The case evidence and its implications

[Trevor Marriott]

"Chicken" is a term that makes me think of posters who do not answer questions, not of dismemberment.

Digressing slightly. Do you accept that if Dr Llewellyns estimated time of death of Nichols is wrong then Lechmere could not have killed her ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Digressing slightly. Do you accept that if Dr Llewellyns estimated time of death of Nichols is wrong then Lechmere could not have killed her ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I am the generous type. I even admit that if Nichols had been killed in Blackpool, Lechmere couldn't have been the killer.

As for Llewellyn, there were a number of different verdicts he could have given that would nevertheless have allowed for Lechmere to be the killer. But yes, if we were to know that Nichols had been dead for an hour or two as Lechmere passed by, then he is totally unlikely to be the killer.

Then again, why would we think that Llewellyn must have been wrong...? Regardless if he was totally useless at gauging TOD:s (and let's admit that we don't know, not you and not me), he could be right anyway. it is an undeterminable factor.

What we do have, though, is Neil and Mizen witnessing about how Nichols bled many minutes after the carmen were with her, and that is more than enough to make the suggestion of Lechmere as the killer a suggestion that is in line with the evidence.

[FrankO]

The problem is: why detach the pelvic viscera at all? I have cited Rutty to the effect that this isn't how a body is normally dismembered. And for a defensive dismemberer it wouldn't make sense, i.e. becuse of the consequences of exposing the internal organs.

I'm not questioning your point about offensive dismembering, John. My point is just that it isn't probable that the pelvic section in the Whitehall case was emptied of the uterus and other viscera, because in the Rainham case, the pelvic section was found to still contain the uterus and other organs. In one case the uterus was cut out (Jackson) and in one case it was not (Rainham). So, it doesn't particularly follow that the uterus and, possibly, other viscera were cut out from the pelvic section of the Whitehall victim.

All the best,
Frank

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor. Yesterdays news, I'm afraid. We all know that similarities inbetween dismemberment cuts are quite useful in offering clues to the cutter. Biggs was humble enough to admit that dismemberment was not his area, and if he had only seen passive dismemberment, it is quite likely that it looked equally messy in all cases. However, even in these cases, it can be determined whether the cutter was likely to be left- or right-handed, whether he cut swiftly or hesitatingly, whether he had to use more than one cut to reach the desired depth or made it in one and so on.
The similarity can, in other words, be only superficial, a very useful word, used correctly. More on that in a later post.

It goes without saying, but I said it anyway. Be my guest.

Well Dr Biggs has dealt with such cases, and he is the medical expert, how many cases have you dealt with?

If you want to disregard what he says, equally now we must now totally disregard all the crap you keep coming out with on the same topic. Because at the end of the day he is the expert, and you know diddly squat about the topic, other than what you have made up to suit your misguided belief

There is no way to determine whether the cutter was left or right handed, another point Dr Biggs makes so you are wrong again on that point.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FrankO]

Three sections, Frank, in the Rainham case, one of which (the shoulder section) was never found. Jackson and Rainham are the same in this respect, three torso sections.

I know it were 3 sections in the Rainham case, Christer, but I was a bit too quick and it wasn't important to the point I was trying to make.

I agree fully that we should not work from the assumption that anything at all was cut out from the Whitehall victim, although our knowledge that this WAS done in the Jackson case and quite possibly in the Rainham case too means that we should be open for the possibility that it took place in the Whitehall case too.

I am certainly open to that possibility, but as I wrote to John, I just don't think it's a probability based on the facts.

All the best,
Frank

[Fisherman]

I know it were 3 sections in the Rainham case, Christer, but I was a bit too quick and it wasn't important to the point I was trying to make.

I am certainly open to that possibility, but as I wrote to John, I just don't think it's a probability based on the facts.

All the best,
Frank

I was not trying to be a messerschmitter, Frank - but I always make it a point to correct errors whenever they occur. Clearing as many of them as possible out of the way is never a bad thing, and no matter how much work we do on the matter, there's always more to be done...

As for how probable it was that the viscera was removed from the lost pelvic part from the Whitehall torso, I would say that my general feeling is that it was less likely than unlikely that it was done, but more likely than in the average murder case. How about that for a Solomonic solution?

[Fisherman]

Well Dr Biggs has dealt with such cases, and he is the medical expert, how many cases have you dealt with?

If you want to disregard what he says, equally now we must now totally disregard all the crap you keep coming out with on the same topic. Because at the end of the day he is the expert, and you know diddly squat about the topic, other than what you have made up to suit your misguided belief

There is no way to determine whether the cutter was left or right handed, another point Dr Biggs makes so you are wrong again on that point.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

How many have YOU dealt with, Trevor? We are both laymen, you and I, and so what we say on this topic is guided by what we have gleaned/understood/misunderstood from those who DO have experience in the field.
You ely on Biggs, and I rely on foremost Hebbert and Rutty, both of them way more accomplished than the novice Biggs. May it long stay that way on his account, by the way - dismemberment is an ugly business and I would not wish it upon anybody to have to read up on it.

Now, the point you make - and think that Biggs supports - is that no two dismemberment cases can be told from each other. They all look the same. Would that be about it, Trevor?

Then how was it that Hebbert was able to say that the cutting in the four 87-89 cases was on almost all scores perfectly similar? Because it always is?

Then why did he say on ALMOST ALL SCORES? It seems he could tell the cutting apart in some instances?

The answer is simple, and it is supported by Guy Rutty, who has written extensively about the topic and is a real expert. There are many ways to cut a person up, and they are recognizable afterwards: Did he hesitate in his cutting or was it a swift and sure cutter? Did he know how to disarticulate? How much of the joint did he cut free before he twisted it out of its socket? How deep did he cut around the joint? How long cuts did he make around it? How many? How high up did he make the cut in the thigh? Which way did he angle the blade? Was it a cutting or sawing motion?

If you really appreciate Dr Biggs as much as you seem to, why not give him Ruttys book as a present? And when he has read it, you can ask him about these matters again.

[John G]

I'm not questioning your point about offensive dismembering, John. My point is just that it isn't probable that the pelvic section in the Whitehall case was emptied of the uterus and other viscera, because in the Rainham case, the pelvic section was found to still contain the uterus and other organs. In one case the uterus was cut out (Jackson) and in one case it was not (Rainham). So, it doesn't particularly follow that the uterus and, possibly, other viscera were cut out from the pelvic section of the Whitehall victim.

All the best,
Frank

A fair point, Frank. Personally, I think it can be argued both ways, although I still don't understand why the pelvic viscera was detached from the rest of the torso. It wouldn't be at all usual, as Rainham and Pinchin Street perfectly illustrate. It is possible to argue there was an escalation by the perpetrator, or even different perpetrators, but this is all speculation.

[Fisherman]

Any chance that anybody could elaborate a bit on what they mean when they say that the similarities inbetween the murder series were "superficial"...?

[Fisherman]

A fair point, Frank. Personally, I think it can be argued both ways, although I still don't understand why the pelvic viscera was detached from the rest of the torso. It wouldn't be at all usual, as Rainham and Pinchin Street perfectly illustrate. It is possible to argue there was an escalation by the perpetrator, or even different perpetrators, but this is all speculation.

It sounds wrong when you say that the viscera was detached from the torso, John. The whole pelvic section, bones, flesh, muscle, viscera and all was taken off and went lost. We should not say that the viscera was detached from the torso, because for all we know it remained in that torso - the pelvic section of it.

[John G]

May I remind you again of what Dr Biggs stated having reviewed in detail the medical evidence you seek to rely on, and what he says that it is not possible to determine that all the torsos were dismembered by the same person

"A person who is faced with a body to dispose of will often attempt to 'chop it up', either to make it easier to hide, easier to transport or easier to 'get rid of' in some way. What is quite striking is that even individuals with no prior knowledge will often end up doing a job that will look remarkably similar (in appearance afterwards) to that of another, completely unrelated case. It is not the presence of a common killer that is responsible for the similarities between cases, but the fact that bodies tend to have fairly obvious 'joins' to go for when attempting to reduce the size / bulk of a body"

Put simply, the pattern of removing the head and limbs from the torso +/- splitting the torso in half seems to be fairly 'normal' in cases of dismemberment. The handful of dismemberment cases that I have personally dealt with in my short career so far have all ended up looking fairly similar, but I would never have tried to claim that this represented some sort of common link between cases.

The question about disarticulation of joints versus sawing of bone raises an interesting point that I’m afraid I can’t answer conclusively one way or the other. That is to say that often the dismemberment is done by someone without prior knowledge, experience or planning, who begins trying to saw and then realises it is quite difficult in reality… and that simply cutting through the joints turns out to be a much quicker, easier way of doing things. This change of tack can arise quite intuitively during the process, so we often see several abortive attempts at sawing through bone, followed by successful disarticulation by cutting through joints.

These days, power tools make it much easier to go through the bone itself, but ‘back in the day’ I suspect they would have had only hand saws / knives available. A failed attempt at sawing, followed by disarticulation, would tend to imply naivety on the part of the dismemberer, as anyone with medical / abattoir / butchery experience would ‘probably’ go straight for the simpler solution.

However, a lack of initial sawing doesn’t automatically indicate prior knowledge, as it could simply indicate that no saw was available to begin with and that the perpetrator just used what they had to hand (or they just got lucky first time with their chosen strategy). So to sum up, these days we see a mix of dismemberment by sawing and direct disarticulation of joints (the sawing often involves some sort of power tool or similar), but we can make no assumptions about the knowledge (or otherwise) of the perpetrator based on their technique.

However, a lack of initial sawing doesn’t automatically indicate prior knowledge, as it could simply indicate that no saw was available to begin with and that the perpetrator just used what they had to hand (or they just got lucky first time with their chosen strategy). So to sum up, these days we see a mix of dismemberment by sawing and direct disarticulation of joints (the sawing often involves some sort of power tool or similar), but we can make no assumptions about the knowledge (or otherwise) of the perpetrator based on their technique.

Similarly, most cases of true ‘dismemberment’ are for the purposes of making bodies easier to store, transport and dispose of rather than being representative of a desire to cut for cutting’s sake. There may be deliberate disfigurement or destruction of features, but this is usually an attempt to make successful identification difficult. There are people out there who like to cut ‘for fun’ (whether before or after death), but these tend to be recognisable as acts of true ‘mutilation’ rather than ‘dismemberment’. The two scenarios can of course co-exist within the same body, making things tricky to interpret!

Another observation that is usually quoted in historical cases is that the 'quality' of the dismemberment somehow points towards a skilled individual. Whether this is medical / surgical / anatomical knowledge, or just prior experience of butchery / abattoir work varies, but the observation is often cited. I can see how it is tempting to jump to this conclusion, but I have to say that I would usually regard the quality of dissection as an indicator of a lack of prior knowledge or experience! Anyone who has taken the legs off a roast chicken can probably work out that the legs will come off a human with the right encouragement...

Because the cuts are not particularly well planned in advance, there are often flaps and strips of skin here and there, with tears in the soft tissue and spurs of broken off bone. The skin often has multiple cuts: cuts that don't 'add' any value to the process of limb removal. They might be interpreted as deliberate 'mutilation', but a simpler explanation is that the person didn't really know what they were doing and just sort of 'went for it'.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I have cited this before. It us from Rutty, Black et al., 2017. As Debra has pointed out, Dr Rutty is greatly more experienced than Dr Biggs, as his Sue Black:

"The body is commonly dismembered into six pieces. This is normally achieved by removing the head and neck at approximately the level of the 4th or 5th vertebrae, both arms through the proximal third of the humorous, and both legs through the upper part of the shaft of the femur, leaving the torso and pelvis as a single piece."

It is therefore not common to detach the pelvic viscera from the rest of the torso, as occurred in the Whitehall case.

Evisceration is very rare, as Rutty also points out-just one out of 85 UK dismemberment cases since 1985 have involved evisceration. Jackson was eviscerated, although as noted this could feasibly yave been due to practical issues, i.e. she was 7 months pregnant, so would presumably have had a bulging stomach.

Dr Biggs only looked at the issue from a forensic perspective. Thus, Rutty tells us that a defensive dismemberer would dispose of the corpse as expeditiously as possible, which accords with common sense. That clearly didn't happen with Whitehall nor, in my opinion, in the case of Jackson or Pinchin Street.

[John G]

It sounds wrong when you say that the viscera was detached from the torso, John. The whole pelvic section, bones, flesh, muscle, viscera and all was taken off and went lost. We should not say that the viscera was detached from the torso, because for all we know it remained in that torso - the pelvic section of it.

Well, Christer, the upper part of the abdomen was present so, unlike Pinchin Street, the torso was most definitely not intact! In other words, parts of the torso, including the pelvic viscera, had been cut away when usually , only the head, legs and arms are detached: see Rutty, 2017, as cited above, i.e. "leaving the torso and pelvis as a single piece."

Dr Hebbert's comments on Whitehall Torso:

" It comprises the thorax and upper part of the abdomen, the head having been separated at the sixth cervical vertebra, and the pelvis and lower part of the abdomen at the fourth lumbar vertebra."

In other words, the pelvis and lower part of the abdomen had been cut away from the rest of the torso at the "fourth lumbar vertebra."

And this is most definitely not "leaving the torso and pelvis as a single piece."!

[Stacker]

Just wondering Fisherman, can you please provide a full list of every murder you think Lechmere was responsible for all in 1 post listed chronologically?

[Fisherman]

Just wondering Fisherman, can you please provide a full list of every murder you think Lechmere was responsible for all in 1 post listed chronologically?

1. The 1873 torso murder
2. The 1874 torso murder (provided that it was the same originator as the year before, the information is scarce, but it seems the two were clumped together back in the day and that will have had its reasons)
3. The 1884 torso murder
4. The 1887 torso murder (Rainham)
5. The Tabram murder of August 1888
6. The Nichols murder of August 1888
7. The 1888 torso murder (Whitehall)
8. The Chapman murder of September 1888
9. The Stride murder of September 1888
10. The Eddowes murder of September 1888
11. The Jackson torso murder of June 1889
12. The MacKenzie murder of July 1889
13. The Pinchin Street torso murder of September 1889

Those are the certain, almost certain (gotta love that term...) and very probable ones in my view. There are others that are possible, but I will leave them aside for now. I would also say that the 1873 torso murder is unlikely to be his first murder; it is far too cool and systematic to be likely to be a first time effort. But I have no earlier murders that I think are a very good match, so I will leave that aside too for the moment being (there are interesting possibilities, linked in different ways to Lechmere).

[Fisherman]

Well, Christer, the upper part of the abdomen was present so, unlike Pinchin Street, the torso was most definitely not intact! In other words, parts of the torso, including the pelvic viscera, had been cut away when usually , only the head, legs and arms are detached: see Rutty, 2017, as cited above, i.e. "leaving the torso and pelvis as a single piece."

Dr Hebbert's comments on Whitehall Torso:

" It comprises the thorax and upper part of the abdomen, the head having been separated at the sixth cervical vertebra, and the pelvis and lower part of the abdomen at the fourth lumbar vertebra."

In other words, the pelvis and lower part of the abdomen had been cut away from the rest of the torso at the "fourth lumbar vertebra."

And this is most definitely not "leaving the torso and pelvis as a single piece."!

No, the torso was certainly not intact, it was cut in two, one upper and a pelvic section. We agree on that. Was I remarked upon is how you said that the pelvic viscera was detached from the body. ALL of the pelvis was, and so the viscera may/will have stayed inside the body, as represented by the pelvic torso section.

Maybe we are thinking the same but wording ourselves differently, I don't know. But to me, there is no indication that the pelvic viscera left the pelvic torso section.