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 16 minutes ago.
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - by Simon Wood 19 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 3 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
  #3431  
Old 04-25-2018, 02:33 AM
Joshua Rogan Joshua Rogan is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,805
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Debra A View Post
I believe the flaps started just above Elizabeth's navel, the top of her 'bump' and continued down towards the external genitals. We do not know the width of the two flaps. I don't see how the starting position of the flaps changes anything. Dr Biggs says that it is difficult to tell whether cutting is for a practical purpose or for 'fun.' Dr Biggs also says that removal of internal organs could have been accomplished by one long incision, which we know occurred too. There surely can be no way of knowing for certain the motive for removal of chunks of flesh from Elizabeth's abdomen.
Hi Debs,
Doesn't Hebbert say that the removed abdominal sections "laterally corresponded to the incisions in the two lower peices of the trunk", indicating that they extended across both sections and hence above the point where the abdomen was divided (almost) horizontally. Or am I reading that wrong?
Quick reply to this message
  #3432  
Old 04-25-2018, 02:39 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,351
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
Given the thoroughness and precision of Hebbert's notes, I'm pretty sure that he'd have stated this explicitly had it been the case. The fact that he didn't makes it probable that the wound did not extend that far.
Yes, it does. I am simply saying that I do not see that we can rule Jerrys version out entirely - not that I agree about it being the more likely suggestion. I don´t. I don´t think Jerry believes his sketch is on the money, necessarily. He seems perfectly willing to accept a lower start for the large flaps.
Quick reply to this message
  #3433  
Old 04-25-2018, 02:42 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,351
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
Hi Debs,
Doesn't Hebbert say that the removed abdominal sections "laterally corresponded to the incisions in the two lower peices of the trunk", indicating that they extended across both sections and hence above the point where the abdomen was divided (almost) horizontally. Or am I reading that wrong?
I always read that to say that the outer sides of the flaps corresponded with the cut lines in the torso, vertically speaking - meaning that it does not tell us anything about the width of the flaps.
Quick reply to this message
  #3434  
Old 04-25-2018, 02:43 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is online now
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 10,270
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
Doesn't Hebbert say that the removed abdominal sections "laterally corresponded to the incisions in the two lower pieces of the trunk", indicating that they extended across both sections and hence above the point where the abdomen was divided (almost) horizontally. Or am I reading that wrong?
I think you are, Josh. He's just saying that the sides of the strips of flesh matched the incisions in the lower trunk. (Note: the lower trunk; no mention of any matching of incisions in the middle or upper trunk.)
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

Last edited by Sam Flynn : 04-25-2018 at 02:49 AM.
Quick reply to this message
  #3435  
Old 04-25-2018, 03:02 AM
Joshua Rogan Joshua Rogan is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,805
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
I think you are, Josh. He's just saying that the sides of the strips of flesh matched the incisions in the lower trunk. (Note: the lower trunk; no mention of any matching of incisions in the middle or upper trunk.)
Well, he says the two lower pieces of the trunk, which to me must mean the pelvic section and the costal-arch section. No?
Quick reply to this message
  #3436  
Old 04-25-2018, 03:17 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is online now
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 10,270
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
Well, he says the two lower pieces of the trunk, which to me must mean the pelvic section and the costal-arch section. No?
Ah, I see what you mean, but the "costal-arch section" (as you put it) extended all the way down to the pelvis, so a wound in that section which started around the level of the navel and extending down to the genitalia would still fit Hebbert's description of traversing the two lower pieces of the trunk; there's nothing here to indicate that the wounds extended as high as the costal arch.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message
  #3437  
Old 04-25-2018, 03:30 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,351
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
Ah, I see what you mean, but the "costal-arch section" (as you put it) extended all the way down to the pelvis, so a wound in that section which started around the level of the navel and extending down to the genitalia would still fit Hebbert's description of traversing the two lower pieces of the trunk; there's nothing here to indicate that the wounds extended as high as the costal arch.
"The second part of the trunk included both breasts and the upper part of the abdomen".

The first part was opened up through the sternum, and Hebbert goes on to say that the second part of the trunk "had also been opened up down the centre of the sternum".

So there was an opening made all the way down, Gareth. And the second part of the trunk went all the way up to above the upper abdomen. It was included, as were the breasts.

Where the flaps commenced is another matter, but there was a long gash from over the breast region, cutting the sternum in two and travelling all the way down. It is totally similar to what happened to the Rainham victim, by the way - but for the flaps.

Last edited by Fisherman : 04-25-2018 at 03:32 AM.
Quick reply to this message
  #3438  
Old 04-25-2018, 03:42 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,351
Default

I cannot find it saying that the flaps did not extend all the way up to the upper abdomen (which we know was included in the second part of the trunk). Hebbert says what the flaps included (umbillicus, mons veneris etc.), but does he say anywhere that they were only spanning the lower abdomen?
He says that the flaps were taken from the abdominal walls, not the lower abdominal walls.

I seem to remember that an argument has been made that they only reached to the umbillicus area or thereabouts, but I can´t find that information now.

Can somebody help out?

Last edited by Fisherman : 04-25-2018 at 03:54 AM.
Quick reply to this message
  #3439  
Old 04-25-2018, 03:58 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is online now
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 10,270
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
"The second part of the trunk included both breasts and the upper part of the abdomen".

The first part was opened up through the sternum, and Hebbert goes on to say that the second part of the trunk "had also been opened up down the centre of the sternum.
You must have misunderstood. Unless the sternum had been cut laterally in half, or she had two sternums (one in section A and one in section B), there's no way the sternum could have been "opened up down the centre of the sternum" in two sections of the trunk.

Besides, we have this:

"The ribs from the fourth downward were present ; the lower border showed a clearly defined skin margin from the back at the junction of the third and fourth lumbar vertebrae to a point an inch and a half above the umbilicus on the left side, and a point just below the umbilicus on the right side"

A clearly defined margin indicates that the flesh was cut continuously from the vertebrae to an inch and a half above the navel on the left, and a little lower on the right. This describes the lower boundary of the cut that detached the thorax and upper abdomen (still with liver and pancreas in place) from the section of the lower abdomen from which the two slips of flesh were cut.

This gives us an upper bound for the extent of the two slips of flesh, i.e. 1.5 inches above the navel on the left.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

Last edited by Sam Flynn : 04-25-2018 at 04:01 AM.
Quick reply to this message
  #3440  
Old 04-25-2018, 04:23 AM
Joshua Rogan Joshua Rogan is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,805
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
You must have misunderstood. Unless the sternum had been cut laterally in half, or she had two sternums (one in section A and one in section B), there's no way the sternum could have been "opened up down the centre of the sternum" in two sections of the trunk.

Besides, we have this:

"The ribs from the fourth downward were present ; the lower border showed a clearly defined skin margin from the back at the junction of the third and fourth lumbar vertebrae to a point an inch and a half above the umbilicus on the left side, and a point just below the umbilicus on the right side"

A clearly defined margin indicates that the flesh was cut continuously from the vertebrae to an inch and a half above the navel on the left, and a little lower on the right. This describes the lower boundary of the cut that detached the thorax and upper abdomen (still with liver and pancreas in place) from the section of the lower abdomen from which the two slips of flesh were cut.

This gives us an upper bound for the extent of the two slips of flesh, i.e. 1.5 inches above the navel on the left.
I'm not sure that's correct, Sam. Since the outer edges of the abdominal strips matched both pieces of trunk laterally, this suggests that they carried on vertically beyond the horizontal (ish) division line, and hence the strips were removed before the trunk was cut into three (or at least before the lower two parts were divided). The lack of any mention of a "skin margin" at the front could also be taken as an indication that there was none, ie the edges of the flaps coincided with the costal arch. But we can't know for sure. Probably.

Also, my reading is that the sternum was divided both vertically and horizontally. So effectively quartered.
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 12:04 PM.


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