Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Practicality or madness?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

    great post john. dr biggs also has the disadvantage of having trevor be the translator.
    You clown

    Comment


    • Originally posted by seanr View Post
      The arm found in Pimlico on Sunday, 30th of September 1888 was also reported to have put in lime.
      Hi seanr,

      The arm found at the Blind School was concluded not to be part of the Whitehall torso.

      Pall Mall Gazette
      4 October 1888
      THE POST-MORTEM EXAMINATION AT WESTMINSTER.
      IMPORTANT MEDICAL CONCLUSIONS.

      The post-mortem examination of the human remains found on Tuesday on the site of the new police-offices was necessarily limited, in consequence of the advanced state of decomposition in which the trunk was found, but, nevertheless, it was of a searching character. Important conclusions were arrived at. One conclusion was the definite and clear decision that the arm found on the bank of the Thames at Pimlico three weeks ago is a limb cut from this trunk. Immediately Dr. Bond saw the headless and limbless body, he said, "I have an arm which will fit that," and yesterday he attached to the trunk the arm which was examined by Dr. Nevill three weeks ago. This arm was stated by Dr. Nevill not to have been cut off with scientific skill; but he said it had not been unskilfully cut away from the shoulder--it having been cut with some care from the flesh above the shoulder, and with the arm-pit attached. Another conclusion arrived at was that the arm found in the grounds in front of the Blind School, Southwark, had nothing whatever to with this crime. The "Lambeth arm" is stated to have been the subject of dissection, and is supposed to have been placed where it was found for a hoax.


      Daily Telegraph
      Wednesday October 3, 1888


      As to the second arm found near the Blind School, in the Lambeth-road, on the 28th ult., the authorities are quite positive that it was not amputated recently, and in fact they have received some assurances as to the source from which the bones in question were derived.
      Last edited by jerryd; 01-18-2020, 04:16 PM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
        We MUST put more stock in rare and unusual similarities than in whatever difference there may be that is not conclusive evidence of two or more killers.
        However rare & unusual the similarities are (yes, I do see them, too), they aren't conclusive evidence either. Therefore, I don't see why we MUST put more stock in them. If a couple of forensic psychologists who'd studied both series were to come out here and, independently of one another or anybody else, would claim that in their opinion the differences mean nothing (or, at least, clearly less than the similarities), then we might MUST and I would join you.

        It is not putting "blind faith" in the similarities, it is acknowledging how they cannot be disarmed by any unconclusive differences.
        What I meant by seemingly blind is exaclty this: you think the similarities are so significant that you sort of wipe the differences under the carpet.

        Thinking that unconclusive differences are as important as rare and specific similarities - now, THAT is being blind.
        I think they might be significant, yes, but I'm well aware of the significance of the similarities, too. That's not blind.

        If you need me to explain this in detail, I am happy to do so.
        No, but thanks for the offer, Christer. Like the last time we discussed this, I think it remains the best to agree to disagree.

        "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
        Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

          wow frank
          blind faith ?!? in the similarities? wow. and after just chastising someone else.

          its actually the exact opposite of blind faith- its based on evidence and the large number of similarities exhibited by that evidence.
          Not blind faith, but seemingly blind faith, Abby. As in: it seems that you don't see much in anything else, because the similarities are rare & unusual. Because that's how it seems Christer sees it. There was no ill will intended.

          "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
          Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

          Comment


          • Originally posted by jerryd View Post

            Hi seanr,

            The arm found at the Blind School was concluded not to be part of the Whitehall torso.

            Pall Mall Gazette
            4 October 1888
            THE POST-MORTEM EXAMINATION AT WESTMINSTER.
            IMPORTANT MEDICAL CONCLUSIONS.

            The post-mortem examination of the human remains found on Tuesday on the site of the new police-offices was necessarily limited, in consequence of the advanced state of decomposition in which the trunk was found, but, nevertheless, it was of a searching character. Important conclusions were arrived at. One conclusion was the definite and clear decision that the arm found on the bank of the Thames at Pimlico three weeks ago is a limb cut from this trunk. Immediately Dr. Bond saw the headless and limbless body, he said, "I have an arm which will fit that," and yesterday he attached to the trunk the arm which was examined by Dr. Nevill three weeks ago. This arm was stated by Dr. Nevill not to have been cut off with scientific skill; but he said it had not been unskilfully cut away from the shoulder--it having been cut with some care from the flesh above the shoulder, and with the arm-pit attached. Another conclusion arrived at was that the arm found in the grounds in front of the Blind School, Southwark, had nothing whatever to with this crime. The "Lambeth arm" is stated to have been the subject of dissection, and is supposed to have been placed where it was found for a hoax.


            Daily Telegraph
            Wednesday October 3, 1888


            As to the second arm found near the Blind School, in the Lambeth-road, on the 28th ult., the authorities are quite positive that it was not amputated recently, and in fact they have received some assurances as to the source from which the bones in question were derived.
            Thanks Jerry, I was wondering what happened to that arm. It was linked to the Whitehall torso because of the timing at which it was found. A grim coincidence, it seems. A medical student hoax perhaps?

            Jim Moore said to a reporter '[I] saw the arm of a young woman, which had been put in lime' and the licensed shoeblack who stands at the corner of a public house facing the Blind school said 'was decomposed and had been laid in lime'. https://www.casebook.org/press_repor.../18880930.html

            Was it common practice lime to be used on specimens in a medical setting in the 19th century?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

              hi seanr
              ah. got it thanks for clariying your stance. i apologize for my hyperbole exasperation. i see how it can be read that way, but still think it probably meant excluding the head. but i see what you mean now. again sorry.

              now i guess the big question is that if it wasnt carbolic acid but lime--- is lime mainly used as something to dissolve a body or as a preservative/deoderant? which takes us back to your original question about was he trying to use it to dissolve the flesh on the head/ face to hide identity??
              Apology accepted. I perhaps did not communicate clearly enough.

              I'm trying to figure out the effect of lime. It seems to depend on the type of lime used.

              It sounds as though lime could corrode the top layer of skin but actually tend to dry the body out and so slow decomposition. Yet lime has the reputation in fiction for being used to destroy a body.

              The murder of Harriet Louisa Lane by Henry Wainwright comes up when researching lime in 19th century crime. Intriguingly, another case to involve a body cut up into pieces and put into parcels for disposal. Wainwright buried the whole body in chloride of lime, some think with the intention of destroying identity but with the unfortunate effect of preserving the body. From the testimony of Frederick George Larkin at Henry Wainwright's trial:

              there was a very great deal of dirt on the body mixed with chloride of lime—chloride of lime thrown upon a body would tend to preserve the external parts more especially—it is a disinfectant, and I believe it has a tendency to preserve anything put upon it; it retards the decomposition of those parts with which it comes in contact—its principal agency is to deodorize
              Source: https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/brow...iv=t18751122-1

              So there is another possibility why lime might be used, to hide the smell of a corpse if it was stored for some time.

              In the Tottenham Court Road case, it's notable that the medical examiners considered a weak acid being used, suggesting there was some damage to the external parts of the body.

              Dividing the body into pieces and storing it in lime suggests some sophistication on the part of the killer. On the other hand, dividing the body up and putting some parts in lime but not others, tends to suggest derangement.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by FrankO View Post
                However rare & unusual the similarities are (yes, I do see them, too), they aren't conclusive evidence either.

                I disagree. Given the context, timing and geography, it is only in a strictly philosophical sense they are not conclusive. It would be totally unexpected to have two cases with taken away uteri and hearts, where the abdomen was cut from pubes to ribs, where the killer had taken away the abdominal wall in large sections, where colon sections had gone missing, where there were no clear signs of physical torture, where we know the victim was a prostitute and where rings had been taken from the victims fingers ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD and in the same time. Once we have them in the same city and time, any idea of separate killers evaporates. And yes, I am talking about Jackson and Chapman. They were beyond reasonable doubt killed by the same man.

                Therefore, I don't see why we MUST put more stock in them. If a couple of forensic psychologists who'd studied both series were to come out here and, independently of one another or anybody else, would claim that in their opinion the differences mean nothing (or, at least, clearly less than the similarities), then we might MUST and I would join you.

                Differences can never amount to something that rivals rare and unusual similarities. In fact, even conclusive differences go away if the similarities are rare enough! If we have two victims in two different towns but killed at the exact same time, if they both have the same very rare inclusion - like "I am the son of Sam" written on their foreheads, then IN SPITE OF THE DISSIMILAR TOWNS IN WHICH THEY WERE FOUND, we KNOW that there is a link.
                Before this is understood, no rational discussion can be had.


                What I meant by seemingly blind is exaclty this: you think the similarities are so significant that you sort of wipe the differences under the carpet.

                No, they do not sweep them under the carpet. They do however clearly point them out as unimportant and misleading.

                I think they might be significant, yes, but I'm well aware of the significance of the similarities, too. That's not blind.

                I don´t think you ARE aware of the full importance of the similarities, Frank. This is why I speak of blindness on your behalf.

                No, but thanks for the offer, Christer. Like the last time we discussed this, I think it remains the best to agree to disagree.
                That is anybody´s choice - and it is anybody´s choice to make a case for why they believe that there is a failure to understand vital information. In this case, I think that is so.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by seanr View Post

                  Apology accepted. I perhaps did not communicate clearly enough.

                  I'm trying to figure out the effect of lime. It seems to depend on the type of lime used.

                  It sounds as though lime could corrode the top layer of skin but actually tend to dry the body out and so slow decomposition. Yet lime has the reputation in fiction for being used to destroy a body.

                  The murder of Harriet Louisa Lane by Henry Wainwright comes up when researching lime in 19th century crime. Intriguingly, another case to involve a body cut up into pieces and put into parcels for disposal. Wainwright buried the whole body in chloride of lime, some think with the intention of destroying identity but with the unfortunate effect of preserving the body. From the testimony of Frederick George Larkin at Henry Wainwright's trial:


                  Source: https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/brow...iv=t18751122-1

                  So there is another possibility why lime might be used, to hide the smell of a corpse if it was stored for some time.

                  In the Tottenham Court Road case, it's notable that the medical examiners considered a weak acid being used, suggesting there was some damage to the external parts of the body.

                  Dividing the body into pieces and storing it in lime suggests some sophistication on the part of the killer. On the other hand, dividing the body up and putting some parts in lime but not others, tends to suggest derangement.
                  thanks seanr
                  it would be interesting to know how many of the torsos had lime and the ones that did which parts had lime and which didnt. it may tell us something about which parts the killer held on to longer and or wanted to possibly dissolve/ hide id.
                  "Is all that we see or seem
                  but a dream within a dream?"

                  -Edgar Allan Poe


                  "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                  quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                  -Frederick G. Abberline

                  Comment


                  • I´m off for the evening now. Any posts that need answering will be taken care of tomorrow, hopefully.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                      That is anybody´s choice - and it is anybody´s choice to make a case for why they believe that there is a failure to understand vital information. In this case, I think that is so.
                      You said in this post where abdominal walls were "taken away" and colon sections had "gone missing". Surely you know that doesn't apply to any alleged Ripper murder. We don't know exactly when Annies rings were taken. We do know that the Ripper killed actively working street women, problem with that is that only 2 of the C5 acknowledged to someone that's what they were doing the respective nights they were killed. So "prostitutes" is not an accurate Victimology stat. 3 of the five may have not been doing that at all...in fact, 1 was at home, undressed and in bed. Not out on a street.

                      Ripper killed openly, and cut where he killed. Torso man killed privately and cut privately. Ripper left the bodies out in the open having no interest beyond what he did to them at the murder location. He did all his work within minutes. Torso man took his victims apart over a period of days, then later dispersed the parts so the identifications would be near impossible. Traces of Ripper crimes are limited to one square mile of the East End, Torso man did not limit where he went. The Ripper crimes presumed to be by that one man took place over 2 1/2 months, the Torso murders predated those kills by a decade, and continued after the Ripper period.

                      That last line is important....IF the officials had someone in custody for the kills months before Alices murder, as some claimed was the case, then any murder after Marys wasn't by Jack. Which means that he and Torso man were not one and the same, because we have a Torso after that Fall. IF he wasn't in custody, then the only logical addition to the Canonical Group by virtue of the physical evidence would be Alice.

                      Not one contemporary investigator suggested a belief that the Torsos found during that Fall were also connected to the man they called Jack, and only 1 modern day theorist that I know does. The math isn't working for you Fisherman.
                      Michael Richards

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                        That is anybody´s choice - and it is anybody´s choice to make a case for why they believe that there is a failure to understand vital information. In this case, I think that is so.
                        There is no confusion or nothing aberrant or lacking in understanding for what you have been saying Fisherman, we are all capable of reading and assessing the information for ourselves. What is lacking is a sound and reasonable basis for your argument. It doesn't exist in any evidence.
                        Last edited by Michael W Richards; 01-18-2020, 07:23 PM.
                        Michael Richards

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by seanr View Post

                          Apology accepted. I perhaps did not communicate clearly enough.

                          I'm trying to figure out the effect of lime. It seems to depend on the type of lime used.

                          It sounds as though lime could corrode the top layer of skin but actually tend to dry the body out and so slow decomposition. Yet lime has the reputation in fiction for being used to destroy a body.

                          The murder of Harriet Louisa Lane by Henry Wainwright comes up when researching lime in 19th century crime. Intriguingly, another case to involve a body cut up into pieces and put into parcels for disposal. Wainwright buried the whole body in chloride of lime, some think with the intention of destroying identity but with the unfortunate effect of preserving the body. From the testimony of Frederick George Larkin at Henry Wainwright's trial:


                          Source: https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/brow...iv=t18751122-1

                          So there is another possibility why lime might be used, to hide the smell of a corpse if it was stored for some time.

                          In the Tottenham Court Road case, it's notable that the medical examiners considered a weak acid being used, suggesting there was some damage to the external parts of the body.

                          Dividing the body into pieces and storing it in lime suggests some sophistication on the part of the killer. On the other hand, dividing the body up and putting some parts in lime but not others, tends to suggest derangement.

                          I am not a chemist, but I did look into lime uses in the past. Quick Lime is the chemical that would be used to decay a body faster. Chloride of Lime was more of a disinfectant/ deodorizer. The lime found on the Tottenham Court parts was stated to be Chloride of Lime, IIRC. The treatment used on the Whitehall torso was Condy's Fluid. Both have the same use as a preservative and deodorizer.

                          In the following clip we can see CoL was used on meat (perhaps at butcher shops for example) to preserve the hanging meat in warmer weather without destroying the taste. You can also see in the description (in parentheses) at the top that it retards putrefaction.



                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                            You said in this post where abdominal walls were "taken away" and colon sections had "gone missing". Surely you know that doesn't apply to any alleged Ripper murder. We don't know exactly when Annies rings were taken. We do know that the Ripper killed actively working street women, problem with that is that only 2 of the C5 acknowledged to someone that's what they were doing the respective nights they were killed. So "prostitutes" is not an accurate Victimology stat. 3 of the five may have not been doing that at all...in fact, 1 was at home, undressed and in bed. Not out on a street.

                            Ripper killed openly, and cut where he killed. Torso man killed privately and cut privately. Ripper left the bodies out in the open having no interest beyond what he did to them at the murder location. He did all his work within minutes. Torso man took his victims apart over a period of days, then later dispersed the parts so the identifications would be near impossible. Traces of Ripper crimes are limited to one square mile of the East End, Torso man did not limit where he went. The Ripper crimes presumed to be by that one man took place over 2 1/2 months, the Torso murders predated those kills by a decade, and continued after the Ripper period.

                            That last line is important....IF the officials had someone in custody for the kills months before Alices murder, as some claimed was the case, then any murder after Marys wasn't by Jack. Which means that he and Torso man were not one and the same, because we have a Torso after that Fall. IF he wasn't in custody, then the only logical addition to the Canonical Group by virtue of the physical evidence would be Alice.

                            Not one contemporary investigator suggested a belief that the Torsos found during that Fall were also connected to the man they called Jack, and only 1 modern day theorist that I know does. The math isn't working for you Fisherman.
                            The abdoiminal walls were taken away from the bodies of Kelly (Ripper victim), Chapman (Ripper victim) and Jackson (Torso killer victim).

                            Colon sections went missing from the bodies of Catherine Eddoes (Ripper victim), Jackson (Torso killer victim) and the Rainham torso (Torso killer victim).

                            Let´sn ot get hanged up on semantics.

                            The rest is, once again, to a large degree lofty speculation on your behalf.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                              There is no confusion or nothing aberrant or lacking in understanding for what you have been saying Fisherman, we are all capable of reading and assessing the information for ourselves. What is lacking is a sound and reasonable basis for your argument. It doesn't exist in any evidence.
                              I beleive the word you were looking for is misassessing.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by jerryd View Post
                                The treatment used on the Whitehall torso was Condy's Fluid.
                                Which, incidentally, was produced at a factory in Battersea.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X