Same motive = same killer

[Fisherman]

I agree with what you say, Joshua. Dr Hebbert says each flap included parts from each of the two sections, meaning they were continueous vertical cuts and done before the dividing of the body.

That makes three of us, then!

[Fisherman]

I can't disagree with any of your post, Robert. If the top torso cut was just below the armpits, it would mean the breasts were in the mid section, and the sternum divided across near it's middle. Which seems about consistent with Hebbert.

The top torso contained the shoulders and the top of the back, thatīs what Hebbert says. So it was not as big as the other two parts, seemingly.

[Debra A]

message deleted as it's a repeat of what has been discussed by many others.

[Debra A]

Good point. Hebbert only mentions armpit hair in his description of the arms, as far as I can see, but there may have been some still attached to the torso too.

There was pubic hair on the Mons Veneris in the first parcel found at Horsleydown, which also contained the uterus.

[Fisherman]

A point in favour of those who suggest a large hole along the midsection of Jackson is that the heart and lungs were plucked out. Through that very opening.

If he wanted to enlarge the opening in the lower abdomen by means of cutting away flaps of meat from the abdominal wall, so that he could facilitate the removal of the uterus (which has been suggested, although not by me - I think he did it for another reason), then it sounds decidedly odd if he took the heart and lungs out through a miniscule opening in the sternum.

[Elamarna]

And perhaps true.

But only perhaps.

Which is the whole point I am making.

Your earlier post I did not get, but it seems directed at tarnishing me, so maybe itīs just as well.

Not trashing you at all Fish, just pointing out that you are consistant in how you make points


Steve

[Elamarna]

That makes three of us, then!

Four. I have no doubt the strips or what ever term you wish to use were cut before the body was divided.

Steve

[Debra A]

Yes there is.

Yes there is.
I have always read it that a mid line incision through skin and tissue was made and the sternum was opened up down the centre. The trunk was divided in two through the vertebra at shoulder blade level or thereabouts and the heart and lungs removed from the upper trunk section. What makes me think that the abdominal flaps highest point was just above the navel is that the division of the pelvis through the spine took place between the third and fourth lumbar vertebra, which is on a similar level to the navel at the front and the top of the uterus would be at around the height of the navel at around 24 weeks pregnant. Hebbert also mentions the upper part of the abdomen in conjunction with the lower portion of the trunk.

There seems to be a point of correspondence there that makes sense. If Elizabeth was much further along the height of the uterus could be well above the navel and so in that case the top of the two flaps (already divided by a mid line cut) could have commenced higher but I'm not convinced of that myself and I don't see what difference it makes other than it makes for a closer comparison to Kelly,I don't think a motive can clearly be stated for removal of the flaps of skin from Elizabeth's abdomen and that includes certainty the flaps were removed to facilitate removal of the foetus for practicality when dividing the body. I don't see why removal of the flaps to access the uterus has to be viewed as solely for practical reasons, regardless of the size and shape of those flaps.

[Fisherman]

Not trashing you at all Fish, just pointing out that you are consistant in how you make points


Steve

Normally, Iīd appreciate that judgment, but I donīt think that applies here. Since I donīt see a twisting villain when looking into a mirror, Iīll just let it slip. Not strip. Slip.

[Fisherman]

Four. I have no doubt the strips or what ever term you wish to use were cut before the body was divided.

Steve

Flaps or slips. Strips was never used, other than in an effort to posthumously narrow them.

[Fisherman]

Yes there is.
I have always read it that a mid line incision through skin and tissue was made and the sternum was opened up down the centre. The trunk was divided in two through the vertebra at shoulder blade level or thereabouts and the heart and lungs removed from the upper trunk section. What makes me think that the abdominal flaps highest point was just above the navel is that the division of the pelvis through the spine took place between the third and fourth lumbar vertebra, which is on a similar level to the navel at the front and the top of the uterus would be at around the height of the navel at around 24 weeks pregnant. Hebbert also mentions the upper part of the abdomen in conjunction with the lower portion of the trunk.

There seems to be a point of correspondence there that makes sense. If Elizabeth was much further along the height of the uterus could be well above the navel and so in that case the top of the two flaps (already divided by a mid line cut) could have commenced higher but I'm not convinced of that myself and I don't see what difference it makes other than it makes for a closer comparison to Kelly,I don't think a motive can clearly be stated for removal of the flaps of skin from Elizabeth's abdomen and that includes certainty the flaps were removed to facilitate removal of the foetus for practicality when dividing the body. I don't see why removal of the flaps to access the uterus has to be viewed as solely for practical reasons, regardless of the size and shape of those flaps.

Thatīs quite comprehensive, Debra, and thanks for it.

I have no wish to make the flaps as long as possible. I am not even sure that it would make them more like Kellys flaps, since these may have been two flaps dividing the lower abdomen along the centre and a third flap covering the upper abdomen. If so, we may have quadruple flaps anyway.
Of course, the longer the flaps are, the more logical it becomes to call them slips.

The way I look upon the flaps, I donīt think that they were taken away to enable the removal of the uterus. I donīt think that they - or the Chapman and Kelly flaps - were removed for practical reasons at all. Just like Dr Biggs said a few posts back, there was never any need to take away the abdominal wall to enable removal of any organs - they are easily accessible through a cut in the wall.

Disregarding the pregnancy would of course be a dumb thing to do, so I avoid that. Itīs just that my gut feeling tells me that something else led on the removal of the flaps.

[harry]

Fisherman,
I am careful in what I write.Only the victims and their final companions knew whether there was a ring to take.Hebbert' states a bruise on the ring finger of Jackson.It is open to speculation as to whetherr that bruise was a result of a ring being wrenched from that finger.Unless of course you can demonstrate there was no other way the bruise could have been caused.
Aside from that,how many rings can be proven to have been taken by the killer/killers?There has to have been at least two,one from each series,
Seems you are less careful than I am in proving claims.
STRANGE.

[Fisherman]

A point in favour of those who suggest a large hole along the midsection of Jackson is that the heart and lungs were plucked out. Through that very opening.

If he wanted to enlarge the opening in the lower abdomen by means of cutting away flaps of meat from the abdominal wall, so that he could facilitate the removal of the uterus (which has been suggested, although not by me - I think he did it for another reason), then it sounds decidedly odd if he took the heart and lungs out through a miniscule opening in the sternum.

Nobodyīs corrected this...?

I woke up this morning and realized that the killer may of course have taken out the heart and lungs from the horisontal parting of the trunk.

I donīt think he did, because that would mean that he first sawed the lungs in four pieces and quite possibly the heart in two. And I tend to think he took the organs out whole.

But a certainty, it is not. Of course.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,
I am careful in what I write.Only the victims and their final companions knew whether there was a ring to take.Hebbert' states a bruise on the ring finger of Jackson.It is open to speculation as to whetherr that bruise was a result of a ring being wrenched from that finger.Unless of course you can demonstrate there was no other way the bruise could have been caused.
Aside from that,how many rings can be proven to have been taken by the killer/killers?There has to have been at least two,one from each series,
Seems you are less careful than I am in proving claims.
STRANGE.

Letīs be very precise about this.

Liz Jackson had a bruise on the ring finger on her left hand. There was bruising on the finger that was consistent with having had the ring (not "a" ring - THE ring; so it was obviously known that she was in the habit of wearing a ring) wrenched from her finger, as per the examining medico.

All in all, this all means that I have all the reasons in the world to say that her ring was taken away by the killer, as were Chapmans rings.

Of course, we may reason that a passer-by, somebody who passed into the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street, took the rings from Chapmans fingers. Or a mortuary attendant, even. It does not HAVE to be the killer.

But does this mean that you are allowed to say that I am "twisting the evidence" to fit the ring matter into the one killer theory?

No, it only means that you need to rinse your mouth out with soapwater and start thinking before you throw such accusations around the next time.

Donīt go easy on the soap, Harry.

[Debra A]

Elizabeth was known to have worn a brass ring. Fellow unfortunates at a Turk's Row lodging house spoke of it. Elizabeth and Faircloth were passing themselves off as man and wife whilst in Ipswich a couple of months before, this generally only required the presence a ring on the wedding finger.