The Double Event

[Elamarna]

Just a reminder that the Double event in no way concerns Cross or Lechmere, and to Steve, perhaps the difficulty explaining which incisions are preferable can be circumvented by first determining whether the actions represent surgical technique vs dissection technique. I have a book concerning Autopsies in the Victorian Era, with a few chapters on the methods that medical students were trained in dissection.

In that book I have a picture of a student group posing around an operating table with a cadaver on a gurney. That figure is the closest image I have seen to what is seen in the MJK photos.

After Annie, they sought medical students. Perhaps that's why.

Hi Michael

Valid points. If there is any technique display it is certainly more disection than surgical I would suggest.


Steve

[Fisherman]

The Hebrew-language book that recently appeared at my library office is read from back to front-- that is, pages are turned from right to left.

Most English and other Western European language books are read from left to right, of course.

And individual pages will turn either way, as any confused student who is backtracking to re-read something already passed in a text, will attest.

Can we not just settle for acknowledging that just as the pages in a book can be turned to ONE side, they can also be turned to THE OTHER side? I was never implying that there was something written on both the in- and the outside of Nicholsī abdominal wall, but rather that it had been folded from one side to the other - like a page in a book.

[Elamarna]

before commenting I wish to make one thing very clear: I have no doubt at all that the killer aimed to open up the body cavity by means of what Fisherman calls flaps.

Elamarna: This is where we really part company Christer, you are claiming things that are not included in what is said or written, but as you wish it to be interpreted.
To say you are slightly exaggerating is being kind.

So the flesh of the abdomen was not turned over from left to right? I got that wrong?

Yes in the way in which you are portraying it I think you are.
Lets look at what we know, there is certainly a large vertical cut, there may be two which penetrate the body wall.
In addition there are smaller horizontal wounds, which apparently are not as deep.
Robert suggested that the large wound could be bisected by an horizontal cut at the bottom of the cot.
Following on you have suggested that Spratlings observation can be read to suggest that the tissue could be folded back on itself like a book forming a “flap”
However if one looks at it logically there are problems with that; to allow the the tissue to fold over as you see it, surely we need at least a partial horizontal cut at the higher end of the vertical wound AND the same at the bottom end.
If not, it cannot fold back on itself like the leaves of a book.
However it can curly and twist back on itself to a limited degree. Giving the impression of turning over

If there was a partial horizontal at the top end it would fold back diagonally top to bottom and left to right. If partial at bottom it would fold from bottom to top.

In any event it is not folding back like the leaves of a book.

I have seen both.
And have you seen an abdominal wall turned over from one side to another with no other damage than a straight cut? I somehow donīt think so, but I am prepared to stand corrected if you can show me one single example. It would involve the abdominal wall stretching very much and folding over on itīs own, a not very common thing for abdominal walls to do.

Please see above,
Additionally the two edges of a cut, particularly one such as describe by Lleweylln will pull apart as fluid is lost and dehydration sets in, that of course does not consider if Rigor may have an effect.
I am really not sure why this is an issue for you, especially when we consider that:
We probably agree the killer was disturbed.
We probably agree that he intended to disembowel her similar to Chapman.
We may agree that he would have open up the abdomen by retracting the skin and possible the abdomen wall, forming “flaps”.
We will agree that in some examples he cut these clean off, Chapman and Kelly.
Interestingly he does not seem to have done the same to Eddowes, however examination of her wounds indicates that at the bottom of the main slash, he cut sideways and back up, this may have allowed him to retract the tiisues without removing a flap.

yes, similar to Nichols, but not in my opinion to the Torso's, which of course is the whole aim of the flap discussion.

And which is the difference, Steve? The shape of the flaps Jackson lost? The number?

Because the flaps we have from the torso’s may be the end result of the dis articulation, rather than to allow enter into the body or for the ritual you see, we just do not know,
My issue is not that they may not be similar , but that you believe they are because there are chunks of tissue removed like “flaps” as you see it and you link this to the portions removed in the ripper cases, because you see a common description of “flap”, THE whole issue is “FLAP” can mean anything I this context, we have no detailed description to say if they are similar or not.

No its not imprecise, its not that dissections are common, it's that the technique of opening the body cavity by horizontal cuts intersecting a vertical cut is common practice. it is also above anything else the practical approach.

But is it common practice in evisceration murders, Steve? That it the one and only question I am asking. Leave the medicos aside, please.

This is the issue, to say we can find no other example of what is in reality a non precise description of tissue, other than the Torso’a is pointless because we do not know those removed tissues are similar

You need to clarify that stance. There is just the one case where flaps were cut from the victims abdomen in the torso series, so letīs leave the rest. It is Jackson we speak of. Exactly how is her loosing her abdominal wall in large flaps dissimilar to Chapman and Kelly loosing theirs?

see above please.
I believe the removed parts in the Ripper murders are done for practical purposes, I see no such need in the Jackson case, the portions found may be due to the practicalities of dis-articulation or may just be the accidental result of such.

That is the point I am making, the aim is to cut and get at the internal organs, the easiest way to do that is to give oneself the largest space to work in.

And which evisceration killer are you referring to?

I am not and this continual reference to which other killers is not helpful, and ignores what is obvious.

Of course the argument is that no other killer of this type as done this; apart from the Torso killer and therefore they must be by the same hand.
My objection is that the two series are not similar in regards to the "Flaps" and therefore the argument fails.

If and when we have an argument for the apparent significance of "flaps", I may reevaluate my position
Steve, letīs assume that the flaps from Jackson looked very dissinmilar to those of Chapman and Kelly (we actually do not know this at all, but for the sake of theory...) Letīs assume that we know that they were cut away using another implement (we actually do not know this at all, but for the sake of theory...) Letīs assume that they were much larger or smaller in Jacksons case (we actually do not know this at all, but for the sake of theory...)

Even if these things were all true and proven (and they are not), we would STILL have three cases where the victims had their abdominal walls cut away. That in itself would be an extremely powerful reason to assume the same killer. If you disagree, then tell me why the details are more important than the overall fact that these victims had their abdominal walls removed!

Charles Albright gouged out the eyes from his victims. If one victim had her eyes removed with a dessert spoon, one with a tea spoon and one with a fork, would you say that there were probably three killers? Is the method of extraction more telling than what is extracted?
It would to my mind be utter folly to even suggest such a thing - a killer obsessed with gouging out the eyeballs is as rare as an insightful Ripperologist. Once we find such a beast, he will be completely unique in all probability.

I have attempted not just on this post but several over the last year to give all the reasons why I believe it is unsafe to lump together what I see has different types of cut..
In one series we have parts removed from basically intact bodies, for what I believe are practical purposes, that is allowing better access, you see some ritual involved, that is fair enough.
Then we have the Torso (Jackson) case, here we have a body which is taken apart, for my liking it is done with far more skill than shown in the Ripper murders and the removal of a section of abdomen wall may be for completely different reasons.
Christer, we have been discussing this now for so long, and until something new emerges I fear neither of us will budge as we are both convinced we are correct.

Steve

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: before commenting I wish to make one thing very clear: I have no doubt at all that the killer aimed to open up the body cavity by means of what Fisherman calls flaps.

I really donīt see how you can have no doubts about it - you are normally VERY apprehensive of such things. Not that I donīt agree, of course...

Yes in the way in which you are portraying it I think you are.
Lets look at what we know, there is certainly a large vertical cut, there may be two which penetrate the body wall.
In addition there are smaller horizontal wounds, which apparently are not as deep.
Robert suggested that the large wound could be bisected by an horizontal cut at the bottom of the cot.
Following on you have suggested that Spratlings observation can be read to suggest that the tissue could be folded back on itself like a book forming a “flap”
However if one looks at it logically there are problems with that; to allow the the tissue to fold over as you see it, surely we need at least a partial horizontal cut at the higher end of the vertical wound AND the same at the bottom end.
If not, it cannot fold back on itself like the leaves of a book.
However it can curly and twist back on itself to a limited degree. Giving the impression of turning over

If there was a partial horizontal at the top end it would fold back diagonally top to bottom and left to right. If partial at bottom it would fold from bottom to top.

In any event it is not folding back like the leaves of a book.

With respect, that depends on how the cuts were made, Steve. You suggest a dehydration and retraction saga, but Spratling saw the wounds an hour and a half after they were produced. There wonīt be much dehydration to deal with at that stage. Furthermore, Nichols was on her back when examined by Llewellyn in Bucks Row, she was then lifted onto the ambulance and taken to the mortuary, so she stayed on her back throughout. And the Evening News writes that "the flesh was turned over from left to right". Not that it was dehydrated and reshaped - it was TURNED OVER FROM LEFT TO RIGHT. You say that it could have given this impression, but why would it be an impression only? If Spratling said it was turned over, then it will have been turned over. It leaves me with no doubt whatsoever, a flap of the abdominal wall had been turned over, exposing the intestines.

Additionally the two edges of a cut, particularly one such as describe by Lleweylln will pull apart as fluid is lost and dehydration sets in, that of course does not consider if Rigor may have an effect.

Pull apart, yes - there is gravity to consider, not least. But the abdominal wall will not turn over as such, unless there is a physical reason for it, involving that the wall CAN be turned over, practically speaking.

I am really not sure why this is an issue for you, especially when we consider that:
We probably agree the killer was disturbed.
We probably agree that he intended to disembowel her similar to Chapman.
We may agree that he would have open up the abdomen by retracting the skin and possible the abdomen wall, forming “flaps”.
We will agree that in some examples he cut these clean off, Chapman and Kelly.
Interestingly he does not seem to have done the same to Eddowes, however examination of her wounds indicates that at the bottom of the main slash, he cut sideways and back up, this may have allowed him to retract the tiisues without removing a flap.

I believe that cutting away the abdominal wall had a ritualistic element to it, and that he may well have intended to do so with Eddowes too. It may be that he did not find the time to carry it through, quite simply.
It is - to my mind - not about being able to access the inner organs, itīs about following a ritual of sorts.

Because the flaps we have from the torso’s may be the end result of the dis articulation, rather than to allow enter into the body or for the ritual you see, we just do not know,
My issue is not that they may not be similar , but that you believe they are because there are chunks of tissue removed like “flaps” as you see it and you link this to the portions removed in the ripper cases, because you see a common description of “flap”, THE whole issue is “FLAP” can mean anything I this context, we have no detailed description to say if they are similar or not.

First you say that your issue is not that the flaps may not have been similar. Then you say that we donīt know if they were similar or not.

If it does not matter, whatīs the problem? You are being rather inconclusive here.

Now, tell me why a dismembering killer would divide the body into large portions, the way that happened to Jackson - and then cut away the abdominal wall in two flaps? To facilitate the dumping?

Listen here, Steve: The two flaps of the abdominal wall were cut out BEFORE the disarticulation. They were not part of the disarticulation as such. If the trunk had been cut in three parts first, then we would have SIX, not two flaps from the abdomen.
So the killer laid out the body of Elizabeth Jackson before him. Then he cut her open from sternum to pubes. After that, he cut away the abdominal wall. Somewhere in this process, he plucked out the uterus with the foetus, and extracted the foetus.
After that, he was looking at a woman with the abdominal wall cut away and the reproductive innards taken out. Then, but only then, did he set about cutting her up in parts.

This is the issue, to say we can find no other example of what is in reality a non precise description of tissue, other than the Torso’a is pointless because we do not know those removed tissues are similar

See the above.

I believe the removed parts in the Ripper murders are done for practical purposes, I see no such need in the Jackson case, the portions found may be due to the practicalities of dis-articulation or may just be the accidental result of such.

Once more, this is a more or less unique feature. Why would you start guessing away about different reasons, if it is rarer than henīs teeth? If we can find no parallels, then why would we have the similarity in two series from the same time in the same city, where there were also many other similarities between the series?
We wonīt get much closer to definitive evidence than this.

I am not and this continual reference to which other killers is not helpful, and ignores what is obvious.

Of course it is bloody helpful! If there are no parallels, it will almost certainly be the same killer.

I have attempted not just on this post but several over the last year to give all the reasons why I believe it is unsafe to lump together what I see has different types of cut..
In one series we have parts removed from basically intact bodies, for what I believe are practical purposes, that is allowing better access, you see some ritual involved, that is fair enough.
Then we have the Torso (Jackson) case, here we have a body which is taken apart, for my liking it is done with far more skill than shown in the Ripper murders and the removal of a section of abdomen wall may be for completely different reasons.
Christer, we have been discussing this now for so long, and until something new emerges I fear neither of us will budge as we are both convinced we are correct.

I think there is a fair chance you will budge once you see WHY he cut away the abdominal walls, and why he took out all kinds of organs, why he cut away the face from the 1873 victim, why he sawed off the arms and legs of that victim at the shoulders and the hips, whereas he disarticulated at ALL other joints.
If you think that is insignificant or a coincidence, then think again.

[Elamarna]

Elamarna: before commenting I wish to make one thing very clear: I have no doubt at all that the killer aimed to open up the body cavity by means of what Fisherman calls flaps.

I really donīt see how you can have no doubts about it - you are normally VERY apprehensive of such things. Not that I donīt agree, of course...

Yes in the way in which you are portraying it I think you are.
Lets look at what we know, there is certainly a large vertical cut, there may be two which penetrate the body wall.
In addition there are smaller horizontal wounds, which apparently are not as deep.
Robert suggested that the large wound could be bisected by an horizontal cut at the bottom of the cot.
Following on you have suggested that Spratlings observation can be read to suggest that the tissue could be folded back on itself like a book forming a “flap”
However if one looks at it logically there are problems with that; to allow the the tissue to fold over as you see it, surely we need at least a partial horizontal cut at the higher end of the vertical wound AND the same at the bottom end.
If not, it cannot fold back on itself like the leaves of a book.
However it can curly and twist back on itself to a limited degree. Giving the impression of turning over

If there was a partial horizontal at the top end it would fold back diagonally top to bottom and left to right. If partial at bottom it would fold from bottom to top.

In any event it is not folding back like the leaves of a book.

With respect, that depends on how the cuts were made, Steve. You suggest a dehydration and retraction saga, but Spratling saw the wounds an hour and a half after they were produced. There wonīt be much dehydration to deal with at that stage. Furthermore, Nichols was on her back when examined by Llewellyn in Bucks Row, she was then lifted onto the ambulance and taken to the mortuary, so she stayed on her back throughout. And the Evening News writes that "the flesh was turned over from left to right". Not that it was dehydrated and reshaped - it was TURNED OVER FROM LEFT TO RIGHT. You say that it could have given this impression, but why would it be an impression only? If Spratling said it was turned over, then it will have been turned over. It leaves me with no doubt whatsoever, a flap of the abdominal wall had been turned over, exposing the intestines.

Additionally the two edges of a cut, particularly one such as describe by Lleweylln will pull apart as fluid is lost and dehydration sets in, that of course does not consider if Rigor may have an effect.

Pull apart, yes - there is gravity to consider, not least. But the abdominal wall will not turn over as such, unless there is a physical reason for it, involving that the wall CAN be turned over, practically speaking.

I am really not sure why this is an issue for you, especially when we consider that:
We probably agree the killer was disturbed.
We probably agree that he intended to disembowel her similar to Chapman.
We may agree that he would have open up the abdomen by retracting the skin and possible the abdomen wall, forming “flaps”.
We will agree that in some examples he cut these clean off, Chapman and Kelly.
Interestingly he does not seem to have done the same to Eddowes, however examination of her wounds indicates that at the bottom of the main slash, he cut sideways and back up, this may have allowed him to retract the tiisues without removing a flap.

I believe that cutting away the abdominal wall had a ritualistic element to it, and that he may well have intended to do so with Eddowes too. It may be that he did not find the time to carry it through, quite simply.
It is - to my mind - not about being able to access the inner organs, itīs about following a ritual of sorts.

Because the flaps we have from the torso’s may be the end result of the dis articulation, rather than to allow enter into the body or for the ritual you see, we just do not know,
My issue is not that they may not be similar , but that you believe they are because there are chunks of tissue removed like “flaps” as you see it and you link this to the portions removed in the ripper cases, because you see a common description of “flap”, THE whole issue is “FLAP” can mean anything I this context, we have no detailed description to say if they are similar or not.

First you say that your issue is not that the flaps may not have been similar. Then you say that we donīt know if they were similar or not.

If it does not matter, whatīs the problem? You are being rather inconclusive here.

Now, tell me why a dismembering killer would divide the body into large portions, the way that happened to Jackson - and then cut away the abdominal wall in two flaps? To facilitate the dumping?

Listen here, Steve: The two flaps of the abdominal wall were cut out BEFORE the disarticulation. They were not part of the disarticulation as such. If the trunk had been cut in three parts first, then we would have SIX, not two flaps from the abdomen.
So the killer laid out the body of Elizabeth Jackson before him. Then he cut her open from sternum to pubes. After that, he cut away the abdominal wall. Somewhere in this process, he plucked out the uterus with the foetus, and extracted the foetus.
After that, he was looking at a woman with the abdominal wall cut away and the reproductive innards taken out. Then, but only then, did he set about cutting her up in parts.

This is the issue, to say we can find no other example of what is in reality a non precise description of tissue, other than the Torso’a is pointless because we do not know those removed tissues are similar

See the above.

I believe the removed parts in the Ripper murders are done for practical purposes, I see no such need in the Jackson case, the portions found may be due to the practicalities of dis-articulation or may just be the accidental result of such.

Once more, this is a more or less unique feature. Why would you start guessing away about different reasons, if it is rarer than henīs teeth? If we can find no parallels, then why would we have the similarity in two series from the same time in the same city, where there were also many other similarities between the series?
We wonīt get much closer to definitive evidence than this.

I am not and this continual reference to which other killers is not helpful, and ignores what is obvious.

Of course it is bloody helpful! If there are no parallels, it will almost certainly be the same killer.

I have attempted not just on this post but several over the last year to give all the reasons why I believe it is unsafe to lump together what I see has different types of cut..
In one series we have parts removed from basically intact bodies, for what I believe are practical purposes, that is allowing better access, you see some ritual involved, that is fair enough.
Then we have the Torso (Jackson) case, here we have a body which is taken apart, for my liking it is done with far more skill than shown in the Ripper murders and the removal of a section of abdomen wall may be for completely different reasons.
Christer, we have been discussing this now for so long, and until something new emerges I fear neither of us will budge as we are both convinced we are correct.

I think there is a fair chance you will budge once you see WHY he cut away the abdominal walls, and why he took out all kinds of organs, why he cut away the face from the 1873 victim, why he sawed off the legs of that victim at the shoulders and the hips, whereas he disarticulated at ALL other joints.
If you think that is insignificant or a coincidence, then think again.

Christer i will make this short and sweet as the saying goes.
We do not agree on if flaps had been cut in this case. However we agree he would have.

You set much store by the actions of other killers And if there are parraells I do not.

You see Jackson's disartictulaton different to myself. Not obviously in what was cut, but how.

Yes what you say finally may change my view. It would be new data.

I think we agree on what Nichols killer planned. Just not on if he had completed it.

Steve

[John G]

Elamarna: before commenting I wish to make one thing very clear: I have no doubt at all that the killer aimed to open up the body cavity by means of what Fisherman calls flaps.

I really donīt see how you can have no doubts about it - you are normally VERY apprehensive of such things. Not that I donīt agree, of course...

Yes in the way in which you are portraying it I think you are.
Lets look at what we know, there is certainly a large vertical cut, there may be two which penetrate the body wall.
In addition there are smaller horizontal wounds, which apparently are not as deep.
Robert suggested that the large wound could be bisected by an horizontal cut at the bottom of the cot.
Following on you have suggested that Spratlings observation can be read to suggest that the tissue could be folded back on itself like a book forming a “flap”
However if one looks at it logically there are problems with that; to allow the the tissue to fold over as you see it, surely we need at least a partial horizontal cut at the higher end of the vertical wound AND the same at the bottom end.
If not, it cannot fold back on itself like the leaves of a book.
However it can curly and twist back on itself to a limited degree. Giving the impression of turning over

If there was a partial horizontal at the top end it would fold back diagonally top to bottom and left to right. If partial at bottom it would fold from bottom to top.

In any event it is not folding back like the leaves of a book.

With respect, that depends on how the cuts were made, Steve. You suggest a dehydration and retraction saga, but Spratling saw the wounds an hour and a half after they were produced. There wonīt be much dehydration to deal with at that stage. Furthermore, Nichols was on her back when examined by Llewellyn in Bucks Row, she was then lifted onto the ambulance and taken to the mortuary, so she stayed on her back throughout. And the Evening News writes that "the flesh was turned over from left to right". Not that it was dehydrated and reshaped - it was TURNED OVER FROM LEFT TO RIGHT. You say that it could have given this impression, but why would it be an impression only? If Spratling said it was turned over, then it will have been turned over. It leaves me with no doubt whatsoever, a flap of the abdominal wall had been turned over, exposing the intestines.

Additionally the two edges of a cut, particularly one such as describe by Lleweylln will pull apart as fluid is lost and dehydration sets in, that of course does not consider if Rigor may have an effect.

Pull apart, yes - there is gravity to consider, not least. But the abdominal wall will not turn over as such, unless there is a physical reason for it, involving that the wall CAN be turned over, practically speaking.

I am really not sure why this is an issue for you, especially when we consider that:
We probably agree the killer was disturbed.
We probably agree that he intended to disembowel her similar to Chapman.
We may agree that he would have open up the abdomen by retracting the skin and possible the abdomen wall, forming “flaps”.
We will agree that in some examples he cut these clean off, Chapman and Kelly.
Interestingly he does not seem to have done the same to Eddowes, however examination of her wounds indicates that at the bottom of the main slash, he cut sideways and back up, this may have allowed him to retract the tiisues without removing a flap.

I believe that cutting away the abdominal wall had a ritualistic element to it, and that he may well have intended to do so with Eddowes too. It may be that he did not find the time to carry it through, quite simply.
It is - to my mind - not about being able to access the inner organs, itīs about following a ritual of sorts.

Because the flaps we have from the torso’s may be the end result of the dis articulation, rather than to allow enter into the body or for the ritual you see, we just do not know,
My issue is not that they may not be similar , but that you believe they are because there are chunks of tissue removed like “flaps” as you see it and you link this to the portions removed in the ripper cases, because you see a common description of “flap”, THE whole issue is “FLAP” can mean anything I this context, we have no detailed description to say if they are similar or not.

First you say that your issue is not that the flaps may not have been similar. Then you say that we donīt know if they were similar or not.

If it does not matter, whatīs the problem? You are being rather inconclusive here.

Now, tell me why a dismembering killer would divide the body into large portions, the way that happened to Jackson - and then cut away the abdominal wall in two flaps? To facilitate the dumping?

Listen here, Steve: The two flaps of the abdominal wall were cut out BEFORE the disarticulation. They were not part of the disarticulation as such. If the trunk had been cut in three parts first, then we would have SIX, not two flaps from the abdomen.
So the killer laid out the body of Elizabeth Jackson before him. Then he cut her open from sternum to pubes. After that, he cut away the abdominal wall. Somewhere in this process, he plucked out the uterus with the foetus, and extracted the foetus.
After that, he was looking at a woman with the abdominal wall cut away and the reproductive innards taken out. Then, but only then, did he set about cutting her up in parts.

This is the issue, to say we can find no other example of what is in reality a non precise description of tissue, other than the Torso’a is pointless because we do not know those removed tissues are similar

See the above.

I believe the removed parts in the Ripper murders are done for practical purposes, I see no such need in the Jackson case, the portions found may be due to the practicalities of dis-articulation or may just be the accidental result of such.

Once more, this is a more or less unique feature. Why would you start guessing away about different reasons, if it is rarer than henīs teeth? If we can find no parallels, then why would we have the similarity in two series from the same time in the same city, where there were also many other similarities between the series?
We wonīt get much closer to definitive evidence than this.

I am not and this continual reference to which other killers is not helpful, and ignores what is obvious.

Of course it is bloody helpful! If there are no parallels, it will almost certainly be the same killer.

I have attempted not just on this post but several over the last year to give all the reasons why I believe it is unsafe to lump together what I see has different types of cut..
In one series we have parts removed from basically intact bodies, for what I believe are practical purposes, that is allowing better access, you see some ritual involved, that is fair enough.
Then we have the Torso (Jackson) case, here we have a body which is taken apart, for my liking it is done with far more skill than shown in the Ripper murders and the removal of a section of abdomen wall may be for completely different reasons.
Christer, we have been discussing this now for so long, and until something new emerges I fear neither of us will budge as we are both convinced we are correct.

I think there is a fair chance you will budge once you see WHY he cut away the abdominal walls, and why he took out all kinds of organs, why he cut away the face from the 1873 victim, why he sawed off the arms and legs of that victim at the shoulders and the hips, whereas he disarticulated at ALL other joints.
If you think that is insignificant or a coincidence, then think again.

The only evidence of ritualistic behaviour, in respect of the abdominal walls issue, is on respect of Jackson. Anything else is purely wishful thinking!

[John G]

before commenting I wish to make one thing very clear: I have no doubt at all that the killer aimed to open up the body cavity by means of what Fisherman calls flaps.




Yes in the way in which you are portraying it I think you are.
Lets look at what we know, there is certainly a large vertical cut, there may be two which penetrate the body wall.
In addition there are smaller horizontal wounds, which apparently are not as deep.
Robert suggested that the large wound could be bisected by an horizontal cut at the bottom of the cot.
Following on you have suggested that Spratlings observation can be read to suggest that the tissue could be folded back on itself like a book forming a “flap”
However if one looks at it logically there are problems with that; to allow the the tissue to fold over as you see it, surely we need at least a partial horizontal cut at the higher end of the vertical wound AND the same at the bottom end.
If not, it cannot fold back on itself like the leaves of a book.
However it can curly and twist back on itself to a limited degree. Giving the impression of turning over

If there was a partial horizontal at the top end it would fold back diagonally top to bottom and left to right. If partial at bottom it would fold from bottom to top.

In any event it is not folding back like the leaves of a book.



Please see above,
Additionally the two edges of a cut, particularly one such as describe by Lleweylln will pull apart as fluid is lost and dehydration sets in, that of course does not consider if Rigor may have an effect.
I am really not sure why this is an issue for you, especially when we consider that:
We probably agree the killer was disturbed.
We probably agree that he intended to disembowel her similar to Chapman.
We may agree that he would have open up the abdomen by retracting the skin and possible the abdomen wall, forming “flaps”.
We will agree that in some examples he cut these clean off, Chapman and Kelly.
Interestingly he does not seem to have done the same to Eddowes, however examination of her wounds indicates that at the bottom of the main slash, he cut sideways and back up, this may have allowed him to retract the tiisues without removing a flap.


Because the flaps we have from the torso’s may be the end result of the dis articulation, rather than to allow enter into the body or for the ritual you see, we just do not know,
My issue is not that they may not be similar , but that you believe they are because there are chunks of tissue removed like “flaps” as you see it and you link this to the portions removed in the ripper cases, because you see a common description of “flap”, THE whole issue is “FLAP” can mean anything I this context, we have no detailed description to say if they are similar or not.


This is the issue, to say we can find no other example of what is in reality a non precise description of tissue, other than the Torso’a is pointless because we do not know those removed tissues are similar



see above please.
I believe the removed parts in the Ripper murders are done for practical purposes, I see no such need in the Jackson case, the portions found may be due to the practicalities of dis-articulation or may just be the accidental result of such.




I am not and this continual reference to which other killers is not helpful, and ignores what is obvious.

I have attempted not just on this post but several over the last year to give all the reasons why I believe it is unsafe to lump together what I see has different types of cut..
In one series we have parts removed from basically intact bodies, for what I believe are practical purposes, that is allowing better access, you see some ritual involved, that is fair enough.
Then we have the Torso (Jackson) case, here we have a body which is taken apart, for my liking it is done with far more skill than shown in the Ripper murders and the removal of a section of abdomen wall may be for completely different reasons.
Christer, we have been discussing this now for so long, and until something new emerges I fear neither of us will budge as we are both convinced we are correct.

Steve

A typically excellent post, Steve. Of course, Christer totally ignores the myriad of evidence that contradicts his theory: if correct he would have discovered the first serial killer in history who alternated between ritualistic elements; who alternated between being a commuter and a marauder; who presumably had a dissociative personality disorder, I.e. Torso clearly enjoyed spending time with his victims-the Whitehall victim, for instance, may have been stored for 2 months-JtR didn't; who alternated between being organised-Torso-and disorganized-JtR...

His argument that he earlier Torso victims are linked also makes little sense. I mean, if true, Torso must have had an hiatus of 14 years. However, I'm not aware of any serial killer in history who had such a massive gap between victims. Of course, pursuing such an argument perfectly suits Christer's agenda: arguing that a single killer started in 1872 eliminates virtually every serious suspect-apart from Lechmere , of course!

[John G]

Just to restate the point that I've made on a number of occasions: Jackson's mutations were probably ritualistic; Chapman's were probably driven by practicalities, i.e on the basis that she was emaciated; MJK represents a killer who was attempting to destroy the body in a frenzied attack, demonstrating no skill whatsoever.

And if Chapman's mutilations were ritualistic, why was the same ritual absent with Eddowes, or for that matter, Nichols?

[Elamarna]

A typically excellent post, Steve. Of course, Christer totally ignores the myriad of evidence that contradicts his theory: if correct he would have discovered the first serial killer in history who alternated between ritualistic elements; who alternated between being a commuter and a marauder; who presumably had a dissociative personality disorder, I.e. Torso clearly enjoyed spending time with his victims-the Whitehall victim, for instance, may have been stored for 2 months-JtR didn't; who alternated between being organised-Torso-and disorganized-JtR...

His argument that he earlier Torso victims are linked also makes little sense. I mean, if true, Torso must have had an hiatus of 14 years. However, I'm not aware of any serial killer in history who had such a massive gap between victims. Of course, pursuing such an argument perfectly suits Christer's agenda: arguing that a single killer started in 1872 eliminates virtually every serious suspect-apart from Lechmere , of course!

John
I await the disclosure of details on the earlier Torso killing with as much anticipation as I awaited Pierre to reveal details of his sources.

Much the same argument applies to Christer on this particular issue.
That is from an historical perspective until such details are disclosed they do not exist.

Steve

[Fisherman]

Just to restate the point that I've made on a number of occasions: Jackson's mutations were probably ritualistic; Chapman's were probably driven by practicalities, i.e on the basis that she was emaciated; MJK represents a killer who was attempting to destroy the body in a frenzied attack, demonstrating no skill whatsoever.

And if Chapman's mutilations were ritualistic, why was the same ritual absent with Eddowes, or for that matter, Nichols?

I really canīt be arsed to bother with your ignorance, John, but since it amuses me: It wasnīt.

Thatīs all you are going to get. You shall have to spend the rest of the discussion posting your meaningless twaddle. I donīt mind, Iīm used to it.

[Fisherman]

John
I await the disclosure of details on the earlier Torso killing with as much anticipation as I awaited Pierre to reveal details of his sources.

Much the same argument applies to Christer on this particular issue.
That is from an historical perspective until such details are disclosed they do not exist.

Steve

Very true, and I have never said anything else. But I could do without any comparison with Pierre. Otherwise I shall have to find comparisons for you, Steve. I really think we could keep a better level than so, or...?

[John G]

I really canīt be arsed to bother with your ignorance, John, but since it amuses me: It wasnīt.

Thatīs all you are going to get. You shall have to spend the rest of the discussion posting your meaningless twaddle. I donīt mind, Iīm used to it.

No, it's not ignorance! Are you seriously suggesting again that Kelly was expertly mutilated again? And, as I've explained to you many times, Chapman's emaciated state meant that her perpetrator probably had little alternative but to mutilate her in the way he did. I also note that you have never even attempted to counter these arguments, presumably because they're so destructive to your theories. No, you're now in full retreat and, as with approach to David's excellent posts, all you can do is resort to silly insults: truly the last refuge of the desperate.

Believe me, it gives me no pleasure to criticize your theories in such a vehement fashion, and if you were simply a "cadet", desperately trying to promote a suspect, I wouldn't. But your not.

And I note that your attempts to recruit the estimable Paul Begg to your increasingly bizarre theory has met with total failure!

[John G]

John
I await the disclosure of details on the earlier Torso killing with as much anticipation as I awaited Pierre to reveal details of his sources.

Much the same argument applies to Christer on this particular issue.
That is from an historical perspective until such details are disclosed they do not exist.

Steve

Hello Steve,

Debra Arif's excellent research has highlighted the fact that the latter Torso victims-Rainham, Jackson, Whitehall, Pinchin Street-were dismembered in an extremely unusual way, i.e. the removal of the joints through the limbs. That strongly suggests a single perpetrator. However, there's not a shred of evidence that any other dismemberment victim was dismembered in such a way and, remember, this type of crime wasn't that rare.

[Fisherman]

No, it's not ignorance! Are you seriously suggesting again that Kelly was expertly mutilated again? And, as I've explained to you many times, Chapman's emaciated state meant that her perpetrator probably had little alternative but to mutilate her in the way he did. I also note that you have never even attempted to counter these arguments, presumably because they're so destructive to your theories. No, you're now in full retreat and, as with approach to David's excellent posts, all you can do is resort to silly insults: truly the last refuge of the desperate.

Believe me, it gives me no pleasure to criticize your theories in such a vehement fashion, and if you were simply a "cadet", desperately trying to promote a suspect, I wouldn't. But your not.

And I note that your attempts to recruit the estimable Paul Begg to your increasingly bizarre theory has met with total failure!

No, sorry - not interested. Nothing to see, nothing to offer, nothing at all. And that IS what I call ignorance.

The thing about the truly ignorant people is that they are happy enough in their lack of insight. That is why people say that ignorance is bliss.

In that respect, you are a very lucky man indeed.

If you wish to prolong this "debate", feel free to do so. Before you have anything of value to say I will not answer, though. Lifeīs too short. Just make sure that you do not lie about me anymore, like you do about the "expert mutilation" of Kelly, and we shall both be fine.

[Elamarna]

Very true, and I have never said anything else. But I could do without any comparison with Pierre. Otherwise I shall have to find comparisons for you, Steve. I really think we could keep a better level than so, or...?

Christer
I was not comparing you as individuals; just the data sources that were not disclosed.
And I wanted to show that it was not personally but a position I take with all.

There is no comparison at all between you two as you must know.

Steve