The Double Event

[Elamarna]

my apologies, i meant horizontal cut

I assumed you did Robert, no need to apologise.

It's such a pity that the reports are not clearer. Actually it's not important if the cut is there, it's if there is evidence he intended to. I think there is. I think we all agree on that.

Steve

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: Christer,

Firstly "like the leaf of a book" is your wording is it not? or did Spratling or Llewellyn use those words or anything like them?

It is my wording, absolutely - leafs in a book ARE turned over from left to right.

Are you not taking a comment from Spratling:

"The flesh was turned over from left to right and the intestines exposed."


And adding far more than was actually said.

The flesh of the abdomen was turned over from left to right. The leafs of a book are turned over from left to right. Spratling did not mention a book, but as far as I understand, he could have done so without being wrong.

That is what happens, skin and tissues contract and wounds open up. I base that observation on over 30 years of personal experience.

In that experience, have you seen the abdominal wall turned over from left to right, exposing the intestines? Or have you seen contracting tissues? You see, those are different matters.

Chapman, and Kelly at least, where he completed the opening resulting in your "flaps", also possibly preparing for it with Mackenzie.

So we have - like I say - a matter that is similar with Nichols. Good.

That's the whole point you miss Christer, its not a unique technique to carry out dissection, it is common.

What a very inprecise thing to say. Of course dissections are common. But is it common for eviscerating killers to cut the abdominal wall away in sections, Steve? That - and nothing else - is what matters in this context.
Have you any examples of eviscerating killers who have done this? Any at all?

Not if you want to dissect and remove organs, with no aim of recovery.

That was not what you said. You said that the easiest way to open up the abdomen is by cutting the abdominal wall away. It is not true.

A single cut would be prefer if the intent were to close the wound and for the person to recover, however that was very obviously was not the objective in this case.

For the umpteenth time, we are NOT speaking about surgical measures and medicine. We are talking about MURDER with NO intent to close any wound at all.

A single cut may be faster, if one knows what one is doing, but it gives far less space to work and more importantly perhaps, a restricted view compared to fully opening.

Once again: Who are the eviscerating killers who have done this? Where are the parallel examples? I am saying that cutting the abdominal wall away is extremely rare within that category of killer, and not that medicos cannot do it. They can, but it is immaterial to our discussion. Please respect that, or we will loose focus pretty quickly.

[Elamarna]

Elamarna: Christer,

Firstly "like the leaf of a book" is your wording is it not? or did Spratling or Llewellyn use those words or anything like them?

It is my wording, absolutely - leafs in a book ARE turned over from left to right.

Are you not taking a comment from Spratling:

"The flesh was turned over from left to right and the intestines exposed."


And adding far more than was actually said.

The flesh of the abdomen was turned over from left to right. The leafs of a book are turned over from left to right. Spratling did not mention a book, but as far as I understand, he could have done so without being wrong.

This is where we really part company Christer, you are claiming things that are not included in what is said or written, but as you wish it to be interpreted.
To say you are slightly exaggerating is being kind.

That is what happens, skin and tissues contract and wounds open up. I base that observation on over 30 years of personal experience.

In that experience, have you seen the abdominal wall turned over from left to right, exposing the intestines? Or have you seen contracting tissues? You see, those are different matters.

I have seen both.

Chapman, and Kelly at least, where he completed the opening resulting in your "flaps", also possibly preparing for it with Mackenzie.

So we have - like I say - a matter that is similar with Nichols. Good.

yes, similar to Nichols, but not in my opinion to the Torso's, which of course is the whole aim of the flap discussion.

That's the whole point you miss Christer, its not a unique technique to carry out dissection, it is common.

What a very inprecise thing to say. Of course dissections are common. But is it common for eviscerating killers to cut the abdominal wall away in sections, Steve? That - and nothing else - is what matters in this context.
Have you any examples of eviscerating killers who have done this? Any at all?

No its not imprecise, its not that dissections are common, it's that the technique of opening the body cavity by horizontal cuts intersecting a vertical cut is common practice. it is also above anything else the practical approach.


No that is not what matters, that is how you wish to portray it, I see it somewhat differently

We have few murders like this, and so any statistics relating to other similar killers are unlikely to be meaningful.

However having said that I would argue that the torso killings are not similar with regards to the "Flaps", other than on a very superficial level.

Not if you want to dissect and remove organs, with no aim of recovery.

That was not what you said. You said that the easiest way to open up the abdomen is by cutting the abdominal wall away. It is not true.

The statement was not and is not untrue, rather it how one wishes to interpret it.
By opening up, I mean to expose the internal organs, a single cut is very unlikely to do that, it gives a limited degree of access and very limited view.
However I should have been more precise in my initial response, explaining fully what I meant.

A single cut would be prefer if the intent were to close the wound and for the person to recover, however that was very obviously was not the objective in this case.

For the umpteenth time, we are NOT speaking about surgical measures and medicine. We are talking about MURDER with NO intent to close any wound at all.

That is the point I am making, the aim is to cut and get at the internal organs, the easiest way to do that is to give oneself the largest space to work in.

A single cut may be faster, if one knows what one is doing, but it gives far less space to work and more importantly perhaps, a restricted view compared to fully opening.

Once again: Who are the eviscerating killers who have done this? Where are the parallel examples? I am saying that cutting the abdominal wall away is extremely rare within that category of killer, and not that medicos cannot do it. They can, but it is immaterial to our discussion. Please respect that, or we will loose focus pretty quickly.

Of course the argument is that no other killer of this type as done this; apart from the Torso killer and therefore they must be by the same hand.
My objection is that the two series are not similar in regards to the "Flaps" and therefore the argument fails.

If and when we have an argument for the apparent significance of "flaps", I may reevaluate my position


Steve

[GUT]

Leaves in a book, turned left to right???

I turn them right to left.

What am I missing....

[Fisherman]

Leaves in a book, turned left to right???

I turn them right to left.

What am I missing....

You´re Australian - down under it is all done the other way around.

Actually, I do not have a single book where the pages won´t turn from left to right. Do you?

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: This is where we really part company Christer, you are claiming things that are not included in what is said or written, but as you wish it to be interpreted.
To say you are slightly exaggerating is being kind.

So the flesh of the abdomen was not turned over from left to right? I got that wrong?

I have seen both.

And have you seen an abdominal wall turned over from one side to another with no other damage than a straight cut? I somehow don´t think so, but I am prepared to stand corrected if you can show me one single example. It would involve the abdominal wall stretching very much and folding over on it´s own, a not very common thing for abdominal walls to do.

yes, similar to Nichols, but not in my opinion to the Torso's, which of course is the whole aim of the flap discussion.

And which is the difference, Steve? The shape of the flaps Jackson lost? The number?

No its not imprecise, its not that dissections are common, it's that the technique of opening the body cavity by horizontal cuts intersecting a vertical cut is common practice. it is also above anything else the practical approach.

But is it common practice in evisceration murders, Steve? That it the one and only question I am asking. Leave the medicos aside, please.

No that is not what matters, that is how you wish to portray it, I see it somewhat differently

We have few murders like this, and so any statistics relating to other similar killers are unlikely to be meaningful.

However having said that I would argue that the torso killings are not similar with regards to the "Flaps", other than on a very superficial level.

You need to clarify that stance. There is just the one case where flaps were cut from the victims abdomen in the torso series, so let´s leave the rest. It is Jackson we speak of. Exactly how is her loosing her abdominal wall in large flaps dissimilar to Chapman and Kelly loosing theirs?

The statement was not and is not untrue, rather it how one wishes to interpret it.
By opening up, I mean to expose the internal organs, a single cut is very unlikely to do that, it gives a limited degree of access and very limited view.
However I should have been more precise in my initial response, explaining fully what I meant.

Yes, you should. It got all wrong. Now that you clarify, it´s another matter, but I once again ask: Where are the examples of evisceration killers who did it?

That is the point I am making, the aim is to cut and get at the internal organs, the easiest way to do that is to give oneself the largest space to work in.

And which evisceration killer are you referring to?

Of course the argument is that no other killer of this type as done this; apart from the Torso killer and therefore they must be by the same hand.
My objection is that the two series are not similar in regards to the "Flaps" and therefore the argument fails.

If and when we have an argument for the apparent significance of "flaps", I may reevaluate my position

Steve, let´s assume that the flaps from Jackson looked very dissinmilar to those of Chapman and Kelly (we actually do not know this at all, but for the sake of theory...) Let´s assume that we know that they were cut away using another implement (we actually do not know this at all, but for the sake of theory...) Let´s assume that they were much larger or smaller in Jacksons case (we actually do not know this at all, but for the sake of theory...)

Even if these things were all true and proven (and they are not), we would STILL have three cases where the victims had their abdominal walls cut away. That in itself would be an extremely powerful reason to assume the same killer. If you disagree, then tell me why the details are more important than the overall fact that these victims had their abdominal walls removed!

Charles Albright gouged out the eyes from his victims. If one victim had her eyes removed with a dessert spoon, one with a tea spoon and one with a fork, would you say that there were probably three killers? Is the method of extraction more telling than what is extracted?

It would to my mind be utter folly to even suggest such a thing - a killer obsessed with gouging out the eyeballs is as rare as an insightful Ripperologist. Once we find such a beast, he will be completely unique in all probability.

[Elamarna]

Elamarna: This is where we really part company Christer, you are claiming things that are not included in what is said or written, but as you wish it to be interpreted.
To say you are slightly exaggerating is being kind.

So the flesh of the abdomen was not turned over from left to right? I got that wrong?

I have seen both.

And have you seen an abdominal wall turned over from one side to another with no other damage than a straight cut? I somehow don´t think so, but I am prepared to stand corrected if you can show me one single example. It would involve the abdominal wall stretching very much and folding over on it´s own, a not very common thing for abdominal walls to do.

yes, similar to Nichols, but not in my opinion to the Torso's, which of course is the whole aim of the flap discussion.

And which is the difference, Steve? The shape of the flaps Jackson lost? The number?

No its not imprecise, its not that dissections are common, it's that the technique of opening the body cavity by horizontal cuts intersecting a vertical cut is common practice. it is also above anything else the practical approach.

But is it common practice in evisceration murders, Steve? That it the one and only question I am asking. Leave the medicos aside, please.

No that is not what matters, that is how you wish to portray it, I see it somewhat differently

We have few murders like this, and so any statistics relating to other similar killers are unlikely to be meaningful.

However having said that I would argue that the torso killings are not similar with regards to the "Flaps", other than on a very superficial level.

You need to clarify that stance. There is just the one case where flaps were cut from the victims abdomen in the torso series, so let´s leave the rest. It is Jackson we speak of. Exactly how is her loosing her abdominal wall in large flaps dissimilar to Chapman and Kelly loosing theirs?

The statement was not and is not untrue, rather it how one wishes to interpret it.
By opening up, I mean to expose the internal organs, a single cut is very unlikely to do that, it gives a limited degree of access and very limited view.
However I should have been more precise in my initial response, explaining fully what I meant.

Yes, you should. It got all wrong. Now that you clarify, it´s another matter, but I once again ask: Where are the examples of evisceration killers who did it?

That is the point I am making, the aim is to cut and get at the internal organs, the easiest way to do that is to give oneself the largest space to work in.

And which evisceration killer are you referring to?

Of course the argument is that no other killer of this type as done this; apart from the Torso killer and therefore they must be by the same hand.
My objection is that the two series are not similar in regards to the "Flaps" and therefore the argument fails.

If and when we have an argument for the apparent significance of "flaps", I may reevaluate my position

Steve, let´s assume that the flaps from Jackson looked very dissinmilar to those of Chapman and Kelly (we actually do not know this at all, but for the sake of theory...) Let´s assume that we know that they were cut away using another implement (we actually do not know this at all, but for the sake of theory...) Let´s assume that they were much larger or smaller in Jacksons case (we actually do not know this at all, but for the sake of theory...)

Even if these things were all true and proven (and they are not), we would STILL have three cases where the victims had their abdominal walls cut away. That in itself would be an extremely powerful reason to assume the same killer. If you disagree, then tell me why the details are more important than the overall fact that these victims had their abdominal walls removed!

Charles Albright gouged out the eyes from his victims. If one victim had her eyes removed with a dessert spoon, one with a tea spoon and one with a fork, would you say that there were probably three killers? Is the method of extraction more telling than what is extracted?

It would to my mind be utter folly to even suggest such a thing - a killer obsessed with gouging out the eyeballs is as rare as an insightful Ripperologist. Once we find such a beast, he will be completely unique in all probability.

Hi Fish

Actually moving at present. Home that is. Will try and get back and answer you post in detail later today.

Part of the issue is how you and I read turning over on itself. You see this as if not a flap something close to it. I see it has curling and stretching. Of tissues exposed on one edge and dehydrating.

As for the examples I have attempted to answer that but it seems I was either not clear or you were not listening or possibly a combination of both.

I will try again later

Steve

[Robert St Devil]

hello fisherman and steve. if there was an interruption, it would implicate Cross.

the logic being from the point of the "ghost killer":

if there was a ghost killer, then Cross interrupted him when he walked onto Buck's Row. The killer has many options at this point; but, in terms of an escape, he has two - left or right. He doesn't head away from Cross because no one up the road reports seeing him; and he doesn't walk towards Cross because Cross never reports seeing anyone pass him (or else that's the HUGEST oversight in this case!).

We could say that there were others that could have passed up Buck's Row before Cross, but that suggestion creates all this other traffic who "happen not to see" poor Polly lying dead on the road.

So, with NoOne being reported passing up the road in either direction, that leaves 3 solutions: 1) NoOne did it; 2) Jack's bolthole was on Buck's Row and immediately near Polly's murder site; or 3) Cross did it.

[Jon Guy]

hello fisherman and steve. if there was an interruption, it would implicate Cross.

the logic being from the point of the "ghost killer":

if there was a ghost killer, then Cross interrupted him when he walked onto Buck's Row. The killer has many options at this point; but, in terms of an escape, he has two - left or right. He doesn't head away from Cross because no one up the road reports seeing him; and he doesn't walk towards Cross because Cross never reports seeing anyone pass him (or else that's the HUGEST oversight in this case!).

We could say that there were others that could have passed up Buck's Row before Cross, but that suggestion creates all this other traffic who "happen not to see" poor Polly lying dead on the road.

So, with NoOne being reported passing up the road in either direction, that leaves 3 solutions: 1) NoOne did it; 2) Jack's bolthole was on Buck's Row and immediately near Polly's murder site; or 3) Cross did it.

Hi Robert

There were a few options for a killer interrupted by Cross:

[jerryd]

hello fisherman and steve. if there was an interruption, it would implicate Cross.

the logic being from the point of the "ghost killer":

if there was a ghost killer, then Cross interrupted him when he walked onto Buck's Row. The killer has many options at this point; but, in terms of an escape, he has two - left or right. He doesn't head away from Cross because no one up the road reports seeing him; and he doesn't walk towards Cross because Cross never reports seeing anyone pass him (or else that's the HUGEST oversight in this case!).

We could say that there were others that could have passed up Buck's Row before Cross, but that suggestion creates all this other traffic who "happen not to see" poor Polly lying dead on the road.

So, with NoOne being reported passing up the road in either direction, that leaves 3 solutions: 1) NoOne did it; 2) Jack's bolthole was on Buck's Row and immediately near Polly's murder site; or 3) Cross did it.

Hi Robert,

Patrick Mulshaw reported of a man telling him about the murder.

"Watchman, old man, I believe somebody is murdered down the street."

[Joshua Rogan]

He doesn't head away from Cross because no one up the road reports seeing him

I'm not sure I follow the logic here....as far as is known there was no-one up the street at the time, and so no-one to report not seeing anyone...

[Elamarna]

hello fisherman and steve. if there was an interruption, it would implicate Cross.

the logic being from the point of the "ghost killer":

if there was a ghost killer, then Cross interrupted him when he walked onto Buck's Row. The killer has many options at this point; but, in terms of an escape, he has two - left or right. He doesn't head away from Cross because no one up the road reports seeing him; and he doesn't walk towards Cross because Cross never reports seeing anyone pass him (or else that's the HUGEST oversight in this case!).

We could say that there were others that could have passed up Buck's Row before Cross, but that suggestion creates all this other traffic who "happen not to see" poor Polly lying dead on the road.

So, with NoOne being reported passing up the road in either direction, that leaves 3 solutions: 1) NoOne did it; 2) Jack's bolthole was on Buck's Row and immediately near Polly's murder site; or 3) Cross did it.

Robert
Not sure that follows at all. Why would anyone see someone leaving the site. No one saw Paul or Lechmere eithe.

Steve

[Michael W Richards]

Just a reminder that the Double event in no way concerns Cross or Lechmere, and to Steve, perhaps the difficulty explaining which incisions are preferable can be circumvented by first determining whether the actions represent surgical technique vs dissection technique. I have a book concerning Autopsies in the Victorian Era, with a few chapters on the methods that medical students were trained in dissection.

In that book I have a picture of a student group posing around an operating table with a cadaver on a gurney. That figure is the closest image I have seen to what is seen in the MJK photos.

After Annie, they sought medical students. Perhaps that's why.

[Pcdunn]

It depends on the language...

You´re Australian - down under it is all done the other way around.

Actually, I do not have a single book where the pages won´t turn from left to right. Do you?

The Hebrew-language book that recently appeared at my library office is read from back to front-- that is, pages are turned from right to left.

Most English and other Western European language books are read from left to right, of course.

And individual pages will turn either way, as any confused student who is backtracking to re-read something already passed in a text, will attest.

[Robert St Devil]

Just a reminder that the Double event in no way concerns Cross or Lechmere...

fair enough. i,ll pm you steve and joshua.