Torso Murders

[Elamarna]

That is fine by me too, Steve. However, it would be interesting to hear what you are putting these matters down to; coincidence or a wish to copy each otherīs deeds (working from the assumption that there were two killers)? If the latter, then we must assume that the Ripper knew about the cut away colon in the Rainham case. Conversely, then the Torso killer would have heard about the removed abdominal walls in the Chapman and Kelly cases, and decided to copy that with Jackson.
Unless, of course, these elements were involved in more cases than the ones we know of.

Hi

I would say a mixture of coincidence and copy cat.

Coincidence between Rainham and Hanbury street, particularly in the case of the colon. once this is learned about, by press and gossip, it is copied by one or the other, to my mind probably by the Torso killer.

The issue I have with the flaps, may initially sound like Trevor’s but it is different.

That is without actually seeing the flaps of skin, their actual shape, not a written description, I feel it is not possible to say how alike the flaps are.

It is possible that a common approach was responsible for similar methods and cuts.

For instance in my school days when animal dissection still took place in biology lessons, diagrams were provided to assist, these showed the abdomen being opened down a central line, the skin and muscle then being cut back to the side of the body to create a flap and this then being removed by another cut.

The result was similar looking dissections, done by different hands, any written description would have sounded very similar, but the actually pieces of tissue may and often did look very different.


For that reason as much as any other, I consider the methods not proven similar enough to not accept a single killer, but obviously cannot rule it out conclusively, its a gut feeling based on the evidence as I see it.

hope that explains.

all the best

Steve

[Debra A]

In 1828, Burke and Hare made a successful financial venture out of murdering 15 people and selling their bodies to a university for medical research !

Each body was sold for 7 shillings and 6 pence Ģ500 in today's money

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The National Archives calculator puts it at half that amount for all 15 bodies, but anyway: Have you ever seen what medical students did during anatomical dissections? They stripped practically everything away to make the most of the chance for hands on anatomical study. The torso bodies, in contrast were simply dismembered and had a couple of organs missing. Dr Biggs said in his email that there's no evidence of anatomical study.
And If body parts were being sold off why not make a bundle and sell off all the organs and valuable pieces ?

[Trevor Marriott]

They sold dead bodies for dissection purposes, Trevor. The ones they sold them to did not dismember them, cut their faces away and throw them in the Thames. Nor did they wrap them in their own clothes after having cut them up.

So what are you suggesting happened to the Torso victims?

I am suggesting the same as I have been suggesting all along that there are other plausible explanations which must be considered other than murder. I have already said and accepted that a domestic murder might be the cause of death of one of the torsos

On another point removing the uterus doesn't point to murder in fact in my opinion it points to something medical.

One or more of the torsos was found with chord around the joints that might indicate a tourniquet used to stop bleeding if someone was bleeding heavily during an operation. NOt used by a killer to stem blood flow !!!!!!!!!

You whole theory seems to be based upon your interpretation of the medical evidence and in particular these flaps of skin.

Another poster suggested to you the same as I did, that each of these torsos should be looked at in more detail, before jumping up crying murder.

Looking at the flaps of skin issue. I previously highlighted the fact that they all appear to be different in descriptions in relation to where they were, what was attached to them. You also know that this term is generic and widely used back then and today.

Yes in some case wilful verdicts were recorded but looking at how some of them came to be recorded is nothing more than shambolic, so you cant totally rely on those verdicts to prop up your theory.

You mention one torso with a head injury, which does point to a murder or an accidental death. So that is another reason why you need to take a step back and look at each one in detail and you will find that there are not so many similarities as you perhaps believe.

Again you rely on the doctors of the day, we now know that much of what they opinionated on was nothing more than guesswork.

If as you believe all of these were murdered what would be the motive? If organ removal as in the WM then why were they not removed in the street as it is alleged the WM did? That killer felt no need to dismember his victims. or hide their identities

Why would a killer go to such great lengths to dispose of his victims in this way, why would he want to hide their identities ? Body parts here there and everywhere.

Then there is the prank issue it is written that it was considered that some of these body parts etc could have been dumped by medical students as a prank. We know body parts and bodies were freely available, how have they come to be discounted?

Body parts thrown over the wall of Mary Shelleys estate if that did happen does that not point to some form of a prank?

Some of the torsos were found with incisions from sternum to pubes. We know that is how post mortems were carried out. It has been dismissed that these bodies were not from mortuaries, because some were clothed.

How do we know that after a post mortem they were not dressed again, or after their bodies were used for medical research ? On that note any bodies obtained for such a purpose was the responsibility of those acquiring it to dispose of it thereafter.

On that topic one poster made a comment that if they wanted the body for research why dispose of it. Well I guess legs arms etc would be 10 a penny so no need to retain those if they already had a supply. But heads were of great demand as perhaps were the heart and other vital organs.

How do we know that one or more of these torsos did not come from a mortuary? How could they be identified as having come from, or not come from a mortuary with no heads ?

Wrapping body parts up in brown paper parcels that shows someone has gone to extra lengths if wanting to dispose of the body parts. A killer might simply put them in a sack and throw them in the thames, and if that were the case might pick the same spot of somewhere nearby not go 10 miles along the thames to do so carrying incriminating evidence.

You see you cant even prove where any murder took place, where any of the bodies would have been cut up, or where the victims came from.

Then there is the back street procedures which I am not going to go over again.

As I said before to describe these as murder -NO to describe them as Torso Mysteries- YES

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

In 1828, Burke and Hare made a successful financial venture out of murdering 15 people and selling their bodies to a university for medical research !

Each body was sold for 7 shillings and 6 pence Ģ500 in today's money

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

They sold dead bodies for dissection purposes, Trevor. The ones they sold them to did not dismember them, cut their faces away and throw them in the Thames. Nor did they wrap them in their own clothes after having cut them up.

So what are you suggesting happened to the Torso victims?

[Trevor Marriott]

Small profit versus the death sentence. Yeah, that makes sense.

In 1828, Burke and Hare made a successful financial venture out of murdering 15 people and selling their bodies to a university for medical research !

Each body was sold for 7 shillings and 6 pence Ģ500 in today's money

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,

while I agree the colons were not removed by accident, i am afraid i am very far from convinced that the same killer was responsible for the Whitechapel and Torso murders.

However that is fine by me, we can agree to disagree.

all the best

steve

That is fine by me too, Steve. However, it would be interesting to hear what you are putting these matters down to; coincidence or a wish to copy each otherīs deeds (working from the assumption that there were two killers)? If the latter, then we must assume that the Ripper knew about the cut away colon in the Rainham case. Conversely, then the Torso killer would have heard about the removed abdominal walls in the Chapman and Kelly cases, and decided to copy that with Jackson.
Unless, of course, these elements were involved in more cases than the ones we know of.

[Debra A]

To sell it to a medical school or a side-show, or a freaky American quack doctor-- who knows? Profit was involved, somehow.

Small profit versus the death sentence. Yeah, that makes sense.

[Debra A]

right put in sacks and sunk in the river.

were they chopped up? did they have exteranneous post mortem mutilations to the body?

I think folks need to look at the torso cases individually-look at what was done to the body and the circumstances and then make a determination-are any explanations for each case other than murder even plausible?

I think there is too much of just a general consideration of "well theres a bunch of torsos and pody parts".

need to dig into individually a little more I think.

Well said that man!

[Elamarna]

I do not mind that you answered, Steve - and I agree very much with what you say. I also find it obvious that severing the colon in two places is a deliberate act.
There is also the fact that we have not one but four victims who suffered this same damage. No matter if we afford very generous amounts of coincidence, it is stretching it way too far to accept that the four excised colons were all accidentally cut away.
Furthermore, like Dr Brown pointed out after having visited Mitre Square, the two-feet part of the colon taken away from Eddowes was placed beside her by design. A colon thrown away will not end up perfectly straight and parallel to the body, and Brown immediately realized this - the colon had been cut out and placed carefully beside the body.

So, to add to the removed abdominal walls, we have four excised colon parts, taken from one Ripper victim and three Torso victims.

To me, that effectively seals the deal - it is the same killer.

Fisherman,

while I agree the colons were not removed by accident, i am afraid i am very far from convinced that the same killer was responsible for the Whitechapel and Torso murders.

However that is fine by me, we can agree to disagree.

all the best

steve

[Fisherman]

right put in sacks and sunk in the river.

were they chopped up? did they have exteranneous post mortem mutilations to the body?

I think folks need to look at the torso cases individually-look at what was done to the body and the circumstances and then make a determination-are any explanations for each case other than murder even plausible?

I think there is too much of just a general consideration of "well theres a bunch of torsos and pody parts".

need to dig into individually a little more I think.

Itīs absolutely unbelievable that anybody would come up with the idea to start talking about how dismemberment murders are all the same (like Dr Biggs did, although he is not to blame for it if he was underinformed) - the answer is given before the question is asked!

This man did NOT primarily dismember to hide what he did or to facilitate transport of the bodies. He did it because he enjoyed doing it. He enjoyed taking women apart, disassembling them if you will. After that, the circumstances governed what happened to the body. The one common factor is that it was subjected to disassembling.

[Fisherman]

Pierre,

I waited a while to see if Fisherman replied,
As you did say it may be more for me I will give my view on the questions you asked.

Fisherman hope you do not mind.




There is no need to make more than one cut to remove the uterus.

Of course it is possible that the first cut was not complete and then a second attempt at the same point may be needed, but it would appear to the untrained eye as a single cut. Any damage to the colon would appear the same.

There is no practical reason why the cut to the uterus would not nick the colon, it is positioned behind the Uterus, and so if not careful one could nick it. I would however suggest that to actually severe the colon is a deliberate act.

Two separate cuts to the colon suggest the colon was cut intentional and not as collateral damage.





To nick the colon would be relatively easy, it would depend to some extent on the lighting, length and width of knife used and the skill level of the operator

To severe it is a completely different procedure, to do so by accident would suggest no skill with a knife at all.,




Pros:

if you were going to severe the colon from the start, cutting it from the anus at the same time as the uterus from the cervix, would of course be more efficient, reducing the total number of cuts required.
Of course one more cut is needed if the aim is to remove the colon.

Cons:

Messy, more effort needed, risk of infection to the operator.








We have no idea with regards to first question. The second would depend on where the procedure was carried out.

one can of course speculate, but that is all it is.

I will conclude by Repeating if the colon was cut twice and severed , it was a deliberate act.


regards

steve

I do not mind that you answered, Steve - and I agree very much with what you say. I also find it obvious that severing the colon in two places is a deliberate act. It is slippery and it is not fixed so that it can be easily severed.
There is also the fact that we have not one but four victims who suffered this same damage. No matter if we afford very generous amounts of coincidence, it is stretching it way too far to accept that the four excised colons were all accidentally cut away.
Furthermore, like Dr Brown pointed out after having visited Mitre Square, the two-feet part of the colon taken away from Eddowes was placed beside her by design. A colon thrown away will not end up perfectly straight and parallel to the body, and Brown immediately realized this - the colon had been cut out and placed carefully beside the body.

So, to add to the removed abdominal walls, we have four excised colon parts, taken from one Ripper victim and three Torso victims.

To me, that effectively seals the deal - it is the same killer.

[Elamarna]

Pierre,

I waited a while to see if Fisherman replied,
As you did say it may be more for me I will give my view on the questions you asked.

Fisherman hope you do not mind.

OK. I think this might be a question for Steve. But perhaps you would like to answer it:

Was the killer cutting the uterus in two places when removing it and could those cuts have been cutting into the lower colon?

There is no need to make more than one cut to remove the uterus.

Of course it is possible that the first cut was not complete and then a second attempt at the same point may be needed, but it would appear to the untrained eye as a single cut. Any damage to the colon would appear the same.

There is no practical reason why the cut to the uterus would not nick the colon, it is positioned behind the Uterus, and so if not careful one could nick it. I would however suggest that to actually severe the colon is a deliberate act.

Two separate cuts to the colon suggest the colon was cut intentional and not as collateral damage.

Should we consider that type of cutting to indicate "skill" or quite the contrary?

Would it have been more difficult or easier not cutting into the lower colon?

To nick the colon would be relatively easy, it would depend to some extent on the lighting, length and width of knife used and the skill level of the operator

To severe it is a completely different procedure, to do so by accident would suggest no skill with a knife at all.,

Could anything have been gained cutting or avoiding to cut into the lower colon?

Pros:

if you were going to severe the colon from the start, cutting it from the anus at the same time as the uterus from the cervix, would of course be more efficient, reducing the total number of cuts required.
Of course one more cut is needed if the aim is to remove the colon.

Cons:

Messy, more effort needed, risk of infection to the operator.

Did the killer not care about the cutting techniques?

Was he in a hurry?

We have no idea with regards to first question. The second would depend on where the procedure was carried out.

one can of course speculate, but that is all it is.

I will conclude by Repeating if the colon was cut twice and severed , it was a deliberate act.


regards

steve

[Abby Normal]

I gotta say that I don't buy the abortionist theory, since abortionists never went in through the abdomen, but I can see a scenario where these women were dismembered and dumped after dying another way. In a brothel at the hands of a violent John, in an opium den, even from a bad batch of bathtub gin served in a bar that catered to exactly the wrong clientele.

Is it likely? It's possible. I wouldn't go as far as likely. But it really is possible. During prohibition my hometown speakeasy had a problem with patrons getting poisoned, and they were put in sacks and sunk in the river. Like 10 dudes. To this day no one gets in that river. They barkeep didn't care if they died, they just couldn't die in the bar. And so were removed. So it's possible that however these women died, that not why they were chopped up. They were chopped up by someone who needed them to die elsewhere.

Really the most mysterious part of all of this is Elizabeth Jackson's fetus in a jar. Or not her fetus. Or her fetus and she was simply wrong on how pregnant she was. Or it was undersized from malnutrition, or oversized from an inherent glandular condition. But a fetus in a jar floating down the Thames raises a lot of questions. And the origin of that fetus raises a few more. Like, if it wasn't hers, where the hell did it come from because if it had been preserved that would have been obvious, and you'd think worth a mention. That is really the big climactic aria of this killer, and it's a showstopper all right, but I am left with questions.

right put in sacks and sunk in the river.

were they chopped up? did they have exteranneous post mortem mutilations to the body?

I think folks need to look at the torso cases individually-look at what was done to the body and the circumstances and then make a determination-are any explanations for each case other than murder even plausible?

I think there is too much of just a general consideration of "well theres a bunch of torsos and pody parts".

need to dig into individually a little more I think.

[Pierre]

When a large part of the colon is removed, it has been severed in TWO places, Pierre. And much as one cut can be regarded as collateral damage, two is another thing. And when FOUR victims suffer the same fate, then it stretches credulity way beyond any reasonable suggestion of a set of coincidences.

Add the removed abdominal walls, and you get one killer and one killer only. The mere suggestion of two killers has turned outright ridiculous at that stage.

OK. I think this might be a question for Steve. But perhaps you would like to answer it:

Was the killer cutting the uterus in two places when removing it and could those cuts have been cutting into the lower colon?

More questions:

Should we consider that type of cutting to indicate "skill" or quite the contrary?

Would it have been more difficult or easier not cutting into the lower colon?

Could anything have been gained cutting or avoiding to cut into the lower colon?

Did the killer not care about the cutting techniques?

Was he in a hurry?

I am not discussing two killers here. Just one.

Regards, Pierre

[Fisherman]

Answer from you, Fisherman:



No, I donīt have the time. But my point is that cutting out the uterus could have resulted in cutting the lower part of the colon as well and that is what the sources tell us.

Regards, Pierre

When a large part of the colon is removed, it has been severed in TWO places, Pierre. And much as one cut can be regarded as collateral damage, two is another thing. And when FOUR victims suffer the same fate, then it stretches credulity way beyond any reasonable suggestion of a set of coincidences.

Add the removed abdominal walls, and you get one killer and one killer only. The mere suggestion of two killers has turned outright ridiculous at that stage.