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 Abby Normal 52 minutes ago.
Witnesses: Pearly Poll's Husband - by MrBarnett 2 hours ago.
Witnesses: Pearly Poll's Husband - by MrBarnett 3 hours ago.
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - by OneRound 4 hours ago.
Shades of Whitechapel: The Golden State Serial Killer - by Abby Normal 4 hours ago.
Visual Media: HLN's Unmasking a killer-The Golden State killer - by Herlock Sholmes 4 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - (78 posts)
Shades of Whitechapel: The Golden State Serial Killer - (12 posts)
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - (10 posts)
Scene of the Crimes: Was Whitechapel really any worse than other areas of London? - (5 posts)
Witnesses: Pearly Poll's Husband - (4 posts)
Maybrick, James: Too Sensible & Competent - (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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1521  
Old 11-01-2017, 04:06 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 9,521
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
Both are highly subjective terms.
I can't say I agree, Steve - the multiple definitions of "slip" I posted yesterday are entirely consistent, and we all know what's meant by the modern equivalent ("strip"), i.e. a narrow piece of something. I'd agree with you on "flaps", however - on the one hand, we have the triangular flaps of skin on Eddowes' cheeks, on the other, we have the excavation of Mary Kelly's abdomen.

Luckily, in Kelly's case, Bond helps us out by saying that the "whole of the surface of the abdomen [was] laid open" in "three large flaps", and we have the MJK photographs that show the extent of the damage. These were, unquestionably, significantly large portions of flesh - nothing that anyone in their right mind would describe as "slips" or "strips".
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1522  
Old 11-01-2017, 04:49 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,818
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
I can't say I agree, Steve - the multiple definitions of "slip" I posted yesterday are entirely consistent, and we all know what's meant by the modern equivalent ("strip"), i.e. a narrow piece of something. I'd agree with you on "flaps", however - on the one hand, we have the triangular flaps of skin on Eddowes' cheeks, on the other, we have the excavation of Mary Kelly's abdomen.

Luckily, in Kelly's case, Bond helps us out by saying that the "whole of the surface of the abdomen [was] laid open" in "three large flaps", and we have the MJK photographs that show the extent of the damage. These were, unquestionably, significantly large portions of flesh - nothing that anyone in their right mind would describe as "slips" or "strips".
I think it's a minor disagreement. My view is based on what is borrow to one might not be to another.


Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1523  
Old 11-01-2017, 04:50 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 9,521
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
After having seen what a seven month-pregnant woman looks like, do you still think that cutting along the outlies of the bump on the belly would have produced narrow strips of flesh?
I haven't said anything about cutting AROUND the outlines of the bump, Fish. I used the word "along" specifically, ie lengthwise.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1524  
Old 11-01-2017, 04:53 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 16,306
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
Hi All


I am not attempting to answer for Gareth, indeed we may not agree on this.

In response to the first question, the overriding problem is that the interpretation of the word "slip" is just as subjective as the word "flap".
What to one person is a slip is not to another.
If you cut a sheet of A4 paper in half I would not call them slips but sections or halves.
How far do we need to subdivide before most would say slip? Would cutting the sheet into four equal parts make them slips? For many I suspect so, others may prefer into 6 or 8 before using the term.

While I can accept some will see a section 10 centimetres in width , that's approx 4 inches, to easily be described as a slip, others will not. When does a slip stop being a slip? 10, 15, 20 or more centimetres?
I would personally prefer it to be less than 10, if the length is 35, to be called a slip, but that's just me.
And of course we have no idea what was meant and so to a great extent the debate is somewhat futile.

On the 2nd question, yes of course they may have looked alike, however they may have equally looked very dissimilar. There is no way of knowing, and due to lack of data, the hypothesis remains at present possible but unproven.

I do not say the idea that sections of removed tissue, show a conclusive link between the series nonsense or anything like that; Just that there is no evidence to allow us to make a meaningful comparison.

Steve
Exactly. There will be subjective interpretations.

It also needs to be said that we have three levels of descriptions of the flaps in these three cases.

With Chapman, we only have "flaps". Nothing is said about the size or shape.

With Kelly, we have "large flaps", meaning that we know a bit more about these flaps.

With Jackson we have "large flaps" as well as "long slips".

To me, it applies that going on these descriptions only, all the cases can have been cases of large flaps that could be described by somebody as long slips. But the issue is not elaborated on sufficiently in the Chapman and Kelly cases, so there can be no certainty. Cetainly, though, the Kelly flaps MAY have been long slips too.

Last edited by Fisherman : 11-01-2017 at 05:10 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1525  
Old 11-01-2017, 04:58 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 16,306
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
Both are highly subjective terms.
And of course once the "Flap" is removed, that is cut away from the body it is no longer a "Flap", but a portion of tissue, size and shape for the most part unknown.


Steve
I have come to realize that this lies behind the difficulties to envisage what was done - a flap is supposedly attached to something, it would seem.

I think, though, that the medicos reporting realize that they HAVE been attached, and so you can cut a flap away from the surrounding tissues, and it will remain a flap just the same.

In Jacksons case, I think that it is hard to envisage an inch-wide ten inch long strip of flesh being looked upon as a "flap". But as has been said, these are subjective terms, and different people will have different tolerance levels. It seems safe to say that Gareths tolerance level allows for only the narrowest of strips...
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1526  
Old 11-01-2017, 05:00 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 16,306
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
I haven't said anything about cutting AROUND the outlines of the bump, Fish. I used the word "along" specifically, ie lengthwise.
The how does the bump play any role at all in how the cutting came out? It seems to me you suggested that it did:
"... Jackson was the only one who was pregnant, and her foetus was cut from her womb. The two strips of flesh could therefore have been cut "along the bump", with the specific intention of exposing the womb in order to remove the baby."

If he cut along the bump to expose the womb, he would only expose a minor part of it if only cut narrow strips. If he cut five inch slips, however, he would expose it all.

If he was content with letting the womb show through a slot, then why not just make the one cut, in the middle?

Last edited by Fisherman : 11-01-2017 at 05:07 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1527  
Old 11-01-2017, 05:01 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 16,306
Default

Gareth, would you be so good as to provide me with an answer to my earlier question about whether a 35 by 10 centimeter flap of skin could be described as a slip?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1528  
Old 11-01-2017, 05:14 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 9,521
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Exact
With Kelly, we have "large flaps", meaning that we know a bit more about these flaps.
We also have the description that the entire surface of the abdomen was laid open, making those sheets of flesh extensive indeed. These were no mere slips of flesh.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1529  
Old 11-01-2017, 05:16 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,818
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Exactly. There will be subjective interpretations.

It also needs to be said that we have three levels of descriptions of the flaps in these three cases.

With Chapman, we only have "flaps". Nothing is said about the size or shape.

With Kelly, we have "large flaps", meaning that we know a bit more about these flaps.

With Jackson we have "large flaps" as well as "long slips".

To me, it applies that going on these descriptions only, all the cases can have been cases of large flaps that could be described by somebody as long slips. But the issue is not elaborated on sufficiently in the Chapman and Kelly cases, so there can be no certainty. Cetainly, though, the Kelly flaps MAY have been long slips too.

Dear Christer,

That of course uses the even more subjective term "large".

If only they had recorded the details we would not spend hours going over this time and time again.


Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1530  
Old 11-01-2017, 05:30 AM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,915
Default

and down the rabbit hole of meaningless minutia we go.

in an attempt to find ANY possible superficial differences it has now been reduced to smaller and smaller arguments to now it is fruitless exercise in superficial semantics, including whos English is better. while the main and important point is loss.

surely the main point is that sections(can I use that word minutia police? trying to avoid such controversial and complicated terms like flaps and strips and slips) were removed from the same areas of victims bodies:

sections of flesh were removed from the abdomen of Jackson, Kelly and Chapman.

sections of flesh were removed from the thigh of the tottenham torso and Kelly.

these are simply similarities. These are simply facts. no reducing the descriptions to stupid semantics are going to change that. Its just a desperate attempt to not to admit that anything no matter how bleeding obvious could, god help us, be similar.

and even if we did have more exact descriptions of size and shape the minutia police then drill down even smaller-and would argue that they have a different number of molecules.

so what started as a great thread about a topic that has long been overlooked has been derailed by superficial attempts to not give in at any cost.

so **** it- I'm out. good job. you win.
__________________
"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

Last edited by Abby Normal : 11-01-2017 at 05:32 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


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 06:25 PM.


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