Same motive = same killer

[RockySullivan]

Yes, I do get the impression I spend most of my time talking to myself while everyone skips to the more exciting aggro!

Debra nothing could be further from the trust. i can't even read sam or fish's back and forth it's so boring. I'm checking every hour for your posts

[Sam Flynn]

Debra nothing could be further from the trust. i can't even read sam or fish's back and forth it's so boring.

Please don't tar me with that brush. Just count my posts against those of Fisherman's, in terms of number as well as length. I'm practically minimalist by comparison.

[kjab3112]

Wouldn´t the uterus have expanded a whole deal at the stage of a six-or seven month pregnancy, though?

Hi Fisherman,

After approximately the 14-16th week of pregnancy the uterus is beyond the pelvis and the upper abdominal organs are pushed towards the chest. As a rule of thumb the top of the uterus is generally number of weeks in cm above the symphysis pubis of the pelvis (bottom at the front) at the latter stage of pregnancy
.

Hope of help

Paul

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,

After approximately the 14-16th week of pregnancy the uterus is beyond the pelvis and the upper abdominal organs are pushed towards the chest. As a rule of thumb the top of the uterus is generally number of weeks in cm above the symphysis pubis of the pelvis (bottom at the front) at the latter stage of pregnancy
.

Hope of help

Paul

That´s very helpful, Paul - thank you!

[Fisherman]

It is not "just a complete guess" - I have thought about this, and see nothing wrong in it. I'm not saying it's right, but it's not ridiculous either.

We have to account for Hebbert's choice of the description "long slips" somehow.

I don´t think anybody has proposed that it is ridiculous, Gareth. What has been said is that it is a complete guess, and that is correct.

You refute this by saying that we must account for Hebberts choice of the description "long slips" - but we must also account for his other wording about large, irregular flaps! And looking at the suggestions made about the shape of the flaps by Debra, Jerry and me, I´d say that it covers both wordings as well as one can hope for: wider at the top and then narrower as they involve the genital area, long, large and irregular slips. There also seems to be an acceptance that at least the lower part of the abdominal cavity, from the umbilicus down, may have been opened up almost totally by the removal of two such flaps.

[Debra A]

It is not "just a complete guess" - I have thought about this, and see nothing wrong in it. I'm not saying it's right, but it's not ridiculous either.

We have to account for Hebbert's choice of the description "long slips" somehow.

We have to account for Hebbert's 'long irregular slips' but also his opening summary of body parts found including the description 'two large flaps'. Would he describe the size you suggest that way?

Edit: As Fisherman has also mentioned.

[Debra A]

I didn't know that either - I've never taken much interest in the torso cases before, so please bear that in mind.

That's fine, Gareth. It's pretty obvious you haven't read the research done on the torso cases over the last 12 years.

[Debra A]

Debra nothing could be further from the trust. i can't even read sam or fish's back and forth it's so boring. I'm checking every hour for your posts

Bless you for saying so, Rocky.
I think Abby seems to follow threads as discussions too.

[Sam Flynn]

We have to account for Hebbert's 'long irregular slips' but also his opening summary of body parts found including the description 'two large flaps'. Would he describe the size you suggest that way?

Edit: As Fisherman has also mentioned.

As I've already suggested, strips of flesh two or three inches wide, starting above the navel and extending below the genitalia would be "large" by any standards. After all, Hebbert described them as slips, not panels.

[Sam Flynn]

That's fine, Gareth. It's pretty obvious you haven't read the research done on the torso cases over the last 12 years.

How disappointing.There was absolutely no need to put it that way. Besides, what's wrong with a fresh pair of eyes?

[Debra A]

How disappointing.There was absolutely no need to put it that way. Besides, what's wrong with a fresh pair of eyes?

Yes, disappointed is how I feel too. I take it quite personally but probably shouldn't.

[Debra A]

As I've already suggested, strips of flesh two or three inches wide, starting above the navel and extending below the genitalia would be "large" by any standards. After all, Hebbert described them as slips, not panels.

But would he describe them as 'flaps'

[Sam Flynn]

But would he describe them as 'flaps'

I don't see why not. After all, the little triangles on Eddowes face were described in precisely those terms.

[Debra A]

I don't see why not. After all, the little triangles on Eddowes face were described in precisely those terms.

But surely in Eddowes case he used it in the sense of a piece of flesh that was still attached, hinged, like the flap of an envelope?

[Sam Flynn]

But surely in Eddowes case he used it in the sense of a piece of flesh that was still attached, hinged, like the flap of an envelope?

Indeed, which makes Hebbert's use of the word a bit inapt, perhaps. Note that I said inapt, not inept; it's not a typo.