Same motive = same killer

[Fisherman]

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

That may be one of the worst posts you have produced.

Subjective, I know - but it stands nevertheless.

Hebbert-would-have-know-what-the-flaps-looked-like-and-whether-they-were-large-or-small.

End of.

[Abby Normal]

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

the terms large and long are objective descriptions. ambiguous maybe, but even then theyre not used in a vacuum. The dr is using them in context of flesh cut away from a human "abdominal walls". so theres obvious context and parameters.

but to say those simple one word descriptors are subjective borders on the ridiculous.

the abuse of the words subjective and superficial in this debate is pretty bad.

[Fisherman]

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.

That is a disastrous argument, Iīm afraid. Iīm sorry, but I can find no better way of saying it.
Large or small is a term that will relate to the scale of a human bodyframe in this case. I think a ten carat diamond is large, but I would not propose that Hebbert may have seen two flaps sized like ten carat diamonds and thought "Hey, they look like large diamonds, so letīs call them large flaps!".

A large car is not a Fiat 500 although a tram of Fiat 500 size could be desribed as very large.

This is slipping away quickly now, and the standard of the arguments is deplorable from your side. I see no much use in a prolonged debate, and thatīs kind of sad. You have the ability to do much, much better.

[Abby Normal]

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.

mmmmmmmm...steak

[Fisherman]

the terms large and long are objective descriptions. ambiguous maybe, but even then theyre not used in a vacuum. The dr is using them in context of flesh cut away from a human "abdominal walls". so theres obvious context and parameters.

but to say those simple one word descriptors are subjective borders on the ridiculous.

the abuse of the words subjective and superficial in this debate is pretty bad.

Worse than I thought it could get, actually. And Iīm not new to the game!

[Fisherman]

mmmmmmmm...steak

Poisonous. Donīt go near them. And isnīt the term "steak" subjective?

[Elamarna]

That may be one of the worst posts you have produced.

Subjective, I know - but it stands nevertheless.

Hebbert-would-have-know-what-the-flaps-looked-like-and-whether-they-were-large-or-small.

End of.

Not at all Christer

Define for me what Hebbert meant by "large"?


Steve

[Sam Flynn]

So let me see if Iīve 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?

It was the bit where the three flaps joined together, or rather didn't quite fit, because there was a chunk missing in the middle. A chunk which encompassed and included the navel. Picture it in your mind's eye - that's not a flap. If Chapman's abdominal wall had been made of pastry, this missing piece would be called a "scone", and scones ain't in the least bit flap-like.

[Fisherman]

Not at all Christer

Define for me what Hebbert meant by "large"?


Steve

Like both Abby and I am saying, it means large in relation to the human frame, specifically the abdominal wall.

If you want to fetch the champagne and congratulate yourself on having noticed that they were not described in numbers, then you are a big nitwit.

And you got to define "big" before there is any need to think that you have been insulted.

[Robert St Devil]

Not at all Christer

Define for me what Hebbert meant by "large"?


Steve

Oh god! Please don't Fisherman. Steve's so boring.

[Fisherman]

It was the bit where the three flaps joined together, or rather didn't quite fit, because there was a chunk missing in the middle. A chunk which encompassed and included the navel. Picture it in your mind's eye - that's not a flap. If Chapman's abdominal wall had been made of pastry, this missing piece would be called a "scone", and scones ain't in the least bit flap-like.

Try to think a bit now, Gareth. The flaps you acknowledge are three. How large or small can they be and still be called flaps?

I would say that it is not the size but the CHARACTER of the part of flesh that makes Hebbert call them flaps.

So since we donīt know how large the missing part was, we cannot rule out that it was a flap too.

It is dead simple once you put your mind to it.

I do, however, want to congratulate you on how you have turned the whole subject matter of the discussion into a discussion about whether the missing part from Chapmans body can be called a flap or not! That is high class, and it takes the focus away totally from the real issue - that we have clear evidence indicating that there was just the one killer.

Oh - maybe I should not have said that?

[Elamarna]

the terms large and long are objective descriptions. ambiguous maybe, but even then theyre not used in a vacuum. The dr is using them in context of flesh cut away from a human "abdominal walls". so theres obvious context and parameters.

but to say those simple one word descriptors are subjective borders on the ridiculous.

the abuse of the words subjective and superficial in this debate is pretty bad.

My dear Abby, they are not and cannot be objective.

I see what you are trying to argue but for me it does not work.

What was "large" to Hebbert, may not be to someone else.

There is no abuse of subjective or significant in this thread, i have a science background and i want facts to back an argument.

How can one compare based on the term "large"?
It like saying the suspect was tall or the witness was short.

If Hebbert said "roughly the same size" that would be far more useful and more objective.
Does he?


Steve

[Fisherman]

Oh god! Please don't Fisherman. Steve's so boring.

Thatīs okay - I can answer in my sleep...

[Fisherman]

Now I really must leave this discussion for some time. Iīm catching up on the news about one of the worst serial killers in US history, The EAR/ONS.

And donīt tell me to define "worst".

Bye now.

[Elamarna]

Like both Abby and I am saying, it means large in relation to the human frame, specifically the abdominal wall.

If you want to fetch the champagne and congratulate yourself on having noticed that they were not described in numbers, then you are a big nitwit.

And you got to define "big" before there is any need to think that you have been insulted.

If you cannot see that "large" is subjective and provides no information what can i say.

With out a refference point the term is meaningless.


Steve