn]

To me, it seems they are doing nothing of the sort - if one of them does a very odd thing, it seems the other will do the same very odd thing too.

That´s not unpredictability, it´s more like predictability.

If you want to claim predictability, then why did so many of the similarities you claim only happen in a few of the torso cases, and only then if one loosens the criteria such that the emptying of the entire thorax becomes a simplistic "heart removed", and decapitation becomes a mere "cut neck"? (et cetera)

[Sam Flynn]

Then, when you have proven your suggestion (which is all it amounts too), we can discuss the 1884 Tottenham case - which was the one I was referring to.

She'd also had her eyes taken out, quite unlike any other victim.

Now, PROVE that the facts - which they are - I listed are "coincidences, exaggerations or overgeneralizations"!

The overgeneralisations and exaggerations speak for themselves, as any objective reading of the facts will demonstrate.

Oh, but you can´t, can you? You just made it up, didn´t you?

I'm not the one who's making things up.

The shame, Gareth. The shame.

More egotistical crowing.

[Fisherman]

She'd also had her eyes taken out, quite unlike any other victim.
The overgeneralisations and exaggerations speak for themselves, as any objective reading of the facts will demonstrate.
I'm not the one who's making things up.

More egotistical crowing.

How does the fact that the eyes are missing from the Tottenham torso make my statement that her nose was cut off a "coincidence, exagerration or overgeneralization"?

You say that the "overgeneralizations and exagerrations speak for themselves" - which is another way to say that you cannot prove it in any single case I made. So no, they do not speak for themselves, and no, it is not okay not to substantiate and prove your points.
Once more, Gareth, you are on the shamefullest of journeys here.

And you ARE the one making things up, as proven by how you cannot substantiate one single point you made. So the facts I listed ARE facts, and they DO stand.

Egotistical to me is when somebody is so fond of himself and his thinking that he is unable to admit when he is wrong. That is egotistical and counterproductive on the boards.

[Fisherman]

If you want to claim predictability, then why did so many of the similarities you claim only happen in a few of the torso cases, and only then if one loosens the criteria such that the emptying of the entire thorax becomes a simplistic "heart removed", and decapitation becomes a mere "cut neck"? (et cetera)

Because the killers agenda was wide enough to harbor different inclusions in different murders - but the similarities nevertheless gives him away.

Both took out uteri, both took out hearts, both cut away... you know the list. It´s the same list that you failed do fault on any single point in your former post. That´s where there seems to have been a large measure of predictability.

I hope you are following the Original nightstalker case. It has much bearing on this thread, if you take a look at how the varying jurisdictions wised up as time went by; detectives said "Oh, that guy in the East area does the same thing as the Visalia ransacker did, he keeps many escape routes open" and "Oh, look how this man puts dishes in front of the doors, like alarms" and so on - signs of a common originator.

I thoroughly - thoroughly! - recommend an hur or two spent on the net to see how detectives reason in cases like these, what makes them go for a conclusion of one killer only. There are many cases where the polce knew they had a serial killer on their hands long before he was caught, and in many cases, it really did not take much for them to draw that conclusion.

It works from both sides. Not only is it an issue of sinilarities being there, but it is also the statistically based insight that one should not expect two serialists being on the prowl in the same area and time. Weighed together in our case, the only logical conclusion is one of a single killer.

[Sam Flynn]

How does the fact that the eyes are missing from the Tottenham torso make my statement that her nose was cut off a "coincidence, exagerration or overgeneralization"?

Quite right. It comes under another heading, namely "only telling part of the story", ie the part that suits your argument.

[Sam Flynn]

Your statistical argument is flawed.

[Fisherman]

Quite right. It comes under another heading, namely "only telling part of the story", ie the part that suits your argument.

Alternatively, it comes under the heading "Trying to explain away by suggesting alternative takes on things".
Then again, what do I know - that is not my department.

You commented on a list I had made, stating ten points of similarities.

You criticism was not that other material needed to be added. It was that the facts in the list were "coincidences, exagerrations and overgeneralizations".

You have miserably - and predictably - failed to sustain that argument. And so now you try to bring other matters into the discussion.

It will in no way cover what you did, Gareth. And how wrong it was.

[Fisherman]

Your statistical argument is flawed.

Since it seems your whole reasoning is based on untruths and lofty speculation, I´d say that would be a minor offence in comparison. If it was true.

However, I don´t think it is. But you are welcome - once again - not to throw accusations around without substantiation, but instead to prove your claim.

[Elamarna]

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.

That´s a fact too, by the way.

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

Goodnight.

My Dear Christer.

The same list, of superficial similarities. The facts which allow us to understand those statements are the details which you always ignore, or rather claim are of no importance, a shame how you always get it wrong.

So one more time:

Hearts taken out---- by different methods, argures against same individual. In kelly the heart is specifically targeted, with Jackson the entire contents of the thorax are removed.


Uteri---- again you leave out the all important details. Chapman and Eddowes removed from scene. Suggests either specifically important to killer or just sample trophy. The removal of Eddowes Kidney and the kelly case where the uterus remains on site but the heart is taken strongly suggests these are trophies and the uterus is not in itself his specific target. Jackson is pregnent, the uterus is removed by a different method, the foetus is removed, the uterus is discarded along with other tissue in a bundle, strongly suggests a different motive and a different individual.


Abdominal wall cut away----- given that both series have abdomenial organs removed, this is not a surprise. However, the methods appear to be different. In Jackson the areas of tissue removed appear to be on either side of the uterus and would facilate the removal of the uterus with foetus, more so if the perpetrator was relatively inexperienced in such tasks.
We do not know if the method used to perform the cutting is similar to the Whitechapel cases, however given that Hebbert did feel the same hand was involved, one can in all probability conclude the method was different.
The sections removed in the whitechapel series appear to be far more extensive than that in the Jackson case; unfortunately a real comparison is not possible as accurate description are not available. That however does not mean we can conclude that they were the same.

Rings missing--- this COULD suggest a stronger link, unfortunately there are alternatives to the killer taking trophies. Indeed the removal of rings in Jackson, fits very well with the removal of other identifying items. And such may have been the intention.
We also cannot rule out simple robbery.


Necks and throats severed---- this is perhaps the most misleading of all these statements.
The vast majority of students of the Whitechapel murders would say that the cause of death in all 5 of the canoics was blood loss from the severing of the Carotid arteries and to a lesser extent the Jugular viens. You of course beleive such is not so in the Nichols case and the cause of death was blood loss from undefined abdomenial wounds.

We have no way of knowing if such was true of the Torso's. We do know that the heads were removed that certainly involves cutting of the soft tissues of the neck. Yes there is a similarity, but it appears to be superficial. There is no indication that the throat cutting in the torso case is anything more than part of the method of removing the head.
Similar there is no forensic evidence that the cuts to the necks are similar.


Nose tips cut off-- superficial, in all probability collateral damage.

Colon sections cut out---- this suggests at first reading that these sections are removed alone with the rest of the intestines left in place. Such is not a full or accurate account as you are well aware. The intestines as a whole are moved and removed, the colon is not alone in this. It may be collateral damage, it may be significant, particularly when applied to the Whitechapel murders , we have no way of knowing and any conclusion is guess work.

Prostitute victims--- maybe, but even that is disputed in the Whitechapel case, i gather a new work due next year may take a different view.
Stride certainly can be questioned.

With the Torso's, Jackson yes, but the rest we have no knowledge of, and althogh possible it is not certain.
However lets for debate assume they are all working girls, that given the vast number there were in london at the time only means that they were available, not that they were specifically targetted.

Both in London. ---- largest city in the world at the time, and technically more than one City, althogh most regard it as one. The Whitechapel series are indeed committed in the heart of the City, the Torso's are more spread out, following the line of the Thames and the Grand Union / Regeants canal. It is possible that the murders were committed on the canal and some of the victims could conceivably have been from outside london.

Given that, the same City argument is too generic to draw a firm conclusion of the significance.

Overlapping---- well yes. You claim such is very unlikely, i do not agree.


So there we are factual arguments to counter each of you generalisations.



Steve

[Fisherman]

My Dear Christer.

The same list, of superficial similarities. The facts which allow us to understand those statements are the details which you always ignore, or rather claim are of no importance, a shame how you always get it wrong.

So one more time:

Hearts taken out---- by different methods, argures against same individual. In kelly the heart is specifically targeted, with Jackson the entire contents of the thorax are removed.


Uteri---- again you leave out the all important details. Chapman and Eddowes removed from scene. Suggests either specifically important to killer or just sample trophy. The removal of Eddowes Kidney and the kelly case where the uterus remains on site but the heart is taken strongly suggests these are trophies and the uterus is not in itself his specific target. Jackson is pregnent, the uterus is removed by a different method, the foetus is removed, the uterus is discarded along with other tissue in a bundle, strongly suggests a different motive and a different individual.


Abdominal wall cut away----- given that both series have abdomenial organs removed, this is not a surprise. However, the methods appear to be different. In Jackson the areas of tissue removed appear to be on either side of the uterus and would facilate the removal of the uterus with foetus, more so if the perpetrator was relatively inexperienced in such tasks.
We do not know if the method used to perform the cutting is similar to the Whitechapel cases, however given that Hebbert did feel the same hand was involved, one can in all probability conclude the method was different.
The sections removed in the whitechapel series appear to be far more extensive than that in the Jackson case; unfortunately a real comparison is not possible as accurate description are not available. That however does not mean we can conclude that they were the same.

Rings missing--- this COULD suggest a stronger link, unfortunately there are alternatives to the killer taking trophies. Indeed the removal of rings in Jackson, fits very well with the removal of other identifying items. And such may have been the intention.
We also cannot rule out simple robbery.


Necks and throats severed---- this is perhaps the most misleading of all these statements.
The vast majority of students of the Whitechapel murders would say that the cause of death in all 5 of the canoics was blood loss from the severing of the Carotid arteries and to a lesser extent the Jugular viens. You of course beleive such is not so in the Nichols case and the cause of death was blood loss from undefined abdomenial wounds.

We have no way of knowing if such was true of the Torso's. We do know that the heads were removed that certainly involves cutting of the soft tissues of the neck. Yes there is a similarity, but it appears to be superficial. There is no indication that the throat cutting in the torso case is anything more than part of the method of removing the head.
Similar there is no forensic evidence that the cuts to the necks are similar.


Nose tips cut off-- superficial, in all probability collateral damage.

Colon sections cut out---- this suggests at first reading that these sections are removed alone with the rest of the intestines left in place. Such is not a full or accurate account as you are well aware. The intestines as a whole are moved and removed, the colon is not alone in this. It may be collateral damage, it may be significant, particularly when applied to the Whitechapel murders , we have no way of knowing and any conclusion is guess work.

Prostitute victims--- maybe, but even that is disputed in the Whitechapel case, i gather a new work due next year may take a different view.
Stride certainly can be questioned.

With the Torso's, Jackson yes, but the rest we have no knowledge of, and althogh possible it is not certain.
However lets for debate assume they are all working girls, that given the vast number there were in london at the time only means that they were available, not that they were specifically targetted.

Both in London. ---- largest city in the world at the time, and technically more than one City, althogh most regard it as one. The Whitechapel series are indeed committed in the heart of the City, the Torso's are more spread out, following the line of the Thames and the Grand Union / Regeants canal. It is possible that the murders were committed on the canal and some of the victims could conceivably have been from outside london.

Given that, the same City argument is too generic to draw a firm conclusion of the significance.

Overlapping---- well yes. You claim such is very unlikely, i do not agree.


So there we are factual arguments to counter each of you generalisations.



Steve

You know, I only have to go to the first sentence to know what is coming. "Superficial similarities".
Prove that, please.

Meanwhile, I may just read the rest, although it is probably painfully predictable. When somebody tries to establish that the similarities are superficial without no proof whatsoever - like you do - you know that you are dealing with a poster to whom the facts and the truth are of subordinate importance.

Now, let´s hear it - how do you prove that the facts I listed are "superficial"? Or was that just a supposition/hope/untruth from your side?

[Sam Flynn]

You know, I only have to go to the first sentence to know what is coming. "Superficial similarities".
Prove that, please

Steve proved it already, in the very post you quoted.

[Fisherman]

Done! That was quick.

You suggest but canno substantiate a lot of alternative takes. That is uninteresting until you prove either of them. The facts I presented ARE proven ones.

One example of your reasoning - you say that the Chapman and Eddowes uteri were taken from the murder sites. The sly implication is that they were not so in the Jackson case, but as a matter of fact we don´t even know where she was murdered. But we DO know that the uterus was thrown in the Thames.
What tells us that the killer of Chapman and Eddowes kept the organs as trophies - like you suggest? Nothing - but our knowledge that serialists have been known to take trophies. But generally speaking, they take items like clothing and jewellery, keepsakes that will not rot away. However, it is not impossible that the killer of Chapman and Eddowes took the uteri for keeps - but he may equally have discarded them, like Jacksons killer did.
Into this mix must also be thrown how Kellys uterus WAS cut out but NOT taken by the killer, who left it in Millers Court.
So we have a more complex matter than the solution you suggest. And it must remain a suggestion only - the remedy prescribed against all things "one killer" by you. I for one take that on board, but since it seemingly breaks up your idea I am inclined to think you won´t.

This is just one example of how you do yor homework. You try to take the facts I listed one step further, and never in the direction of the one killer suggestion. That is how you do your homework. I must grade it down severely, I´m afraid. It´s bad stuff.

I note that you disagree about how I say it is unlikely to have two serial killers in overlapping time and the same geographical area. You are welcome to list the examples you have - there are a few, but they are, well ... few. And the reason for this is an obvious on:

Serial killers are rare.

Serial killers who mutilate are rarer still. Much so.

Serial killers who eviscerate are very, very rare.

Serial killers who eviscerate, mutilate and take away abdominal walls in sections are rare in the extreme. When they DO surface, however, they tend to do so in Victorian London around the 1880:s. In spades.

Not.

But this has been discussed for ages now, and I won´t buy the faulty raoning you offer, just as you refuse to join the correct side of the debate. My guess is that won´t change. You will go on to lie about it by saying that the similarities are "superficial". Not that they may be, or that you think that they probably are, but instead that they ARE superficial.

Brrrrrrrr. Not my kind of research.