Practicality or madness?

[Fisherman]

-Prostitution background
-Same city
-Same town
-Cut from sternum to groin
-Uterus taken out
-Abdominal wall removed in flaps
-No pre-murder torture
-Rings stolen
-Throat severed
-Reports claim the killer is a skilled cutter with at least some anatomical insights

Those are similarities I have listed, pertaining to the Chapman and Jackson murders.

Now, help me out, somebody; does the list comprise "one or two characteristics", or does it comprise ten?

Maybe people who cannot even tell one from ten should do something else than try to figure things out? Somewhere else, preferably.

Now, is there anybody who is willing and wanting to debate AND stay away from these kinds of sorry ass misrepresentations? Because otherwise, I am not interested to debate at all.

[Michael W Richards]

Now that we have your List of Commonalities, lets see what they add up to....

-Prostitution background (Unfortunate or Seasoned street walker, were they doing that when they met their killer..which is the only thing meaningful that can be determined by that categorization
-Same city (Really? Women killed within the same geographical area can be presumed killed by just one man?)
-Same town (Ditto. If you said within one square mile that might be useful)
-Cut from sternum to groin (Something successive murders could have as a result of publicized descriptions)
-Uterus taken out (How many victims? And how many times is it taken from the scene? How many murders suggest the uterus was the objective?)
-Abdominal wall removed in flaps (How many times? Was it well publicized before the second appearance of it?
-No pre-murder torture (How would you know? In the case of the Ripper victims, its possible Mary was awake and alive when first attacked, and you hav eno idea what was done to the Torso victims before their parts were distributed)
-Rings stolen (How many victims?)
-Throat severed (One of the most common injuries in violent crimes of the area and period...not a very specific element there. Double throat cuts are distinctive though.)
-Reports claim the killer is a skilled cutter with at least some anatomical insights ( That narrows the field to anyone who butchers animals..including women who prepared the foods for consumption, anyone who hunts animals, med students and practitioners, self taught individuals....you have likely narrowed the suspect field to thousands of men in the area.)

Now, help me out, somebody; does the list comprise "one or two characteristics", or does it comprise ten?

Ill help you out...the inconclusive list identifies some women who suffered some similar injuries, and does nothing to explain why we should ever consider marrying 2 distinctive series to one killer)

Of the list above there are presumptions, omissions, deductions and conclusions that are being made about elements that are not common nor are they consistent, thereby nullifying the validity of said theory.

[Fisherman]

First, a correction - my list should say same city, same TIME, not town.

Now, any criticism based on things like how we cannot know if Chapman and/or Jackson prostituted themselves at the time they met their killer, or, for that matter, that we donīt know that the killer actually sought out prostitutes, will be thrown out the window. Why? Because I never said that those were the similarities - I said that a background as a prostitute was. And that applies, regardless of whatever wriggling may occur.

The same thing goes for saying that London was big - that does not nullify my claim that the murders/dumpings occurred in the same town (for all we know, the torso victims could have been killed in Oxford and transported to London for dumping, but that is another matter).

Then list goes on and on. How does the idea that someone could have copycatted the cut from sternum to groin nullify that it DID happen in these series, how does the fact that the uteri were not taken out from all victims nullify that it DID happen in these series, how does the fact that cut throats is relatively common nullify that it DID happen in these series, how does ...? On and on it goes, and dumber and dumber it gets.

I responded to the lazy ass lie that I use "one or two" characteristics only to make the call of a common killer. Evidently, that lazy ass lie has not changed a single bit, and the authour of it is more interested in thinking up alternative reasons for the ten characteristics I listed as being there in both the Chapman and the Jackson murder, one from each series.

Now, tell me: How does the fact that a lazy ass poster can think up varying alternative reasons for these inclusions in any way make them go away? Any ideas?

No. And I didnīt think so.

It really has all come to shame now. What a rot, and what a complete waste of time. I do not use "one or two characteristics", I use ten of them. Unless I involve other cases than Jackson and Chapman, in which case the number goes further up.

And all the while, the reasoning that is offered in response keeps probing new depths.

[Michael W Richards]

First, a correction - my list should say same city, same TIME, not town.

Now, any criticism based on things like how we cannot know if Chapman and/or Jackson prostituted themselves at the time they met their killer, or, for that matter, that we donīt know that the killer actually sought out prostitutes, will be thrown out the window. Why? Because I never said that those were the similarities - I said that a background as a prostitute was. And that applies, regardless of whatever wriggling may occur.

The same thing goes for saying that London was big - that does not nullify my claim that the murders/dumpings occurred in the same town (for all we know, the torso victims could have been killed in Oxford and transported to London for dumping, but that is another matter).

Then list goes on and on. How does the idea that someone could have copycatted the cut from sternum to groin nullify that it DID happen in these series, how does the fact that the uteri were not taken out from all victims nullify that it DID happen in these series, how does the fact that cut throats is relatively common nullify that it DID happen in these series, how does ...? On and on it goes, and dumber and dumber it gets.

I responded to the lazy ass lie that I use "one or two" characteristics only to make the call of a common killer. Evidently, that lazy ass lie has not changed a single bit, and the authour of it is more interested in thinking up alternative reasons for the ten characteristics I listed as being there in both the Chapman and the Jackson murder, one from each series.

Now, tell me: How does the fact that a lazy ass poster can think up varying alternative reasons for these inclusions in any way make them go away? Any ideas?

No. And I didnīt think so.

It really has all come to shame now. What a rot, and what a complete waste of time. I do not use "one or two characteristics", I use ten of them. Unless I involve other cases than Jackson and Chapman, in which case the number goes further up.

And all the while, the reasoning that is offered in response keeps probing new depths.

You have me confused Fisherman with someone who doesn't know the difference between a single throat cut and complete dismemberment. Your so called characteristics were called out as being insubstantial fodder for a marrying of 2 series, some similarities within each isn't a reason to clump all in one basket. As you've been attempting to do. And you've frequently ignored the historical precedents as potentially being the reason you see any similarities at all.

You're explanation above in bold is simply bizarre...you've taken individual instances and then represented them as "series" based characteristics. They aren't though, are they? They are characteristics found within 2 presumed series, with just some victims within each presumed series having similar injuries. You've effectively tried linking presumed Ripper series victim Liz Stride with the Pinchin Street Torso...on what? Knives? Happened in London? No evidence of torture? It sure aint uterus removal, stomach flaps or evidence of some skills. I guess its lucky they caught Mr Brown or we would have a triple event according to your "filters".

Stop the insults, they are useless and only vain attempts to dissuade anyone from actually taking your ridiculous posts to task. You have nothing....youll never have anything that makes this work, and you've succeeded only in insulting me and others who see this whole exercise as a waste. If that's your goal...then you've achieved it, but if making sense of nonsense is your goal...silk from a sows ear.

[Fisherman]

Itīs all plain and simple and no further oral diarrhea is necessary:

Have I or have I not listed ten instead of "one or two" characteristics that are mutual for the Jackson and Chapmann cases?

[Michael W Richards]

Itīs all plain and simple and no further oral diarrhea is necessary:

Have I or have I not listed ten instead of "one or two" characteristics that are mutual for the Jackson and Chapmann cases?

Oh...so now youre just seeking to match apples with apples? And no, there are not 10 valid comparatives. The characteristics must be specific to the small group you now espouse to match, and they are not. Thousands of women in that area resorted to at least at some point in their lives to selling their bodies to survive, the fact that they happen in the same city isn't relevant as a means to exclude other murders that also happened there, we don't know who took Annies rings or when, and you don't know for a fact that Jackson was not tortured before her murder.

Youre still missing the larger issue though, these are different style murders. You focus on aspects that were public knowledge like they were instead some trade secret he used. Stomach flaps being one. You discount the specific targeted method used in Annies kill.

[Fisherman]

Iīll just try again: Have I or have I not listed ten instead of "one or two" characteristics that are mutual for the Jackson and Chapman cases?

I do not care to what degree people like or accept the characteristics as such because that would be inviting all sorts of weird ideas, I merely want a simple yes or no to a very simple question: Did I or did I not list ten characteristics that are present for the murders discussed?

[Michael W Richards]

Iīll just try again: Have I or have I not listed ten instead of "one or two" characteristics that are mutual for the Jackson and Chapman cases?

I do not care to what degree people like or accept the characteristics as such because that would be inviting all sorts of weird ideas, I merely want a simple yes or no to a very simple question: Did I or did I not list ten characteristics that are present for the murders discussed?

I answered you,... no, you haven't. The "characteristics" that I pointed out were common to many, many people are not unique to the 2 women you seem to now focus on. Good move though on trying to make a comparison of just 2 victims instead of 2 series.

[Fisherman]

I answered you,... no, you haven't. The "characteristics" that I pointed out were common to many, many people are not unique to the 2 women you seem to now focus on. Good move though on trying to make a comparison of just 2 victims instead of 2 series.

I havenīt? Here they are again:

-Prostitution background
-Same city
-Same time
-Cut from sternum to groin
-Uterus taken out
-Abdominal wall removed in flaps
-No pre-murder torture
-Rings stolen
-Throat severed
-Reports claim the killer is a skilled cutter with at least some anatomical insights

Now, it is not a question of your personal evaluation of the characteristics, it is a question of how many characteristics I actually listed.

It is not a question of you having said "I only accept one or two of the characteristics", it is a question of you claiming that I use one or two characteristics only to make my call.

Accordingly, it is not a question of you presenting your case fairly, it is a case of you moving the goalposts to try and hide that you are lying.

PS. Even common characteristics are nevertheless characteristics: people can be liars, that is common but a characteristic nevertheless, and they can be stupid - and that too is a characteristic. And quite common.

[Michael W Richards]

Im wondering why anyone would have to answer a question 3 times...is the person reviewing the answers just looking for a recount...hanging chad kinda deal? Don't know. Lets try numbering them to assist you...

I havenīt? Here they are again:

1.Prostitution background (Not uniquely representative of Jackson and Chapman...that's who you seek now to marry because they contain so many unique characteristics, correct?
2. Same city (not even close to unique to these 2 victims)
3. Same time (Im assuming then that the other women killed at this same place in time also would qualify-so, not unique to the 2 victims)
4. Cut from sternum to groin
5. Uterus taken out
6. Abdominal wall removed in flaps
7.No pre-murder torture (You have no way of knowing what Jackson might have endured before her actual murder-so, no.)
8. Rings stolen ( You have no way to prove that the rings were taken that night by the killer, nor who actually may have done it..so, no)
9. Throat severed (this "unique characteristic" marries Chapman with Jackson? Hardly unique, so...not a characteristic of these 2 murders specifically.
10-Reports claim the killer is a skilled cutter with at least some anatomical insights

PS. Even common characteristics are nevertheless characteristics: people can be liars, that is common but a characteristic nevertheless, and they can be stupid - and that too is a characteristic. And quite common.

That last bit is very revealing, if things that were done are not unique to the 2 victims you now wish to associate with a single killer, they are useless on a list of such things. Your whole schtick up until now has been that certain things happened to victims in both series that cannot be coincidental or done by different people,...(your infamous well publicized flaps for one), yet 6 of your 10 "characteristics" when attempting to marry now just 2 victims together are not really differentiators of any kind. They were just injuries found on many victims, in the same period of time, in the same city. The claims of "no torture" and" rings stolen" are merely your presumptions, they cannot be used as facts.

[Fisherman]

Im wondering why anyone would have to answer a question 3 times...is the person reviewing the answers just looking for a recount...hanging chad kinda deal? Don't know. Lets try numbering them to assist you...



That last bit is very revealing, if things that were done are not unique to the 2 victims you now wish to associate with a single killer, they are useless on a list of such things. Your whole schtick up until now has been that certain things happened to victims in both series that cannot be coincidental or done by different people,...(your infamous well publicized flaps for one), yet 6 of your 10 "characteristics" when attempting to marry now just 2 victims together are not really differentiators of any kind. They were just injuries found on many victims, in the same period of time, in the same city. The claims of "no torture" and" rings stolen" are merely your presumptions, they cannot be used as facts.

You seem hearing impaired? Or is it something else that is missing?

I have told you numerous times now that I donīt care diddley squat about what you personally think about the characteristics I listed. What you think about them is subjective opinion, nothing else.

As you may understand if stretching your imagination somewhat, others will have other opinions about them. Some will say they are important, others will say they are not. That is how subjective matters work. At the end of the day, EVERY single similarity is important when comparing two series. They make a case more complete, each and every one of them.

My list, however, is not subjective. It is not as if it is an invention of mine that these things were similar inbetween Jackson and Chapman.

They both DID have a prostitution background.
They both WERE killed and/or dumped in the same city.
They both WERE killed in close proximity in time.
The both DID have their abdomens cut from sternum to groin.
They both DID have their uteri cut out.
They both DID have their abdominal walls taken away in flaps.
NONE of them had any reported signs of pre-death torture on their bodies.
They both HAD their rings taken away in close proximity to death, probaby by their killer.
They both DID have their throats severed.
They both WERE reported about as having been cut by somebody who cut skilfully and with at least some anatomical insights.

These are all factual points. Factual similarities. No "interpretations". No subjective junk. That is what YOU are dealing in, not me. And for a reason.

And so, once again, we end up at the inevitable end station of you having been proven a liar. Instead of using "one or two" characteristics to make a case of a single killer, I use many, many more characteristics. It is there, in black and white. Go read.

Of course, you aim will have been to try and make my case look a lot weaker than it is. It is the same as when you lie about me and say that I think all the murders in victorian London was commited by the same killer. In fact, it is the same as every time you lie to make yourself seem more credible and less ignorant.

That is the divider between us.

You lie about this. Because you realize that you simply have to, unless you admit that you were wrong. Itīs human and to a degree understandable, although it is pretty dumb and totally transparent. It would have been a lot better to accept it, admit it, apologize about it and move on.
But no. Not you. Never.

I donīt lie. Because I think it poisons the boards when somebody does, and I loathe the very idea. That is why.

Now, Michael, how many characteristics do I point to to when I make my case about Jackon and Chapman? Come on, say it with me: Ten. TEN. TEN!!!!

[c.d.]

Yo Fisherman and Michael,

This might have been a viable thread at one time but now it is simply one big pissing match. Do you really think at this point that one of you can convince the other of the validity of your position? It was a dead horse many, many posts ago. Do us all a favor and let it go.

You are also both flirting with getting banned. Just sayin'.

c.d.

[Fisherman]

Yo Fisherman and Michael,

This might have been a viable thread at one time but now it is simply one big pissing match. Do you really think at this point that one of you can convince the other of the validity of your position? It was a dead horse many, many posts ago. Do us all a favor and let it go.

You are also both flirting with getting banned. Just sayin'.

c.d.

If nothing else, you are quite right in saying that there is no convincing Michael. And of course, when I post a list of ten characteristics, it will take some convincing to have me agree that I have posted one of two points only. If Michael cannot count to more than two, it really is his problem, not mine.

If Michael makes another post along the same lines as his other ones, he will get no answer from me. It really isnīt worth it. Thanks for the sound advice, C. D.

[barnflatwyngarde]

"You seem hearing impaired? Or is it something else that is missing?"

So now we are entering into a place where comments about physical and mental impairment are acceptable!

This is surely a bridge too far.

It's a forum for debate, and respectful disagreement.

And if we embrace those two principles, occasionally something wonderful happens.
We change our mind.
We change our mind because we have been persuaded by the power of argument and logic.
It is not a tragedy or a disgrace to be proved wrong......we should embrace it.

Insults and rudeness won't get us there.

We have a saying Glasgow; "It's nice to be nice."

[c.d.]

Hello Fish,

Nice to see you taking the moral high ground here. Well sort of. Couldn't help but notice you took another not so subtle shot at Michael.

Anyway, no need to thank me. I simply call 'em as I see 'em.

I will be interested to see how you both proceed from here. I think I can guess though. Be careful. You both could end up getting your butts banned.

c.d.