Same motive = same killer

[Sam Flynn]

Also true - but material tend to age quickly in this business.

Indeed, but there's no excuse for a serious book written in 2002 not to cite its sources, if that's what happened.

[Fisherman]

Indeed, but there's no excuse for a serious book written in 2002 not to cite its sources, if that's what happened.

It cites sources - but not in a way that allows you to find out which source relates to what statement...

Which does not go all the way to provide any excuse either, of course.

[Elamarna]

Early forerunner? Gordon's book was only published 15 years ago.

Gareth, think you may be missing the comment about a "modern school" of thought who don't think sources are important.


Steve

[RockySullivan]

Like I have been telling you, I am only to happy to explain it to you once you have either apologized for your earlier calling me things - or if you promise that it will not happen again. We cannot have that kind of a debate.

I'm not apologizing to you. You told me:

You have had your chance and you blew it emphatically.

After you claimed that the killer would have used bonfires if he didn't want the parts found, and when I pointed out bonfires aren't a smart, practical or realistic example of a way to dispose bodies in a densely populated area (or even at all, as it leaves the remnants of a fire which can still contain some remains). You won't admit that you're wrong about the bonfire instead you tell me "I had my chance and I blew it".

[Debra A]

Hm. I was kind of thinking about how I take the bone out of a lamb steak by way of opening up the joint with a knife and then wrenching the bone out of the joint - no sawing required there! And you seem to say that Hebberts suggestion is that the saw was used on the ligaments and tendons - but Hebbert is being quoted as having said that the bone itself was cut through.

Is it me being slow on the uptake or is something wrong here...?

Butchers often use a fine tooth saw to separate some joints don't they? It's not as if Neville and Hebbert are going head to head with this.They are separate accounts.They are both describing the opening and separating at the joints. Perhaps Hebbert noticed saw marks that Neville missed when he was examining the body? I was suggesting it might not be easy to separate at the joints in a human, I don't know because I haven't tried it.

[Debra A]

It certainly seems so. But I would like to see the source just the same!

They are most likely mistaking the arm found in the Thames as being buried in the vault. Perhaps because it was mentioned at the inquest into the trunk that the arm found earlier belonged to this trunk and both Trow and Gordon misunderstood.
I would bet that both Rob and I have read almost every available newspaper or other source of this case, yet we have never seen it stated that an arm was found in the vault.

[Fisherman]

They are most likely mistaking the arm found in the Thames as being buried in the vault. Perhaps because it was mentioned at the inquest into the trunk that the arm found earlier belonged to this trunk and both Trow and Gordon misunderstood.
I would bet that both Rob and I have read almost every available newspaper or other source of this case, yet we have never seen it stated that an arm was found in the vault.

That´s extremely odd. Neither Trow nor Gordon are mistaking the arm, since they both account in very clear terms for the one found in the Thames.

Just like you say, Hebbert seems clear enough on how there was only a leg and a foot added after the finding of the torso, and that settles things nicely.

But somewhere, I bet, there is an article that speaks of Jasper Warings terrier finding an arm too. The information given is so exact and explicit that it cannot reasonably have been thought up out of thin air.

Given that you have made an extensive search, though, I would not want to try and trump you on this one...

[Debra A]

Debs, Fish

The statements needn't be mutually exclusive. The arm might have been sawn through (e.g. at the elbow and/or forearm) AND the remainder wrenched out at the shoulder. Like your lamb joint, you wouldn't cut or saw the head of the humerus from its socket; it's too "embedded" to get a saw in there.

As far as I'm aware, Gareth, Hebbert describes a method of cutting the skin around the joint in a circular motion, opening the joint and separating. The arm was in one piece right to the fingertips.

I just checked and in his lectures and ASOLM, Hebbert doesn't mention the use of a saw to separate the Whitehall arm. He describes exposing the head and neck of the humerus and opening of the joint cutting through of the capsule circularly, the amputation made by seven separate cuts cleanly dividing the tissues.

[Debra A]

That´s extremely odd. Neither Trow nor Gordon are mistaking the arm, since they both account in very clear terms for the one found in the Thames.

Just like you say, Hebbert seems clear enough on how there was only a leg and a foot added after the finding of the torso, and that settles things nicely.

But somewhere, I bet, there is an article that speaks of Jasper Warings terrier finding an arm too. The information given is so exact and explicit that it cannot reasonably have been thought up out of thin air.

Given that you have made an extensive search, though, I would not want to try and trump you on this one...

There may be a newspaper out there that says this, but it's whether or not it is true. Hebbert didn't mention it. Trow was certain that one of the victims was an 'exotic' prostitute with a rose tatoo...

[Fisherman]

Butchers often use a fine tooth saw to separate some joints don't they? It's not as if Neville and Hebbert are going head to head with this.They are separate accounts.They are both describing the opening and separating at the joints. Perhaps Hebbert noticed saw marks that Neville missed when he was examining the body? I was suggesting it might not be easy to separate at the joints in a human, I don't know because I haven't tried it.

Neither have I, other than in long since statute-barred schoolyard figths - and that was all about tearing, not sawing...

I think we are looking at a mistake by the reporter, quite simply, since he states that the bone was sawn through, and it apparently was nothing of the sort.

I don´t know anything about to what extent a butcher will use a saw for severing tendons and sinew, I always thought a sharp knife would handle that to satisfaction. But I may be wrong.

[Fisherman]

There may be a newspaper out there that says this, but it's whether or not it is true. Hebbert didn't mention it. Trow was certain that one of the victims was an 'exotic' prostitute with a rose tatoo...

Yes, of course it is about whether it is true or not. And on balance it seems it is not. It´s just that when we are given the exact depth in inches and told about the consistency of the soil down there, it seems there is (probably faulty) material out there that one would have wanted to lay one´s eyes upon!

[Fisherman]

I'm not apologizing to you. You told me: After you claimed that the killer would have used bonfires if he didn't want the parts found, and when I pointed out bonfires aren't a smart, practical or realistic example of a way to dispose bodies in a densely populated area (or even at all, as it leaves the remnants of a fire which can still contain some remains). You won't admit that you're wrong about the bonfire instead you tell me "I had my chance and I blew it".

You do not have to apologize, Rocky. I am fine with you promising that you will not call me names again in the future. Like braindead, for example. It is a deplorable level to sink to, and I find it unacceptable.

But it is all your own choice.

[Debra A]

Yes, of course it is about whether it is true or not. And on balance it seems it is not. It´s just that when we are given the exact depth in inches and told about the consistency of the soil down there, it seems there is (probably faulty) material out there that one would have wanted to lay one´s eyes upon!

It can probably be attributed to a Times article of October 23rd 1888 when Waring is giving evidence about the finding of the left leg. He goes on to say that the leg was buried 12 inches under the soil but the Times have obviously typed 'arm' mistakenly in this one sentence, instead of leg (as is used the rest of article) as the whole discussion is Waring's evidence on the finding of the leg by Smoker. . Next up to give evidence is his companion, Angle, and he states he thought the leg was buried less than the 12 inches from the surface Waring described. He thought closer to four or five inches.

A typo, speed reading....and a myth is born.

Is Trow and Gordon's source for the arm being found in the vault given? Is it the Times?

[Debra A]

Neither have I, other than in long since statute-barred schoolyard figths - and that was all about tearing, not sawing...

I think we are looking at a mistake by the reporter, quite simply, since he states that the bone was sawn through, and it apparently was nothing of the sort.

I don´t know anything about to what extent a butcher will use a saw for severing tendons and sinew, I always thought a sharp knife would handle that to satisfaction. But I may be wrong.

As I wrote in response to Gareth-
I just checked and in his lectures and ASOLM, Hebbert doesn't mention the use of a saw to separate the Whitehall arm. He describes exposing the head and neck of the humerus and opening of the joint cutting through of the capsule circularly, the amputation made by seven separate cuts cleanly dividing the tissues.

[Fisherman]

As I wrote in response to Gareth-
I just checked and in his lectures and ASOLM, Hebbert doesn't mention the use of a saw to separate the Whitehall arm. He describes exposing the head and neck of the humerus and opening of the joint cutting through of the capsule circularly, the amputation made by seven separate cuts cleanly dividing the tissues.

Exactly. So the reporter who spoke to Hebbert - and who propably also had spoken to Neville - should have thought twice before he approached his typewriter!