Same motive = same killer

[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

[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 thatīs 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

[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.

[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 thatīs all that needs to be said.

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

[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 donīt.

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

A need for Harrison, Barber again?


Steve

I think so 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

[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 donīt "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

[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.

[Sam Flynn]

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.

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

[Fisherman]

We MAY do, However Christer despite your obvious desire to claim such a point has been reached, it has not.

It ought to, however.

Sorry but it is generic, general, which ever term we wish to use.

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.

Uteri: the methods employed appear to be different, the Jackson uterus is discarded but the foetus it contained is gone. This suggests the motivation for the removal in the Jackson case may be different from that in the Ripper cases, where the uterus itself appears to be a target.
Your placeing them togeather as being significant ignores motive, which this thread is supposed to be about. It also ignores method.
It is a generic comparision.

I donīt "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!

Heart: in the Kelly case the heart is removed from the body, via the diaphragm. That is an unusual route to use, it suggests the heart is specifically targeted.
In Jackson, the entire thorax is emptied, heart and lungs, a different method of removal is used.
Once again saying that hearts are removed is a significant similarity ignores probable motive and certainly method.
It is a generic comparison.

See the above.

Abdomen Wall: areas of flesh removed COULD be significant, if there was the slightest evidence that the areas were in anyway similar in size or shape, removed for the same reason or cut by a similar method.

None of which is the case. Your continual repeating it does not matter, actually well does not matter. It does not change the fact that you are using generic , simplistic terms such as "flap" and attempting to pass them off as being specific and significant
The comparison is again Generic.

See the above.

The hypothetical case you suggested several days ago of victems link by a specific wound, a perfectly round hole in the tongue, is just what you need, indeed that you used it shows you are well aware of this, or else there was no need to use such a specific example.

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.

And again despite claiming you are objective in this case over and over again, you continue to show such is not truly so by saying to disagree with your view is "bonkers" or " worse than that".

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.

And you finish by saying to doubt your view is not "realistic"

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.

I have little doubt you fully beleive these comments, that is what obsesive subjectivty, in trying to fit facts to a preformed theory, always does.

If you had left the last section out of the post, one could happily just agree to disagree. Those last few lines, saying what they do show you have no intention of following that path, a great shame.

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.

Why can you not just agree to disagree,

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

[Elamarna]

Evidence that takes soethng beyond unproven theroy makes it proven theory. And fact.

We all know that we can not reach that far.

But we CAN reach a point where we say that the coupling of the torso series and the Ripper ditto is in all probability a correct one.

We MAY do, However Christer despite your obvious desire to claim such a point has been reached, it has not.

How we lack the detail of the damage done does not alter that. The measures do not become "generic" in any other way than how we lack that detail. We DO however know, that the killer took out uteri, hearts and abdominal walls. That in itself is in no way generic. It represents a list of measures that are extremely rare in murder cases, no matter HOW it is done.

Sorry but it is generic, general, which ever term we wish to use.


Uteri: the methods employed appear to be different, the Jackson uterus is discarded but the foetus it contained is gone. This suggests the motivation for the removal in the Jackson case may be different from that in the Ripper cases, where the uterus itself appears to be a target.

Your placeing them togeather as being significant ignores motive, which this thread is supposed to be about. It also ignores method.
It is a generic comparision.

Heart: in the Kelly case the heart is removed from the body, via the diaphragm. That is an unusual route to use, it suggests the heart is specifically targeted.
In Jackson, the entire thorax is emptied, heart and lungs, a different method of removal is used.
Once again saying that hearts are removed is a significant similarity ignores probable motive and certainly method.
It is a generic comparison.

Abdomen Wall: areas of flesh removed COULD be significant, if there was the slightest evidence that the areas were in anyway similar in size or shape, removed for the same reason or cut by a similar method.

None of which is the case. Your continual repeating it does not matter, actually well does not matter. It does not change the fact that you are using generic , simplistic terms such as "flap" and attempting to pass them off as being specific and significant
The comparison is again Generic.

The hypothetical case you suggested several days ago of victems link by a specific wound, a perfectly round hole in the tongue, is just what you need, indeed that you used it shows you are well aware of this, or else there was no need to use such a specific example.

To believe in two serialists is a bit rich.

To beleive in two mutilating serialists is bonkers.

To believe in two serialists who both mutilated and eviscerated is worsa than that.

And when we add that they both took out abdominal walls, we are on safe ground saying that it was in all probability the same man who did it. No realistic doubt can be entertained.

Sorry, but sense must prevail.

And again despite claiming you are objective in this case over and over again, you continue to show such is not truly so by saying to disagree with your view is "bonkers" or " worse than that".

And you finish by saying to doubt your view is not "realistic"


I have little doubt you fully beleive these comments, that is what obsesive subjectivty, in trying to fit facts to a preformed theory, always does.

If you had left the last section out of the post, one could happily just agree to disagree. Those last few lines, saying what they do show you have no intention of following that path, a great shame.


Steve

Why can you not just agree to disagree,

[Fisherman]

That reply my friend highlights my very point.

Its not hiding behind lack of detail; its there are no details to support the theory.
It is not about denial, rather it is all to do with the objective assesment of the evidence.
I happily say a connection between the two series is possible, in particular the Torso's of the late 80's.
They are in the same city at the approximate same time.
They both involve cutting of the body.
Those are good but general links.

So for me it is wrong to rule out the possability, just as it is wrong to rule out Lechmere as the killer of Nichols.

However, again like the Nichols case, the detail present to take the case further is either too general or extrapolated beyond what is reasonable to assume from the evidence, if one is taking an objective stance.

You beleive, There was only one killer and he was Charles Lechmere
I do not see evidence to take either idea beyond the status of unproven theory.

We disagree, but we both know that anyway.


Steve

Evidence that takes soethng beyond unproven theroy makes it proven theory. And fact.

We all know that we can not reach that far.

But we CAN reach a point where we say that the coupling of the torso series and the Ripper ditto is in all probability a correct one.

How we lack the detail of the damage done does not alter that. The measures do not become "generic" in any other way than how we lack that detail. We DO however know, that the killer took out uteri, hearts and abdominal walls. That in itself is in no way generic. It represents a list of measures that are extremely rare in murder cases, no matter HOW it is done.

To believe in two serialists is a bit rich.

To beleive in two mutilating serialists is bonkers.

To believe in two serialists who both mutilated and eviscerated is worsa than that.

And when we add that they both took out abdominal walls, we are on safe ground saying that it was in all probability the same man who did it. No realistic doubt can be entertained.

Sorry, but sense must prevail.

[Fisherman]

"the neck cutting in the Pinchin Street case and the Kelly case"

Kelly had her throat cut, the Pinchin St torso had been decapitated.

Yawn. Itīs getting tedious. Both had the throat and the soft parts of the neck cut, and the Pinchgi STreet woman also had the spine severed. We do not know the timetable of the events. End of story.

[Sam Flynn]

"the neck cutting in the Pinchin Street case and the Kelly case"

Kelly had her throat cut, the Pinchin St torso had been decapitated.