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:
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - by caz 1 hour and 27 minutes ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - by caz 2 hours ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - by caz 2 hours ago.
Witnesses: Our Charles Cross - by Elamarna 3 hours ago.
Witnesses: Caroline Maxwell Alibi ? - by Darryl Kenyon 3 hours ago.
Witnesses: Caroline Maxwell Alibi ? - by Sam Flynn 3 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Witnesses: Our Charles Cross - (19 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - (7 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (6 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: What was occuring in 1888? - (4 posts)
Witnesses: Caroline Maxwell Alibi ? - (4 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Mary Kellys Inquest - (2 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
  #3451  
Old 04-25-2018, 06:03 AM
Joshua Rogan Joshua Rogan is online now
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,710
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
There was a clear border of skin from the vertebrae to the level just above the umbilicus. It's pretty obvious to me what that means.
I take it to mean that the cut which divided the lower torso in two didn't start immediately below the bottom ribs, but a short way below this, leaving a margin of skin unsupported by the ribcage. What does it mean to you?

Quote:
Also, how can the umbilicus be the minimum vertical extent for the slips of flesh, when we know that they extended to the genitalia?
Sorry, I didn't word that very well. I meant that the "flaps" extended from below the genitalia to at least an inch and a half above the umbillicus, not at most. I hope that makes more sense.
Quick reply to this message
  #3452  
Old 04-25-2018, 06:04 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 4,169
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
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]

Fish
Been off a few days and catchingup.

So good to see that a Leopard can't change its spots still holds true for you


You selectively quote Dr Biggs above, ignoring the part where he says an untrained person may well find it easier to cut off sections of tissue.


So good to see you be consistent.



Steve
Quick reply to this message
  #3453  
Old 04-25-2018, 06:08 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 4,169
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Debra A View Post
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.
Very good point Debra


Steve
Quick reply to this message
  #3454  
Old 04-25-2018, 06:35 AM
jerryd jerryd is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,093
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
I take it to mean that the cut which divided the lower torso in two didn't start immediately below the bottom ribs, but a short way below this, leaving a margin of skin unsupported by the ribcage. What does it mean to you?



Sorry, I didn't word that very well. I meant that the "flaps" extended from below the genitalia to at least an inch and a half above the umbillicus, not at most. I hope that makes more sense.
I agree with what you say, Joshua. Dr Hebbert says each flap included parts from each of the two sections, meaning they were continueous vertical cuts and done before the dividing of the body.
Quick reply to this message
  #3455  
Old 04-25-2018, 07:08 AM
Robert St Devil Robert St Devil is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: North Kilttown, Scotland
Posts: 801
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
Also, my reading is that the sternum was divided both vertically and horizontally. So effectively quartered.
That's how I read it, Joshua - that her trunk and abdomen area had been cut horizontally in thirds, and the top 2 "parts" had been cut vertically through her sternum. [I was a little surprised that her breasts were with the middle section, but she could have had low hanging breasts like Catherine Eddowes; that or the top section could have been cut shorter than the middle section (shoulder area & upper trunk)] My speculation is that he was cutting it into sizes that he could transport easier.

I can't speak on how wide the slips were, but at the very minimum, I think the slips [when put together] were the width of her mons veneris, so I think the width demonstrated in jerryd's diagram could be accurate.
I don't know how she carried her baby - some women carry their child high and others low; so I cant determine how her lower abdomen may have been stretched out.

I think debs is on the right track with her statement about the cut extending out. Here I speculate quite a bit. If a victim is laying flat on her back with her legs stretched straight out, I have my doubts that the cut would extend to her backside. However, when the legs are positioned in an open diamond configuration as demonstrated in the Chapman and Kelly murders, more of the buttocks becomes exposed; and, I could see how a cut could run from her front side to her backside.

Weren't the slips found bundled with the uterus and placenta? This leads me to think that the removal of the slips was part of 'the procedure' that was used to remove the fetus (sorry, debs, forgot how you spelled the word)

*btw thanks Abby. I had meant to comment on your body positioning post several pages back but I stalled too long or got lazy or forgot or something or other. I won't beg that "probability of two" question too much more but I can understand how it could be considered a bit of a stretch.
__________________
there,s nothing new, only the unexplored
Quick reply to this message
  #3456  
Old 04-25-2018, 07:08 AM
Joshua Rogan Joshua Rogan is online now
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,710
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Debra A View Post
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.
Do you think the slightly lopsided nature of the cutting could be due the bio-mechanical limits to wrist movement when cutting the different sides?
I hope that makes some sense.

Last edited by Joshua Rogan : 04-25-2018 at 07:11 AM.
Quick reply to this message
  #3457  
Old 04-25-2018, 07:15 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 4,169
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
Do you think the slightly lopsided nature of the cutting could be due the bio-mechanical limits to wrist movement when cutting the different sides?
I hope that makes some sense.
Joshua,
Dont mean to butt in, however your comment is very true, i had never taken it into account, funny that because as soon as you mention the possability, it certainly rings true from my practical expereince of cutting..


Steve

Last edited by Elamarna : 04-25-2018 at 07:18 AM.
Quick reply to this message
  #3458  
Old 04-25-2018, 07:34 AM
Joshua Rogan Joshua Rogan is online now
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,710
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert St Devil View Post
That's how I read it, Joshua - that her trunk and abdomen area had been cut horizontally in thirds, and the top 2 "parts" had been cut vertically through her sternum. [I was a little surprised that her breasts were with the middle section, but she could have had low hanging breasts like Catherine Eddowes; that or the top section could have been cut shorter than the middle section (shoulder area & upper trunk)] My speculation is that he was cutting it into sizes that he could transport easier.

I can't speak on how wide the slips were, but at the very minimum, I think the slips [when put together] were the width of her mons veneris, so I think the width demonstrated in jerryd's diagram could be accurate.
I don't know how she carried her baby - some women carry their child high and others low; so I cant determine how her lower abdomen may have been stretched out.

I think debs is on the right track with her statement about the cut extending out. Here I speculate quite a bit. If a victim is laying flat on her back with her legs stretched straight out, I have my doubts that the cut would extend to her backside. However, when the legs are positioned in an open diamond configuration as demonstrated in the Chapman and Kelly murders, more of the buttocks becomes exposed; and, I could see how a cut could run from her front side to her backside.

Weren't the slips found bundled with the uterus and placenta? This leads me to think that the removal of the slips was part of 'the procedure' that was used to remove the fetus (sorry, debs, forgot how you spelled the word)
I can't disagree with any of your post, Robert. If the top torso cut was just below the armpits, it would mean the breasts were in the mid section, and the sternum divided across near it's middle. Which seems about consistent with Hebbert.
Quick reply to this message
  #3459  
Old 04-25-2018, 07:36 AM
Joshua Rogan Joshua Rogan is online now
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,710
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
Joshua,
Dont mean to butt in, however your comment is very true, i had never taken it into account, funny that because as soon as you mention the possability, it certainly rings true from my practical expereince of cutting..
No problem Steve, practical experience almost always trumps my theorizing. If it backs it up, so much the better.

Last edited by Joshua Rogan : 04-25-2018 at 07:38 AM.
Quick reply to this message
  #3460  
Old 04-25-2018, 07:50 AM
Robert St Devil Robert St Devil is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: North Kilttown, Scotland
Posts: 801
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
I can't disagree with any of your post, Robert. If the top torso cut was just below the armpits, it would mean the breasts were in the mid section, and the sternum divided across near it's middle. Which seems about consistent with Hebbert.
In Debs dissertation(?) she wrote:

This latest find was the upper part of a woman's trunk... An earlier supposition that the victim had light red or auburn hair was substantiated on the finding on this portion of the body

I thought that the armpit hair may have been the substantiation behind this supposition.
__________________
there,s nothing new, only the unexplored
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 07:38 AM.


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