Same motive = same killer

[Harry D]

It's a shame that these debates become so adversarial in nature, usually on account of posters airing old grievances. The possibility of a connection between the Ripper & Thames Torso series should be an interesting and thought-provoking discussion if you approach it with an open-mind. There's nothing in the rulebook that says that a serial killer can't deviate in their MO & signature, particularly when we have no idea of the circumstances they were operating under. I know it's self-evident but it bears repeating that since the perpetrator(s) of these crimes were never caught, none of us can make definitive statements on the killer's bio. As for Fish, I see him as doubling-down on his convictions to make a point against mass scepticism, that's all.

Look at it this way, multi-killer theorists have tried to separate the canonical five because of perceived discrepancies in skill-level and behaviour. The Ripper took the uterus from Chapman. He took the uterus AND a kidney from Eddowes. Why the kidney? He removed the uterus (along with everything else) from Mary Kelly, but only took the heart this time. This begs the question whether the uteri bore significance to the killer or not? What changed for him to leave it behind this time? Unless it wasn't the same killer behind the other Whitechapel victims, but what are the odds of that? I don't think we can take anything for granted and presume that the killer should have always done 'x' because of 'y'. In the case of the Ripper & Torsos, what we have are two series of gruesome murders with geographical overlap that betray a need to dehumanize and deconstruct their prey, be it via mutilation and/or dismemberment. That doesn't mean they were performed by the same hand, but it doesn't mean the possibility should be disregarded either.

[Sam Flynn]

Never make yourself out as dumber than you are. If you are a bit dumb from the outset, that can be disastrous. No, things must not be more than likely true because they are unproven.

If you want to convince people out here that the taking of uteri and hearts and the removal of abdominal walls are not rare things, you have a lot of work cut out for you. It may be time to wise up, therefore, and not play the fool.

There you go again. If someone doesn't buy your interpretation it's because they are "dumb" and "playing the fool".

You conveniently "forgot" to add the last bit of my sentence - it is more than likely true similarities BECAUSE THEY ARE VERY RARE.

No. I covered that bit in the second half of my post.

[Elamarna]

I will do you a favour and explain to you, Steve, how presenting a supposition as fact looks:

"The similarities are superficial"

That is what you say, but in reality all that can be said is that they MAY be superficial. I donīt think for a second that they are, but I allow for the freakish thing that they may be.

So, say after me please: There is a possibility that the similarities are only superficial.

Good!

And goodbye. I have better things to do right now.

Its ok for you to say there is so strong a certainty that those disageeing are bias or ignorant such implies it is a fact!
yet the opposing view is only a possability.
You trying to teach me, the degree of arrogance the implies is truly astonishing.

Steve

[Fisherman]

You're asserting the "freakish coincidence" as if it were a fact, but it's merely your interpretation.

No, that IS a fact.

Goodbye.

[Elamarna]

Again you mislead.

There ARE links, true or false. Before we can dismiss them, they must be proven false. Until that happens, they are quite likely true links, on account of being very, very, very, very, very rare matters.

No there are links which are significant (true) or insignificant(false)

It is for those proposing a link to prove their significance, something you have failed to do. You have not proven a single "link" is significant.

As for misleading, another example of the pot calling the kettle black.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Eh? Because something is unproven must be more than likely true?The "rarity" that you perceive is based on your interpretation of the evidence, not on an objective assessment of the facts.

Besides, even if the "similarities" were not superficial - and they are - your "argument from rarity" is a bit of an own-goal, as I've mentioned before.

Never make yourself out as dumber than you are. If you are a bit dumb from the outset, that can be disastrous. No, things must not be more than likely true because they are unproven. You conveniently "forgot" to add the last bit of my sentence - it is more than likely true similarities BECAUSE THEY ARE VERY RARE.

If you want to convince people out here that the taking of uteri and hearts and the removal of abdominal walls are not rare things, you have a lot of work cut out for you. It may be time to wise up, therefore, and not play the fool.

Not that it doesnīt suit you.

Now, you twisting and misleading (as per "forgetting" full quotes) gentlemen will have to do without me for some time. It should suit you quite well.

[Fisherman]

I will do you a favour and explain to you, Steve, how presenting a supposition as fact looks:

"The similarities are superficial"

That is what you say, but in reality all that can be said is that they MAY be superficial. I donīt think for a second that they are, but I allow for the freakish thing that they may be.

So, say after me please: There is a possibility that the similarities are only superficial.

Good!

And goodbye. I have better things to do right now.

[Sam Flynn]

There ARE links, true or false. Before we can dismiss them, they must be proven false. Until that happens, they are quite likely true links

Eh? Because something is unproven must be more than likely true?

on account of being very, very, very, very, very rare matters.

The "rarity" that you perceive is based on your interpretation of the evidence, not on an objective assessment of the facts.

Besides, even if the "similarities" were not superficial - and they are - your "argument from rarity" is a bit of an own-goal, as I've mentioned before.

[Elamarna]

Nope. I say that I myself regard it as beyond reasonable doubt that there was just the one killer. And then I go on to say that the door must be left ajar for a freakish coincidence.

That is not presenting a theory as a fact.

when you said if we did not agree it was because we were bias or ignorant you were in effect presenting it ss fsct.

But it may be a bit too complex for you to see the difference? Or a tad too inconvenient to admit it?

Itīs good that you tell us in retrospect what you meant when you said that "Its intreptation that the uteri removal of Jackson is for any other reason than removal of a unborn infant". Otherwise, such things risk being misunderstood.

not at all, your reaction was expected, thank you for doing my task For me.
You still don't get it do you.

Now, tell me why you find it "funny" that I "try to make the foetus into an issue". Iīd like to hear your explanation to that, please.

Because it is not, i have no strong feelings about the foetus or it removal. You really don't understand do you?


Steve

[Sam Flynn]

Nope. I say that I myself regard it as beyond reasonable doubt that there was just the one killer. And then I go on to say that the door must be left ajar for a freakish coincidence.

That is not presenting a theory as a fact.

You're asserting the "freakish coincidence" as if it were a fact, but it's merely your interpretation.

[Fisherman]

I have never said there are not superficial, insignificant similarites which you say link the cases you wish to continue using the term link when it shows nothing significant.

Again despite your claims of not forcing your view as fact you imply it yet again.

Steve

Again you mislead.

There ARE links, true or false. Before we can dismiss them, they must be proven false. Until that happens, they are quite likely true links, on account of being very, very, very, very, very rare matters.

[Fisherman]

Not simultaneous, but overlapping - one series with a leisurely cadence over years, the other a blitz lasting weeks.

Not the "same town", but two different parts of the then largest city in the world.

Not all had their uteri and hearts cut out.

Not all had their abdominal walls cut away (not even Jackson).

Not all flaps are the same.

Yes, overlapping - which is how I often word it.

Yes, the same town. Two parts of a town ARE parts of the same town, believe it or not.

Who said that all victims had their uteri and hearts cut out? I say that it ties some victims from BOTH serie together.

Who said all the victims had their abdominal walls cut out? I say that it ties some victims from BOTH series together.

No two flaps can be exactly the same, but overall, they may or may not have looked very much the same. The point being that you donīt know.

[Fisherman]

Its really funny to watch you try and make the foetus into an issue.
It seems you really have failed to grasp what my original post was about. Shame.
Fortunately it has achived what was it purpose very easily.

Its also funny and highly disingenuous to hear you claim you do not present theories as fact. You do it in constantly.

Steve

Nope. I say that I myself regard it as beyond reasonable doubt that there was just the one killer. And then I go on to say that the door must be left ajar for a freakish coincidence.

That is not presenting a theory as a fact.

But it may be a bit too complex for you to see the difference? Or a tad too inconvenient to admit it?

Itīs good that you tell us in retrospect what you meant when you said that "Its intreptation that the uteri removal of Jackson is for any other reason than removal of a unborn infant". Otherwise, such things risk being misunderstood.

Now, tell me why you find it "funny" that I "try to make the foetus into an issue". Iīd like to hear your explanation to that, please.

[Sam Flynn]

Itīs just another two cases, simultaneous such ones from the same town, where women have their uteri and hearts cut out and their abdominal walls cut away in flaps.

Not simultaneous, but overlapping - one series with a leisurely cadence over years, the other a blitz lasting weeks.

Not the "same town", but two different parts of the then largest city in the world.

Not all had their uteri and hearts cut out.

Not all had their abdominal walls cut away (not even Jackson).

Not all flaps are the same.

[Elamarna]

So now we at least have you admitting that the cases are linked - although you prefer to believe the links are "superficial". Itīs just another two cases, simultaneous such ones from the same town, where women have their uteri and hearts cut out and their abdominal walls cut away in flaps.

Move on everybody, nothing to see here.

Steve?

You are wrong.

I have never said there are not superficial, insignificant similarites which you say link the cases you wish to continue using the term link when it shows nothing significant.

Again despite your claims of not forcing your view as fact you imply it yet again.

Steve