Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Torso Murders

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

  • #16
    Yes, at least one of the torsos had the vertebrae sawn through.

    Comment


    • #17
      Surely, it's not impossible that the Ripper could have had an hideout where to dispose of a victim in any way he liked. He may have been able, occasionaly, to lure or otherwise transport a victim there...and it's equally possible that he did not want to risk something like that anytime, which lead him to the streets.

      After all...it's possible for the grisly mementos of the ripper to be still, somehow, hidden in a place like that ...!

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by John G View Post
        It depends how much reliance you place on the opinion of Victorian GPs! I mean, here's a basic question asked by Dr Biggs about Liz Jackson: "Are the fragments definitely the same individual?"
        John, Dr Biggs thought that the torso murder dismemberment was sloppy and crude... He worked from the assumption that all dismemberment cases are.

        He was sorely wrong on that score.

        The Jackson parts were carefully joined together, and they were proven to have come from the same body. Given the quality of the cutting work, precise and careful as it was, it would have been easy enough to conclude.
        Last edited by Fisherman; 05-11-2016, 12:07 PM.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by John G View Post
          It depends how much reliance you place on the opinion of Victorian GPs! I mean, here's a basic question asked by Dr Biggs about Liz Jackson: "Are the fragments definitely the same individual?"
          What Fisherman said. It seems pretty likely to me, anyway, but read for yourself;

          https://archive.org/stream/asystemle...e/n88/mode/2up

          Torso autopsies p.75-87, Liz Jackson (case III) p.81-84

          Comment


          • #20
            A diversion but... more and more, i turn to the Morning Advertiser first. There s an interesting article mudway down the page - 6oct.
            there,s nothing new, only the unexplored

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
              What Fisherman said. It seems pretty likely to me, anyway, but read for yourself;

              https://archive.org/stream/asystemle...e/n88/mode/2up

              Torso autopsies p.75-87, Liz Jackson (case III) p.81-84
              The Victorian GPs were not forensic experts, and neither is anyone on this board, as far as I know. Liz Jackson was clearly cut for purposes of dismemberment, and it's clearly ludicrous to suggest that that was Kelly's murderer's intent. And where does any medical expert suggest the contrary? Moreover, Kelly was not decapitated, not abducted, not stored, not dumped, etc.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                John, Dr Biggs thought that the torso murder dismemberment was sloppy and crude... He worked from the assumption that all dismemberment cases are.

                He was sorely wrong on that score.

                The Jackson parts were carefully joined together, and they were proven to have come from the same body. Given the quality of the cutting work, precise and careful as it was, it would have been easy enough to conclude.
                How do you know? The Victorian GPs lacked the necessary qualifications to give informative opinion on this point. However, if you disagree presumably you accept Dr Phillips'-one of the more experienced "experts" opinion- that JtR was a surgical expert. As Lechmere wasn't, I would assume you would now concede that he couldn't be JtR.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by John G View Post
                  The Victorian GPs were not forensic experts, and neither is anyone on this board, as far as I know. Liz Jackson was clearly cut for purposes of dismemberment, and it's clearly ludicrous to suggest that that was Kelly's murderer's intent. And where does any medical expert suggest the contrary? Moreover, Kelly was not decapitated, not abducted, not stored, not dumped, etc.
                  You do not have to be a forensic expert to be able to put two surfaces together and see if they fit. The cut surfaces, the quality of the skin, the age of the material etcetera will guide you.
                  You would do well to read the material Joshua Rogan posted - it tells you exactly how the medicos worked and how they reached their conclusions.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                    You do not have to be a forensic expert to be able to put two surfaces together and see if they fit. The cut surfaces, the quality of the skin, the age of the material etcetera will guide you.
                    You would do well to read the material Joshua Rogan posted - it tells you exactly how the medicos worked and how they reached their conclusions.
                    Age of material? Quality of skin? How was this assessed/proven in the nineteenth century? By the way, Dr Brown believed JtR was a medical student, thereby also ruling out Lechmere.

                    Actually, I'm beginning to think I've been a little bit to harsh on the abilities of the Victorian GPs!

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by John G View Post
                      Age of material? Quality of skin? How was this assessed/proven in the nineteenth century? By the way, Dr Brown believed JtR was a medical student, thereby also ruling out Lechmere.
                      I think you may need to be a little less agitated, John. Remarks are made by the age of the material and the quality of the skin by the medicos who made the examinations, so we can be certain that they worked with these parameters.

                      As for the fitting of the pieces, its much the same as fitting a dozen halved apples together. They will only fit in one way. Anybody can do it.

                      Like I said before, read up on the material Joshua Rogan posted; it is the Bible of understanding what the Torso man was about, and it contains much knowledge.

                      As for your claims about Brown and the medical student stuff and how it rules out Lechmere, I will let it pass. Once again, the medicos who made the Torso examinations are quite clear about what level of surgical insights the killer had. Read, John, read!

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by John G View Post
                        The Victorian GPs were not forensic experts, and neither is anyone on this board, as far as I know. Liz Jackson was clearly cut for purposes of dismemberment, and it's clearly ludicrous to suggest that that was Kelly's murderer's intent. And where does any medical expert suggest the contrary? Moreover, Kelly was not decapitated, not abducted, not stored, not dumped, etc.
                        Er. I'm not sure what you're talking about here. Who mentioned Kelly?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                          I think you may need to be a little less agitated, John. Remarks are made by the age of the material and the quality of the skin by the medicos who made the examinations, so we can be certain that they worked with these parameters.

                          As for the fitting of the pieces, its much the same as fitting a dozen halved apples together. They will only fit in one way. Anybody can do it.

                          Like I said before, read up on the material Joshua Rogan posted; it is the Bible of understanding what the Torso man was about, and it contains much knowledge.

                          As for your claims about Brown and the medical student stuff and how it rules out Lechmere, I will let it pass. Once again, the medicos who made the Torso examinations are quite clear about what level of surgical insights the killer had. Read, John, read!
                          Hi Fisherman,

                          But agitation aside, in all seriousness I do not see how, on one hand, you can trust the Victorian GPs assessment of the level of skill exhibited by the Torso killer(s) but reject the assessment of both Dr Phillips and Dr Brown that JtR had considerable, or at least significant, surgical skill.

                          As for the Torso examinations, although I have an Advanced level qualification in biology, and studied nursing for a semester and a half, I'm not a medical expert and therefore not qualified to give an opinion. Is anyone on Casebook?


                          Medical experts, please reveal yourselves!

                          As an addendum, I would add that even if the Torso victims were dismembered in similar ways, this doesn't necessarily point to a single killer; as Dr Biggs points out, dismemberers tend to adopt similar strategies.

                          However, I remember Debra arguing that the victims were dismembered in different ways, which obviously suggests different killers.
                          Last edited by John G; 05-11-2016, 01:10 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by John G View Post
                            Hi Fisherman,

                            But agitation aside, in all seriousness I do not see how, on one hand, you can trust the Victorian GPs assessment of the level of skill exhibited by the Torso killer(s) but reject the assessment of both Dr Phillips and Dr Brown that JtR had considerable, or at least significant, surgical skill.

                            As for the Torso examinations, although I have an Advanced level qualification in biology, and studied nursing for a semester and a half, I'm not a medical expert and therefore not qualified to give an opinion. Is anyone on Casebook?


                            Medical experts, please reveal yourselves!
                            To begin with, John, I dont think the torso killer produced a skill that revealed medical training. We are looking at a handiwork of a very high quality, but not at what a surgeon would do. However, the medicos say that that work actually surpasses what a surgeon could have done in terms of skilled knife work!

                            What Phillips says is that the killer was able to secure the womb and part of the bladder with "one sweep of the knife". And that is not something surgeons do. Ever. Ergo, Phillips thught that the knofe work was of a very high quality. And that is very reminiscent of the Torso man.

                            Biology and nursing is not going to help you to assess the torso killers work, I think. What you primarily need to know is not the latin names of the parts he cut into. It is the quality of the cutting as such that is the key. He could cut more skillfully than any surgeon - but he did not cut in the way surgeons cut. He cut according to his own wishes and he did so with a craftsmanship that was highy skilled.

                            Ask yourself: If a killer feels a need to dispose of a person he has killed - why would he make it his business to cut carefully, meticulously, expertly and with a baffling level of skill? If he was just throwing the body away, why all that exactitude and hard work?

                            When you have worked that one out, you will see exactly how Kelly fits into the cutting world of the torso man. And thats a promise.

                            Thats all I am saying for now. Goodnight, John.
                            Last edited by Fisherman; 05-11-2016, 01:19 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by John G View Post
                              How do you know? The Victorian GPs lacked the necessary qualifications to give informative opinion on this point. However, if you disagree presumably you accept Dr Phillips'-one of the more experienced "experts" opinion- that JtR was a surgical expert. As Lechmere wasn't, I would assume you would now concede that he couldn't be JtR.
                              To be fair, John- Dr Bond was hardly just a 'GP'. He was lecturer on Forensic Medicine at the Westminster Hospital besides being a surgeon, and was acting Chief Medical Officer earlier in his career. He appears in an 1888 publication on eminent medical men of the era.

                              Dr Bond probably saw more dismemberment cases in his career than the small number of cases I recall Dr Biggs stating in an email that he'd examined.

                              Dr Bond saw four cases in just four years, all involving females aged 25 to 40 and most likely, according to available evidence, of the same lower social class. Three of these cases involved the dumping of body parts around a similar area of the Thames, some of the remains taken by the tidal Thames further afield.
                              I wonder if Dr Biggs 'handful' of cases he's dealt with in his career had anything in common.

                              The basic idea of suggesting weapons used by careful observation and comparisons of the wounds was in place in the Victoria era and this is how Bond and Hebbert made those conclusions, just the way they would be made now.

                              Do we know what skills or knowledge of social history Dr Biggs has? Is he a qualified medical historian?
                              ,,`,, Debs ,,`,,

                              I am not DJA. He's called Dave.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Debra A View Post
                                To be fair, John- Dr Bond was hardly just a 'GP'. He was lecturer on Forensic Medicine at the Westminster Hospital besides being a surgeon, and was acting Chief Medical Officer earlier in his career. He appears in an 1888 publication on eminent medical men of the era.

                                Dr Bond probably saw more dismemberment cases in his career than the small number of cases I recall Dr Biggs stating in an email that he'd examined.

                                Dr Bond saw four cases in just four years, all involving females aged 25 to 40 and most likely, according to available evidence, of the same lower social class. Three of these cases involved the dumping of body parts around a similar area of the Thames, some of the remains taken by the tidal Thames further afield.
                                I wonder if Dr Biggs 'handful' of cases he's dealt with in his career had anything in common.

                                The basic idea of suggesting weapons used by careful observation and comparisons of the wounds was in place in the Victoria era and this is how Bond and Hebbert made those conclusions, just the way they would be made now.

                                Do we know what skills or knowledge of social history Dr Biggs has? Is he a qualified medical historian?
                                Hi Debra,

                                Great to see you posting again, especially on a topic in which your knowledge is undoubtedly unsurpassed. From memory, I seem to remember you arguing that the Torso victims were dismembered in different ways. I apologise if my memory's faulty, which wouldn't be unprecedented! However, if so, is this still your opinion?

                                Regarding Dr Bond, hasn't it been suggested that he was the least relevantly qualified of the Victorian GPs to give an opinion in these cases, i.e. because of his lack of surgical expertise?

                                Regarding the weapons used. Dr Biggs had this to say about the Eddowes case, but it may have general application to the Torso cases:

                                "Repeated use of 'about' implies estimation rather than measurements of wounds, and the assumption that a long-bladed knife must have been used is not valid:a short or medium blade could have been used to inflict such injuries (I'm not saying that I think a particular blade was used or not used, I'm just saying it's not possible to be certain from the descriptions and 'measurements' in this case." (Marriott, 2013).
                                Last edited by John G; 05-11-2016, 01:53 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X