Torso Murders

[Abby Normal]

Trevor,

As a former murder squad detective, I would think you would research the circumstances of each of these torso murders before making assumptions like you have done. "Wingin' it", so to speak. Is this how you treated your cases as an active detective? If not, why now?

exactly Jerry
That's what ive been saying all along! Look at each torso case individually and see if there is a plausible explanation other than murder-for each case. IMHO there is not. Not really anyhow.

[Debra A]

I meant to post this earlier when John asked if we could stay on topic about who might responsible for a series of murder. It's a description of the last person said to have been seen with Elizabeth Jackson on 3rd June at 9pm. The man was said to be 5ft 7 to 8 and wore light moleskin trousers, a dark cloth coat and a rowing hat. The first portions of her body were found early morning on the 4th June.

[Abby Normal]

I meant to post this earlier when John asked if we could stay on topic about who might responsible for a series of murder. It's a description of the last person said to have been seen with Elizabeth Jackson on 3rd June at 9pm. The man was said to be 5ft 7 to 8 and wore light moleskin trousers, a dark cloth coat and a rowing hat. The first portions of her body were found early morning on the 4th June.

Thanks Debra
Whats a rowing hat? Like a cap with a peak and/or something a sailor might wear?

[Pierre]

I know I should not say this, and you may think me a tease - but once you realize what the killer did and what was going on, all the pieces fall in place quite neatly, and we get an explanation to the excised organs, to the removed abdominal walls, to the mask cut away in 1873, to the eyelids taken from Kelly, to the excised organs, to the clean and neat cutting. All of these questions fit into the exact same answer, believe it or not, Abby. Even the cut neck falls into the category!

Did the British cats eat eyelids?

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Hi Fisherman

Getting involved twice in one day, but as I tell others I do like statements to be as accurate and informative as possible

So we are told that Dr Bonds assistant , Charles Hebbert wrote in "A System of Legal Medicine" about Kelly:

"In the particular illustrative instance, the woman was murdered in a bedroom. The body was naked when found. The eyebrows, eyelids, ears, nose lips, and chin had been cut off, and the face gashed by numerous knife-cuts."


However this is not entirely consistent with what Bond himself wrote is it?


" The face was gashed in all directions the nose cheeks, eyebrows and ears being partly removed. The lips were blanched & cut by several incisions running obliquely down to the chin. There were also numerous cuts extending irregularly across all the features."




Lets look closely at the difference to see if they are cosmetic or significant:


Hebbert

The eyebrows, eyelids, ears, nose lips, and chin had been cut off,


Bond

says only that the nose, cheeks eyebrows and ears had been partially removed, not cut off.

There is no mention from Bond about the eyelids at all, while the chin and lips are mentioned and are according to Bond still present, they have not been removed.

Indeed you say yourself:

"A lip was partly cut through. Kellys lips were "blanched" by the knife."




It fairly obvious therefore that the comments by Hebbert do not agree with the report of Bond .

Hebbert significantly exaggerates the facial wounds when compared to Bond.


A thread on A system of legal medicine was discussed in the distant past, 2005.

http://www.casebook.org/forum/messages/4921/17664.html

So who do we believe? They cannot both be correct.
The differences are too significant in my view.


If Bond is wrong then surely we must question other parts of his report.



It appears that there is a willingness to accept Hebbert at face value ( no pun intended).

One assumes this view is taken because it better fits the theory of one killer over 15 years.
Otherwise I see no reason to use a publication produced some 6-7 years after the event, over the post mortem report of Bond.


regards

Steve

[Debra A]

Thanks Debra
Whats a rowing hat? Like a cap with a peak and/or something a sailor might wear?

Not sure, Abby. Peaked cap came to my mind but I wonder if it's the type of boater that Thames Watermen used to wear?

[Joshua Rogan]

A straw boater perhaps?

[jerryd]

Maybe like this? There are other photos earlier and later that have the same "type" of look as this hat.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman

Getting involved twice in one day, but as I tell others I do like statements to be as accurate and informative as possible

So we are told that Dr Bonds assistant , Charles Hebbert wrote in "A System of Legal Medicine" about Kelly:

"In the particular illustrative instance, the woman was murdered in a bedroom. The body was naked when found. The eyebrows, eyelids, ears, nose lips, and chin had been cut off, and the face gashed by numerous knife-cuts."


However this is not entirely consistent with what Bond himself wrote is it?


" The face was gashed in all directions the nose cheeks, eyebrows and ears being partly removed. The lips were blanched & cut by several incisions running obliquely down to the chin. There were also numerous cuts extending irregularly across all the features."




Lets look closely at the difference to see if they are cosmetic or significant:


Hebbert

The eyebrows, eyelids, ears, nose lips, and chin had been cut off,


Bond

says only that the nose, cheeks eyebrows and ears had been partially removed, not cut off.

There is no mention from Bond about the eyelids at all, while the chin and lips are mentioned and are according to Bond still present, they have not been removed.

Indeed you say yourself:

"A lip was partly cut through. Kellys lips were "blanched" by the knife."




It fairly obvious therefore that the comments by Hebbert do not agree with the report of Bond .

Hebbert significantly exaggerates the facial wounds when compared to Bond.


A thread on A system of legal medicine was discussed in the distant past, 2005.

http://www.casebook.org/forum/messages/4921/17664.html

So who do we believe? They cannot both be correct.
The differences are too significant in my view.


If Bond is wrong then surely we must question other parts of his report.



It appears that there is a willingness to accept Hebbert at face value ( no pun intended).

One assumes this view is taken because it better fits the theory of one killer over 15 years.
Otherwise I see no reason to use a publication produced some 6-7 years after the event, over the post mortem report of Bond.


regards

Steve

What is vital to notice here are mainly two things:

1. Hebbert is the only one to comment on the eyelids. He is not contradicted by anybody. The fact that Bond says partly cut away, and Hebbert says cut away is not all that remarkable in my book. If some little part of the eyebrows, the nose etcetera was left, it would be understandable if the doctors worded themselves the way they did. Both could be right, contrary to what you suggest.

2. What I am mainly after here is how it is evident that both deeds involve very meticulous cutting in the eye region. We know that the killer managed to do this without inflicting any damage in Kellyīs eyeballs, and we know that the mask cut from then 1873 victim must have involved some very careful work.

That, Steve, is all we need to conclude that there is a major likeness involved in this matter too.

[Elamarna]

Hi Fisherman,

that is far clearer.

job done as far as i am concerned.

Steve

What is vital to notice here are mainly two things:

1. Hebbert is the only one to comment on the eyelids. He is not contradicted by anybody. The fact that Bond says partly cut away, and hbbert says cut away is not all that remarkable in my book. If some little part of the eyebrows, the nose etcetera was left, it would be understandable if the doctors worded themselves the way they did. Both could be right, contrary to what you suggest.

2. What I am mainly after here is how it is evident that both deeds involve very meticulous cutting in the eye region. We know that the killer managed to do this without inflicting any damage in Kellyīs eyeballs, and we know that the maks cut from then 1873 victim must have involved some very careful work.

That, Steve, is all we need to conclude that there is a major likeness involved in this matter too.

[Fisherman]

The Kelly deed was always described as mayhem; a messy slaughter leaving the body gashed and mangled.

So why is it that the killer was instead so very careful around the eyes, taking all that care not to damage them?

Ideas?

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;382420]

We know that the killer managed to do this without inflicting any damage in Kellyīs eyeballs,

Do we KNOW that?

What exactly is the source on which you base your statement that we KNOW that, Fisherman?

Pierre

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=Pierre;382423]

Do we KNOW that?

What exactly is the source on which you base your statement that we KNOW that, Fisherman?

Pierre

Sources again, Pierre? They are out there, all you need to do is look. If you havenīt got the time, you should find another hobby. Ripperology takes time.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;382425]

Sources again, Pierre? They are out there, all you need to do is look. If you havenīt got the time, you should find another hobby. Ripperology takes time.

I have. There are no sources for your statement about the eyeballs.

Pierre

[Joshua Rogan]

The Kelly deed was always described as mayhem; a messy slaughter leaving the body gashed and mangled.

So why is it that the killer was instead so very careful around the eyes, taking all that care not to damage them?

Ideas?

It's not certain the killer was necessarily careful to avoid damaging the eyes....if Hebbert is mistaken about the eyelids, then all the other cuts could be as a result of the slashing damage. The eyeballs themselves are pretty well protected by the brows, but lips, cheeks, eyebrows, nose, ears are more exposed and liable to be lopped off in the 'mayhem'......If Hebbert is mistaken, that is.