Is Jack someone we have never heard of?

[Trevor Marriott]

Debs

You are clutching at straws

[QUOTE=Debra A;235857]No, it didn't. Factual evidence showed no signs of an unlawful operation being attempted on examination. It was the press who reported an illegal operation had been performed until Bond gave his evidence that it hadn't.

Quote from your dissertation

"Dr Bond was instantly of the opinion that the body part was that of a young woman and that an attempt had been made to carry out an illegal operation, which had been successful"


Part of the reason is probably the fact that Elizabeth was identified, unlike the other victims, and was last seen alive and well 24 hours before her remains were first spotted in the Thames and she was with a man who never came forward to give an account of himself.

Identification is irrelevant if one of the other torso finds had been found with knife wounds that would have indicated wilful murder.Twenty four hours is a long time no one can know what she did where she went or what happened to her

[Trevor Marriott]

You're the one doing the linking.

Roy

I think you should think a little before posting innacurate comments.

I would refer you to the victims section here on casebook where Jackson and the Pinchin St Torso are linked to The Whitechapel murders.

[Debra A]

In this case all the factual evidence pointed to some form of an illegal operation, the doctors even considered that, then out of the blue they come out with an opinion contrary to the facts. The verdict was given based on the opinion of the doctors not on the facts. Had the jury been directed properly they would not have returned that verdict.

No, it didn't. Factual evidence showed no signs of an unlawful operation being attempted on examination. It was the press who reported an illegal operation had been performed until Bond gave his evidence that it hadn't.

All the other body parts in the other cases were in the same condition they never suggsted murder in those cases. I have to ask why in this case?

Part of the reason is probably the fact that Elizabeth was identified, unlike the other victims, and was last seen alive and well 24 hours before her remains were first spotted in the Thames and she was with a man who never came forward to give an account of himself.

I think Lechmere in a previous post made a valid observation regarding one of the doctors concerned in this.

Because Lechmere has a suspect for JTR who he now wants to pin one or more of the torso murders on, so, of course he would say that wouldn't he...seeing as Bond didn't try to link these two sets of cases and that's a bit inconvenient.

[Roy Corduroy]

the myth now known as The Torso Murders which themselves have been linked to the The Whitechapel Murders

You're the one doing the linking.

Roy

[Errata]

Okay. I can maybe see a woman dying in a very inconvenient way with a very important person and someone made the assinine assessment that butchering the body and sending it down the river was the way to go.

But multiple women? How do multiple women end up butchered and distributed through the neighborhood without them being murdered? Even if the guy who cut them up didn't murder them? And I actually want a for instance here.

And still none of it explains the fetus in a jar.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Bridewell

It's not rubbish. The body had been dismembered and thrown into the Thames. Are you seriously suggesting, as a former detective, that on the balance of probabilities you would not consider this to be a murder?

Regards, Bridewell.

The balance of probablities is not relevant to this case. You cant simply say "well we dont know how she died, but lets take a guess she was murdered"

In this case all the factual evidence pointed to some form of an illegal operation, the doctors even considered that, then out of the blue they come out with an opinion contrary to the facts. The verdict was given based on the opinion of the doctors not on the facts. Had the jury been directed properly they would not have returned that verdict.

Just to clarify that in Victorian times where a specific cause of death could not be established the verdict of a jury was determined as "found dead" In this case the doctors could not determine the cause of death, they simply presumed she had been murdered.

All the other body parts in the other cases were in the same condition they never suggsted murder in those cases. I have to ask why in this case?

I think Lechmere in a previous post made a valid observation regarding one of the doctors concerned in this.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Colin,

Why should it be a case of murder?

The victim could have died unexpectedly in embarrassing circumstances.

Providing you've got a stomach for such things, I would guess that logistically it's much easier to dispose of a body in kit-form than in its entirety.

Regards,

Simon

[Bridewell]

Rubbish, the verdict is determined on the evidence before them

It's not rubbish. The body had been dismembered and thrown into the Thames. Are you seriously suggesting, as a former detective, that on the balance of probabilities you would not consider this to be a murder?

Regards, Bridewell.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Bridewell

In assessing the inquest evidence we should "forget what the doctors said"? That's not very objective, Trevor.

Maybe not to you but to me it clearly is. The doctors change their opinions in midstream with nothing to substantiate their presumption of foul play. Under those circumstances the jury should have returned an open verdict but the coroner directed them to reach that verdict of wilful murder. The jury were not given the opportunity of reaching their own verdict.

There was no balance of probability in this case.

The doctors at an inquest don't set out to prove anything.

You are correct they do not, but they have to give evidence to try to establish the cause of death based on the evidence they are able to adduce from the facts.

If they were asked for an opinion they were required to give one.

That is true but they changed their opinions though, that must make their final opinion they gave in this case unsafe

The verdict at an inquest is determined 'on the balance of probabilities'. The body was dismembered and thrown into a river. On the balance of probabilities, an inquest verdict of murder is perfectly reasonable..

Rubbish, the verdict is determined on the evidence before them

If you look at the inquests relating to the other body parts found at different times there was enough parts for a jury to be convened. They didnt bring in wilful murder in those cases did they simply because they couldnt say or even give an opinion,

Regards, Bridewell.

[Debra A]

Trevor,
I think your argument is aimed at the wrong person- it should be directed towards Lechmere and Fisherman!
Be warned...they are experts.

[Bridewell]

The Balance of probabilities

Forget what the doctors said there was no evidence of foul play so where is the evidence to show she was murdered.

In assessing the inquest evidence we should "forget what the doctors said"? That's not very objective, Trevor.

The doctors could not prove foul play

The doctors at an inquest don't set out to prove anything.

They simply "presumed" she had been murdered

If they were asked for an opinion they were required to give one.

as I said previous it was farcical.

The verdict at an inquest is determined 'on the balance of probabilities'. The body was dismembered and thrown into a river. On the balance of probabilities, an inquest verdict of murder is perfectly reasonable..

Regards, Bridewell.

[Livia]

Can't seem to edit my previous post.

I was referring to Rivkah's post regarding
placenta previa.

[Livia]

All absolutely correct.

It happened to me. The amount of blood that is
expelled is astonishing, a pool of blood measuring
about 3'x4'. Luckily, I was in the hospital when it
happened.

[RivkahChaya]

Is JtR someone we have never heard of? Quite possible. But never suspected? You must remember that hundreds were questioned in the course of the investigation. I think they did have JtR in for questioning as a suspect. However a man who could coolly cut up a body within the time the Police Constable returned on his beat and escape unseen would be totally calm under fire. He would have plausible explanations for every question and act so inconspicuous as to be allowed to walk away free.

You are quite right. Zodiac even reported some of his own crimes. However, I understand the OP question more literally, as meaning "a name that has been lost to history, and that none of us on the board have heard of." So, he may have been questioned, and given the number of people who were, you could probably figure odds; but I don't think he was detained, and certainly not arrested. He probably was not foremost in any policeman or detective's mind, because his name does not seem to have made the written record anywhere.

I've always wondered if a Doctor/Med Student practising an illicit abortion trade secretly in Whitechapel might have been thought to be the Ripper ...
accounts of sightings of this abortionist sneaking about Whitechapel were garbled with the JTR sightings or that this male abortionist was thought to be the Ripper but was not an abortionist but just a doctor or medical student trying to earn some extra cash by doing an illicit abortions....
S_E

How is someone who performs abortions not an abortionist? Was "abortionist" a licensed or certified trade of some kind, so that you couldn't use the title if you didn't have the degree, or belong to the union?

If your point is that this might account specifically for witness descriptions that include a Gladstone bag, you could be right, but it's my understanding that a correctly performed abortion isn't really all that bloody. (Unless it is late-term, and the fetus is dismembered in utero, but those are going to be as uncomfortable as labor, if not more so, and I think, pretty rare. And at any rate, that was one way of dealing with a complication of normal labor, where the fetus presents with its flank or abdomen at the cervical opening. The women was sometimes left to suffer unproductive labor until the fetus died, and then it was dismembered.) Slaughterhouse workers would have a lot more blood on them. If a person was practising an illegal trade in abortions, you would think that he'd make an attempt not to be seen looking noticeably bloody, by wearing an exam coat, then packing it in his bag, and washing, or at least rinsing his hands, and that once people were on the look-out for JTR, he would be even more careful about being seen with blood on his clothes.

Also, was there a need for illegal abortions to be done in the middle of the night?

[Debra A]

Two doctors - the senior one with a track record for changing his findings to suit the preconceived notions if his non medically trained police boss.

Allegedly.