Same motive = same killer

[Fisherman]

Fisherman, do you see any connection to the Paris torso found in 1886? That victim was also missing her uterus, along with her limbs and one of her breasts. Or is that a bridge too far for you?

I seem to remember that the victim was cut up in a rough manner, but that may be wrong - it´s been some time since I read up on it.

[Fisherman]

Not really, Fish. See my response to your somewhat premature celebration of those newspaper descriptions.

Yes, that was a blast and a half! You pointed out that an abdomen consist of a lot more than what was found in Jacksons case.

Did it ever occur to you that the only thing that could have been described as the abdomen was the flesh from it?

[Debra A]

I read Delta's post and I respect her utterly, however what we have is opinion and that may not always be correct, even from those we respect.

I see it is a comment from a newspaper, such needs to be treated differently than say a comment by Hebbert.

Hi Steve,
Out of interest, what part of my post do you class as 'opinion?'

Hebbert was ambiguous in his description of the 'flaps', if indeed it was Hebbert's description alone and not that of Dr Bond. Hebbert was Bond's assistant, Hebbert credits Bond for the use of the material and mentions it was Dr Bond that was invited by the Home Office to conduct the Post Mortems on the four dismemberment cases.

I still want to understand the motive people assign for the removal of the uterus in the case of Elizabeth Jackson? I've read that these ;slips' of skin were removed to facilitate removal of the foetus from the uterus and that in turn was to facilitate dismemberment but no one has said why the uterus was removed entirely in that case. Is it the view that it's just my opinion that the uterus was removed? I've seen Gareth say that isn't the case but I'm still none the wiser as to why that's his view.

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=Sam Flynn;444154]
The picture is rather different if we force ourselves to be more precise:

2. Removing uteri was indeed extremely unusual... but only in the Torso murders. In contrast, it featured prominently in the Ripper series.

3. The only person to have their abdominal wall removed was Mary Kelly and, boy, was it removed. Chapman and Jackson had a "panel" of flesh removed from the abdomen in two or three pieces, but that's a far cry from having had their abdominal wall removed... and extremely modest compared to Kelly.

/QUOTE]

This is how you are "more precise", is it?

Did I say that all victims had their uteri removed? I don´t think so. I think I said that the three victims Chapman, Kelly and Jackson all had their uteri removed, and that was just one of the many similaritites inbetween these victims.

Now you say that having the uterus removed was "extremely unusual" in the Torso series, but "featured prominently" in the Ripper series.
If we regard the Torso series as a series of four murders 1887-89, the uterus was CERTAINLY removed in 25 % of the cases (Jackson), and it was definitely absent in 50 % of the cases (Jackson, Whitehall). We don´t know for sure that it was removed by the killer in the Whitehall case, but it may well be. We KNOW that the killer did so with Jackson, and therefore it becomes a good bid that he did so with the Whitehall victim too.

Three out of five victims of the canonical five (60 %) lost their uteri.

So quite possibly 60 per cent against 50 per cent. Yeah, that is a real clincher, Gareth. Must have been two killers.

Sorry for forcing myself to be so precise.

And you try the same with the abdominal wall removal! You try to give the impression that Kelly had much more of her abdominal wall removed than Chapman and that Jackson only had a small sliver of meat taken away.

About Chapman, the medical report said that "the abdomen had been entirely laid open". And at the inquest Phillips worded it "the abdominal wall had been removed in three parts".


He went on to say that there was a larger portion of the wall removed on the right side than on the left, but overall that cannot be taken as evidence that much of the abdominal wall was left in place. It can have been a matter of a third of an inch, as you well know.

So that is what we have about Chapman. Sorry for forcing myself to be so precise.

As for Jackson, as you have been shown, the papers reported that the abdomen - not part of the abdomen - was present in the parcel found with Jacksons uterus.

Sorry for forcing myself to be so precise.

Now I really do not wish to sacrifice more of my time on you and your shenanigans, Gareth. You just go on picking on the press and journalists whenever you are shown to be wrong.

Sorry, once again, for forcing myself to be so precise.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Steve,
Out of interest, what part of my post do you class as 'opinion?'

Hebbert was ambiguous in his description of the 'flaps', if indeed it was Hebbert's description alone and not that of Dr Bond. Hebbert was Bond's assistant, Hebbert credits Bond for the use of the material and mentions it was Dr Bond that was invited by the Home Office to conduct the Post Mortems on the four dismemberment cases.

I still want to understand the motive people assign for the removal of the uterus in the case of Elizabeth Jackson? I've read that these ;slips' of skin were removed to facilitate removal of the foetus from the uterus and that in turn was to facilitate dismemberment but no one has said why the uterus was removed entirely in that case. Is it the view that it's just my opinion that the uterus was removed? I've seen Gareth say that isn't the case but I'm still none the wiser as to why that's his view.

A simple answer might be if she "died" and was not murdered during some back st procedure, then there would be an obvious need to dispose of the body by dismemberment. But of course anyone connected to this would know the value of organs for experimentation, and study, and I would have thought a uterus complete with a foetus would be worth a pretty penny back then?

Like I have said, and will continue to say, there are other plausible explanations relative to these torsos other than murder

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Debra A]

A simple answer might be if she "died" and was not murdered during some back st procedure, then there would be an obvious need to dispose of the body by dismemberment. But of course anyone connected to this would know the value of organs for experimentation, and study, and I would have thought a uterus complete with a foetus would be worth a pretty penny back then?

Like I have said, and will continue to say, there are other plausible explanations relative to these torsos other than murder

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

If she died of natural causes you mean? But where? I know that Elizabeth was in the workhouse the week before her death but left to escape her mother. Don't forget that the post mortem found no cause of death, that means no disease or obvious cause of death was present.

There was no uterus complete with foetus taken, The foetus was removed and the empty uterus found.

[Abby Normal]

If she died of natural causes you mean? But where? I know that Elizabeth was in the workhouse the week before her death but left to escape her mother. Don't forget that the post mortem found no cause of death, that means no disease or obvious cause of death was present.

No Debra
I think Sherlock means by back street procedure something more along the lines of abortion by cutting the baby out of the woman via her abdomen.

[Sam Flynn]

I still want to understand the motive people assign for the removal of the uterus in the case of Elizabeth Jackson? I've read that these ;slips' of skin were removed to facilitate removal of the foetus from the uterus and that in turn was to facilitate dismemberment but no one has said why the uterus was removed entirely in that case. Is it the view that it's just my opinion that the uterus was removed? I've seen Gareth say that isn't the case but I'm still none the wiser as to why that's his view.

I really can't be sure, Debs, because the sources are so patchy.

[Trevor Marriott]

If she died of natural causes you mean? But where? I know that Elizabeth was in the workhouse the week before her death but left to escape her mother. Don't forget that the post mortem found no cause of death, that means no disease or obvious cause of death was present.

There was no uterus complete with foetus taken, The foetus was removed and the empty uterus found.

Perhaps the uterus was removed with the foetus still inside, and then the foetus removed later, and then the uterus was then dumped in the river along with other body parts

You must not forget that there is no way of telling whether or not all the body parts were dumped in the river at the same time, a point emphasized by Dr Biggs, because as is known the various body parts were found spread out over over some distance and over some considerable number of days.

I think with regards to this victim and for the benefit of those who keep screaming murder. You might want to enlighten them regarding the anal plug purportedly found in her rectum. Something which might point to a medical procedure connected to labour/childbirth to prevent the person defecating on someone in such circumstances.

Reading you excellent dissertation on Jackson from 2008 you also mention the following and I quote "One of the last portions of the body which turned up was enveloped in a curious piece of white cloth, such as is used by certain students engaged on a particular kind of work"

Were you able to establish the kind of work? I wonder how many student occupations there were at that time, medical seems to stand out to me !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

There was no uterus complete with foetus taken, The foetus was removed and the empty uterus found.

That being the case, was this not an instance of a fœtus being removed, with the removal of the uterus being a somewhat secondary consideration?

[Robert St Devil]

If she was late in her pregnancy, the shape of her belly could have influenced the way the flaps were cut out. Or maybe he cut just enough to remove the foetus (thx debs; jackson’s “wedding” ring was taken, huh?)

One minor similarity I get, fisherman, is Jackson’s killer, like Kelly’s murderer, could be specific about organ dissection. In Kelly’s case, he lay specific organs (opposed to random gobs he randomly ripped out) around her body. If Jackson’s liver was found whole and intact,then possibly her killer removed her other organs specifically too.

[Joshua Rogan]

If she was late in her pregnancy, the shape of her belly could have influenced the way the flaps were cut out. Or maybe he cut just enough to remove the foetus (thx debs; jackson’s “wedding” ring was taken, huh?)

Hi Robert,
Jackson was estimated by Hebbert to be 6-7 months pregnant, from the size of the uterus (10" long x 7.5" wide) and placenta (6.5" in diameter), so fairly well advanced. The uterus had been removed, and "had been opened on the left side by a vertical cut, six inches long, through the left wall" through which the foetus had been removed.

One minor similarity I get, fisherman, is Jackson’s killer, like Kelly’s murderer, could be specific about organ dissection. In Kelly’s case, he lay specific organs (opposed to random gobs he randomly ripped out) around her body. If Jackson’s liver was found whole and intact,then possibly her killer removed her other organs specifically too.

Quoting Hebbert;

"The intestines had been removed, but the duodenum and a piece of the stomach remained. There were also present both kidneys, the spleen, pancreas and liver.....all organs found were healthy. The liver was much decomposed"

[Joshua Rogan]

I agree JR.

....If Elizabeth's unborn child had been removed from her uterus and thin slips of skin removed to facilitate removal of the foetus from the uterus, and these both done to facilitate dismemberment as suggested; why then go on to remove the uterus as well? An empty uterus is not an obstacle to dismembering and disposing of a body is it?

Thanks Debs.
Quite. Since the foetus was removed via a cut through the uterus' left wall, removing two strips of frontal abdominal wall wouldn't appear to be of much help if the uterus was still in situ.

[Robert St Devil]

Hi Debs. Just noticed that one of Jackson's flaps had a portion of her buttock attached/reminding me of how one of the cuts on Catherine's body extended to her backside. It could be that cut to Jackson's buttock was made because she had her legs in a similar position to Eddowes' legs.
Don't see much reason for cutting extra flaps if he intended to cut the torso in half.

No doctor but is it possible he removed that left flap with umbilicus, placenta, uterus and removed the fetus away from her body?

[jerryd]

Hi Debs. Just noticed that one of Jackson's flaps had a portion of her buttock attached/reminding me of how one of the cuts on Catherine's body extended to her backside. It could be that cut to Jackson's buttock was made because she had her legs in a similar position to Eddowes' legs.
Don't see much reason for cutting extra flaps if he intended to cut the torso in half.

No doctor but is it possible he removed that left flap with umbilicus, placenta, uterus and removed the fetus away from her body?

Hi RSD,

Yes, part of her right buttock.

Post Mortem Mary Jane Kelly:

The right thigh was denuded in front to the bone, the flap of skin, including the external organs of generation, and part of the right buttock.