Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Division of the torso cases 87-89

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

  • Division of the torso cases 87-89

    I hope it might be useful to have these diagrams of where the bodies in the torsos cases 87 to 89 were divided through the spine and which parts were found in each case. Limb and organ finds not included.

    Rainham 1887


    The upper portion of the trunk from the 5th dorsal vertebra upwards was never recovered and so it could not be determined where the head was removed.
    Body divided in to three portions but only portion from 5th dorsal vertebra to the 3rd lumbar vertebra and pelvis from the 3rd lumbar vertebra recovered.
    Portion from 5th dorsal vertebra to 3rd lumbar vertebra found at Battersea Park Pier. Pelvis found at Rainham Ferry

    Whitehall 1888


    Head taken off at 6th cervical vertebra and division at 4th lumbar vertebra. This portion found in vault on the site of New Scotland Yard building. Pelvis below 4th lumbar vertebra not recovered.

    Elizabeth Jackson 1889


    Head taken off 6th cervical vertebra, division between the 7th and 8th dorsal vertebra and division of pelvis at 3rd lumbar vertebra. All three portions recovered. Part one in Battersea Park and parts two and three in Thames.

    Pinchin Street 1889


    Head taken off between 5th and 6th cervical vertebra. Whole torso recovered.

  • #2
    Debs:

    Thanks very much for the diagrams.
    Great idea !
    XXXX
    To Join JTR Forums :
    Contact Howard@jtrforums.com

    Comment


    • #3
      Very helpful Debs! Thank you. The Pinchin torso is definitely the odd one out again.

      Comment


      • #4
        Excellent, Debs! Whoever did whatever didn't seem to have an issue with cutting through the spinal column. This is supposed to be quite difficult. It would be interesting to consider other disarticulaton murders, how many times killers have cut through the spine per corpse, etc. My thinking is, if the head is removed, the rest of the body could be divided into manageable parts without an additional, lower cut through the spine.
        The wickedness of the world is the dream of the plague.~~Voynich Manuscript

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Anna Morris View Post
          Excellent, Debs! Whoever did whatever didn't seem to have an issue with cutting through the spinal column. This is supposed to be quite difficult. It would be interesting to consider other disarticulaton murders, how many times killers have cut through the spine per corpse, etc. My thinking is, if the head is removed, the rest of the body could be divided into manageable parts without an additional, lower cut through the spine.
          I think this may be where the fine toothed saw came in handy, Anna.
          Much like a butcher uses.
          Dr Biggs comments that torso cases are typically divided without dividing the torso itself. Legs, arms and head taken off and torso in one piece. These aren't typical then.
          The Rainham case and Elizabeth Jackson's toroso are divided strikingly similarly in to three sections.
          In Elizabeth's case her swollen pregnant abdomen had different treatment, with sections of the skin from her umbilicus downwards to her external genitals and part of her buttock taken off and parcelled up with the emptied uterus. It's almost like he 'cut off' the protruding bump.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post
            I think this may be where the fine toothed saw came in handy, Anna.
            Much like a butcher uses.
            Dr Biggs comments that torso cases are typically divided without dividing the torso itself. Legs, arms and head taken off and torso in one piece. These aren't typical then.
            The Rainham case and Elizabeth Jackson's toroso are divided strikingly similarly in to three sections.
            In Elizabeth's case her swollen pregnant abdomen had different treatment, with sections of the skin from her umbilicus downwards to her external genitals and part of her buttock taken off and parcelled up with the emptied uterus. It's almost like he 'cut off' the protruding bump.
            "Part of the buttock taken off." That's terribly reminiscent of Mary Kelly. THAT feature of the MJK murder always got my attention. My favourite word: WHY????

            The best solution for that in Mary's case would be, as Wickerman has suggested, Mary was on her stomach when killed. She would have been back up and the left buttock could have been the closest starting place.

            "Umbilicus downwards to her external genitals and part of her buttock." A lot like MJK. Amazing!
            The wickedness of the world is the dream of the plague.~~Voynich Manuscript

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Anna Morris View Post
              "Part of the buttock taken off." That's terribly reminiscent of Mary Kelly. THAT feature of the MJK murder always got my attention. My favourite word: WHY????

              The best solution for that in Mary's case would be, as Wickerman has suggested, Mary was on her stomach when killed. She would have been back up and the left buttock could have been the closest starting place.

              "Umbilicus downwards to her external genitals and part of her buttock." A lot like MJK. Amazing!
              Well that's what I've always said when asked about a ripper torso link...MJK and Elizabeth Jackson had a lot of similar injuries. I don't necessarily go with the turned on the stomach scenario, not in Elizabeth's case anyway. If you cut through the genitals from the front while holding up a leg, you are part way in to cutting the buttocks.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Anna Morris View Post
                "Part of the buttock taken off." That's terribly reminiscent of Mary Kelly. THAT feature of the MJK murder always got my attention. My favourite word: WHY????
                A look at the MJK3 photograph indicates that her killer seemed intent on totally skinning her "undercarriage" - which necessitated removing the flesh on the right thigh and buttock in basically one sheet which continued through to the perineum and external genitalia. It's a quite deliberate, and specific, wound, travelling in a particular direction. If a similar "saddle" of flesh had been removed from Jackson's right thigh, via the buttock and across her perineum to the other thigh I'd see a more definite similarity. As it happens, Jackson's abdominal wounds seem to have been due to her having been pregnant, which did not apply in Kelly's case.
                Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                "Suche Nullen"
                (F. Nietzsche)

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                  A look at the MJK3 photograph indicates that her killer seemed intent on totally skinning her "undercarriage" - which necessitated removing the flesh on the right thigh and buttock in basically one sheet which continued through to the perineum and external genitalia. It's a quite deliberate, and specific, wound, travelling in a particular direction. If a similar "saddle" of flesh had been removed from Jackson's right thigh, via the buttock and across her perineum to the other thigh I'd see a more definite similarity. As it happens, Jackson's abdominal wounds seem to have been due to her having been pregnant, which did not apply in Kelly's case.
                  Yet I wonder why Elizabeth Jackson's killer continued down with his knife and cut out two portions of abdominal flesh that contained the external genitalia and part of the right buttock?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Internally he had cut out the uterus by cutting through the top portion of the vagina above the external genitals.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post
                      Yet I wonder why Elizabeth Jackson's killer continued down with his knife and cut out two portions of abdominal flesh that contained the external genitalia and part of the right buttock?
                      What distinguishes Kelly, of course, is that the entire abdominal integument, from ribcage down to the pubis, was removed in three large panels. This was not seen in Elizabeth Jackson, nor any of the torso victims for that matter.
                      Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                      "Suche Nullen"
                      (F. Nietzsche)

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                        What distinguishes Kelly, of course, is that the entire abdominal integument, from ribcage down to the pubis, was removed in three large panels. This was not seen in Elizabeth Jackson, nor any of the torso victims for that matter.
                        Would two large panels be much different if they included the entire abdominal integument?

                        From ASOLM re: Elizabeth Jackson:

                        The flaps of skin and subcutaneous tissues consisted of two long
                        irregular slips taken from the abdominal walls. The left piece included
                        the umbilicus, the greater part of the mons veneris, the left labium majus,
                        and labium minus. The right piece included the rest of the mons ve-
                        neris, the right labium majus and minus, and part of the skin of the right
                        buttock. These flaps accurately fitted together in the mid-line, and
                        laterally corresponded to the incisions in the two lower pieces of the trunk.


                        Hebbert says "corresponded to the two lower pieces of the trunk" which sounds like they fit the entire ribcage from sternum to pubes and part of the right buttocks. Sounds very similar to Mary Kelly, Gareth. (See Debs illustration in the first post on what the two lower pieces consisted of)

                        The Xiphoid process (sternum) is deemed to be located at the 9th thoracic vertebra and at the T6 dermatome, so looking at Debs illustrations the flaps were taken just below the sternum.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                          What distinguishes Kelly, of course, is that the entire abdominal integument, from ribcage down to the pubis, was removed in three large panels. This was not seen in Elizabeth Jackson, nor any of the torso victims for that matter.
                          And in Elizabeth's case it was done in two sections.

                          What distinguishes Kelly in your mind, Gareth, is that it seems to be your belief that her murder was sexually motivated in that her external genitals deliberately targeted and you believe that Elizabeth's external genital mutilation was collateral damage done to facilitate sectioning of her body. That may or may not be true but for anyone reading those two descriptions it is impossible to distinguish motivation for certain without knowing who murdered either of the women, surely?.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Jerry Dunlop View Post
                            Would two large panels be much different if they included the entire abdominal integument?

                            From ASOLM re: Elizabeth Jackson:

                            The flaps of skin and subcutaneous tissues consisted of two long
                            irregular slips taken from the abdominal walls. The left piece included
                            the umbilicus, the greater part of the mons veneris, the left labium majus,
                            and labium minus. The right piece included the rest of the mons ve-
                            neris, the right labium majus and minus, and part of the skin of the right
                            buttock. These flaps accurately fitted together in the mid-line, and
                            laterally corresponded to the incisions in the two lower pieces of the trunk.


                            Hebbert says "corresponded to the two lower pieces of the trunk" which sounds like they fit the entire ribcage from sternum to pubes and part of the right buttocks. Sounds very similar to Mary Kelly, Gareth. (See Debs illustration in the first post on what the two lower pieces consisted of)

                            The Xiphoid process (sternum) is deemed to be located at the 9th thoracic vertebra and at the T6 dermatome, so looking at Debs illustrations the flaps were taken just below the sternum.
                            Thanks, Jerry. I've mentioned this a lot.

                            The separation of the spine was done more or less opposite the sternum and just above the pelvis. But around the front, the skin and tissue of the abdomen were removed in two large 'slips' after the body was opened up ribs to pubes. One 'slip' taking in the umbilicus and external genitals on side and the other piece taking in the the external genitals on the other side (dividing the vulva basically )and including a part of the buttock on the right side (from underneath), in continuous pieces. The skin of the back was still with the upper/mid trunk ribs IIRC and the flesh of the buttocks were with the bony pelvis.


                            The pelvis and buttocks were found in a separate parcel in the Thames. The pelvis contained the lower portion of the vagina and front of the bladder and also the rectum it was reported that a rolled up handkerchief was found inserted in to the anus.

                            The two slips of skin taken from the abdominal wall and including the umbilicus, the divided external genitals and part of the right buttock of those two pieces, were parcelled up with the uterus and placenta. Four portions of the body in total, no spinal or pelvic bones included. The uterus was attached to the upper part of the vagina and the back portion of the bladder was present.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post
                              Thanks, Jerry. This is what I keep saying.
                              Debs,

                              Just reiterating the point you keep making, I guess.

                              Dr. Bond in his notes used the term "costal arch" to the pubes. From my reading the costal arch was about the 7th rib to the tenth rib starting just below the T8 section on your diagram. This is just below the sternum so to use the phrase "from sternum to pubes" in my opinion is not correct. The costal arch to pubes actually seems to fit both women (Kelly and Jackson) almost exactly.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X