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:
General Police Discussion: Leaving one's beat - by Pcdunn 6 hours ago.
Maybrick, James: And This Is Factual! - by Pcdunn 6 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: JtR was Law Enforcement Hypothesis - by Simon Wood 7 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: JtR was Law Enforcement Hypothesis - by jerryd 7 hours ago.
Maybrick, James: And This Is Factual! - by DirectorDave 7 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: JtR was Law Enforcement Hypothesis - by Pcdunn 8 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Maybrick, James: Diary Handwriting - (8 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: JtR was Law Enforcement Hypothesis - (6 posts)
Maybrick, James: And This Is Factual! - (4 posts)
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - (2 posts)
General Police Discussion: Leaving one's beat - (2 posts)
Rippercast: Questions for Michael Hawley - Jack the Ripper Suspect Dr. Francis Tumblety - (2 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
  #3421  
Old 04-25-2018, 01:33 AM
Debra A Debra A is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Yorkshire England
Posts: 3,063
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
I would have gone for the lower part of the costal arch being the limit, but I don´t know that we can exclude Jerrys suggestion. Anyway, he offers learoom for perhaps having gone too high.

Whether the flaps as such had anything at all to do with Jacksons pregnancy is written in the stars. All we know is that they were cut away.
I believe the flaps started just above Elizabeth's navel, the top of her 'bump' and continued down towards the external genitals. We do not know the width of the two flaps. I don't see how the starting position of the flaps changes anything. Dr Biggs says that it is difficult to tell whether cutting is for a practical purpose or for 'fun.' Dr Biggs also says that removal of internal organs could have been accomplished by one long incision, which we know occurred too. There surely can be no way of knowing for certain the motive for removal of chunks of flesh from Elizabeth's abdomen.
__________________
,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸, Debs ,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,
Quick reply to this message
  #3422  
Old 04-25-2018, 01:37 AM
harry harry is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,734
Default

jerryD,
I do not mind references to Dr Herbert,or any other witness,but I do take exception to anyone who twists that evidence to further a theory.
Quick reply to this message
  #3423  
Old 04-25-2018, 02:02 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 9,736
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Debra A View Post
The damage to the buttock seems to have been caused by continuing the abdominal 'flap' cutting down through the genitals and not knowing quite where or how to end that cut.
Agreed, Debs.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message
  #3424  
Old 04-25-2018, 02:17 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 9,736
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman
I would have gone for the lower part of the costal arch being the limit, but I don´t know that we can exclude Jerrys suggestion
Given the thoroughness and precision of Hebbert's notes, I'm pretty sure that he'd have stated this explicitly had it been the case. The fact that he didn't makes it probable that the wound did not extend that far.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message
  #3425  
Old 04-25-2018, 02:21 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 16,626
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
Are you for real? We have a forensic pathologist who destroys your suggestion that the flaps removed from these torsos were part of the killers signature, yet you still want to argue against the expert

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
Yes, I am for real. But I suspect that you do not understand what Biggs says - and that Biggs are not speaking about large abdominal fals taken away purposefully from the abdominal wall, but instead of tongue of skin caused as collateral damage.
Quick reply to this message
  #3426  
Old 04-25-2018, 02:23 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 16,626
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
The flaps themselves might not have been accidentally formed, but the damage to the flesh adjoining the flaps could easily have been incidental to their purpose, in much the same way as the (non-flap) cut to Eddowes' abdomen just happened to bisect the ensiform cartilage of the sternum. In like manner, the damage to part of Jackson's buttock could easily have been incidental to the cut whose true purpose was to cut one of the strips of flesh from her lower abdomen.
Yes!

COULD have. And that´s the full extent of the viability of the suggestion.

The suggestion that this killer WANTED to cut away part of his victims´ buttocks is equally viable.

In the end, all we have is knowledge that part of the righ buttock was cut away in both the Kelly case and the Jackson case.

And it´s slips or large flaps - not strips.
Quick reply to this message
  #3427  
Old 04-25-2018, 02:26 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 16,626
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
Wrong. He did precisely that, as can be confirmed from reading Bond's description of the wounds: "The right thigh was denuded in front to the bone, the flap of skin, including the external organs of generation & part of the right buttock". If you're going to cut a single saddle of flesh from the right up to, and including, the entirety of the external genitalia, you have effectively de-fleshed the undercarriage, as the gruesome closeup photograph of Kelly's genital area clearly shows, and part of the right buttock is inevitably going to suffer as a result. In order to achieve his aim of giving Kelly the "ultimate Brazilian", part of the buttock was sacrificed. Part of Jackson's buttock was almost certainly damaged in a similar accidental manner, although the aim of her killer was evidently quite different.

In either case, there is zero reason to suppose that the perpetrators were thinking to themselves, "I... must... include... part... of... the... right... buttock", anymore than Eddowes' killer was thinking, "I... must... cut... the... xiphoid... process... in... half".
There is zero reason to do any thinking at all on the killers behalf. And but for that part of the right buttock, the rest of the buttocs were still in place, which is why I am saying that the killer did not remove all of the "undercarriage".
Quick reply to this message
  #3428  
Old 04-25-2018, 02:30 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 16,626
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Debra A View Post
I believe the flaps started just above Elizabeth's navel, the top of her 'bump' and continued down towards the external genitals. We do not know the width of the two flaps. I don't see how the starting position of the flaps changes anything. Dr Biggs says that it is difficult to tell whether cutting is for a practical purpose or for 'fun.' Dr Biggs also says that removal of internal organs could have been accomplished by one long incision, which we know occurred too. There surely can be no way of knowing for certain the motive for removal of chunks of flesh from Elizabeth's abdomen.
Agreed!
Quick reply to this message
  #3429  
Old 04-25-2018, 02:31 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 16,626
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
Agreed, Debs.
It may "seem" that way - but all I am going by is what we know, not what we think seems to be the case. Once we allow for people to decide what they think seems to be the case, all sorts of strange suggestions surface.

I am trying to keep the issue as clean as possible in terms of facts. I have no problems per se with people thinking that it seems like this or like that, but it is a somewhat other discussion.
Quick reply to this message
  #3430  
Old 04-25-2018, 02:33 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 16,626
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by harry View Post
jerryD,
I do not mind references to Dr Herbert,or any other witness,but I do take exception to anyone who twists that evidence to further a theory.
How is it twisting the evidence to point out that the killer took away rings from the fingers of victims in both series, Harry? Maybe you can explain that? Is it not instead the plain truth that this is a further similarity inbetween the series?

You need to be much more careful with what you say.
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 01:01 AM.


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