Torso Murders

[Debra A]

Its a term used in 1888 and still used today.

If anyone manipulated the figures it was you. If you disagree then produce the figures to support what you say. Because all you have come up with is the saying "from what I read" or words to that effect.

Post all the inquest reports on those 200+ open verdicts bodies lets see how many match the Thames Torsos between 1887/89. Lets see how many were body parts or dismembered torsos.

Manipulation cuts both ways you will find !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I posted the actual figures of causes of death from 1888 that weren't disease related for the age group 25 to 55 as our torso's were.
You tried to claim that 500+ cases of death connected to the Thames were related to dismembered body parts because an open verdict was recorded at inquest.
I source all statistics I post and all quotes and never try to pass off a comment in a book as a contemporary source.

It's amazing what you can learn from reading, Trevor. You should try it some time-get to know your subject rather than having knee jerk reactions to every point made.

I am withdrawing from this discussion now as I think you must have genuine problems.

[Debra A]

No its not, I never suggested an autopsy with regards to Jackson I have always sided with her death being attributable to her pregnancy or an attempt to abort the baby.

You have previously admitted that it was a possibility that Jackson could have died as a result of being administered some noxious substance relating to her pregnancy are you now wanting to change that, in favour of an out and out murder ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You suggested that an opening made from chest to pubes was a sign that a post mortem had occured:

It has been mentioned the cutting of the abdomens down to the pubes. That as is known is how post mortems are carried out. We also know that bodies were obtainable from post mortems for medical research. However they would not be released until after a post mortem was carried out, so how do we know that one or more of these torsos did not originate from a mortuary, and was disposed of by the recipient after it had served its purpose. That also explains why in some of the case the whole viscera was missing.

Besides flaps of skin being taken from her abdomen, Elizabeth was also first opened up chest to pubes with a mid line incision. Joshua Rogan pointed out to you that Elizabeth's opening from chest to pubes was more like an post mortem incision than the other two cases that were opened from the ribs to the pubes.

[jerryd]

Trevor, how do you explain one of the torsos being left in the vault of Scotland Yard? Of all the places to dump the remains, why there? I'm not sure how this aligns with your opinion that these weren't murder victims.

Thanks HarryD,

And to add to that, why would a back street abortionist choose a vault that was hard to enter [only known by a few how to get in] to place the body? Even if they did know how to get in, why choose such a difficult location while carrying a corpse and risking detection? Just throw it in the Thames, as Trevor believes, makes more sense for a disposal of that sort.

The location suggests a purpose! Just as in Pinchin Street.

[Trevor Marriott]

So, "flaps of skin" isn't a term you found being used in contemporary sources relating to the murder of Mrs Thomas and neither is it a direct quote from Jan Bondeson's book. Another case of you manipulating source material as you did with the statistics.

Its a term used in 1888 and still used today.

If anyone manipulated the figures it was you. If you disagree then produce the figures to support what you say. Because all you have come up with is the saying "from what I read" or words to that effect.

Post all the inquest reports on those 200+ open verdicts bodies lets see how many match the Thames Torsos between 1887/89. Lets see how many were body parts or dismembered torsos.

Manipulation cuts both ways you will find !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Harry D]

Trevor, how do you explain one of the torsos being left in the vault of Scotland Yard? Of all the places to dump the remains, why there? I'm not sure how this aligns with your opinion that these weren't murder victims.

[Trevor Marriott]

On the two occasions I've asked you directly why Elizabeth was wrapped in her own clothing you first answered that to have an abortion she wouldn't have needed to remove her clothing but that doesn't fit with your most recent idea proposal that Elizabeth had an autopsy performed on her, hence the cut from chest to pubes, which you struggled to explain any other way. An autopsy would have had to occur in a medical facility, no back street abortionist would perform an autopsy. So a hospital illegally dumping bodies wouldn't want anyone being traced back to them through their clothing would they?
The second time I asked you said you didn't know.

It is you who is all over the place here.

No its not, I never suggested an autopsy with regards to Jackson I have always sided with her death being attributable to her pregnancy or an attempt to abort the baby.

You have previously admitted that it was a possibility that Jackson could have died as a result of being administered some noxious substance relating to her pregnancy are you now wanting to change that, in favour of an out and out murder ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Debra A]

Yes it was from Jan Bondesons book, and to note he uses the term flaps of skin so I retirate the term is generic and common and not limited to any of the WM or Torsos,

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So, "flaps of skin" isn't a term you found being used in contemporary sources relating to the murder of Mrs Thomas and neither is it a direct quote from Jan Bondeson's book. Another case of you manipulating source material as you did with the statistics.

[Trevor Marriott]

That passage you quote first was very much part of what I was commenting on, Jerry. Jackson, as you will remember, was found wrapped in her own clothing. And the Pinchin Street torso had a nightgown on.

A nightgown, so that might tell us that the victim was either laid up somewhere having a back st procedure, sleep walking, and or murdered in her sleep, or prostituting herself in her night attire.

I wonder then which one is correct?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Debra A]

There are many other plausible explanations which have been explained time and time again but for some reason it seems to suit some to keep changing the goalposts, switching from saying it couldn't be bodies obtained from mortuaries, to no it couldn't be bodies subject to a back st operation, to no it wasn't any of those or anything connected to those. So it must be murder.

Tunnel vision is term that springs to mind.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

On the two occasions I've asked you directly why Elizabeth was wrapped in her own clothing you first answered that to have an abortion she wouldn't have needed to remove her clothing but that doesn't fit with your most recent idea proposal that Elizabeth had an autopsy performed on her, hence the cut from chest to pubes, which you struggled to explain any other way. An autopsy would have had to occur in a medical facility, no back street abortionist would perform an autopsy. So a hospital illegally dumping bodies wouldn't want anyone being traced back to them through their clothing would they?
The second time I asked you said you didn't know.

It is you who is all over the place here.

[Trevor Marriott]

What is the actual source for that first line, Trevor? Is it an actual quote from somewhere? There seems to be the same lack of punctuation you yourself are famous for. I can't seem to find any contemporary mention of "flaps of skin" in anything relating to the Richmond murder, although I do see that Jan Bondeson writes "flaps of skin" when describing what was placed in the Gladstone bag and box that went into the Thames, in his book 'Murder Houses.'

Yes it was from Jan Bondesons book, and to note he uses the term flaps of skin so I retirate the term is generic and common and not limited to any of the WM or Torsos,

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Thanks for this, Jerry. This is exactly what I keep telling Trevor: that bodies, if they were sold off as he suggested, would hardly likely be dumped wrapped in their own clothing as Elizabeth was. The foot and leg belonging to the Whitehall torso was also still clad in a woollen stocking.

There are many other plausible explanations which have been explained time and time again but for some reason it seems to suit some to keep changing the goalposts, switching from saying it couldn't be bodies obtained from mortuaries, to no it couldn't be bodies subject to a back st operation, to no it wasn't any of those or anything connected to those. So it must be murder.

Tunnel vision is term that springs to mind.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Debra A]

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=9649&page=58

I think he thought it was the same as the 1879 murder of a woman by her servant, mentioned in his post on this page of the current thread.

Thanks, Pat. I meant the source for the line he posted as if it was a direct quote from a contemporary source that mentioned the 'flaps of skin'. I wrote Richmond murder because I always forget the victim's name but it is the case Trevor is talking about.

[Pcdunn]

What is the actual source for that first line, Trevor? Is it an actual quote from somewhere? There seems to be the same lack of punctuation you yourself are famous for. I can't seem to find any contemporary mention of "flaps of skin" in anything relating to the Richmond murder, although I do see that Jan Bondeson writes "flaps of skin" when describing what was placed in the Gladstone bag and box that went into the Thames, in his book 'Murder Houses.'

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=9649&page=58

I think he thought it was the same as the 1879 murder of a woman by her servant, mentioned in his post on this page of the current thread.

[Debra A]

And after dismembering the victim she put among other parts flaps of skin into a bag and tossed it into the thames.

Look, that term flaps of skin is mentioned again !!!!!!!!!!!!!



www.trevormarriott.co.uk

What is the actual source for that first line, Trevor? Is it an actual quote from somewhere? There seems to be the same lack of punctuation you yourself are famous for. I can't seem to find any contemporary mention of "flaps of skin" in anything relating to the Richmond murder, although I do see that Jan Bondeson writes "flaps of skin" when describing what was placed in the Gladstone bag and box that went into the Thames, in his book 'Murder Houses.'

[Debra A]

Christer,

My point was more about this line in particular:

They do not receive corpses for dissection with their clothes; nor is there any conceivable reason why, if they did, they should produce cuts and stabs and stains of blood on the clothes with such accuracy as to correspond to the effects of wounds inflicted on a living man.

The report also stated earlier in the clip [I'll transcribe the exact words later], that corpses of children were more likely to have been hidden or disposed of to avoid funeral costs. Rarely did that happen with adults.

Thanks for this, Jerry. This is exactly what I keep telling Trevor: that bodies, if they were sold off as he suggested, would hardly likely be dumped wrapped in their own clothing as Elizabeth was. The foot and leg belonging to the Whitehall torso was also still clad in a woollen stocking.