Same motive = same killer

[Elamarna]

Nope. No overreaction. Steve wants us all to work from the idea that the foetus was an important factor for the crime, and I am not allowing that. It remains unestablished and there must be learoom for us to reason that the pregnancy was of no importance to the killer.

No i don't.
In fact the statement had one purpose:

To show that NO reason is defintive for the removal of the the uterus in the Jackson case.
It achived the expected response.

Pray tell me how such is anymore unacceptable than your statement that there is a link between Kelly and Jackson and if we do not acknowledge such it is due to bias or ignorance.


My personal belief is that the pregnancy and foetus was the very reason for Jackson being chosen as a victim. I think he was overjoyed about the chance to kill a pregnant woman and open her - and the uterus - up.



I furthermore believe that the reason he had for doing this was the exact same reason he had for laying Kellys thigh (and the thigh is the part between the knee and the hio, Steve ) bare to the bone, for cutting away the face from the 1873 victim and for taking out the thorax contents from the Rainham victim.

[B]and that reason is?
Come on, tell us all.


But this is what I THINK, and I don´t aspire to have it taken down as facts or near certainties, since that would be twisting the evidence. Just as it would be twisting the evidence not to allow for other interpretations of the Jackson uterus removal than the one I beleive in, but will not present as a given fact or near certainty.

We can have our pet theories, but we cannot elevate them to truths. And before you say that I am trying to do so by identifying a common killer for the three victims I speak of, I must point out that there is a difference - there is very clear evidence supporting that take. At least it is clear before we impose a number of "interpretations" on it.

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

[Fisherman]

I just can’t see how Steve’s quotes hints at him trying to ‘set the rules’ of debate on interpretation? Am I missing something? Im generalising but Steve appears to be saying that we cannot be certain either way and so we make interpretations. The suggestion that the killer removed the uterus and the foetus from the uterus might be suggestive of a motive. He’s not saying it’s the only interpretation that should be considered.

Unless you’re talking about a different Steve

I’m talking about Lord Elamarna Of Buck’s Row

He wrote "Its intreptation that the uteri removal of Jackson is for any other reason than removal of a unborn infant"

Maybe he meant something else, but it didn´t come out very well, did it?

I am all for him having meant something else, by the way, since it would be much sounder.

Have you begun to reassess my foaming mouth yet?

[Fisherman]

"The intestines had been removed, but the duodenum and a piece of the stomach remained." (Hebbert)

So "the organs were found in a separate segment of the abdomen still attached to the thorax" as you wrote before was not correct?

Anyways, the colon thing remains - all three victims, Jackson, Rainham and Eddowes lost part of their colons.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I just can’t see how Steve’s quotes hints at him trying to ‘set the rules’ of debate on interpretation? Am I missing something? Im generalising but Steve appears to be saying that we cannot be certain either way and so we make interpretations. The suggestion that the killer removed the uterus and the foetus from the uterus might be suggestive of a motive. He’s not saying it’s the only interpretation that should be considered.

Unless you’re talking about a different Steve

I’m talking about Lord Elamarna Of Buck’s Row

[Sam Flynn]

A large part of the colon was amiss, the rest was there.

"The intestines had been removed, but the duodenum and a piece of the stomach remained." (Hebbert)

To help, it goes:

Stomach -> Duodenum -> Jejunum -> Ilium -> Ascending colon - > Transverse colon -> Descending colon -> Sigmoid colon -> Rectum

Only the bits in bold are mentioned as being present. Several metres of intestine were missing, not merely "a large part of the colon", and not just the colon either.

The Rainham victim... had [part of the colon] cut out from [her body].

"The small intestines, with the mesentery, are in situ, and appear healthy. There are a few remains of the transverse, ascending and descending parts of the colon, but the lower parts are absent" (Hebbert)

...looks like the colon was cut across, not a single tubular section cut out.

[Fisherman]

Your continual reliance of hypothetical police, to back your view.
Two issues there.

The Police make many mistakes, the number of miscarriages of justic shows that. They are far from infaliable, and their word is not conclusive.

You are not a policeman . Any comments unless from specified officers are just your opinion.

Linking Lincoln and Kennedey,

Yes both men.
Both Heads of State.
Both Assinanated while in office, in public.
Both shot in the head


Really Christer that shows you links for what they are, superficial
It does not allow us to link the two killings to the same man, just as the links between Kelly and Jackson are superficial and do not allow us to link both to the same killer.

Steve

So now we at least have you admitting that the cases are linked - although you prefer to believe the links are "superficial". It´s 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.

[Elamarna]

As long as we do not know why the uteri were removed, they form a very clear and very possibly true link. If you ask any detective how the cases are linked, he will answer "by the removal of the uteri, which was present in both cases".

Even if the link is a false one, it is actually nevertheless a link. Abraham Lincoln and John Fitzgerald Kennedy are linked in a way - can you guess how?

Writing in capital letters that an evident link is not a link does not work. Hooray for that!

Your continual reliance of hypothetical police, to back your view.
Two issues there.

The Police make many mistakes, the number of miscarriages of justic shows that. They are far from infaliable, and their word is not conclusive.

You are not a policeman . Any comments unless from specified officers are just your opinion.

Linking Lincoln and Kennedey,

Yes both men.
Both Heads of State.
Both Assinanated while in office, in public.
Both shot in the head


Really Christer that shows you links for what they are, superficial
It does not allow us to link the two killings to the same man, just as the links between Kelly and Jackson are superficial and do not allow us to link both to the same killer.

Steve

[Fisherman]

I believe that there are quite a few links between Lincoln and Kennedy. One is, I believe, that Lincoln had a secretary called Mrs Kennedy and Kennedy had one called Mrs Lincoln.

Is that a TRUE link, however? Are these things relying on each others existance? No. Lincoln would have had his secretary called Kennedy even if Kennedy did not have a secretary called Lincoln.

But - and that is my point, with which you apparently agree - it is nevertheless a link, albeit a "false" one.

[Fisherman]

Just checked, and I was incorrect on that point - the organs were found in a separate segment of the abdomen still attached to the thorax. They were nonetheless all accounted for, and the rest of my post was correct.

A large part of the colon was amiss, the rest was there. The Rainham victim and Eddowes also had parts of their colons cut out from their bodies.

[Fisherman]

Likewise we cannot infer that it meant nothing

Strange how any suggestion, however mildly or reasonably put, which only ‘possibly’ speaks against a connection gets you foaming at the mouth Fish. Anyone would think that you didn’t like alternative suggestions to your interpretations

But I don´t infer that it meant nothing to the killer, do I? I say that we cannot treat EITHER suggestion as being more or less true or better than the other.

Read my former post: I personally believe that the foetus and pregnancy was the main reason for the choice of Jackson.

What does that do to the foam you speak of, Herlock?

[Sam Flynn]

A section which, moreover, had its other organs in situ, minus the squishy bulk of the intestines.

Just checked, and I was incorrect on that point - the organs were found in a separate segment of the abdomen still attached to the thorax. They were nonetheless all accounted for, and the rest of my post was correct, the important point being that the uterus was discarded with the rest of the body.

[Fisherman]

A slight over reaction dont you think? Steve isnt saying that we should think in a certain way. He definitely isnt saying that you shouldn’t interpret the reason for the removal of a uterus and foetus differently. It is surely quite reasonable, if Jackson was pregnant, to suggest that this might provide a reason for that organ’s removal. This is one interpretation. Other suggestions are also interpretations as Steve said.

Nope. No overreaction. Steve wants us all to work from the idea that the foetus was an important factor for the crime, and I am not allowing that. It remains unestablished and there must be learoom for us to reason that the pregnancy was of no importance to the killer.

My personal belief is that the pregnancy and foetus was the very reason for Jackson being chosen as a victim. I think he was overjoyed about the chance to kill a pregnant woman and open her - and the uterus - up.

I furthermore believe that the reason he had for doing this was the exact same reason he had for laying Kellys thigh (and the thigh is the part between the knee and the hio, Steve ) bare to the bone, for cutting away the face from the 1873 victim and for taking out the thorax contents from the Rainham victim.

But this is what I THINK, and I don´t aspire to have it taken down as facts or near certainties, since that would be twisting the evidence. Just as it would be twisting the evidence not to allow for other interpretations of the Jackson uterus removal than the one I beleive in, but will not present as a given fact or near certainty.

We can have our pet theories, but we cannot elevate them to truths. And before you say that I am trying to do so by identifying a common killer for the three victims I speak of, I must point out that there is a difference - there is very clear evidence supporting that take. At least it is clear before we impose a number of "interpretations" on it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

As long as we do not know why the uteri were removed, they form a very clear and very possibly true link. If you ask any detective how the cases are linked, he will answer "by the removal of the uteri, which was present in both cases".

Even if the link is a false one, it is actually nevertheless a link. Abraham Lincoln and John Fitzgerald Kennedy are linked in a way - can you guess how?

Writing in capital letters that an evident link is not a link does not work. Hooray for that!

I believe that there are quite a few links between Lincoln and Kennedy. One is, I believe, that Lincoln had a secretary called Mrs Kennedy and Kennedy had one called Mrs Lincoln.

[Herlock Sholmes]

That´s right, we do not know what happened to it, and therefore we cannot infer that it meant anything specific to the killer.

Likewise we cannot infer that it meant nothing

Strange how any suggestion, however mildly or reasonably put, which only ‘possibly’ speaks against a connection gets you foaming at the mouth Fish. Anyone would think that you didn’t like alternative suggestions to your interpretations

[Elamarna]

Of course there MAY be a connection between the facts. But that does not allow us to say that it is biased not to work from it as a given fact. What Steve wrote was "Its intreptation that the uteri removal of Jackson is for any other reason than removal of a unborn infant".

That kind of narrows what is allowed in terms of free thinking, don´t you think? And narrowing what we are allowed to think is ridiculous.

To say it is intrrpretation is not the same as saying something is bias.

It is not a fact that the removal of the uteri of Kelly and Jackson are link, its interpretation.



Steve