The case evidence and its implications

[Fisherman]

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.

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.

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.

[FrankO]

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

[Fisherman]

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.

[John G]

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."

[FrankO]

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

Let's leave it that, Christer!

[Fisherman]

Let's leave it that, Christer!

Yes, let's!

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

No, on one side we have an expert who has reviewed the written medical evidence from 1888 and given his professional opinions "in writing" not in conversation ! which should not be disregarded as you seem to want to do in favor of a book written and researched by 4 different people.

And on the other side we have you, who has read a book on dismemberment, and uses what he has read to interpret the medical reports to suit.

That not how it works, and the sooner you realize and accept that the better for all.

If you want to take this further I suggest you write to Rutty and send him the medical reports on the torsos and ask him to review them in the same way Dr Biggs has done and then publish his opinions in writing just as I have done with Dr Biggs and I would be interested in finding out just how far back in time his research was done in relation to dismemberment.


www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

No, on one side we have an expert who has reviewed the written medical evidence from 1888 and given his professional opinions "in writing" not in conversation ! which should not be disregarded as you seem to want to do in favor of a book written and researched by 4 different people.

And on the other side we have you, who has read a book on dismemberment, and uses what he has read to interpret the medical reports to suit.

That not how it works, and the sooner you realize and accept that the better for all.

If you want to take this further I suggest you write to Rutty and send him the medical reports on the torsos and ask him to review them in the same way Dr Biggs has done and then publish his opinions in writing just as I have done with Dr Biggs and I would be interested in finding out just how far back in time his research was done in relation to dismemberment.


www.trevormarriott.co.uk

FOUR DIFFERENT PEOPLE!!??? Wow, that's really damning.

Od course I want to take it further, and I will do so without taking any of the advice you offer, Trevor. I will press the point that Rutty is the better source compared to Biggs for as long as it is a truth - and it will be until Biggs specializes in dismemberment and writes a groundbreaking work on it. Let´s just hope that Biggs understands that it´s best avoided to use co-writers, even if they, each and every one of them, specialize in different aspects of dismemberment.

Truth be told, I cannot say that I've given up on you, Trevor. That would mean that I invested hope in you at some time, and to be perfectly honest...

I would like to end this post of mine by pointing out the you and I are having a conversation over the net. In writing.

[Trevor Marriott]

FOUR DIFFERENT PEOPLE!!??? Wow, that's really damning.

Od course I want to take it further, and I will do so without taking any of the advice you offer, Trevor. I will press the point that Rutty is the better source compared to Biggs for as long as it is a truth - and it will be until Biggs specializes in dismemberment and writes a groundbreaking work on it. Let´s just hope that Biggs understands that it´s best avoided to use co-writers, even if they, each and every one of them, specialize in different aspects of dismemberment.

Truth be told, I cannot say that I've given up on you, Trevor. That would mean that I invested hope in you at some time, and to be perfectly honest...

I would like to end this post of mine by pointing out the you and I are having a conversation over the net. In writing.

Well that last sentence confirms that you have really lost the plot.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Well that last sentence confirms that you have really lost the plot.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

... he said, conversing in writing. Try to google "written conversation" (67 200 hits) and you may - I don't dare to hope too much, so its "may" only - see what I mean.

[jerryd]

Hi John,

• Dr Hebbert examined the arm on 16 September and I think his view was that death of the proprietor of the arm took place 3 to 4 weeks earlier. This would put her death at the latest on or close to 26 August.
• Dr Hebbert wrote that the torso was about 2 months dead, while Dr Bond stated that the date of death would have been 6 weeks to 2 months before. They had examined the torso on 3 October. This would put the victim's death at the latest on or close to 22 August.
• In the case of the leg & foot Dr Hebbert opined that death had taken place 6 weeks to 2 months before the examination, which would put her death at the latest (and as Christer wrote) on (or close) to 5 September.

Summing this up, one might say that the Whitehall victim was murdered, at the latest, between 22 August and 5 September, with the balance perhaps a little more towards the 22nd of August. This would fit in nicely with the piece of newspaper of 24 August found where the torso had lain. If the body was not stored, it means that the arm just wasn't found for 6 days at least, quite possibly more, and that the torso just wasn't found for 26 days at least. One can make of this what one wants.

All the best,
Frank

Hi FrankO,

Dr. Neville examined the arm first and said the date of death was 3 to 4 days prior to his examination on the 11th/12th of September. He was confident Dr. Bond would conclude the same. Dr. Neville was not called to the inquest.

Also, regarding the leg. After finding the torso, the police searched the vault for more body parts prior to the 17th (the finding of the leg) and came up empty. In addition, Detective-sergeant Rose states he had bloodhounds and terriers in the vault prior to the 17th and found nothing. I guess Smoker was a superior sniffer?? Or the leg wasn't in that location until after DS Rose had his dogs in there?

[Joshua Rogan]

Hi FrankO,

Dr. Neville examined the arm first and said the date of death was 3 to 4 days prior to his examination on the 11th/12th of September. He was confident Dr. Bond would conclude the same. Dr. Neville was not called to the inquest.

Also, regarding the leg. After finding the torso, the police searched the vault for more body parts prior to the 17th (the finding of the leg) and came up empty. In addition, Detective-sergeant Rose states he had bloodhounds and terriers in the vault prior to the 17th and found nothing. I guess Smoker was a superior sniffer?? Or the leg wasn't in that location until after DS Rose had his dogs in there?

This report seems to indicate it was unlikely that the leg had been buried there recently;

Daily News 18 Oct;
"An additional discovery of human remains was made yesterday, in the vault of the new police buildings, on the Thames Embankment, where the trunk of a female was found a fortnight ago. Mr. Jasper T. C. Waring had placed a Spitzbergen terrier at the service of the authorities, and shortly before noon yesterday the animal was taken to the vault by its owner in order to test its powers of scent. The dog almost immediately commenced scratching at a mound of earth not more than a yard and a half from the spot where the first discovery was made. Some tools were obtained, and the excavation commenced, the excitement of the terrier meantime increasing. After a few inches of soil had been removed, the animal seized hold of an object which proved to be a portion of a human leg. A considerable quantity of soil adhered to it, but it was evident, even by the dim light of a candle, that the limb had been severed at the knee joint. A police-constable who was on duty at the works came up at the moment, and at once reported the circumstance at the King-street Police-station, meanwhile forbidding the continuation of the digging until the arrival of his chiefs. Dr. Bond, divisional surgeon, was summoned, and stated that the remains which had been unearthed were the left foot and lower part of the leg of a well-developed woman. From its decomposed state he judged that the limb had been deposited in the vault at least six weeks ago, in all probability forming part of the body the trunk of which was recently found at the same spot, and one arm of which was discovered in the river near Grosvenor Bridge. At the conclusion of the examination the limb was wrapped in brown paper, and taken to the mortuary. Subsequently the terrier was further employed in searching for other portions of the remains, and the police were engaged in digging the ground in various parts of the vaults.

On inquiry at King-street Police-station last night it was stated that no further discovery had been made, but that arrangements had been completed for the thorough examination of the floors of the vaults. It turns out that the earth by which the limb was covered was thrown back from an excavation made some eight or ten weeks ago. This confirms the medical statement as to the length of time during which the leg had been deposited, while it also has some bearing upon the date when the other remains were placed in the vault. The workmen asserted that the body was not there on the Friday previous to its discovery; but in Dr. Bond's view the blood-stains on the wall of the vault had been so thoroughly absorbed as to suggest that they had been there a considerable length of time. At any rate, it is quite clear that the leg found yesterday could not have been recently deposited, as a strict surveillance of the premises has been maintained by the police since the first startling discovery. More than that, the hoarding all round the site of the buildings has been increased in height by about 3ft, so that it would be absolutely impossible to climb over it. "

[Rosemary]

Dang, I thought this was the ‘angels on a pinhead’ thread!
I do enjoy all of you and your hearty responses, and I’ will admit, I know less than nothing!!

[Scott Nelson]

Rosemary, where have you been?!!!

[Meerkat]

There seems to be a link with the body parts found of Elizabeth Jackson in 1889 and the Battersea Mystery !

On 5 September 1873, the left quarter of a woman's trunk was discovered by a Thames Police patrol near Battersea. Subsequently, a right breast was found at Nine Elms, a head at Limehouse, a left forearm at Battersea, a pelvis at Woolwich, until an almost complete body of a dismembered woman had been found. The nose and the chin had been cut from the face, and the head had been scalped.

On 4 June 1889 a female torso was found in the Thames at Horsleydown, and more body parts were soon found in the Thames the next week.^[3]

The London Times reported on 11 June that the remains found so far "are as follows: Tuesday, left leg and thigh off Battersea, lower part of the abdomen at Horselydown; Thursday, the liver near Nine Elms, upper part of the body in Battersea-Park, neck and shoulders off Battersea; Friday, right foot and part of leg at Wandsworth, left leg and foot at Limehouse; Saturday, left arm and hand at Bankside, buttocks and pelvis off Battersea, right thigh at Chelsea Embankment, yesterday, right arm and hand at Bankside

I am not saying this is anything to do with the ripper but these body parts and deaths do seem to be linked with the same killers MO

And ofcourse the areas which are so similar !