Torso Murders

[Fisherman]

Yes, I completely agree with this. If Dr Phillips was correct, Lechenere can be safely ruled out as a candidate.

And that owes to how you are sure and have established beyond doubt that Lechmere was not skilled enough with the knife to be able so secure the womb and part of the bladder with one sweep of the knife, I take it?

Could you provide me with your research in that department?

Have you pondered how, if Lechmere was the Torso killer, he may have had extensive experience of cutting bodies up?

If you have not, you may do well to do so.

Have you pondered how he may well have been engaged in cutting up horse carcasses, perhaps helping out in the cats meat business?

If you have not, you may do well to do so.

I know that your stance that the two killers were not one and the same is being taken apart out here, using undeniable facts. If it eases the pain to try and attack the Lechmere theory, be my guest, John. I will, however, expose the flaws in your posts.

[John G]

There are three other things I think are telling:

1. All the torsos victims were cut up very close in time to their deaths
2. All torso victims were cut up with great skill, instead of the crudeness that is normally the rule

The third thing is something I am not giving away as yet. Sorry about that!

Great skill? But didn't the Victorian doctors opine that he was probably a butcher or a horse slaughterer? Didn't they say he lacked anatomical knowledge?

Didn't the Victorian doctors state thst both Chapman's and Eddowes killer had anatomical knowledge? And both Dr Brown and Dr Phillips seemed to believe he had some medical knowledge-in the case of Dr Phillips, and expert surgeon, which clearly rules out Lechmere as I'm sure you'll acknowledge.

Why would a killer demonstrate at least a degree of surgical skill when mutilating bodies in the street, but much less skill when he was presumably under far less time pressure when dismembering a body?

[Fisherman]

John G: Great skill? But didn't the Victorian doctors opine that he was probably a butcher or a horse slaughterer? Didn't they say he lacked anatomical knowledge?

Hebbert actually reasons that the killer was MORE skilled than a surgeon when it came to knife-work, John. He was very impressed - as were the other medicos who looked at the torso victims - by the work done on the victims bodies. Hebbert meant that a surgeon did not do enough cutting to be able to reach the skill that the torso killer showed, and he reasoned that the killer would be somebody who had a very extensive experience of cutting, like for example a butcher. So yes, great skill - more than a surgeon would have.
Hebbert did not say that the killer lacked anatomical knowledge, he said that much as he was incredibly skilled with the knife, he did not cut into bodies the way a surgeon would. Since Hebbert mentioned a butcher as a possibility, it goes without saying that he reasoned that the man would have lots of anatomical knowledge.

Didn't the Victorian doctors state thst both Chapman's and Eddowes killer had anatomical knowledge? And both Dr Brown and Dr Phillips seemed to believe he had some medical knowledge-in the case of Dr Phillips, and expert surgeon, which clearly rules out Lechmere as I'm sure you'll acknowledge.

Phillips used the one-sweep-of-a-knife matter to suggest possible surgical skill. As I am sure YOU will acknowledge, there was never a surgeon who cut out a womb and part of a bladder with one seep of a knife. What Phillips was correct about was that the man was a star with the knife, what he was wrong about was to think that surgeons are the real masters of the knife. Hebbert corrected him on that point.

Why would a killer demonstrate at least a degree of surgical skill when mutilating bodies in the street, but much less skill when he was presumably under far less time pressure when dismembering a body?

The Ripper never demonstrated any surgical skill. It was always a topic of heated debate, and no evidence has ever been provided to tell either way. Gareth Williams (poster Sam Flynn) has defended the view that the Ripper was a crude an sloppy cutter, cutting away with no skill or aim at all, more or less.
I believe that what had the medicos impressed with the Ripper´s work was the exact same thing that impressed the medicos looking at the torso victims - the extremely skilled and careful knife work. And you are sorely mistaken if you think that surgical skill was only hinted at in the Ripper case - the medico who examined the Rainham torso victim said the exact same thing from the outset: "a thorough knowledge of surgery".

So OBVIOUSLY, John, if TWO medicos say this about victims from two series, the we MUST conclude that they fell prey to the same killer, right?
However, I refuse to oversimplify the way you do. I am quite happy to say that there is enough in it to make the call that the killer was probably one and the same.

[John G]

John G: Great skill? But didn't the Victorian doctors opine that he was probably a butcher or a horse slaughterer? Didn't they say he lacked anatomical knowledge?

Hebbert actually reasons that the killer was MORE skilled than a surgeon when it came to knife-work, John. He was very impressed - as were the other medicos who looked at the torso victims - by the work done on the victims bodies. Hebbert meant that a surgeon did not do enough cutting to be able to reach the skill that the torso killer showed, and he reasoned that the killer would be somebody who had a very extensive experience of cutting, like for example a butcher. So yes, great skill - more than a surgeon would have.
Hebbert did not say that the killer lacked anatomical knowledge, he said that much as he was incredibly skilled with the knife, he did not cut into bodies the way a surgeon would. Since Hebbert mentioned a butcher as a possibility, it goes without saying that he reasoned that the man would have lots of anatomical knowledge.

Didn't the Victorian doctors state thst both Chapman's and Eddowes killer had anatomical knowledge? And both Dr Brown and Dr Phillips seemed to believe he had some medical knowledge-in the case of Dr Phillips, and expert surgeon, which clearly rules out Lechmere as I'm sure you'll acknowledge.

Phillips used the one-sweep-of-a-knife matter to suggest possible surgical skill. As I am sure YOU will acknowledge, there was never a surgeon who cut out a womb and part of a bladder with one seep of a knife. What Phillips was correct about was that the man was a star with the knife, what he was wrong about was to think that surgeons are the real masters of the knife. Hebbert corrected him on that point.

Why would a killer demonstrate at least a degree of surgical skill when mutilating bodies in the street, but much less skill when he was presumably under far less time pressure when dismembering a body?

The Ripper never demonstrated any surgical skill. It was always a topic of heated debate, and no evidence has ever been provided to tell either way. Gareth Williams (poster Sam Flynn) has defended the view that the Ripper was a crude an sloppy cutter, cutting away with no skill or aim at all, more or less.
I believe that what had the medicos impressed with the Ripper´s work was the exact same thing that impressed the medicos looking at the torso victims - the extremely skilled and careful knife work. And you are sorely mistaken if you think that surgical skill was only hinted at in the Ripper case - the medico who examined the 1873 torso victim said the exact same thing from the outset.

So OBVIOUSLY, John, if TWO medicos say this about victims from two series, the we MUST conclude that they fell prey to the same killer, right?
However, I refuse to oversimplify the way you do. I am quite happy to say that there is enough in it to make the call that the killer was probably one and the same.

Hi Fisherman,

I would have to, respectfully, disagree with this. Apparently, both Chapman's and Eddowes killer removed organs without damage to surrounding tissues. In fact, Paul Harrison and Dr Calder concluded from this, that the bodies couldn't have been eviscerated at the murder site, given the level of skill demonstrated and the time pressure the killer would have been under.

Trevor also consulted a master butcher, who acknowledged that he would not be able to remove organs in such a careful way. In fact, as he pointed out, "In abattoirs very little care is taken in removing the internal organs from animals it is very much what is called " 'cut and slash' " (Marriott, 2013.)

And that is why, presumably, Dr Hebbert concluded that the Torso perpetrator was most likely a butcher, Hunter, or horse slaughterer.

[Fisherman]

John G: Hi Fisherman,

I would have to, respectfully, disagree with this. Apparently, both Chapman's and Eddowes killer removed organs without damage to surrounding tissues.

If we regard how Chapmans killer cut away part of the bladder as doing "no damage to surrounding tissues", you have a point. If we consider leaving a stump of an inch of the uterus inside Eddowes´ body as prime surgical work, then you have a point.

In fact, Paul Harrison and Dr Calder concluded from this, that the bodies couldn't have been eviscerated at the murder site, given the level of skill demonstrated and the time pressure the killer would have been under.

Trevor also consulted a master butcher, who acknowledged that he would not be able to remove organs in such a careful way. In fact, as he pointed out, "In abattoirs very little care is taken in removing the internal organs from animals it is very much what is called " 'cut and slash' " (Marriott, 2013.)

Oh! Dear me!! You subscribe to Trevor Marriotts idea that the organs were taken out in the morgue...!

Okay. Then tell me why a one-inch stump of the womb was left in Eddowes, if there was ample time and light to do it the correct way?
Explain to ne why part of the bladder and the abdominal wall was cut out together with the uterus in Chapmans case?

Tre Ripper is one of the worst things ever to have plagued the earth.

Trevor Marriott has much the same influence on ripperology, I´m afraid. He is ill informed, asks all the wrong questions and presents views on item A as if they were views on item B.

Any disciples of his - and you seem to be one - must prepare themselves to be raked over the coals.

[John Wheat]

Hi Fisherman,

I would have to, respectfully, disagree with this. Apparently, both Chapman's and Eddowes killer removed organs without damage to surrounding tissues. In fact, Paul Harrison and Dr Calder concluded from this, that the bodies couldn't have been eviscerated at the murder site, given the level of skill demonstrated and the time pressure the killer would have been under.

Trevor also consulted a master butcher, who acknowledged that he would not be able to remove organs in such a careful way. In fact, as he pointed out, "In abattoirs very little care is taken in removing the internal organs from animals it is very much what is called " 'cut and slash' " (Marriott, 2013.)

And that is why, presumably, Dr Hebbert concluded that the Torso perpetrator was most likely a butcher, Hunter, or horse slaughterer.

I think you're wrong John G. I think its debatable how skilled the Ripper was. If anything the Torso Killer seems the more skilled what with the way he neatly dismembered.

Cheers John

[Fisherman]

To facilitate understanding how the killer was skilled and how he related to anatomy, I will quote from Hebberts book:

"The cuts on the surfaces of the vertebrae were such as would be made by a saw, and the long clean sweeping incisions through the skin sowes that a very shaprp knofe had been used. The disarticulations were neatly and cleanly done, in each case the joint being exactly opened ... It as obvious, from the direction and manner of the cuts, that no ordinary surgical or dissection-room operation had been carried out. Although no special knowledge of anatomy was shown, the cuts indicated a practical skill ... I do not think that any surgeon or anatomist could have done the work so well..."

This is where the mistaken view has arisen that the killer had no anatomical insights. What Hebbert says is that the killer did not use the kind of methodology a surgeon or anatomist would have employed when diciding up the body: No "special" (as in specialist) knowledge of anatomy was shown in the disarticulation of the limbs.
But the person who did the cutting was nevertheless MORE skilled than a surgeon or anatomist, when it came to cutting bodies into pieces.

As for the overall anatomy of the inner organs, that is not touched upon here, but one must accept that if we ared ealing with a man who has huge experience of cutting up carcassses, then that person wil have seen hundreds and thousands of hearts, livers, kidneys etcetera, and he wil have been quite familiar with anatomy from that vantage point.

[Fisherman]

I think you're wrong John G. I think its debatable how skilled the Ripper was. If anything the Torso Killer seems the more skilled what with the way he neatly dismembered.

Cheers John

...plus as I pointed out, John G has apparently missed out on how Dr Galloway initially described the cuts to the Rainham victim as the work of someone with "a thorough knowledge of surgery". But then, at the inquest, he said something else altogether:
"The body had been divided by someone who knew the structure of the human frame, but not necessarily by a skilled anatomist."

I fail to see how my point could be made more clearly: Any medico who saw the result of the work of this man would initially ask himself if he was looking at the work of a surgeon, since the cuts were extremely precise, producing perfect cutting angles and a very neat and clean disarticulation. Only when checking further would it become apparent that this killer cut in a manner that no surgeon or anatomist would employ.
I think that the exact same applies to Phillips´ view on the Chapman cutting: The level of knife work skill was so great as to initially implicate a medico´s hand. But of course, no medico would cut out a womb together with aprt of the bladder!

The Ripper and the Torso man were therefore BOTH (surprise, surprise) so very skilled with the knife as to be able to fool seasoned medicos to inititally think that they had a surgeons skill.
They had MORE than that - but it was not a surgical skill, it was pure handicraft - and extreme care in the torso cases.

Now, gentlemen, PLEASE ask yourself WHY this horrendeous torso killer would lay down all that exactitude and care when cutting up the bodies, when a rough, crude, careless, frayed cutting would have served the purpose of cutting the body up even quicker!
Why was he so keen not to make one single sloppy cut? Why did he take great care to produce clean angles? What posessed him to make every disarticulation as clean and neat as possible? Why all that care with a dead body, meant for disposal in the Thames?

Any ideas?

[John G]

John G: Hi Fisherman,

I would have to, respectfully, disagree with this. Apparently, both Chapman's and Eddowes killer removed organs without damage to surrounding tissues.

If we regard how Chapmans killer cut away part of the bladder as doing "no damage to surrounding tissues", you have a point. If we consider leaving a stump of an inch of the uterus inside Eddowes´ body as prime surgical work, then you have a point.

In fact, Paul Harrison and Dr Calder concluded from this, that the bodies couldn't have been eviscerated at the murder site, given the level of skill demonstrated and the time pressure the killer would have been under.

Trevor also consulted a master butcher, who acknowledged that he would not be able to remove organs in such a careful way. In fact, as he pointed out, "In abattoirs very little care is taken in removing the internal organs from animals it is very much what is called " 'cut and slash' " (Marriott, 2013.)

Oh! Dear me!! You subscribe to Trevor Marriotts idea that the organs were taken out in the morgue...!

Okay. Then tell me why a one-inch stump of the womb was left in Eddowes, if there was ample time and light to do it the correct way?
Explain to ne why part of the bladder and the abdominal wall was cut out together with the uterus in Chapmans case?

Tre Ripper is one of the worst things ever to have plagued the earth.

Trevor Marriott has much the same influence on ripperology, I´m afraid. He is ill informed, asks all the wrong questions and presents views on item A as if they were views on item B.

Any disciples of his - and you seem to be one - must prepare themselves to be raked over the coals.

No, I don't subscribe to Trevor's theory. But that's because I don't have the same confidence in the opinions of the Victorian GPs that you seem to have.

[John G]

...plus as I pointed out, John G has apparently missed out on how Dr Galloway initially described the cuts to the Rainham victim as the work of someone with "a thorough knowledge of surgery". But then, at the inquest, he said something else altogether:
"The body had been divided by someone who knew the structure of the human frame, but not necessarily by a skilled anatomist."

I fail to see how my point could be made more clearly: Any medico who saw the result of the work of this man would initially ask himself if he was looking at the work of a surgeon, since the cuts were extremely precise, producing perfect cutting angles and a very neat and clean disarticulation. Only when checking further would it become apparent that this killer cut in a manner that no surgeon or anatomist would employ.
I think that the exact same applies to Phillips´ view on the Chapman cutting: The level of knife work skill was so great as to initially implicate a medico´s hand. But of course, no medico would cut out a womb together with aprt of the bladder!

The Ripper and the Torso man were therefore BOTH (surprise, surprise) so very skilled with the knife as to be able to fool seasoned medicos to inititally think that they had a surgeons skill.
They had MORE than that - but it was not a surgical skill, it was pure handicraft - and extreme care in the torso cases.

Now, gentlemen, PLEASE ask yourself WHY this horrendeous torso killer would lay down all that exactitude and care when cutting up the bodies, when a rough, crude, careless, frayed cutting would have served the purpose of cutting the body up even quicker!
Why was he so keen not to make one single sloppy cut? Why did he take great care to produce clean angles? What posessed him to make every disarticulation as clean and neat as possible? Why all that care with a dead body, meant for disposal in the Thames?

Any ideas?

Both Eddowes' kidney an Chapman's uterus were carefully removed, according to the Victorian doctors. And Paul Harrison commented that only a person with an "expert knowledge of anatomy" (Marriott, 2013)would be able to remove the organs in the way described, especially considering that he would be working with a Victorian knife, under extreme time pressure, and in almost totally darkness.

In fact, Dr Calder and Paul Harrison attempted to remove a kidney using a Victorian knife, and found it an almost impossible task.

Mind you, good news in respect of my chief suspect, FT, as he trained as a surgeon for 6 years.

[John G]

I think you're wrong John G. I think its debatable how skilled the Ripper was. If anything the Torso Killer seems the more skilled what with the way he neatly dismembered.

Cheers John

Yes, you may well be right.

[Fisherman]

John G: Both Eddowes' kidney an Chapman's uterus were carefully removed, according to the Victorian doctors.

But how can carefull removing a uterus take part of the bladder and part of the abdominal wall with it?
And if he managed to carefully take out the kidney from Eddowes, why did he fail to do so with the uterus?

And Paul Harrison commented that only a person with an "expert knowledge of anatomy" (Marriott, 2013)would be able to remove the organs in the way described, especially considering that he would be working with a Victorian knife, under extreme time pressure, and in almost totally darkness.

But we both know that others disagree with that view, John. The expert Dr Galloway said that the Rain ham deed was made by a man with "thorough knowledge of surgery", but then he changed his mind. At what stage should we listen to him?

In fact, Dr Calder and Paul Harrison attempted to remove a kidney using a Victorian knife, and found it an almost impossible task.

And indeed, Hebbert said that surgeons would NOT be capable to do what the torso killer did. He had more skill - but NOT surgical skill.
If you have a steady hand and the correct type of blade, then you CAN remove a kidney without damaging the surrounding tissues - and without being a surgeon. It is that simple.

Mind you, good news in respect of my chief suspect, FT, as he trained as a surgeon for 6 years.

He was 14 in 1873, when the first torso victim surfaced. And there is every reason to accept that this victim was killed by the same man as Kelly was in 1888 - in fact, these two victims are very closely tied together.
Thompson is emphatically not our man.

I have discussed the matter with Richard Patterson on Facebook, actually. His verdict was that given how Lechmere was found alone with the freshly killed Nichols, Richard thinks that I have a very good suspect, "perhaps even the best one", as he put it.

Richard is open-minded and judges things very soundly. His research into Thompson is impressive - but Francis Thompson did not kill the 1873 victim.

How many more well-known writers, composers, painters etcetera have been serialists, by the way - have you checked that?

And where is the answer to my question: Why did the torso killer make such an immaculate job of disarticulating and cutting up his victims, why all the neat, clean work, all the perfect angles, all the exactitude - if he was just discarding the bodies? Surely there has to be an explanation? And he did the cutting immediately, while the bodies were still warm, perhaps even still alive. How do we account for that?

[Elamarna]

Fisherman,

Your point to Pierre about Debra is spot on. to me she is THE expert on this issue.

I was listen to the old podcast she did on the torso murders, and one point that stood out to me, was at that stage Debra seemed to say she did not believe that the earlier instances in the 1870's were linked to the later ones.

Of course I may have misunderstood and if so I apologise now Debra, or given the age of the podcast she may have changed her view.

yours

Steve

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,

Your point to Pierre about Debra is spot on. to me she is THE expert on this issue.

I was listen to the old podcast she did on the torso murders, and one point that stood out to me, was at that stage Debra seemed to say she did not believe that the earlier instances in the 1870's were linked to the later ones.

Of course I may have misunderstood and if so I apologise now Debra, or given the age of the podcast she may have changed her view.

yours

Steve

I have not heard that podcast, but I have spoken to Debra privately over the net, and she certainly does not rule the 1870:s torso murders out.

To what degree she accepts a link is for herself to say!

[John Wheat]

Fisherman,

Your point to Pierre about Debra is spot on. to me she is THE expert on this issue.

I was listen to the old podcast she did on the torso murders, and one point that stood out to me, was at that stage Debra seemed to say she did not believe that the earlier instances in the 1870's were linked to the later ones.

Of course I may have misunderstood and if so I apologise now Debra, or given the age of the podcast she may have changed her view.

yours

Steve

To Steve

But to me it would seem odd if the Torso murders of 1873,1874 were not related to the later Torso murders. If we are to accept this hypothesis then surely we have a copycat at work. If there was a different perpetrator to the later Torso murders then this would seem to rule out the theory that Jack and The Torso Killer were one and the same. Not that I believe Jack and The Torso Killer were the same man.

Cheers John