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:
Motive, Method and Madness: JtR was Law Enforcement Hypothesis - by Michael W Richards 12 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: JtR was Law Enforcement Hypothesis - by Michael W Richards 17 minutes ago.
Witnesses: Spratling Vs Enright - by Kattrup 1 hour and 23 minutes ago.
Witnesses: Spratling Vs Enright - by Joshua Rogan 2 hours ago.
Goulston Street Graffito: The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL - by David Orsam 2 hours ago.
Witnesses: Spratling Vs Enright - by Elamarna 2 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Motive, Method and Madness: JtR was Law Enforcement Hypothesis - (10 posts)
Witnesses: Spratling Vs Enright - (5 posts)
Maybrick, James: And This Is Factual! - (4 posts)
Goulston Street Graffito: The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL - (3 posts)
General Police Discussion: Leaving one's beat - (1 posts)
Rippercast: Questions for Michael Hawley - Jack the Ripper Suspect Dr. Francis Tumblety - (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
  #3521  
Old 04-26-2018, 09:44 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 9,736
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
As for the "three-ness of the flaps, I think it was a fourness in Chapmans case - one of the flaps were missing when the medicos tried to reassembele her abdominal wall.
No - three portions of skin were described, and they were all accounted for, except that when they joined them up, there was a portion missing where the navel should have been. This portion of flesh surrounding and including the navel was never found. Now, one might call a portion of flesh surrounding the navel a "plug" of flesh, or a "noisette", if you like, but it's hardly a "flap".
Quote:
So it seems it is two flaps with Jackson, three with Kelly and four with Chapman. So three killers. Not.
How does that follow? And please don't call the portion of flesh surrounding Chapman's navel a "flap" - it's an insult to flaps. Phillips clearly said that Chapman's abdomen had been opened in three portions (which he also described as "flaps of skin"), and that's that.
Quote:
You should not be too hard on yourself with your earlier interpretation - it won´t be far off the mark.
I'm a very thorough critic, Fish, and my earlier interpretation really was off the mark on this point. I was proud of my little idea, but having examined the evidence with a more critical eye, I now confidently reject it. And you don't need me to to tell you how hard it can be to abandon a cherished theory when it turns out to be complete pants.
Quote:
Oh, I think there can be myriads of ways to open up an abdomen. All sorts of directions, lengths of cuts etcetera. But when it comes to cutting away the abdomen in flaps...
...there are only so many ways to do that, too.
Quote:
it still points to the same originator.
Not really.
Quote:
[Chapman's] abdomen could have been opened up to 95 per cent, Gareth.
No it couldn't, because there's nothing in the sources that remotely suggest that could have been the case. Instead, it's apparent that a gaping hole was cut in her abdomen, on the anterior surface and primarily on the right hand side. Unfortunately we have no idea of the size of the three flaps that were cut in order to create this hole, but even if they extended fully from the ribcage to the genitals that'd still only be - say - 50% laid open (40% from the right anterior, and the remaining 10% from the left anterior surface). It might well have been smaller, it might have been a little bigger, but it certainly couldn't have been anywhere near 95%.

Chapman sustained a sizeable wound, no doubt, probably much greater in extent than Jackson's, but certainly nothing as bad as Mary Kelly's.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

Last edited by Sam Flynn : 04-26-2018 at 09:50 AM.
Quick reply to this message
  #3522  
Old 04-26-2018, 09:48 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,958
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
"Large" is not my wording, Steve. I borrowed it from Charles Hebbert. That´s how objective it is.

"Strips", however - that´s a subjective no-no.

Fish,

It does not matter who you borrowed it from, it is subjective.. there is no debate about that. Fact. End of.
From a scientific standpoint those terms tell us nothing.

Strips, flaps, slips are ALL SUBJECTIVE terms.


Its not you who is not objective, but the evidence used to attempt to support the argument.

You have built a case out of subjective statements, nothing wrong with that, however it fails to convince me.
Again one must admire the consistency of your arguments.

Steve

Last edited by Elamarna : 04-26-2018 at 10:02 AM.
Quick reply to this message
  #3523  
Old 04-26-2018, 09:58 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,958
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Debra A View Post
Steve,
Hebbert himself, in the opening paragraph of his essay, writes this:
The parts found were: (1) two large flaps of skin, the uterus, and placenta;..

It's in paragraph eight of the same essay, where Hebbert goes on to further describe: The flaps of skin and subcutaneous tissue consisted of two long, irregular slips taken from the abdominal walls..

Debs,

That does not make the statement anymore meaningful of useful for me.
The word "large" is subjective, i am sure you agree, and tells us nothing about the size or how it compares to any other flaps, slips or strips.

And you quote that the later description used is "long" again its not objective.

While i do appreciate its all we have, its not enough to allow me to draw any conclusions about possible comparisons.
Sorry its probably my science background at work here.

Steve
Quick reply to this message
  #3524  
Old 04-26-2018, 10:04 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
Steve,
Hebbert himself, in the opening paragraph of his essay, writes this:
The parts found were: (1) two large flaps of skin, the uterus, and placenta
Indeed, Debs, but a 10 ounce steak can be fairly described as a "large" piece of meat, even though it's not particularly wide or long. I couldn't find a picture of two 10oz steaks, but here's a pair of 8oz ones:



They're pretty large, too, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was something like those that Hebbert was describing.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message
  #3525  
Old 04-26-2018, 10:09 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 16,626
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
No - three portions of skin were described, and they were all accounted for, except that when they joined them up, there was a portion missing where the navel should have been. This portion of flesh surrounding and including the navel was never found. Now, one might call a portion of flesh surrounding the navel a "plug" of flesh, or a "noisette", if you like, but it's hardly a "flap".
So let me see if I´ve got this right - there was a portion missing involving the navel. Yes? And we do not know how large or small this particular portion was. Yes? But regardless of that, if the navel was inclusded, it could not be a flap. Yes?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
How does that follow? And please don't call the portion of flesh surrounding Chapman's navel a "flap" - it's an insult to flaps. Phillips clearly said that Chapman's abdomen had been opened in three portions (which he also described as "flaps of skin"), and that's that.

Flap. Flap, flap, flap. FLAP!
You see, then flaps were portions of skin from the abdominal wall. And the navel part was also skin from the abdominal wall, involving the navel. A flap with a navel, therefore.
You spend far too much time telling me what I may say and what I may not say. It´s the same thing with throats and necks.
It does not get you anywhere. I call things what I want to call them, and I am pretty sure you do the same. Like calling the flaps "strips".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
I'm a very thorough critic, Fish, and my earlier interpretation really was off the mark on this point. I was proud of my little idea, but having examined the evidence with a more critical eye, I now confidently reject it. And you don't need me to to tell you how hard it can be to abandon a cherished theory when it turns out to be complete pants.
Being hellbent on disagreeing with whatever thing I say points to a single killer is not being a thorough critic, Gareth. It really is not the same thing by any standards.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
...there are only so many ways to do that, too.

Yes, hundreds of them. But it is doing it per se that gives away that an extremely rare killer is at hand. "A" - not "two".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
Not really.
No? Just how and in which universe does that NOT point to the same killer?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
No it couldn't, because there's nothing in the sources that remotely suggest that could have been the case. Instead, it's apparent that a gaping hole was cut in her abdomen, on the anterior surface and primarily on the right hand side. Unfortunately we have no idea of the size of the three flaps that were cut in order to create this hole, but even if they extended fully from the ribcage to the genitals that'd still only be - say - 50% laid open (40% from the right anterior, and the remaining 10% from the left anterior surface). It might well have been smaller, it might have been a little bigger, but it certainly couldn't have been anywhere near 95%.

Chapman sustained a sizeable wound, no doubt, probably much greater in extent than Jackson's, but certainly nothing as bad as Mary Kelly's.
There´s no quantifying it, since there is nothing to quantify from. And your "probablies" are anything but impressing me. You are probably wrong.
Now, THERE´S an impressive probably with something to back it up!

All three of them had the major part of the abdominal wall taken away, that´s what I think - and I share that view with people I find wholly objective and realistic.

Tha campaign of the naysayers leaves me with that feeling of vicarious shame that one sometimes experience when hearing somebody delivering an embarrasing speech. You know the feeling, I´m sure.
Quick reply to this message
  #3526  
Old 04-26-2018, 10:12 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 16,626
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
Fish,

It does not matter who you borrowed it from, it is subjective.. there is no debate about that. Fact. End of.
From a scientific standpoint those terms tell us nothing.

Strips, flaps, slips are ALL SUBJECTIVE terms.


Its not you who is not objective, but the evidence used to attempt to support the argument.

You have built a case out of subjective statements, nothing wrong with that, however it fails to convince me.
Again one must admire the consistency of your arguments.

Steve
That may be one of the worst posts you have produced.

Subjective, I know - but it stands nevertheless.

Hebbert-would-have-know-what-the-flaps-looked-like-and-whether-they-were-large-or-small.

End of.
Quick reply to this message
  #3527  
Old 04-26-2018, 10:16 AM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,956
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
Debs,

That does not make the statement anymore meaningful of useful for me.
The word "large" is subjective, i am sure you agree, and tells us nothing about the size or how it compares to any other flaps, slips or strips.

And you quote that the later description used is "long" again its not objective.

While i do appreciate its all we have, its not enough to allow me to draw any conclusions about possible comparisons.
Sorry its probably my science background at work here.

Steve
the terms large and long are objective descriptions. ambiguous maybe, but even then theyre not used in a vacuum. The dr is using them in context of flesh cut away from a human "abdominal walls". so theres obvious context and parameters.

but to say those simple one word descriptors are subjective borders on the ridiculous.

the abuse of the words subjective and superficial in this debate is pretty bad.
__________________
"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"

-Edgar Allan Poe


"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

-Frederick G. Abberline
Quick reply to this message
  #3528  
Old 04-26-2018, 10:16 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 16,626
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
Indeed, Debs, but a 10 ounce steak can be fairly described as a "large" piece of meat, even though it's not particularly wide or long. I couldn't find a picture of two 10oz steaks, but here's a pair of 8oz ones:



They're pretty large, too, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was something like those that Hebbert was describing.
That is a disastrous argument, I´m afraid. I´m sorry, but I can find no better way of saying it.
Large or small is a term that will relate to the scale of a human bodyframe in this case. I think a ten carat diamond is large, but I would not propose that Hebbert may have seen two flaps sized like ten carat diamonds and thought "Hey, they look like large diamonds, so let´s call them large flaps!".

A large car is not a Fiat 500 although a tram of Fiat 500 size could be desribed as very large.

This is slipping away quickly now, and the standard of the arguments is deplorable from your side. I see no much use in a prolonged debate, and that´s kind of sad. You have the ability to do much, much better.

Last edited by Fisherman : 04-26-2018 at 10:18 AM.
Quick reply to this message
  #3529  
Old 04-26-2018, 10:17 AM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,956
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
Indeed, Debs, but a 10 ounce steak can be fairly described as a "large" piece of meat, even though it's not particularly wide or long. I couldn't find a picture of two 10oz steaks, but here's a pair of 8oz ones:



They're pretty large, too, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was something like those that Hebbert was describing.
mmmmmmmm...steak
__________________
"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"

-Edgar Allan Poe


"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

-Frederick G. Abberline
Quick reply to this message
  #3530  
Old 04-26-2018, 10:19 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 16,626
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
the terms large and long are objective descriptions. ambiguous maybe, but even then theyre not used in a vacuum. The dr is using them in context of flesh cut away from a human "abdominal walls". so theres obvious context and parameters.

but to say those simple one word descriptors are subjective borders on the ridiculous.

the abuse of the words subjective and superficial in this debate is pretty bad.
Worse than I thought it could get, actually. And I´m not new to the game!
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 02:34 PM.


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