Same motive = same killer

[Debra A]

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

It is vague as an evaluation of the size but it is a word that was used by Hebbert in his observations, whereas 'strip' never was.

[Elamarna]

It is vague as an evaluation of the size but it is a word that was used by Hebbert in his observations, whereas 'strip' never was.

Which i fully acknowledge Debs.

My view is that it does not take us any further forward.

You may not agree, nor may Abby or Christer, thats fair enough, each their own.


Steve.

[Debra A]

Which i fully acknowledge Debs.

My view is that it does not take us any further forward.

You may not agree, nor may Abby or Christer, thats fair enough, each their own.


Steve.

I don't agree. Personally I find discussion of Elizabeth Jackson's case in whatever context is a good thing.

[Debra A]

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

Obviously he's chairman of the sausage factory reject policy board, my precious.

[Elamarna]

I don't agree. Personally I find discussion of Elizabeth Jackson's case in whatever context is a good thing.

Fair enough.

Steve

[Elamarna]

Obviously he's chairman of the sausage factory reject policy board, my precious.

Debs and Robert

Someone needs to be boring guess its me.



STEVE

[Abby Normal]

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.

its getting crazier by the minute. apparently around the time he was the Visalia ransacker he was a cop in charge of Burglary!!!

[Abby Normal]

Obviously he's chairman of the sausage factory reject policy board, my precious.

hahahahahahaha! loling in front of my computer.

hey el

I'm Assistant to the Secretary of Coffee and Fellowship hour(seriously) at my church if that's any consolation. : )

[Sam Flynn]

It is vague as an evaluation of the size but it is a word that was used by Hebbert in his observations, whereas 'strip' never was.

Slip and strip are practically synonymous, Debs. I introduced "strip" into the discussion so that we modern folk could get a handle on what Hebbert meant, as we no longer use "slip" as frequently these days, nor very often in the sense that it was used back then. Various Oxford English Dictionary definitions of "slip" follow. I've included a lot of the variant definitions, if only to demonstrate that, whichever way we cut it (pardon pun), "slip" invariably denotes narrowness, slenderness and/or an elongated form:

A strip, a narrow piece or stretch, of land, ground, etc

A long and relatively thin and narrow piece or strip of some material

An example or specimen of something having an elongated slender form

A piece of paper or parchment, especially one which is narrow in proportion to its length

A young person of either sex, especially one of small or slender build... A thin or slender person

A twig, sprig, or small shoot from a plant, tree, etc.

[Herlock Sholmes]

hahahahahahaha! loling in front of my computer.

hey el

I'm Assistant to the Secretary of Coffee and Fellowship hour(seriously) at my church if that's any consolation. : )

Youre a bit like the Vice-President then Abby

[Abby Normal]

Youre a bit like the Vice-President then Abby

Lol. Basically

[harry]

The twisting and misrepresentation is taking a statement of Hebbert that speculates a ring was forcibly removed and turning it into a statement of fact.
Stating as fact that rings were stolen from victims,without producing evidence rings were there to be stolen.Introducing the element of theft of material belongings when no such evidence exists.Using the word murderer when murder cannot be proven.I suppose now fisherman,you will argue you never used the word theft.
You don't have to,but theft is implied in any mention you make concerning the rings.They were stolen according to your claims.The killers of Jackson and Chapman were thieves if we are to believe you.
Your theory is like you.TWISTED and HYSTERICAL.

[Trevor Marriott]

The twisting and misrepresentation is taking a statement of Hebbert that speculates a ring was forcibly removed and turning it into a statement of fact.
Stating as fact that rings were stolen from victims,without producing evidence rings were there to be stolen.Introducing the element of theft of material belongings when no such evidence exists.Using the word murderer when murder cannot be proven.I suppose now fisherman,you will argue you never used the word theft.
You don't have to,but theft is implied in any mention you make concerning the rings.They were stolen according to your claims.The killers of Jackson and Chapman were thieves if we are to believe you.
Your theory is like you.TWISTED and HYSTERICAL.

Harry

A good post, you have hit the nail firmly on the head. What are possibly simple and obvious explanations to these torsos, are being totally ignored in favour of misguided beliefs about murder, dismemberment and the opening of abdomens.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

The twisting and misrepresentation is taking a statement of Hebbert that speculates a ring was forcibly removed and turning it into a statement of fact.
Stating as fact that rings were stolen from victims,without producing evidence rings were there to be stolen.Introducing the element of theft of material belongings when no such evidence exists.Using the word murderer when murder cannot be proven.I suppose now fisherman,you will argue you never used the word theft.
You don't have to,but theft is implied in any mention you make concerning the rings.They were stolen according to your claims.The killers of Jackson and Chapman were thieves if we are to believe you.
Your theory is like you.TWISTED and HYSTERICAL.

Writing "hysterical" in capital letters is never a good idea, Harry.

People say that a single killer cut Kelly to pieces.

Maybe that is not the truth. Maybe it was a schoolclass from Banbury that did it. We donīt know. So claiming that it was a single killer seems pretty hysterical and twisting to me, going by your definition.

Jackson was in the habit of wearing a brass ring. Chapman was in the habit of wearing brass rings. Neither woman had the rings on their fingers when their remains were found. There were abrasions and bruises, consistent with the the rings having been wrenched off the fingers in both cases, and the police accordingly concluded that they had most likely been taken by the killer.

Of course, it could instead have been the Banbury schoolclass who done it. But it is a very good guess that it was not.

What remains are two things:

1. We accept more as truth than has been conclusively proven, and we do that on account of how it is by far the most logical thing. It was probably a single killer and not a schoolclass from Banbury who did for Kelly. It is historically accepted that she was killed by a single killer.

2. We are not allowed to call it twisting when somebody works along these logical lines. We may point out that there can be no absolute certainty that the rings were stolen from the fingers of the victims, but calling it twisting to work from the accepted assumption that they were is uncacceptable. If you do that, you need to call all of the history written about these cases twisting, more or less.

In the end, itīs all about a decency type that is oddly referred to as "common" although it is not common at all. You, for example, are not in possesion of it. So in essence, calling it common decency is twisting, I take it.

Now, go away, Harry.

[Fisherman]

Harry

A good post, you have hit the nail firmly on the head. What are possibly simple and obvious explanations to these torsos, are being totally ignored in favour of misguided beliefs about murder, dismemberment and the opening of abdomens.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

From my post to Harry, it should be obvious that I think that following the historically accepted version can never be called twisting, Trevor.

Doing it the other way around, though...

Iīm almost sure you can see what I mean.

Can I ask you a small favour? If you ever should agree with me about something relating to these cases, can you please not let everybody know?