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:
Maybrick, James: Too Sensible & Competent - by David Orsam 7 minutes ago.
Maybrick, James: Too Sensible & Competent - by David Orsam 12 minutes ago.
Maybrick, James: Too Sensible & Competent - by David Orsam 14 minutes ago.
Maybrick, James: Too Sensible & Competent - by David Orsam 16 minutes ago.
Maybrick, James: Too Sensible & Competent - by David Orsam 17 minutes ago.
Maybrick, James: Too Sensible & Competent - by David Orsam 20 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Maybrick, James: Too Sensible & Competent - (18 posts)
Maybrick, James: Mike Barrett Interview - September 1995 - (9 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - (7 posts)
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - (7 posts)
Maybrick, James: Diary Quirks - (6 posts)
Doctors and Coroners: Eddowes' gut cut - (5 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
  #3411  
Old 04-24-2018, 11:44 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 16,625
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
I thought you'd gone very high (and wide) on the top side, Jerry, hence my response:
I would have gone for the lower part of the costal arch being the limit, but I don´t know that we can exclude Jerrys suggestion. Anyway, he offers learoom for perhaps having gone too high.

Whether the flaps as such had anything at all to do with Jacksons pregnancy is written in the stars. All we know is that they were cut away.

Last edited by Fisherman : 04-24-2018 at 11:49 PM.
Quick reply to this message
  #3412  
Old 04-24-2018, 11:53 PM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,897
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
So, Biggs points out that normally, dismemberment is about practical matters. And he adds that there may be additions serving the purpose of making an identification impossible.
So that is about the same thing: practicality.

This is all very uncontroversial.

Then he arrvies at my question and delivers the answer: There are people out there who like to "cut for fun", he says.
Okay. I don´t think that it is always for fun, it is a deeply rooted urge and a serious matter for the cutter, but let´s go with the doctor´s terminology anyway.
He then delivers the solution about what is the result when such a person is responsible for the cutting: "these tend to be recognisable as acts of true mutilation rather than dismemberment".

That´s probably very close to the truth. And indeed, we do see examples of "true mutilation" with the Torso killer, the opening up of the abdomen, the taking out of organs, the cutting away of the abdominal wall und so weiter.

So basically, I find that Biggs is in agreement with me - not all cases of dismemberment are caused by people who are likely to cut up the body for practical reasons only, and thus the appearance of the outcome can differ a whole lot.

What Biggs does not touch on is the dismemberment procedure as such. If we were to rule out any mutilation and ONLY go by the parting of the body, will differing mindsets produce different outcomes? Well, we already know that this is so, and we can see examples of it in the torso cases, where the parting of the body went to lenghts that are normally not seen in dismemberment cases.

But I am happy to have Biggs recognizing that urge killers who dismember are very likely to add inclusions of mutilation that go beyond any practical considerations. Which is the case in the torso matter, where AT LEAST a uterus, a heart and two lungs were plucked out, together with the abdominal walls.

Biggs tells us that it can be difficult to tell practical cases and urge cases apart, and that probably owes to how a practical killer may cut away parts that can give the identity away. So we may find mutilation on a practically dismembered body too. Which is true.
But no killer tries to hide the identity of a victim by taking out the heart and the lungs, so the torso cases are urge cases.

I also like how Biggs says “As for the abdominal flaps, there is nothing that would ‘necessitate’ removal of the abdominal wall in large flaps, as we are able to get all the bits and pieces we need out of the body though a single incision that removes no abdominal wall tissue (even in very well-padded individuals)."
This is what I have pointed out for the longest. I only wish Biggs had said something about how unusual the matter is.

At any rate, Trevor, thank you - worth waiting for.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
[/quote]

I have re-posted below some of Dr Biggs earlier comments with regards to the flapf of skin which seem to be regarded by some as part of a signature he clearly refutes this suggestion !

"I don't think the removal of 'flaps' of tissue can be taken as evidence of a 'signature' of the killer. By signature, I am including both the intentional (i.e. 'calling card') and unintentional (habit, MO) interpretations of the word. Essentially, these two individuals could have been killed by the same person, or by different individuals. There is no way of telling one scenario from the other based purely on the pattern of body dismemberment.

A person who is faced with a body to dispose of will often attempt to 'chop it up', either to make it easier to hide, easier to transport or easier to 'get rid of' in some way. What is quite striking is that even individuals with no prior knowledge will often end up doing a job that will look remarkably similar (in appearance afterwards) to that of another, completely unrelated case. It is not the presence of a common killer that is responsible for the similarities between cases, but the fact that bodies tend to have fairly obvious 'joins' to go for when attempting to reduce the size / bulk of a body.

Put simply, the pattern of removing the head and limbs from the torso +/- splitting the torso in half seems to be fairly 'normal' in cases of dismemberment. The handful of dismemberment cases that I have personally dealt with in my short career so far have all ended up looking fairly similar, but I would never have tried to claim that this represented some sort of common link between cases"

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Last edited by Trevor Marriott : 04-24-2018 at 11:55 PM.
Quick reply to this message
  #3413  
Old 04-25-2018, 12:02 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 16,625
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

I have re-posted below some of Dr Biggs earlier comments with regards to the flapf of skin which seem to be regarded by some as part of a signature he clearly refutes this suggestion !

"I don't think the removal of 'flaps' of tissue can be taken as evidence of a 'signature' of the killer. By signature, I am including both the intentional (i.e. 'calling card') and unintentional (habit, MO) interpretations of the word. Essentially, these two individuals could have been killed by the same person, or by different individuals. There is no way of telling one scenario from the other based purely on the pattern of body dismemberment.

A person who is faced with a body to dispose of will often attempt to 'chop it up', either to make it easier to hide, easier to transport or easier to 'get rid of' in some way. What is quite striking is that even individuals with no prior knowledge will often end up doing a job that will look remarkably similar (in appearance afterwards) to that of another, completely unrelated case. It is not the presence of a common killer that is responsible for the similarities between cases, but the fact that bodies tend to have fairly obvious 'joins' to go for when attempting to reduce the size / bulk of a body.

Put simply, the pattern of removing the head and limbs from the torso +/- splitting the torso in half seems to be fairly 'normal' in cases of dismemberment. The handful of dismemberment cases that I have personally dealt with in my short career so far have all ended up looking fairly similar, but I would never have tried to claim that this represented some sort of common link between cases"

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
You HAVE published a quotation before, where it was obvious that Biggs thought we were speaking about flaps formed by accident. Evidently, this belongs to the same thinking.
Of course taking the abdominal wall away in large flaps can be part of a signature. But if it was, then the combined Ripper/Torso killer only did it in a minority of the cases, so my money is on it not being a necessary signature as such, but instead a very rare thing that was tied to his overall aims. Part of a signature, sort of, but not something he felt compelled to do every time.
Any which way, the flaps were NOT accidentally formed, Trevor!

Last edited by Fisherman : 04-25-2018 at 12:06 AM.
Quick reply to this message
  #3414  
Old 04-25-2018, 12:04 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 9,729
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Yes, that is correct - but we nevertheless have part of the buttock removed in two cases.
As the result of two entirely different actions. As to "no discernable reason", I'd argue the contrary in Kelly's case, in that her killer was bent on de-fleshing her entire undercarriage - that part of the buttock which was removed just happening to be in the middle of a cut which extended from the right thigh up to, and including, the entirety of the external genitalia. In Jackson's case, the damage to part of her buttock appears to have been an overrun of a cut designed to release one of the two strips of flesh from the lower abdomen.
Quote:
So a similarity. Again.
No. Quite different in purpose and execution.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message
  #3415  
Old 04-25-2018, 12:20 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 16,625
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
As the result of two entirely different actions. As to "no discernable reason", I'd argue the contrary in Kelly's case, in that her killer was bent on de-fleshing her entire undercarriage - that part of the buttock which was removed just happening to be in the middle of a cut which extended from the right thigh up to, and including, the entirety of the external genitalia. In Jackson's case, the damage to part of her buttock appears to have been an overrun of a cut designed to release one of the two strips of flesh from the lower abdomen.
No. Quite different in purpose and execution.
You can argue all you want to that the killer was "bent on de-fleshing her entire undercarriage" (which makes you wonder why he didn´t do just that, but instead settled for part of the right buttock only...). That is just another personal interpretation, and I don´t put any stock in them. I look at the similarities only, and I don´t try to explain them - or explain them away.

You write that in Jacksons case, the damage to the part of the buttock would be a result of an "overrun". That is a strange thing to say. For the killer to have been able to cut the abdominal flaps away, he must have had Jackson on her back. So why would he reach in underneath her to cut?
Well, that will owe to how the flaps were not flaps of abdominal meat only! They also included the mons veneris and the labium - meaning that the killer mutilated the genital area just like he mutilated that area on Kelly. And the external genital parts were attached to the flaps. That was why he also cut away part of the buttock - because what we call abdominal flaps were also genital flaps.
He had an interest in that region, and when you do, the buttocks may well come into play too.

Both Kelly and Jackson had damage done to their buttocks. Try as we might, that does not go away because we can come up with a possible explanation for it or loftily claim that we know the "purpose". And the same goes for the rest of the dozen or so similarities. It takes a fascinating mind to come up with alternative explanations for all of them. Just as it takes a lot not to acknowledge that the Torso killer was a sexual mutilator.

Last edited by Fisherman : 04-25-2018 at 12:31 AM.
Quick reply to this message
  #3416  
Old 04-25-2018, 12:41 AM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,897
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
You HAVE published a quotation before, where it was obvious that Biggs thought we were speaking about flaps formed by accident. Evidently, this belongs to the same thinking.
Of course taking the abdominal wall away in large flaps can be part of a signature. But if it was, then the combined Ripper/Torso killer only did it in a minority of the cases, so my money is on it not being a necessary signature as such, but instead a very rare thing that was tied to his overall aims. Part of a signature, sort of, but not something he felt compelled to do every time.
Any which way, the flaps were NOT accidentally formed, Trevor!
Are you for real? We have a forensic pathologist who destroys your suggestion that the flaps removed from these torsos were part of the killers signature, yet you still want to argue against the expert

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
Quick reply to this message
  #3417  
Old 04-25-2018, 12:52 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 9,729
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Any which way, the flaps were NOT accidentally formed, Trevor!
The flaps themselves might not have been accidentally formed, but the damage to the flesh adjoining the flaps could easily have been incidental to their purpose, in much the same way as the (non-flap) cut to Eddowes' abdomen just happened to bisect the ensiform cartilage of the sternum. In like manner, the damage to part of Jackson's buttock could easily have been incidental to the cut whose true purpose was to cut one of the strips of flesh from her lower abdomen.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message
  #3418  
Old 04-25-2018, 01:16 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 9,729
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
You can argue all you want to that the killer was "bent on de-fleshing her entire undercarriage" which makes you wonder why he didn´t do just that
Wrong. He did precisely that, as can be confirmed from reading Bond's description of the wounds: "The right thigh was denuded in front to the bone, the flap of skin, including the external organs of generation & part of the right buttock". If you're going to cut a single saddle of flesh from the right up to, and including, the entirety of the external genitalia, you have effectively de-fleshed the undercarriage, as the gruesome closeup photograph of Kelly's genital area clearly shows, and part of the right buttock is inevitably going to suffer as a result. In order to achieve his aim of giving Kelly the "ultimate Brazilian", part of the buttock was sacrificed. Part of Jackson's buttock was almost certainly damaged in a similar accidental manner, although the aim of her killer was evidently quite different.

In either case, there is zero reason to suppose that the perpetrators were thinking to themselves, "I... must... include... part... of... the... right... buttock", anymore than Eddowes' killer was thinking, "I... must... cut... the... xiphoid... process... in... half".
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message
  #3419  
Old 04-25-2018, 01:18 AM
Debra A Debra A is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Yorkshire England
Posts: 3,063
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
Are you for real? We have a forensic pathologist who destroys your suggestion that the flaps removed from these torsos were part of the killers signature, yet you still want to argue against the expert

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
Trevor, Dr Biggs seems to be answering the questions from the point of view of what expertise was demonstrated by removing flaps of flesh. He says that it shows no medical skill or knowledge, which is actually a big point against your suggestion that organs were removed for anatomical purposes by medical men in the torso cases where organs were absent.
__________________
,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸, Debs ,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,
Quick reply to this message
  #3420  
Old 04-25-2018, 01:22 AM
Debra A Debra A is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Yorkshire England
Posts: 3,063
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
The flaps themselves might not have been accidentally formed, but the damage to the flesh adjoining the flaps could easily have been incidental to their purpose, in much the same way as the (non-flap) cut to Eddowes' abdomen just happened to bisect the ensiform cartilage of the sternum. In like manner, the damage to part of Jackson's buttock could easily have been incidental to the cut whose true purpose was to cut one of the strips of flesh from her lower abdomen.
The damage to the buttock seems to have been caused by continuing the abdominal 'flap' cutting down through the genitals and not knowing quite where or how to end that cut.
__________________
,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸, Debs ,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,
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 11:18 AM.


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