Same motive = same killer

[Elamarna]

There is no proof. End of. There is evidence pointing to a common originator, and very strongly so.

strong in your opinion, not for the vast majority of others, even the casual observer once all the facts are disclosed.

I do not have access to the Eslöv police files, I am going - as I clearly said - on the paper reports.

So just a press report, no details, a soundbite in effect, next to worthless.

A link between two murder cases can link two series, full stop. If the series are not established, tnat does not take away from the link. Even if all other victims were killed by separate killers, we can link Kelly and Jackson. And Chapman, for that matter.

its not the series which are not established, although there are serious questions over including all the Torso's in the same series.
What is NOT established, and it matters not how much you cry different, is a link between Kelly and who everelse you care to name and Jackson, which is anymore than superficial.
YOU certainly will link such because that the purpose of tge idea in the first place.




Steve

[Sam Flynn]

That kind of narrows what is allowed in terms of free thinking, don´t you think?

No, it's being more specific, and highlights an important fact. Simply stating that "her uterus was removed" is only telling part of the picture.

[Fisherman]

Especially when only the foetus was found to be missing, the uterus itself staying with the dumped section of the body. This strongly indicates that the perpetrator wasn't concerned with the uterus, but its contents.

Then we also have a strong indication that the killer was concerend with heads, one of the Whitehall victims legs and the head and legs of the Pinchin Street woman.
You guys give me fits. One day you say that throwing things in the Thames will never be about having them found, the next you claim that an unfound foetus - that was perhaps thrown in the Thames - indicates strongly that the killer took it for keeps.

There can be no doubt that the issue has a possible bearing on the case, but equally, there can be no certainty.

It is touching when you say that there HAS TO, there MUST, ther WILL be a connection between Jacksons pregnancy and the uterus removal in her case - but there will probably not be a connection at all between victims who have their abdominal walls cut away in large sections.

It kind of reminds me of selective reasoning, or what´s it called... let´s see, now... ah, yes: HUMONGOUS BIAS.

That was the term I was looking for.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

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.

[Sam Flynn]

Who said that the perpetrator took the foetus for keeps? We don't know what happened to it... unlike the uterus, which was dumped, and found, with that section of the abdomen from which it was removed. A section which, moreover, had its other organs in situ, minus the squishy bulk of the intestines.

[Fisherman]

No, it's being more specific, and highlights an important fact. Simply stating that "her uterus was removed" is only telling part of the picture.

But you don´t know that the fact was important to the killer. We can never read evidence in a biased manner, it is simply wrong.

The story of the foetus must be told and since it has a potential bearing on the case, all thinking must involve it. But that is as far as it goes. Predisposing that it meant something to the killer is not something we can do.

[Elamarna]

You wrote, and I quote exactly "Its intreptation that the uteri removal of Jackson is for any other reason than removal of a unborn infant"

Sure enough, you also said that OTHER things are interpretation , but you did say that it is interpretation that the uteri removal of Jackson is for any other reason than removal of an unborn infant.

So, as you may gather, the next time you try to spell the word "bias", I may feel slightly sick.

one can take part of a quote and make it give a different impression, its what tge media do all the time. The two lines, one of which you left out but which i reposted,give a different picture. To do what you do time and time again is disingenuous.

You now try to backtrack, but your own biasa betrays you when you say that "jackson was pregnant and the uterus was discarded minus said infant, removal of said infant must therefore be a high probability for removal."

What if the killer was not interested at all by the infant, and cut it out to discard it?

of course possible, and as i said a matter of interpretation, i note that you have left that out took, my previous point reconfirmed.

You see, Steve, what I have been saying from the outset still applies: When we look at all of this we need to keep a cool head and refrain from doing ANY interpretation that we then try to impose upon our opponents as a truth or a "near certainty".

please Stop, i am not sure if i should laugh or cry, this from the man who says if you do not agree with my view than you are bias or ignorant.

The uterus was taken out. Full stop. The infant was removed from the uterus. Full stop. We do not know why the killer did what he did and why he did it the way he did. Full stop.

This is unbiased and matter-of-fact research, true to what we know instead of what we think we know. It is also why we can link the three crimes I mention in this way: all three victims had their uteri removed. Full stop.

Yes, we have no evidence at all, and i am not really going to bother about discussing the the infant, it is not something i have strong views on. However that same lack of evidence for the infants removal also applies to the removal of Jackson's uterus .
If it removed to remove the uterus there is no link.
If it is removed as part of the dismemberment process there is no link.
If it is removed for any other reason, there MAY be a link, but such is not certain.

Therefore there is NO ESTABLISHED link between Jackson and Kelly.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Who said that the perpetrator took the foetus for keeps? We don't know what happened to it... unlike the uterus, which was dumped, and found, with that section of the abdomen from which it was removed. A section which, moreover, had its other organs in situ, minus the squishy bulk of the intestines.

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

[Fisherman]

Yes, we have no evidence at all, and i am not really going to bother about discussing the the infant, it is not something i have strong views on. However that same lack of evidence for the infants removal also applies to the removal of Jackson's uterus .
If it removed to remove the uterus there is no link.
If it is removed as part of the dismemberment process there is no link.
If it is removed for any other reason, there MAY be a link, but such is not certain.

Therefore there is NO ESTABLISHED link between Jackson and Kelly.


Steve

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!

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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]

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?