autopsy notes

[John G]

I think you lost me here fish. surely Torso/ripper had enough time to dismemeber Kelly if he really wanted too?

Hi Abby,

Yes, this is an excellent point. Moreover, she does not "fit the bill" as Fisherman suggests, because whilst the Torso victims were dismembered by a perpetrator demonstrating a significant level of skill, Kelly was merely butchered by a perpetrator who wasn't interested in dismemberment at all. Of course, as a possible C5 victim this could represent an escalation or "progression across the violence continuum." (Keppel, 2005).

[Fisherman]

Perhaps he did not anticipate being able to kill indoors, and did not arrive prepared. Maybe it was as simple as that he didn't bring anything to carry the body parts away in?

I donīt think he wanted to take any body parts away, Ms W. He had eons of time, and did what he wanted to do. He may have taken the heart, of course, but overall, he would have wanted to leave the parts behind in the room, if I am on the money.

[Fisherman]

I think you lost me here fish. surely Torso/ripper had enough time to dismemeber Kelly if he really wanted too?

Yes, he had plenty of time! And he could dismember with a knife, at the joints. But he chose not to do so.

And all the while, she fits the bill perfectly.

[MsWeatherwax]

Perhaps he did not anticipate being able to kill indoors, and did not arrive prepared. Maybe it was as simple as that he didn't bring anything to carry the body parts away in?

[Abby Normal]

In different ways, actually. The cleares examples of a connection are Chapman and Kelly, and I am certain that this owes to how he had more time with these victims than he did with the others.
The dismemberment of the limbs is not something that needs to be done to fit the bill. The bill is a broader concept than that. For example, with Chapman and Kelly, there is no dismemberment of the limbs, but there is a removal of the abdominal wall in flaps. With the Rainham and Whitehall victims, there is no removal of the abdominal wall in flaps, but there is dismemberment of the limbs. In all four cases, these things are examples of him working to a larger agenda.

The fact that he dismembered the torso victims owes to how he had a secure place to do so and time to it. However, it must be noted that he used that time to cut his victims open from sternum to groin, that he took out organs etcetera, just like the Ripper - who did NOT have time and a sheltered place to dismember, and who worked under conditions that gave a cruder end product, but with the exact same underlying inspiration, if I am correct.

I think you lost me here fish. surely Torso/ripper had enough time to dismemeber Kelly if he really wanted too?

[Fisherman]

How does it tie-in with the Tabram and the C5 as they weren't dismembered/disarticulated?

In different ways, actually. The cleares examples of a connection are Chapman and Kelly, and I am certain that this owes to how he had more time with these victims than he did with the others.
The dismemberment of the limbs is not something that needs to be done to fit the bill. The bill is a broader concept than that. For example, with Chapman and Kelly, there is no dismemberment of the limbs, but there is a removal of the abdominal wall in flaps. With the Rainham and Whitehall victims, there is no removal of the abdominal wall in flaps, but there is dismemberment of the limbs. In all four cases, these things are examples of him working to a larger agenda.

The fact that he dismembered the torso victims owes to how he had a secure place to do so and time to it. However, it must be noted that he used that time to cut his victims open from sternum to groin, that he took out organs etcetera, just like the Ripper - who did NOT have time and a sheltered place to dismember, and who worked under conditions that gave a cruder end product, but with the exact same underlying inspiration, if I am correct.

[John G]

Then you have not read enough, kjab - yes, the thigh and shoulder/overarm were sawn through - but the rest of the joints were neatly cut and disarticulated. This is what the Lancet wrote:
Contrary to the popular opinion, the body has not been hacked, but dexterously cut up; the joints have been opened, and the bones neatly disarticulated, even the complicated joints at the ankle and the elbow, and it is only at the articulations of the hip-joint and shoulder that the bones have been sawn through.

So here we have a man who knew quite well how to cut joints open and disarticulate, but who chose to saw through the thigh and shoulder/overarm nevertheless.

Once you understand WHY he sawed off the thicker bones (which would have been easier to disarticulate) while he neatly disarticulated the thinner ones (which would have been easier to saw off), you will know what led the killer to do what he did. There is an explanation that sits very well with this, and ties the 1873 victim very clearly into the Ripper/torso conglomerate.

How does it tie-in with the Tabram and the C5 as they weren't dismembered/disarticulated?

[Fisherman]

well is this part right at least? :

Iīm afraid not - he did not keep any parts. Basically, all that went missing from the 1873 torso was a foot, if I remember correctly. So he didnīt play for keeps, it would seem.

[Abby Normal]

Sorry, Abby, no - but a very valid effort!

well is this part right at least? :

He neatly cut and disarticulated the thinner bones because those where the ones he wanted to keep?

[Fisherman]

Grrrr. Ok now your going to make me think?

all right how about this explanation:

He neatly cut and disarticulated the thinner bones because those where the ones he wanted to keep?

and it ties into the rest of the torso ripper group because in both series (or one, depending how you view it) he wanted to keep only certain parts of the body?

digging deeper, because he was building a body ala Frankenstein with different body parts? but how long could this be kept up as the torso ripper murders spanned many years. Did he have access to an ice closet, or was he preserving the "body" in a giant vat of preservative???? or mummification???

Sorry, Abby, no - but a very valid effort!

[Abby Normal]

For me to have and for you to find out, Abby!

The one thing I am certain of is that (some/many/most) people will say I am wrong once I produce it. Not because I neccessarily am, but because that is the nature of things out here.

Grrrr. Ok now your going to make me think?

all right how about this explanation:

He neatly cut and disarticulated the thinner bones because those where the ones he wanted to keep?

and it ties into the rest of the torso ripper group because in both series (or one, depending how you view it) he wanted to keep only certain parts of the body?

digging deeper, because he was building a body ala Frankenstein with different body parts? but how long could this be kept up as the torso ripper murders spanned many years. Did he have access to an ice closet, or was he preserving the "body" in a giant vat of preservative???? or mummification???

[Fisherman]

and that explanation is???

For me to have and for you to find out, Abby!

The one thing I am certain of is that (some/many/most) people will say I am wrong once I produce it. Not because I neccessarily am, but because that is the nature of things out here.

[Abby Normal]

Then you have not read enough, kjab - yes, the thigh and shoulder/overarm were sawn through - but the rest of the joints were neatly cut and disarticulated. This is what the Lancet wrote:
Contrary to the popular opinion, the body has not been hacked, but dexterously cut up; the joints have been opened, and the bones neatly disarticulated, even the complicated joints at the ankle and the elbow, and it is only at the articulations of the hip-joint and shoulder that the bones have been sawn through.

So here we have a man who knew quite well how to cut joints open and disarticulate, but who chose to saw through the thigh and shoulder/overarm nevertheless.

Once you understand WHY he sawed off the thicker bones (which would have been easier to disarticulate) while he neatly disarticulated the thinner ones (which would have been easier to saw off), you will know what led the killer to do what he did. There is an explanation that sits very well with this, and ties the 1873 victim very clearly into the Ripper/torso conglomerate.

and that explanation is???

[Fisherman]

I've played with an initial schematic tonight and each of the ripper cuts would likely (but not definitely) be above the C6 vertebra - cricoid cartilage level of the Torso decapitations. Once I've done the images I'll (try and) post.

Of note I've had an initial look at the 1873 murder report and I'm not convinced of a link due to the lack of disarticulation. In the later bodies the found parts were cleanly disarticulated, but the first one saw through the thigh and shoulder. Admittedly he may have learnt his craft over fourteen years, but I would suspect an alternative hand at play.

Then you have not read enough, kjab - yes, the thigh and shoulder/overarm were sawn through - but the rest of the joints were neatly cut and disarticulated. This is what the Lancet wrote:
Contrary to the popular opinion, the body has not been hacked, but dexterously cut up; the joints have been opened, and the bones neatly disarticulated, even the complicated joints at the ankle and the elbow, and it is only at the articulations of the hip-joint and shoulder that the bones have been sawn through.

So here we have a man who knew quite well how to cut joints open and disarticulate, but who chose to saw through the thigh and shoulder/overarm nevertheless.

Once you understand WHY he sawed off the thicker bones (which would have been easier to disarticulate) while he neatly disarticulated the thinner ones (which would have been easier to saw off), you will know what led the killer to do what he did. There is an explanation that sits very well with this, and ties the 1873 victim very clearly into the Ripper/torso conglomerate.

[kjab3112]

Thanks for that!

I've played with an initial schematic tonight and each of the ripper cuts would likely (but not definitely) be above the C6 vertebra - cricoid cartilage level of the Torso decapitations. Once I've done the images I'll (try and) post.

Of note I've had an initial look at the 1873 murder report and I'm not convinced of a link due to the lack of disarticulation. In the later bodies the found parts were cleanly disarticulated, but the first one saw through the thigh and shoulder. Admittedly he may have learnt his craft over fourteen years, but I would suspect an alternative hand at play.