Same motive = same killer

[Fisherman]

Why do some sources say that the womb was missing?

I don´t know that I´ve seen that in relation to the Pinchin Street woman, Harry. Jackson and Whitehall are as far as I know the only ones where this happened. Which sources are you speaking about?

[Joshua Rogan]

It is! What I meant was that the technicality "reasonable doubt" was invented to allow for convictions in cases where the evidence would otherwise not be sufficient - by concluding that it is BEYOND reasonable doubt that the accused was also the culprit.

Sorry if I worded myself badly, Joshua.

Gotcha now. Fish. Ta.

[Fisherman]

Gotcha now. Fish. Ta.

Good to hear that, Joshua.

[Sam Flynn]

That is correct, Harry - 15 inches, covering just about the distance between sternum and pelvis. The point is less clear since no organs were missing.

It's pretty clear to me, because the 15" wound did not open the abdominal cavity. Instead, it cut the "external coat of the abdomen" (The Times account of the inquest), but "[did not open] the peritoneal cavity" (Hebbert, A System of Legal Medicine). Whoever did it seems to have cut the skin and some of the subcutaneous tissue, but didn't push his knife any deeper... much as one scores a rind of pork. Perhaps he intended to barbecue her?

[Fisherman]

It's pretty clear to me, because the 15" wound did not open the abdominal cavity. Instead, it cut the "external coat of the abdomen" (The Times account of the inquest), but "[did not open] the peritoneal cavity" (Hebbert, A System of Legal Medicine). Whoever did it seems to have cut the skin and some of the subcutaneous tissue, but didn't push his knife any deeper... much as one scores a rind of pork. Perhaps he intended to barbecue her?

I was going to say that your guess is as good as mine, Gareth. But on second thoughts, I really don´t think so.

Does it not seem to you that the cut could be some sort of manifestation or something like that? It seems obvious that there was no practical use for it - it did not allow access to the innards, and it did not bleed the body for example. So if there was a reason for producing it, it seems to me to be more of a proclamation than anything else. Showstuff, sort of.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It's pretty clear to me, because the 15" wound did not open the abdominal cavity. Instead, it cut the "external coat of the abdomen" (The Times account of the inquest), but "[did not open] the peritoneal cavity" (Hebbert, A System of Legal Medicine). Whoever did it seems to have cut the skin and some of the subcutaneous tissue, but didn't push his knife any deeper... much as one scores a rind of pork. Perhaps he intended to barbecue her?

My Gareth Lecter joke is starting to worry me

[Harry D]

I don´t know that I´ve seen that in relation to the Pinchin Street woman, Harry. Jackson and Whitehall are as far as I know the only ones where this happened. Which sources are you speaking about?

The Casebook entry mentions one source that claimed the womb was removed. I’ve seen this repeated in a couple of Ripper books.

[Fisherman]

The Casebook entry mentions one source that claimed the womb was removed. I’ve seen this repeated in a couple of Ripper books.

Okay. Well, it was reported that there were innards protruding from the cut, but I think Hebbert is clear in saying that much as the vulva was opened, the peritoneal cavity was not. And with no opened up peritoneal cavity we need not worry about a missing uterus.Furthermore, Hebbert actually describes the uterus, it´s weight and size, so that clinches the matter as far as I can see.

[harry]

For a conviction,evidence has to be'Beyond reasonable doubt'.
With all the could be's,maybe's that is being slung around,there is reasonable doubt about anthing.

[Sam Flynn]

I was going to say that your guess is as good as mine, Gareth. But on second thoughts, I really don´t think so.

That's very modest of you, Fish. Thanks for the compliment.

Does it not seem to you that the cut could be some sort of manifestation or something like that?

It might simply have been a manifestation of an half-hearted attempt at deflecting suspicion onto the Ripper by a fairly dopey copycat. Alternatively, it might represent an intention to further cut up the body, but which was abandoned for some reason; there were other post mortem cuts to her arms which might have been part of the same aborted plan.

[Fisherman]

That's very modest of you, Fish. Thanks for the compliment.

You DO remember that you suggested that the killer aimed to barbecue the victim...?

It might simply have been a manifestation of an half-hearted attempt at deflecting suspicion onto the Ripper by a fairly dopey copycat. Alternatively, it might represent an intention to further cut up the body, but which was abandoned for some reason; there were other post mortem cuts to her arms which might have been part of the same aborted plan.

I think those other cuts are mostly regarded as collateral damage; they were an inch or less and very shallow.

A fifteen-inch long cut is rather something else.

We know that whoever dismembered the woman was not someone who had a problem with cutting into flesh and bone. So we don´t have to consider that. A "dopey copycat" is consequentially not high on my list of possibilities. If the cutter wanted to open the body up and take organs out, there was nothing standing in then way for such a thing, as far as I can see.

I therefore tend to see the wound as something else.

An intention to further cut up the body does not work very well either, This was a highly skilled killer, as per Hebbert, who had developed his skills as he went along, and who disarticulated and cut very confidently and without hesitation

If that is correct then I find that much points to how the abdominal wound was always meant to look the way it looked.

But these are far less conclusive matters than the similarity inbetween "my" three victims, and we are left with guesswork.

[Fisherman]

For a conviction,evidence has to be'Beyond reasonable doubt'.
With all the could be's,maybe's that is being slung around,there is reasonable doubt about anthing.

All such errands have to be taken one by one, since there will be more or less reason to doubt things, depending on the quality of the evidence.

I am saying that there can be no reasonable doubt that the man who killed Chapman and Kelly also killed Jackson.

If you think otherwise,I am not much surprised. Thats easy to do. It´s much harder to defend it logically.

[Sam Flynn]

Re the barbecuing reference, Fish, it was a joke.

[Fisherman]

Re the barbecuing reference, Fish, it was a joke.

Yes, and my comment that I thought it was a case of "your guess is as good as mine" until I saw that suggestion was just as lighthearted.

Maybe my joke was not as good as yours?

[Sam Flynn]

Yes, and my comment that I thought it was a case of "your guess is as good as mine" until I saw that suggestion was just as lighthearted.

Maybe my joke was not as good as yours?

Touché!