Same motive = same killer

[Fisherman]

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

No, no, no! Donīt keep claiming it has been proven - present the proof! Steve did nothing but to once again suggest alternative reasons for the similarities, and that has been done for 4000 posts. It has so far not managed to alter the facts. It provides an interesting discussion, but it is not as if we can conclude that the suggestions you make are the ones representing the truth. Given the amount and character of the similarities, it leans heavily in the other direction.

But you are wriggling now, and I wonīt allow that. Present PROOF. Put up or shut up.

[Elamarna]

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

So easy.

The exames are superficial in that they are lacking in any detail what so ever.

They are easily demonstrated to be seriously flawed in most cases. The strongest by far in my opinion is the removal of the rings, however there are alternatives that are equally as plausible.


Steve

[Fisherman]

So easy.

The exames are superficial in that they are lacking in any detail what so ever.

They are easily demonstrated to be seriously flawed in most cases. The strongest by far in my opinion is the removal of the rings, however there are alternatives that are equally as plausible.


Steve

Superficial means "on the surface ONLY". And you cannot use that expression until you know that the similarities are surface similarities only. To do so is to intentionally mislead. To claim that it is a done deal that the similarities are only superficial is to lie.

You now use Gareths method - you say that it is easy to demonstrate that the examples I listed are seriously flawed in most cases. But you do not provide that proof. All you do is to say that there are alternative explanations.

But you know, alternative explanations can always be conjured up. Each and every time, until there is absolute proof stopping the practice.

So what you do is to brag about how you can prove that the examples I listed are flawed - but then you cannot prove it at all.

It is becoming very obvious what you are doing now, Steve. I am grateful for that.

[FrankO]

You bring up the old division of organized and disorganized killing and you obviously put the two killers you perceive in one division each. I donīt think there is enough to go on to make that division.

I think there is, Christer. There are 3 pointers that suggest that division.
1. in one series the victims are killed/mutilated in privacy and in the other (mostly) outdoors
2. the distinct suddenness of the proposed change from killing in privacy to killing outdoors and back again
3. the obvious difference in frequency of both murder series (controlled vs. compulsive)
Furthermore, especially the dumping of the torso in the Whitehall vault and the storing of some of the bodies fit well with a murderer who put some planning/thinking into what he did and the risk it involved. He was willing and competent enough to do so. We have no such pointers in the Ripper series.

Therefore, as such a change would be unexpected for one murderer, we have to consider the possibility that there were 2 instead of just the one.

If the combined killer had access to a bolthole on some occasions and not on others, then that in itself explains the matter.

But is that likely to have been the case? The fact that the Whitehall victim’s torso was not found until the 2nd of October (and at least hadn’t been there before 29 September) and that the woman had died before Nichols was murdered, suggests that this victim’s body was stored during the first 3/4 Ripper murders.

You acknowledge this, but say that what came first was apparently the attack on the sexual organs - but in Eddowes case, that seemingly did not come first. The face did.

That doesn’t change the fact that the Ripper cut the abdomen in 4 out of 4 cases and cut out the uterus in 3 of those, which I think is very important.

On the whole, though, I agree that the reproduction area seems to have been a prioritized thing.

And that’s quite a normal thing for serial killers to be interested in. And it fits perfectly with those parts of Mary Jane Kelly’s body having been cut (off) as per Vernon Geberth. Shoulder joints, hip joints, elbows, knees, ankles and wrists don’t come into play, the way I see it.

You seemingly predispose that all Ripper victims would look like Kelly if the time had been there. I am not at all sure about that other than in a roundabout way –

I don’t think that all Ripper victims would more or less have been copies of Kelly if the time had been there, but I would especially expect to see the cutting out of the uterus and some of those parts of the female body that are interesting to a man on more than one occasion only.

I think that he was perhaps more fulfilled by what he did to Kelly than by what he did to the others, but I donīt think he was disturbed in all the other cases and had to flee. And if he was not, then we must accept that what he did in these other cases was enough for him. He did what he came for.

Possibly, yes. Or he fled when he thought he had to (because he heard something), when in reality he would have had more time. Could be either way. But even if you’re right, that still doesn’t change the fact that a pattern emerges when looking at the Ripper murders. He cut the abdomen open in every case, cut out the uterus in all but one case and cut more parts out and off when he had definitely more than just the odd 10 minutes.

You say that the Ripper and the Torso man followed different patterns of dissasembly of their victims. But what if there was the large scheme of things? I believe the damage done in both series fit in with a wider scope of disassembly, tied to something that I am not yet ready to name.

I would be very interested in what that ‘something’ is, but since I don’t know it I can’t react to it in any other way than I’ve already done. Does it, by any chance, have something to do with the skeleton?…

The gist of it all is nevertheless that we can see that there are overlapping areas - they both open abdomens, they both cut necks and throats, they both take out colon parts, they both take out hearts, they both take out uteri, they both take away the abdominal wall, they both have rings gone from their victims fingers, they both damage faces. Itīs way too much to accept as a coincidence.

If you attach little weight, if any, to the pattern we can see amongst the Ripper victims, the sudden change from low-risk/low-frequency to high-risk/high frequency and the fact that this change would affect the level of fulfilment of his dark needs, then I would agree that it was way too much to accept it as coincidence.

Once we add that they both dabbled in the same mutilation and evisceration business and both cut away abdominal walls in large sections, I really think we are on very safe ground laughing the suggestion of two killers off.

Well, then laugh away, Christer. I think you’re underestimating the differences and/or overestimating the similarities.

It just isnīt within the realms of possibilities other than as a very freakish, off the charts minimal chance.

But still just as possible as you think it would be to suddenly chance from killing in private to killing outdoors.

Remember Sean Vincent Gillis: "I wanted to see her femur". Itīs a totally odd thing, but these killers are out there.

I remember him and agree that there are totally weird serial killers out there.

But I am pretty certain that whatever applies in that department, the killer had a genuine fascination with the anatomical aspects of the female body. The killer. Not the killers.

I agree with the first thing, but, as it stands, am inclined to disagree with the second.

Cheers,
Frank

[Fisherman]

Frank, I am going to have to digest your post for some time - as usual. But Iīll be back, as Douglas MacArthur said.

[Elamarna]

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 donīt even know where she was murdered. But we DO know that the uterus was thrown in the Thames.

The games, the games.
There is no sly implication that the uterus was not removed from the scene of the murder.
However thank you for pointing such out.
We are talking about torso's my dear chap.
The bodies as we all know were dumped/disposed of in parts.
The Uterus was found in a bundle, seperate from the Torso of Jackson.



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.

and
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 wonīt.

And of course what I actually said was that it "strongly suggests" that they were removed as trophies, that is not a certainty. This was followed up by the "Suggestion" that individual organs may not have been specific targets based on the point you mention above regards Kelly. Therefore the complexity is acknowledge before you mention it.
Either you did not read fully or you selectively ignore to give a view which differs from the reality of what has really been posted.


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, Iīm afraid. Itīs bad stuff.

Nothing wrong with my homework. The organs are removed from site, not found. The probability is they are trophies but it is not the only possability. It does suggest however that the uteri themselves may not be specific targets. The "example" you present does not actually exist because the possability was covered in the original post in the following sentence. Here it is again:

"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."

For a post to suggest such was not included is sinking to a new low; and is dishonest in the extreme



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.

Again the same flawed statistical argument.
Totally ignoring the points raised, as per normal.
HOWEVER I NOT IN THE SLIGHTEST SURPRISED.

But this has been discussed for ages now, and I wonīt buy the faulty raoning you offer, just as you refuse to join the correct side of the debate. My guess is that wonīt 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.

Is disagreeing with you now deemed to be a lie in itself..


Steve

[Elamarna]

No, no, no! Donīt keep claiming it has been proven - present the proof! Steve did nothing but to once again suggest alternative reasons for the similarities, and that has been done for 4000 posts. It has so far not managed to alter the facts. It provides an interesting discussion, but it is not as if we can conclude that the suggestions you make are the ones representing the truth. Given the amount and character of the similarities, it leans heavily in the other direction.

But you are wriggling now, and I wonīt allow that. Present PROOF. Put up or shut up.

The one wriggling is you Christer.

To suggest others present proof or shut up is novel given you have presented none yourself.


Steve

[Elamarna]

Superficial means "on the surface ONLY". And you cannot use that expression until you know that the similarities are surface similarities only. To do so is to intentionally mislead. To claim that it is a done deal that the similarities are only superficial is to lie.


we really are getting desperate are we not?
To give an opinion is now a lie. Really?

How is your OPINION that the similarities are significant any different?

It really is most telling the degree of omnipotence you assume.

You now use Gareths method - you say that it is easy to demonstrate that the examples I listed are seriously flawed in most cases. But you do not provide that proof. All you do is to say that there are alternative explanations.

But you know, alternative explanations can always be conjured up. Each and every time, until there is absolute proof stopping the practice.

it seems all sense of reality has been discarded, the alternatives are equally as valid as any you suggest.
In that case your view cannot be judged to be proven or any more likely than any other

So what you do is to brag about how you can prove that the examples I listed are flawed - but then you cannot prove it at all.

It is becoming very obvious what you are doing now, Steve. I am grateful for that.

In post 4116 you said


"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."


That appears to be very close to what is being posted.

Dont agree with certain views, and we are fools, we are bonkers, we are ignorant. We lie or we mislead.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Superficial means "on the surface ONLY". And you cannot use that expression until you know that the similarities are surface similarities only. To do so is to intentionally mislead. To claim that it is a done deal that the similarities are only superficial is to lie.


we really are getting desperate are we not?
To give an opinion is now a lie. Really?

How is your OPINION that the similarities are significant any different?

It really is most telling the degree of omnipotence you assume.

You now use Gareths method - you say that it is easy to demonstrate that the examples I listed are seriously flawed in most cases. But you do not provide that proof. All you do is to say that there are alternative explanations.

But you know, alternative explanations can always be conjured up. Each and every time, until there is absolute proof stopping the practice.

it seems all sense of reality has been discarded, the alternatives are equally as valid as any you suggest.
In that case your view cannot be judged to be proven or any more likely than any other

So what you do is to brag about how you can prove that the examples I listed are flawed - but then you cannot prove it at all.

It is becoming very obvious what you are doing now, Steve. I am grateful for that.
In post 4116 you said


"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."


That appears to be very close to what is being posted.

Dont agree with certain views, and we are fools, we are bonkers, we are ignorant. We lie or we mislead.


Steve

I only have to point to how you twist things by claiming that I would somehow have implied that having an opinion is to lie.

What I said was something completely different: If you say that it is a given that the similarities are superficial only, THEN you lie.

This is the reoccurring standard of your posting. Sadly!

I will read and answer Frank instead. He disagrees with me, but he does not twist my words to make a point. It makes for a refreshing change.