As far as age...
Characteristics of the Serial Killer
According to Hickey's 1997
database of approximately 399 serial killers, the average age of the murderer at the time of the first killing was 27.5 years, and they typically were white males.
Wow, this is what you get when you let psychologists do math without supervision. You didn't get the temperature example, did you? Average means "average" in a mathematical sense. This doesn't mean necessarily, most SKs start at that age, that means, they spread around this line on the age graph by easily fifteen years to the younger side and fifty to the older. If I add in my calculation the of the average age Albright, the Wests, Shipman and Buono, the older of the Hillside Strangler, I have so much "overage" gathered, that it compensates for a dozen or more SKs who started much younger.
As a general note: To work with statistics, it is not enough to quote it, one has also to understand the math behind it and it's limitations.
And such is the thing with "typically white". Since for example African-American's make only 12% of the population, the expectation value in the group of serial killer should be also 12%. While the expectation value for Caucasians should be short under 70% because that's their share on the total population. So yes, in a population with 100% whites, the SK is typically white, in a population with 70% you would expect 70% and if a group with 12% population share has much more than those 12% in SKs, you have a social problem there. To say, SKs are typically white is onyl true because the big majority of the population is white. The typical serial killer in South Africa is black, guess why? Oh, and all they caught in China were yellow. And Columbia has this big problem, their serial killers are typically brown.
So, please, if a lousy mathematician like Dr. Hickey plays with tools, he hasn't fully understand, then it's sad. If someone else takes those "scientific facts", despite the fact, they are proven a hundred times mathematically doubtful, then it's double sad.
You cited Jane Doe 2000's toenails and scar discussion. Those details were for Jane Doe 9098 whose legs washed ashore in 1996. I assume she was killed shortly prior to the discovery of her legs on April 20, 1996.
So, we're using now new numbers and I messed those two up? That doesn't change anything about what I said about Jessica Taylor's remains. And it doesn't put the question why JD6 aka JD2000 aka whatever, wasn't found in the first search if her remains were so near.
Regarding the victim from 2000, Jane Doe #6:
"To narrow the focus this woman would have been last seen alive in the late summer or fall in 2000
Consider that this woman may have been working as a prostitute in New York City during that time
This woman may have had a tattoo or other identifiable characteristic on her right ankle," Dormer said.
I am not going to read this as "her ankle must have been stored in a freezer and only deposited in Cedar Beach as part of some serial killer competition." It's entirely possible that her right ankle was recovered in Manorville among the bag of remains in 2000.
Really? You quote Dormer now as authority? That guy was in March 2011 still denying there is even one SK in the area. :floorlaugh:
And then, I count two "may" and one "would" in four lines, Dormer spoke, indicating, he didn't know a thing. She may would have been this or that and may had or would have this or that. That's pretty empty.
Now you go and tell me, the master of not knowing and not seeing didn't tell, the ankle was preserved in what way ever? And expect me to take that as authoritative despite the fact, that an ankle after eleven years in the open near to a sea shore wouldn't remain at all most likely? Remains can survive longer, but under dry conditions. And hands and feet contain a lot of small bones.
So in the quintessence, your argument is, that Dormer don't see or isn't aware and so do you. Nothing, facts can do about this, I assume.
Regarding Jessica Taylor, she was identified because D.C. police recognized a partial tattoo recovered in 2003 from her hip/torso area. There wasn't much decomposition at all.
I think, those guys, who found her head and other partial remains in 2011 would disagree with you. Those remains were then eight years out. But hey, what if there wasn't too much decomposition on those parts either? Ooops, that would explain of course, why they had those figure out do fast.
As far as your typical "Staging Dismemberers", isn't the "staging" really just a way of shocking the public or taunting police? We didn't see ANY of that here that I can see. And we don't know how Jane Doe #10, JD-9098, Jane Doe #6 and Jessica Taylor died. It very well could be strangulation/asphyxiation.
Since you loved Dormer's fairy tale so much, why don't you read another one? Google "The Rainham Mystery". It's a very old case, but I love it because it also involves Jack the Ripper and probably the sudden end of his career.
This shocking effect is a by-product. Staging dismemberers seem all to suffer from the same problem to express themselves, so they tend to use body parts, preferably torsos, as statements. So well, the remains found were in some cases too decomposed to figure out, whether dismemberment happened ante- or postmortem. And the ME reports about the torsos are inaccessible since the fairy tale prince Dormer and his guys sit on them and don't release them. So yes, as long as Dromer does so, or now his successor, what's his name again, as long you are right. COD could be asphyxia, or strangulation .... or sudden heart attack ... or the sky fell on their heads. You're arguing with evidence, that is held back from the public as if the holding back would prove anything. I do the same, I say heart attack and their landlord wnated the bodies out. Nothing to prove that theory, but hey, Dormer didn't say, it wasn't that way.
Honestly? I hoped till the second search I would be wrong about Manorville. These types are so hard to catch and they are somewhere between Hannibal Lecter and a real life case of big pain in the *advertiser censored** as it is technically possible. And also honestly, I still hope, it isn't. But a torso on a wood pile, body parts popping up right after another guy got all the fame ... that doesn't bode well.
I think some of your some of your facts and follow-on assumptions are wrong. I'm not discounting what you're saying, I'm just not seeing the same things as you.
Well, that can happen. That you don't see. Happened to a lot of people in fact, when it came to serial killers.
Well, just to say "you're wrong" is the cheapest and therefore easiest to ignore argument if you can't support your opinion with facts (as I did for example in this little statistics talk above). I think, I would like to challenge you to do so. Because either you find something wrong and I go back to the drawing board and see how that fits in or not, or you find nothing, then I take that as a test in the water tightness. I've played that tactics with others in other cases before, it was always big fun.