19th Century "anatomical skill"

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;385490]Yes Trevor, I said that, but not in those words, so what is the point of that comment?

It actually gives another reason why the killer would have left one kidney.

No it doesn't because he didnt have enough time to do what he is supposed to have done let alone have a shopping list

Just because something is hard to find does not mean it cannot be located by chance.

You cannot locate a kidney simply by touch alone.

It is certainly not a rhetorical question, it suggests that one kidney was left because the killer did not know there were two!

Then that suggests the killer lacked anatomical knowledge

The statement that it would take a lesser trained person longer is based what evidence?

The fact that it took a expert in female anatomy working at speed to remove a uterus in 3.30 mins and then damage was caused to the bladder. So you have to add at least the same time again for an expert to remove both organs. thats a min if 7 mins. A lesser trained person might take double that time and that time was not available.

The cuts are not the work of a surgically trained person in my opinion.

But the removing of the organs shows that to be the work of someone medically trained. Especially in the case of Chpaman. she had not only her uterus removed by the fallopian tubes, which were still attached. Now thats not the work of the butcher the baker or the candle stick maker

Sorry that is not my reading of the post mortem report.
I see nothing to say that the wounds to the liver were done before the organ removals.
If I am wrong on that and have missed something I will as always admit my mistake.

Dr Brown stated in his post mortem report that the liver was stabbed through

In addition, the cause of death :

"The cause of death was haemorrhage from the left common carotid artery. The death was immediate and the mutilations were inflicted after death. "

suggests to me that the amount of blood which could have bled into the abdominal cavity would have been greatly reduced.
There is nothing I see in the post mortem that backs the view that the abdomen was filled with blood.

May I suggest you go back and read the list of clothing taken from Eddowes at the time the body was stripped at the mortuary. There you will see that she was stabbed at least 4 times through her outer clothing, one probably related to the wound to the kidney. So her abdomen would have had a fair amount of blood in it even before the rest of the mutilations took place.

Of course the question has to be asked that of the killer wanted organs why stab the victim repeatedly in an area of the body where the very same organs are located, doesn't make sense does it ?

Sorry Trevor I prefer my own experience of 35 years involved in medical schools and research departments.

I think you must have been asleep in the classroom when these topics were discusssed

[Trevor Marriott]

Final reply on topic

[QUOTE=Karl;385491]Says who? How much time would it have taken and, more to the point, how much time did he have?

The time he could have had can be calculated from the timings given by the witnesses thats of course if the witness were truthful and in the absence to show other wise we have to accept that they were.

As to time to remove the organs only. and based on the time it took Dr Browns expert to remove a uterus only, to remove both that would have taken an absolute minimum for an expert of 7 mins. Was the killer that much of an expert if he is alleged to have taken the organs at the crime scene?

Why not wait? Why not obtain the kidney after the post mortem of someone else?

Organs were supposed to be paid for. money saved is money gained is it not

With respect, you seem to know an awful lot about something for which you have no source.

Thank you for the compliment but its applying common sense without wearing blinkers

My point exactly: it came from a corpse, and it was in sufficient supply that a medical student could send one off as a prank without it being missed.

But it could have been Eddowes she was suffering from Brights disease. the kidney was shown to be infected with Brights disease.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Karl]

The time he could have had can be calculated from the timings given by the witnesses thats of course if the witness were truthful and in the absence to show other wise we have to accept that they were.

As to time to remove the organs only. and based on the time it took Dr Browns expert to remove a uterus only, to remove both that would have taken an absolute minimum for an expert of 7 mins. Was the killer that much of an expert if he is alleged to have taken the organs at the crime scene?

No, it took him 40 seconds. I'll stand by that random figure until you provide sources for yours. I'm sure you can appreciate that just as you have no reason to believe other people's unsourced claims, I don't have any reason to believe your unsourced claims. To me, you are one of those "other people".

Organs were supposed to be paid for. money saved is money gained is it not

A few measly shillings. It's like an office manager were to steal pens from a stationery outlet because he was too cheap to buy them. Might happen, never say never, but I find it unlikely.

Thank you for the compliment but its applying common sense without wearing blinkers

So by applying common sense, you magically know that Dr. Brown asked an expert to perform the experiment, and you also know the results?

As for blinders, everyone wears them and everyone denies wearing them. But I dare say that in the world of Ripperology, the ones who believe they have it all worked out, solved the whole thing, they are the ones wearing the bigger blinders.

But it could have been Eddowes she was suffering from Brights disease. the kidney was shown to be infected with Brights disease.

As you stated this was going to be your last post in this thread, I will not bother going into detail on this myself. I will content myself with referring you to the following casebook article, which casts more than reasonable doubt on your claim regarding the kidney:

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-cmdlusk.html

[DJA]

I will content myself with referring you to the following casebook article, which casts more than reasonable doubt on your claim regarding the kidney:

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-cmdlusk.html

Karl,

You are right on the money.

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;385503]

Yes Trevor, I said that, but not in those words, so what is the point of that comment?

It actually gives another reason why the killer would have left one kidney.

No it doesn't because he didnt have enough time to do what he is supposed to have done let alone have a shopping list

Just because something is hard to find does not mean it cannot be located by chance.

You cannot locate a kidney simply by touch alone.

It is certainly not a rhetorical question, it suggests that one kidney was left because the killer did not know there were two!

Then that suggests the killer lacked anatomical knowledge

The statement that it would take a lesser trained person longer is based what evidence?

The fact that it took a expert in female anatomy working at speed to remove a uterus in 3.30 mins and then damage was caused to the bladder. So you have to add at least the same time again for an expert to remove both organs. thats a min if 7 mins. A lesser trained person might take double that time and that time was not available.

The cuts are not the work of a surgically trained person in my opinion.

But the removing of the organs shows that to be the work of someone medically trained. Especially in the case of Chpaman. she had not only her uterus removed by the fallopian tubes, which were still attached. Now thats not the work of the butcher the baker or the candle stick maker

Sorry that is not my reading of the post mortem report.
I see nothing to say that the wounds to the liver were done before the organ removals.
If I am wrong on that and have missed something I will as always admit my mistake.

Dr Brown stated in his post mortem report that the liver was stabbed through

In addition, the cause of death :

"The cause of death was haemorrhage from the left common carotid artery. The death was immediate and the mutilations were inflicted after death. "

suggests to me that the amount of blood which could have bled into the abdominal cavity would have been greatly reduced.
There is nothing I see in the post mortem that backs the view that the abdomen was filled with blood.

May I suggest you go back and read the list of clothing taken from Eddowes at the time the body was stripped at the mortuary. There you will see that she was stabbed at least 4 times through her outer clothing, one probably related to the wound to the kidney. So her abdomen would have had a fair amount of blood in it even before the rest of the mutilations took place.

Of course the question has to be asked that of the killer wanted organs why stab the victim repeatedly in an area of the body where the very same organs are located, doesn't make sense does it ?

Sorry Trevor I prefer my own experience of 35 years involved in medical schools and research departments.

I think you must have been asleep in the classroom when these topics were discusssed

Trevor,

You are so rude, I was not learning in a classroom.

I have carried out the procedures of organ removal, not as an experiment but as my daily job.

I have actually carried out surgery, have you?

This is why some people get nasty with you, I was not rude to you at all, yet you resort to nasty replies, when your view is challenged.

The view in the post below, demonstrates the level of arrogance and the belief that one cannot be wrong perfectly :

"No it doesn't because he didnt have enough time to do what he is supposed to have done let alone have a shopping list"


Please tell me how you are aware of what he was supposed to do, as opposed to what he did?

regards

steven

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;385503]

Yes Trevor, I said that, but not in those words, so what is the point of that comment?

It actually gives another reason why the killer would have left one kidney.

No it doesn't because he didnt have enough time to do what he is supposed to have done let alone have a shopping list

Just because something is hard to find does not mean it cannot be located by chance.

You cannot locate a kidney simply by touch alone.

It is certainly not a rhetorical question, it suggests that one kidney was left because the killer did not know there were two!

Then that suggests the killer lacked anatomical knowledge

The statement that it would take a lesser trained person longer is based what evidence?

The fact that it took a expert in female anatomy working at speed to remove a uterus in 3.30 mins and then damage was caused to the bladder. So you have to add at least the same time again for an expert to remove both organs. thats a min if 7 mins. A lesser trained person might take double that time and that time was not available.

The cuts are not the work of a surgically trained person in my opinion.

But the removing of the organs shows that to be the work of someone medically trained. Especially in the case of Chpaman. she had not only her uterus removed by the fallopian tubes, which were still attached. Now thats not the work of the butcher the baker or the candle stick maker

Sorry that is not my reading of the post mortem report.
I see nothing to say that the wounds to the liver were done before the organ removals.
If I am wrong on that and have missed something I will as always admit my mistake.

Dr Brown stated in his post mortem report that the liver was stabbed through

In addition, the cause of death :

"The cause of death was haemorrhage from the left common carotid artery. The death was immediate and the mutilations were inflicted after death. "

suggests to me that the amount of blood which could have bled into the abdominal cavity would have been greatly reduced.
There is nothing I see in the post mortem that backs the view that the abdomen was filled with blood.

May I suggest you go back and read the list of clothing taken from Eddowes at the time the body was stripped at the mortuary. There you will see that she was stabbed at least 4 times through her outer clothing, one probably related to the wound to the kidney. So her abdomen would have had a fair amount of blood in it even before the rest of the mutilations took place.

Of course the question has to be asked that of the killer wanted organs why stab the victim repeatedly in an area of the body where the very same organs are located, doesn't make sense does it ?

Sorry Trevor I prefer my own experience of 35 years involved in medical schools and research departments.

I think you must have been asleep in the classroom when these topics were discusssed

Trevor,

Further comments on your post:

"Dr Brown stated in his post mortem report that the liver was stabbed through"


He does not say it was stabbed through the abdomen does he? or have I missed that?


"May I suggest you go back and read the list of clothing taken from Eddowes at the time the body was stripped at the mortuary. There you will see that she was stabbed at least 4 times through her outer clothing, one probably related to the wound to the kidney. So her abdomen would have had a fair amount of blood in it even before the rest of the mutilations took place."



I cant seem to find that. could you supply a link please, however I do find the following from Dr Brown:


"There was no blood on the front of the clothes. There were no traces of recent connexion."



You have not proven the abdomen was filled with blood.


Which wound to the kidney are you referring to above? I see no mention of a wound in the remaining kidney.



Please note I have not been rude. Maybe a lesson could be learnt.

steve

[Karl]

Please note I have not been rude. Maybe a lesson could be learnt.

I have noticed, at least. I blame the internet, myself. I do not know the age range of the people here, but my impression is that folks here are generally in their 30s or above. Arguing on the internet, however, makes children of us all. I was going to say that online anonymity makes children of us all, but some people here post under their full names and it doesn't seem to help much, so...

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;385512][QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;385503]


Trevor,

Further comments on your post:

"Dr Brown stated in his post mortem report that the liver was stabbed through"


He does not say it was stabbed through the abdomen does he? or have I missed that?

Does it matter where it was stabbed it was one of the stab wounds inflicted through the outer clothing. and to put the record straight I misred the report and previoulsy stated that the kidney was stabbed. I consider myself reprimanded.

You have not proven the abdomen was filled with blood.

Have you proven it wasnt ? if you are a so called medical person they you will accept that if a someone is stabbed 4 times in the abdomen with a long bladed knife it is going to do some damage to arteries and veins, which will bleed into the abdomen. Now disprove that if you will

Please note I have not been rude. Maybe a lesson could be learnt.

You wonder why I appear to be rude when you have not even got a basic handle on this. Yet you are quick to dismiss things that I have said that are well documented. May I suggest you do your research thoroughly and the reconsider your position before you make any further challenges

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

No, it took him 40 seconds. I'll stand by that random figure until you provide sources for yours. I'm sure you can appreciate that just as you have no reason to believe other people's unsourced claims, I don't have any reason to believe your unsourced claims. To me, you are one of those "other people".



A few measly shillings. It's like an office manager were to steal pens from a stationery outlet because he was too cheap to buy them. Might happen, never say never, but I find it unlikely.



So by applying common sense, you magically know that Dr. Brown asked an expert to perform the experiment, and you also know the results?

As for blinders, everyone wears them and everyone denies wearing them. But I dare say that in the world of Ripperology, the ones who believe they have it all worked out, solved the whole thing, they are the ones wearing the bigger blinders.



As you stated this was going to be your last post in this thread, I will not bother going into detail on this myself. I will content myself with referring you to the following casebook article, which casts more than reasonable doubt on your claim regarding the kidney:

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-cmdlusk.html

I will make one more post for you, and that is to say I never categorically stated that the Lusk kidney belonged to Eddowes I merely suggested it could have been.

Perhaps you should read the posts more thoroughly and digest the contents before rushing to reply.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Karl]

Does it matter where it was stabbed it was one of the stab wounds inflicted through the outer clothing. and to put the record straight I misred the report and previoulsy stated that the kidney was stabbed. I consider myself reprimanded.

Where does it say the stab wounds were inflicted through clothing? The clothing were free of blood. And looking at the picture of C. Eddowes, I see no stab wounds.

Have you proven it wasnt ? if you are a so called medical person they you will accept that if a someone is stabbed 4 times in the abdomen with a long bladed knife it is going to do some damage to arteries and veins, which will bleed into the abdomen. Now disprove that if you will

Given that there was no blood on the front of her clothes, no stab wounds visible on her skin, it seems fair to conclude that she was cut up after her heart had stopped beating. Dr. Brown agrees:

"The skin was retracted through the whole of the cut through the abdomen, but the vessels were not clotted. Nor had there been any appreciable bleeding from the vessels. I draw the conclusion that the act was made after death, and there would not have been much blood on the murderer."

So, the abdominal cavity was not blood filled. Unless you can prove that it was, in spite of all evidence to the contrary.

You wonder why I appear to be rude when you have not even got a basic handle on this. Yet you are quick to dismiss things that I have said that are well documented. May I suggest you do your research thoroughly and the reconsider your position before you make any further challenges

This is where we tell you to take your own advice in as polite a manner as possible. I do not like being this forward, but you are in no position to accuse others - who actually reference sources, unlike some I could name - that they haven't even got a basic handle on things.

As for your reply to me:

I will make one more post for you, and that is to say I never categorically stated that the Lusk kidney belonged to Eddowes I merely suggested it could have been.

I never said you categorically stated the kidney came from Eddowes. You did, however, categorically state the kidney showed signs of Bright's disease - hence the link in rebuttal.
Perhaps you should read the posts more thoroughly and digest the contents before rushing to reply...

[Trevor Marriott]

Where does it say the stab wounds were inflicted through clothing? The clothing were free of blood. And looking at the picture of C. Eddowes, I see no stab wounds.



Given that there was no blood on the front of her clothes, no stab wounds visible on her skin, it seems fair to conclude that she was cut up after her heart had stopped beating. Dr. Brown agrees:

"The skin was retracted through the whole of the cut through the abdomen, but the vessels were not clotted. Nor had there been any appreciable bleeding from the vessels. I draw the conclusion that the act was made after death, and there would not have been much blood on the murderer."

So, the abdominal cavity was not blood filled. Unless you can prove that it was, in spite of all evidence to the contrary.



This is where we tell you to take your own advice in as polite a manner as possible. I do not like being this forward, but you are in no position to accuse others - who actually reference sources, unlike some I could name - that they haven't even got a basic handle on things.

As for your reply to me:


I never said you categorically stated the kidney came from Eddowes. You did, however, categorically state the kidney showed signs of Bright's disease - hence the link in rebuttal.
Perhaps you should read the posts more thoroughly and digest the contents before rushing to reply...

You dont read the posts before replying. I said she was stabbed and the knife drawn down and across

here is the clothing as documented at the mortuary by Insp Collard you can see what I am referring to with regard to the wounds being inflicted through the outer clothing

“Black Cloth Jacket – imitation fur edging round collar, fur round sleeves, no blood on front outside, large quantity of blood inside and outside back, outside back very dirty with blood and dirt, two outside pockets, trimmed black silk braid and imitation fur.

“Chintz Skirt” – three flounces, brown button on waistband, jagged cut six inches long from waistband, left side of front, edges slightly bloodstained, also blood on bottom, front and back of skirt.

“Brown Linsey Dress Bodice – black velvet collar, brown metal buttons down front, blood inside and outside of back of neck of shoulders, clean cut bottom of left side, five inches long from right to left.

“Grey Stuff Petticoat – white waistband cut one and a half inches long, thereon in front edges blood stained, blood stains at front and bottom of petticoat.

“Very Old Green Alpaca Skirt – jagged cut ten and a half inches long, through waistband downwards, blood stained inside front undercut.

“Very Old Ragged Blue Skirt – red flounce, light twill lining, jagged cut ten and a half inches long, through waistband downwards, blood stained inside, outside back and front.

“White Calico Chemise – very much bloodstained all over apparently torn thus in middle of front.

Is that source good enough for you ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Karl]

You dont read the posts before replying. I said she was stabbed and the knife drawn down and across

Did you not say there were four such stab wounds? Where do we see them on Eddowes's body? At any rate, stab and draw would manifest itself as a cut injury, not a stab injury. And this kind of stab is best done when the victim is already dead, not alive and kicking.

here is the clothing as documented at the mortuary by Insp Collard you can see what I am referring to with regard to the wounds being inflicted through the outer clothing

“Black Cloth Jacket – imitation fur edging round collar, fur round sleeves, no blood on front outside, large quantity of blood inside and outside back, outside back very dirty with blood and dirt, two outside pockets, trimmed black silk braid and imitation fur.

“Chintz Skirt” – three flounces, brown button on waistband, jagged cut six inches long from waistband, left side of front, edges slightly bloodstained, also blood on bottom, front and back of skirt.

“Brown Linsey Dress Bodice – black velvet collar, brown metal buttons down front, blood inside and outside of back of neck of shoulders, clean cut bottom of left side, five inches long from right to left.

“Grey Stuff Petticoat – white waistband cut one and a half inches long, thereon in front edges blood stained, blood stains at front and bottom of petticoat.

“Very Old Green Alpaca Skirt – jagged cut ten and a half inches long, through waistband downwards, blood stained inside front undercut.

“Very Old Ragged Blue Skirt – red flounce, light twill lining, jagged cut ten and a half inches long, through waistband downwards, blood stained inside, outside back and front.

“White Calico Chemise – very much bloodstained all over apparently torn thus in middle of front.

Is that source good enough for you ?

Where can I find this source? Someone simply quoting a source on an internet forum doesn't quite... cut it. I naturally want to be able to check for myself. As a researcher, I am sure you understand. At any rate, we still have Dr. Brown stating the abdominal cuts were inflicted post-mortem. Do you simply dismiss that?

[Elamarna]

Trevor,

How uninformative and ultimately utterly condescending a post.

I politely asked for a link to the note about the stab wounds through the clothing, so I could consider any significance, however I see you have not provided it.

I also see you ignore the point that there is no blood on the front of the clothing.

The problem is you do not wish to debate, you wish to tell.

I will continue to attempt to clarify.


"Have you proven it wasnt ? if you are a so called medical person they you will accept that if a someone is stabbed 4 times in the abdomen with a long bladed knife it is going to do some damage to arteries and veins, which will bleed into the abdomen. Now disprove that if you will"



Several points here, the tone of the reply is confrontational when there is no need for such

1. I do not need to prove it was not filled, you claimed it was filled with blood, making it difficult to remove the organs. I simply asked you to back up this statement, that you have not done.


2. yes arteries and veins may be damaged, however Dr Browns report suggests they were not, and that of course starts with the comment about no blood on the front of the clothing. In addition:

"The skin was retracted through the whole of the cut through the abdomen, but the vessels were not clotted. Nor had there been any appreciable bleeding from the vessels."


That certainly suggests only minor damage.



The only damage to major blood vessels he mentions is:

"The left renal artery major was cut through"

which of course needs to be done to remove the kindney.



In addition his comments about the rip and stab to the liver are very revealing:


"We examined the abdomen. The front walls were laid open from the breast bones to the pubes. The cut commenced opposite the enciform cartilage. The incision went upwards, not penetrating the skin that was over the sternum. It then divided the enciform cartilage. The knife must have cut obliquely at the expense of that cartilage.

Behind this, the liver was stabbed as if by the point of a sharp instrument"



The obvious inference from that is that the stab was a result of the Rip to the body. that is the tip of the knife caused it!


Trevor, while I do not know your educational background, given your occupation as a Police officer, it is probably safe to say I have far more of a handle on "this" than you do from a medical perspective.
If of course you have qualifications in either medicine or one of the natural sciences, then I may be wrong in that assessment.

Please do not tell me to reconsider my position before challenging again.

I am well qualified to make any observations on medical grounds.

I will therefore continue to challenge the information which is published by either yourself or others which I consider to be either wrong, or misleading.
It is up to others to make up their minds on who , if any, is correct or even partially correct.

And note I have not been rude to you, which would be extremely easy and very tempting, however I do not need to be.


Steve

Trevor,

Further comments on your post:

"Dr Brown stated in his post mortem report that the liver was stabbed through"


He does not say it was stabbed through the abdomen does he? or have I missed that?

Does it matter where it was stabbed it was one of the stab wounds inflicted through the outer clothing. and to put the record straight I misred the report and previoulsy stated that the kidney was stabbed. I consider myself reprimanded.

You have not proven the abdomen was filled with blood.

Have you proven it wasnt ? if you are a so called medical person they you will accept that if a someone is stabbed 4 times in the abdomen with a long bladed knife it is going to do some damage to arteries and veins, which will bleed into the abdomen. Now disprove that if you will

Please note I have not been rude. Maybe a lesson could be learnt.

You wonder why I appear to be rude when you have not even got a basic handle on this. Yet you are quick to dismiss things that I have said that are well documented. May I suggest you do your research thoroughly and the reconsider your position before you make any further challenges

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Did you not say there were four such stab wounds? Where do we see them on Eddowes's body? At any rate, stab and draw would manifest itself as a cut injury, not a stab injury. And this kind of stab is best done when the victim is already dead, not alive and kicking.

You have seen the description of the cuts to the clothing all with blood suggesting that the blood came from the inside i.e the body after the wounds, were inflicted. If the killer simply first cut her throat and was after the organs why did he not then simply lift all her clothes up above her waist and do what he need to do thereafter. Then we would not have the cuts and blood on the clothing.

Where can I find this source? Someone simply quoting a source on an internet forum doesn't quite... cut it. I naturally want to be able to check for myself. As a researcher, I am sure you understand. At any rate, we still have Dr. Brown stating the abdominal cuts were inflicted post-mortem. Do you simply dismiss that?

Insp Collards Inquest testimony.

[Elamarna]

Still not the link, but at least something to work with.

here is the clothing as documented at the mortuary by Insp Collard you can see what I am referring to with regard to the wounds being inflicted through the outer clothing

“Black Cloth Jacket – imitation fur edging round collar, fur round sleeves, no blood on front outside, large quantity of blood inside and outside back, outside back very dirty with blood and dirt, two outside pockets, trimmed black silk braid and imitation fur.

So blood on the back, not the front. no indication of a stab wound.

“Chintz Skirt” – three flounces, brown button on waistband, jagged cut six inches long from waistband, left side of front, edges slightly bloodstained, also blood on bottom, front and back of skirt.

Not a stab, could correspond to the main rip, especially considering the Doctor Brown said this was done with the knife cutting obliquely.

“Brown Linsey Dress Bodice – black velvet collar, brown metal buttons down front, blood inside and outside of back of neck of shoulders, clean cut bottom of left side, five inches long from right to left.

Again not a stab. same additional comments as above.

“Grey Stuff Petticoat – white waistband cut one and a half inches long, thereon in front edges blood stained, blood stains at front and bottom of petticoat.

This may be a stab, however the blood appears to be low on garment and not correspond to the cut.

“Very Old Green Alpaca Skirt – jagged cut ten and a half inches long, through waistband downwards, blood stained inside front undercut.

Certainly not a stab, corresponds to main rip as outlined above.

“Very Old Ragged Blue Skirt – red flounce, light twill lining, jagged cut ten and a half inches long, through waistband downwards, blood stained inside, outside back and front.

Certainly not a stab, corresponds to main rip as outlined above.

“White Calico Chemise – very much bloodstained all over apparently torn thus in middle of front.

This is the bottom garment, the one next to the skin, no mention of any stabs. it is torn not cut.

Is that source good enough for you ?

Certainly, it shows no stab wounds to the clothing at all.



All. I see is cuts to clothing which can be linked to the major rip to the body.


There appear to be no corresponding wounds on either the photographs or in the post mortem report other than the major rip.

Where are the wounds?


steve

update:I see you have supplied the link, thank you Trevor.