Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Same motive = same killer

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Hope Debs doesn't mind me borrowing her illustration, but I added some flaps that I'm sure are not absolutely accurate but with a little imagination.... I tried to follow the rib cage on the side cuts. Also looking at another illustration it appears the female parts would start at S3 and below, which are not on this illustration so the flaps are even longer than I have them.

    At least we can see how they covered the parts of two sections of the torso after it was cut up.

    Last edited by jerryd; 11-01-2017, 11:46 AM.

    Comment


    • Here is the illustration I was speaking about in my last post.(http://www.chiro.org/LINKS/ABSTRACTS...al_Cycle.shtml) Notice also the location of the uterus between L4 and S1 which is just below the cut that separated sections 2 and 3 of Elizabeth's torso.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by jerryd View Post
        Hope Debs doesn't mind me borrowing her illustration, but I added some flaps that I'm sure are not absolutely accurate but with a little imagination.... I tried to follow the rib cage on the side cuts. Also looking at another illustration it appears the female parts would start at S3 and below, which are not on this illustration so the flaps are even longer than I have them.

        At least we can see how they covered the parts of two sections of the torso after it was cut up.

        Im not at all sure that they are not absolutely accurate, Jerry - it seems we are thinking along the same lines, anyhow!
        Surely, a word like slips would easily come to mind when trying to describe these sections! Large, long and irregular.
        Bingo.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by jerryd View Post
          Here is the illustration I was speaking about in my last post.(http://www.chiro.org/LINKS/ABSTRACTS...al_Cycle.shtml) Notice also the location of the uterus between L4 and S1 which is just below the cut that separated sections 2 and 3 of Elizabeth's torso.

          Wouldnt the uterus have expanded a whole deal at the stage of a six-or seven month pregnancy, though?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
            Wouldnt the uterus have expanded a whole deal at the stage of a six-or seven month pregnancy, though?
            Yes, but the killer removed the fetus which I would think would shrink it down somewhat? Way out of my realm of knowledge!

            Comment


            • Originally posted by jerryd View Post
              Hope Debs doesn't mind me borrowing her illustration, but I added some flaps that I'm sure are not absolutely accurate but with a little imagination.... I tried to follow the rib cage on the side cuts.
              Is it stated how high up the cut strips reached, Jerry? I believe that part of the stomach and the entire duodenum, liver, spleen and pancreas were left in the body. If the excavated cavity extended that far, and got as wide as your illustration at the top, then why leave so many upper abdominal organs in place? With a wound as extensive as that, why not take them out, too?
              Kind regards, Sam Flynn

              "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Gtzendmmerung, 1888)

              Comment


              • The height of the uterus for a woman 24 weeks pregnant would be in line with the umbilicus. This seems to be roughly where the slips were commenced, slightly above on one side and slightly below on the other. I'd say between T9 and 10 on the diagram. As I mentioned in my post #1540 , I think the slips being described as long and irregular was because they may have been wider at the top part, narrowing to the labia and I also mentioned that MJK's external genitalia was removed separately and so the 'flaps' removed from her abdomen may not have qualified to be long 'slips'.
                ,,`,, Debs ,,`,,

                I am not DJA. He's called Dave.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by jerryd View Post
                  Yes, but the killer removed the fetus which I would think would shrink it down somewhat? Way out of my realm of knowledge!
                  Thats true - I didnt think of that! And I am not exactly a medico myself...

                  However, I believe that the uterus only returns to its original size over a period of time after a pregnancy.
                  Last edited by Fisherman; 11-01-2017, 12:26 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Debra A View Post
                    The height of the uterus for a woman 24 weeks pregnant would be in line with the umbilicus. This seems to be roughly where the slips were commenced, slightly above on one side and slightly below on the other. I'd say between T9 and 10 on the diagram. As I mentioned in my post #1540 , I think the slips being described as long and irregular was because they may have been wider at the top part, narrowing to the labia and I also mentioned that MJK's external genitalia was removed separately and so the 'flaps' removed from her abdomen may not have qualified to be long 'slips'.
                    How do you source your take that the flaps did not reach any further up than the umbilicus area, Debra?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                      Is it stated how high up the cut strips reached, Jerry? I believe that part of the stomach and the entire duodenum, liver, spleen and pancreas were left in the body. If the excavated cavity extended that far, and got as wide as your illustration at the top, then why leave so many upper abdominal organs in place? With a wound as extensive as that, why not take them out, too?
                      In ASOLM regarding Case III Hebbert states:

                      The chest had been opened in front by the mid-line, the upper part of the sternum cut through, and the contents of the chest had been removed.

                      He also states at the beginning under parts found:

                      1). Two large flaps of skin, the uterus and placenta.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                        How do you source your take that the flaps did not reach any further up than the umbilicus area, Debra?
                        I'm just going by the description of the 2nd portion of the trunk and where the skin margin commenced in the middle of the back to a point just above the umbilcus on one side and just below on the other. The point I mentioned is only slightly lower than Jerry has shown it. Also, the stomach, liver and intestines would be squashed higher up in a pregnant woman.
                        ,,`,, Debs ,,`,,

                        I am not DJA. He's called Dave.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                          Thats true - I didnt think of that! And I am not exactly a medico myself...

                          However, I believe that the uterus only returns to its original size over a period of time after a pregnancy.
                          Reading through ASOLM Hebbert says the uterus measured 10 in. long by 7 1/2 in. wide.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                            Is it stated how high up the cut strips reached, Jerry? I believe that part of the stomach and the entire duodenum, liver, spleen and pancreas were left in the body. If the excavated cavity extended that far, and got as wide as your illustration at the top, then why leave so many upper abdominal organs in place? With a wound as extensive as that, why not take them out, too?
                            All those organs would be above the height of the uterus in a woman advanced in pregnancy. That's why I think the slips commenced just above the umbilicus which is the level the fundal height would be roughly too.
                            ,,`,, Debs ,,`,,

                            I am not DJA. He's called Dave.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by jerryd View Post
                              In ASOLM regarding Case III Hebbert states:

                              The chest had been opened in front by the mid-line, the upper part of the sternum cut through, and the contents of the chest had been removed.

                              He also states at the beginning under parts found:

                              1). Two large flaps of skin, the uterus and placenta.
                              The contents of the chest would be in the upper portion (1) of the trunk, Jerry. The stomach, liver, pancreas and duodenum would be above the top of the uterus in the 2nd section of the trunk (2) The uterus would be in the pelvic cavity (3) and extend up the abdomen according to the stage of pregnancy, which would be around 24 to 28 weeks in Elizabeth's case. That would bring the height of the uterus just slightly above the umbilicus. The intestines, which were also missing, would be closest to the top of the uterus....I think
                              ,,`,, Debs ,,`,,

                              I am not DJA. He's called Dave.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by jerryd View Post
                                In ASOLM regarding Case III Hebbert states:

                                The chest had been opened in front by the mid-line, the upper part of the sternum cut through, and the contents of the chest had been removed.
                                Thanks, Jerry, but that refers to the opening of the chest, so doesn't give us a bearing as to how high up the abdominal strips reached. If, as it appears, only the lower abdominal organs (and ftus, of course) were removed, then the strips of flesh might only have reached up as high as just above the navel. Given that they'd have proceeded from there, over the swollen stomach to reach as far as the labia on one side, and part of the buttock on the other, they'd be - what? - at least 10" inches in extent, if not a little longer. That would still meet the description of "long slips/strips" by any standards.
                                Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                                "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Gtzendmmerung, 1888)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X