Same motive = same killer

[Sam Flynn]

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

So the common English expression "a mere slip of a girl/lad" means "chunky, fat bastard", does it?

[Sam Flynn]

Re the missing ring. Rings, like heads, can be used to more easily identify someone.

[Sam Flynn]

So the common English expression "a mere slip of a girl/lad" means "chunky, fat bastard", does it?

To save time, here's Oxford Online: "a slip of a __" (PHRASE) Used to denote a small, slim person.

Collins: If you refer to someone as a slip of a girl or a slip of a boy, you mean they are small, thin, and young.

Also: A slip of paper is a small piece of paper.

Other dictionary examples were given previously which demonstrate that the word "slip" is used in precisely these sorts of ways - i.e. to denote "small" and/or "thin" pieces - and has been for centuries. So, far from being an "effort to posthumously narrow (the dimensions of the slips of flesh)", what we have is an effort to use language correctly.

If anything, what we have seen is an "effort to posthumously enlarge" the dimensions of those pieces of Jackson's flesh, to make them appear more like what happened to Mary Kelly.

[Fisherman]

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.

Thanks for that, Debra!

[Fisherman]

So the common English expression "a mere slip of a girl/lad" means "chunky, fat bastard", does it?

I don´t see that the expression is changed at all. What I do see is that "slip" can refer to a number of shapes, most of them being oblong or narrow. If the slips were cut the way Jerry suggested, for example, they could easily have been described as slips.

Plus we know that they were described as large flaps too - and there is no knowing whether Hebbert would have described the Kelly and Chapman flaps as slips too.

Plus, of course, there´s those dreaded journalists again ...

Moreover, why would the killer cut very narrow slips? What purpose would that serve?

I think you need to realize that your slip... sorry, ship, has been sunk long ago. If you want to cling on to it, be my guest. I can see why. I totally can.

[Fisherman]

Re the missing ring. Rings, like heads, can be used to more easily identify someone.

So he took them away from Chapman so that she would not be identified...?

Not a very good proposition. And more pertinently, more speculation.

Fact: The killer took rinngs from the fingers of victims in both series.

Speculation: It was one greedy killer (Chapman) and one who tried to make identification hard (Jackson), so we should not count it as a similarity. It only looks like one, but it really is not.

[Fisherman]

To save time, here's Oxford Online: "a slip of a __" (PHRASE) Used to denote a small, slim person.

Collins: If you refer to someone as a slip of a girl or a slip of a boy, you mean they are small, thin, and young.

Also: A slip of paper is a small piece of paper.

Other dictionary examples were given previously which demonstrate that the word "slip" is used in precisely these sorts of ways - i.e. to denote "small" and/or "thin" pieces - and has been for centuries. So, far from being an "effort to posthumously narrow (the dimensions of the slips of flesh)", what we have is an effort to use language correctly.

If anything, what we have seen is an "effort to posthumously enlarge" the dimensions of those pieces of Jackson's flesh, to make them appear more like what happened to Mary Kelly.

Posthumously? The 1889 journalists said that it was the lower part of a womans abdomen, cut in two. Not that it was two narrow strips of flesh from the abdomen.

That is not posthumous, is it?

You must not try to wring it your way and disallow any other interpretation. There are many of us, some highly respected ripperologists, who think your determination on this matter is unfortunate. To say the least.

Have a look at the internet, and you will see that many shapes pass for being called slips. Of course, you can always shout "that is disallowed. DISALLOWED! Go read my wordbook!!", but then again, we may need to be a bit more openminded than that.

Hebbert wrote "large flaps" and "slips", and that allows for more than your interpretation. Once that happens, we need to look at other possible sources, and that´s where the lying, deceitful bunch of good-for-nothing journalists come into the picture. Not a single one of them seems to have described the flaps as "slips", let alone "strips", but instead as "the abdomen" or "the lower abdomen of a woman, cut in two".

Much as you can always bang on about how it does not appeal to you personally, I think that the truly discerning and less hellbent out here will draw radically different conclusions from it.

The REAL issue here, though, is to keep in mind that REGARDLESS of what shape the flaps had, it STILL applies that it is a totally uncommon practice to cut away the abdominal wall or parts of it from a murder victim, and that it therefore points to a single killer any which way we (he) cut it (them).

And it also applies that the more probable thing is that they were NOT strips, by the way. The evidence speaks against that. Any mere slip of a detective can see that.

[harry]

Fisherman,
Nothing has been shown or proven to be obvious as regards whether the victims were wearing a ring at the time of death.Any claim of otherwise is a claim that cannot be substantiated by proof.
Hebbert does not supply that proof,his statement does not even show whether the bruise was pre-mortum or post mortum,or how long after or before death the bruising occurred.Neither does evidence show Chapman as wearing a ring at the time of death.All that has been established is that both MAY have been wearing a ring sometime prior to their death.Twist as much as you like,you will not straigten that out.
As to how much soap I have in my mouth,it will not be as much as you have,simply because you have a bigger mouth.
So keep up w ith the insults,I'll match them.I'ts all you have.
STRANGE theorising.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,
Nothing has been shown or proven to be obvious as regards whether the victims were wearing a ring at the time of death.Any claim of otherwise is a claim that cannot be substantiated by proof.
Hebbert does not supply that proof,his statement does not even show whether the bruise was pre-mortum or post mortum,or how long after or before death the bruising occurred.Neither does evidence show Chapman as wearing a ring at the time of death.All that has been established is that both MAY have been wearing a ring sometime prior to their death.Twist as much as you like,you will not straigten that out.
As to how much soap I have in my mouth,it will not be as much as you have,simply because you have a bigger mouth.
So keep up w ith the insults,I'll match them.I'ts all you have.
STRANGE theorising.

What you DON´T have is anything at all to back up your statement that I was twisting the evidence to fit a theory.

I have twisted nothing. I have reiterated the exact thing that was reported by the medicos of the day. Jackson had a ring, and it was not there when she was found dead, plus there was bruising suggesting that the ring had been removed by the killer.

Now, here´s the tricky part Harry: Explain to me how that it twisting. Now, please!

You see, I have a lot more than insults. It is not an insult to tell somebody to go wash their mouth with soap when it´s needed. It is a hygienic precaution.

Lying about how somebody would have twisted the evidence, however, is a serious insult.

To suggest that it is as likely or more likely that the victims did NOT have their rings taken away by the killer - THAT is twisting what was said back then, and what has been common and accepted knowledge ever since. To accuse people who go by the evidence and by accepted history writing of twisting ought to be unheard of.
Thanks to your valid efforts, it is no longer so.

[Sam Flynn]

Another thing to bear in mind about rings is that they can be pawned or exchanged by the wearer in return for services, favours or goods. In other words, it needn't be a mugger or murderer who takes them off, and there are many reasons why this could be done.

[Fisherman]

Another thing to bear in mind about rings is that they can be pawned or exchanged by the wearer in return for services, favours or goods. In other words, it needn't be a mugger or murderer who takes them off, and there are many reasons why this could be done.

One more alternative explanation, therefore. Suggestions. Musings.

Annie Chapman was known to wear two brass rings. They were gone from her finger when she was found murdered. What would two worthless brass rings fetch at the pawnbrokers...?

Liz Jackson was in the habit of wearing another brass ring. It was gone when her remains were found, and a bruise on her ring finger bore witness to how it had probably been taken away forcefully.

Yes, both women MAY have sold their rings the day before they died. To the tooth fairy.

Isn´t it interesting, though, how it is voiced that I am the one twisting evidence and rearranging the evidence to fit my thinking? Isn´t that very, very interesting?

[Sam Flynn]

I am not twisting anything, just pointing out that the fact that there could be many reasons behind certain actions, whether they be the removal of rings or the removal of flesh.

[Herlock Sholmes]

One more alternative explanation, therefore. Suggestions. Musings.

Annie Chapman was known to wear two brass rings. They were gone from her finger when she was found murdered. What would two worthless brass rings fetch at the pawnbrokers...?

Liz Jackson was in the habit of wearing another brass ring. It was gone when her remains were found, and a bruise on her ring finger bore witness to how it had probably been taken away forcefully.

Yes, both women MAY have sold their rings the day before they died. To the tooth fairy.

Isn´t it interesting, though, how it is voiced that I am the one twisting evidence and rearranging the evidence to fit my thinking? Isn´t that very, very interesting?

Fish,

Are you honestly doubting the fact that many of these poor women would would pawn or sell anything for the price of a drink or a bed for the night. They sold their bodies for christsake! Often for a chunk of stale bread!

Yes, both women MAY have sold their rings the day before they died. To the tooth fairy.

Why did they have to have sold it the day before they died? Why not 2 or 3 days? Why couldnt Annie have been robbed by a punter 4 days before? Youre trying to make a perfectly reasonable statement appear to be extraordinary.

Liz Jackson was in the habit of wearing another brass ring. It was gone when her remains were found, and a bruise on her ring finger bore witness to how it had probably been taken away forcefully

Probably. Or perhaps it was just really tight and she’d struggled to get it off? Or maybe shed been mugged a week earlier? Who knows? Did anyone follow her tweets

The fact that both women had rings missing is nothing. Nothing suspicious can be read into it.

[Sam Flynn]

Did anyone follow her tweets?

Jack the Twitter

[Fisherman]

I am not twisting anything, just pointing out that the fact that there could be many reasons behind certain actions, whether they be the removal of rings or the removal of flesh.

I did not say that you are twisting anything. I said that I am being pointed out as twisting things, by people who often enough prefer less likely explanations to the ones forwarded by the doctors and police at the time. And who are - to boot - quite disinclined to explain HOW I would be twisting things, opting for throwing the accusation out without substantiating it.

I really dislike such things.