A present for Scotland Yard

[GUT]

And I like our discussions. They are interesting.

Kind Regards, Pierre

Well Steve's are anyway.

[Pierre]

Actually he is still arguing with me that he did not mislead us on that.

he also said he has not seen a picture of the person, only one of a relative. although he believed there could be one somewhere he was not sure.
On the other hand if we could all stop responding to him, which i know would not be easy, a new thread every few days, he would have to say more and more. then when he finally gives name, it can be looked at and either accepted as a good contender or rejected.

elamarna

Hi Steve,

You write "he would have to say more and more".

I donīt know what gave you the idea that I donīt chose to write want I want here and nothing else.

Also, you have an idea you and the others here on the forum could decide whether the person I have found should be "accepted" or not. Well, you canīt. And do you know why you canīt do that?

Because either he was the killer or not. So he can never be a "suspect", a "contender" or "accepted/rejected" and so on and so forth.

That sort of thinking is exactly the reason why no one has managed to find Jack the Ripper until now, if I have happened to find him.

So I will not give you his name without knowing if he was the killer or not.

You see, Steve, this is not a game. This is reality.

But I do understand that you are enjoying yourself. So please do go ahead with it. And I like our discussions. They are interesting.

Kind Regards, Pierre

[John G]

Hi Debs
As a matter of interest what else could you have provided that may have made Dr Biggs give a different opinion?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

I hope you don't mind me asking, but have you considered writing a book on the Torso Murders/Mysteries? It's certainly an interesting subject and, to my knowledge, only two books have been written on the subject, neither in my view definitive: MJ Trow appears to have been in error when he referred to the Tottenham victim having a tattoo (something Debra appears to have disproved, which is problematic for Trow as one of his chapters was entitled The Girl with the Rose Tattoo), and Gordon, I believe, lumped all of the Whitechapel and Torso victims together and concluded that George Chapman was responsible for the lot!

[Debra A]

Hi Debs
As a matter of interest what else could you have provided that may have made Dr Biggs give a different opinion?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor
As a professional; I would think Dr Biggs would want to base his opinions on as much of the available material as possible if he were being asked to make conclusions or comments that were being published? Maybe I'm wrong.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi John
It should be pointed out that Dr Biggs made comments on the four cases 87-89 based on brief notes of the main points, provided by me. He did not have all the information available from the notes Bond and Hebbert provided on the cases for the 1894 Medical Jurisprudence textbook or Hebbert's Lectures on forensic medicine for the Westminster Hospital.
Also, I do feel Hebbert and Bond maybe had a point in the comments they made about doctors and surgeons not being as much practiced in joint disarticulation as a butcher or slaughterer may be in as much as it seems to be rare that surgeons make limb amputations at the actual joint.

Hi Debs
As a matter of interest what else could you have provided that may have made Dr Biggs give a different opinion?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Debra A]

Hi Debra,

Thanks for this, it's much appreciated. It does, however, seem that Dr Biggs considered that the Victorian autopsies were less thorough than would be the case today. In fact, referring to the inquest reports in the Eddowes case he comments, "there's actually very little detail of use in the text", and "much of the description is vague and potentially ambiguous" (Marriott, 2015). He also made an interesting comment on the Rainham case, "It's worth noting that comments relating to "anatomical knowledge" or "surgical skill" should be taken with a pinch of salt in these sort of cases. I have seen surgeons and pathologists make a right mess of human anatomy, and I have seen "amateurs" making a pretty good job of cutting up a body at their first attempt...and I find their assumption that a surgeon or anatomist couldn't not have done such a good job because they are not cutting as regularly as a hunter or a butcher quite bizarre."(Marriott, 2015.)

Thanks John. I am just uncomfortable that Dr Biggs perhaps 'casual' comments based on scant material I provided in the four torso cases is being referenced as some sort of academic research just because it happens to have been published in a rushed, and in places inaccurate, after-thought chapter in Trevor Marriott's book. I wasn't aware this material would be published and I wonder if Dr Biggs did.

Recently Dr Biggs (via Marriott) mentioned that he had worked on a 'handful' of cases involving dismemberment in his short career and that two cases can look very similar in terms of how someone would go about reducing a body for disposal. That's very interesting but Dr Biggs list of the usual commonalities included 'splitting torsos in half' whereas; two of the four cases under discussion had their torso divided into 3 sections, one into 2 and one not divided, so Dr Biggs was obviously not addressing specifics of the four cases in his conclusions, just making general comments.

I might also guess that Dr Biggs 'handful' of cases weren't all cases of a similar victim type- gender, age, displaying similar wounds and organs removed at a time when a post mortem mutilator was at work in the same city.

I will leave it there also.

[Fisherman]

Hi Debra,

Thanks for this, it's much appreciated. It does, however, seem that Dr Biggs considered that the Victorian autopsies were less thorough than would be the case today. In fact, referring to the inquest reports in the Eddowes case he comments, "there's actually very little detail of use in the text", and "much of the description is vague and potentially ambiguous" (Marriott, 2015). He also made an interesting comment on the Rainham case, "It's worth noting that comments relating to "anatomical knowledge" or "surgical skill" should be taken with a pinch of salt in these sort of cases. I have seen surgeons and pathologists make a right mess of human anatomy, and I have seen "amateurs" making a pretty good job of cutting up a body at their first attempt...and I find their assumption that a surgeon or anatomist couldn't not have done such a good job because they are not cutting as regularly as a hunter or a butcher quite bizarre."(Marriott, 2015.)

I think it is important to keep in mind that the medicos did not think they were dealing with a colleague surgeon - that was not the skill they acknowledged. The torso killer knew how to disarticulate limbs, which vertebrae to make divisions between - and he was an extremely clean cutter. Like Debra points out, the disarticulation of limbs made by a surgeon are not disarticulations made at the joints, but this was where the torso man knew how to remove limbs - at the joints.
Biggs seems to labour under the misapprehension that the torso man was pointed out as a surgeon. He was not. He was described as a very skilled cutter and disarticulator.

[GUT]

Actually, I was talking more about matters knit to this thread as such; the possible ties between the Ripper and the torso killer.
When it comes to that illusive door and the whole the-Ripper-was-a-PC business, I tend to agree with you. I donīt know if you have the proverb about preparing soup on a nail, but if you do, youīll know what I am talking about.

Nope don't know that one, but I'll try and track it down. But I think I get the gist anyway

[John G]

That is not much of a case comment, though, is it? It sounds more as if he is uncertain about to what extent he could rely on his predecessors.
If you read his overall comments, you will see that he seems uninformed about the cases, presuming that they will be similar to the ones he has seen himself!

Anybody is welcome to his own take on all of this. I just think that the similarities outweigh the perceived dissimilarities, and I am tired of the age-old perception that the cases don't compare. Finding dead women with ripped abdomens and missing inner organs was not that common!

Many thanks for the exchange - I need my beauty sleep now...

Thanks Fish, many thanks to you too. It's been an interesting exchange of views, as always

[John G]

Hi John
It should be pointed out that Dr Biggs made comments on the four cases 87-89 based on brief notes of the main points, provided by me. He did not have all the information available from the notes Bond and Hebbert provided on the cases for the 1894 Medical Jurisprudence textbook or Hebbert's Lectures on forensic medicine for the Westminster Hospital.
Also, I do feel Hebbert and Bond maybe had a point in the comments they made about doctors and surgeons not being as much practiced in joint disarticulation as a butcher or slaughterer may be in as much as it seems to be rare that surgeons make limb amputations at the actual joint.

Hi Debra,

Thanks for this, it's much appreciated. It does, however, seem that Dr Biggs considered that the Victorian autopsies were less thorough than would be the case today. In fact, referring to the inquest reports in the Eddowes case he comments, "there's actually very little detail of use in the text", and "much of the description is vague and potentially ambiguous" (Marriott, 2015). He also made an interesting comment on the Rainham case, "It's worth noting that comments relating to "anatomical knowledge" or "surgical skill" should be taken with a pinch of salt in these sort of cases. I have seen surgeons and pathologists make a right mess of human anatomy, and I have seen "amateurs" making a pretty good job of cutting up a body at their first attempt...and I find their assumption that a surgeon or anatomist couldn't not have done such a good job because they are not cutting as regularly as a hunter or a butcher quite bizarre."(Marriott, 2015.)

[Fisherman]

I'm yet to see a new argument.

Some "hypothesis" not a word of what it's based on that stands 2 seconds scrutiny.

A door into a room, that only one person believes was an access point.

A claim t was a copper, think that one's been around forever.

Maybe when we see some new evidence, hey what about that confession Pierre has for a starter, maybe there'll be some willingness to accept.

Actually, I was talking more about matters knit to this thread as such; the possible ties between the Ripper and the torso killer.
When it comes to that illusive door and the whole the-Ripper-was-a-PC business, I tend to agree with you. I donīt know if you have the proverb about preparing soup on a nail, but if you do, youīll know what I am talking about.

[GUT]

Funny you should say that. My take on things is that a whole lot has changed over the last weeks.

What has probably not changed is the unnwillingness to see the relevance of new arguments put forward. Then again, I donīt see that changing at all any time soon.

I'm yet to see a new argument.

Some "hypothesis" not a word of what it's based on that stands 2 seconds scrutiny.

A door into a room, that only one person believes was an access point.

A claim t was a copper, think that one's been around forever.

Maybe when we see some new evidence, hey what about that confession Pierre has for a starter, maybe there'll be some willingness to accept.

[Fisherman]

So with some ideas being thrown around at the moment nothing much has changed.

Funny you should say that. My take on things is that a whole lot has changed over the last weeks.

What has probably not changed is the overall unwillingness to see the relevance of new arguments put forward. Then again, I donīt see that changing at all any time soon.

[GUT]

Must have been no lack of horse ......

So with some ideas being thrown around at the moment nothing much has changed.

[drstrange169]

Hello Craig,


>>What was a "carman" ? I gather it was someone with a horse and cart transporting goods ?? So would there have been many of these people in London city.<<

Hundreds if not thousands. Although it would be extremely unlikely that carman working for large firms would have access to the carts for private use.



>>... someone who had their own horse and carriage. Would this be more of someone from a wealthy class ? <<

Louis Deimshitz, from the Berner Street club, had a pony and cart, so while the very poor may not have access, plenty of working people did. There were little stables all around the area where horses/ponies could be kept for small fees.