Originally posted by Trevor Marriott
View Post
The medical professionals familiar with this case at the time had no doubt that the findings of parts within the bundled remains were all related to the same deceased person. The missing female, who these parts were believed to have belonged to, was in a similar state of pregnancy as that which the discovered remains suggested (although the fetus had been removed, the remaining portions of the body presented themselves in such a manner as to seem likely to confirm such a belief) and, further, the unfortunate victim's found remains, which you appear to dispute, exhibited pubic hair colouration which was stated to be in conformity with the underarm hair of the same 'light sandy' colour and type, as found upon parts of the upper torso.
Had they come 'from any source' as you suggest, then there was;
1, A woman's body, resting somewhere undiscovered, that lacked only a portion of her upper external vagina, uterus, and upper abdominal walls,
2, And also, at the same time, a female being fished from the waters of London whose body lacked only that portion of her anatomy which you wish to ascribe to this other, different and otherwise undiscovered cadaver.
It would seem, when taking into account all of the medical information regarding the remains that were found, that the part you dispute was, in fact, one more remnant of the same poor lady.
Unless, of course, you have persuasive evidence to the contrary.
Yours, Caligo
Comment