Same motive = same killer

[Varqm]

Coincidences.
-

[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.

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.

[Elamarna]

No, you can´t. 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? I´ll tell you why - because your, ehrm, "interpretation" of the cases tells you that this is the one exception to the rule.

It very probably isn´t, 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]

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 can´t. 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? I´ll tell you why - because your, ehrm, "interpretation" of the cases tells you that this is the one exception to the rule.

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

And proud of it.

[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

[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

[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.

[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]

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.

[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

[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

[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]

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

[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.

[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?