The Anatomy Act 1832

[Trevor Marriott]

As many of you know I do not subscribe to the theory that the organs were removed from the victims at the crime scenes, nor do i wholly support the suggestion that the all the torsos were the subject of homicides, and have put forward other more plausible explanations.

With regards to the body parts found in the thames here is an extract from a very informative paper on the workings of the anatomy act, and a comment regarding the thames body parts. The paper also highlights what should have happened to bodies and body parts after they had been finished with by the medical schools, and it also shows that body parts and bodied were at times sent to these schools even after post mortems had been carried out on them.

"The certificates, notices and warrants that had been designed to safeguard against the unlawful acquisition of bodies by England's medical schools in reality provided no such guarantees. They did, however, enable the anatomy inspectors to claim, when a scandal arose, that no wrongdoing could be traced to their office. In this article's opening vignette, the Lancet's insistence that the mutilated remains discovered in the Thames could not have come from a dissecting room, given the inspectors’ stringent oversight of the Anatomy Act, flew in the face of this reality. When Inspector Hawkins was drawn into that discovery, he could plausibly deny any knowledge of the corpse, on the grounds that no paperwork existed for it."

here is the link to the full paper

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2706054/

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[John G]

As many of you know I do not subscribe to the theory that the organs were removed from the victims at the crime scenes, nor do i wholly support the suggestion that the all the torsos were the subject of homicides, and have put forward other more plausible explanations.

With regards to the body parts found in the thames here is an extract from a very informative paper on the workings of the anatomy act, and a comment regarding the thames body parts. The paper also highlights what should have happened to bodies and body parts after they had been finished with by the medical schools, and it also shows that body parts and bodied were at times sent to these schools even after post mortems had been carried out on them.

"The certificates, notices and warrants that had been designed to safeguard against the unlawful acquisition of bodies by England's medical schools in reality provided no such guarantees. They did, however, enable the anatomy inspectors to claim, when a scandal arose, that no wrongdoing could be traced to their office. In this article's opening vignette, the Lancet's insistence that the mutilated remains discovered in the Thames could not have come from a dissecting room, given the inspectors’ stringent oversight of the Anatomy Act, flew in the face of this reality. When Inspector Hawkins was drawn into that discovery, he could plausibly deny any knowledge of the corpse, on the grounds that no paperwork existed for it."

here is the link to the full paper

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2706054/

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The Thames case referred to was clearly the 1873 Torso, so not a reference to the latter Torso crimes.

Is there any evidence of medical schools disposing of body parts in public areas, or thrown into the Thames, without being weighted down, where they may be easily disovered?

[Kattrup]

The Thames case referred to was clearly the 1873 Torso, so not a reference to the latter Torso crimes.

Is there any evidence of medical schools disposing of body parts in public areas, or thrown into the Thames, without being weighted down, where they may be easily disovered?

The article does not cover the period after 1858. The point of the article, and presumably Trevor’s point in referencing it, is the the Anatomy Act did not, in fact, hinder the trade in bodies and body parts, that the paper trail was entirely insufficient and often manipulated, and therefore body parts like the torso could not be proven to not come from a medical school.

whether medical schools did dispose of bodies like that is not the main thrust of the article. However, public opinion did not rule it out, and the article mentions that an institution might be suspected of ditching bodies/body parts to avoid the cost of burial.

I believe one of the reasons for medical examiners to mention that the torsos were not dissected in a manner normal to dissecting rooms is precisely to rule out the possibility that the body cane from there.

at any rate, the article does not cover 1887-1889 but is extremely interesting nonetheless.

[Trevor Marriott]

The Thames case referred to was clearly the 1873 Torso, so not a reference to the latter Torso crimes.

Is there any evidence of medical schools disposing of body parts in public areas, or thrown into the Thames, without being weighted down, where they may be easily disovered?

Would the method of disposal change over the years I would suggest not and furthermore the need more more bodies and body parts would be far greater in later years

Hardly likely to be any evidence if it was done covertly, and if a killer wanted to dispose of body parts why did he not dispose of them in a weighted parcel not one that floats, so the argument is two sided. As to discovery without the head identification would be impossible and the body parts untraceable as to where they came from.

So you cannot dismiss the fact that one some or all with the exception of Jackson, all the body parts came from medical schools or undertakers all looking to save money on an internment and not from a serial killer.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

The article does not cover the period after 1858. The point of the article, and presumably Trevor’s point in referencing it, is the the Anatomy Act did not, in fact, hinder the trade in bodies and body parts, that the paper trail was entirely insufficient and often manipulated, and therefore body parts like the torso could not be proven to not come from a medical school.

whether medical schools did dispose of bodies like that is not the main thrust of the article. However, public opinion did not rule it out, and the article mentions that an institution might be suspected of ditching bodies/body parts to avoid the cost of burial.

I believe one of the reasons for medical examiners to mention that the torsos were not dissected in a manner normal to dissecting rooms is precisely to rule out the possibility that the body cane from there.

at any rate, the article does not cover 1887-1889 but is extremely interesting nonetheless.

Of course what might have thrown the doctors in 1888 was the fact that if the body parts found had originally been excised etc at a post mortem and then been taken to a medical school for them to work on that might throw them into making the observations that were made.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[John G]

The article does not cover the period after 1858. The point of the article, and presumably Trevor’s point in referencing it, is the the Anatomy Act did not, in fact, hinder the trade in bodies and body parts, that the paper trail was entirely insufficient and often manipulated, and therefore body parts like the torso could not be proven to not come from a medical school.

whether medical schools did dispose of bodies like that is not the main thrust of the article. However, public opinion did not rule it out, and the article mentions that an institution might be suspected of ditching bodies/body parts to avoid the cost of burial.

I believe one of the reasons for medical examiners to mention that the torsos were not dissected in a manner normal to dissecting rooms is precisely to rule out the possibility that the body cane from there.

at any rate, the article does not cover 1887-1889 but is extremely interesting nonetheless.

Except the article cites the Daily News, Sept 8th 1873, 3 days after the Putney dismemberment case came to light.

[John G]

Would the method of disposal change over the years I would suggest not and furthermore the need more more bodies and body parts would be far greater in later years

Hardly likely to be any evidence if it was done covertly, and if a killer wanted to dispose of body parts why did he not dispose of them in a weighted parcel not one that floats, so the argument is two sided. As to discovery without the head identification would be impossible and the body parts untraceable as to where they came from.

So you cannot dismiss the fact that one some or all with the exception of Jackson, all the body parts came from medical schools or undertakers all looking to save money on an internment and not from a serial killer.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Well nothing can be dismissed, but obviously a common sense approach can be taken. Thus, the Whitehall Torso was found in the pitch black catacombs of the foundations of the police's new headquarters. It makes no sense whatsover to me that a defensive dismemberer, someone motivated to get rid of the body and to prevent discovery would take such a ridiculous risk, making life as difficult for themselves as possible, when all they gad to do was weigh the parts down and throw them in the Thames, or at least bury them.

The same is true of Pinchin Street , where the Torso was placed between two sleeping drunks in an area frequented by homeless people. Nor was any precautions taken to prevent Rainham being discovered.

And it can't be argued that this was a common problem, because there are no London cases betweem 1874-1884 or from 1884-1887.

Of course, you could argue that there were cases where the remains were not discovered, because they were buried or weighed down in water, but that argument is self defeating, because it isn't what happened in the cases under consideration.

[Trevor Marriott]

Well nothing can be dismissed, but obviously a common sense approach can be taken. Thus, the Whitehall Torso was found in the pitch black catacombs of the foundations of the police's new headquarters. It makes no sense whatsover to me that a defensive dismemberer, someone motivated to get rid of the body and to prevent discovery would take such a ridiculous risk, making life as difficult for themselves as possible, when all they gad to do was weigh the parts down and throw them in the Thames, or at least bury them.

Well if it was one killer he took a lot of trouble and risk to take it to that location, and why would he change his method and means of disposal? Its like a serial killer going from strangling victims to poisoning them it doesn't make sense

The same is true of Pinchin Street , where the Torso was placed between two sleeping drunks in an area frequented by homeless people. Nor was any precautions taken to prevent Rainham being discovered.

But a major risk if by the killer, or an act of bravado by medical students as a prank?

And it can't be argued that this was a common problem, because there are no London cases betweem 1874-1884 or from 1884-1887.

No cases that got reported ! I am sure that during these 13 years cited there were body parts found in the River Thames

Of course, you could argue that there were cases where the remains were not discovered, because they were buried or weighed down in water, but that argument is self defeating, because it isn't what happened in the cases under consideration.

You cannot dismiss the suggestion that these torsos did not come from a medical facility at some point in time. The fact that there were never any heads found is another pointer to medical use of organs/bodies along with the fact that no specific causes of death could be found with the majority of the torsos.

But there would be a risk factor to whoever was wanting to hide or dispose of body parts, be that killer,medical student, undertaker, or abortionist, there are a number of newspaper articles that have been published with regards to body parts turning up here there and everywhere where it is sugggsted that these were left as a prank by medical students, now that tells me that there is no smoke without fire and that the newspapers back them didn't just invent these theories.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Joshua Rogan]

[QUOTE=John G;n706319]

The same is true of Pinchin Street , where the Torso was placed between two sleeping drunks in an area frequented by homeless people.

The torso wasn't placed "between two sleeping drunks", it was placed in an open archway leading to a stone-breaking yard. The drunks were sleeping in the next arch along, which was fenced off from the road and only accessible by going through the entrance arch and back into the adjacent arch. The person who dumped the torso was almost certainly oblivious to them, unless they were snoring very loudly.

Nor was any precautions taken to prevent Rainham being discovered.

Well, the first part wasn't discovered until it had been in the Thames for an estimated two months, so not a bad job. If he'd taken precautions it might never have been found. Likewise, the Whitehall torso (and the leg even more so) might well have been lying in the vault where it was discovered for 8 weeks, according to Bond and Hebbert.

[Joshua Rogan]

You cannot dismiss the suggestion that these torsos did not come from a medical facility at some point in time. The fact that there were never any heads found is another pointer to medical use of organs/bodies along with the fact that no specific causes of death could be found with the majority of the torsos.

Isn't that the point though? Full post-mortem exams were performed on the torsos, yet no cause of death was obvious. If they had died in a workhouse or hospital then surely they would have shown signs of the disease or accident that killed them. And if they had been acquired for use in anatomy classes they would have shown signs of medical dissection. Nor had they undergone a previous PM.

[Trevor Marriott]

Isn't that the point though? Full post-mortem exams were performed on the torsos, yet no cause of death was obvious. If they had died in a workhouse or hospital then surely they would have shown signs of the disease or accident that killed them. And if they had been acquired for use in anatomy classes they would have shown signs of medical dissection. Nor had they undergone a previous PM.

No these were bodies incomplete with some body parts in all shapes and sizes, in various stages of decomposition so everything about them is questionable.One could have died of a heart attack and no heart found, or a lung disease with no lungs found, but of course with those type of diseases, and the fact that those organs were perhaps not found again points to medical research.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[jerryd]

No these were bodies incomplete with some body parts in all shapes and sizes, in various stages of decomposition so everything about them is questionable.One could have died of a heart attack and no heart found, or a lung disease with no lungs found, but of course with those type of diseases, and the fact that those organs were perhaps not found again points to medical research.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Regarding the Whitehall woman's arm. No dissecting room experience.

[Debra A]

If a medical facility was to receive a body for dissection then the remains would have shown signs of being dissected and not just one or two organs removed? If bodies for dissection were difficult to obtain would a medical facility obtain a body and not utilise it completely for dissection purposes? Dissection was to study muscles, bones, tendons etc. Why leave an arm or leg intact? A medical student could just as well study their own attached arm if they weren't going to dissect a limb?

The three rare Thames related cases 87-89 all involved female bodies. From research I did at one workhouse which released bodies to hospitals etc. the majority of bodies acquired from the workhouse were males. Why then did the medical facility choose to only dump female bodies in the Thames and not the male ones acquired? Why were there no elderly bodies?

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread....hlight=anatomy

[Trevor Marriott]

Regarding the Whitehall woman's arm. No dissecting room experience.

The article does not prove anything conclusive

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

If a medical facility was to receive a body for dissection then the remains would have shown signs of being dissected and not just one or two organs removed? If bodies for dissection were difficult to obtain would a medical facility obtain a body and not utilise it completely for dissection purposes? Dissection was to study muscles, bones, tendons etc. Why leave an arm or leg intact? A medical student could just as well study their own attached arm if they weren't going to dissect a limb?

The three rare Thames related cases 87-89 all involved female bodies. From research I did at one workhouse which released bodies to hospitals etc. the majority of bodies acquired from the workhouse were males. Why then did the medical facility choose to only dump female bodies in the Thames and not the male ones acquired? Why were there no elderly bodies?

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread....hlight=anatomy

Excellent points.