Same motive = same killer

[RockySullivan]

Can't blood be covered up with dirt? (i.e when the trenches were filled in) It was awfully dark down there. Wondering if the black staining on the wall could be blood splatter?

That's true. Yea I mean what else could the black stuff be? They said it was basically the stain of the rotting flesh, but that doesn't make sense much does it? So say the victim was dismembered inside the vault, then you have to think she was alive when she entered don't you? And that's hard to swallow, why would a girl follow a man into that deep dark vault?

[RockySullivan]

I´d be happy to answer that, once you...

It's not happening. You just don't want to correct your goof ups.

[Sam Flynn]

You said that the killer was not likely to have used a boat because he would not want to bother about going ashore to dump parts if he did.

No, I said that, if you were going to dismember a body on board a boat and dump the parts in the river, then jettisoning the body parts in the river and not bothering to take body-parts on land would make more sense. Which it self-evidently does. It also makes more sense, therefore, that the bodies were dismembered on land and then dumped in the river and/or on land.

The opposite is, of course, possible, but it makes less sense. I tend to favour sensible explanations, perhaps because they tend to have a greater likelihood of being true than the alternatives. Ockham and all that.

[Fisherman]

It's not happening. You just don't want to correct your goof ups.

You have lately called me surstromming and a little crybaby, so no, it´s not happening as long as that goes on.

But if you promise to stay away from such thing, it IS happening.

It is really quite simple. Just as simple as it is to see that you always CHOOSE not to have a debate with me.

Actually, I think that is the one wise choice you have made out here. But don´t try to mislead about it, because that ain´t working.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: No, I said that, if you were going to dismember a body on board a boat and dump the parts in the river, then jettisoning the body parts in the river and not bothering to take body-parts on land would make more sense. Which it self-evidently does. It also makes more sense, therefore, that the bodies were dismembered on land and then dumped in the river and/or on land.

You also said that he would reasonably avoid bothering and risks. I pointed to how it seems obvious that he was not an avoider of bother.

The opposite is, of course, possible, but it makes less sense. I tend to favour sensible explanations, perhaps because they tend to have a greater likelihood of being true than the alternatives. Ockham and all that.

But, Gareth, nobody is contesting that it makes less sense to bother, least of all I. Of course you are correct that facilitating things and avoiding risk and bothersome things makes sense.

That is precisely why we need to explain - or try to understand - when the killer makes things that are NOT examples of the sensible choice!

Very clearly, he was not goverened by rational weighings at all times. They may have been rational and logical enough to his own mind, but they are not in line with our logical thinking.

He DID bother to take the torso and the leg down to the deepest vault of the New Scotland Yard building, and that is not the expected/sensible thing to do. He did take away a face by pulling and cutting it carefully away from the skull, and that is not the expected/sensible thing to do. He did float his parts openly past London and that is not the expected/sensible thing to do. He did dump his parts from different sites and at different times, and that is not the expected/sensible thing to do.

If we try to imagine that this man would act rationally and logically according to our own rationality and logic, we will definitely run an overwhelmingly large risk of misunderstanding what happened totally.

[RockySullivan]

You have lately called me surstromming and a little crybaby, so no, it´s not happening as long as that goes on.

But if you promise to stay away from such thing, it IS happening.

It is really quite simple. Just as simple as it is to see that you always CHOOSE not to have a debate with me.

Actually, I think that is the one wise choice you have made out here. But don´t try to mislead about it, because that ain´t working.

nope. I've already posted my responses, such as how you used the theory the killer dumped in Whitehall as affront to Scotland yard as a fact to further your argument. This a good example of a greater problem you've displayed in this thread while trying to argue your point.

[Joshua Rogan]

That's true. Yea I mean what else could the black stuff be? They said it was basically the stain of the rotting flesh, but that doesn't make sense much does it?

There is a stage in body decomposition called "black putrefaction" which would lead to exactly this sort of staining.

[RockySullivan]

There is a stage in body decomposition called "black putrefaction" which would lead to exactly this sort of staining.

Oh ok so that's 10-20 days after death so also possible. I'm of the view that the body was there on the longer side, despite the witness statements.

[Fisherman]

nope. I've already posted my responses, such as how you used the theory the killer dumped in Whitehall as affront to Scotland yard as a fact to further your argument. This a good example of a greater problem you've displayed in this thread while trying to argue your point.

You have posted a good few mistakes. If you had the guts to debate with me, I would have corrected them.

But as long as you take great care to call me names, you won´t have to, of course.

[RockySullivan]

You have posted a good few mistakes. If you had the guts to debate with me, I would have corrected them.

But as long as you take great care to call me things, you won´t have to, of course.

I'm ready willing and able. You don't make the rules and you don't enforce them either

[Fisherman]

I'm ready willing and able. You don't make the rules and you don't enforce them either

No, I don´t. The rules are very common and have been the same for centuries across the world: if you expect respect from your opponent, you treat him with respect.

They are not my rules. But they are the only rules there will be any playing by. Common decency, as it were.

I´m up to it. Are you?

[RockySullivan]

No, I don´t. The rules are very common and have been the same for centuries across the world: if you expect respect from your opponent, you treat him with respect.

They are not my rules. But they are the only rules there will be any playing by. Common decency, as it were.

I´m up to it. Are you?

Of course so why was the leg buried in the vault if the torso was put there to shock?

[Fisherman]

Of course so why was the leg buried in the vault if the torso was put their to shock?

You had a bad accident with my signature there, Rocky - inventive!

Just gave up on you. Out you go.

Bye.

[Abby Normal]

Christer,

Although possible, it's not a given he scaled the fence. The authorities thought scaling the 7 to 8 foot fence was the least likely option.

The more we have been reviewing this the more I wonder why he buried the leg and hid the torso in a hard to get to spot? If the plan was to make a statement by placing the torso in the vault of the new police offices, why not pick a more conspicuous location on the grounds?

Hi Jerry
Who knows? But I think if part of the intention of where he dumped in the building is a that it would be found, I’m pretty sure that even where it was dumped, the killer knew it would.

But what’s your take on it? Why do you think it was dumped there?

[Michael W Richards]

Christer,

Although possible, it's not a given he scaled the fence. The authorities thought scaling the 7 to 8 foot fence was the least likely option.

The more we have been reviewing this the more I wonder why he buried the leg and hid the torso in a hard to get to spot? If the plan was to make a statement by placing the torso in the vault of the new police offices, why not pick a more conspicuous location on the grounds?

Perhaps this is an indication Jerry that this particular killer simply found it convenient. Maybe he worked on the property. The torso at the new HQ is to my eye the only one placed to be conspicuous, thats why I said earlier it seems likely to be a political statement.

I suppose the same could be said for publicly displayed mutilations, though they wouldnt likely have a focus on obtaining abdominal organs, as the killer in Hanbury undoubtedly did.