Severed limbs.....

[Michael W Richards]

I know you refuse to consider this Sam, but here is one quote from the Daily News on the 10th...."The unfortunate woman had been cut and hacked by the assassin's knife in a manner which was revolting beyond all description. The fiendish assailant was not content with taking the life of his victim by severing the head from the body, but he had exercised an infernal ingenuity in despoiling the corpse of its human semblance. Both ears and the nose had been cut off, and the flesh of the cheeks and forehead peeled off; the breasts were cut away, evidently with a sharp knife, and placed on the table near the bed. The abdomen had been ripped open and disembowelled, portions of the entrails lying about the bed, the liver being placed between the legs. Both thighs had been denuded of flesh, laying bare the bones, and the excised portions laid on the table. Some of the internal parts of the body had been taken away, while, in addition, one arm was almost severed from the trunk, and one hand thrust inside the empty cavity of the abdomen."

That's the type of comment I referred to, and this is not the only example of it. The left arm is across the trunk, therefore the one arm "almost severed" is the right.

[Sam Flynn]

I have seen an article that suggests the right arm was attached only by sinew

Well, it's wrong. Dr Bond described Kelly's wounds in detail, and he would have said that the right arm was only attached by a sinew if that had been the case, but he didn't. He did, however, unambiguously describe the arm as being "slightly abducted" from the body... which just means that it wasn't flush with her side, but subtended a small angle with it (a bit like someone impersonating a penguin, let's say).

The word "abducted" has, from time to time, been misinterpreted by some ripperologists as meaning that the arm had been severed, in whole or in part, from the body, but it's simply not true. "Abducted" is a straightforward medical term which applies to limbs which have been displaced from its normal resting position.

[Michael W Richards]

"The woman's body was found lying on the bed. The room was a small one. Horrible to relate the head was absolutely severed from the body. In the words of our informant. "The head was loose, the arm was out of the body, and laid on the woman's bosom. The flesh was cut from the face." So terrible is the disfigurement that is s impossible to recognise the woman. Only in outward shape does she bear any resemblance to a human being." From the Echo, November 9th.

That addresses what has been said here about a Millers Court severing, the head is what is being discussed as being separated. I have seen an article that suggests the right arm was attached only by sinew, Im looking for that. the angle in relation to the body is what Bond refers to, but the article refers to it attachment.

Just to add...the head separation is something that Polly and Annies killer may have tried to do, via the deepness of the double cuts.

[packers stem]

Baxter specifically mentioned the Dorset Street case
I see no reason why Phillips would confuse with Hanbury Street.
No leg was removed in Hanbury Street though Baxter and Phillips clearly confirm that at least one leg was removed in Dorset Street

[Debra A]

Indeed, Debs, but I'm just suggesting that Phillips might have been getting his wires crossed with the Chapman case, where he specifically suggested that a possible attempt had been made to separate the vertebrae of the neck.

Yes, there is no direct reference to an attempt at division in Mary Kelly's case but the description of MJK's cervical vertebra being deeply notched at the same point the Pinchin Street torso was divided coupled with the sparse surviving post mortem records in the case, particularly from Phillips himself, I wouldn't rule out that he was making a comparison with MJK.

[Sam Flynn]

Indeed, Debs, but I'm just suggesting that Phillips might have been getting his wires crossed with the Chapman case, where he specifically suggested that a possible attempt had been made to separate the vertebrae of the neck.

[Trevor Marriott]

Well. yes. But no one is claiming it as firm evidence, Sam, are they? Part of this thread is about Phillips observations on the similarity of the division of the neck and cervical vertebra in the cases of Mary Jane Kelly and the Pinchin Street torso, of which there seems to be no reason to doubt his observations were valid in that respect? He was there, he describes a similarity he personally observed, although his ultimate personal conclusion was that there was no connection.

Another example of unsafe witness testimony !!!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Debra A]

It doesn't rule it out as a possibility, Debs, but it isn't firm evidence that the throat was cut first, or in any way other than as a byproduct of removing the head.

Well. yes. But no one is claiming it as firm evidence, Sam, are they? Part of this thread is about Phillips observations on the similarity of the division of the neck and cervical vertebra in the cases of Mary Jane Kelly and the Pinchin Street torso, of which there seems to be no reason to doubt his observations were valid in that respect? He was there, he describes a similarity he personally observed, although his ultimate personal conclusion was that there was no connection.

[Sam Flynn]

Yes, so not directly through the cervical vertebra first?. A neck wound near the back was the start point. This doesn't rule out a cut throat as a starting point in that case?

It doesn't rule it out as a possibility, Debs, but it isn't firm evidence that the throat was cut first, or in any way other than as a byproduct of removing the head.

[Debra A]

"A little to the right side behind" sounds like a cut commencing at the back of the neck, just to the right of the spine.

Yes, so not directly through the cervical vertebra first?. A neck wound near the back was the start point. This doesn't rule out a cut throat as a starting point in that case?

[Sam Flynn]

Of the Pinchin St Torso, Pall Mall Gazette 24 Sept 1889;

"Dr. Phillips went on to say that in the presence of Dr. Gordon Brown and Mr. Hibbard he had further examined the body. The neck had been severed by a clean instrument, commencing a little to the right side behind. It had severed the whole of the structures of the neck, dividing the cartilage of the neck in front and separating the bones of the spine behind.

"A little to the right side behind" sounds like a cut commencing at the back of the neck, just to the right of the spine.

[Debra A]

The direction of the blade would have a bearing on matters, too. Do we know whether Pinchin's head was removed from the front or the back? Not that I intend to start removing heads but, if I did, I'd probably insert my knife between the grooves in the vertebrę at the back of the neck.

That's assuming there was no initial throat cutting, Sam and we don't know that. In fact Joshua's clip seems to suggest Phillips thought the neck division began at the front?

[Joshua Rogan]

The direction of the blade would have a bearing on matters, too. Do we know whether Pinchin's head was removed from the front or the back? Not that I intend to start removing heads but, if I did, I'd probably insert my knife between the grooves in the vertebrę at the back of the neck.

Of the Pinchin St Torso, Pall Mall Gazette 24 Sept 1889;

"Dr. Phillips went on to say that in the presence of Dr. Gordon Brown and Mr. Hibbard he had further examined the body. The neck had been severed by a clean instrument, commencing a little to the right side behind. It had severed the whole of the structures of the neck, dividing the cartilage of the neck in front and separating the bones of the spine behind.

[Sam Flynn]

The direction of the blade would have a bearing on matters, too. Do we know whether Pinchin's head was removed from the front or the back? Not that I intend to start removing heads but, if I did, I'd probably insert my knife between the grooves in the vertebrę at the back of the neck.

[Debra A]

Thanks, Sam. In Mary's case it was described as 'deeply notched' in this position whereas we know it was actually divided at this point in the Pinchin St Case but that could also also mean that the actual throat cutting was in a similar position in both cases which seems to be what Phillips is saying, regardless of any conclusion he made?