If he'd read Hebbert's words on the torsos, the following line may have led to his misunderstanding;
"The joints in each case, with the exception of the left knee, were exactly opened, and the limbs neatly disarticulated."
In isolation, this could be read as saying that the left knee was not opened, but the context and the rest of the article makes clear it was opened, but evidently less neatly.
No idea about the hands though.
Which is exactly what he seems to have done with the Times typo about a Whitehall vault arm and the girl with the rose tattoo!
I also noticed his understanding of the Mylett case is a bit squiffy. He contradicts himself over Bond's stance in the book.
That book needs a death skull marking. I remember that only a few weeks back, John G said that it was a really good book, and I told him it wasn´t. And here I am, having relied upon it myself. More fool me.
Anyways, Gareths argument that the arms still being attached to the torso in the Pinchin Street case would somehow tell it apart from the other torsos is not very viable. In the end, much as there are very great likenesses inbetween Jackson and the Rainham torso, there are variations inbetween them all.
It's a sloppily researched (as far as the details of the murders go) but very well written book. And apparently people are willing to overlook his mistakes because he's also a very nice man.
It's only anoraks who are interested in the minutiae of the cases anyway, the general public seem to prefer an exciting story.
I can see where Gareth is coming from but Hebbert looked for the similarities rather than the differences and he found it with the neat disarticulation and use of a knife and fine toothed saw. Living at the time, he was also well aware that many people would have knife skills, but he still attributes it to the work of a hunter, slaughterer or butcher.