Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Torso Murders

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

  • Originally posted by John G View Post
    Hi Fisherman,

    I would have to, respectfully, disagree with this. Apparently, both Chapman's and Eddowes killer removed organs without damage to surrounding tissues. In fact, Paul Harrison and Dr Calder concluded from this, that the bodies couldn't have been eviscerated at the murder site, given the level of skill demonstrated and the time pressure the killer would have been under.

    Trevor also consulted a master butcher, who acknowledged that he would not be able to remove organs in such a careful way. In fact, as he pointed out, "In abattoirs very little care is taken in removing the internal organs from animals it is very much what is called " 'cut and slash' " (Marriott, 2013.)

    And that is why, presumably, Dr Hebbert concluded that the Torso perpetrator was most likely a butcher, Hunter, or horse slaughterer.
    Dr Hebbert suggested a hunter or butcher was involved in dismembering the bodies due to the precise method of disarticulating the joints that was used in all four cases 87-89. The skin was cut through around the joint areas with several small cuts and the joints opened up and cut through.
    Hebbert's line of thought was that a surgeon would be less practiced in efficiently opening joints, and there is some sense in that idea as doctors or surgeons rarely performed amputations of limbs by removing them at the joint then or now. I did post some additional information published in an academic paper on the rarity of leg removal at the hip joint by surgeons then and now on one of the many occassions we've all discussed this before but I don't mind mentioning it again.
    However, Hebbert thought a butcher or hunter would be disarticulating joints regularly in his work and be expert at it, using the same method. There doesn't seem anything ridiculous or incredible about his suggestion to me.
    ,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸, Debs ,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,

    I am not DJA. He's called Dave.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
      Fisherman

      that’s fair enough, the podcast is a few years old. and am happy to accept I may even have misunderstood.

      One would have to be very sure to rule something out completely. Think we would agree on that.

      best wishes

      steve
      Hi Steve and Christer- yes, that podcast was a very long time ago and was a lot of information to commit to memory and talk about at the time and was much earlier on in my research. I don't remember mentioning the 1870's cases on the podcast to be honest so I don't recall what I said! ( I have never listened to it as I hate the sound of my own voice ) I am on the fence about the 1873 case, I wouldn't rule that one out, in fact I'd include it over the 1884 Tottenham cases. The detailed Lancet article also mentions the same careful and precise method of cutting around joints and then opening the joint up to remove limbs that was apparent in the 87-89 cases so that sways me a little.
      ,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸, Debs ,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,

      I am not DJA. He's called Dave.

      Comment


      • Dear Debra

        thanks for the clarification,

        Steve

        Comment


        • You guys are nuts".
          "Is all that we see or seem
          but a dream within a dream?"

          -Edgar Allan Poe


          "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
          quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

          -Frederick G. Abberline

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
            I actually find that hard to believe, are you sure that was a direct quote? I certainly wouldn't want to buy meat from an abattoir that wasn't careful about where they cut and what organs they might puncture and what substances might contaminate the carcass as a result....
            Now you've mentioned this, Josh; You've jogged my memory about a conversation I had on the boards with Trevor Marrioott where I had cause to question if Trevor had in some way mis-quoted his expert. I don't remember the exact details at the moment but I can dig this out again.
            ,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸, Debs ,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,

            I am not DJA. He's called Dave.

            Comment


            • Debra!

              Good to see you out here!

              I would like you to comment on a comparison between the work of the Ripper and the torso killer, when it comes to cutting skills.

              You point out how Hebbert meant that a butcher or a hunter could perhaps be traced by the cutting into the torso victims.

              Just like you say, Hebbert seemingly thought that it was the frequency with which a butcher disarticulated limbs that would have given him a skill that surpassed that of a surgeon, who would not have been as accustomed to this kind of cutting from his own profession.

              However, one must assume that a surgeon would have been just as knowledgeable as a butcher when it comes to where the cuts were to be applied and how the joint was to be opened up and how it should be cut through.

              In that purely theoretical department, the killer could have no advantage compared to a surgeon.The killers advantage would only become visible in the handiwork he applied, where his greater experience allowed him to do the cutting with greater ease and speed than a surgeon would be able to apply.

              Now, since we may predispose that a surgeon would know where and how to cut, we may conclude that it is in the practical result of the cutting that Hebbert read in a butcher.

              So how would the cutting work differ, if both men, killer/butcher and surgeon, knew exactly how to cut?

              The answer must lie in the speed of the operation, as far as I understand. Where a surgeon would be cutting more carefully, something that is given away by the veering direction of a cut, the killer never hesitaded, but instead provided long, sweeping, unhesitating cuts, where the knife never halted. And he still managed to direct the cuts exactly as he intended to.

              This is how we tell an expert from an amateur. It is the exact same thing as looking at a line that has been drawn slowly and hesitatingly with a pencil to one that has been drawn with an unhesitating sweep of the pencil.

              Am I making sense so far? I hope so.

              Now, let´s move on to Annie Chapman and how she got elevated to the victim of a surgeon, as per Phillips´ testimony at the inquest. I am quoting from the Lancet of September 1888:

              It was appears that the abdomen had been entirely laid open; that the intestines, severed from their mesenteric attachments, had been lifted out of the body, and placed on the shoulder of the corpse; whilst from the pelvis the uterus and its appendages, with the upper portion of the vagina and the posterior two-thirds of the bladder, had been entirely removed. No trace of these parts could be found, and the incisions were cleanly cut, avoiding the rectum, and dividing the vagina low enough to avoid injury to the cervix uteri. Obviously the work was that of an expert--of one, at least, who had such knowledge of anatomical or pathological examinations as to be enabled to secure the pelvic organs with one sweep of a knife, which must therefore, as Mr. Phillips pointed out, have been at least five inches long.

              Now, we all know that there is no operation in the world that requires a surgeon to remove the uterus, the upper portion of the vagina and the posterior two-thirds of the bladder. Such an operation would immediately kill the patient.
              A hysterectomi can of course be performed, taking out the uterus, but a hysterectomi would never involve parts of the vagina and the bladder.

              So why did Phillips speak of expertise? Because, I would suggest, of the quality of the knife-work. We have a long sweep of the knife, unhesitating and leaving cleanly cut surfaces. In other words, we have the exact same thing as we have in the torso cases - a knifework so superior that it makes you think that an expert has been involved.
              In Chapmans case, that expertise deprived her of the uterus, the upper part of the vagina and the posterior two-thirds of her bladder...

              Dr Galloway, who examined the Rainham torso, first offered the suggestion that somebody with a thorough experience of surgery had done the cutting of the victim.
              In court, he had changed his mind, and said that "The body had been divided by someone who knew the structure of the human frame, but not necessarily by a skilled anatomist."

              What I read into that is something that dovetails exactly with the rest I mention here - the initial reaction of the medicos when faced with the work of the Ripper AND the Torso man was awe - they were blown away by how skillfully these men used their knives, only to later realize that the cutting they did was not that that of a surgeon or anatomist.

              How large is the chance that two contemporary serialists in a world where serialists were extremely rare, would have this in common too - apart from the cutting from breastbone to pubes, the removing of the abdominal walls in large flaps, the taking away of organs that were both sexually and non-sexually related...

              I am at a loss to see how anyone can discard the very obvious suggestion that these murders had one perpetrator only.
              Last edited by Fisherman; 05-15-2016, 12:54 AM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Debra A View Post
                Now you've mentioned this, Josh; You've jogged my memory about a conversation I had on the boards with Trevor Marrioott where I had cause to question if Trevor had in some way mis-quoted his expert. I don't remember the exact details at the moment but I can dig this out again.
                Debra

                I can tell you there was no misquote, the cut and slash method used in abbatoirs is in reference to the killing method and subsequent removl of the organs. The animals are killed, hung up on a hook which is on a moving line the stomachs are slit open and the organs cut out. Time is of the essence these men are experts in what they do hence they can do it in double quick time, but of course they have the benefit of light to aid them and they wear a chain glove to stop them cutting their hands.

                I would also say that over the years I have taken hundreds, if not thousands of statements from witnesses etc. The statement is taken and then read back to the person giving the statement so there can be no mis-interpretation of what the witnesses is saying.

                There is no way a cut and slash method was used by the killer of any of the "Ripper" victims,and there is no way a butcher of horse slaughterer could have removed the organs from any of the "Ripper" victims despite what the victorian doctors suggested.

                If that had have been the case the NHS today being short of doctors could employ abbatoir staff to ease the workload on operations

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                  Debra!

                  Good to see you out here!

                  I would like you to comment on a comparison between the work of the Ripper and the torso killer, when it comes to cutting skills.

                  You point out how Hebbert meant that a butcher or a hunter could perhaps be traced by the cutting into the torso victims.

                  Just like you say, Hebbert seemingly thought that it was the frequency with which a butcher disarticulated limbs that would have given him a skill that surpassed that of a surgeon, who would not have been as accustomed to this kind of cutting from his own profession.

                  However, one must assume that a surgeon would have been just as knowledgeable as a butcher when it comes to where the cuts were to be applied and how the joint was to be opened up and how it should be cut through.

                  In that purely theoretical department, the killer could have no advantage compared to a surgeon.The killers advantage would only become visible in the handiwork he applied, where his greater experience allowed him to do the cutting with greater ease and speed than a surgeon would be able to apply.

                  Now, since we may predispose that a surgeon would know where and how to cut, we may conclude that it is in the practical result of the cutting that Hebbert read in a butcher.

                  So how would the cutting work differ, if both men, killer/butcher and surgeon, knew exactly how to cut?

                  The answer must lie in the speed of the operation, as far as I understand. Where a surgeon would be cutting more carefully, something that is given away by the veering direction of a cut, the killer never hesitaded, but instead provided long, sweeping, unhesitating cuts, where the knife never halted. And he still managed to direct the cuts exactly as he intended to.

                  This is how we tell an expert from an amateur. It is the exact same thing as looking at a line that has been drawn slowly and hesitatingly with a pencil to one that has been drawn with an unhesitating sweep of the pencil.

                  Am I making sense so far? I hope so.

                  Now, let´s move on to Annie Chapman and how she got elevated to the victim of a surgeon, as per Phillips´ testimony at the inquest. I am quoting from the Lancet of September 1888:

                  It was appears that the abdomen had been entirely laid open; that the intestines, severed from their mesenteric attachments, had been lifted out of the body, and placed on the shoulder of the corpse; whilst from the pelvis the uterus and its appendages, with the upper portion of the vagina and the posterior two-thirds of the bladder, had been entirely removed. No trace of these parts could be found, and the incisions were cleanly cut, avoiding the rectum, and dividing the vagina low enough to avoid injury to the cervix uteri. Obviously the work was that of an expert--of one, at least, who had such knowledge of anatomical or pathological examinations as to be enabled to secure the pelvic organs with one sweep of a knife, which must therefore, as Mr. Phillips pointed out, have been at least five inches long.

                  Now, we all know that there is no operation in the world that requires a surgeon to remove the uterus, the upper portion of the vagina and the posterior two-thirds of the bladder. Such an operation would immediately kill the patient.
                  A hysterectomi can of course be performed, taking out the uterus, but a hysterectomi would never involve parts of the vagina and the bladder.

                  So why did Phillips speak of expertise? Because, I would suggest, of the quality of the knife-work. We have a long sweep of the knife, unhesitating and leaving cleanly cut surfaces. In other words, we have the exact same thing as we have in the torso cases - a knifework so superior that it makes you think that an expert has been involved.
                  In Chapmans case, that expertise deprived her of the uterus, the upper part of the vagina and the posterior two-thirds of her bladder...

                  Dr Galloway, who examined the Rainham torso, first offered the suggestion that somebody with a thorough experience of surgery had done the cutting of the victim.
                  In court, he had changed his mind, and said that "The body had been divided by someone who knew the structure of the human frame, but not necessarily by a skilled anatomist."

                  What I read into that is something that dovetails exactly with the rest I mention here - the initial reaction of the medicos when faced with the work of the Ripper AND the Torso man was awe - they were blown away by how skillfully these men used their knives, only to later realize that the cutting they did was not that that of a surgeon or anatomist.

                  How large is the chance that two contemporary serialists in a world where serialists were extremely rare, would have this in common too - apart from the cutting from breastbone to pubes, the removing of the abdominal walls in large flaps, the taking away of organs that were both sexually and non-sexually related...

                  I am at a loss to see how anyone can discard the very obvious suggestion that these murders had one perpetrator only.
                  Let me remind you again as to some of what Dr Biggs says

                  "I don't think the removal of 'flaps' of tissue can be taken as evidence of a 'signature' of the killer. By signature, I am including both the intentional (i.e. 'calling card') and unintentional (habit, MO) interpretations of the word. Essentially, these two individuals could have been killed by the same person, or by different individuals. There is no way of telling one scenario from the other based purely on the pattern of body dismemberment"

                  "A person who is faced with a body to dispose of will often attempt to 'chop it up', either to make it easier to hide, easier to transport or easier to 'get rid of' in some way. What is quite striking is that even individuals with no prior knowledge will often end up doing a job that will look remarkably similar (in appearance afterwards) to that of another, completely unrelated case. It is not the presence of a common killer that is responsible for the similarities between cases, but the fact that bodies tend to have fairly obvious 'joins' to go for when attempting to reduce the size / bulk of a body.

                  Put simply, the pattern of removing the head and limbs from the torso +/- splitting the torso in half seems to be fairly 'normal' in cases of dismemberment.!

                  Another observation that is usually quoted in historical cases is that the 'quality' of the dismemberment somehow points towards a skilled individual. Whether this is medical / surgical / anatomical knowledge, or just prior experience of butchery / abattoir work varies, but the observation is often cited. I can see how it is tempting to jump to this conclusion, but I have to say that I would usually regard the quality of dissection as an indicator of a lack of prior knowledge or experience! Anyone who has taken the legs off a roast chicken can probably work out that the legs will come off a human with the right encouragement... "

                  "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.

                  I'm not saying there is no link between the bodies; of course, I'm just saying that you can't make that link based on similar descriptions of the remains by the medical persons who examined them at the time."

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                    Let me remind you again as to some of what Dr Biggs says

                    "I don't think the removal of 'flaps' of tissue can be taken as evidence of a 'signature' of the killer. By signature, I am including both the intentional (i.e. 'calling card') and unintentional (habit, MO) interpretations of the word. Essentially, these two individuals could have been killed by the same person, or by different individuals. There is no way of telling one scenario from the other based purely on the pattern of body dismemberment"

                    "A person who is faced with a body to dispose of will often attempt to 'chop it up', either to make it easier to hide, easier to transport or easier to 'get rid of' in some way. What is quite striking is that even individuals with no prior knowledge will often end up doing a job that will look remarkably similar (in appearance afterwards) to that of another, completely unrelated case. It is not the presence of a common killer that is responsible for the similarities between cases, but the fact that bodies tend to have fairly obvious 'joins' to go for when attempting to reduce the size / bulk of a body.

                    Put simply, the pattern of removing the head and limbs from the torso +/- splitting the torso in half seems to be fairly 'normal' in cases of dismemberment.!

                    Another observation that is usually quoted in historical cases is that the 'quality' of the dismemberment somehow points towards a skilled individual. Whether this is medical / surgical / anatomical knowledge, or just prior experience of butchery / abattoir work varies, but the observation is often cited. I can see how it is tempting to jump to this conclusion, but I have to say that I would usually regard the quality of dissection as an indicator of a lack of prior knowledge or experience! Anyone who has taken the legs off a roast chicken can probably work out that the legs will come off a human with the right encouragement... "

                    "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.

                    I'm not saying there is no link between the bodies; of course, I'm just saying that you can't make that link based on similar descriptions of the remains by the medical persons who examined them at the time."

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                    Oh dear, Trevor...

                    What is it that is so hard to understand?

                    Look at what Dr Biggs says about the "flaps":

                    "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."

                    This is the kind of "flap" Biggs is speaking of. It is the kind of flap or "bridge" as he says, that can be found if two cutlets are not entirely separated from each other, but instead hang together by a small tongue of skin.

                    But the flaps in the Jackson, Chapman and Kelly cases were not small tongues present where two chunks of meat had not been entirely separated - they were large portions of skin and subcutaneous tissue, deliberately cut away so as to open up a free access to the abdominal cavity, a "window" if you like.

                    You could just as well post any text written on any subject by any medico and claim that it has a a bearing on the torso murders. It has not, however, Trevor, and it is looooooong overdue that you understood that.

                    The only mystery that remains here is the question whether you actually do believe that Biggs is commenting specifically on the torso killings, and that you think you are making a useful contribution to the discussion. Such an aim would be commendable, but the truth of the matter is that the material you quote has no bearing whatsoever on the discussion. None, nada, zero, zilch.

                    What Biggs does is to speak of his own experience of dismemberment cases. It only has a bearing in the respect that we can clearly see that the cases he has dealt with have not been anything at all like the torso cases.

                    But you expect us to accept that since Biggs has this experience, it stands to reason that the torso cases will have been like the cases Biggs has dealt with. It is so totally bonkers that I would personally be mortified with shame for having thrown the idea out here.

                    Then again, I would never do such a thing, since I would immediately realize that the material would be of no value at all to the discussion.

                    The most interesting question here is why you fail to see that yourself.
                    Last edited by Fisherman; 05-15-2016, 01:43 AM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                      Oh dear, Trevor...

                      What is it that is so hard to understand?

                      Look at what Dr Biggs says about the "flaps":

                      "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."

                      This is the kind of "flap" Biggs is speaking of. It is the kind of flap or "bridge" as he says, that can be found if two cutlets are not entirely separated from each other, but instead hang together by a small tongue of skin.

                      But the flaps in the Jackson, Chapman and Kelly cases were not small tongues present where two chunks of meat had not been entirely separated - they were large portions of skin and subcutaneous tissue, deliberately cut away so as to open up a free access to the abdominal cavity, a "window" if you like.

                      You could just as well post any text written on any subject by any medico and claim that it has a a bearing on the torso murders. It has not, however, Trevor, and it is looooooong overdue that you understood that.

                      The only mystery that remains here is the question whether you actually do believe that Biggs is commenting specifically on the torso killings, and that you think you are making a useful contribution to the discussion. Such an aim would be commendable, but the truth of the matter is that the material you quote has no bearing whatsoever on the discussion. None, nada, zero, zilch.

                      What Biggs does is to speak of his own experience of dismemberment cases. It only has a bearing in the respect that we can clearly see that the cases he has dealt with have not been anything at all like the torso cases.

                      But you expect us to accept that since Biggs has this experience, it stands to reason that the torso cases will have been like the cases Biggs has dealt with. It is so totally bonkers that I would personally be mortified with shame for having thrown the idea out here.

                      Then again, I would never do such a thing, since I would immediately realize that the material would be of no value at all to the discussion.

                      The most interesting question here is why you fail to see that yourself.
                      Dr Biggs knows what he is talking about you dont !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                      You are yet again blinded by your arrogant obsession !!!!!!!!!!!! we saw it with Lechmere, now you are obsessed with suggesting a Torso serial killer.

                      Congratulations you have now successfully added armchair forensic pathologist to your list of attributes.

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                      Comment


                      • Trevor Marriott: Dr Biggs knows what he is talking about you dont !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                        Does Dr Biggs know what he is talking about? Yes, undoubtedly. And he is talking about his own experience of dismemberment cases, and what he has seen while examining these.
                        What he does not talk about is the torso murders, however.

                        Do I know what I am talking about? Decidedly, yes - I am talking about how contemporary medicos were very impressed by the clean, exact work of the torso man - something that is in total and bright contrast to the experience of Dr Biggs.

                        Do you know what you are talking about? Let´s put it short: No, you don´t.


                        You are yet again blinded by your arrogant obsession !!!!!!!!!!!! we saw it with Lechmere, now you are obsessed with suggesting a Torso serial killer.

                        "We...? I think that you are a one-man team, Trevor. And the way things are going, it is pretty certain to stay that way. There are very many people out here who support the idea that the Ripper and the Torso man could have been one and the same, people who discerningly weigh the material and realize that the ban that has formerly prevailed on suggesting a connection has been ill-informed and improductive.

                        The world moves on, Trevor.
                        Last edited by Fisherman; 05-15-2016, 03:07 AM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                          Debra!

                          Good to see you out here!

                          I would like you to comment on a comparison between the work of the Ripper and the torso killer, when it comes to cutting skills.

                          You point out how Hebbert meant that a butcher or a hunter could perhaps be traced by the cutting into the torso victims.

                          Just like you say, Hebbert seemingly thought that it was the frequency with which a butcher disarticulated limbs that would have given him a skill that surpassed that of a surgeon, who would not have been as accustomed to this kind of cutting from his own profession.

                          However, one must assume that a surgeon would have been just as knowledgeable as a butcher when it comes to where the cuts were to be applied and how the joint was to be opened up and how it should be cut through.

                          In that purely theoretical department, the killer could have no advantage compared to a surgeon.The killers advantage would only become visible in the handiwork he applied, where his greater experience allowed him to do the cutting with greater ease and speed than a surgeon would be able to apply.

                          Now, since we may predispose that a surgeon would know where and how to cut, we may conclude that it is in the practical result of the cutting that Hebbert read in a butcher.

                          So how would the cutting work differ, if both men, killer/butcher and surgeon, knew exactly how to cut?

                          The answer must lie in the speed of the operation, as far as I understand. Where a surgeon would be cutting more carefully, something that is given away by the veering direction of a cut, the killer never hesitaded, but instead provided long, sweeping, unhesitating cuts, where the knife never halted. And he still managed to direct the cuts exactly as he intended to.

                          This is how we tell an expert from an amateur. It is the exact same thing as looking at a line that has been drawn slowly and hesitatingly with a pencil to one that has been drawn with an unhesitating sweep of the pencil.

                          Am I making sense so far? I hope so.

                          Now, let´s move on to Annie Chapman and how she got elevated to the victim of a surgeon, as per Phillips´ testimony at the inquest. I am quoting from the Lancet of September 1888:

                          It was appears that the abdomen had been entirely laid open; that the intestines, severed from their mesenteric attachments, had been lifted out of the body, and placed on the shoulder of the corpse; whilst from the pelvis the uterus and its appendages, with the upper portion of the vagina and the posterior two-thirds of the bladder, had been entirely removed. No trace of these parts could be found, and the incisions were cleanly cut, avoiding the rectum, and dividing the vagina low enough to avoid injury to the cervix uteri. Obviously the work was that of an expert--of one, at least, who had such knowledge of anatomical or pathological examinations as to be enabled to secure the pelvic organs with one sweep of a knife, which must therefore, as Mr. Phillips pointed out, have been at least five inches long.

                          Now, we all know that there is no operation in the world that requires a surgeon to remove the uterus, the upper portion of the vagina and the posterior two-thirds of the bladder. Such an operation would immediately kill the patient.
                          A hysterectomi can of course be performed, taking out the uterus, but a hysterectomi would never involve parts of the vagina and the bladder.

                          So why did Phillips speak of expertise? Because, I would suggest, of the quality of the knife-work. We have a long sweep of the knife, unhesitating and leaving cleanly cut surfaces. In other words, we have the exact same thing as we have in the torso cases - a knifework so superior that it makes you think that an expert has been involved.
                          In Chapmans case, that expertise deprived her of the uterus, the upper part of the vagina and the posterior two-thirds of her bladder...

                          Dr Galloway, who examined the Rainham torso, first offered the suggestion that somebody with a thorough experience of surgery had done the cutting of the victim.
                          In court, he had changed his mind, and said that "The body had been divided by someone who knew the structure of the human frame, but not necessarily by a skilled anatomist."

                          What I read into that is something that dovetails exactly with the rest I mention here - the initial reaction of the medicos when faced with the work of the Ripper AND the Torso man was awe - they were blown away by how skillfully these men used their knives, only to later realize that the cutting they did was not that that of a surgeon or anatomist.

                          How large is the chance that two contemporary serialists in a world where serialists were extremely rare, would have this in common too - apart from the cutting from breastbone to pubes, the removing of the abdominal walls in large flaps, the taking away of organs that were both sexually and non-sexually related...

                          I am at a loss to see how anyone can discard the very obvious suggestion that these murders had one perpetrator only.

                          Nicely put, Fish. It reminded me of this by W. J. Gordon:


                          In a few minutes his feet are hooked up to cross-beams above, and two men pounce upon him to flay him; for the sooner he is ready the quicker he cooks. Slash, slash, go the knives, and the hide is peeled off about as easily as a tablecloth; and so clean and uninjured is the body that it looks like the muscle model we see in the books and in the plaster casts at the corn-chandler's. Then, with full knowledge gained by almost life-long practice, for the trade is hereditary, the meat is slit off with razor-like knives, and the bones are left white and clean and yet unscraped, even the neck vertebrae being cleared in a few strokes - one of the quickest things in carving imaginable.


                          The reference to the plaster casts at corn-chandler's is intriguing. Didn't Ma Lechmere take up that occupation after after the horse meat thing?

                          Now all we have to do is toss a coin and decide between regular slaughtermen/butchers and knackermen. Unless the evidence provides a clue.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
                            Nicely put, Fish. It reminded me of this by W. J. Gordon:


                            In a few minutes his feet are hooked up to cross-beams above, and two men pounce upon him to flay him; for the sooner he is ready the quicker he cooks. Slash, slash, go the knives, and the hide is peeled off about as easily as a tablecloth; and so clean and uninjured is the body that it looks like the muscle model we see in the books and in the plaster casts at the corn-chandler's. Then, with full knowledge gained by almost life-long practice, for the trade is hereditary, the meat is slit off with razor-like knives, and the bones are left white and clean and yet unscraped, even the neck vertebrae being cleared in a few strokes - one of the quickest things in carving imaginable.


                            The reference to the plaster casts at corn-chandler's is intriguing. Didn't Ma Lechmere take up that occupation after after the horse meat thing?

                            Now all we have to do is toss a coin and decide between regular slaughtermen/butchers and knackermen. Unless the evidence provides a clue.
                            Thanks, Gary. Yes, experience of cutting up meat of some sort and disarticulating limbs will probably be on the CV of a combined Ripper/Torso killer.

                            My guess is that helping out with cutting up horses in combination with anatomical insights would do the trick. I would really, really like to know to what degree Charles Lechmere would have answered up to these things!

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                              Trevor Marriott: Dr Biggs knows what he is talking about you dont !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                              Does Dr Biggs know what he is talking about? Yes, undoubtedly. And he is talking about his own experience of dismemberment cases, and what he has seen while examining these.
                              What he does not talk about is the torso murders, however.

                              Do I know what I am talking about? Decidedly, yes - I am talking about how contemporary medicos were very impressed by the clean, exact work of the torso man - something that is in total and bright contrast to the experience of Dr Biggs.

                              Do you know what you are talking about? Let´s put it short: No, you don´t.


                              You are yet again blinded by your arrogant obsession !!!!!!!!!!!! we saw it with Lechmere, now you are obsessed with suggesting a Torso serial killer.

                              "We...? I think that you are a one-man team, Trevor. And the way things are going, it is pretty certain to stay that way. There are very many people out here who support the idea that the Ripper and the Torso man could have been one and the same, people who discerningly weigh the material and realize that the ban that has formerly prevailed on suggesting a connection has been ill-informed and improductive.

                              The world moves on, Trevor.
                              While I agree that The Ripper and The Torso Killer were two separate killers the notion that the Torso Victims weren't murdered and dismembered is nonsense.

                              Comment


                              • The difference between the work of a slaughterman/butcher and that of a knacker was that the former 'dressed' the meat for the table whereas the latter simply stripped carcases of meat that would be thrown into a boiler.

                                The knacker would have been less skilled but more speedy, I'd say. (Of course, I'm thinking of a professional knackerman working for the 'absolute monopoly' rather than a hobbyist.)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X