Same motive = same killer

[Fisherman]

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.

You should tell that to those who investigated the cases and who worked from the presumption that the killer took the rings.

Telling me is no use at all.

But I will give you one piece of friendly advice: Don´t start out your posts by questioning my honesty.

Oh, and it was not just Jackson who would have struggled to get her ring off; there were abrasions on Chapmans finger too. Maybe they were both wearing way too small rings, it being meagre times?

[Sam Flynn]

But I will give you one piece of friendly advice: Don´t start out your posts by questioning my honesty.

Herlock didn't, in fairness. "Do you honestly believe" is just a figure of speech, no different than "do you seriously believe" or "do you really believe", etc.

[Abby Normal]

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.

maybe.

or something suspicious can be read into it- as the drs in both cases pointed out.

none of the rippers victims, or the torsos (i know harder of course being body parts) were found with anything of value found on them. To me its obvious that the ripper at least took his money back he had given them and or also took what they had on them, including rings.

serial killers take trinkets as "trophys" its a well known fact.

the damage to the fingers points to it being forcibly removed and recently. the most likely explanation is was taken by there killers.

[Elamarna]

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

Not at all from me, slip sounds even narrower.
But lets forget the semantics here, the point is they were removed before the body was divided.

Steve

[Fisherman]

Herlock didn't, in fairness. "Do you honestly believe" is just a figure of speech, no different than "do you seriously believe" or "do you really believe", etc.

That´s refreshing to hear. It´s always good to have the full confidence of people.

[Fisherman]

maybe.

or something suspicious can be read into it- as the drs in both cases pointed out.

none of the rippers victims, or the torsos (i know harder of course being body parts) were found with anything of value found on them. To me its obvious that the ripper at least took his money back he had given them and or also took what they had on them, including rings.

serial killers take trinkets as "trophys" its a well known fact.

the damage to the fingers points to it being forcibly removed and recently. the most likely explanation is was taken by there killers.

Yes, but who in the world wants the likely explanation? Not when it points to a common killer, Abby.

[Fisherman]

Not at all from me, slip sounds even narrower.
But lets forget the semantics here, the point is they were removed before the body was divided.

Steve

I would have thought that the point is that Chapman, Kelly and Jackson all had large flaps of meat cut away from their abdominal walls.

But I seem to remember that you consider that unsignificant.

I bet the victims didn´t.

[Sam Flynn]

I would have thought that the point is that Chapman, Kelly and Jackson all had large flaps of meat cut away from their abdominal walls.

Where is it recorded that Chapman had large flaps of flesh removed from her abdomen? Where is it recorded that the two slips of flesh cut from Jackson's abdomen were in any way as extensive as the three flaps of flesh removed from Kelly's?

[Fisherman]

Where is it recorded that Chapman had large flaps of flesh removed from her abdomen? Where is it recorded that the two slips of flesh cut from Jackson's abdomen were in any way as extensive as the three flaps of flesh removed from Kelly's?

All the victims flaps were called "large flaps". But there is no way I am going to let you obfuscate the importance of them having been cut away in all three cases by implying that different sizes and shapes points away from a single killer.

It does not, and what I have said all along stands: It is the PRACTICE as such that is extremely rare. Consequently, we have either one, two or three persons that cut away large flaps of the abdominal walls from these three women - or we have what must and should be expected, and what is a near certainty on account of this and many more similarities: one killer only.

[Sam Flynn]

serial killers take trinkets as "trophys" its a well known fact

... and there's yet another possible reason for the rings' having been removed. With the torso case, though, perhaps the smart money should be on thwarting/delaying identification as a motive, because that's so often what torso murders are all about.

[Fisherman]

As for the flap matter, this is a little something I found on the boards:

"A careful reading of the medical and police testimony reveals that, whereas Eddowes’ and Nichols’ abdomens were attacked by means a single vertical cut, those of Chapman and Kelly were accessed by means of three detached flaps of flesh, as borne out by the medical evidence:

Kelly: “The flesh from the abdomen was removed in three large flaps”

Chapman: “A flap of flesh from the abdomen was found over the right shoulder... Two other abdominal flaps were placed above the left shoulder in a large pool of blood”

In both the Chapman and Kelly murders, where it is surely significant that the killer had more ambient light at his disposal, the killer chose to remove three “panels” of flesh from the abdomen, laying it completely open and thus more amenable to efficient disembowelment."

So a "careful reading" tells us that when the flaps in the Kelly case as well as in the Chapman case had been removed, the abdomen was laid "completely open". That means that they were large in both cases.

You may be familiar with the text? It is in your own dissertation "By accident or by design", in the dissertation section of these boards.

I still think you are wrong about how the killer cut the wall away to get at the organs, though. And a bit surprised how the torso killer according to you settled for just two narrow strips. That would not have helped much.

Then again, you may be wrong on that score too.

[Fisherman]

... and there's yet another possible reason for the rings' having been removed. With the torso case, though, perhaps the smart money should be on thwarting/delaying identification as a motive, because that's so often what torso murders are all about.

They are less often about taking the rings and forgetting the clothes, though.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Jack the Twitter

[Herlock Sholmes]

You should tell that to those who investigated the cases and who worked from the presumption that the killer took the rings.

Telling me is no use at all.

But I will give you one piece of friendly advice: Don´t start out your posts by questioning my honesty.

Oh, and it was not just Jackson who would have struggled to get her ring off; there were abrasions on Chapmans finger too. Maybe they were both wearing way too small rings, it being meagre times?

Ive never questioned your honesty Fish so its more than a little galling to be accused of such. Id also point out that ive also never questioned your intelligence unlike the occaisions when youve spoken to me like a not very bright schoolboy.

Maybe they were both wearing way too small rings, it being meagre times?


Maybe thay had worn the rings for years but had put weight on?
Maybe the abrasions had been caught when the ring got snagged on something (something ive done myself?)
Maybe they had both been mugged? (Oh sorry, id forgotten how much you hate coincidences.)

[Herlock Sholmes]

maybe.

or something suspicious can be read into it- as the drs in both cases pointed out.

none of the rippers victims, or the torsos (i know harder of course being body parts) were found with anything of value found on them. To me its obvious that the ripper at least took his money back he had given them and or also took what they had on them, including rings.

serial killers take trinkets as "trophys" its a well known fact.

the damage to the fingers points to it being forcibly removed and recently. the most likely explanation is was taken by there killers.

Accepted Abby. All im saying is that there are other, plausible explainations and so we cant use it with any certainty.