Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Due date

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    Yes I might if it was an issue that you had gone public with and could not be conclusively proved and there were other plausible explanations for the public to consider
    The public have been misled far to long by what they have seen and read. The old previously accepted fact do not now stand up to close scrutiny

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    Do you really think that anything you have marketed out here has had any impact at all on how people consider the torso cases a string of murders perpetrated by the same person? If anything, you have cemented that view by your way of arguing, Trevor.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
      Yes I might if it was an issue that you had gone public with and could not be conclusively proved and there were other plausible explanations for the public to consider
      The public have been misled far to long by what they have seen and read. The old previously accepted fact do not now stand up to close scrutiny

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
      ,,`,, Debs ,,`,,

      I am not DJA. He's called Dave.

      Comment


      • #18
        Thanks Errata, there's a lot of variables in there...

        I believe the uterus itself was found intact, albeit with a six inch incision in the side and missing a foetus. Or two. Can't discount twins, although only one placenta was found;

        "The parts found were: (1) two large flaps of skin, the uterus and placenta..."

        "The upper part of the vagina was attached to the uterus; both ovaries and broad ligaments were present, and the posterior wall of the bladder. The uterus had been opened on the left side by a vertical cut, six inches long, through the left wall. The organ was much dilated the vessels on the inner surface large and open and the mucus membrane swollen and softened. The uterus measured 10in. long by 7.5 in. wide. The circumference of the os externum was 4in
        ....The cord measured 8in. and the distal ends showed a clean cut. The vessels contained fluid blood."

        Although she may have been destitute, it seems Liz wasn't exactly stick-thin. Her mother described her as;

        "about 5ft. 5in. in height, very well formed, stout and plump"

        But then, she was pregnant, and I'm sure it's possible to be malnourished without being a skeleton.
        Anyway, does that change the calculations at all?

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Debra A View Post
          I didn't know about the mills at Horsleydown and near the Albert Bridge. Thanks for that.
          I had a look for other flour mills in case it was significant. There are two others I found along the river between the two mentioned, but neither are significantly near a site where remains were recovered. So probably just another of those strange coincidences that history seems to be filled with (if you look hard enough).

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
            I had a look for other flour mills in case it was significant. There are two others I found along the river between the two mentioned, but neither are significantly near a site where remains were recovered. So probably just another of those strange coincidences that history seems to be filled with (if you look hard enough).
            Yes, I agree, Joshua, coincidence only. It's similar to the factory close to where the Rainham remains cropped up that had dealings with James Maybrick and his cotton .
            ,,`,, Debs ,,`,,

            I am not DJA. He's called Dave.

            Comment

            Working...
            X