Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - by Simon Wood 1 hour and 6 minutes ago.
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - by Scott Nelson 1 hour and 10 minutes ago.
Witnesses: Sarah and Maurice Lewis - by Paddy 2 hours ago.
Maybrick, James: Diary Quirks - by Mike J. G. 2 hours ago.
Maybrick, James: Acquiring a Life - by Mike J. G. 2 hours ago.
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - by Mike J. G. 2 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Witnesses: Sarah and Maurice Lewis - (13 posts)
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - (12 posts)
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - (8 posts)
Maybrick, James: And This Is Factual! - (4 posts)
Maybrick, James: New Thoughts On The “diary” - (2 posts)
Maybrick, James: Acquiring a Life - (1 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Motive, Method and Madness

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #4131  
Old 05-15-2018, 02:25 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 4,217
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Done! That was quick.

You suggest but canno substantiate a lot of alternative takes. That is uninteresting until you prove either of them. The facts I presented ARE proven ones.


One example of your reasoning - you say that the Chapman and Eddowes uteri were taken from the murder sites. The sly implication is that they were not so in the Jackson case, but as a matter of fact we donīt even know where she was murdered. But we DO know that the uterus was thrown in the Thames.

The games, the games.
There is no sly implication that the uterus was not removed from the scene of the murder.
However thank you for pointing such out.
We are talking about torso's my dear chap.
The bodies as we all know were dumped/disposed of in parts.
The Uterus was found in a bundle, seperate from the Torso of Jackson.



What tells us that the killer of Chapman and Eddowes kept the organs as trophies - like you suggest? Nothing - but our knowledge that serialists have been known to take trophies. But generally speaking, they take items like clothing and jewellery, keepsakes that will not rot away. However, it is not impossible that the killer of Chapman and Eddowes took the uteri for keeps - but he may equally have discarded them, like Jacksons killer did.

and
Into this mix must also be thrown how Kellys uterus WAS cut out but NOT taken by the killer, who left it in Millers Court.
So we have a more complex matter than the solution you suggest. And it must remain a suggestion only - the remedy prescribed against all things "one killer" by you. I for one take that on board, but since it seemingly breaks up your idea I am inclined to think you wonīt.

And of course what I actually said was that it "strongly suggests" that they were removed as trophies, that is not a certainty. This was followed up by the "Suggestion" that individual organs may not have been specific targets based on the point you mention above regards Kelly. Therefore the complexity is acknowledge before you mention it.
Either you did not read fully or you selectively ignore to give a view which differs from the reality of what has really been posted.



This is just one example of how you do yor homework. You try to take the facts I listed one step further, and never in the direction of the one killer suggestion. That is how you do your homework. I must grade it down severely, Iīm afraid. Itīs bad stuff.

Nothing wrong with my homework. The organs are removed from site, not found. The probability is they are trophies but it is not the only possability. It does suggest however that the uteri themselves may not be specific targets. The "example" you present does not actually exist because the possability was covered in the original post in the following sentence. Here it is again:

"The removal of Eddowes Kidney and the kelly case where the uterus remains on site but the heart is taken strongly suggests these are trophies and the uterus is not in itself his specific target."

For a post to suggest such was not included is sinking to a new low; and is dishonest in the extreme



I note that you disagree about how I say it is unlikely to have two serial killers in overlapping time and the same geographical area. You are welcome to list the examples you have - there are a few, but they are, well ... few. And the reason for this is an obvious on:

Serial killers are rare.

Serial killers who mutilate are rarer still. Much so.

Serial killers who eviscerate are very, very rare.

Serial killers who eviscerate, mutilate and take away abdominal walls in sections are rare in the extreme. When they DO surface, however, they tend to do so in Victorian London around the 1880:s. In spades.

Not.

Again the same flawed statistical argument.
Totally ignoring the points raised, as per normal.
HOWEVER I NOT IN THE SLIGHTEST SURPRISED.


But this has been discussed for ages now, and I wonīt buy the faulty raoning you offer, just as you refuse to join the correct side of the debate. My guess is that wonīt change. You will go on to lie about it by saying that the similarities are "superficial". Not that they may be, or that you think that they probably are, but instead that they ARE superficial.

Brrrrrrrr. Not my kind of research.

Is disagreeing with you now deemed to be a lie in itself..


Steve

Last edited by Elamarna : 05-15-2018 at 02:47 AM.
Quick reply to this message
  #4132  
Old 05-15-2018, 02:27 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 4,217
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
No, no, no! Donīt keep claiming it has been proven - present the proof! Steve did nothing but to once again suggest alternative reasons for the similarities, and that has been done for 4000 posts. It has so far not managed to alter the facts. It provides an interesting discussion, but it is not as if we can conclude that the suggestions you make are the ones representing the truth. Given the amount and character of the similarities, it leans heavily in the other direction.

But you are wriggling now, and I wonīt allow that. Present PROOF. Put up or shut up.
The one wriggling is you Christer.

To suggest others present proof or shut up is novel given you have presented none yourself.


Steve
Quick reply to this message
  #4133  
Old 05-15-2018, 02:40 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 4,217
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Superficial means "on the surface ONLY". And you cannot use that expression until you know that the similarities are surface similarities only. To do so is to intentionally mislead. To claim that it is a done deal that the similarities are only superficial is to lie.


we really are getting desperate are we not?
To give an opinion is now a lie. Really?

How is your OPINION that the similarities are significant any different?

It really is most telling the degree of omnipotence you assume.


You now use Gareths method - you say that it is easy to demonstrate that the examples I listed are seriously flawed in most cases. But you do not provide that proof. All you do is to say that there are alternative explanations.

But you know, alternative explanations can always be conjured up. Each and every time, until there is absolute proof stopping the practice.

it seems all sense of reality has been discarded, the alternatives are equally as valid as any you suggest.
In that case your view cannot be judged to be proven or any more likely than any other


So what you do is to brag about how you can prove that the examples I listed are flawed - but then you cannot prove it at all.

It is becoming very obvious what you are doing now, Steve. I am grateful for that.
In post 4116 you said


"Egotistical to me is when somebody is so fond of himself and his thinking that he is unable to admit when he is wrong. That is egotistical and counterproductive on the boards."


That appears to be very close to what is being posted.

Dont agree with certain views, and we are fools, we are bonkers, we are ignorant. We lie or we mislead.


Steve

Last edited by Elamarna : 05-15-2018 at 02:49 AM.
Quick reply to this message
  #4134  
Old 05-15-2018, 03:27 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,351
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Superficial means "on the surface ONLY". And you cannot use that expression until you know that the similarities are surface similarities only. To do so is to intentionally mislead. To claim that it is a done deal that the similarities are only superficial is to lie.


we really are getting desperate are we not?
To give an opinion is now a lie. Really?

How is your OPINION that the similarities are significant any different?

It really is most telling the degree of omnipotence you assume.

You now use Gareths method - you say that it is easy to demonstrate that the examples I listed are seriously flawed in most cases. But you do not provide that proof. All you do is to say that there are alternative explanations.

But you know, alternative explanations can always be conjured up. Each and every time, until there is absolute proof stopping the practice.

it seems all sense of reality has been discarded, the alternatives are equally as valid as any you suggest.
In that case your view cannot be judged to be proven or any more likely than any other

So what you do is to brag about how you can prove that the examples I listed are flawed - but then you cannot prove it at all.

It is becoming very obvious what you are doing now, Steve. I am grateful for that.
In post 4116 you said


"Egotistical to me is when somebody is so fond of himself and his thinking that he is unable to admit when he is wrong. That is egotistical and counterproductive on the boards."


That appears to be very close to what is being posted.

Dont agree with certain views, and we are fools, we are bonkers, we are ignorant. We lie or we mislead.


Steve

I only have to point to how you twist things by claiming that I would somehow have implied that having an opinion is to lie.

What I said was something completely different: If you say that it is a given that the similarities are superficial only, THEN you lie.

This is the reoccurring standard of your posting. Sadly!

I will read and answer Frank instead. He disagrees with me, but he does not twist my words to make a point. It makes for a refreshing change.
Quick reply to this message
Closed Thread


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.