Same motive = same killer

[Elamarna]

And when did I say that it was no longer at the scene? When was I unaware that the heart only was what was taken away from Millerīs Court - and not even that is 100 per cent certain? Why in the whole world would I claim that a lung part was taken away from Millerīs Court? I mean, there ARE some really dumb people out here, but luckily, there are those who are not - and they would be all over me like a rash.

Then again, I may prefer having knowledgeable people over me like a rash than people who think that I cannot tell whether there was a lung missing from Milers Court or not.

Regardless of what "gone" may mean to you, havenīt I been perfectly clear in saying that I mean "gone" as in "gone from where it belonged"?

I sometimes ask myself what is wrong with some people out here. I really do. This was supposed to be a forum for discussing the Jack the Ripper case, not a forum for people who are too gone to realize that.

I am done with this discussion as of now. Iīm sure that you and Steve can have a really nice evening or two discussing it, so you wonīt go glip of the treat, Herlock.

Enjoy.

Backtracking i see, very subtly but nevertheless backtracking.

The definition you provide so to speak for "gone" is from after the event, .

The meaning of what was posted was very clear.

Tissue was taken away by the killer, if the heart remained as Trevor says, then it is no mpre gone than any other organ which was removed.

Kelly's thighs are certainly gone, is that significant?

Her breasts are removed is that significant?

Sleep well

[Fisherman]

If anybody out here would be interested in discussing the case, I welcome that very much. It would make for a refreshing change.

[Fisherman]

Please stop wriggling Fish, its a little embarrassing.

‘Torn away’ means ‘no longer attached to.’ It does not imply that it was no longer present at the scene.

‘Gone’ however certainly does imply that it was ‘no longer at the scene.’ I.e. that it had been taken away.

The two phrases are not interchangeable.

And when did I say that it was no longer at the scene? When was I unaware that the heart only was what was taken away from Millerīs Court - and not even that is 100 per cent certain? Why in the whole world would I claim that a lung part was taken away from Millerīs Court? I mean, there ARE some really dumb people out here, but luckily, there are those who are not - and they would be all over me like a rash.

Then again, I may prefer having knowledgeable people over me like a rash than people who think that I cannot tell whether there was a lung missing from Milers Court or not.

Regardless of what "gone" may mean to you, havenīt I been perfectly clear in saying that I mean "gone" as in "gone from where it belonged"?

I sometimes ask myself what is wrong with some people out here. I really do. This was supposed to be a forum for discussing the Jack the Ripper case, not a forum for people who are too gone to realize that.

I am done with this discussion as of now. Iīm sure that you and Steve can have a really nice evening or two discussing it, so you wonīt go glip of the treat, Herlock.

Enjoy.

[Elamarna]

To take somebody to task means to correct somebody, and such things are done on different occasions.

It therefore follows not that I am always right and that you are always wrong (one of your favourite things to imply, a little illusion of grandeur on my behalf - something I feel may be found in other abodes), but that you have on occasion been wrong and been corrected.

Many thanks for revealing the width of your language understanding. It should help people to understand the value of your contributions about gone lungs and such matters.

The next example is where you day that I stated that the "section of lung was gone like the two hearts". I actually never said that, it is instead something you cooked up on your own.

I said that the lung section was gone (from itīs place) and that the heart TOO was gone (from IT`S place).

But I would not quibble over your wording; the section of lung was gone as was the two hearts. Not "like" the two hearts as in "in the same way".

If a son of mine goes to the neighbour for a cup of coffee and another son goes to Brazil, then they will both be gone from my house.

I really should not have to explain this to you, and - not least - you really should not push your luck by claiming things on my behalf. Such things will be immediately pointed out. Like now, for example.

Now, can we PLEASE discuss the topic of the thread instead of having this rather witless discussion?

We are discussing the topic, just not the way you want. What a shame!

You now of course resort to semantics and an attempt to belittle my use of my own language.

Such is what i have come to expect.

I am fully aware of of the meaning of "taken to task". And stand by the comment i posted.



Your example of your two sons is total irrelvent to what we are discussing.

The actual facts can speak for themselves.

I have quoted exactly what you posted twice, and now a third time

"I note that it WAS gone, and that is about all that can be said.

The heart was of course ALSO gone, just as Jacksonīs heart was."



Once again there is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE THE SECTION OF LUNG WAS GONE.

You link the two organs by use of the words "gone" & "ALSO" which you put in caps for emphasis. To now suggest you had seperate means for each, one taken from the scene by killer, the other not taken from the scene really asks people to accept a differentb meaning to what is posted Christer.

And of course if the lung section was indeed seperate from body, but not taken by the killer, it suggests that the tearing is merely collateral damage caused by removal of the heart and not significant in the slightest.

As you so rightly said to Herlock "torn away" means seperated from the other part of the lung. IT DOES NOT mean it was removed from the thorax and so could still have been in place just not connected to the upper part. It may well have been adhered to the chest wall in places.

The thing is like so often you do not wish to listen to anything that you do not agree with.

Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, and a cut neck does not exist - as long as it was the Ripper who provided it.

"Gone" does mean "no longer there", yes. And the lower part of the left lung in Kellys body was attached to the upper part of it until it was "torn away" by the killer. After that, it was no longer there, but instead elsewhere, unattached to the upper part.

You DO know the meaning of the word "away", I take it?

Please stop wriggling Fish, its a little embarrassing.

‘Torn away’ means ‘no longer attached to.’ It does not imply that it was no longer present at the scene.

‘Gone’ however certainly does imply that it was ‘no longer at the scene.’ I.e. that it had been taken away.

The two phrases are not interchangeable.

[Fisherman]

You have taken me to task?

That would mean you are always right would it not and i wrong?

That smacks of a certain degree of arogance my friend

What ACTUALLY happens is we debate and do not agree, you no more take me to task than i do you.


Thete is no MUST about it Christer, if the information is faulty one CANNOT address the core issues in any useful way.

I will just repeat, you said the section of lung was gone like the 2 hearts, there is no evidence i can see to support that theory, provide some please.


Steve

To take somebody to task means to correct somebody, and such things are done on different occasions.

It therefore follows not that I am always right and that you are always wrong (one of your favourite things to imply, a little illusion of grandeur on my behalf - something I feel may be found in other abodes), but that you have on occasion been wrong and been corrected.

Many thanks for revealing the width of your language understanding. It should help people to understand the value of your contributions about gone lungs and such matters.

The next example is where you say that I stated that the "section of lung was gone like the two hearts". I actually never said that, it is instead something you cooked up on your own.

I said that the lung section was gone (from itīs place) and that the heart TOO was gone (from IT`S place).

But I would not quibble over your wording; the section of lung was gone as were the two hearts. Not "like" the two hearts as in "in the same way".

If a son of mine goes to the neighbour for a cup of coffee and another son goes to Brazil, then they will both be gone from my house.

I really should not have to explain this to you, and - not least - you really should not push your luck by claiming things on my behalf. Such things will be immediately pointed out. Like now, for example.

Now, can we PLEASE discuss the topic of the thread instead of having this rather witless discussion?

[Fisherman]

And Steve has now taken you to task for the use of the word ‘gone.’ It means ‘no longer there.’

Youre very quick to hit others with a ‘lets stick to the known facts.’ So lets just do that Fish.

Yes, and a cut neck does not exist - as long as it was the Ripper who provided it.

"Gone" does mean "no longer there", yes. And the lower part of the left lung in Kellys body was attached to the upper part of it until it was "torn away" by the killer. After that, it was no longer there, but instead elsewhere, unattached to the upper part.

You DO know the meaning of the word "away", I take it?

[Elamarna]

Oh, I will partake in the discussion, alright. But the discussion about "misunderstood evidence" and "gone lungs" you must have with yourself.

And actually, the core issues MUST be addressed if the evidence is misunderstood. Thatīs why I have taken you to task numerous times.

You have taken me to task?

That would mean you are always right would it not and i wrong?

That smacks of a certain degree of arogance my friend

What ACTUALLY happens is we debate and do not agree, you no more take me to task than i do you.


Thete is no MUST about it Christer, if the information is faulty one CANNOT address the core issues in any useful way.

I will just repeat, you said the section of lung was gone like the 2 hearts, there is no evidence i can see to support that theory, provide some please.


Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
And actually, the core issues MUST be addressed if the evidence is misunderstood. Thatīs why I have taken you to task numerous times.

And Steve has now taken you to task for the use of the word ‘gone.’ It means ‘no longer there.’

Youre very quick to hit others with a ‘lets stick to the known facts.’ So lets just do that Fish.

[Fisherman]

My friend,

The word gone is never used by the doctors only that the lung is broken and a torn away.

It is YOU who used the word GONE to imply it was gone the same as Kelly's heart which most accept was gone and Jackson's heart, again gone from the body.

There can be little doubt that you were implying that the lung section was also gone and taken away by the killer.

However there is nothing in the report we have used to support you view that the section of lung was missing (GONE) from the thoracic cavity.


The core issues cannot be addressed if the evidence is misunderstood.

If you decide not to partake in discussion that is your choice Christer.


Have a good evening


Steve

Oh, I will partake in the discussion, alright. But the discussion about "misunderstood evidence" and "gone lungs" you must have with yourself.

And actually, the core issues MUST be addressed if the evidence is misunderstood. Thatīs why I have taken you to task numerous times.

[Elamarna]

I have finished my discussion with you over where the lung part may or may not have been. I have given my answer to how I interpreted it and why I say that the lung part was gone - it was gone from where it should be. As was indeed the heart too.

If you want to imply that I am not allowed to use the word gone unless the part was in Zanzibar, it comes with a get-a-life warning to you, but that is all I can do about it.

I note that you are uninterested in the core issues, so I think you must speak to yourself fortwith until that changes.

You will enjoy that greatly, no doubt.

My friend,

The word gone is never used by the doctors only that the lung is broken and a torn away.

It is YOU who used the word GONE to imply it was gone the same as Kelly's heart which most accept was gone and Jackson's heart, again gone from the body.

There can be little doubt that you were implying that the lung section was also gone and taken away by the killer.

However there is nothing in the report we have used to support you view that the section of lung was missing (GONE) from the thoracic cavity.



The core issues cannot be addressed if the evidence is misunderstood.

If you decide not to partake in discussion that is your choice Christer.


Have a good evening


Steve

[Fisherman]

Proffesionally i would take "torn away" to mean seperated from the rest of the lung, by a tear, not a cut. There is no indication that the heart was not removed by cutting.
A tear would be very likely if as Bond says the lungs were adhered to the chest wall in places.
The section of lung still have been in the thorax? Particularly if it were itself affixed to the chest wall. It does not appear to be reported as missing, as the heart seems to be.
To suggest that the word "away" can be used seperatly from "torn away" to imply it was taken is frankly stretching semantics too far.

Sorry Christer but you cant blag your way out over "gone" you used it in a very clear context and compared it to the hearts of Kelly and Jackson.

"I note that it WAS gone, and that is about all that can be said.

The heart was of course ALSO gone, just as Jacksonīs heart was."

If the section of lung was missing one would expect it to be mentioned, i can see no such mention.

Actually there is nothing in Bond's report to say the lung was gone at all.

I would respectfully suggest that on this occassion you have certainly arrived at the wrong conclusion, not by design but by misunderstanding.


Steve

I have finished my discussion with you over where the lung part may or may not have been. I have given my answer to how I interpreted it and why I say that the lung part was gone - it was gone from where it should be. As was indeed the heart too.

If you want to imply that I am not allowed to use the word gone unless the part was in Zanzibar, it comes with a get-a-life warning to you, but that is all I can do about it.

I note that you are uninterested in the core issues, so I think you must speak to yourself fortwith until that changes.

You will enjoy that greatly, no doubt.

[Elamarna]

One will probably end up with the wrong conclusion, Steve - it is not a must. The same thing applies to using the right information - it does not guarantee that you reach the right conclusion.

In this case, what is the right and/or wrong information is not established, nor is it established that anybody has reached the wrong conclusion.

But it was a neat try to make out as if I had, so congratulations on that!

As for the lung being in place or not, I take "The lower part of the lung was broken and torn away." to mean that the lung was not where it originally had been. It was "away" and the word away means that something is off or gone.

Some things really are out here.

Proffesionally i would take "torn away" to mean seperated from the rest of the lung, by a tear, not a cut. There is no indication that the heart was not removed by cutting.
A tear would be very likely if as Bond says the lungs were adhered to the chest wall in places.
The section of lung still have been in the thorax? Particularly if it were itself affixed to the chest wall. It does not appear to be reported as missing, as the heart seems to be.
To suggest that the word "away" can be used seperatly from "torn away" to imply it was taken is frankly stretching semantics too far.

Sorry Christer but you cant blag your way out over "gone" you used it in a very clear context and compared it to the hearts of Kelly and Jackson.

"I note that it WAS gone, and that is about all that can be said.

The heart was of course ALSO gone, just as Jacksonīs heart was."

If the section of lung was missing one would expect it to be mentioned, i can see no such mention.

Actually there is nothing in Bond's report to say the lung was gone at all.

I would respectfully suggest that on this occassion you have certainly arrived at the wrong conclusion, not by design but by misunderstanding.


Steve

[Fisherman]

It unfortunatly appears you do not understand the implications.

The report merely says "broken and torn away" it does not say removed. You have repeated used the word "gone". In post 3711 you posted:


"I note that it WAS gone, and that is about all that can be said.

The heart was of course ALSO gone, just as Jacksonīs heart was."

This implies the lung was gone from the scene as were the hearts of Kelly and Jackson.
What you said is abudently clear to any who care to read it.

Now you say you meant gone from its original location. Unfortunately even that is not clear.
Please supply evidence to support the lung section was gone from its originial position?







I have not actually accused you of misleading, just misunderstanding.


Its not about scoring cheap or non cheap points, it abouts making statements that are over the top and cannot be supported by the evidence.
It is not a personal attack to say:

"The lack of sound anatomic knowledge displayed by some of the comments inevitability leads to these unsupported ideas."

Its merely a reflection that if one uses inaccurate information one will end up reaching the wrong conclusion.


Steve

One will probably end up with the wrong conclusion, Steve - it is not a must. The same thing applies to using the right information - it does not guarantee that you reach the right conclusion.

In this case, what is the right and/or wrong information is not established, nor is it established that anybody has reached the wrong conclusion.

But it was a neat try to make out as if I had, so congratulations on that!

As for the lung being in place or not, I take "The lower part of the lung was broken and torn away." to mean that the lung was not where it originally had been. It was "away" and the word away means that something is off or gone.

Some things really are out here.

How about commenting on the one part that is of interest here: After having established that both men took out uteri, that both men opened up abdomens and that both men cut away the abdominal walls in large flaps, donīt you think it is a tad odd that both men also took out organs from the thorax?

Maybe it is unsignificant, though. And a lot less fun than to discuss never ending ramblings about how I word myself and what you think about it.

Myself, I would say that it is a key issue and a clear pointer to a common killer.

[Elamarna]

I presume you mean “you do NOT”. Otherwise, Excellent post

Thanks my friend, got in to edit just before the 30 min deadline.
Was on bus, but that is no excuse


Steve