Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Torso Killings: torso maps - by FrankO 29 minutes ago.
Torso Killings: torso maps - by Sam Flynn 45 minutes ago.
Torso Killings: torso maps - by Jon Guy 1 hour and 15 minutes ago.
Torso Killings: torso maps - by Sam Flynn 4 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Wickerman 10 hours ago.
Torso Killings: torso maps - by Joshua Rogan 11 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - (18 posts)
Torso Killings: torso maps - (16 posts)
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - (5 posts)
General Discussion: Mystery photographs found in car-boot sale box - (3 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: Was the ripper and also the torsomans crimes totally non sexual in nature? - (2 posts)
Witnesses: Sarah and Maurice Lewis - (1 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Motive, Method and Madness

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #3471  
Old 04-25-2018, 11:40 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 4,217
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
And perhaps true.

But only perhaps.

Which is the whole point I am making.

Your earlier post I did not get, but it seems directed at tarnishing me, so maybe its just as well.
Not trashing you at all Fish, just pointing out that you are consistant in how you make points


Steve
Quick reply to this message
  #3472  
Old 04-25-2018, 11:43 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 4,217
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
That makes three of us, then!
Four. I have no doubt the strips or what ever term you wish to use were cut before the body was divided.

Steve
Quick reply to this message
  #3473  
Old 04-25-2018, 11:44 AM
Debra A Debra A is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Yorkshire England
Posts: 3,106
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Yes there is.
Yes there is.
I have always read it that a mid line incision through skin and tissue was made and the sternum was opened up down the centre. The trunk was divided in two through the vertebra at shoulder blade level or thereabouts and the heart and lungs removed from the upper trunk section. What makes me think that the abdominal flaps highest point was just above the navel is that the division of the pelvis through the spine took place between the third and fourth lumbar vertebra, which is on a similar level to the navel at the front and the top of the uterus would be at around the height of the navel at around 24 weeks pregnant. Hebbert also mentions the upper part of the abdomen in conjunction with the lower portion of the trunk.

There seems to be a point of correspondence there that makes sense. If Elizabeth was much further along the height of the uterus could be well above the navel and so in that case the top of the two flaps (already divided by a mid line cut) could have commenced higher but I'm not convinced of that myself and I don't see what difference it makes other than it makes for a closer comparison to Kelly,I don't think a motive can clearly be stated for removal of the flaps of skin from Elizabeth's abdomen and that includes certainty the flaps were removed to facilitate removal of the foetus for practicality when dividing the body. I don't see why removal of the flaps to access the uterus has to be viewed as solely for practical reasons, regardless of the size and shape of those flaps.
__________________
,,`,, Debs ,,`,,

I am not DJA. He's called Dave.
Quick reply to this message
  #3474  
Old 04-25-2018, 12:41 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,351
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
Not trashing you at all Fish, just pointing out that you are consistant in how you make points


Steve
Normally, Id appreciate that judgment, but I dont think that applies here. Since I dont see a twisting villain when looking into a mirror, Ill just let it slip. Not strip. Slip.
Quick reply to this message
  #3475  
Old 04-25-2018, 12:41 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,351
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
Four. I have no doubt the strips or what ever term you wish to use were cut before the body was divided.

Steve
Flaps or slips. Strips was never used, other than in an effort to posthumously narrow them.
Quick reply to this message
  #3476  
Old 04-25-2018, 12:52 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,351
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Debra A View Post
Yes there is.
I have always read it that a mid line incision through skin and tissue was made and the sternum was opened up down the centre. The trunk was divided in two through the vertebra at shoulder blade level or thereabouts and the heart and lungs removed from the upper trunk section. What makes me think that the abdominal flaps highest point was just above the navel is that the division of the pelvis through the spine took place between the third and fourth lumbar vertebra, which is on a similar level to the navel at the front and the top of the uterus would be at around the height of the navel at around 24 weeks pregnant. Hebbert also mentions the upper part of the abdomen in conjunction with the lower portion of the trunk.

There seems to be a point of correspondence there that makes sense. If Elizabeth was much further along the height of the uterus could be well above the navel and so in that case the top of the two flaps (already divided by a mid line cut) could have commenced higher but I'm not convinced of that myself and I don't see what difference it makes other than it makes for a closer comparison to Kelly,I don't think a motive can clearly be stated for removal of the flaps of skin from Elizabeth's abdomen and that includes certainty the flaps were removed to facilitate removal of the foetus for practicality when dividing the body. I don't see why removal of the flaps to access the uterus has to be viewed as solely for practical reasons, regardless of the size and shape of those flaps.
Thats quite comprehensive, Debra, and thanks for it.

I have no wish to make the flaps as long as possible. I am not even sure that it would make them more like Kellys flaps, since these may have been two flaps dividing the lower abdomen along the centre and a third flap covering the upper abdomen. If so, we may have quadruple flaps anyway.
Of course, the longer the flaps are, the more logical it becomes to call them slips.

The way I look upon the flaps, I dont think that they were taken away to enable the removal of the uterus. I dont think that they - or the Chapman and Kelly flaps - were removed for practical reasons at all. Just like Dr Biggs said a few posts back, there was never any need to take away the abdominal wall to enable removal of any organs - they are easily accessible through a cut in the wall.

Disregarding the pregnancy would of course be a dumb thing to do, so I avoid that. Its just that my gut feeling tells me that something else led on the removal of the flaps.

Last edited by Fisherman : 04-25-2018 at 01:09 PM.
Quick reply to this message
  #3477  
Old 04-25-2018, 06:47 PM
harry harry is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,811
Default

Fisherman,
I am careful in what I write.Only the victims and their final companions knew whether there was a ring to take.Hebbert' states a bruise on the ring finger of Jackson.It is open to speculation as to whetherr that bruise was a result of a ring being wrenched from that finger.Unless of course you can demonstrate there was no other way the bruise could have been caused.
Aside from that,how many rings can be proven to have been taken by the killer/killers?There has to have been at least two,one from each series,
Seems you are less careful than I am in proving claims.
STRANGE.
Quick reply to this message
  #3478  
Old 04-25-2018, 09:56 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,351
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
A point in favour of those who suggest a large hole along the midsection of Jackson is that the heart and lungs were plucked out. Through that very opening.

If he wanted to enlarge the opening in the lower abdomen by means of cutting away flaps of meat from the abdominal wall, so that he could facilitate the removal of the uterus (which has been suggested, although not by me - I think he did it for another reason), then it sounds decidedly odd if he took the heart and lungs out through a miniscule opening in the sternum.
Nobodys corrected this...?

I woke up this morning and realized that the killer may of course have taken out the heart and lungs from the horisontal parting of the trunk.

I dont think he did, because that would mean that he first sawed the lungs in four pieces and quite possibly the heart in two. And I tend to think he took the organs out whole.

But a certainty, it is not. Of course.
Quick reply to this message
  #3479  
Old 04-25-2018, 10:09 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,351
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by harry View Post
Fisherman,
I am careful in what I write.Only the victims and their final companions knew whether there was a ring to take.Hebbert' states a bruise on the ring finger of Jackson.It is open to speculation as to whetherr that bruise was a result of a ring being wrenched from that finger.Unless of course you can demonstrate there was no other way the bruise could have been caused.
Aside from that,how many rings can be proven to have been taken by the killer/killers?There has to have been at least two,one from each series,
Seems you are less careful than I am in proving claims.
STRANGE.
Lets be very precise about this.

Liz Jackson had a bruise on the ring finger on her left hand. There was bruising on the finger that was consistent with having had the ring (not "a" ring - THE ring; so it was obviously known that she was in the habit of wearing a ring) wrenched from her finger, as per the examining medico.

All in all, this all means that I have all the reasons in the world to say that her ring was taken away by the killer, as were Chapmans rings.

Of course, we may reason that a passer-by, somebody who passed into the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street, took the rings from Chapmans fingers. Or a mortuary attendant, even. It does not HAVE to be the killer.

But does this mean that you are allowed to say that I am "twisting the evidence" to fit the ring matter into the one killer theory?

No, it only means that you need to rinse your mouth out with soapwater and start thinking before you throw such accusations around the next time.

Dont go easy on the soap, Harry.
Quick reply to this message
  #3480  
Old 04-25-2018, 11:09 PM
Debra A Debra A is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Yorkshire England
Posts: 3,106
Default

Elizabeth was known to have worn a brass ring. Fellow unfortunates at a Turk's Row lodging house spoke of it. Elizabeth and Faircloth were passing themselves off as man and wife whilst in Ipswich a couple of months before, this generally only required the presence a ring on the wedding finger.
__________________
,,`,, Debs ,,`,,

I am not DJA. He's called Dave.
Quick reply to this message
Closed Thread


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.