Torsoman vs The Ripper

[jerryd]

The purpose of medical schools obtaining bodies and body parts was to teach would-be doctors, and I would suggest that a human head would have been an invaluable asset for just that purpose, and I am sure that when medical schools obtained complete bodies the heads were studied as much as the rest of the body.

And back street medicos would also have had to go to a lot of trouble to hide their work and that included those who died either at the time of these procedures or afterwards.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor.

We've had this discussion before, but let's try again.

During the Whitehall torso mystery and Pinchin discovery, the medical students were on vacation and the dissecting rooms were closed. We know Elizabeth Jackson did not come from a dissecting room. So, three of the four torso victims '87-'89 were showing up when the dissecting rooms were closed. The authorities discounted the "medical student hoax" claims, due to this fact.

[Trevor Marriott]

Feel free to show there was any illegal trade in severed human heads going on. Murderers frequently go to the trouble of trying to hide their victim's identities. Many have attempted far more time consuming methods, such as Haigh's attempts to dissolve bodies in acid.

The purpose of medical schools obtaining bodies and body parts was to teach would-be doctors, and I would suggest that a human head would have been an invaluable asset for just that purpose, and I am sure that when medical schools obtained complete bodies the heads were studied as much as the rest of the body.

And back street medicos would also have had to go to a lot of trouble to hide their work and that included those who died either at the time of these procedures or afterwards.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fiver]

It is suggested by some researchers that the victims were murdered and then dismembered would a killer go to these lengths? Personally, I doubt that, if the victims were murdered that's a lot of trouble to go to dispose of the body when there are many other ways of disposing of a body without the need to dismember it.

Your post makes no sense - clearly somebody did go to the length of dismembering these bodies. Any method of disposing of body takes a significant amount of time and effort. An advantage to a killer for dismembering their victim is ease of transport - it's a common feature in Trunk Murders.

But I am sure these abortionists were aware of the illegal trade in body parts involving body dealers and the prices being paid for body parts and this is why in my opinion we see evidence of vital organs missing from some of the bodies.

Ah, your mythical trade in single dismembered organs again. There were few, if any resurrection men left by 1887, since the Anatomy Act of 1832 had greatly increased the number of corpses available for anatomical study. There was no anatomical benefit to obtaining single organs and transplants were well beyond period medical technology.

I have mentioned all the heads missing from the torsos, some may say that was to hide their identity but again why would a killer go to that trouble? a more simple explanation is that the heads and other body parts were sold to body dealers.

Feel free to show there was any illegal trade in severed human heads going on. Murderers frequently go to the trouble of trying to hide their victim's identities. Many have attempted far more time consuming methods, such as Haigh's attempts to dissolve bodies in acid.

[Debra A]

This is what I have been saying for some considerable time now

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Like murder ..

[Trevor Marriott]

Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to consider that their deaths occurred for other reasons. We know no cause of death was determined.

This is what I have been saying for some considerable time now

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Debra A]

I think that's just you interpreting the facts to prop up your belief that these women were murdered and that there can be no other explanation

I stand to be corrected but it seems that the initial autopsy was not carried out by Dr Hebbert but by Dr Edward Calloway and Hebbert may have become involved much later, and as was the case with Mary Kelly in his book what he writes is hearsay.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor, Dr Biggs and Dr Hebbert both agree that it is possible to determine if a woman has had a child from the size and shape of a uterus. Dr Biggs himself (in your quote from him) tells us that the shape of a uterus after carrying a child changes and Hebbert made an observation that the Rainham victim had not borne a child based on the exact same observations, that her uterus was the size and shape of someone who hadn't. I am not interpreting anything there. I am pointing out that Hebbert and Biggs agree. I cannot decide if you object to Hebbert and Bond's observations themselves or just the conclusions they made from them. You massively cherry pick what Dr Biggs told you. I recall from copies I had of his very brief comments that he was in essence saying that it would be unsafe to assume a link between the cases just based on Hebbert's conclusions that the dismemberment in these four cases was similar and indicated the skill of a hunter or butcher. He does not rule out a link or tell you that these cases were probably all abortion related. In fact his comments are basic common sense and what I see other people saying to you every time you post on this subject.
Dr Biggs says a link cannot be proven or discounted based on Hebbert's observations and conclusions. That's it. And that is where historical context comes in, researchers working hard trying to determine how common it was for failed abortionists to dismember and dump women's remains in the Thames at Battersea/Chelsea (as you give people the impression it was commonplace when it was not.), and/or steal and sell off their organs then dismsmber and dump them. You generalise and take information from the internet, and give no real evidence to support your claims. One thing you fail to mention any time is that one or more of these women, like countless numbers of other women in history, could actually have been the victims of domestic murders.

There is an annoying tendancy by you to assume posters are on one side or another, either for a torso/ripper killer or two series or even a torso series stretching back years! I am only interested in the dismeberment cases that occured 1887 to 1889 between women of a similar age and whose remains were found in similar locations around the Thames. A rare occurence if one reads up on it! We DO NOT and will NEVER know if either Elizabeth Jackson or the Whitehall victim's deaths occured because of abortion related practices, although Dr Bond did conclude that was not the case with Elizabeth Jackson, which should be taken in to account as he was there and examined the remains. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to consider that their deaths occured for other reasons. We know no cause of death was determined.

Dr Bond was requested by the treasury to become involved with the Rainham case in July 1887 after the Divisional Surgeon had initially examined the remains from May 1887. Dr Galloway's report has not survived. Hebbert was the assistant to Dr Bond and was also present with Dr Bond when parts of the Rainham remains were examined by him. The reason we have Dr Hebbert's observations and conclusions on record is because he wrote two lectures on the four cases which were published in 1888 and 1889. His work is the most detailed set of observations we have on the four cases and so is an important primary source. There may be a couple of things amiss due to Bond and Hebbert coming in a few weeks later when a couple of portions of the remains had been buried already (as was often the practice when , off hand I think there is one discrepancy about an arm or leg but don't recall without checking back.) It is up to the individual researcher to weigh up Hebbert's ability to make accurate observations on the protions of the bodies he actually saw but his contemporary observations should certainly not be ignored.

[Trevor Marriott]

No. It's an archaic term used by Hebbert that Dr Biggs misinterpreted in Hebbert's writings. That's the simple truth, Trevor. And even though it has been demonstrated to you over and over again several times by many different posters, that Dr Hebbert did not mean the victim was a virgin when he wrote she had the 'uterus of a virgin' you continually bring it in to a discussion to try and discredit the doctors observations. Your quote from Dr Biggs himself actually confirms what Dr Hebbert was saying- that it is possible to distinguish the uterus of a woman who hasn't given birth from one who has. I have not suggested anything else at all so please don't tell lies.

I think that's just you interpreting the facts to prop up your belief that these women were murdered and that there can be no other explanation

I stand to be corrected but it seems that the initial autopsy was not carried out by Dr Hebbert but by Dr Edward Calloway and Hebbert may have become involved much later, and as was the case with Mary Kelly in his book what he writes is hearsay.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Debra A]

It's an archaic term which has now been superseded by years of ongoing research



You suggest Dr Biggs a modern-day forensic pathologist is wrong in his interpretation yet you are suggesting that the Victorian doctors were right in their examinations of the torsos despite them having little or no experience in these matters

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No. It's an archaic term used by Hebbert that Dr Biggs misinterpreted in Hebbert's writings. That's the simple truth, Trevor. And even though it has been demonstrated to you over and over again several times by many different posters, that Dr Hebbert did not mean the victim was a virgin when he wrote she had the 'uterus of a virgin' you continually bring it in to a discussion to try and discredit the doctors observations. Your quote from Dr Biggs himself actually confirms what Dr Hebbert was saying- that it is possible to distinguish the uterus of a woman who hasn't given birth from one who has. I have not suggested anything else at all so please don't tell lies.

[Trevor Marriott]

You are missing my point, Trevor.
Dr Biggs obviously mistakenly assumed that that the Victorian medics description of a 'virgin uterus' was referring to the victim being an actual virgin due to the condition of her womb. They were not. In fact, as shown to you numerous times by different people, the Victorian doctors were refering to her 'virgin uterus' in the context of her not having had a child.
You quoted Dr Biggs as saying "Whilst a uterus looks different once it has carried children" So, the Victorian doctors observations, even by today's standards, were entirely valid and Dr Biggs agrees with them, the uterus of a woman who hasn't had a child generally looks different to a woman who has. Apparently a doctor can tell if a woman had borne a child by changes to the size/shape of her uterus. Therefore there is nothing to be proven about the Victorian doctor's abilities by you continuing to mention the 'virgin uterus.' It's not a valid point, it's a misunderstanding on the part of Dr Biggs because he probably hadn't come across this archaic medical terminology at the time.



You are generalising again Trevor. There were the dismembered remains of only three women brought out of the Thames between 1887 and 1889 and again, posters have been making specific counter points as to why those particular cases and the Pinchin Street case go against your theory of 'abortion gone wrong.'

It's an archaic term which has now been superseded by years of ongoing research

Let me ask you several questions you just need to answer yes or no

1. Do You accept that there were back street medicos who carried out a number of different illegal practices?
2. Do you accept that some women died as a result of some of these back-street medical procedures?
3. Do you accept that body dealers were operating in and around Whitechapel at the time of these occurrences?
4. Do you accept that Elizabeth Jackson's body and the missing foetus and her death could have been attributable to a back street medical procedure resulting in her death and possibly the death of her unborn child? Because in the grand scheme of things I only need to prove one case to put the other torsos in the "could have been category"

You suggest Dr Biggs a modern-day forensic pathologist is wrong in his interpretation yet you are suggesting that the Victorian doctors were right in their examinations of the torsos despite them having little or no experience in these matters

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Debra A]

You are missing my point, Trevor.
Dr Biggs obviously mistakenly assumed that that the Victorian medics description of a 'virgin uterus' was referring to the victim being an actual virgin due to the condition of her womb. They were not. In fact, as shown to you numerous times by different people, the Victorian doctors were refering to her 'virgin uterus' in the context of her not having had a child.
You quoted Dr Biggs as saying "Whilst a uterus looks different once it has carried children" So, the Victorian doctors observations, even by today's standards, were entirely valid and Dr Biggs agrees with them, the uterus of a woman who hasn't had a child generally looks different to a woman who has. Apparently a doctor can tell if a woman had borne a child by changes to the size/shape of her uterus. Therefore there is nothing to be proven about the Victorian doctor's abilities by you continuing to mention the 'virgin uterus.' It's not a valid point, it's a misunderstanding on the part of Dr Biggs because he probably hadn't come across this archaic medical terminology at the time.

Just to clarify I am not suggesting that every torso fished out of the river died as a result of back street medical procedure, but clearly, it is a historical fact that there was a significant number, and I am going to maintain my stance and say that most of the torsos fished out of the Thames during the period of time discussed did die as a result of some form of a back street medical procedure

You are generalising again Trevor. There were the dismembered remains of only three women brought out of the Thames between 1887 and 1889 and again, posters have been making specific counter points as to why those particular cases and the Pinchin Street case go against your theory of 'abortion gone wrong.'

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,
I have been through the archives and counted at least eight occassions when it has been pointed out to you by various people that the term 'virigin uterus' was the term in use when a woman had not borne a child, not a comment on her sexual history. It has already been mentioned twice in this thread by R.J. Palmer and Robert St Devil!
Here is a link to one of my posts from 2016 with a Victorian Medical Text explaining why the word 'virgin' should be replaced with 'nulliparous' confirming that the Victorian doctors also knew that intercourse did not affect the anatomy of the uterus in any way, just as Dr Biggs knows. Dr Biggs obviously is not an expert on the history of medicine and the terms used. I am sure he would revise his opinion that this term has any bearing on the skill of the Victorian doctors if he has become aware of this point.

https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/the-forensics-forum/25336-forensic-comparisons?p=391890#post391890

Maybe it will be taken on board this time and finally scrapped from your repertoire of standard generalised replies?

They are not standard generalised replies, they are replies which warrant serious consideration having regard to all the circumstances surrounding these torsos, but it seems you and several others seem hell bent on propping up murder mysteries for the torsos

In Victorian times doctor's knowledge and skills were limited as were the writings in the medical journals of the same time period. Over the years those skills and their anatomical knowledge have increased to the point where we are today.

As has been said before those Victorian doctors gave their opinions on what knowledge and experience they had attained at the time, which it would be fair to say was limited. So we have to respect the opinions of today's medical experts when they assess and evaluate and opine on the doctor's reports from 1888 give what is known today.

Sadly there are those who don't want to consider these modern-day expert's opinions despite those experts showing clearly and concisely why some of the Victorian doctor's opinions are now unsafe to rely on and not just in relation to the torsos but the WM as well.

Just to clarify I am not suggesting that every torso fished out of the river died as a result of back street medical procedure, but clearly, it is a historical fact that there was a significant number, and I am going to maintain my stance and say that most of the torsos fished out of the Thames during the period of time discussed did die as a result of some form of a back street medical procedure, especially as no specific causes of death could be established to prove an offence of murder, which as you know is a required ingredient to be able to prove a murder, and on that topic if a killer had murdered the victims and he wanted to dispose of the body why would he rip open the abdomens and take out organs, why not simply cut off the arms and the legs and head all body parts would then be much easier to dispose of

And reading back on the threads I see that there are others who are prepared to consider another alternative to murder.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Debra A]

Dr Hebbert said a lot of things in his book but some of it was hearsay.

Can you tell me how it could be determined by examination of a body that was in a state of decomposition that menstruation had been recent?

I quote from Dr Biggs a forensic pathologist who has studied the post mortem reports on these torsos

In case I, there is a comment about the uterus being that of a virgin. Whilst a uterus looks different once it has carried children, an ‘unused’ uterus from a virgin can look identical to that from an ‘experienced’ owner who has not had any children. It is also unclear why they have suggested that the individual may have been unable to conceive

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,
I have been through the archives and counted at least eight occassions when it has been pointed out to you by various people that the term 'virigin uterus' was the term in use when a woman had not borne a child, not a comment on her sexual history. It has already been mentioned twice in this thread by R.J. Palmer and Robert St Devil!
Here is a link to one of my posts from 2016 with a Victorian Medical Text explaining why the word 'virgin' should be replaced with 'nulliparous' confirming that the Victorian doctors also knew that intercourse did not affect the anatomy of the uterus in any way, just as Dr Biggs knows. Dr Biggs obviously is not an expert on the history of medicine and the terms used. I am sure he would revise his opinion that this term has any bearing on the skill of the Victorian doctors if he has become aware of this point.

https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/the-forensics-forum/25336-forensic-comparisons?p=391890#post391890

Maybe it will be taken on board this time and finally scrapped from your repetoir of standard generalised replies?

[Trevor Marriott]

I spent the course of a lifetime 'catching hell' from a pair of parents for NOT becoming a doctor, marriott, i don't need the forum 'rubbing it in my face' too. To answer your question: no, i am, in fact, NOT a medical expert; i am, however, a military man and a freelance plagiarist.

Now Dr. Ch. A. Hebbert did write in An Exercise In Forensic Medicine that:

[The Rainham victim] had recently menstruated

as well as writing:

one [of her ovaries] showed the corpus luteum of menstruation

I may NOT be a so-called "medical expert" regarding the female reproductive system; however; I do understand the connection between menstrual cycles and pregnancy after having 30 years of personal experiences from nail-biting anxieties whenever my girlfriend told me that she was "late".



"Hebbert" is easy, debsie ;
it's Diem*****z that's a real kick in the boll***s

Dr Hebbert said a lot of things in his book but some of it was hearsay.

Can you tell me how it could be determined by examination of a body that was in a state of decomposition that menstruation had been recent?

I quote from Dr Biggs a forensic pathologist who has studied the post mortem reports on these torsos

In case I, there is a comment about the uterus being that of a virgin. Whilst a uterus looks different once it has carried children, an ‘unused’ uterus from a virgin can look identical to that from an ‘experienced’ owner who has not had any children. It is also unclear why they have suggested that the individual may have been unable to conceive

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[DJA]

[Robert St Devil]

Are you medical expert

I spent the course of a lifetime 'catching hell' from a pair of parents for NOT becoming a doctor, marriott, i don't need the forum 'rubbing it in my face' too. To answer your question: no, i am, in fact, NOT a medical expert; i am, however, a military man and a freelance plagiarist.

Now Dr. Ch. A. Hebbert did write in An Exercise In Forensic Medicine that:

[The Rainham victim] had recently menstruated

as well as writing:

one [of her ovaries] showed the corpus luteum of menstruation

I may NOT be a so-called "medical expert" regarding the female reproductive system; however; I do understand the connection between menstrual cycles and pregnancy after having 30 years of personal experiences from nail-biting anxieties whenever my girlfriend told me that she was "late".

...and you can spell Hebbert!

"Hebbert" is easy, debsie ;
it's Diem*****z that's a real kick in the boll***s