Human meat is commonly described as being veal-like, or at least in the threshold between pork chop and veal tenderloin. The problem with slow-cooking this type of meat is that dependent upon the person, the fat can be an issue. Fat can hold more moisture, and therefore, you'll more commonly see fatty cuts of meat used for slow-cooking (Barbecue, et al), while chops and steak meat are typically low in fat and are best cooked quickly on high heat to preserve moisture. She weighed a small 105 pounds, so I'm guessing she was short on fat. Slow cooking in this case requires moisture, such as a crock-pot or a soft boil, the former being an Asian or American preference, the latter being more common among Mexicans, South Americans, and some West European cultures.

I just hope he wasn't planning on using A1 sauce, cause that just lacks class.

Drew Linky wrote:

Aw, man. I can't imagine a placenta is anything similar to what beef would be like. That's just disgusting. Not that eating humans isn't disgusting altogether, but think of it this way: you wouldn't eat a cow placenta over normal beef, would you?

At this point, I would. Regular, non-fatty beef cuts are the dullest thing in the world to me. My grandmothers both made food out of various organs and undesired cuts, and I find them more flavorful and accepting of flavor than a sirloin or strip steak. Now, thanks to people like Bourdain and Zimmer, I can grab cheap stuff like brain and head-cheese at my farmer's market, and cook delicious meals for half the price of buying a "normal" cut of meat.

You'd honestly be surprised at the taste of certain animal organs. If I served you fried liver, you'd swear I just gave your a particularly flavorful salisbury steak, while tongue or brain could be confused for tender, normal steak cuts.