Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - by Sam Flynn 10 minutes ago.
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - by Simon Wood 13 minutes ago.
Witnesses: Sarah and Maurice Lewis - by Scott Nelson 2 hours ago.
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - by Scott Nelson 2 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Varqm 2 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Darryl Kenyon 2 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - (11 posts)
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - (11 posts)
Torso Killings: torso maps - (5 posts)
Maybrick, James: And This Is Factual! - (4 posts)
Witnesses: Sarah and Maurice Lewis - (3 posts)
Maybrick, James: New Thoughts On The “diary” - (2 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Motive, Method and Madness

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #3401  
Old 04-24-2018, 07:52 PM
jerryd jerryd is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,116
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert St Devil View Post
Hi Debs. I'm confused. About Elizabeth Jackson. When the report states that the left piece included the umbilicus, it's referring to Elizabeth's navel (or belly button), right? I'm trying to 'draw out' the shape of the flaps based on which portions of her body where reportedly attached to each side. And also-because if it is describing her navel, once again we have a killer who tends to skirt his cuts around the umbilicus/navel.
Hi RSD,

I tried to draw the flaps here, http://forum.casebook.org/showthread...s#po st434293 (post #1561) from and illustration Debs made of where the body had been divided (yellow boxes). I may have gone a bit too high on the topside, but you can get the idea.
Quick reply to this message
  #3402  
Old 04-24-2018, 08:25 PM
jerryd jerryd is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,116
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by harry View Post
Something else a little misleading?
Rings were taken from the fingers.Where is the evidence for this.How can it be known there were rings on the fingers to take?
Hi Harry,

I know you don't like references to Dr. Hebbert but... in the case of Elizabeth Jackson:

The bruise on the back of the left ring finger might have been made by the forcible removal of the ring.
Quick reply to this message
  #3403  
Old 04-24-2018, 10:22 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,351
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

"Are you of the opinion that dismemberment murder cases led on by a deeply rooted psychological urge within the killer to cut into a body are likely to produce other results than dismemberment cases where the sole reason for the dismemberment is a wish to conceal the identity of the victim or facilitate the disposal of the remains?

Dr Biggs reply:

"... 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!”
So, Biggs points out that normally, dismemberment is about practical matters. And he adds that there may be additions serving the purpose of making an identification impossible.
So that is about the same thing: practicality.

This is all very uncontroversial.

Then he arrvies at my question and delivers the answer: There are people out there who like to "cut for fun", he says.
Okay. I don´t think that it is always for fun, it is a deeply rooted urge and a serious matter for the cutter, but let´s go with the doctor´s terminology anyway.
He then delivers the solution about what is the result when such a person is responsible for the cutting: "these tend to be recognisable as acts of true mutilation rather than dismemberment".

That´s probably very close to the truth. And indeed, we do see examples of "true mutilation" with the Torso killer, the opening up of the abdomen, the taking out of organs, the cutting away of the abdominal wall und so weiter.

So basically, I find that Biggs is in agreement with me - not all cases of dismemberment are caused by people who are likely to cut up the body for practical reasons only, and thus the appearance of the outcome can differ a whole lot.

What Biggs does not touch on is the dismemberment procedure as such. If we were to rule out any mutilation and ONLY go by the parting of the body, will differing mindsets produce different outcomes? Well, we already know that this is so, and we can see examples of it in the torso cases, where the parting of the body went to lenghts that are normally not seen in dismemberment cases.

But I am happy to have Biggs recognizing that urge killers who dismember are very likely to add inclusions of mutilation that go beyond any practical considerations. Which is the case in the torso matter, where AT LEAST a uterus, a heart and two lungs were plucked out, together with the abdominal walls.

Biggs tells us that it can be difficult to tell practical cases and urge cases apart, and that probably owes to how a practical killer may cut away parts that can give the identity away. So we may find mutilation on a practically dismembered body too. Which is true.
But no killer tries to hide the identity of a victim by taking out the heart and the lungs, so the torso cases are urge cases.

I also like how Biggs says “As for the abdominal flaps, there is nothing that would ‘necessitate’ removal of the abdominal wall in large flaps, as we are able to get all the bits and pieces we need out of the body though a single incision that removes no abdominal wall tissue (even in very well-padded individuals)."
This is what I have pointed out for the longest. I only wish Biggs had said something about how unusual the matter is.

At any rate, Trevor, thank you - worth waiting for.





www.trevormarriott.co.uk
[/quote]
Quick reply to this message
  #3404  
Old 04-24-2018, 10:28 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,351
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
And i need to stop posting on threads where, for some, disagreement equals stupidity or bias.
Lack of insight or bias. I don´t think that you, Gareth or Steve are in any way stupid. Quite the reverse, actually.

But you DO take a stance that is the exact opposite of the one I consider the only reasonable one, and I cannot cheer that on, can I?

Nor can I say that we are as likely to be correct, all of us, in a democratic spirit. We are not, as far as I am concerned, and it would be untrue and misleading on my part if I claimed to think we are. I think you are wrong (not stupid, but wrong), and I can back that up with all the similarities. You think that all the similarities will have alternative interpretations - I don´t.

Anyone is perfectly welcome to their view, but that includes me. And anyone is perfecly welcome to defend their view, and that includes me too. If you dislike that, there is nothing much I can do about it.
Quick reply to this message
  #3405  
Old 04-24-2018, 11:08 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,351
Default

Herlock!

To further underline how I am reasoning, I would like you to imgaine that two dead women are found in the same town and time period. They have been killed by having been strangled, the commonest method (or one of them at least) to kill.

In itself, two strangled women in the same town and time period will have the police thinking of a very possible connection, m ind you! But it is not conclusive as such.

Now, let´s take any of the inclusions from my three-victim comparison Chapman-Kelly-Jackson!
Let´s say that the two women found strangled both had had rings taken from their fingers. What do you think that would mean to the police?

Of course, we can offer the explanation that both killers were also robbers, and that would go some way to explain things.

Now, let´s instead say that the two women found strangled had had part of their right buttocks cut away. Same thing, the police would go Wow! - and we could come up with at least some sort of explanation. Perhaps. Not that I know what it would look like, but anyway.

Or let´s say that the two strangled women had both had their uteri stolen from their bodies. Does anybody at all think that the police would NOT work from the idea of a common killer if that was the case? And still, we can offer some sort of explanation, of course, not least if one of the women was pregnant!

Taken one and one, alternative explanations may be tempting to serve.

But taken together? No way!

If the police finds two strangled women with stolen rings, cut off nosetips, taken uteri, opened abdomens, missing hearts and lungs, missing abdominal walls, part of the buttocks removed - the they will inevitably believe in one killer only. Moreover, they will be right.

And if one of the women was also dismembered? Well, then they will say "He dismemered this one", not "There are two killers on the prowl".

The sheer amount of very odd similarities clinches that.
Quick reply to this message
  #3406  
Old 04-24-2018, 11:15 PM
Debra A Debra A is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Yorkshire England
Posts: 3,106
Default

I made my reply to Trevor last night via email as he sent me Dr Biggs reply the same way before he posted it to the boards.

I pointed out exactly the same things that Fisherman just has; that Dr Biggs is basically saying that it would be difficult to tell which cuts were made for practical reasons and which could be regarded as mutilation for 'fun.' but that cutting away flaps of flesh from the abdomen would constitute unnecessary cutting for no practical reason, other than the perpetrator thought that necessary to access the abdomen..

Regarding the removal of the limbs through the joints; I think Dr Biggs made a good point that removal through the joints would have been the quicker alternative in the LVP without the aid of power saws to cut directly through the bone and so may have been more common.
Nowadays removal of limbs through joints may be less common than sawing limbs off, so Dr Rutty's observation that limb removal through the joint may suggest someone accustomed to cutting up animals like a butcher makes sense in that context.

I have read chapters of the book Dr Biggs recommends. There is a chapter in there on the torso cases but the historian who wrote the summary of some of the cases didn't go in to very much details and didn't mention all the cases 87-89. He also used Mei Trow's book as a source.


Thanks Trevor and Dr Biggs.
__________________
,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸, Debs ,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,

I am not DJA. He's called Dave.
Quick reply to this message
  #3407  
Old 04-24-2018, 11:25 PM
Debra A Debra A is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Yorkshire England
Posts: 3,106
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert St Devil View Post
Hi Debs. I'm confused. About Elizabeth Jackson. When the report states that the left piece included the umbilicus, it's referring to Elizabeth's navel (or belly button), right? I'm trying to 'draw out' the shape of the flaps based on which portions of her body where reportedly attached to each side. And also-because if it is describing her navel, once again we have a killer who tends to skirt his cuts around the umbilicus/navel.
Hi Robert.
Jerry linked to a diagram he did on top of a diagram I made of the point of division of the skeleton. A few posts down from that I mention that the horizontal cuts to Elizabeth's abdomen started just above the navel on one side and below it on the other (basically following the line of the top of the uterus in a woman 24+ weeks advanced in pregnancy) this does seem to suggest that the initial mid line cut, if that's what there was, was cut around the navel, yes.
__________________
,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸, Debs ,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,

I am not DJA. He's called Dave.
Quick reply to this message
  #3408  
Old 04-24-2018, 11:30 PM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is online now
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 10,270
Default

Re the removal of part of the flesh of the buttock, this coincided with the cutting of one of the strips of flesh from Jackson's abdomen, but in Kelly's case the damage was caused in conjunction with the cutting of a "saddle" of flesh starting with, and including, the flesh of the right thigh.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message
  #3409  
Old 04-24-2018, 11:42 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,351
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
Re the removal of part of the flesh of the buttock, this coincided with the cutting of one of the strips of flesh from Jackson's abdomen, but in Kelly's case the damage was caused in conjunction with the cutting of a "saddle" of flesh starting with, and including, the flesh of the right thigh.
Yes, that is correct - but we nevertheless have part of the buttock removed in two cases. And in both cases, there is no discernable reason to take the buttock part away - if he only wantes the thigh flesh in one case or the abdominal flap in the other, it remains that he ADDED part of the buttock in BOTH cases.

So a similarity. Again.
Quick reply to this message
  #3410  
Old 04-24-2018, 11:42 PM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is online now
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 10,270
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jerryd View Post
I tried to draw the flaps here, http://forum.casebook.org/showthread...s#po st434293 (post #1561) I may have gone a bit too high on the topside, but you can get the idea.
I thought you'd gone very high (and wide) on the top side, Jerry, hence my response:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
Pregnancy doesn't push the woman's navel up to the breastbone, and there's still the same distance from breastbone to belly-button, possibly a little more than usual, allowing for the swollen abdomen. If someone wanted to cut from just above the umbilicus, they'd still be a good 5 or 6 inches clear of the base of the sternum. If that's what happened in this case, it might explain why all the upper abdominal organs, excluding part of the stomach, remained inside the torso - in effect, the killer only emptied the "bottom half", conceivably to make sawing through the lumbar vertebræ a little less messy.

Edit: Come to think of it, clearing a path for the saw might have been one of the reasons, or perhaps the reason, why the killer decided to remove the baby.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message
Closed Thread


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.