Same motive = same killer

[Elamarna]

Steve!

The types of damages listed by me are very rare inclusions in murders. It has nothing to do with how these inclusions are not described in detail, because no matter how that detailied description would have looked, the uteri and heart removal would STILL be very rare inclusions and the abdominal wall removal even rarer.
Trying to hide behind the lacking detail does not work for you.

I believe the neck cutting in the Pinchin Street case and the Kelly case was mentioned by Phillips as being much similar.

And you should not be confused or surprise by how I don´t alter my arguments from post to post. There is no reason to - I am perfectly fine with them as they are.

You don´t think they are "significant", but compared to your arguments and points they are a thousand times more significant.

Live on in denial, by all means. It leaves me decidedly unimpressed, but there´s always Gareth and Herlock applauding away, of course ...

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

[Fisherman]

Steve!

The types of damages listed by me are very rare inclusions in murders. It has nothing to do with how these inclusions are not described in detail, because no matter how that detailied description would have looked, the uteri and heart removal would STILL be very rare inclusions and the abdominal wall removal even rarer.
Trying to hide behind the lacking detail does not work for you.

I believe the neck cutting in the Pinchin Street case and the Kelly case was mentioned by Phillips as being much similar.

And you should not be confused or surprise by how I don´t alter my arguments from post to post. There is no reason to - I am perfectly fine with them as they are.

You don´t think they are "significant", but compared to your arguments and points they are a thousand times more significant.

Live on in denial, by all means. It leaves me decidedly unimpressed, but there´s always Gareth and Herlock applauding away, of course ...

[Herlock Sholmes]

How can we know they were real similarities if we can't compare them? Actually, we can compare much of the evidence and, when we do, we frequently see material differences, not similarities, and these differences exist even within the alleged "similarities" themselves.It's not just a question of the similarities being true or false, but of how real and significant they are. It is also important to bear the very real dissimilarities in mind.
Nowhere near.

[Elamarna]

Every similarity is more or less specific. The combination of uteri removal, heart removal and abdominal wall removal is a very specific coctail. In fact, the abdominal wall removal only is quite rare and specific. it is more than enough to "take the lead" in an investigation, Steve.

Please Christer, they are not specific at all they are generalisations. Can you really not see that. This continual "these are rare" applied to generic descriptions is not in the slightest convincing or compelling.

You say that there is no evidence telling us that then neck cutting was of the same type. Maybe you need to re-read the evidence therefore.

Not so. There is nothing in the evidence to say the same method is used.

It matters not that we do not know the exact shape of the flaps. They were large and taken from the abdominal wall. Rare. Extremely so. Believing in two killer doing it at the same time would be believing in an even rarer thing.

Two hearts WERE taken. Interpretation only can tell them apart. And interpretation only is what you have.
I won´t go near it.

I have demonstrated very clear and specific . That was easy.


If you are trying to show the similarities between flaps, you need to show what is meant by the term. You cannot do that other than in the most general fashion.


No you have not shown specifically the heart was targeted in the Jacksin case; if you truly beleive you have, rather than just saying so, you are i am very much afraid deluding and misleading yourself no one else. And note i am NOT saying you are trying to mislead anyone else. I have no doubt you beleieve what you write is true..

I have not satisfied you, since it is impossible. But since I knew that from the outset, I was not surprised. I ony press my pioint so as not to have people overly impressed by your reasoning. It smoulders away when looking at the facts, which is why I repeatedly add them.

No its not impossible,
The theory remains viable; however it at present fails in the the similarities are nowhere near clear or specific enough to support the conclusion you reach.
Earlier you gave an example of specific similarities in an hypocritical case which clearly suggested a real link. Thats all i am asking for here, and of course instead of producing such clear and well defined evidence, you list the same arguments yet again, the very arguments that fail to convince in the first place.

Of course you must reply, or else the outstanding and obvious weaknesses in the theory are cruely exposed. That does not mean the theory is wrong, purely that it cannot be proven in the slightest at PRESENT.


STEVE

[Fisherman]

As for significance, I´d say that this is governed by the rarity and not foremost by the specificity - if every killer stamped "Made in Thailand" on their victims´ foreheads, it will be very unsignificant.

But if we can only find the very fewest of killers who take away the abdominal wall in sections, THEN we have significance!

Off for a day or two now.

[Fisherman]

How can we know they were real similarities if we can't compare them? Actually, we can compare much of the evidence and, when we do, we frequently see material differences, not similarities, and these differences exist even within the alleged "similarities" themselves.

The answer to the first question is easy: We can´t know that they were real similarities BECAUSE we cant compare them. But the mor similarities there are and the odder they are, the smaller the chance/risk of the similarities being false.

I don´t know what material differences it is you are talking about, so you need to expand on that. Especially the differences that exist within the similarities. My feeling is that it is once more a question of interpretations on your behalf, but you need to clarify at any rate.

It's not just a question of the similarities being true or false, but of how real and significant they are. It is also important to bear the very real dissimilarities in mind.

Of course the significance is of the utmost importance. And I know what the removal of organs like the uterus and the heart, the cutting of abdomens and the taking away of the abdominal wall adds up to - and it is not an abortion gone wrong.

I also think that it is far too convenient to just leave the Whitehall and Rainham victims to the side, claiming that Jackson was the only evisceration victim. They also lost organs, and not least in the Rainham case, we can see that there is a perfect parallel to Jackson - three torso sections, the thorax contents and part of the colon gone.How do we account for that if we don´t take the easy way out and say that it fell out all on it´own account, coincidentally representing the same organs (but for the uterus) that Jackson lost.

[Sam Flynn]

1. We don´t KNOW how the similarities compared to each other.

How can we know they were real similarities if we can't compare them? Actually, we can compare much of the evidence and, when we do, we frequently see material differences, not similarities, and these differences exist even within the alleged "similarities" themselves.

2. Of course we can´t tell to which degree each similarity was true or false. But we need to believe in them ALL being false to bring two killers on stage, and that does not work logically.

It's not just a question of the similarities being true or false, but of how real and significant they are. It is also important to bear the very real dissimilarities in mind.

It all squares quite well with a verdict of nearly proven.

Nowhere near.

[Fisherman]

Seems simple enough to me Fish.

1) You are not saying that the similarities are “so exact as to be beyond doubt.”

2) Or that we dont know “ to what degree the similarities were true or false similarities.”

These two statements dont even sound like you talking Fish!

1) You have said that the similarities are so fantastically rare its almost impossible for them to have been committed by different men.

2) And now you appear to be saying that the similarities ‘might’ be misleading?

None of this squares with the near certainty which you have shown throughout these debates. So certain in fact that you feel justified in saying that anyone that doesnt arrive at the same conclusion is either ‘biased or ignorant.’

1. We don´t KNOW how the similarities compared to each other. But we know they were there.

2. Of course we can´t tell to which degree each similarity was true or false. But we need to believe in them ALL being false to bring two killers on stage, and that does not work logically.

It all squares quite well with a verdict of nearly proven. But I am not going to start inventing facts or lying about what we have. Nearly proven is where it takes us - and that is fine by me.

It is fascinating to hear you say that this does not look like me - I have been saying this dozens of times. Presumably, you would prefer for me not to be discerning?

[Fisherman]

And there Christer is the problem demonstrated by your own example.

That similarity is specific, a perfect round one-inch hile through the tongue.

And thats what you dont have in the torso/ripper cases.

You try throat/neck being cut, but there is no suriving evidence to show the actual cuts or technique used are alike or comparable.

You use flaps as if it has some specific meaning, but again it is such a general term it could mean things very diffent, not just in shape but in method of production.

You say 2 hearts were taken, however there is nothing to show the heart of Jackson was specifically targeted as with Kelly. And the method of removal does not appear to suggest a common perpetrator.

The rings are closer, but again it may just be robbery.

What you have not so far been able to demonstrate is a very specific example of a similarity like that in your example above.
That is the issue many of us have with your theory, if you could show a specific similarity people may start to consider the theory again.
But of course thats the point, you don't present anything that specific , because such does not exist.


Steve

Every similarity is more or less specific. The combination of uteri removal, heart removal and abdominal wall removal is a very specific coctail. In fact, the abdominal wall removal only is quite rare and specific. it is more than enough to "take the lead" in an investigation, Steve.

You say that there is no evidence telling us that then neck cutting was of the same type. Maybe you need to re-read the evidence therefore.

It matters not that we do not know the exact shape of the flaps. They were large and taken from the abdominal wall. Rare. Extremely so. Believing in two killer doing it at the same time would be believing in an even rarer thing.

Two hearts WERE taken. Interpretation only can tell them apart. And interpretation only is what you have.
I won´t go near it.

I have demonstrated very clear and specific . That was easy.

I have not satisfied you, since it is impossible. But since I knew that from the outset, I was not surprised. I ony press my pioint so as not to have people overly impressed by your reasoning. It smoulders away when looking at the facts, which is why I repeatedly add them.

[Elamarna]

I´ll try again.
Two murder victims.
Dissimiliarities:
One killed in France, one in Britain.
One killed by strangulation, the other shot and dismembered.
Similarity: Both have a perfect, round one-inch hole through the tongue.

And there Christer is the problem demonstrated by your own example.

That similarity is specific, a perfect round one-inch hile through the tongue.

And thats what you dont have in the torso/ripper cases.

You try throat/neck being cut, but there is no suriving evidence to show the actual cuts or technique used are alike or comparable.

You use flaps as if it has some specific meaning, but again it is such a general term it could mean things very diffent, not just in shape but in method of production.

You say 2 hearts were taken, however there is nothing to show the heart of Jackson was specifically targeted as with Kelly. And the method of removal does not appear to suggest a common perpetrator.

The rings are closer, but again it may just be robbery.

What you have not so far been able to demonstrate is a very specific example of a similarity like that in your example above.
That is the issue many of us have with your theory, if you could show a specific similarity people may start to consider the theory again.
But of course thats the point, you don't present anything that specific , because such does not exist.


Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don´t understand the question. I think you may have either misread or misunderstood. It is not about the same thing at all to begin with.

Seems simple enough to me Fish.

As for the similarities I do not say that they are "so exact as to be beyond doubt". But as usual, it seems it does not matter how much I press the point that we don´t know to what degree the similarities were true or false similarities, I am nevertheless misquoted. Maybe that shows, more than anything else, how my stance is not fully grasped.

1) You are not saying that the similarities are “so exact as to be beyond doubt.”

2) Or that we dont know “ to what degree the similarities were true or false similarities.”

These two statements dont even sound like you talking Fish!

1) You have said that the similarities are so fantastically rare its almost impossible for them to have been committed by different men.

2) And now you appear to be saying that the similarities ‘might’ be misleading?

None of this squares with the near certainty which you have shown throughout these debates. So certain in fact that you feel justified in saying that anyone that doesnt arrive at the same conclusion is either ‘biased or ignorant.’

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,
But it's not any evidence to accept.Just rings on fingers, flaps of flesh,and opinions of medical people.The first cannot be proven,the second is evidence of similarity,the third is opinion.Not enough for those police you keep mentioning ,to consider a connection.None did,did they?

You have a little catching up to do, Harry.

[Fisherman]

It jolly well should be, if you're intent on pursuing a statistical argument.

The statistical argument I am following is that there was never any two series of murders with as many similarities inbetween them and two killers present. The statistics also involve how the things that were done to the victims in the series are very rare.
Predisposing that all victims must suffer the same damage before it becomes significant is not a good idea. Jackson and Chapman had more in common than Chapman and Nichols, remember?

It's not my interpretation - I'm just pointing out a possibility, albeit a strong one, but I'm not claiming that this is what happened. That said, Jackson's thorax was split down the middle, so it is very probable that the entire contents of the thorax were removed in one go. It would be faintly ridiculous if the perpetrator had gone to the trouble of cutting down the sternum, then deliberately excised her heart separately from between the lungs, only to go ahead and remove the lungs anyway afterwards.

Whether it is your interpretation or not is not very interesting. It is nevertheless an intrepretation. And regardless if the lungs were taken simultaneously, it may well have been a question of the same driving force behind the removal of the hearts in both cases. The fact that the lungs also were taken out does not have any impact on that at all.
Work with the facts only, and do not add interpretations, regardless who´s they are.

And, another thing, Jackson didn't just have her heart taken; she had her heart AND lungs taken out - completely. Which is more than can be said for Kelly, or any of the umpteen other victims in either series.

"I want to take the heart out!"

"I want to take the heart out! And I want to take the lungs out too!"

Is that the voices of two materially dissimilar killers?

Yes, because if the others had no rings to take, we're dealing with ONE isolated instance in both series where (a) rings were present; and (b) they were missing from the bodies when found. That's a laughably small sample size from which to draw any significance.

Remember the two victims with holes in their tongues? Is that a laughably small sample from which to draw any significance too? Do you really think that the police would say that in either case? If the others had no rings, would they not say that the killer seemingly takes the rings if there are any? Instead of going "Statistics are against this killer being a ring-taker!"
Maybe that´s just my kind of logic, though.

[Sam Flynn]

It was never a question of numbers.

It jolly well should be, if you're intent on pursuing a statistical argument.

this" as you call it is your interpretation. Once again. "It´s quite probable that...[the heart and lungs were removed together]"

It's not my interpretation - I'm just pointing out a possibility, albeit a strong one, but I'm not claiming that this is what happened. That said, Jackson's thorax was split down the middle, so it is very probable that the entire contents of the thorax were removed in one go. It would be faintly ridiculous if the perpetrator had gone to the trouble of cutting down the sternum, then deliberately excised her heart separately from between the lungs, only to go ahead and remove the lungs anyway afterwards.

And, another thing, Jackson didn't just have her heart taken; she had her heart AND lungs taken out - completely. Which is more than can be said for Kelly, or any of the umpteen other victims in either series.

Did I just read that? Really? The potential significance of how rings were missing from women in both series is dissolved if the rest of the victims had no rings to take from them?

Yes, because if the others had no rings to take, we're dealing with ONE isolated instance in both series where (a) rings were present; and (b) they were missing from the bodies when found. That's a laughably small sample size from which to draw any significance.

[harry]

Fisherman,
But it's not any evidence to accept.Just rings on fingers, flaps of flesh,and opinions of medical people.The first cannot be proven,the second is evidence of similarity,the third is opinion.Not enough for those police you keep mentioning ,to consider a connection.None did,did they?