Same motive = same killer

[Sam Flynn]

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

Clothing was often rather "samey" back then, especially among the poorer classes, and the police would have had their work cut out, in most cases, to identify a victim on the basis of their clothes.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

That reply can only be interpreted in one way.

Why would anyone (who doesnt accept that Jack and TK were one and the same) accept an explaination when it goes against their preconceived notions. Therefore you're accusing people of disagreeing with dishonest motives Fish

[Elamarna]

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.

Total pointless comment at the end.

Your use if the word "large" is far from objective and open to very serious debate in the case of Jackson; but dont let it stop you my good man.

Your consistency is comendable.

Steve

[Sam Flynn]

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.

Yes, I recognise that as my work of more than a decade ago. It's not a view I hold now, nor have I held it for some years, and I certainly reject my earlier interpretation of the extent and size of Chapman's abdominal wounds. A "careful reading" of the sources has confirmed that I was wrong in that specific regard, and indeed I also no longer read any significance into the "three-ness" of the flaps.

On the latter point, my current view is that there are only so many practical ways one can cut open an abdomen, and I've been saying that for some time. As you know. Three, shmee!

Re "laying the abdomen completely open", this stemmed from the then mistaken belief that this soundbite came from Phillips. I subsequently realised, in a moment of Damascene clarity, that it originated in a sensationalist editorial in The Lancet, and is not sustained by the evidence itself.

[Fisherman]

Yes, I recognise that as my work of more than a decade ago. It's not a view I hold now, nor have I held it for some years, and I certainly reject my earlier interpretation of the extent and size of Chapman's abdominal wounds. A "careful reading" of the sources has confirmed that I was wrong in that specific regard, and indeed I also no longer read any significance into the "three-ness" of the flaps.

As for the "three-ness of the flaps, I think it was a fourness in Chapmans case - one of the flaps were missing when the medicos tried to reassembele her abdominal wall.
So it seems it is two flaps with Jackson, three with Kelly and four with Chapman. So three killers. Not.

You should not be too hard on yourself with your earlier interpretation - it won´t be far off the mark.

On the latter point, my current view is that there are only so many practical ways one can cut open an abdomen, and I've been saying that for some time. As you know. Three, shmee!

Oh, I think there can be myriads of ways to open up an abdomen. All sorts of directions, lengths of cuts etcetera. But when it comes to cutting away the abdomen in flaps, I don´t care if there are two, three or four pieces - it still points to the same originator if it happens in the same town and at the same time.

Re "laying the abdomen completely open", this stemmed from the then mistaken belief that this soundbite came from Phillips. I subsequently realised, in a moment of Damascene clarity, that it originated in a sensationalist editorial in The Lancet, and is not sustained by the evidence itself.

The abdomen could have been opened up to 95 per cent, Gareth. The thing is, we don´t know.
By the way, it´s the first time I have seen The Lancet being called "sensationalist". They may have skipped over how there was a little of the abdomen left on one side, but basically, they may have been on the money anyway.

[Fisherman]

Total pointless comment at the end.

Your use if the word "large" is far from objective and open to very serious debate in the case of Jackson; but dont let it stop you my good man.

Your consistency is comendable.

Steve

"Large" is not my wording, Steve. I borrowed it from Charles Hebbert. That´s how objective it is.

"Strips", however - that´s a subjective no-no.

[Debra A]

Your use if the word "large" is far from objective and open to very serious debate in the case of Jackson; but dont let it stop you my good man.

Steve,
Hebbert himself, in the opening paragraph of his essay, writes this:
The parts found were: (1) two large flaps of skin, the uterus, and placenta;..

It's in paragraph eight of the same essay, where Hebbert goes on to further describe: The flaps of skin and subcutaneous tissue consisted of two long, irregular slips taken from the abdominal walls..

[Debra A]

Sorry. Our posts crossed, Fisherman.

[Fisherman]

Sorry. Our posts crossed, Fisherman.

That´s just fine. But you should try to be more objective!

[Debra A]

Clothing was often rather "samey" back then, especially among the poorer classes, and the police would have had their work cut out, in most cases, to identify a victim on the basis of their clothes.

I think the clothing of the poorer classes would often be quite individual and recognisable, Many made, re-purposed or simply wore very old clothing and had no more than the clothes they stood up in to their name, therefore were seen day in day out in the same ten years out of date outfit. Their clothes would also often be ill fitting, not matching in colour also making them memorable to people who knew them. Faircloth had recently bought himself a snazzy striped tennis blazer at the same old clothes market where he bought Elizabeth the fifth hand drawers marked with someone else's name. Elizabeth taunted him about the jacket, saying he looked quite ridiculous in it, which he probably did. Elizabeth was wearing an old ulster given to her by a friend. That friend recognised the coat immediately. The police didn't identify people based on their clothing, they displayed it in the mortuary for people to come and look at to see if friends, neighbours and acquaintances of missing people could identify it.

[Sam Flynn]

As for the "three-ness of the flaps, I think it was a fourness in Chapmans case - one of the flaps were missing when the medicos tried to reassembele her abdominal wall.

No - three portions of skin were described, and they were all accounted for, except that when they joined them up, there was a portion missing where the navel should have been. This portion of flesh surrounding and including the navel was never found. Now, one might call a portion of flesh surrounding the navel a "plug" of flesh, or a "noisette", if you like, but it's hardly a "flap".

So it seems it is two flaps with Jackson, three with Kelly and four with Chapman. So three killers. Not.

How does that follow? And please don't call the portion of flesh surrounding Chapman's navel a "flap" - it's an insult to flaps. Phillips clearly said that Chapman's abdomen had been opened in three portions (which he also described as "flaps of skin"), and that's that.

You should not be too hard on yourself with your earlier interpretation - it won´t be far off the mark.

I'm a very thorough critic, Fish, and my earlier interpretation really was off the mark on this point. I was proud of my little idea, but having examined the evidence with a more critical eye, I now confidently reject it. And you don't need me to to tell you how hard it can be to abandon a cherished theory when it turns out to be complete pants.

Oh, I think there can be myriads of ways to open up an abdomen. All sorts of directions, lengths of cuts etcetera. But when it comes to cutting away the abdomen in flaps...

...there are only so many ways to do that, too.

it still points to the same originator.

Not really.

[Chapman's] abdomen could have been opened up to 95 per cent, Gareth.

No it couldn't, because there's nothing in the sources that remotely suggest that could have been the case. Instead, it's apparent that a gaping hole was cut in her abdomen, on the anterior surface and primarily on the right hand side. Unfortunately we have no idea of the size of the three flaps that were cut in order to create this hole, but even if they extended fully from the ribcage to the genitals that'd still only be - say - 50% laid open (40% from the right anterior, and the remaining 10% from the left anterior surface). It might well have been smaller, it might have been a little bigger, but it certainly couldn't have been anywhere near 95%.

Chapman sustained a sizeable wound, no doubt, probably much greater in extent than Jackson's, but certainly nothing as bad as Mary Kelly's.

[Elamarna]

"Large" is not my wording, Steve. I borrowed it from Charles Hebbert. That´s how objective it is.

"Strips", however - that´s a subjective no-no.

Fish,

It does not matter who you borrowed it from, it is subjective.. there is no debate about that. Fact. End of.
From a scientific standpoint those terms tell us nothing.

Strips, flaps, slips are ALL SUBJECTIVE terms.


Its not you who is not objective, but the evidence used to attempt to support the argument.

You have built a case out of subjective statements, nothing wrong with that, however it fails to convince me.
Again one must admire the consistency of your arguments.

Steve

[Elamarna]

Steve,
Hebbert himself, in the opening paragraph of his essay, writes this:
The parts found were: (1) two large flaps of skin, the uterus, and placenta;..

It's in paragraph eight of the same essay, where Hebbert goes on to further describe: The flaps of skin and subcutaneous tissue consisted of two long, irregular slips taken from the abdominal walls..

Debs,

That does not make the statement anymore meaningful of useful for me.
The word "large" is subjective, i am sure you agree, and tells us nothing about the size or how it compares to any other flaps, slips or strips.

And you quote that the later description used is "long" again its not objective.

While i do appreciate its all we have, its not enough to allow me to draw any conclusions about possible comparisons.
Sorry its probably my science background at work here.

Steve

[Sam Flynn]

Steve,
Hebbert himself, in the opening paragraph of his essay, writes this:
The parts found were: (1) two large flaps of skin, the uterus, and placenta

Indeed, Debs, but a 10 ounce steak can be fairly described as a "large" piece of meat, even though it's not particularly wide or long. I couldn't find a picture of two 10oz steaks, but here's a pair of 8oz ones:



They're pretty large, too, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was something like those that Hebbert was describing.

[Fisherman]

No - three portions of skin were described, and they were all accounted for, except that when they joined them up, there was a portion missing where the navel should have been. This portion of flesh surrounding and including the navel was never found. Now, one might call a portion of flesh surrounding the navel a "plug" of flesh, or a "noisette", if you like, but it's hardly a "flap".

So let me see if I´ve got this right - there was a portion missing involving the navel. Yes? And we do not know how large or small this particular portion was. Yes? But regardless of that, if the navel was inclusded, it could not be a flap. Yes?

How does that follow? And please don't call the portion of flesh surrounding Chapman's navel a "flap" - it's an insult to flaps. Phillips clearly said that Chapman's abdomen had been opened in three portions (which he also described as "flaps of skin"), and that's that.

Flap. Flap, flap, flap. FLAP!
You see, then flaps were portions of skin from the abdominal wall. And the navel part was also skin from the abdominal wall, involving the navel. A flap with a navel, therefore.
You spend far too much time telling me what I may say and what I may not say. It´s the same thing with throats and necks.
It does not get you anywhere. I call things what I want to call them, and I am pretty sure you do the same. Like calling the flaps "strips".

I'm a very thorough critic, Fish, and my earlier interpretation really was off the mark on this point. I was proud of my little idea, but having examined the evidence with a more critical eye, I now confidently reject it. And you don't need me to to tell you how hard it can be to abandon a cherished theory when it turns out to be complete pants.

Being hellbent on disagreeing with whatever thing I say points to a single killer is not being a thorough critic, Gareth. It really is not the same thing by any standards.

...there are only so many ways to do that, too.

Yes, hundreds of them. But it is doing it per se that gives away that an extremely rare killer is at hand. "A" - not "two".

Not really.

No? Just how and in which universe does that NOT point to the same killer?

No it couldn't, because there's nothing in the sources that remotely suggest that could have been the case. Instead, it's apparent that a gaping hole was cut in her abdomen, on the anterior surface and primarily on the right hand side. Unfortunately we have no idea of the size of the three flaps that were cut in order to create this hole, but even if they extended fully from the ribcage to the genitals that'd still only be - say - 50% laid open (40% from the right anterior, and the remaining 10% from the left anterior surface). It might well have been smaller, it might have been a little bigger, but it certainly couldn't have been anywhere near 95%.

Chapman sustained a sizeable wound, no doubt, probably much greater in extent than Jackson's, but certainly nothing as bad as Mary Kelly's.

There´s no quantifying it, since there is nothing to quantify from. And your "probablies" are anything but impressing me. You are probably wrong.
Now, THERE´S an impressive probably with something to back it up!

All three of them had the major part of the abdominal wall taken away, that´s what I think - and I share that view with people I find wholly objective and realistic.

Tha campaign of the naysayers leaves me with that feeling of vicarious shame that one sometimes experience when hearing somebody delivering an embarrasing speech. You know the feeling, I´m sure.