autopsy notes

[Fisherman]

It wasn't unique to these crimes. And as I've pointed out before, and will set out on more detail when I have more time, each crime needs to be considered on it's own merits. I'm afraid it's not as simple of looking for words like "abdominal" and "wall" then joining up the dots.

Not unique? Examples, please.

[Sam Flynn]

It's not as simple of looking for words like "abdominal" and "wall" then joining up the dots.

...nor of cutting along the dotted line, as the case may be.

[Sam Flynn]

And how many more killers have you found that did the same thing, Gareth? If I was to tell you that it seems more or less unique, what would you think about the coupling of two killers in the same city, at the same time, who came up with the pie-crust idea, when it seems that history offers no further examples of it?

The point about the pie-crust method is that it's a reasonably obvious method for exposing the contents of the pie, if I can put it that way. Given this "obviousness", I wouldn't be particularly surprised if others had adopted the same method entirely independently, nor that other examples did exist, either in the LVP or at other times. The problem is (a) none of us has a 100% encyclopedic knowledge of every murder that ever occurred; and (b) not every detail of every such murder makes its way into print.

[John G]

And how many more killers have you found that did the same thing, Gareth? If I was to tell you that it seems more or less unique, what would you think about the coupling of two killers in the same city, at the same time, who came up with the pie-crust idea, when it seems that history offers no further examples of it?

What does it take for a coupling to be made? What can be MORE indicative than a unique measure, a calling card that cannot be found elseplace?

It wasn't unique to these crimes. And as I've pointed out before, and will set out on more detail when I have more time, each crime needs to be considered on it's own merits. I'm afraid it's not as simple of looking for words like "abdominal" and "wall" then joining up the dots.

[Debra A]

Fisherman,

Hebbert's report clearly describes Liz Jackson's uterus and even the placenta, but it was presumably in the abdominal not pelvic section of her corpse. However, her chest had been opened with the heart and lungs removed as well as a long part of intestine. Given the report was signed off by Bond in the Westminster Hospital Report I would suggest the description is accurate.

Paul

Hi Paul

I've always interpreted the finds like this, perhaps wrongly?:

The uterus and appendages, placenta and cord were wrapped in a parcel together with two flaps of skin taken from the abdominal walls. The flaps of skin included the external organs of generation of part of the skin of the right buttock. The upper portion of the vagina was attached to the uterus, but no other organs, bones etc were described in this parcel:

Dr Michael M'Coy, of 300. Commercial-road, assistant divisional surgeon, said on Tuesday, the 4th of June last, he was called to the Thames Police station, Wapping, where he was shown a portion of a human body. He found it to be two pieces of flesh of the lower part of the front of a woman's abdomen and the uterus.
The Times July 4th 1889
This portion was found at Horsleydown on the 4th June, one of the first parcels to be washed up.

The pelvis was found separately and included the lower part of the vagina. It was noted at the inquest that "The whole skin of the front of the pelvis was absent and this was found to be supplied by the portion of the body found at Horseleydown last Tuesday."
The Sun June 9th 1889

The division of the vagina and inclusion of part of the bladder in both these parcels suggests to me that the uterus was cut out. Am I wrong about this? Isn't the uterus basically supported in its position by the pelvic floor muscle and some ligaments? Is there any anatomical relationship between the abdominal flesh wall and the uterus that would necessitate them being parcelled up together?

[kjab3112]

Fisherman,

Hebbert's report clearly describes Liz Jackson's uterus and even the placenta, but it was presumably in the abdominal not pelvic section of her corpse. However, her chest had been opened with the heart and lungs removed as well as a long part of intestine. Given the report was signed off by Bond in the Westminster Hospital Report I would suggest the description is accurate.

Paul

[Fisherman]

Michael W Richards: The problem, as indicated in bold above, is that no more than 3 victims match your criteria, within the Unsolved file.

Actually, that is not my problem. It is my piece de resistance. It is the evidence that clearly shows a connection between the Ripper and the torso killer.

Yet you continually espouse a victims list that exceeds that 3, and even the accepted Canonical victims number of 5. Clearly within that mere 5 victims list at least 1 victim does not belong at all, and 2 more leave serious doubts. So on what basis would we now entertain expanding a list that is at present most probably incorrect? Hunches? Explanations that make sense to the poster? A need to explain all these events with one "sweep" of a knife?

There are common denominators all over. But it is not as if evidence A is present with all victims. It is a conglomerate of evidence that ties them together, say A, B, C, D and E. Some victims answer to A and C, some to C, D and E, some to E and B, and so forth.
There is not least an element that I have not mentioned, but that further glues the murders together. Disclosing it lies in the future, though.

Torso victims were not killed where Polly and Annie were...outdoors while soliciting, how Polly and Annie were.. subdued and partially mutilated, and with a detectable trace of skill and knowledge as Annie and Pollys killer showed.

Annie Chapman, a part-time prostitute, was subdued and murdered, her neck was cut, her abdomen was cut open all the way from sternum to pubes, the abdominal walls were cut away in large flaps and her uterus was taken away from her body. When she was found, it was noticed that there were marks of two rings on her finger, and it was thought that the killer had taken them.

Elizabeth Jackson, the part-time prostitute? Well, we canīt tell how she was killed, but she certainly had her neck cut off, her abdomen was cut open all the way from sternum to pubes, the abdominal walls were cut away in large flaps and her uterus was taken away from her body. When she was found, it was noticed that there were marks of a ring on her finger, and it was thought that the killer had taken it.

How much more of a likeness are you asking for before you start to realize the similarities?

[Fisherman]

This is my take on it, also. A few years back I made the retrospectively indelicate suggestion that the killer excavated Annie Chapman's (and, apparently, Mary Kelly's) abdomen in much the same way as you'd cut open a pie-crust to get at the filling.

And how many more killers have you found that did the same thing, Gareth? If I was to tell you that it seems more or less unique, what would you think about the coupling of two killers in the same city, at the same time, who came up with the pie-crust idea, when it seems that history offers no further examples of it?

What does it take for a coupling to be made? What can be MORE indicative than a unique measure, a calling card that cannot be found elseplace?

[Sam Flynn]

i.e. he may simply have made "X" number of cuts into the abdominal wall and then removed it piecemeal.

This is my take on it, also. A few years back I made the retrospectively indelicate suggestion that the killer excavated Annie Chapman's (and, apparently, Mary Kelly's) abdomen in much the same way as you'd cut open a pie-crust to get at the filling.

[Michael W Richards]

Michael W Richards: Anyone trying to link together murders which at surface value share virtually no relevant characteristics with others in the group has lots of 'splainin to do.

Indeed. I am glad to hear that you are not talking about the Ripper/Torso murders, since they HAD a lot of common denominators:

3 victims-Cut from sternum to pubes.
2 victims-Evisceration of both sexual and non-sexual organs.
1 victim-Rings taken.
2 victims-Abdominal walls removed in large sections.
3 victims-Colon sections removed.
2 working prostitutes-Prostitutes among the victims, perhaps only prostitutes were victims.
All violent crime victims in London during 1888-89-Same city.
hard to determine in some cases-Overlapping times.

So what is the problem you are identifying here, Michael? It seems to me that instead of looking at the true facts, you are proposing alternative facts, ā la the new Trump administration.

The problem, as indicated in bold above, is that no more than 3 victims match your criteria, within the Unsolved file. Yet you continually espouse a victims list that exceeds that 3, and even the accepted Canonical victims number of 5. Clearly within that mere 5 victims list at least 1 victim does not belong at all, and 2 more leave serious doubts. So on what basis would we now entertain expanding a list that is at present most probably incorrect? Hunches? Explanations that make sense to the poster? A need to explain all these events with one "sweep" of a knife?

Torso victims were not killed where Polly and Annie were...outdoors while soliciting, how Polly and Annie were.. subdued and partially mutilated, and with a detectable trace of skill and knowledge as Annie and Pollys killer showed.

Anyone who cannot see the obvious connection by killer of Polly and Annie should seek other entertainments, and anyone who sees commonality among overtly different murders should consider doing the same.

Explanations as to why something makes sense to you Fisherman isn't anything like proving a theory.

Why not start by solving just one murder before you create explanations as to why all unsolved murders were connected?

[Fisherman]

How about them parallel examples I asked for, John G?

Found any yet?

[Fisherman]

Michael W Richards: Anyone trying to link together murders which at surface value share virtually no relevant characteristics with others in the group has lots of 'splainin to do.

Indeed. I am glad to hear that you are not talking about the Ripper/Torso murders, since they HAD a lot of common denominators:
-Cut from sternum to pubes.
-Evisceration of both sexual and non-sexual organs.
-Rings taken.
-Abdominal walls removed in large sections.
-Colon sections removed.
-Prostitutes among the victims, perhaps only prostitutes were victims.
-Same city.
-Overlapping times.

Which is why we so often see the posters version of logic or their own interpretation of "the facts" as the explanation. Which of course means nothing in an empirical world.

True enough. How does your empirical world look visavi the facts I just posted?

Liz Stride is the obvious speed bump in the Canonical roadway, as are Torsos with abdominal mutilations.

There were abdominal mutilations in the Torso series. Liz Jackson had her uterus and itīs appendages cut out. Does that count?

To suggest 1 killer covets abdominal organs which he then arbitrarily leaves aside in subsequent murders isn't the kind of logic Id employ when problem solving here.

Jackson had her uterus taken.
Eddowes had her uterus taken.
Chapman had her uterus taken.
The Whitehall torso lacked the uterus, and it is stated on Wikipedia that it had been "removed".

So what is the problem you are identifying here, Michael? It seems to me that instead of looking at the true facts, you are proposing alternative facts, ā la the new Trump administration.

To me, that wonīt do, Buddy. I am aware of your deep engagement in the case, but facts "trump" engagement.

PS. This killer did not do anything arbitrarily, if you ask me. There is a very clear reason for why he left the organs behind at the Kelly scene, for example. He works to an established agenda, and interestingly, the two cases that are most useful to elucidate this is the 1873 torso case and the Kelly case. These two cases give away all we need to know to be able to understand why he cut the way he did, why he took what he took and why he left what he left. If I can see it, then so can you. Look again!

[Michael W Richards]

Anyone trying to link together murders which at surface value share virtually no relevant characteristics with others in the group has lots of 'splainin to do. Which is why we so often see the posters version of logic or their own interpretation of "the facts" as the explanation. Which of course means nothing in an empirical world.

Liz Stride is the obvious speed bump in the Canonical roadway, as are Torsos with abdominal mutilations. To suggest 1 killer covets abdominal organs which he then arbitrarily leaves aside in subsequent murders isn't the kind of logic Id employ when problem solving here.

[Fisherman]

John G: Removal of the abdominal wall by a eviscerator is not unique to these cases.

Not if you use Ed Gingerich as an example, not. Otherwise, though...

Moreover, you can only establish a connection if you can demonstrate that this was done as part of ritual and signature in the cases you refer to.

And that I can.

However, as I've previously explained, Chapman can be explained by practical considerations, whereas Kelly was simply butchered by a perpetrator demonstrating no skill whatsoever, i.e. he may simply have made "X" number of cuts into the abdominal wall and then removed it piecemeal in a somewhat frenzied, unskilled approach, which is very different to what occurred in Jackson's case, for example.

Go find a parallel example, John. NOT Gingerich, please.

[John G]

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.

Removal of the abdominal wall by a eviscerator is not unique to these cases. Moreover, you can only establish a connection if you can demonstrate that this was done as part of ritual and signature in the cases you refer to. However, as I've previously explained, Chapman can be explained by practical considerations, whereas Kelly was simply butchered by a perpetrator demonstrating no skill whatsoever, i.e. he may simply have made "X" number of cuts into the abdominal wall and then removed it piecemeal in a somewhat frenzied, unskilled approach, which is very different to what occurred in Jackson's case, for example.