torso maps

[Fisherman]

This is the thing Fisherman, matching something by using only a small sample of the whole isn't very convincing. Particularly when we have a senior medical expert state that it appears as if Annies uterus was specifically targeted.

There is no evidence in any of these other murders that a targeted approach to obtaining a singular organ was evident.

Twenty bodies are found.
They represent all kinds of deaths: suffocation, knifing, arsenic poisoning, bomb explosion, strangulation, killed by car, killed by pitbulls, run over by train - you name it. ALL sorts of VERY varying deaths.

Two of the bodies are found to have had their left thumbs taken away with great precision knife work.

NOW tell me that a small sample is not convincing.

There are no two cases of serial killers who simultaneously eviscerated in the same area in the annals of crime, as far as we can tell.

But here it supposedly happened?

And both series involved heart taking, uterus taking and removal of the abdominal walls.

That, Michael, is extremely compelling evidence for one killer only.

PS. If a woman is murdered and cut up and her uterus is taken, it is far from surprising that the suggestion that the uterus was specifically targetted is thrown forward. And it probably was targetted, although the possibility remains that it was a fluke.
That, however, does not mean that the killer will always target only uteri when given the chance. And that is highlighted by how many other organs were taken out in the C5 series.

[Fisherman]

I'm not referring to the ways in which the flesh was removed, but the flesh itself. If someone's going to cut off pieces of flesh then, irrespective of how it was done, they're only pieces of flesh at the end of the day, no matter what you call them.

There is nothing in the least bit technical or definitive about the term "flaps" - it's only a label, and there's nothing to be read into a pressman or a doctor choosing that word over "piece", "slip", "strip" or "portion". Any number of people who ahve had flesh removed from their abdomen could have the flesh that was removed classified in either one or all these ways, and the labels chosen would be entirely arbitrary and irrelevant.

Fisherman's continuing to imbue the word "flaps" with significance is therefore as groundless as it is irritating.

The only significance I ascribe to the word flaps in these cases is that they were pieces of flesh with subcutaneous tissue attached to them. If that irritates you, that is your problem.

Me, I am a LOT more irritated by how you persistently deny that Jacksons flaps could have represented most or all of her lower abdominal wall. And you do so on a total lack of evidence.

That is way more irritating.

[RockySullivan]

This is the thing Fisherman, matching something by using only a small sample of the whole isn't very convincing. Particularly when we have a senior medical expert state that it appears as if Annies uterus was specifically targeted.

There is no evidence in any of these other murders that a targeted approach to obtaining a singular organ was evident.

So what was the motive in the Ripper series then?

[Abby Normal]

!

I'm not referring to the ways in which the flesh was removed, but the flesh itself. If someone's going to cut off pieces of flesh then, irrespective of how it was done, they're only pieces of flesh at the end of the day, no matter what you call them.

There is nothing in the least bit technical or definitive about the term "flaps" - it's only a label, and there's nothing to be read into a pressman or a doctor choosing that word over "piece", "slip", "strip" or "portion". Any number of people who have had flesh removed from their abdomen could have the flesh that was removed classified in either one or all these ways, and the labels chosen would be entirely arbitrary and irrelevant.

Fisherman's continuing to imbue the word "flaps" with significance is therefore as groundless as it is irritating.

but Sam
the fact that, whatever, the term, or the shape or size-and were talking about pieces of flesh removed from the abdoman-so theres a small window anyway in terms of size-the mere fact that there is flesh removed with knife from the abdomen with the intention of getting to the insides should give pause enough. Its such a specific, rare and strange thing to do.That there were to such creatures lurking around the same city at roughly the same time targeting the same victimology, with post mortem mutilation on there minds and cutting away stomach flesh is just too much coincidence for me!

[Trevor Marriott]

Maybe you have difficulties establishing levels of naivety and delsuion, Trevor? Some people have.

And maybe I have not !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

I'm not referring to the ways in which the flesh was removed, but the flesh itself. If someone's going to cut off pieces of flesh then, irrespective of how it was done, they're only pieces of flesh at the end of the day, no matter what you call them.

There is nothing in the least bit technical or definitive about the term "flaps" - it's only a label, and there's nothing to be read into a pressman or a doctor choosing that word over "piece", "slip", "strip" or "portion". Any number of people who have had flesh removed from their abdomen could have the flesh that was removed classified in either one or all these ways, and the labels chosen would be entirely arbitrary and irrelevant.

Fisherman's continuing to imbue the word "flaps" with significance is therefore as groundless as it is irritating.

Well said that man

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

And maybe I have not !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Then why did you fail to see the full extent of my naivety and delusions, as you stated before? You see, that points to you having problems in that department.

Or maybe you were just insulting away, Marriot style?

[Fisherman]

but Sam
the fact that, whatever, the term, or the shape or size-and were talking about pieces of flesh removed from the abdoman-so theres a small window anyway in terms of size-the mere fact that there is flesh removed with knife from the abdomen with the intention of getting to the insides should give pause enough. Its such a specific, rare and strange thing to do.That there were to such creatures lurking around the same city at roughly the same time targeting the same victimology, with post mortem mutilation on there minds and cutting away stomach flesh is just too much coincidence for me!

As indeed it should be for anybody. It is as close to a done deal as it gets.

[Trevor Marriott]

Then why did you fail to see the full extent of my naivety and delusions, as you stated before? You see, that points to you having problems in that department.

Or maybe you were just insulting away, Marriot style?

Your naivety and delusions have been present for all to see right from when you first invented this mythical torso serial killer.

Its a waste of time trying to insult someone that is delusional, as nothing that is said registers,- ring any bells ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Your naivety and delusions have been present for all to see right from when you first invented this mythical torso serial killer.

Its a waste of time trying to insult someone that is delusional, as nothing that is said registers,- ring any bells ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And there is the confirmation - you ARE insulting away, Marriott style.

No wonder. In spite of the appaling quality, it is nevertheless what you do best.

[Michael W Richards]

So what was the motive in the Ripper series then?

I believe Rocky that, almost certainly, the first 2 Canonical murders were done by the same lone killer. And that he killed because he was mentally ill,.. in his delusions the abdomen the of the female played a great role.

There may be one more murder I would associate with that same killer within the Canonical Group, which would make the total by one person for reasons of madness a series of 3. The bare minimum kills to even call this a series.

I think the motives for 2 or 3 of the other Canonicals are rooted within what is already known about them, and the people around them.

I think one murder might have at least tangential connection with the Parnell Commission as well....since you asked.

[Sam Flynn]

The only significance I ascribe to the word flaps in these cases is that they were pieces of flesh with subcutaneous tissue attached to them.

Don't kid yourself. You constantly point out that the use of the word "flaps" provides a linkage between the two series.

Me, I am a LOT more irritated by how you persistently deny that Jacksons flaps could have represented most or all of her lower abdominal wall. And you do so on a total lack of evidence.

No, I don't. The pieces of flesh removed from Jackson's lower abdomen are described by Hebbert as slips, or strips in other words (as I've demonstrated using innumerable dictionary examples). If you remove most of the flesh of the lower abdomen in only two pieces, you do not end up with strips.

[Fisherman]

Don't kid yourself. You constantly point out that the use of the word "flaps" provides a linkage between the two series.

Nope. I use the same word as the medicos did since I want to be as historically accurate as possible, but overall whether we call them flaps or chunks or portions is totally uninteresting - it remains that they were pieces of flesh cut from the abominal walls of the victims. leaving the abdominal content open to the eye.

Then again, of course if three medicos all call the parts cut away from the abominal walls of their victims "flaps", then that IS a link - although only a semantic one. Whether it was in practice to use that word for portions of skin with subcutaneous tissue in victorian times, I don´t know - but the suggestion cannot possibly be a bad one. Otherwise, it is a mere fluke that they all opted for that word. But that´s an aside only!

The taking away of skin and subcutaneous tissue portions DOES provide a similarity and therefore a link. Let´s not fool oursleves into thinking that if a medico had said flaps about the Chapman portions and another medico said panes about the Kelly portions, the similarity of what happened would go away.

This issue is long since settled in that respect - all three victims had parts, portions, panes, flaps - or whatever the heck we want to call them - of abdominal wall flesh taken away from them, and that provides a very clear similarity and an obvious link between Jackson, Chapman and Kelly. The more you try to deny that, the sillier you will look. And you are already looking VERY silly!

No, I don't. The pieces of flesh removed from Jackson's lower abdomen are described by Hebbert as slips, or strips in other words (as I've demonstrated using innumerable dictionary examples). If you remove most of the flesh of the lower abdomen in only two pieces, you do not end up with strips.

And indeed, Hebbert said SLIPS, not strips!

I will, ever so clearly, explain how it works to you:

There are basically three mentionings of these flaps of flesh (and I will call them flaps since all victims DID have them referred to like that).

1. Hebberts wording "long, irregular slips"

2. Hebberts wording "large flaps"

3. The press accounts from when the flaps were found, stating that they were, and I quote from Debras post earlier: an "abdomen", "the lower portion of a woman's body", "the lower part of a woman's abdomen, cut in two", and similarly worded descriptions."

You say that since Hebbert used the word "slips" the flaps MUST have been narrow. Why? Because you demand that Hebbert respects in retrospect the dictionaries you have read! That, and that only, is your approach to the issue. Let´s not beat about the bush, let´s say it right out: your whole refusal to accept that the flaps could have been anything but narrow hinges on this!

The fact of the matter is that a slip is basically a shape that is longer than it is wide. The relationship between long and wide can NOT be established, and the net is full of examples of things described as slips where the slip is not narrow at all, its just longer than wide.

What we should do as REALLY discerning (not pretending to be, but actually being so) researchers is to see into which description ALL three parameters fit.

If the flaps were narrow strips, would they be described as "large flaps" by Hebbert? Not very likely, but possibly so if they were long and not too thin.

Would they be described as "lower part of a womans abdomen, cut in two"? Definitely not.

So the definition of the flaps being very narrow does not work with all parameters, only with one, not really with two and definitely not with three.

But it DOES work with all three if the description "slips" was one that pointed to a longish shape, but not all that narrow! And that description is something that is common enough. The flaps may have been 30-40 centimeters long and perhaps ten, twelve centimeters wide at the widest, and that would be compatible with writing "slips". They were irregularly shaped, so they may have been a lot more narrow below the abdomen, where there was part of the buttock attached to one of them.

In this case, all parameters fit, and we need not try to invent any facts on no evidence at all - like you are doing, although you are wriggling to try and get off that hook. Your excursions to the dictionaries is no evidence at all about what the flaps from Jackson looked like. The real shape of them and what dictionaries offer are two totally unrelated things. Different matters. The flaps will ot change in retrospect on account of it. Sorry, but there you are.

And so you loose out. Again. And deservedly so. The truth will out, Gareth. And that is not something I say to claim that I know the truth. Unlike you, I am all for admitting that it cannot be known.
No, the truth I am instead pointing to is that you are twisting and wriggling and keeping the majority of the evidence from the readers because it is incompatible with your take.. THAT truth has come out.

As for truths, you tell us that the journalists, all of them, were NOT telling the truth about what they saw! They were instead lying. All of them. Each and every one. Supposedly, they saw two spaghetti thing slips of flesh - and miraculously managed to see that they were from the abdomen!

And then they thought, all of them, that since it would be much more interesting to the readers (not!) if they lied and exagerrated the size of the flaps, they would do just that - according to you, that is. It would not be sensational enough to say that the uterus was wrapped in two long flaps of flesh taken from the abdomen, they instead - all of them, simultaneously and with no agreement - decided to exaggerate what they had seen or had described.
Yeah, very convincing, that one. Indefinitely more convincing than the drab, grey suggestion that they described what they actually saw.

And to think, YOU have the stomach to call ME biased! What-a-ROT!

[Sam Flynn]

"And you tell us that the journalists, all of them, were not telling the truth about what they saw! Supposedly, they saw"

I said no such thing, ever. And I certainly never even implied, never mind said, that the pieces of flesh were "spaghetti thin". Does your instinct to exaggerate and misrepresent know no bounds?

That apart, what makes you think that the journalists actually saw these accursed "flaps or any of the remains, for themselves?

[Fisherman]

"And you tell us that the journalists, all of them, were not telling the truth about what they saw! Supposedly, they saw"

I said no such thing, ever. And I certainly never even implied, never mind said, that the pieces of flesh were "spaghetti thin". Does your instinct to exaggerate and misrepresent know no bounds?

That apart, what makes you think that the journalists actually saw these accursed "flaps or any of the remains, for themselves?

You very clearly stated that the journalists were misreporting as far as you could tell. Is that not so? If you instead accept that they were in all probability correct in their descriptions, I´m fine with that!

"Spaghetti thin" was caricaturing your fundamentalist take: The thinner, the better! I feel quite certain that you are very well aware of this.

The journalists either saw the flaps or had them described by somebody who had absolutely no reason to lie or exaggerate about them.

And please do not speak of me misrepresenting. You are the one who consciously leaves out how Hebbert said "large flaps", for example, opting for a description you assure is correct by means of dictionary reading. That invites caricatures.

So please!

Question: Is it possible to describe a shape of 40 x 10-12 centimeters as a "slip"? Or is it something that nobody would ever do? Or something that anybody but Hebbert would do?