Torso Killer discussion from Millwood Thread

[Abby Normal]

Well, the Thames police would be very familiar I suspect with the behaviour of bodies and other floating objects in their river. Plus there are press reports saying that they carried out experiments to confirm if it was possible. And I'm sure there was a noticable affect on later pieces which had been in the water for longer when compared to the first pieces fished out.
But yes, essentially, I think they could only say it was likely rather than definite that all the pieces were deposited at the same time.

The number of relatively small, discrete body parts does make me wonder if the killer might have made several trips on the same night to deposit them in the river - If he had access to transport, there seems little practical need to divide the body into such easily carried parcels.

unless of course-cutting up into small discreet parts were part of his ritual/fantasy/sig-kind of like how Kelly had flaps of flesh removed from her stomach, thighs and breast removed.

[Abby Normal]

Yes, particularly in the skill required. JtR did not have the skill to decapitate, and showed no inclination to disjoint parts of the body - hack, remove internals, and deflesh crudely, yes, but section or dismembe no. The torso killer(s?) did, and had the skills to do it. Since the argument put forth has been that the torso killer(s?) had a desire / need to dismember, but didn't for the outdoor murders because of lack of time (apparently) but the whole committing of the outdoor murders fails in logic - if the need / desire is to dismember and you have a place to do that, where you demonstrate skill and fine precision work, then you are someone with the skill knowledge to realize you don't have time for your special time in the street. Why go berserk in the street, where there's no time to dismember, no time for the careful precise artwork, and no chance to throw limbs and things into the river so they can be assured to be found (apparently)? Why does the torso killer(s) become such a completely different character in terms of demonstrable skills and desires reflected through behavior? - simple, because they are a different character, they are not one in the same as the torso killer.

That's the only conclusion I keep coming back to.

- Jeff

because the torsorippers main motivation was post mortem mutilation. cutting up a females body. the dismemberment was for practical AND psychological reasons. when he killed in his chop shop he could do it all, when he killed in the street he could only do eviscirations. as weve said a hundred times before, you cant easily stuff a saw in your pocket nor a human head or limb. so he gave up dismemberment in the street killings, yet could still post mortem mutilate by eviscerating! Plus since the street murders dosnt involve having to dismember in ease of removing the victim from your house, there goes the practical need of it. Its not rocket science-I don't understand why so many people are having trouble grasping the concept. you may not agree with it, but the concept and logic is pretty straight forward.

[Sam Flynn]

The number of relatively small, discrete body parts does make me wonder if the killer might have made several trips on the same night to deposit them in the river - If he had access to transport, there seems little practical need to divide the body into such easily carried parcels.

I totally agree.

And I'm sure there was a noticable affect on later pieces which had been in the water for longer when compared to the first pieces fished out.

It depends how much "later" we're talking about. Dumping individual pieces within (say) an hour of each other might have had the same effect as dumping all of them at once. The body parts weren't found in exactly the same locations, after all.

[Kattrup]

Letīs give Hebbert the final word on this, shall we?

"In the first two cases the vertebrae had been sawn through, in the third the sixth cervical vertebrae had been sawn through, but the dorsal and lumbar vertebrae were separated by cutting through the intervertebral substance and in the fourth the intervertebral substance in the neck was cut, showing that the man was aware of the projecting arterial lip on the under surface of the vertebra, and SUGGESTING THAT HE WAS BECOMING MORE EXPERT IN HIS WORK..."

We’ll give him the final word when he agrees with us, but when he states (in agreement with senior police) that the torso killings were not the work of the ripper, Hebbert reverts to an unreliable pseudoscientist:

The source for the cuts preceding the disemboweling is Hebberts study of the four torso cases inbetween 1887-89,called An exercise in forensic medicine. Hebbert, by the way, also said that he did not think the Ripper and the Torso killer were one and the same. He offered that view in a work where he then proceeded to confess to be a believer in criminal anthropology.

One has to be aware of these matters when assessing the cases, Bolo!

How do you decide when to trust Dr. Hebbert and when not?

[Joshua Rogan]

Not really. It's only a police opinion, and unless they were experts in fluid dynamics it can hardly be taken as fact.

Well, the Thames police would be very familiar I suspect with the behaviour of bodies and other floating objects in their river. Plus there are press reports saying that they carried out experiments to confirm if it was possible. And I'm sure there was a noticable affect on later pieces which had been in the water for longer when compared to the first pieces fished out.
But yes, essentially, I think they could only say it was likely rather than definite that all the pieces were deposited at the same time.

The number of relatively small, discrete body parts does make me wonder if the killer might have made several trips on the same night to deposit them in the river - If he had access to transport, there seems little practical need to divide the body into such easily carried parcels.

[Fisherman]

Butcher's, slaughtermen, etc, would have the skills to disjoint as cleanly as the torso killer did, and in their training and job experience, they also learn how to disjoint spines and necks. The torso killer shows a lot of evidence of knowing how to break down a carcass. They show evidence of a skill set that would include disjointing a neck - JtR does not show anything like that level of skill.

I was using the variable description of skill by the medico's to point to evidence that JtR's skill level differed from that of the torso killer(s), where they universally agreed on high skills shown. I wasn't twisting your claim in any way, I was providing evidence against the claim being presented as evidence for the same person. Yes, there was discussion of skill in both series, but no, the discussed skill levels are not of an equal footing.

Personally, I don't see anything of substance that connects these two series.

- Jeff

But who says we must be talking about a butcher? Read what Hebbert said, and hopefully you will understand that there WAS a learning process involved for the killer when it came to dismembering heads!

If you donīt think taking out uteri and hearts and cutting away abdominal walls, stealing rings and cutting out colon sections and cutting from ribs to pubes is "of substance to connect these two series", I'm fine with that. We are all entitled to look at the evidence and conclude from that. If you think all of the above are very trivial and common things, entirely likely to surface within two serial killers at work in the same town and time, I cannot do more than disagree - they are not and they never were.

I'm off for now. I need a breath of fresh air.

Just a final reflection:

"The torso killer knows what they are doing, and if they've got a saw, they know that will make it easier."

He HAD a saw in case three, but nevertheless used a knife too. Why, if a saw "made it easier"? Why, Jeff? And why did he not use that saw in the fourth case at all? Had it somehow gone missing that day?

Your reasoning would sink an ocean liner, being as full of holes as it is. But it seems you donīt care. If the square peg does not fit in the round hole, go get the sledgehammer.

[JeffHamm]

Letīs give Hebbert the final word on this, shall we?

"In the first two cases the vertebrae had been sawn through, in the third the sixth cervical vertebrae had been sawn through, but the dorsal and lumbar vertebrae were separated by cutting through the intervertebral substance and in the fourth the intervertebral substance in the neck was cut, showing that the man was aware of the projecting arterial lip on the under surface of the vertebra, and SUGGESTING THAT HE WAS BECOMING MORE EXPERT IN HIS WORK..."

It took him three victims to find out how to get around that arterial lip. In the first two cases he simply sawed right through the spine, in case number three he discovered while sawing that there was a way to do it by knife, and in the fourth he utilized his newfound insights.

So no, Jeff, all joints are not the same, and no, if you can disarticulate a knee or an elbow, it does not follow that you can disarticulate a head.

Sigh. Someone who was only learning their way around cutting up a body wouldn't have been able to do the clean disjointing that they did. The torso killer knows what they are doing, and if they've got a saw, they know that will make it easier. JtR apparently didn't know that, and gave it a go because? Why? He doesn't have the same skills or knowledge as the torso killer.

They are not the same person, they do different things as a result - one doesn't know enough to avoid giving it a go, the other has a saw on hand to make it easier, but can do it if they don't have the saw available. How this looks at all like the same person is beyond me, they are clearly different people involved in the two series.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Most of my answers to this - including how I am not predisposing that the killer had an urge to dismember as such - can be found in my previous post.

No, a killer who can take off an arm or a leg cannot necessarily take off a head, the processes are different. Arms and legs are about laying the joint free and twisting the limb out of its socket and there is no socket in the neck.
Hebbert very clearly saw the Pinchin Street decapitation as an example of progress in skill on the killers behalf. Whether you accept this or not, it remains that neither series involved decapitation by knife until September 1889. Consequently, there can be no justified claim that the torso killer would have known how to do it. Hebbert knew quite well that the torso killer was a competent dismemberer by way of disjointing and disarticulating. Regardless of this, he pointed the decapitation of the Pinchin Street victims out as a stepped up skill level on behalf of the killer. It would - oddly enough - seem he was not as aware as you are about how dismemberments of different body parts are all the same?
I donīt think he would have taken kindly to your attempt on irony and missed classes. I instead think he knew what he was talking about - much more so than you do, actually.

You also twisted my claim that both men were deemed highly skilled with the knife by medicos into how I would have said that all doctors universally agreed. You really should not do that. I said that there were medicos who were very impressed by this factor in both cases, and there were. In both series, the medicos expressed different levels of being impressed, so that's not anything strange. What IS strange is that there is a correlation on this issue too. Bring to sweep that under the carpet on your behalf leaves an unpleasant smell hanging in the air.

Butcher's, slaughtermen, etc, would have the skills to disjoint as cleanly as the torso killer did, and in their training and job experience, they also learn how to disjoint spines and necks. The torso killer shows a lot of evidence of knowing how to break down a carcass. They show evidence of a skill set that would include disjointing a neck - JtR does not show anything like that level of skill.

I was using the variable description of skill by the medico's to point to evidence that JtR's skill level differed from that of the torso killer(s), where they universally agreed on high skills shown. I wasn't twisting your claim in any way, I was providing evidence against the claim being presented as evidence for the same person. Yes, there was discussion of skill in both series, but no, the discussed skill levels are not of an equal footing.

Personally, I don't see anything of substance that connects these two series.

- Jeff

[Fisherman]

Letīs give Hebbert the final word on this, shall we?

"In the first two cases the vertebrae had been sawn through, in the third the sixth cervical vertebrae had been sawn through, but the dorsal and lumbar vertebrae were separated by cutting through the intervertebral substance and in the fourth the intervertebral substance in the neck was cut, showing that the man was aware of the projecting arterial lip on the under surface of the vertebra, and SUGGESTING THAT HE WAS BECOMING MORE EXPERT IN HIS WORK..."

It took him three victims to find out how to get around that arterial lip. In the first two cases he simply sawed right through the spine, in case number three he discovered while sawing that there was a way to do it by knife, and in the fourth he utilized his newfound insights.

So no, Jeff, all joints are not the same, and no, if you can disarticulate a knee or an elbow, it does not follow that you can disarticulate a head.

[Fisherman]

Oh, I hadn't realized you have come around to accept that the dismemberment and scattering was practical in nature. Up until now I have been under the impression you believed the torso killer(s) had a desire to dismember.



The disjointing of the torso victims was done white a high level of skill, noted by the doctors at the time. The cuts were clean, and clearly done by someone with the skills of a butcher most likely, according to the medical reports by doctors who actually examined the injuries. Therefore, the torso killer was someone who had the skill to disjoint, whether it be arms, legs, or necks. Decapitation by knife would be in their skill set as demonstrated by the totality of the skill demonstrated. Use of a saw would just be easier if it was available.



Well, I guess that makes us even as I think you're completely off base thinking the torso killer's evidenced skills at disarticulation and separation of joints pre Sept 89 somehow vanishes when it comes to neck bones. That doesn't fit with the evidence, and I can't understand how it's all supposed to logically hold together - he's got the skills to disjoint legs and arms cleanly and shows evidence of having a high proficiency, but move up the body above the shoulders and - poof - don't know how anymore? What, did he skip that class? It has too many twists and turns of argument trying to stuff the evidence into the theory to be credible.



Sorry, but the correct answer is "yes there is- they can disjoint every other limb just fine, they have shown high skills with their use of the knife and how to break down a body. It's easier with a saw, so if you got one at hand, use it. But every last bit of evidence we have with regards to the skills available to the torso killer(s) points to someone who had the skill to disjoint the neck/spine and decapitate with a knife if they so chose. JtR "so chose" to try, and JtR failed. The torso killer would not have. They are not the same person.



No, JtR was not universally thought to have high skills with the knife. Dr. Bond, who performed the autopsy on Kelly and read the case notes on the other cases states "In each case the mutilation was inflicted by a person who had no scientific nor anatomical knowledge. In my opinion he does not even possess the technical knowledge of a butcher or horse slaughterer or any person accustomed to cut up dead animals." Dr. Phillips saw no skill in the Eddowes case and thought her by a different killer, though did see skill of some level in the case of Nichols, Chapman, and Kelly. With JtR, basically, opinion was highly varied, with the torso killer(s) it appears universally agreed upon. Again, different levels of skills being shown, with the torso killer(s) having the higher demonstrable skill set; ergo, not the same person.

I can't help it, the two series won't fit together, it's like one is a corner piece to a jigsaw and the other a duck.

- Jeff

Most of my answers to this - including how I am not predisposing that the killer had an urge to dismember as such - can be found in my previous post.

No, a killer who can take off an arm or a leg cannot necessarily take off a head, the processes are different. Arms and legs are about laying the joint free and twisting the limb out of its socket and there is no socket in the neck.
Hebbert very clearly saw the Pinchin Street decapitation as an example of progress in skill on the killers behalf. Whether you accept this or not, it remains that neither series involved decapitation by knife until September 1889. Consequently, there can be no justified claim that the torso killer would have known how to do it. Hebbert knew quite well that the torso killer was a competent dismemberer by way of disjointing and disarticulating. Regardless of this, he pointed the decapitation of the Pinchin Street victims out as a stepped up skill level on behalf of the killer. It would - oddly enough - seem he was not as aware as you are about how dismemberments of different body parts are all the same?
I donīt think he would have taken kindly to your attempt on irony and missed classes. I instead think he knew what he was talking about - much more so than you do, actually.

You also twisted my claim that both men were deemed highly skilled with the knife by medicos into how I would have said that all doctors universally agreed. You really should not do that. I said that there were medicos who were very impressed by this factor in both cases, and there were. In both series, the medicos expressed different levels of being impressed, so that's not anything strange. What IS strange is that there is a correlation on this issue too. Bring to sweep that under the carpet on your behalf leaves an unpleasant smell hanging in the air.

[JeffHamm]

To be precise: I am not claiming that the killer had a need or desire to dismember, Jeff. What I AM saying is that the killer was somebody who eviscerated and who went beyond what he needed to do if it was all just about getting rid of a body.

My personal take is that some of the dismemberment WAS part of his urge, but it is not something I can prove. I can only prove that he went beyond what is needed for practical dismemberment and that he for some reason happened to take out the same organs as the upper in the process, just as he happened to cut from ribs to pubes (like the Ripper did), just as he happened to cut away an abdominal wall (like the Ripper did), just as he happened to take away a ring from the finger of one of his victims (like the Ripper did), just as he happened to show enough skill with the knife for medicos to be impressed (like the Ripper did).

All in all, that makes for a pretty watertight case of a shared identity.

No, it's leaking on the floor I'm afraid. If you're going to dismember a body to aid in removing it from your house, and you have the butchering skill (which the torso killer(s) apparently did), then you will break down the body like you would an animal carcass. You remove the stomach flaps (done), all the innards, including lungs, etc (torso case done, JtR, nope, just a few choice bits now and again - this is not a similarity), cutting from ribs to pubes? If your goal is to get at the innards, as both a mutilator and a practical dismemberment/body break down person have for different reasons, then how else are they going to get at them? This is not a similarity that links the two cases, both JtR and the torso killer(s) have a need to get at the innards to do what they do - one to mutilate, one to break the body down for transport.

And the taking of rings? The taking of souvenirs from victims is so common a behaviour come talk to me when there's evidence that he left jewelry both times. That's like saying both victims were prostitutes, one of the more high risk victim groups. It's not a similarity that is anything more telling than going "Oh look, that leaf is green, must be the same plant as I saw before? Oh, has roots too", these are non-informative similarities.

JtR's skills were highly debated at the time, the torso killer(s)' skills were not. The latter had more skills before JtR even started, they can't be the same individual.

Why "go berserk" in the streets, if your true nature is to cut away under safe and time wise unlimited conditions? My best guess is because he wanted a maximum press coverage and a maximum terror would ensure that. The interesting thing is that the torso murders continued along and beyond the Ripper murders, so if safe and time wise generous conditions was his favored game, it would seem he hung on to it throughout.

Last, but not least, I think it is dangerous to read too much of a character into the scant evidence we have.

I'll stop if you stop.

The two series may have been mirror images of each other in many a way, regardless of how you think that there were two different temperaments at work, Jeff. If the Ripper was a smooth-talker who chatted up his victims, why would the torso killer not be the exact same?

I think it is dangerous to read too much of a character into the scant evidence we have.

If the Ripper struck quickly as soon as he had his victim where he wanted her, why would not the torso killer be the exact same? If the Ripper immediately set about cutting as his victim was dead, why would not the torso killer be the exact same? If the Ripper enjoyed cutting into his victims, why would not the torso killer be the exact same? If the Ripper was a narcissist, putting his victims on display to terrorize, why would not the torso killer be the exact same? If the Ripper was a psychopath, feeling no remorse whatsoever, instead feeling entitled to what he did, why would not the torso killer be the exact same? If the Ripper cut out uteri, hears and lungs, cut away abdominal walls and stole rings from his victims, why would not the torso killer do the exact same?

You THINK they were of different mindsets, but it is pretty unlikely that two people of different mindsets would bot end up killing, eviscerating, taking away abdominal walls and stealing rings, Jeff. People of different mindsets normally do different things.

I also know they evidenced different levels of skills with the knife. Hence, they cannot be the same person.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

1. He did not HAVE to dismember the Ripper victims. They were not in his house!

Oh, I hadn't realized you have come around to accept that the dismemberment and scattering was practical in nature. Up until now I have been under the impression you believed the torso killer(s) had a desire to dismember.

2. Kelly had notches on her spine, leading Phillips to suggest a botched decapitation. Chapman had something along the same lines. Chapman was killed in September-88 and Kelly in November-88. The Rainham victim was found in May -87, the Whitehall victim was found in September -88, Jackson was found in June -89. All of these victims had had their heads SAWN off. When the Pinchin Street victim was found in September of 1989, she had had her head taken off by means of knife, and Charles Hebbert pointed this out as a sign of the killer progressing in his skills.

The disjointing of the torso victims was done white a high level of skill, noted by the doctors at the time. The cuts were clean, and clearly done by someone with the skills of a butcher most likely, according to the medical reports by doctors who actually examined the injuries. Therefore, the torso killer was someone who had the skill to disjoint, whether it be arms, legs, or necks. Decapitation by knife would be in their skill set as demonstrated by the totality of the skill demonstrated. Use of a saw would just be easier if it was available.

Can you see how the two series fit together? Before September -89, NEITHER man seems to have been able to decapitate by knife. So at the stage when you say that the Ripper was unable to decapitate, I think you are totally wrong: he would be perfectly able to decapitate, given a saw. But he did not carry a saw into the streets, did he? So he (possibly) tried with a knife - and failed.

Well, I guess that makes us even as I think you're completely off base thinking the torso killer's evidenced skills at disarticulation and separation of joints pre Sept 89 somehow vanishes when it comes to neck bones. That doesn't fit with the evidence, and I can't understand how it's all supposed to logically hold together - he's got the skills to disjoint legs and arms cleanly and shows evidence of having a high proficiency, but move up the body above the shoulders and - poof - don't know how anymore? What, did he skip that class? It has too many twists and turns of argument trying to stuff the evidence into the theory to be credible.

Is there any evidence that the Torso killer knew how to decapitate by knife at this stage in time? No, there is not - because he used a saw on the three victims of May 1887 to June 1888.

Sorry, but the correct answer is "yes there is- they can disjoint every other limb just fine, they have shown high skills with their use of the knife and how to break down a body. It's easier with a saw, so if you got one at hand, use it. But every last bit of evidence we have with regards to the skills available to the torso killer(s) points to someone who had the skill to disjoint the neck/spine and decapitate with a knife if they so chose. JtR "so chose" to try, and JtR failed. The torso killer would not have. They are not the same person.

Both men were deemed to possess a high level of skill with their knives, by the way. That's one more of those "coincidences".

No, JtR was not universally thought to have high skills with the knife. Dr. Bond, who performed the autopsy on Kelly and read the case notes on the other cases states "In each case the mutilation was inflicted by a person who had no scientific nor anatomical knowledge. In my opinion he does not even possess the technical knowledge of a butcher or horse slaughterer or any person accustomed to cut up dead animals." Dr. Phillips saw no skill in the Eddowes case and thought her by a different killer, though did see skill of some level in the case of Nichols, Chapman, and Kelly. With JtR, basically, opinion was highly varied, with the torso killer(s) it appears universally agreed upon. Again, different levels of skills being shown, with the torso killer(s) having the higher demonstrable skill set; ergo, not the same person.

I can't help it, the two series won't fit together, it's like one is a corner piece to a jigsaw and the other a duck.

- Jeff

[Fisherman]

Yes, particularly in the skill required. JtR did not have the skill to decapitate, and showed no inclination to disjoint parts of the body - hack, remove internals, and deflesh crudely, yes, but section or dismembe no. The torso killer(s?) did, and had the skills to do it. Since the argument put forth has been that the torso killer(s?) had a desire / need to dismember, but didn't for the outdoor murders because of lack of time (apparently) but the whole committing of the outdoor murders fails in logic - if the need / desire is to dismember and you have a place to do that, where you demonstrate skill and fine precision work, then you are someone with the skill knowledge to realize you don't have time for your special time in the street. Why go berserk in the street, where there's no time to dismember, no time for the careful precise artwork, and no chance to throw limbs and things into the river so they can be assured to be found (apparently)? Why does the torso killer(s) become such a completely different character in terms of demonstrable skills and desires reflected through behavior? - simple, because they are a different character, they are not one in the same as the torso killer.

That's the only conclusion I keep coming back to.

- Jeff

To be precise: I am not claiming that the killer had a need or desire to dismember, Jeff. What I AM saying is that the killer was somebody who eviscerated and who went beyond what he needed to do if it was all just about getting rid of a body.

My personal take is that some of the dismemberment WAS part of his urge, but it is not something I can prove. I can only prove that he went beyond what is needed for practical dismemberment and that he for some reason happened to take out the same organs as the Ripper in the process, just as he happened to cut from ribs to pubes (like the Ripper did), just as he happened to cut away an abdominal wall (like the Ripper did), just as he happened to take away a ring from the finger of one of his victims (like the Ripper did), just as he happened to show enough skill with the knife for medicos to be impressed (like the Ripper did).

All in all, that makes for a pretty watertight case of a shared identity.

Why "go berserk" in the streets, if your true nature is to cut away under safe and time wise unlimited conditions? My best guess is because he wanted a maximum press coverage and a maximum terror would ensure that. The interesting thing is that the torso murders continued along and beyond the Ripper murders, so if safe and timewise generous conditions was his favored game, it would seem he hung on to it throughout.

Last, but not least, I think it is dangerous to read too much of a character into the scant evidence we have. The two series may have been mirror images of each other in many a way, regardless of how you think that there were two different temperaments at work, Jeff. If the Ripper was a smooth-talker who chatted up his victims, why would the torso killer not be the exact same? If the Ripper struck quickly as soon as he had his victim where he wanted her, why would not the torso killer be the exact same? If the Ripper immediately set about cutting as his victim was dead, why would not the torso killer be the exact same? If the Ripper enjoyed cutting into his victims, why would not the torso killer be the exact same? If the Ripper was a narcissist, putting his victims on display to terrorize, why would not the torso killer be the exact same? If the Ripper was a psychopath, feeling no remorse whatsoever, instead feeling entitled to what he did, why would not the torso killer be the exact same? If the Ripper cut out uteri, hears and lungs, cut away abdominal walls and stole rings from his victims, why would not the torso killer do the exact same?

You THINK they were of different mindsets, but it is pretty unlikely that two people of different mindsets would both end up killing, eviscerating, taking away abdominal walls and stealing rings, Jeff. People of different mindsets normally do different things.

Oh, and once again: The torso killer did NOT prove an ability to cut the head off with a knife until in September 1889. Up until the stage, he used a saw. Therefore it may well be that both killer were unable to decapitate by knife up until that date. Consequently, we cannot tell them apart by this criteria - either.

[Fisherman]

Do you not think it strange that despite an array of body parts found in different locations, some nicely and neatly wrapped, NO skulls were ever found !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No, I donīt, Trevor. They were taken off in each case, and the bulk of the parts were thrown into the Thames. If the skulls went the same way - which is the logical bid - they were likely to sink, as far as I understand. So where's the mystery? True, the Pinchin Street victim was found on dry land, but her legs were missing too, as well as the skull. Should that make me think that the killer had a thing for keeping dismembered legs?

One cannot rule out that the heads were kept by the killer, of course, but so far, there is no evidence pointing in that direction. And even if he did, I would not think that strange either, other than in the meaning that most people do not decapitate their ways through life.

[Sam Flynn]

well that takes care of the question if it was done in one trip or if there were multiple trips, does it not?

Not really. It's only a police opinion, and unless they were experts in fluid dynamics it can hardly be taken as fact.