Same motive = same killer

[Fisherman]

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

Yes, that is a bummer, of course. However, since we know that all of the abdomina wall was removed in three large flaps in Kelly´s case, it´s more a case of guessing the shapes than of questioning if the flaps were truly large or not- they were.

And if they were cut parallel to each other, from the rib section down towards the genitals, I am at a complete loss to see how we could rule out that they may have looked very much alike the flaps cut from Jackson. That´s what I´m trying to get across.

[Fisherman]

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.

But a slip can be very large, Gareth! "Slip" is not a determoination of size, it is a determination of shape. And with three 35 by 10 centimeter parallel slips, I say that the whole abdomen would have been laid open.

Which begs the question once again: Do you accept that a 35 by 10 centimeter portion of the abdominal wall can be called a slip?

[Fisherman]

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.

No, Abby - you can´t be beaten, it´s that simple.

And of course the main issue is that flaps WERE cut away from the abdominal walls. And that alone makes the suggestion of just the one killer a near certainty.

I am not loosing track of that, although I can see your point. In Technicolor.

[Fisherman]

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.

You added that "mere" that Hebbert never used, Gareth. And you almost got away with it - but not really.

[Sam Flynn]

You added that "mere" that Hebbert never used, Gareth. And you almost got away with it - but not really.

I was referring to Kelly's wounds, and the word "mere" was entirely my own, as was perfectly clear from my post. I didn't quote Hebbert, nor did I so much as hint that I was.

Don't try and make out that I was, and don't falsely wag an emoji finger at me.

[Elamarna]

Yes, that is a bummer, of course. However, since we know that all of the abdomina wall was removed in three large flaps in Kelly´s case, it´s more a case of guessing the shapes than of questioning if the flaps were truly large or not- they were.

And if they were cut parallel to each other, from the rib section down towards the genitals, I am at a complete loss to see how we could rule out that they may have looked very much alike the flaps cut from Jackson. That´s what I´m trying to get across.

It's a possability, but we don't know they are equal, maybe maybe not

I understand and accept you view, I simply do not agree.
Maybe when you make the full case, you may convince me. We will see


Steve

[Elamarna]

No, Abby - you can´t be beaten, it´s that simple.
.

I have to say I agree.

If we truly believe we are right we just can't give up because the going is not smooth.

Basically this thread is probably split 50/50 in posts. It's not a post I have contributed heavily too, but popped in and out of. I do appreciate in some places it has been very heated. Don't let it get you down Abby.


So We don't agree Abby on this subject, we often do on others.


Steve

[Harry D]

I think the frequency of the attacks in the Ripper series is definitely a valid contention to the one killer theory, especially as there was a Torso murder among them. So it's not like you can argue that the Torsoripper only run rampant in Whitechapel because he was denied access to his private lair at that time. I would be interested to hear the counterarguments from Fish, Abby et al. on that score.

Btw, Gareth, is it not feasible that the Torsoripper (if he did exist) lived in the East End, hence why the Ripper series was carried out on his doorstep, but the location of his Torso lair was located further West?

[Sam Flynn]

Btw, Gareth, is it not feasible that the Torsoripper (if he did exist) lived in the East End, hence why the Ripper series was carried out on his doorstep, but the location of his Torso lair was located further West?

I'd suggest that the locations of the river dump sites, and all but one of the dump sites on land (most of them near the south west London stretch of the Thames) strongly indicate that whoever did the murders lived in the same part of London. On that basis, I find the idea that the killer was a commuting East Ender extremely unlikely. The same argument applies in reverse to the Ripper being a commuting West Londoner.

[Debra A]

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.

Gareth, I see the mentions of slips of ham/bacon reference as longer in length than width but that does not necessarily indicate they were narrow. Hebbert didn't say the flaps/slips taken from Elizabeth Jackson's abdomen were narrow either. It seems slips can be described as large slips, long slips, narrow slips or 'irregular' slips as Hebbert noted. Perhaps they were wider at one end than the other but extremely long, given that they included flesh from just above the umbilicus and continued down taking the the labia on either piece. Hebbert/Bond also described those same pieces simply as 'flaps'.

I have to agree with Fisherman on one thing here, we have absolutely no idea in what way the abdomen of MJK was cut in to three pieces and as her external genitalia was removed in a separate piece going across the underneath of her body from thigh to thigh, the flaps taken from MJK may not have had the required length to describe them as 'slips'?

[Fisherman]

I was referring to Kelly's wounds, and the word "mere" was entirely my own, as was perfectly clear from my post. I didn't quote Hebbert, nor did I so much as hint that I was.

Don't try and make out that I was, and don't falsely wag an emoji finger at me.

Whoa there! I am not being obnoxious here - I was referring back to when you presented the term "a mere sliver of a lad", and when I pointed out that Hbbert did n ot use the term "mere". It is a term that gives the impression of a smallish slvier of flesh only, and therefore I think it is best avoided. Slips can be large, long, mere, hefty, thick, rounded, pointed and so on. Once we add an adjective like "mere" to Jacksons slips, we are trespasssing into emoji wagging territory.

I would say that the words "large", "long", "slips" and "irregular" are the only terms we know must be kosher to play with here.

[Fisherman]

It's a possability, but we don't know they are equal, maybe maybe not

I understand and accept you view, I simply do not agree.
Maybe when you make the full case, you may convince me. We will see


Steve

I am very fine with that, Steve. We will all have our different views and ideas, so one cannot ask for more than this kind of acknowledgement.

Thank you for that!

[Fisherman]

Harry D: I think the frequency of the attacks in the Ripper series is definitely a valid contention to the one killer theory, especially as there was a Torso murder among them. So it's not like you can argue that the Torsoripper only run rampant in Whitechapel because he was denied access to his private lair at that time. I would be interested to hear the counterarguments from Fish, Abby et al. on that score.

Not sure what you are saying here, Harry? There was no torso murder within the Ripper series, the Pinchin Street torso is instead listed with the Whitechapel murders.

I don´t think that the killer ran rampant because he was denied access to his private lair. I am not excluding the possibility, but it is in no way the only possibility to explain why there were two sets of murders, where the victims were found in East and West, respectively - and roughly.

I think that it may well be that the killer had grown very confident and therefore had no qualms about taking his deeds to the streets. I have also considered - and not ruled out - that the Ripper murders may have been led on by a wish to get more media coverage.

With things like these, we normally say "Aha - it was THAT simple" when we get the truth. But the odds are that we will never get the truth here, and so we are left with speculation.

It is however VERY well grounded speculation when we say that two simultaneous series, both involving opening up of the abdomen, taking away the abdominal wall, taking out the uterus, taking out colon sections, stealing rings from the fingers of the victims, prostitute killing, defleshing thighs and so on, are so very likely to have the same originator as to border on established fact.

I think we must simply accept that there was a perfectly good reason for why he eviscerated, dismembered and dumped some victims in the West whereas he eviscerated others in the East, leaving them where they had fallen.

Those difficulties and inconsistencies are a lot easier to bridge than it is to discard the similarities involved, quite simply.

Btw, Gareth, is it not feasible that the Torsoripper (if he did exist) lived in the East End, hence why the Ripper series was carried out on his doorstep, but the location of his Torso lair was located further West?

I think Gareth chose the term "extremely unlikely", which is of course just another way of wording "still possible". That´s where he has ended up, and it´s his choice. Myself, I agree with you, and find it quite feasible. As you now, I feel pretty certain that the killer did live in the East End. I can even supply the address...

[Sam Flynn]

I think Gareth chose the term "extremely unlikely", which is of course just another way of wording "still possible".

In my case, Fish, it's an exceedingly faint possibility. Personally I'm 99% sure that the two series, if series they be, were not committed by the same person.

[Fisherman]

In my case, Fish, it's an exceedingly faint possibility. Personally I'm 99% sure that the two series, if series they be, were not committed by the same person.

And I am just as certain that the series, cause series they are albeit we cannot decide with certainty who belongs to them, had the same originator.

So, apparently, one of us is not very clever. I hope it´s not me.

Hey, how about that question I keep asking you to no avail? Does 35 centimeters by 10 centimeters count as a slip?