Same motive = same killer

[Debra A]

I would have gone for the lower part of the costal arch being the limit, but I don´t know that we can exclude Jerrys suggestion. Anyway, he offers learoom for perhaps having gone too high.

Whether the flaps as such had anything at all to do with Jacksons pregnancy is written in the stars. All we know is that they were cut away.

I believe the flaps started just above Elizabeth's navel, the top of her 'bump' and continued down towards the external genitals. We do not know the width of the two flaps. I don't see how the starting position of the flaps changes anything. Dr Biggs says that it is difficult to tell whether cutting is for a practical purpose or for 'fun.' Dr Biggs also says that removal of internal organs could have been accomplished by one long incision, which we know occurred too. There surely can be no way of knowing for certain the motive for removal of chunks of flesh from Elizabeth's abdomen.

[harry]

jerryD,
I do not mind references to Dr Herbert,or any other witness,but I do take exception to anyone who twists that evidence to further a theory.

[Sam Flynn]

The damage to the buttock seems to have been caused by continuing the abdominal 'flap' cutting down through the genitals and not knowing quite where or how to end that cut.

Agreed, Debs.

[Sam Flynn]

I would have gone for the lower part of the costal arch being the limit, but I don´t know that we can exclude Jerrys suggestion

Given the thoroughness and precision of Hebbert's notes, I'm pretty sure that he'd have stated this explicitly had it been the case. The fact that he didn't makes it probable that the wound did not extend that far.

[Fisherman]

Are you for real? We have a forensic pathologist who destroys your suggestion that the flaps removed from these torsos were part of the killers signature, yet you still want to argue against the expert

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yes, I am for real. But I suspect that you do not understand what Biggs says - and that Biggs are not speaking about large abdominal fals taken away purposefully from the abdominal wall, but instead of tongue of skin caused as collateral damage.

[Fisherman]

The flaps themselves might not have been accidentally formed, but the damage to the flesh adjoining the flaps could easily have been incidental to their purpose, in much the same way as the (non-flap) cut to Eddowes' abdomen just happened to bisect the ensiform cartilage of the sternum. In like manner, the damage to part of Jackson's buttock could easily have been incidental to the cut whose true purpose was to cut one of the strips of flesh from her lower abdomen.

Yes!

COULD have. And that´s the full extent of the viability of the suggestion.

The suggestion that this killer WANTED to cut away part of his victims´ buttocks is equally viable.

In the end, all we have is knowledge that part of the righ buttock was cut away in both the Kelly case and the Jackson case.

And it´s slips or large flaps - not strips.

[Fisherman]

Wrong. He did precisely that, as can be confirmed from reading Bond's description of the wounds: "The right thigh was denuded in front to the bone, the flap of skin, including the external organs of generation & part of the right buttock". If you're going to cut a single saddle of flesh from the right up to, and including, the entirety of the external genitalia, you have effectively de-fleshed the undercarriage, as the gruesome closeup photograph of Kelly's genital area clearly shows, and part of the right buttock is inevitably going to suffer as a result. In order to achieve his aim of giving Kelly the "ultimate Brazilian", part of the buttock was sacrificed. Part of Jackson's buttock was almost certainly damaged in a similar accidental manner, although the aim of her killer was evidently quite different.

In either case, there is zero reason to suppose that the perpetrators were thinking to themselves, "I... must... include... part... of... the... right... buttock", anymore than Eddowes' killer was thinking, "I... must... cut... the... xiphoid... process... in... half".

There is zero reason to do any thinking at all on the killers behalf. And but for that part of the right buttock, the rest of the buttocs were still in place, which is why I am saying that the killer did not remove all of the "undercarriage".

[Fisherman]

I believe the flaps started just above Elizabeth's navel, the top of her 'bump' and continued down towards the external genitals. We do not know the width of the two flaps. I don't see how the starting position of the flaps changes anything. Dr Biggs says that it is difficult to tell whether cutting is for a practical purpose or for 'fun.' Dr Biggs also says that removal of internal organs could have been accomplished by one long incision, which we know occurred too. There surely can be no way of knowing for certain the motive for removal of chunks of flesh from Elizabeth's abdomen.

Agreed!

[Fisherman]

Agreed, Debs.

It may "seem" that way - but all I am going by is what we know, not what we think seems to be the case. Once we allow for people to decide what they think seems to be the case, all sorts of strange suggestions surface.

I am trying to keep the issue as clean as possible in terms of facts. I have no problems per se with people thinking that it seems like this or like that, but it is a somewhat other discussion.

[Fisherman]

jerryD,
I do not mind references to Dr Herbert,or any other witness,but I do take exception to anyone who twists that evidence to further a theory.

How is it twisting the evidence to point out that the killer took away rings from the fingers of victims in both series, Harry? Maybe you can explain that? Is it not instead the plain truth that this is a further similarity inbetween the series?

You need to be much more careful with what you say.

[Joshua Rogan]

I believe the flaps started just above Elizabeth's navel, the top of her 'bump' and continued down towards the external genitals. We do not know the width of the two flaps. I don't see how the starting position of the flaps changes anything. Dr Biggs says that it is difficult to tell whether cutting is for a practical purpose or for 'fun.' Dr Biggs also says that removal of internal organs could have been accomplished by one long incision, which we know occurred too. There surely can be no way of knowing for certain the motive for removal of chunks of flesh from Elizabeth's abdomen.

Hi Debs,
Doesn't Hebbert say that the removed abdominal sections "laterally corresponded to the incisions in the two lower peices of the trunk", indicating that they extended across both sections and hence above the point where the abdomen was divided (almost) horizontally. Or am I reading that wrong?

[Fisherman]

Given the thoroughness and precision of Hebbert's notes, I'm pretty sure that he'd have stated this explicitly had it been the case. The fact that he didn't makes it probable that the wound did not extend that far.

Yes, it does. I am simply saying that I do not see that we can rule Jerrys version out entirely - not that I agree about it being the more likely suggestion. I don´t. I don´t think Jerry believes his sketch is on the money, necessarily. He seems perfectly willing to accept a lower start for the large flaps.

[Fisherman]

Hi Debs,
Doesn't Hebbert say that the removed abdominal sections "laterally corresponded to the incisions in the two lower peices of the trunk", indicating that they extended across both sections and hence above the point where the abdomen was divided (almost) horizontally. Or am I reading that wrong?

I always read that to say that the outer sides of the flaps corresponded with the cut lines in the torso, vertically speaking - meaning that it does not tell us anything about the width of the flaps.

[Sam Flynn]

Doesn't Hebbert say that the removed abdominal sections "laterally corresponded to the incisions in the two lower pieces of the trunk", indicating that they extended across both sections and hence above the point where the abdomen was divided (almost) horizontally. Or am I reading that wrong?

I think you are, Josh. He's just saying that the sides of the strips of flesh matched the incisions in the lower trunk. (Note: the lower trunk; no mention of any matching of incisions in the middle or upper trunk.)

[Joshua Rogan]

I think you are, Josh. He's just saying that the sides of the strips of flesh matched the incisions in the lower trunk. (Note: the lower trunk; no mention of any matching of incisions in the middle or upper trunk.)

Well, he says the two lower pieces of the trunk, which to me must mean the pelvic section and the costal-arch section. No?