Same motive = same killer

[Sam Flynn]

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

Are they slips before or after they're cut, Debs? I used to cut long, narrow - and large - slips of homemade pasta into squares when making ravioli, for example. I can't find the recipe that refers to ham being cut square, although the recipe you posted above does go on to say that the slips should be "cut to an agreeable shape". What started out as slips can, it seems, be cut into squares or any shape one likes... but that doesn't mean that slips are square.

Besides, when it comes to Victorian anatomical descriptions, I'd tend to defer to TH Huxley, rather than to the chef Louis Eustache Ude, who moved to England to escape the French Revolution.

[Sam Flynn]

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

We use redundant phrases all the time. To take the synonym "strip" as an example, why do we say things like "narrow/thin strips" of anything? If someone asked us to cut a strip of paper, we wouldn't cut a wide square.

Similarly, if someone asked us to cut them a "slab of cake", we wouldn't give them a thin slice. Yet that same person might ask us for a "big slab of cake", and it would mean broadly the same thing - again, it's a redundancy, but we do say such things.

Again, I refer back to the multiple (and I could have added more) definitions and examples from the OED. A "slip of something" is a long, narrow strip. Doesn't mean that it can't be large, of course; but "large" in that sense would mean "long", rather than short, fat and wide.

[Elamarna]

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?

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

[Sam Flynn]

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".

Almost, but not quite, Steve. A "slip" (or, more commonly today, a "strip") does seem to be used consistently to describe something that's long and narrow, so it's probably a little more specific than the word "flap".

[Elamarna]

Almost, but not quite, Steve. A "slip" (or, more commonly today, a "strip") does seem to be used consistently to describe something that's long and narrow, so it's probably a little more specific than the word "flap".

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

[Sam Flynn]

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".

[Elamarna]

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

[Sam Flynn]

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.

[Fisherman]

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.

[Fisherman]

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...

[Fisherman]

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?

[Fisherman]

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?

[Sam Flynn]

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.

[Elamarna]

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

[Abby Normal]

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.