Same motive = same killer

[Sam Flynn]

But a slip can be very large, Gareth! "Slip" is not a determoination of size, it is a determination of shape.

Yes, a shape that is long, narrow and thin.

And with three 35 by 10 centimeter parallel slips, I say that the whole abdomen would have been laid open.

Are you talking about Kelly? The entire surface of her abdomen was only 30cm wide? Don't think so. Take a look at the photos; you're going to need more than 3x10cm to be cut away to remove all that flesh.

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?

Marginally, but not as much as a 35x5cm piece would be.

[Sam Flynn]

Gareth, a slip MAY look like a strip, but Hebbert didn´t use strips - he used "slips"!

They are synonymous, as I've pointed out, but these days we'd tend to use "strip" more often than not. To a modern English speaker, it helps to get an understanding of what Hebbert meant if we think about what we'd call a "strip of flesh", but either word will do provided one understands what they mean.

Definition of "slip": A long and relatively thin and narrow piece or strip of some material. Frequently with "of"; A strip, a narrow piece or stretch of land, ground etc; An example or specimen of something having an elongated or slender form; A piece of paper, especially one which is narrow in proportion to its length; A newspaper (or part of one) printed in the form of a long slip of paper

Definition of "strip": A narrow piece (primarily of textile material, paper or the like, hence generally) of approximately uniform breadth; A long, narrow tract of territory, land, wood, etc; A narrow piece of board, metal plate etc; A narrow portion of a surface, bounded by parallel lines; A narrow, flat bar of iron or steel

Note the repeated occurrence of "long" and "narrow", also "thin" and "slender" in all of the above.

[Fisherman]

They are synonymous, as I've pointed out, but these days we'd tend to use "strip" more often than not. To a modern English speaker, it helps to get an understanding of what Hebbert meant if we think about what we'd call a "strip of flesh", but either word will do provided one understands what they mean.

Definition of "slip": A long and relatively thin and narrow piece or strip of some material. Frequently with "of"; A strip, a narrow piece or stretch of land, ground etc; An example or specimen of something having an elongated or slender form; A piece of paper, especially one which is narrow in proportion to its length; A newspaper (or part of one) printed in the form of a long slip of paper

Definition of "strip": A narrow piece (primarily of textile material, paper or the like, hence generally) of approximately uniform breadth; A long, narrow tract of territory, land, wood, etc; A narrow piece of board, metal plate etc; A narrow portion of a surface, bounded by parallel lines; A narrow, flat bar of iron or steel

Note the repeated occurrence of "long" and "narrow", also "thin" and "slender" in all of the above.

I have noted it before - numerous times. And I agree with Steve and Debra. A slip can be large, long, narrow - whatever. And it is up to the individual to define what is a slip.

Opting for the idea that Hebbert read your dictioneries before he made his call is not very useful. It is a refuge or sorts, I think, for you - but it could not outlast the siege it´s been subjected to.

[Harry D]

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 was referring to the Whitehall Torso.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: Yes, a shape that is long, narrow and thin.

It is elongated, not necessarily long (which is a relative thing), it need not be narrow and it need not be thin.

Are you talking about Kelly? The entire surface of her abdomen was only 30cm wide? Don't think so. Take a look at the photos; you're going to need more than 3x10cm to be cut away to remove all that flesh.Marginally, but not as much as a 35x5cm piece would be.

No, I am speaking generally - can a 35 by 10 centimeter shape be a slip?

[Fisherman]

Marginally, but not as much as a 35x5cm piece would be.

Ah! Missed that one! Thank you for accepting this measure as a slip. I will return with a little something as a result of it later on!

[Sam Flynn]

Sam Flynn: Yes, a shape that is long, narrow and thin.

It is elongated, not necessarily long (which is a relative thing), it need not be narrow and it need not be thin.

Yes it does. Look again at the definitions - all of them.

Definition of "slip": A long and relatively thin and narrow piece or strip of some material. Frequently with "of"; A strip, a narrow piece or stretch of land, ground etc; An example or specimen of something having an elongated or slender form; A piece of paper, especially one which is narrow in proportion to its length; A newspaper (or part of one) printed in the form of a long slip of paper

Definition of "strip": A narrow piece (primarily of textile material, paper or the like, hence generally) of approximately uniform breadth; A long, narrow tract of territory, land, wood, etc; A narrow piece of board, metal plate etc; A narrow portion of a surface, bounded by parallel lines; A narrow, flat bar of iron or steel

Are you talking about Kelly? The entire surface of her abdomen was only 30cm wide? Don't think so. Take a look at the photos; you're going to need more than 3x10cm to be cut away to remove all that flesh.

No, I am speaking generally - can a 35 by 10 centimeter shape be a slip?

Marginally, like I said. A 35x5cm piece would be more readily described as a strip/slip, and a 35x2.5cm piece even more so.

[Fisherman]

Yes it does. Look again at the definitions - all of them.

Marginally, like I said. A 35x5cm piece would be more readily described as a strip/slip, and a 35x2.5cm piece even more so.

[ATTACH]18344[/ATTACH]

Marginally works fine, Gareth. I am certain that most of us would have no problems at all recognizing 35x5 as a slip, but that´s just me, of course.

As I said, there is more coming shortly.

[Sam Flynn]

Marginally works fine, Gareth. I am certain that most of us would have no problems at all recognizing 35x5 as a slip.

Thanks for confirming as much. And a 35x2.5cm piece even more so, yes?

And, please, let's refer to "strips". It's entirely synonymous with "slip", but we're more inclined to speak - and think - of "strips" of things these days.

[Debra A]

Marginally works fine, Gareth. I am certain that most of us would have no problems at all recognizing 35x5 as a slip, but that´s just me, of course.

As I said, there is more coming shortly.

I have waxing strips 22cm x 7.5cm, That's roughly a 3:1 ratio

Back, sack and crack anyone?

[Fisherman]

Thanks for confirming as much. And a 35x2.5cm piece even more so, yes?

And, please, let's refer to "strips". It's entirely synonymous with "slip", but we're more inclined to speak - and think - of "strips" of things these days.

Nope. Slip was what Hebbert wrote and slip it is. And I slipped too - I meant that the fewest will have any problems recognizing 35x10 as a slip - but I think that 35x5 works eminently in that department too.

And now that we have Debras wax slips to go by, you can see that the 35x10 is a slimmer fit (pun intended).

[Sam Flynn]

I have waxing strips 22cm x 7.5cm, That's roughly a 3:1 ratio

Indeed, Debs, but I wouldn't describe them as "long", which is how Hebbert characterised the two strips of flesh cut from Jackson's abdomen.

Back, sack and crack anyone?

That puts a whole new complexion on the crimes, and a rather smooth one, too

[Joshua Rogan]

I have waxing strips 22cm x 7.5cm, That's roughly a 3:1 ratio

Back, sack and crack anyone?

Whoa! I'm happy to discuss most things, but I think you've crossed a line there....a bikini line.

[Sam Flynn]

Nope. Slip was what Hebbert wrote and slip it is.

All I'm saying is that it would help us modern people to use a synonymous term when trying to conceptualise what Hebbert (and Huxley) were referring to in their now-less-common phraseology. We'd think of "strips of flesh" today, and I contend that gets the meaning across more effectively to us, without having to translate between 21st and 19th Century English.

Hebbert also said they were "long" which, thankfully, is still something we can get our heads around. And we shouldn't forget that he described them as such.

And I slipped too.

Sure you didn't strip?

[Fisherman]

All I'm saying is that it would help us modern people to use a synonymous term when trying to conceptualise what Hebbert (and Huxley) were referring to in their now-less-common phraseology. We'd think of "strips of flesh" today, and I contend that gets the meaning across more effectively to us, without having to translate between 21st and 19th Century English.

Hebbert also said they were "long" which, thankfully, is still something we can get our heads around. And we shouldn't forget that he described them as such.
Sure you didn't strip?

No, Gareth, what you are saying is that we should swap a term that people think relates to a 3x1 ratio for a term people think is decidedly smaller. And I will show you in a minute why that is wrong.

But lets begin with this:

https://imageshack.com/i/pnQXgiUNj

This is a pic of a 5´7 girl - like Kelly was - of the buxom type. Not a slender girl.
Superimposed upon her abdomen are three 35x10 slips. We can clearly see that the abdominal cavity is very much covered by this.

Of course, the slips vill reasonably have been pointed, but you get the idea, I take it - three slips like these would be enough to cover the whole of the abdominal wall. The lower parts, involving the vagina, were cut away separately from Kelly, as I remember things.

Next up is this:

https://imageshack.com/i/pm1iOSnBj

This is how I suspect the flaps/slips from Jackson may have looked. One of them is around 45 centimeters, and goes all the way from above the umbilicus down to the groin, involves part of the mons veneris and the labia and stretches into part of the buttock. The other one is shorter, and does not involve any part of the buttock, but it does comprise the other part of the mons veneris and the labia.

Now, there are two flaps that coud not have been desribed as strips, because strips are NEVER wide. That is why we should NOT use that term. A slip, however, can vary like this in width.
As it happens, the flaps are irregular, just like Hebbert said, and they are so narrow "downstairs" that the term slip fits very well.
These flaps are 12,5 centimeters wide, making for a total of 25 centimeters, which would open up much of the abdominal cavity on a smaller girl like Liz Jackson.
I am not saying that the flaps must have looked like this. But I am pressing the point that we may well have had a very large opening into Jackson, and not a mere slot.