Same motive = same killer

[Joshua Rogan]

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?

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.

[Elamarna]

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.

https://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

[Elamarna]

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

[jerryd]

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.

[Robert St Devil]

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.

[Joshua Rogan]

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.

[Elamarna]

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

[Joshua Rogan]

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.

[Joshua Rogan]

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.

[Robert St Devil]

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.

[Joshua Rogan]

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.

Good point. Hebbert only mentions armpit hair in his description of the arms, as far as I can see, but there may have been some still attached to the torso too.

[John Wheat]

I still think there are very few similarities between Jack the Ripper and The Torso Killer meaning they were two separate killers.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman, however many pieces of sternum there were, they were in the thoracic portions of the trunk. The fact that they were cut through can have no bearing whatsoever with what happened in the lower abdomen. The way you're banging on makes it sound like she was split all the way down the middle like a baguette, which clearly didn't happen.

In fact, I think that is precisely what happened. There is nothing at all clear about it not happening. From the split sternum to the groin, Gareth.

[Fisherman]

Sorry, Josh, can't agree with you here. There's nothing in Hebbert's notes that remotely suggests that she was split all the way down the middle, whether in stages or otherwise.

Yes there is.

[Fisherman]

Very good point Debra


Steve

And perhaps true.

But only perhaps.

Which is the whole point I am making.

Your earlier post I did not get, but it seems directed at tarnishing me, so maybe it´s just as well.