Same motive = same killer

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: We do know about Kelly "The skin and tissues of the abdomen from the costal arch to the pubes were removed in three large flaps" (Bond), and we can see from the photograph that her entire abdomen was thus laid open. These were "super-flaps" by any description.

Well, obviously - but we donīt know how they were shaped, do we? If they were three parallel, long flaps, say 35 centimeters long and 10 centimeters wide, then they may well have looked just like Jacksons flaps. They would have been "long" as Hebbert said, and "large" as Hebbert also said. And they could be described as "slips", just as Hebbert did. Therefore, we cannot say that they cannot have been miror images of each other.

It's trickier to tell with Chapman, but we know that her abdomen was opened in three flaps again, with the cuts biased towards the right hand side of her body.

No, there were four flaps - but one of them went missing. But letīs leave Chapman aside for now, and concentrate on Kelly and Jackson.

In respect of Jackson, however, not only are there only two pieces of abdominal flesh removed, but they are described as "slips" of flesh. "Slips", as I've shown, is another word for "strips", and the definition of "strips" is long, narrow pieces. So, in number and in nature, the resemblance is not so significant.

Gareth, a slip MAY look like a strip, but Hebbert didnīt use strips - he used "slips"! So letīs ask you: Would a 35 by 10 centimeter flap qualify as a slip? I say yes, and I canīt see you disagreeing with that. But thatīs your decision.

In terms of motivation, it might be significant that, as the only torso victim from whom "slips" of abdominal flesh were removed, Jackson was the only one who was pregnant, and her foetus was cut from her womb.

May or may not, Gareth. There can be no way of knowing that, and it remains a suggestion only. The more important thing to remember is that Jackson had her abdominal wall removed to an extent in large flaps.

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 they were "cut along the bump", why where they narrow strips? It was said that the foetus was six, seven months old, was it not? This is a link to a picture of a seven months pregnant woman:

http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-beautiful-expecting-mother-at-seven-months-pregnant-holding-her-large-50362849.html

If the killer cut along the bump, Iīd say he would not produce any narrow slips at all. He would take away all of the abdominal wall!

[Fisherman]

I had a look what I could find picturewise on the term "slip of skin" on the net. I found nothing.
So I tried slip pf paper, and came up with these:

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth198837/

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/13/magazine/13lives-t.html

http://rebrn.com/re/this-is-the-slip-of-paper-my-best-friend-gave-me-almost-years-ag-615844/

https://www.digitalcommonwealth.org/search/commonwealth:5m60r661s

http://www.papalartifacts.com/july-4-1852-a-small-slip-of-paper-signed-by-blessed-john-henry-newman/

http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-geremia-bibliotheca-italiana-venice1728-with-a-slip-of-paper-with-92370672.html

...and hundreds of more examples of slips that are anything but striplike. In fact, I found next to no examples of very narrow striplike slips. To me, this very much tells me that you cannot possibly substantiate that the flaps from Jacksons body were "narrow slips". They may well have been something radically different.
I hope you agree, so we can leave that suggestion behind as an unsubstantiable idea.

I am going to bed now, so I will leave you to ponder my posts.

[Sam Flynn]

theres nothing superficial about comparing shades of the same color!

Light brown hair only bears a superficial resemblance to dark brown hair. They differ in the specifics.

[Sam Flynn]

I am going to bed now, so I will leave you to ponder my posts.

I'd rather ponder the Oxford English Dictionary, and the definitions and (dated) examples given therein:

Slip (noun)

"A long and relatively thin and narrow piece or strip of some material" (examples given from 1555 to 1888, including Thomas Henry Huxley's Man's Place in Nature, 1863: "One slip of the muscle is attached to the tendons of the long flexors")

"An example or specimen of something having an elongated or slender form" (with examples given dating 1730 to 1881).

"A piece of paper or parchment, especially one which is narrow in proportion to its length" (examples given dating 1687 to 1886)

The Huxley reference noted above is instructive when reproduced in full:

"The Gorilla differs from Man by the circumstance that one slip of the muscle is attached, not to the heel bone, but to the tendons of the long flexors. The lower Apes depart from the Gorilla by an exaggeration of the same character; two, three or more slips becoming fixed to the long flexor tendons, or by a multiplication of the slips."

Huxley is referring specifically to the flexor muscles and tendons of the foot which, if you Google "flexor tendon" or "flexor muscle", you'll find to be long and narrow, because that's what slips are. Now, Huxley was a renowned biologist, who studied medicine at Charing Cross Hospital and was particularly brilliant at anatomy. He was elected to the Royal Society whilst only in his twenties, and gained all kinds of accolades. When a scientist like Huxley uses the word "slips", we can be sure that he means something precise - i.e. long, narrow strips of muscle or tendon. No doubt Dr Hebbert, a very well educated scientist himself, meant precisely what he wrote as well.

[Sam Flynn]

I had a look what I could find picturewise on the term "slip of skin" on the net.

We probably wouldn't use the word "slip" in connection with anatomical features today. They evidently did in the 19th Century, because Huxley uses the word in that sense, several times in one short paragraph.

So I tried slip pf paper, and came up with these:

...and hundreds of more examples of slips that are anything but striplike.

Um, sorry, Fish, but "slips of paper" usually are long and narrow; they're also usually quite small. If you've got to Google images of "slips of paper" then (with respect) perhaps your grasp of the vernacular isn't as good as your excellent English otherwise is?

Speaking of the vernacular, there's a reasonably commonly-used phrase in the UK, "a mere slip of a girl/lad", whose meaning you might wish to work out yourself using the dictionary definitions from my previous post. Clue: we don't use "a mere slip of a girl/lad" to describe a chubster.

[Fisherman]

We probably wouldn't use the word "slip" in connection with anatomical features today. They evidently did in the 19th Century, because Huxley uses the word in that sense, several times in one short paragraph.Um, sorry, Fish, but "slips of paper" usually are long and narrow; they're also usually quite small. If you've got to Google images of "slips of paper" then (with respect) perhaps your grasp of the vernacular isn't as good as your excellent English otherwise is?

Speaking of the vernacular, there's a reasonably commonly-used phrase in the UK, "a mere slip of a girl/lad", whose meaning you might wish to work out yourself using the dictionary definitions from my previous post. Clue: we don't use "a mere slip of a girl/lad" to describe a chubster.

I went to bed last night realizing that the kind of slip represented by a paper is not comparable to the kind of slip that would be produced by cutting away abdominal skin; Gareth. I can only blame my not being born English-speaking for not understanding that earlier.

However, it hit me that the word "slip" is nevertheless used for another type of thing here. "So why the same word?", I asked myself, and decided to have a look next day.

Which is today.

I soon realized that the word slip is perhaps the most slip-pery term I have ever come across. There are techniques for claybutning that are called a "slip", it is a technical term, it describes a nightlinen and so on.

So I gave it some afterthought, and realized that Hebbert had spoken of "long slips". And it struck me that if your favoured description is correct, then ALL slips are long. So not just say slips when they MUST have been long, if a slip is always very narrow?

I then looked up "broad slip" - and found out that it was a term used in combination with comfortable shoes. But it also turned up the bukoshe-ah-ma, described as a broad or large slip of cloth. It is the cloth a male american indian used to hide his private parts.
You will have seen the bukoshe-ah-ma in movies, and you will know that it is not a strip of cloth.

Having come that far, I looked up "slip of cloth", but only found a name-tag piece. I was thinking that somehow, the paper slip and the name-tag cloth slip were related, as something you write on.

Then another slip turned up - the kind of slip you put on your shirt if you are in the flying business:

https://www.pinterest.se/pin/531143349793699180/

Itīs on the top left side. This, of course, could also be seen as a kind of "information slip".

Next up was a slip of gold. It turns out that different types of smallish gold bars are also called slips:

http://www.perthmint.com.au/catalogue/star-trek-deep-space-nine-gold-pressed-latinum-slip-2016-1oz-silver-gold-plated-bar.aspx

It was getting confusing now. Could this gold slip be regarded as an information tag?

Next - the slip of wood:

https://twitter.com/hirayeon/status/761270586056269824

Now I knew that a slip could be something that was not very narrow, and that was not an information tag.

By now, I was asking myself if there were two groups of slips - the long, narrow ones and another group, consisting of something that could be compared to slates or slices or something such.

I had by now looked up slips of skin, glass, leather, paper, rubber, plastic, textile, cloth, wood, metal, silver, gold... you name it, and I had looked it up. It goes with the territory when you have spent a large slip of your life as a researcher...

This was when it suddenly struck me that we are of course dealing with biological, organic material. And so I looked up "slips of flesh" - which turned up a blank. And than I moved on to "slips of meat" - and found this:

http://www.owaves.com.sg/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=229

and this:

http://www.seriouseats.com/2012/01/the-nasty-bits-pork-cheeks.html

Slips of meat. But anything but narrow or thin!

So I googled the plural, SlipS of meat. And found a large number of meat slices, all called slips. Plus I even found the Slips-of-meat-carving-tray. Hundreds of them. Trays for carving up meat on, that is.

And I thought to myself: If a cutlet-shaped slice of meat can be called a slip of meat - and it can, apparently - then maybe there is a habit of looking upon flaps of human flesh like slips of flesh. Maybe that was the message Hebbert was providing us with?

Once I had finished my journey through the slips of the net (pun intended), I arrived at the conclusion that however the flaps of flesh from Jacksons body looked, we can certainly not decide that they were narrow strips of flesh. And, as I have pointed out, Hebbert never used either term. He said LARGE, LONG SLIPS, IRREGULAR IN SHAPE, and all we can make of that is that they were not circular or quadratical - they were elongated, and they were large, taking in the area between - at the very least - the umbilicus and the buttocks.

Once we have gotten this far, we must return to my earlier question: Is it possible that the flaps from Kelly and Jackson were very similar? And the answer must be a yes, it IS possible.

[Sam Flynn]

The slips to which you refer (porcelain, undergarments, shoes, etc) are different nouns, not variant meanings of the same noun. "A slip of" something means a narrow piece.

Similarly, a "strip" can mean a nightclub act, but also a long, narrow piece of something. Same letters, but an entirely different word.

[Fisherman]

I had a look at "a mere slip of a lad", and it seems to me that it primarily points to youth. But the term slip will certainly have slipped in (once again, pun intended) to denote slenderness.

Then again, slenderness is not a given set of measures. And Hebbert did not say that the flaps were two mere slips of a belly wall (thatīs were your comparison getīs "slippery"). He said that they were large and long. And actually, those are the only two terms he used that describe actual size. "Slip" is not a size determination, but large and long both are.

[Fisherman]

Double posting

[Fisherman]

The slips to which you refer (porcelain, undergarments, shoes, etc) are different nouns, not variant meanings of the same noun. "A slip of" something means a narrow piece.

Similarly, a "strip" can mean a nightclub act, but also a long, narrow piece of something. Same letters, but an entirely different word.

Yes, there are different meanings, and the fact that I understand this was a reason for writing my last post. But I also understand that a slip of meat can be cutlet-shaped, and that slip can refer to some sort of slice.

If you read the whole post, you will react the meatier (yes, indeed - pun intended) parts towards the finish line.

[Fisherman]

I need to ask you more specifically:

1. Do you accept that the slips could have been 35 by 10 centimeters? Or is that not applicable to the term slip?

2. Do you accept that the slips from Kelly and Jackson may have looked very much alike?

[Fisherman]

I noticed you missed another question I put to you before:

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?

And another one, for good measure:

Even if the flaps did not resemble each other very much, why would that make us think that they were not cut by the same man, given how rare that kind of thing is?The Ripper did not cut all necks in the same way, he cut the uterus out in different ways inbetween Chapman and Eddowes, the torso killer took of limbs by disarticulating AND by sawing, and he parted the bodies in different numbers of parts.

Earlier, I asked you whether we should dismiss the notion of a single killer of three buttocks from three victims were cut ā la 1/ the whole buttock in three parts 2/ 80 per cent of the button in four parts 3/ The mid section of the buttock, in two parallel, long parts

That too has been left unanswered.

Iīm off on some errands now, so I wonīt be able to see your answers, but I will take a look when I return home.

[Sam Flynn]

Yes, there are different meanings, and the fact that I understand this was a reason for writing my last post. But I also understand that a slip of meat can be cutlet-shaped, and that slip can refer to some sort of slice.

I know of no British usage of "slip", whether current or Victorian, to refer to meat cutlets, or any specific cut of meat for that matter. I note that the links you provide point to (modern-day) Indonesian and Chinese websites. From the limited number of hits against "slips of meat" in quotation marks - only 2 or 3 pages on Google - I did find a UK reference, perhaps the only one. This was a Tripadvisor review of a restaurant in Chester-le-Street, which says this: "The Sunday lunch is like slabs of meat I would say, not the usual thin slips of meat you get at most places".

Slips, or strips, refer to narrow/thin pieces of something, and have for a long time. I could have given many more examples from the OED earlier, all referring to the same thing, but chose not to for reasons of space, and to avoid overkill.

[Debra A]

There's also a recipe that calls for cutlets to be larded with with large slips of ham cut square

[Debra A]

Other 1830's recipes call for the use of 'large slips of bacon' or 'narrow slips of bacon' or ham.

If a slip defines the shape as long and narrow why the need to specify 'narrow' slips?