Same motive = same killer

[Sam Flynn]

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.

Just what I was thinking, Debs. See my post immediately above.

[jerryd]

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 fœtus, 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.

Gareth,

I looked at several illustrations on the location of the imbilicus. Most have it at T-10 but can vary a little. I also found some illustrations that have the fundal height (thanks Debs) for a woman 28 weeks pregnant just above the imbilicus as Debs stated earlier. With that in mind, I was slightly high on my starting point, but not by much.

[Sam Flynn]

I looked at several illustrations on the location of the imbilicus. Most have it at T-10 but can vary a little. I also found some illustrations that have the fundal height (thanks Debs) for a woman 28 weeks pregnant just above the imbilicus as Debs stated earlier. With that in mind, I was slightly high on my starting point, but not by much.

Pregnancy doesn't push the woman's navel up to the breastbone, and there's still the same distance from breastbone to belly-button, possibly a little more than usual, allowing for the swollen abdomen. If someone wanted to cut from just above the umbilicus, they'd still be a good 5 or 6 inches clear of the base of the sternum. If that's what happened in this case, it might explain why all the upper abdominal organs, excluding part of the stomach, remained inside the torso - in effect, the killer only emptied the "bottom half", conceivably to make sawing through the lumbar vertebræ a little less messy.

Edit: Come to think of it, clearing a path for the saw might have been one of the reasons, or perhaps the reason, why the killer decided to remove the baby.

[Debra A]

Just what I was thinking, Debs. See my post immediately above.

Well. I did only mentioned it twice on the forums thread, Gareth

[Sam Flynn]

Well. I did only mentioned it twice on the forums thread, Gareth

I honestly hadn't read your posts on that point, Debs, so it's good to know that we're independently thinking along the same lines.

[jerryd]

Edit: Come to think of it, clearing a path for the saw might have been one of the reasons, or perhaps the reason, why the killer decided to remove the baby.

Don't tell that to Trevor.

[Debra A]

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 fœtus, 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.

The exterior bump measurement of the fundal height is usually equal to the number of weeks pregnant. In Elizabeth's case that would be roughly 28 cms or 11 inches then the labia were also included in the pieces, call it 32 cms. In a 3:1 'strip' ratio that would make the width 4 inches or 10 cms, that's roughly the measurement Fisherman mentioned somewhere isn't it?

[Debra A]

I honestly hadn't read your posts on that point, Debs, so it's good to know that we're independently thinking along the same lines.

Yes, I do get the impression I spend most of my time talking to myself while everyone skips to the more exciting aggro!

[Debra A]

Edit: Come to think of it, clearing a path for the saw might have been one of the reasons, or perhaps the reason, why the killer decided to remove the baby.

Whether it was done to facilitate dismemberment has also been mentioned many times.

[Sam Flynn]

The exterior bump measurement of the fundal height is usually equal to the number of weeks pregnant. In Elizabeth's case that would be roughly 28 cms or 11 inches then the labia were also included in the pieces, call it 32 cms. In a 3:1 'strip' ratio that would make the width 4 inches or 10 cms, that's roughly the measurement Fisherman mentioned somewhere isn't it?

That was Fish's measurement for one strip - I'd say that should be adequate to account for both of them, i.e. two strips of 11" by 2", give or take.

[Debra A]

That was Fish's measurement for one strip - I'd say that should be adequate to account for both of them, i.e. two strips of 11" by 2", give or take.

No offence, Gareth, but that's just a complete guess on your part.

[jerryd]

That was Fish's measurement for one strip - I'd say that should be adequate to account for both of them, i.e. two strips of 11" by 2", give or take.

So how did he get his saw in there to cut the spine with such a narrow gap?

i.e- imagine a person on their back with their spine against the ground. No way to saw up and down without hitting the ground. He must have used the saw sideways, so to speak, and needed some room in the abdominal cavity.

[Sam Flynn]

Whether it was done to facilitate dismemberment has also been mentioned many times.

I didn't know that either - I've never taken much interest in the torso cases before, so please bear that in mind.

[Sam Flynn]

No offence, Gareth, but that's just a complete guess on your part.

It is not "just a complete guess" - I have thought about this, and see nothing wrong in it. I'm not saying it's right, but it's not ridiculous either.

We have to account for Hebbert's choice of the description "long slips" somehow.

[Sam Flynn]

So how did he get his saw in there to cut the spine with such a narrow gap?

I don't think he'd have sawed front-first, Jerry. If he'd started to saw from the back, it would make sense for him to have removed any potentially squishy obstacles out of the path of the saw, to minimise mess and complications arising as the saw followed through to the other side. In other words, the hole in the lower abdomen might have been created purely to allow stuff to be cut and removed to clear a path for the saw. The wound didn't need to be particularly wide or extensive to allow that to happen.