Body snatching

[Trevor Marriott]

Didnīt you say that there was a copycat element involved, Steve? And would you not regard that a link?

On a separate note: was the reason for your suggesting a copycat element not that you thought it too odd for the colon business, the abdominal flap business and the eyelid business not to have something at all in common? That these elements were too unique not to be related in any way at all?

Perhaps we should change the names from the Torso Murders to

"The Colon Killer"
"The Flap Murderer"
"The Eye Monster"

[Fisherman]

Perhaps we should change the names from the Torso Murders to

"The Colon Killer"
"The Flap Murderer"
"The Eye Monster"

You are welcome to present any example from any remove in time where any two killers had three as unusual commonalities like these.

Or you can provide any example of a mature post of yours.

My guess is that the first task will be the easier to accomplish. Theoretically speaking, that is.

You ARE aware that four of the victims had their colons removed?

You DO know that three of them had their abdominal walls taken away?

You HAVE noticed that both the 1873 torso victim and Mary Kelly had the eyelids taken away from them?

You seem - unknowing as always - to think that only torso victims suffered these damages. But the whole point is that victims in BOTH groupings did.

Do you for one second think it is either uninteresting or something to make jokes about, Trevor?

[Trevor Marriott]

You are welcome to present any example from any remove in time where any two killers had three as unusual commonalities like these.

Or you can provide any example of a mature post of yours.

My guess is that the first task will be the easier to accomplish. Theoretically speaking, that is.

You ARE aware that four of the victims had their colons removed?

You DO know that three of them had their abdominal walls taken away?

You HAVE noticed that both the 1873 torso victim and Mary Kelly had the eyelids taken away from them?

You seem - unknowing as always - to think that only torso victims suffered these damages. But the whole point is that victims in BOTH groupings did.

Do you for one second think it is either uninteresting or something to make jokes about, Trevor?

I think you need to revist the Kelly murder again. It mentions eyebrows as part of the facial mutilations not eyelids

From Dr Bonds report

"The face was gashed in all directions the nose cheeks, eyebrows and ears being partly removed"

Does it show the same identical facial mutilations in any of the other murders ? No it doesnt

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

I think you need to revist the Kelly murder again. It mentions eyebrows as part of the facial mutilations not eyelids

From Dr Bonds report

"The face was gashed in all directions the nose cheeks, eyebrows and ears being partly removed"

Does it show the same identical facial mutilations in any of the other murders ? No it doesnt

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

From Hebberts "A System of Legal Medicine":

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.

So, Trevor, had the chin not been cut off since Bond does not mention it? Did Bond list all the details that had been cut, and Hebbert was misinforming when he commented on the parts Bond did not comment on.

Which is the more likely thing:

Hebbert was correct, and there is absolutely nothing that Bond said that prohibited Hebbert from being correct, or

Hebbert was wrong, because if Bond did not mention it specifically, it could never have happened. Hebbert is also well known to lie and/or add details that were never there, or...?

Go figure, master detective. I am not the one who needs reading up.

By the way, I never said that the facial mutilations were the exact same. Nor did I say the flaps were. Or the colon sections. Or you and me.

[Elamarna]

In the early ninety fifties,body dumping,on land and sea ,was widely practised under British law. Like Trevor says,to avoid cost.

Hi Harry is that so?

A source please?

given you have said this was done under British Law, please, the name of the Act of Parliament which allowed this ?

Steve

[Elamarna]

Didnīt you say that there was a copycat element involved, Steve? And would you not regard that a link?

On a separate note: was the reason for your suggesting a copycat element not that you thought it too odd for the colon business, the abdominal flap business and the eyelid business not to have something at all in common? That these elements were too unique not to be related in any way at all?

Fisherman,

I said there could possible be a link via copycat murders, that was a COULD be, not a WAS.

On your second point, which really is not a separate issue i was originally responding to arguments that they were direct link, I suggested IF there was a link it could be a copycat no more.

I gave a full explanation for the flaps and colon cuts, and am not convinced about the eyelids as I made clear in a previous post.

Hope that is clear

Steve

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,

I said there could possible be a link via copycat murders, that was a COULD be, not a WAS.

On your second point, which really is not a separate issue i was originally responding to arguments that they were direct link, I suggested IF there was a link it could be a copycat no more.

I gave a full explanation for the flaps and colon cuts, and am not convinced about the eyelids as I made clear in a previous post.

Hope that is clear

Steve

"A full explanation"?

I gave a full explanation as to why these very rare occurences would put it beynd doubt that there is a connection.

I take you point on how you were just suggesting a possible copycat deed. But as you can see, there are three raritites that would have been "copycatted", or they coincidentally occurred in both series:

Both killers cut a section of the colon away.

Both killers cut away the abominal wall in large panes.

Both killers engaged on very careful cutting around the eyes.

The odds that this was all coincidental are ridiculously high, Iīm afraid. At the very least, we have to believe in killers who very carefull kept themselves informed of small details about what the other man did, and who decided to copy it.
Or we take the obvious route and accept they were one and the same.

[Elamarna]

From Hebberts "A System of Legal Medicine":

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.

So, Trevor, had the chin not been cut off since Bond does not mention it? Did Bond list all the details that had been cut, and Hebbert was misinforming when he commented on the parts Bond did not comment on.

Which is the more likely thing:

Hebbert was correct, and there is absolutely nothing that Bond said that prohibited Hebbert from being correct, or

Hebbert was wrong, because if Bond did not mention it specifically, it could never have happened. Hebbert is also well known to lie and/or add details that were never there, or...?

Go figure, master detective. I am not the one who needs reading up.

By the way, I never said that the facial mutilations were the exact same. Nor did I say the flaps were. Or the colon sections. Or you and me.

Dear Fisherman,

has I previously posted, the difference in the reports by the two doctors is significant.

Hebbert greatly exaggerates the injuries when compared to the report of Bond.



Bonds report was his post mortem record, written in 1888 at or directly after the procedure.

Hebberts statement was for a book, that is a commercial exercise, and was not written until at least 5-6 years after the event.


Personally I always prefer data produced at the time, not recalled from memory a number of years later.


It appears you prefer to accept Hebbert, one assumes because it better fits your ideas, such is your right of course.

The truth is that we cannot be sure which of the reports is the more accurate, but the primarily source is usually the more accurate with historical documents.



Actually Bond does mention the chin, he says :


"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. "

By mentioning it, but not saying it has been cut off, he implies it is still present.

regards


Steve

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: Dear Fisherman,

has I previously posted, the difference in the reports by the two doctors is significant.

Hebbert greatly exaggerates the injuries when compared to the report of Bond.

This is a very unfortunate wording on your behalf. You claim as a fact that Hebbert exagerrates. But no such fact has been established. As I said before, if the killer cut away 80 per cent of the eyebrows, then it would be perfectly legal for a medico to say that the killer cut away the eyebrows. The intent would be an obvious one.

Bond does not say anything about the eyelids, whereas Hebbert does. So how about instead of saying that Hebbert exaggerates, we say that Bond was less full in his reporting?

How we word ourselves will always colour what we say. Letīs keep that in mind. Hebbert also said the chin was cut away, Bond says nothing about that (if I remember correctly). Should that lead us to say that Hebbert made it up?

Bonds report was his post mortem record, written in 1888 at or directly after the procedure.

Hebberts statement was for a book, that is a commercial exercise, and was not written until at least 5-6 years after the event.

It was undoubtedly grounded on his notes, Steve. And they were exactly as contemporary. I see no reason to chose one over the other in this respect. I would instead piint to how Hebbert seems to have been more detailed than Bond in a number of respects.

Personally I always prefer data produced at the time, not recalled from memory a number of years later.

Once again, we are dealing with notes and not memory, in all probability.

It appears you prefer to accept Hebbert, one assumes because it better fits your ideas, such is your right of course.

Yes, of course you must assume that I am skewed - it always helps. Ans why would I say that you preer Bond since HE fits YOUR argument better? It would be outright stupid, would it not?

The truth is that we cannot be sure which of the reports is the more accurate, but the primarily source is usually the more accurate with historical documents.

Both accounts are reasonably made from notes taken in combination with the autopsy, and at the approximate same time. They are therefore equally viable. Bond does not mention the eyelids, Hebbert does. Do you think he made it up, Steve?

Actually Bond does mention the chin, he says :

"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. "

That does not mean that he anywhere says anything about any cut to the chin. The cuts extended as far as to the chin, that is all Bond says. And "across all the features" is non-specific.

By mentioning it, but not saying it has been cut off, he implies it is still present.

Not really, no. The chin is made up by both tissue and bone, so it could well have been cut off. You can point to the chin on Yoricks skull, Steve.

Now, before we go on bickering about this, hereīs a question for you.

Why did the 1873 killer cut away the face and scalp in one piece from the skull of his victim. What possible reasons can you see?

[Elamarna]

"A full explanation"?

I gave a full explanation as to why these very rare occurences would put it beynd doubt that there is a connection.

I take you point on how you were just suggesting a possible copycat deed. But as you can see, there are three raritites that would have been "copycatted", or they coincidentally occurred in both series:

Both killers cut a section of the colon away.

Both killers cut away the abominal wall in large panes.

Both killers engaged on very careful cutting around the eyes.

The odds that this was all coincidental are ridiculously high, Iīm afraid. At the very least, we have to believe in killers who very carefull kept themselves informed of small details about what the other man did, and who decided to copy it.
Or we take the obvious route and accept they were one and the same.

Fisherman

I am so sorry, you have not taken on board the comments i made last week.

As I pointed out to compare the injuries you need specific details of the injuries, these we do not have.

Cutting a section of the colon away does not prove a link, in once case the cut piece is placed on display, in another it is not and appears to be part of the dismemberment.

Cutting flaps of skin, does not prove the same hand unless we know the exact shape and angle of cut involved in producing the flap.

Removing flaps of skin, suggests the killers knew what they were doing, and had some basic training in anatomy be that human or animal. That is all.

The argument that the eyes had been carefully cut around is unproven, it is a theory you have suggested, and should indeed be looked at, so far nothing has been provided which conclusively supports this idea.

So far I see common injuries, which could be produced by people who had similar training, that is all!


Regards

Steve

[miss marple]

Never heard that before, bodies dumped in the Thames to save cost, murdered bodies perhaps and suicides in the Thames. Rather silly idea, as every poor person person could be buried by the parish in a pauper grave. Also popular were burials clubs were the poor would save up for their funerals and also purchase graves. Death was an important occasion for the working class and a 'good send off' was often achieved by denying other things.

Miss Marple

[Elamarna]

Fisherman

This is a very unfortunate wording on your behalf. You claim as a fact that Hebbert exagerrates. But no such fact has been established. As I said before, if the killer cut away 80 per cent of the eyebrows, then it would be perfectly legal for a medico to say that the killer cut away the eyebrows. The intent would be an obvious one.



No I said it is exaggerated when compared to the report of Bond, he claims the injuries are far greater than Bond; not it is an exaggeration.

There is a difference.


Bond does not say anything about the eyelids, whereas Hebbert does. So how about instead of saying that Hebbert exaggerates, we say that Bond was less full in his reporting?


No you cannot really say that, because you do not know Hebbert is correct. his report is written years after the event, you do not know what he is using to provide the data for his statement.


How we word ourselves will always colour what we say. Letīs keep that in mind. Hebbert also said the chin was cut away, Bond says nothing about that (if I remember correctly). Should that lead us to say that Hebbert made it up?


Bond implies the chin is still in place. he mentions it in relation to facial cuts, if it were gone itself one would expect that to be mentioned.




It was undoubtedly grounded on his notes, Steve. And they were exactly as contemporary. I see no reason to chose one over the other in this respect. I would instead piint to how Hebbert seems to have been more detailed than Bond in a number of respects.


Once again, we are dealing with notes and not memory, in all probability.

This is an assumption on your part, you do not know if he is working from notes or memory. In addition he is contributing to a book, not writing a Post Mortem Report.


Yes, of course you must assume that I am skewed - it always helps. Ans why would I say that you preer Bond since HE fits YOUR argument better? It would be outright stupid, would it not?



My Argument is purely that Bond is more accurate, his Post Mortem Report being an established primary source, than Hebberts report, a statement in a later book.



Both accounts are reasonably made from notes taken in combination with the autopsy, and at the approximate same time. They are therefore equally viable. Bond does not mention the eyelids, Hebbert does. Do you think he made it up, Steve?



I am sorry they are not the same; how many times does one need to repeat this:

One is The primary source, it is Bonds Post mortem report. that is a fact is it not?

The other is words written in a book some years later, it is not known if Post mortem notes are used in writing it. It is not an official report.

They are not both equally viable, it is a great shame that you seem to think they are, and cannot see the difference.



That does not mean that he anywhere says anything about any cut to the chin. The cuts extended as far as to the chin, that is all Bond says. And "across all the features" is non-specific.



Not really, no. The chin is made up by both tissue and bone, so it could well have been cut off. You can point to the chin on Yoricks skull, Steve.



That is Your Opinion, not one I share.



Now, before we go on bickering about this, hereīs a question for you.

Why did the 1873 killer cut away the face and scalp in one piece from the skull of his victim. What possible reasons can you see?


I have no idea

As you say no point in bickering, you have such a closed perspective on this, it is pointless.

Regards

Steve

[Fisherman]

Elamarna

Fisherman

I am so sorry, you have not taken on board the comments i made last week.

Taken on board? What do you mean? That I have not understood that you are correct or that I somehow missed it? What if I disagree...?

As I pointed out to compare the injuries you need specific details of the injuries, these we do not have.

I think it is rather specific to say that the eyelids were cut away, Steve. I think it is specific to say that the abdominal wall was taken away in large flaps and that the part of the colon was removed.

It would be good to have it in millimeters and photographed, but overall, the mere fact that these things were recorded tells us that in these cases, a type of damage was inflicted that is very rare. And the compliation of three such rare damages inflicted in both series makes it quite resonable to suggest a link.
If the nasal bones had been dug out and taken away, we really would not need to know the exact measurements of the bone parts to conclude that something extraordinary had taken place.

Cutting a section of the colon away does not prove a link, in once case the cut piece is placed on display, in another it is not and appears to be part of the dismemberment.

Of course it does not PROVE a link - but it neverthelss suggests such a thing. Coupled with the flaps and the eyelids, it still does not amount to absolute proof, but the suggestion of a link becomes more and more cemented with each added such oddity.
As for "appears to be a part of the dismemberment", it can be said about every cut to the torso victims: a part of the dismemberment.
But we KNOW that these were not the typcial dismemberment cases. Would you say that the cut away face and scalp were also "part of the dismemberment"? Because they WERE - but they were not part of any typical dismemberment.

Cutting flaps of skin, does not prove the same hand unless we know the exact shape and angle of cut involved in producing the flap.

Once more: there is no proof, but there is a very good suggestion.

Removing flaps of skin, suggests the killers knew what they were doing, and had some basic training in anatomy be that human or animal. That is all.

No, that is not all. It clearly PROVES that in both series, the perpetrator was intent on cutting the abdominal wall away and did so in a number of cases. It is therefore PROVEN that a common and very rare feature was there. As with the colons. As as seemingly with the eyelids.

The argument that the eyes had been carefully cut around is unproven, it is a theory you have suggested, and should indeed be looked at, so far nothing has been provided which conclusively supports this idea.

Why do you say that? We know that Hebbert said that the killer removed the eyelids, and we know that more than on source implicated that they eyes were left undamaged, more or less. That conclusively supports the idea, Iīm afraid.

So far I see common injuries, which could be produced by people who had similar training, that is all!

Can you examplify with any other two cases of serial killing, occuring in the same geographica area at the same approximate time, where there were three very rare traits involved in both series? Or two?

I know I canīt.

How about the 1873 death mask, Steve? Any thoughts, ideas...? Just part of the dismemberment, or?

[Elamarna]

Yes it was their responsibility, but burials cost money. Wrapping body parts up and dumping them in the thames cost nothing.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor

do you have anything which would support this happening in the late 1800's

Regards

Steve

[Elamarna]

I see that we have allowed this thread to move away from the topic of could bodies have been snatched, to one of discussing the torso's themselves again.


sorry i am partially to blame.


Steve