Torso Murders

[John Wheat]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;382267]I dont know what medication the doctor has put you on but you need to get it changed. What you are taking now is making you delusional !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Thanks for another personal attack Trevor.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Pierre:

Hi Fisherman,

You added the colon but we knew the rest. And you have not referred to the source(s).

By the way, is there any correlation between the lower part of the colon having been cut / cut out and the uterus having been cut out?

I.e. in how many cases did he do both, and in how many cases exclusively the uterus?

Or where there any case(s) where he cut out the uterus but did not cut or cut out the lower part of the colon?

Regards, Pierre

Answer from you, Fisherman:

Fisherman;382086]
The sources are readily available out here, Pierre - check for yourself!

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

[Pcdunn]

The baby was removed post-mortem, Trevor. Why abort a baby from a dead woman?

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

[Errata]

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.

[Fisherman]

Jon Guy: I`ll have a go, Christer ..but I`m not so confident about the Torso cases and I`m only playing Devils advocate here

The parts may have been floated down the Thames but they still remained unidentified.
Am I correct in saying only Jackson was identified (by her dress initially ?)

Yep, that is correct. But who is to say that none of the others could have been ID:d? If he had dug them down that problem would have gone away. Acid would have done the same. Weighing them down - same thing.

But he put a torso in the cellar of the New Scotland Yard, Jon. Whatīs your reply to that...?


"Why cut off a hand on one side and not the other ...." ?Because they were trying to fit the body into a sack, or a pram or something ?

Why would a body fit better in a sack with one hand cut off?

[jerryd]

Well said that man.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

This back-street abortionist had a pretty bad record of aborting babies, did he not? He killed at least four women that were all linked by the police to be by the same hand.

[Bridewell]

Hi Colin

Because the victim could be connected to the back street abortionist.

Perhaps, Jon, but only if she'd told someone what she was having done - and who was doing it.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Colin



Because the victim could be connected to the back street abortionist.



For easier disposal of the body

Well said that man.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[John Wheat]

The only thing silly is your theory whereby you state categorically that all the torsos were the result of murder. Maybe you should read the same book

http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Idiot.../dp/0028643461

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No one other than you seems to think my theory is silly but everyone seems to think the idea that The Torso Victims weren't murdered and dismembered is silly, funny that.

[Jon Guy]

All true - but you need to answer my questions too, Jon.

I`ll have a go, Christer ..but I`m not so confident about the Torso cases and I`m only playing Devils advocate here

The parts may have been floated down the Thames but they still remained unidentified.
Am I correct in saying only Jackson was identified (by her dress initially ?)


"Why cut off a hand on one side and not the other ...." ?Because they were trying to fit the body into a sack, or a pram or something ?

[Abby Normal]

Two questions on this:

(1) Why would a back-street abortionist need to keep the identity of the body secret? I can see why he/she might be anxious to conceal his or her own identity, but not that of the woman.

(2) Why would said back-street abortionist need to do more than remove the head in an era before the advent of fingerprint recognition?

Complete dismemberment does not fit the motive of an abortionist seeking to conceal the identity of a woman, even accepting that he/she was motivated to do so.

Hi BW
right. and neither does dumping the body/parts all over town nor the extra mutilations to the body!

[Fisherman]

Hi Colin



Because the victim could be connected to the back street abortionist.



For easier disposal of the body

All true - but you need to answer my questions too, Jon.

[Fisherman]

Bridewell:

(1) Why would a back-street abortionist need to keep the identity of the body secret? I can see why he/she might be anxious to conceal his or her own identity, but not that of the woman.

A fair enough question, Colin. And letīs not forget, that if he REALLY wanted to keep the identity of the woman hidden, then why present society with her parts by floating them down the Thames and placing them in parks and gardens - and the basement of Scotland Yard...? Why not dig them down, or weigh them down before throwing them into the river? With the victimīs own clothes on in one case!

(2) Why would said back-street abortionist need to do more than remove the head in an era before the advent of fingerprint recognition?

Indeed! Why cut a hand off on one side but not on the other? An underarm off on one side but not on the other? An underleg off on one side but not on the other? Why hide/discard the skull in one case - but cut away the face and float it down the Thames first?

Complete dismemberment does not fit the motive of an abortionist seeking to conceal the identity of a woman, even accepting that he/she was motivated to do so.

No, it does not. Trevor is getting sillier by the minute trying to defend this rot.

[Jon Guy]

Hi Colin

Two questions on this:

(1) Why would a back-street abortionist need to keep the identity of the body secret? I can see why he/she might be anxious to conceal his or her own identity, but not that of the woman..

Because the victim could be connected to the back street abortionist.

(2) Why would said back-street abortionist need to do more than remove the head in an era before the advent of fingerprint recognition?

For easier disposal of the body

[Bridewell]

It is also on record that women did die from back street medical procedures, even you have to accept that and when they did the bodies needed to be got rid of and their identities hidden.

Two questions on this:

(1) Why would a back-street abortionist need to keep the identity of the body secret? I can see why he/she might be anxious to conceal his or her own identity, but not that of the woman.

(2) Why would said back-street abortionist need to do more than remove the head in an era before the advent of fingerprint recognition?

Complete dismemberment does not fit the motive of an abortionist seeking to conceal the identity of a woman, even accepting that he/she was motivated to do so.