Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The case evidence and its implications

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • FrankO
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    Generally speaking, though, we are of the same sentiment here.
    Let's leave it that, Christer!

    Leave a comment:


  • John G
    replied
    This is an interesting chapter from Rutty et al. 2017, explaining the different types of dismemberment: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...ensive%20disme.

    Note the comment that, "usually, in defensive dismemberment, the parts are moved and hidden in remote locations, but they may also be kept to hand as with the victims Fred West buried under his own premises."

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by FrankO View Post
    No problem there, Christer.

    Solomonic or other, I agree with it to the extent that I would say "a little more likely than in the average murder case".

    All the best,
    Frank
    Welcome to the nitpicking corner! That is to say that if there is any discrepancy between us on all of this, then its how I would not say "a little more likely" - I would opt for "more likely" with no estimation at all, since it is impossible to estimate. The only reasonable thing to expect is a raised level of probability for it.

    Generally speaking, though, we are of the same sentiment here.

    Leave a comment:


  • FrankO
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    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, …
    No problem there, Christer.

    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?
    Solomonic or other, I agree with it to the extent that I would say "a little more likely than in the average murder case".

    All the best,
    Frank

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    all we have is you quoting and interpreting what has been said from what an expert who has written in a book, who has not reviewed the evidence in these torsos.
    No, Trevor, we also have YOU, interpreting what a non-expert has told you in a conversation. All understanding is about interpreting. You have interpreted Biggs as meaning that no two dismemberment murders are dissimilar, they are all enough alike to ensure the they cannot be told apart. And that is where the main problem lies.

    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    It doesnt matter what Rutty has written in books, what matters is the practical review of the medical evidence from 1888. Something Rutty has not done, but you have simply taken what he has written about dismemberment and interpreted it in your own way to suit.
    On the site where Ruttys book was described, it is said that experts, medical students and so on need to have this book since it represents a great source of information. But according to you, they should NOT read it, since it does not matter what is written in it? I see.
    What we are discussing - since you seem to have failed to understand it - is not the particulars of the torso murders. It is the question whether ANY dismemberment murder can be told from another dismemberment murder by comparing the damage done, how it was inflicted, what tools were used, etcetera. And THAT is where Rutty (and Hebbert and the rest of the informed world) says YES, this can be done, and IS indeed done as standard procedure.
    So that is where you fail miserably.

    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    and I suggest Rutty has had no more practical experience with dismemberment cases that Dr Biggs has, considering they both work together at the same forensic unit ! and I am sure Dr Biggs would not have given his opinions wrongly if he knew they were wrong, and I am sure he would have been aware of Ruttys book on the topic, to which there are three other co authors so not all his own work !

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    I don´t care what you suggest. Whenever you do, it turns out ridiculously wrong. Rutty has made dismemberment murders a field of study, and he is a renowned expert on the topic. Biggs has not turned dismemberment murders a field of study, and consequently, he is NOT a renowned - or unrenowned, for that matter - expert on the topic. I am sure that there were cleaning ladies working at the same institution as Einstein, but I am less certain that they excelled in science on account of it.

    Now, read man lips: Guy Rutty - who disagrees totally with what you claim on behalf of Dr Biggs - is an authority on dismemberment murders. He is therefore extremely well suited to enhance our understanding of the phenomenon, and that is the precise reason that we should consult his book whenever we need to read up on how to assess questions relating to dismemberment.

    Leave a comment:


  • John G
    replied
    Firstly, I eould just point out that the Rutty book was co authored by Dame Susan Black, another renowned forensic pathologist.

    Regarding Dr Biggs, was he given the opportunity to consider all of the case evidence? For instance, the fact that the Whitehall victim's remains were placed in the pitch black catacombs of the Whitehall police building foundations, a location extremely difficult to access.

    This is of some importance, because distinguishing between, say, an offensive or defensive dismemberer is not simply a matter of considering the forensic evidence. For example, as Rutty et al. 2017 points out, a defensive dismemberer will dispose of the remains as expeditiously as possible. This clearly didnt happen in the Whitehall case.

    And what of Liz Jackson. The removal of organs cannot simply be explained on the basis of a perpetrator not knowing what he was doing and simply "going for it." Aa Rutty points out, evisceration cases are very rare-just one out of 85 dismemberment cases in the UK since 1985. How does Dr Biggs explain this, i.e. in the context of, say, a defensive dismembererment?

    As has been argued, the fact Jackson was pregnant could feasibly have been an issue-cutting two irregular strips around the stomach would presumably allow access to the foetus, the removal of which would have helped with disposal.

    However, I don't really see this as a satisfactory explanation. Why go to so much trouble for so little benefit: Jackson may have been pregnant, but she had been living rough, so even with the pregnancy issue it would hardly be any more of a problem than, say, disposing of a torso of a 20 stone man!

    And as Dame Sue Black makes abundantly clear, exposing internal organs creates a major problem, so this perpetrator, from a practical perspective, seems to have made life unnecessarily complicated for himself, for very little gain.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    Here is a link to a comprehensive description of the book Guy Rutty has been a co-author of:

    https://www.bokus.com/bok/9781482236...dismemberment/

    It concerns itself with dismemberment murders from an investigative, forensic and social science perspective, delving into tings like tool mark analysis (who would have thought that different dismemberers can be told apart by the tools they use, eh...?)

    To what degree can Dr Biggs match Rutty in this field, Trevor. Any ideas?

    I'm sure there may be matters where Dr Biggs is more informed, but that is kind of beside the point.
    Its not about playing one expert against another, there is a time and a place for that if two experts disagree. But we dont have that do we? all we have is you quoting and interpreting what has been said from what an expert who has written in a book, who has not reviewed the evidence in these torsos.

    It doesnt matter what Rutty has written in books, what matters is the practical review of the medical evidence from 1888. Something Rutty has not done, but you have simply taken what he has written about dismemberment and interpreted it in your own way to suit.

    and I suggest Rutty has had no more practical experience with dismemberment cases that Dr Biggs has, considering they both work together at the same forensic unit ! and I am sure Dr Biggs would not have given his opinions wrongly if he knew they were wrong, and I am sure he would have been aware of Ruttys book on the topic, to which there are three other co authors so not all his own work !

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 04-12-2019, 10:25 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Here is a link to a comprehensive description of the book Guy Rutty has been a co-author of:

    https://www.bokus.com/bok/9781482236...dismemberment/

    It concerns itself with dismemberment murders from an investigative, forensic and social science perspective, delving into tings like tool mark analysis (who would have thought that different dismemberers can be told apart by the tools they use, eh...?)

    To what degree can Dr Biggs match Rutty in this field, Trevor. Any ideas?

    I'm sure there may be matters where Dr Biggs is more informed, but that is kind of beside the point.




    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    Has Guy Rutty reviewed the medical evidence that you seek to rely on and given an opinion as Dr Biggs has? I suspect not, and so you are relying on what Rutty has said in general terms about dismemberment. A non medical person like you cant give a medical opinion and expect people to readily accept it simply by reading a textbook as you have done.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    I don't insult Dr Biggs by calling him a novice. He said very clearly himself that he had little experience only of dismemberment cases. And I'm afraid all a "non medical person like me" can do is to read up or shut up. So we either leave these boards to medicos only, or we wise up as best as we can and work from there. That goes for you and me alike, so I´d start out by advising you to read Rutty. He has a rather impressive merit list too, you know (see below). And having researched and written extensively on dismemberment cases, he is in a much better position to comment on dismemberment murders than Dr Biggs.

    Guy Rutty:

    Education/Qualifications
    • MBBS June 1987 Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine, London
    • MRCPath Part 1 March 1990
    • MRCPath Final Examination awarded February 1994
    • DipRCPath (Forensic) awarded February 1996
    • FRCPath awarded 2002
    • Medical Doctorate 2002, University of Sheffield
    Awards
    • 2004 - "Speaking for the Dead" Winner of the 2004 Wellcome Trust Award at the Learning on Screen conference
    • 2008 - “The Universal Biopsy Tool" Highly Commended at the 2008 Da Vinci Health Technology awards
    • 2009 - "Metropolitan Police Commendation" for organisation of Operation Torch
    • 2010 - "MBE” Queens Birthday Honours
    • 2015 – “David Jenkins Chair in Forensic and Legal Medicine”, Faculty of Forensic and Legal medicine, Royal College of Physicians
    Voluntary work


    Professor Rutty is a member of EMICS, the East Midlands voluntary pre-hospital doctor society who provide assistance on request to East Midlands Ambulance Service (EMAS) Societies MembershipTeaching


    Professor Rutty teaches forensic pathology to under and postgraduate medical and para-medical students. He also teaches police and other blue-light services in relation to forensic pathology and injury causation. He has taught on Post –Mortem Imaging to Coroners Continuation Training courses and the Leicester post-mortem imaging course.
    Professor Rutty supervises under and post graduate degree studentships in research studies related to forensic pathology and science.
    Professor Rutty has assisted the training of medical under and postgraduate students on international training course both within the fields of forensic pathology and post mortem imaging. Research Interests


    Professor Rutty is currently engaged in the following areas of themed research. For more detail on the research currently being undertaken please refer to the research and studentship links within the left hand sub-menu. Forensic Imaging

    A number of research programs are currently being undertaken considering the application of post-mortem computed tomography (PMCT) to medico-legal autopsy practice. These include research into the use of PMCT angiography and ventilated PMCT. Adult resuscitation

    Research is currently being undertaken to develop a human cadaver model for resuscitation research using PMCT. Venous drainage into children’s dura

    Research is currently being undertaken to consider the venous drainage into the dura in children aged 1 year and under. This work is attempting to understand the anatomy and physiology of this region of the body. With this knowledge new research can be undertaken into the causation of subdural haemorrhage within this age group. Weapon tool mark analysis

    A number of research programs are being undertaken to consider the forces involved in the penetration of weapons into the human body and the tool marks left by them which can assist in weapon identification. This work includes the application of novel technology such as micro-computed tomography.
    Last edited by Fisherman; 04-12-2019, 09:54 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by John G View Post

    Thanks Christer. I have just found Dr Biggs's reply to questions asked by Trevor. Here is a relevant piece of that reply:

    "Put simply, the pattern of removing the head 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 fairly similar, but I would never tried to have claimed that this represented some sort of common link."

    Now, on what basis does he conclude that the splitting of the torso in half is fairly normal? This does not accord with Rutty, who makes it clear that this approach is unusual. Is it based upon the handle of cases on his "short career"? Guesswork? An extensive analysis of dismemberment cases over the last 30 years?

    Moreover, I assume that the cases be was involved in were probably defensive dismemberment cases (88% of UK cases since 1985.) However, as I keep noting, such a perpetrator will try and dispose of the corpse as expeditiously as possible. And this most definitely is not what occurred in the Whitehall case.

    Did Dr Biggs factor this important point into his own analysis? How many of the handful of cases he's been involved in involved the depositing of body parts in the pitch black dark catacombs of the foundations of a police building construction site?
    I donat think that Biggs factored in much when he spoke of how dismemberment victims are all alike, John. Just like you say, I feel he was speaking of defensive dismemberment cases.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

    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.

    No I dont have experience that is why I rely on those who do have, experts like Dr Biggs

    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.

    So you are suggesting that a doctor in 1888 was more qualified than a modern day forensic pathologist, and you insult Dr Biggs by calling him a novice I think his qualifications speak volumes. You really have lost the plot !


    2004 MRCS – Royal College of Surgeons of England

    2013 FRCPath – Royal College of Pathologists

    Registration and Memberships

    General Medical Council

    Royal College of Pathologists

    British Association in Forensic Medicine

    Faculty of Forensic and Legal Medicine

    Royal College of Surgeons of England



    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?

    What Dr Biggs says is that two different persons can dismember a corpse and the end result seen would be the same, there are only so many ways to remove limbs etc.

    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?

    Answered above

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

    Guesswork back then, based on what we now know

    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?
    Has Guy Rutty reviewed the medical evidence that you seek to rely on and given an opinion as Dr Biggs has? I suspect not, and so you are relying on what Rutty has said in general terms about dismemberment. A non medical person like you cant give a medical opinion and expect people to readily accept it simply by reading a textbook as you have done.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Patrick S View Post

    First of all. I'm not looking for an "Aha!" moment. This is the first time I've seen this list. I'm asking questions. Try NOT closing your posts with some insult, veiled or otherwise.... might be a nice change of pace... and more productive.

    It just seems to me that the torso killings and the others you attribute to Lechmere are very different and your killer, in my estimation at least (and I'm open to being corrected, just as I'm sure you're eager to correct me) had to set out with an objective of committing one type of murder as opposed to the other. For instance, it would seem the torso killing would have been impossible for him to have committed, say, on his way to work. Do you reckon Lechmere committed the Ripper-style murders on his way to work , as sort of a supplement to his the torso murders, which he undertook in off hours?

    Also, you say that Lechmere may have been drunk when he killed Tabram. So, this would seem to discount that he was on his way to work when he killed Tabram because he was, I would think, unlikely to have been drunk if he were going to work and he likely wouldn't have lasted twenty years or more at Pickfords if that was his habit. My next question would be, do you know if Lechmere drank at all? Was he a heavy drinker? Was he often drunk?
    First: I do not close all my posts with insults. I discuss as I see fit, and them means that I sometimes can be stingy whereas on other occasions I am perfectly friendly. On the whole I don't think it reduces my productivity.

    I can easily see what you mean when you speak of the killer seemingly setting out with different objectives, but I don't see any problems with that - once he got his body to cut into, I don't think he would have been reluctant to go about that business in more than one way. People play on the lotteries, on horses, on football, on just about everything to get a chance to make it big, and the same people may use more than one option. Same objective, different approaches. I don't see why that could not have worked for our killer - using one type of opportunity when going to work in the early mornings, having a reason to be on the streets, and another one on other occasions, providing more complete circumstances, but perhaps less thrill and less press coverage.

    As for Tabram, I am often contemplating that she may have not been an intended victim at all, so in her case I think that the objective may not even have been there. He could have been drunk, he could have been picked up by her and scorned and so he snapped - there is no need to specify why she is not the typical Ripper or torso victim, but instead we may need to look at where and how she fits in.

    She was killed with a pen knife - not the likeliest of weapons to bring along if you aspire to dismember or mutilate and eviscerate. That therefore speak to me of a not premeditated murder.
    Furthermore, she did not have her neck cut, nor was she subjected to the kind of extensive slicing that the others were. Once again, the weapon used would not have been appropriate for that purpose.
    Nichols DID have her neck cut. But Llewellyn said that she first had her abdomen cut, something that is greatly strengthened by the lack of blood under her neck and the blood found in the abdominal cavity.
    So we are perhaps looking at a transition here. A dismemberment killer who is a thoroughbred narcissist, as hinted at by how he makes certain that his "packages" are found and how he is willing to delve down to the deepest recesses of the New Scotland Yard building to make a point, finds that he does not get the coverage he desires. Then one night he meets Tabram in whatever way, and he kills her in a manner that reeks of dammed frustration.
    Once he has left George Yard and reads the papers, he realizes that he could have stumbled onto his meal ticket with the media representatives. This time over, his deed gets massive press coverage, and this in spite of how sloppy and immature the deed is compared to his carefully executed, meticulous torso murders. So what does he do? He answers the call of the media and sets about killing and eviscerating in the streets, relaying as he goes along that cutting the necks of his victims will ensure silence and a prone body to work with.

    In this kind of model, Tabram and the street killings are provided with a working background, explaining all of the perceived differences, not only between Tabram and the rest of the Ripper victims, but also between the two murder series.

    And to me, this is exactly what we should do - we should realize that there HAS to be a reason for these perceived dissimilarities, something I have said from day one: It is not a question of suddenly having two eviscerating and abdominal wall cutting serial killers who cut from sternum to pelvis and take rings from their victims fingers. That kind of stuff does not happen. It is way beyond the realms of credibility. There was just the one killer and we should be overjoyed by how the evidence points this out with a clarity that is breathtaking.
    What remains to do is to look at how it came to go down the way it did, to look at different models of explanations. Once we have a heart attack and fall down dead over our laptops in the middle of a Casebook exchange, everything will be revealed and we will say "Oh, was it THAT everyday simple!?"

    As for the drunk scenario, you will by now have understood that it is not the only option. if it WAS alcohol, I´d say that the probable thing is that he was not an alcoholic generally speaking, since that would probably have cost him his job.

    Leave a comment:


  • John G
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

    And that is a very good point in my eyes!
    Thanks Christer. I have just found Dr Biggs's reply to questions asked by Trevor. Here is a relevant piece of that reply:

    "Put simply, the pattern of removing the head 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 fairly similar, but I would never tried to have claimed that this represented some sort of common link."

    Now, on what basis does he conclude that the splitting of the torso in half is fairly normal? This does not accord with Rutty, who makes it clear that this approach is unusual. Is it based upon the handle of cases on his "short career"? Guesswork? An extensive analysis of dismemberment cases over the last 30 years?

    Moreover, I assume that the cases be was involved in were probably defensive dismemberment cases (88% of UK cases since 1985.) However, as I keep noting, such a perpetrator will try and dispose of the corpse as expeditiously as possible. And this most definitely is not what occurred in the Whitehall case.

    Did Dr Biggs factor this important point into his own analysis? How many of the handful of cases he's been involved in involved the depositing of body parts in the pitch black dark catacombs of the foundations of a police building construction site?

    Leave a comment:


  • Patrick S
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

    The Chapman murder seems a lot less systematic than the 1873 torso murder too. Regardless of that, Chapman had her abdominal wall taken away. As did Kelly. And Kelly (who I am told was a frenzied murder) has something that links her directly to the 1873 torso.

    I have given the Tabram murder a lot of afterthought on account of precisely this factor, Patrick, believe it or not. And I accept that a simple factor like for example the killer being drunk could well explain the less systematic apparition. But do not loose sight of how it seems it was a quiet murder, and it was also a murder where the killer had the coolness to ensure death by changing weapons before stabbing through the sternum.

    I know these murders inside out, Patrick, as do many, many posters out here. There will be no "Aha!" moment in that respect.
    First of all. I'm not looking for an "Aha!" moment. This is the first time I've seen this list. I'm asking questions. Try NOT closing your posts with some insult, veiled or otherwise.... might be a nice change of pace... and more productive.

    It just seems to me that the torso killings and the others you attribute to Lechmere are very different and your killer, in my estimation at least (and I'm open to being corrected, just as I'm sure you're eager to correct me) had to set out with an objective of committing one type of murder as opposed to the other. For instance, it would seem the torso killing would have been impossible for him to have committed, say, on his way to work. Do you reckon Lechmere committed the Ripper-style murders on his way to work , as sort of a supplement to his the torso murders, which he undertook in off hours?

    Also, you say that Lechmere may have been drunk when he killed Tabram. So, this would seem to discount that he was on his way to work when he killed Tabram because he was, I would think, unlikely to have been drunk if he were going to work and he likely wouldn't have lasted twenty years or more at Pickfords if that was his habit. My next question would be, do you know if Lechmere drank at all? Was he a heavy drinker? Was he often drunk?

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Stacker View Post

    Just saying, I think you forgot Kelly on November 1888 on that list. The contents of your other posts certainly do not indicate that you intentionally left her out.

    Other than that, I think this is a very plausible list. Definitely better than the "5 murders and 5 murders only" nonsense that Macnaghten produced.
    Ha! I got the numbers wrong and I think she got lost as I corrected the list! Yes indeed, Kelly should also be there, maybe as number one, archetypically speaking! Thanks for pointing it out!

    So fourteen murders - my lucky number, actually...

    MacNaghten never was a favorite of mine either, by the way. "Homicidal maniac" and all that... Its appalling how his memoranda has been allowed to shape Ripperology for so many people.

    Here goes, the amended list:

    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 Kelly murder of November 1888
    12. The Jackson torso murder of June 1889
    13. The MacKenzie murder of July 1889
    14. The Pinchin Street torso murder of September 1889
    Last edited by Fisherman; 04-12-2019, 07:27 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X