How strange that the beyond reasonable doubt keeps cropping up,and that apparently Hebberts reasonings give credence to it. What proofs are there.
Hebbert writes there were similarities,nothing more.Yes there were similarities,but as has been pointed out there were dissimilarities of which he says nothing.Does that mean we have to ignore them?That they do not count?
He also writes that a supposition can be made that the same person was responsible.He does not claim proof of it,or that it is beyong reasonable doubt.
Just that it can be supposed/assumed.No proofs it was the same saws or knives used on each and every victim,or even the same manner of death.Or that every death was a murder.
Yet we are expected to accept interpretations of his writings goes beyond a reasonable doubt or belief.