Practicality or madness?

[Trevor Marriott]

Only, Trevor, it is an unprofessional opinion. To which you are indeed entitled.

and Dr Biggs is his not a professional opinion also?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

I am entitled to my professional opinion...

Only, Trevor, it is an unprofessional opinion. To which you are indeed entitled.

[Trevor Marriott]

Since Trevor is doing nothing here but stirring up trouble, maybe I should not comment. But I find it revealing and disturbing when an ex-murder squad copper claims that an extremely rare inclusion that is present within two murder series in the same town and general timeframe is only "a very tenuous link at best".

When we put our head in the sand like that, we represent the very worst of Ripperology.

If somebody says "Yes, it is a truly mindblowing similarity, but it may be just a coincidence nevertheless", then thatīs all fine. But opting for a whopper like the one Trevor opts for is doing our field of research no good at all. Anyone who does not understand how Ripperology works will, after having taken a look at that post, be quite satisfied that we are a bunch of clowns. They really cannot be asked to understand what most of us out here know: Trevor is perfectly aware that the abdominal flaps is an extremely powerful indication of a common killer, but he cannot bring himself to admit it.

Small wonder, then, that we get no recognition from other fields of research. Thank you, Trevor.

PS. Donīt bother to answer in your accustomed manner, Trevor. It will only make things worse. Ask a police investigator about it instead, and learn something about your trade. Itīs never too late - or so they say.

I am entitled to my professional opinion which I value much more than your misguided interpretation of the facts, and your opinions, which we have seen time and time again, not only with regards to this topic but with many other aspects on these murders.

On this topic, you continue to refer to abdominal flaps but the reality is that there can be different interpretations of the term abdominal flaps as you have been told by modern-day medical experts but because you have your head buried in the sand you will not accept or consider these but continue to blindly bumble on trying to make half-hearted attempts to show that every dismembered body or body parts found in the last 100 years was the work of the same killer when you can't even prove causes of death, and even worse is your feeble attempt to link these torsos to the killer who became known as jack the ripper.

Dr Biggs on flaps of skin
"When I am describing separated body parts in such cases, I'll use terms like 'flap' of skin, 'strip' of skin or perhaps 'bridge' of skin where two pieces haven't entirely separated. These are purely descriptive terms and have no underlying medical significance. I suspect that the descriptions given in these historical cases were originally just that (i.e. descriptions), but that over the years undue significance has been pinned to the terminology in the hope of somehow finding a 'link' between cases."

And who is is that has tried to prove a link between cases- none other than Christer from La la land !

The other sad fact is that there are others who actually believe you!

I hope your fishing skills are better than your investigative ones

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

A very tenuous link at best

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Since Trevor is doing nothing here but stirring up trouble, maybe I should not comment. But I find it revealing and disturbing when an ex-murder squad copper claims that an extremely rare inclusion that is present within two murder series in the same town and general timeframe is only "a very tenuous link at best".

When we put our head in the sand like that, we represent the very worst of Ripperology.

If somebody says "Yes, it is a truly mindblowing similarity, but it may be just a coincidence nevertheless", then thatīs all fine. But opting for a whopper like the one Trevor opts for is doing our field of research no good at all. Anyone who does not understand how Ripperology works will, after having taken a look at that post, be quite satisfied that we are a bunch of clowns. They really cannot be asked to understand what most of us out here know: Trevor is perfectly aware that the abdominal flaps is an extremely powerful indication of a common killer, but he cannot bring himself to admit it.

Small wonder, then, that we get no recognition from other fields of research. Thank you, Trevor.

PS. Donīt bother to answer in your accustomed manner, Trevor. It will only make things worse. Ask a police investigator about it instead, and learn something about your trade. Itīs never too late - or so they say.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Fish


no we dont. that its in two of the ripper and one of the torsos is enough for a link . but yes intriguing article

A very tenuous link at best

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Abby Normal]

Yep, I just checked that myself too. But I am flummoxed by the overall wording in the Evening News anyway. Anyway, if a major part of the abdominal wall had been missing in the torso part found, I think Hebbert would have mentioned it. But if it was simply an "arch" of less distinctive proportions, I am not as sure.

Anyway, itīs not that we need more cut away abdominal walls to make the case, but I find the article intriguing just the same.

Hi Fish

Anyway, itīs not that we need more cut away abdominal walls to make the case

no we dont. that its in two of the ripper and one of the torsos is enough for a link . but yes intriguing article

[Fisherman]

Actually, Hebbert also writes that there were "no appearances of lineae albae on the surface of the abdomen", so that seems to tell us that Hebbert saw nothing odd about the overall appearance of the abdominal wall. That has to rule the day until further notice, I think. Itīs probably only a case of a sloppily worded article.

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer.

According to Dr. Hebbert "....the head having been separated at the sixth cervical vertebra, and the pelvis and low part of the abdomen at the fourth lumbar vertebra..."

He also stated the torso itself, when found, included the thorax and upper part of the abdomen.

Yep, I just checked that myself too. But I am flummoxed by the overall wording in the Evening News anyway. Anyway, if a major part of the abdominal wall had been missing in the torso part found, I think Hebbert would have mentioned it. But if it was simply an "arch" of less distinctive proportions, I am not as sure.

Anyway, itīs not that we need more cut away abdominal walls to make the case, but I find the article intriguing just the same.

[Fisherman]

There is also the odd wording (it seems odd to me, at least, but English is not my number one language, of course) that a portion of the abdomen "had been cut away". To me, that sounds very much like a part of the abdomen is what is being spoken about, not a whole section of the lower torso. "Cut away" implies "detached from", does it not?

[jerryd]

Hi Christer.

According to Dr. Hebbert "....the head having been separated at the sixth cervical vertebra, and the pelvis and low part of the abdomen at the fourth lumbar vertebra..."

He also stated the torso itself, when found, included the thorax and upper part of the abdomen.

[Fisherman]

I would presume that it refers to the entire lower abdomen, as the Whitehall "torso" only extended from neck to waist.

Mmm. Itīs the wording I find odd; "a portion of the abdomen" was missing. And as I said, the stomach was in place in the torso, it was just part of the descending colon and some pelvic viscera that were not there. Why would they describe it as "a portion of the abdomen"? "Some abdominal viscera" would have been fine, or something like that. But here, it seems to be more in line with what the papers said about Jackson "the whole of the abdomen was missing", "the lower part of the abdomen was missing" etcetera. And that was the abdominal wall they referred to.

Then again, why would part of the abdominal wall go lost on account of two legs being disjointed and cut off? Similarly, pelvic viscera or colon parts do not go missing because of that either, so that presumption seems odd.

[Abby Normal]

Havenīt seen any reaction to this, so far. What do people think? Does "portion of the abdomen" allude to the abdominal wall, or can there be any other explanation to it?

could be collateral damage to lower abdomen since the seperation was at the waist. then again...

[Joshua Rogan]

I would presume that it refers to the entire lower abdomen, as the Whitehall "torso" only extended from neck to waist.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Hi Fish,

I'd given it some thought but not being an anatomist I didn't respond, likewise, I've no desire to watch any instructional videos on the matter!

I can only presume that perhaps in disarticulating the hip joints, parts of the lower abdomen would be removed? Collateral damage to the navel/pubic area? It could be affected by the "nourishment" of the body, hip size and such.

[Fisherman]

Since we have been discussing the abdominal flaps on this thread, I thought Iīd put this snippet out here. It is from the Morning Advertiser of the 3rd, and it describes the mutilation of the Whitehall victim: "In cutting off the legs a portion of the abdomen had been cut away".

I had not seen this before, and it has me very interested. What was found of the victim was the torso in the vault, one arm in the Thames and a leg from the knee down and the attached foot buried in the vault. Why the assumption was made that the missing portion of the abdomen was collateral damage from taking the legs off, I donīt know.

Anyhow, The Evening News tell us that part of the abdomen was gone. Are they speaking of part of the abdominal wall? They are not speaking of the stomach, because it was in place in the torso. What was missing from the abdomen were part of the descending colon and some pelvic viscera. Would that be described as a "portion of the abdomen"?

Havenīt seen any reaction to this, so far. What do people think? Does "portion of the abdomen" allude to the abdominal wall, or can there be any other explanation to it?