Torso Murders

[harry]

Fisherman,
Where can I find the reference to Dr Kempster?

[Trevor Marriott]

Well, well - it finally happened! Dr Biggs is commenting SPECIFICALLY on the torso murders!

I wasnīt expecting that, I must say!

Now, letīs have a look at what Biggs has to say! For example:

"It is possible (but I am not suggesting likely) that body parts attributed to a single 'case' in this series may in fact have come from more than one person"


Here he agrees with what Murder Inc says: it is unlikely that the medicos would get the fitting wrong.
What could make it likely that they did? I would say that if the surfaces were not cleany cut, but instead torn, then there could be some difficulty involved. But when we have exact cuts, straight angles and no fraying to work with, that risk is quickly dissolved.

And this:
"With regard to the cuts being made after death, it is probably a safe assumption (most dismemberments take place after death!), but relying on a lack of 'ecchymosis' is not necessarily safe in a body recovered from water. It is well recognised that immersion can leach out blood from wounds, making them look like post mortem injuries when they were in fact inflicted in life."


The medicos actually opened up for the possibility that the body of the 1873 victim was cut up while still alive. I can only assume that this would have applied to the other victims too, since they all showed a muscle contracion that knit the cutting close to death.

Next up:

"I think it is worth noting that comments relating to 'anatomical knowledge' or 'surgical skill' should be taken with a pinch of salt in these sorts of cases. I have seen surgeons and pathologists make a right mess of human anatomy, and I have seen 'amateurs' making a pretty good job of chopping up a body at their first attempt. Generalisations cannot be used to comment on specific cases, and [B][U]I find their assumption that a surgeon or anatomist could not have done such a good job because they are not cutting as regularly as a hunter or butcher quite bizarre."

Letīs keep in mind that Biggs never saw the Torso mans work. It is true that there have been cases where people with no former experience of dismembering have made quality efforts on their first try. But in the Torso series, there was evidence that the perpetrator had anatomical knowledge and knew exactly where to cut and open up a joint, and he never made a sloppy job of a single joint as far as we know.
The fact is that Biggs has in his former comments made it clear that he has a very limited experience of dismemberment cases:

"The handful of dismemberment cases that I have personally dealt with*in my short career so far have all ended up looking fairly similar..."

So the good doctor seems to have very little to compare with. And what little he has, seems to have led him to conclusions that are not true for the Torso killer:

"I have dealt with a few of these dismemberment cases, and I've dealt with loads (and loads!) of road traffic / train collision / aircrash deaths where bodies have ended up being 'dismembered'.* There is almost never a clean line of separation between the body parts, and there always ends up being a ragged edge here and there."


Here, Biggs actually compares the dismemberment cases he has seen with train collision victims and aircrash deaths, where the bodies have been grinded to a pulp, more or less, and the limbs have been torn off. And he confidently concludes that there is almost never a clean line of separation and that there will always be ragged edges.
The exact opposite applies in the Torso cases - AND THAT IS WHY THEY ARE SO VERY DISTINCTIVE AND UNIQUE!!! - the cuts are ALL clean, unjagged and unfrayed, and there are no ragged edges to be seen anywhere.

Biggs is very obviously disinclined to realize to what extent the Torso killer was an expert cutter. His view is another one, as we know from his former posts:

"Because the cuts are not particularly well planned in advance, there are often flaps and strips of skin here and there, with tears in the soft tissue and spurs of broken off bone.* The skin often has multiple cuts: cuts that don't 'add' any value to the process of limb removal.* They might be interpreted as deliberate 'mutilation', but a simpler explanation is that the person didn't really know what they were doing and just sort of 'went for it'."

Dismemberment? Yes. Thames torso dismemberment? The exact opposite.


Biggs now says that:

"If you look at a series of unrelated dismembered bodies you will see some startling similarities between them. This does not mean you can conclude that they were carried out in the same way / with the same tool(s) / by the same person(s). "

And we know from before what Biggs thinks the similaritites owe to:

"It is not the presence of a common killer that is responsible for the similarities between cases, but the fact that bodies tend to have fairly obvious 'joins' to go for when attempting to reduce the size / bulk of a body."

So he is obviously not relying on the quality of the cutting work when thinking that similarities will be there, but instead on how our limbs are joined together at the same places. And he further confirms that this is what he is speaking about by now adding:

"When disposing of a body people (even without prior knowledge or instruction) tend to adopt very similar strategies for dividing up the body to make it more manageable for concealment / transportation. The finished results end up looking very similar!"

Yes, killers will all take a body apart at the same joints. But no, killers will NOT all do the same cutting work when doing so.

So there you are, Trevor: Thatīs a dismemberment of your posts on the torso cases and your reliance on Dr Biggs. All cuts neat and clean, and all of them taking your reasoning and beliefs apart in small parts to be dumped along the River of Ripperology.

You need to take the blinkers off and read it all again because as is the norm you only see what you want to see, and only accept what suits your own theory,anything else you make up some lame excuse for not accepting it.

As to dismemberment of a body he quite rightly says, and you should accept this that there are very few ways to cut up a body. Now you just sit and think if you were cutting up a body where would you start, the answer is quiet easy to work out. so why do you keep saying the cutting off the limbs on the torsos can be linked to one person?

As to dismemberment, I think he has dismembered your ridiculous theory that one killer killed all, and the same killer was responsible for the Whitechapel murders of 1888. In fact as I keep saying to you in relation to the 1887/1889 torsos murder cannot be proven.

If you want to read more from Dr Biggs then I suggest you purchase a copy of my book Jack the Ripper-The Secret Police Files, because it is clear that you haven't bothered to do so up until now, otherwise you would be more familiar with all that Dr Biggs says not only in relation to these torsos, but the Whitechapel murders as well.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,
Where can I find the reference to Dr Kempster?

Trow, Mei: "The Thames Torso Murders", Pen & Sword books, 2011, p. 92.

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott;381254]You need to take the blinkers off and read it all again because as is the norm you only see what you want to see, and only accept what suits your own theory,anything else you make up some lame excuse for not accepting it.

I am actually quoting your own source, Dr Biggs. If you think he is lame. so be it.

As to dismemberment of a body he quite rightly says, and you should accept this that there are very few ways to cut up a body.

On one level, I accept it: The underarm will be joined together with the overarm by the elbow, at the middle of the arm. So that is where you divide it.
Basically, this is what Biggs says too.

On the other hand, when you divide it, you can do it in a myriad of ways - you can saw it in pieces, you can tear it off, you can cut around the joint, and that cutting can involve any leel of skill and any level of cleanliness when it comes to the cuts.
And so on and so forth - here, there can be massive differences involved.

Now you just sit and think if you were cutting up a body where would you start, the answer is quiet easy to work out. so why do you keep saying the cutting off the limbs on the torsos can be linked to one person?

Because I would have no idea how to produce the correct types of cuts to facilitate dismembering. I would predispose that I needed to cut the flesh around the elbow, but I would not know how to do it optimally.
The Torso killer did, however, and he produced the correct types of cuts, and he did so without fraying the cuts at all. He did it in a manner that made Dr Galloway say that he had thorough experience of surgery.

As to dismemberment, I think he has dismembered your ridiculous theory that one killer killed all, and the same killer was responsible for the Whitechapel murders of 1888. In fact as I keep saying to you in relation to the 1887/1889 torsos murder cannot be proven.

It is the by far most reasonable conclusion and there is legally established reason for it since a number of the cases were judged to be murders.

If you want to read more from Dr Biggs then I suggest you purchase a copy of my book Jack the Ripper-The Secret Police Files, because it is clear that you haven't bothered to do so up until now, otherwise you would be more familiar with all that Dr Biggs says not only in relation to these torsos, but the Whitechapel murders as well.

If Biggs has something to say that would dissolve the notion that the Torso man was a unique killer, producing a unique series of killings, then I would certainly want to read it. But if there had been anything in that book to warrant a mindchange on my behalf, it would be odd if you had not produced it by now. You have not, however, so I will hold on to my money, Trevor.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor Marriott;381254]You need to take the blinkers off and read it all again because as is the norm you only see what you want to see, and only accept what suits your own theory,anything else you make up some lame excuse for not accepting it.

I am actually quoting your own source, Dr Biggs. If you think he is lame. so be it.

As to dismemberment of a body he quite rightly says, and you should accept this that there are very few ways to cut up a body.

On one level, I accept it: The underarm will be joined together with the overarm by the elbow, at the middle of the arm. So that is where you divide it.
Basically, this is what Biggs says too.

On the other hand, when you divide it, you can do it in a myriad of ways - you can saw it in pieces, you can tear it off, you can cut around the joint, and that cutting can involve any leel of skill and any level of cleanliness when it comes to the cuts.
And so on and so forth - here, there can be massive differences involved.

Now you just sit and think if you were cutting up a body where would you start, the answer is quiet easy to work out. so why do you keep saying the cutting off the limbs on the torsos can be linked to one person?

Because I would have no idea how to produce the correct types of cuts to facilitate dismembering. I would predispose that I needed to cut the flesh around the elbow, but I would not know how to do it optimally.
The Torso killer did, however, and he produced the correct types of cuts, and he did so without fraying the cuts at all. He did it in a manner that made Dr Galloway say that he had thorough experience of surgery.

As to dismemberment, I think he has dismembered your ridiculous theory that one killer killed all, and the same killer was responsible for the Whitechapel murders of 1888. In fact as I keep saying to you in relation to the 1887/1889 torsos murder cannot be proven.

It is the by far most reasonable conclusion and there is legally established reason for it since a number of the cases were judged to be murders.

If you want to read more from Dr Biggs then I suggest you purchase a copy of my book Jack the Ripper-The Secret Police Files, because it is clear that you haven't bothered to do so up until now, otherwise you would be more familiar with all that Dr Biggs says not only in relation to these torsos, but the Whitechapel murders as well.

If Biggs has something to say that would dissolve the notion that the Torso man was a unique killer, producing a unique series of killings, then I would certainly want to read it. But if there had been anything in that book to warrant a mindchange on my behalf, it would be odd if you had not produced it by now. You have not, however, so I will hold on to my money, Trevor.

Christer, you have totally lost the plot. One again your obsession has got the better of you. We saw it with the Lechmere fiasco now here it is again with the torsos. I cannot waste any more time discussing these torsos with you, as you are not taking in what is being said.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[harry]

I cannot dismiss the possibility that a fall could result in injuries so described.
I remember,though I cannot refer(so long ago),a case where the prosecution claimed two distinct injuries occurred,but it was later found the injuries could have been suffered by the head connecting to an object causeing the appearance of two separate wounds.From memory a two pronged farm implement?
Why does it have to be a single individual,or solely a male?
I'm with Trevor on this.What implies,without question,that murder was committed on any of the torso victims?

[Fisherman]

Christer, you have totally lost the plot. One again your obsession has got the better of you. We saw it with the Lechmere fiasco now here it is again with the torsos. I cannot waste any more time discussing these torsos with you, as you are not taking in what is being said.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Thereīs those "we" again - how many are lined up behind you in your imaginary army, Trevor?

I have always thought of you as a rather lonely person, when it comes to the assessment of the Ripper case.

You are unique in one way, Iīll give you that - no matter how much facts and evidence one pours over you, it floats right past your goosefeather armour and leaves no imprint whatsoever. You seem totally and utterly unfit to take in any other view than the ones you have decided on yourself.

If it had not been for what you decide on, that neednīt be a bad thing. However...!

[Fisherman]

I cannot dismiss the possibility that a fall could result in injuries so described.
I remember,though I cannot refer(so long ago),a case where the prosecution claimed two distinct injuries occurred,but it was later found the injuries could have been suffered by the head connecting to an object causeing the appearance of two separate wounds.From memory a two pronged farm implement?
Why does it have to be a single individual,or solely a male?
I'm with Trevor on this.What implies,without question,that murder was committed on any of the torso victims?

You are with Trevor on this...?

Bye.

No, wait...! Out of interest, how do you account for the fact that both killers cut away the abdominal wall in large sections on some of the victims? And that they both cut from ribs to pubes on a number of the victims? And that they both took out organs from their victims, sexually related as well as non-sexually related? And that they both showed knife skills that had medicos thinking that they had surgical knowledge and expertise, althought they never cut where a surgeon would have cut?

Let me guess: coincidence, sheer coincidence ...?

[John Wheat]

Harry are you suggesting the idea that a woman was moving the Torso's around? It doesn't seem likely to me.

[Debra A]

But Debra, thats just it, the facts do tend to point to that but you seem to want to interpret those facts differently.

Some more of what Dr Biggs says about these torsos. Here is some more from Dr Biggs for you and the other members on here of Murder Inc to digest,

"Considering the individual cases specifically, I have to say that I would always be concerned where separate parts are found in different locations and at different times. Nowadays we can link body parts through DNA to make sure we are dealing with a single individual, but back then they were relying on things 'fitting together'. It is possible (but I am not suggesting likely) that body parts attributed to a single 'case' in this series may in fact have come from more than one person"

"If we assume, however, that each 'case' is indeed just a single body then there are still some issues to address. In case I,(1887) there is a comment about the uterus being that of a virgin. Whilst a uterus looks different once it has carried children, an 'unused' uterus from a virgin can look identical to that from an 'experienced' owner who has not had any children. It is also unclear why they have suggested that the individual may have been unable to conceive. With regard to the cuts being made after death, it is probably a safe assumption (most dismemberments take place after death!), but relying on a lack of 'ecchymosis' is not necessarily safe in a body recovered from water. It is well recognised that immersion can leach out blood from wounds, making them look like post mortem injuries when they were in fact inflicted in life. Again, I am not suggesting that these cuts were made in life, I am just saying that the inferences of the doctors are perhaps not as secure as they seem to be. I think it is worth noting that comments relating to 'anatomical knowledge' or 'surgical skill' should be taken with a pinch of salt in these sorts of cases. I have seen surgeons and pathologists make a right mess of human anatomy, and I have seen 'amateurs' making a pretty good job of chopping up a body at their first attempt. Generalisations cannot be used to comment on specific cases, and I find their assumption that a surgeon or anatomist could not have done such a good job because they are not cutting as regularly as a hunter or butcher quite bizarre."

" The Whitehall Torso- I can recall one particular case of dismemberment in which I have been involved, where all the parts (six in total) turned up in different counties (some on land, some submerged in water) over a nearly 4 month period. We knew how many months the final part had been missing for, but we wouldn't have tried to 'guess' that time period simply by looking at how decomposed the tissues were! They also seem to think that the method of disarticulation was 'identical' to the previous case. If you look at a series of unrelated dismembered bodies you will see some startling similarities between them. This does not mean you can conclude that they were carried out in the same way / with the same tool(s) / by the same person(s). When disposing of a body people (even without prior knowledge or instruction) tend to adopt very similar strategies for dividing up the body to make it more manageable for concealment / transportation. The finished results end up looking very similar!"

In concluding he says

Despite there being apparently a lot of information about these torsos, there is actually little pathological information to determine how they died (or when) so I can't shed any light on that side of things I'm afraid. Dismemberment isn't that uncommon, and when it is seen it is usually (but not always!) the result of an attempt to conceal a homicide. Abortionists tended not to worry so much about concealing the fact that death occurred, but just made themselves scarce so they couldn't be linked to the woman after she was found (intact).

"The fact that one of the bodies had been pregnant certainly raises the possibility of complications of attempted abortion or other 'back street' obstetric procedure. Again, this is simply a possibility rather than something which can be 'proved' at this stage"

To the penultimte para I put the scenario that the victims might have died at the address of the abortionist in which case they would need to dispose of the body-Dr Biggs agreed on this.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But this isn't anything new Trevor to me, I've already seen these replies from Dr Biggs by email, as you know and these are exactly the things I have responded to in my points.

Have you told Dr biggs that the doctors in the Elizabeth Jackson case concluded at the inquest that NO abortion or vaginal birth had taken place after they examined the uterus, vagina and cervix and found them unchanged from a normal state? It is Dr Biggs response to those points that would be very interesting. I was told by a midwife that there would be tell-tale signs of vaginal birth on woman who had recently delivered a child at 7 months gestation and then died immediately.
Dr Bond had given evidence at the trials of a few criminal abortionists and he knew their methods and the damage often caused by attempts to bring on miscarriage, which usually involved the introduction of a sharp instrument into the uterus, though the cervix, via the vagina and more often than not violence was inflicted upon the abdomen.When women died during these types of procedures it was due to peritonitis or blood poisoning and death was not instant but many days later and normally while the woman was back in her own home. We know Elizabeth had only disappeared a couple of days earlier.Instant death was normally caused by the administering of poison in too large a quantity and I admit this is a possibility with Elizabeth but then the strange thing would be why the person who administered the poison would remove the foetus from the uterus after death.

In fact, let's move on with this-why don't you copy and paste the section above and ask Dr Biggs what he thinks about Bond's observations and conclusion on this particular aspect and then we will know once and for all.

Given his comments on the Whitehall torso it would also be interesting if you asked Dr Biggs what he makes about what Patricia Cornwall's expert , the head of UT Forensic School (home of the body farm) who suggested the Whitehall torso had been dead about 5 to 6 weeks, based on the maggots, state of decomposition etc. at a lecture she gave and he appeared at.

Thanks Trevor if you can copy this post exactly and ask Dr Biggs that would be great.

[Trevor Marriott]

But this isn't anything new Trevor to me, I've already seen these replies from Dr Biggs by email, as you know and these are exactly the things I have responded to in my points.

Have you told Dr Biggs that the doctors in the Elizabeth Jackson case concluded at the inquest that NO abortion or vaginal birth had taken place after they examined the uterus, vagina and cervix and found them unchanged from a normal state? It is Dr Biggs response to those points that would be very interesting. I was told by a midwife that there would be tell-tale signs of vaginal birth on woman who had recently delivered a child at 7 months gestation and then died immediately.
Dr Bond had given evidence at the trials of a few criminal abortionists and he knew their methods and the damage often caused by attempts to bring on miscarriage, which usually involved the introduction of a sharp instrument into the uterus, though the cervix, via the vagina and more often than not violence was inflicted upon the abdomen.When women died during these types of procedures it was due to peritonitis or blood poisoning and death was not instant but many days later and normally while the woman was back in her own home. We know Elizabeth had only disappeared a couple of days earlier.Instant death was normally caused by the administering of poison in too large a quantity and I admit this is a possibility with Elizabeth but then the strange thing would be why the person who administered the poison would remove the foetus from the uterus after death.

In fact, let's move on with this-why don't you copy and paste the section above and ask Dr Biggs what he thinks about Bond's observations and conclusion on this particular aspect and then we will know once and for all.

Given his comments on the Whitehall torso it would also be interesting if you asked Dr Biggs what he makes about what Patricia Cornwall's expert , the head of UT Forensic School (home of the body farm) who suggested the Whitehall torso had been dead about 5 to 6 weeks, based on the maggots, state of decomposition etc. at a lecture she gave and he appeared at.

Thanks Trevor if you can copy this post exactly and ask Dr Biggs that would be great.

If you recall as well as you previously providing Dr Biggs with the information on the torsos, you also provided the doctors comments, Dr Biggs previous replies are based on much of what you provided.

I am happy to put questions to Dr Biggs if you formulate them as specific questions, your post is all over the place.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Debra A]

If you recall as well as you previously providing Dr Biggs with the information on the torsos, you also provided the doctors comments, Dr Biggs previous replies are based on much of what you provided.

I am happy to put questions to Dr Biggs if you formulate them as specific questions, your post is all over the place.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I didn't provide him with the inquest information at all just the forensic material I passed to you that doesn't mention anything about what Dr Bond's final conclusion was. My post is not all over the place, it a description of what Dr Bond said he based his conclusion that no abortion had been performed on. It's no good just asking a question like 'could this pregnant woman's death be as the result of an abortion' without mentioning what Dr Bond concluded and why. That way Dr Biggs can assess whether or not Dr Bond would have been able to conclude there was no abortion performed from what he observed, or if it was guesswork as you and John G are always suggesting with these Victorian doctors opinions.
I would prefer that you just copy and paste my whole post for Dr Biggs to comment on, rather than ask a question if that's okay please .The whole reason none of our specific questions are ever answered is because of the way they are simplified without background information in your emails.

And I would also like to know what he thinks of the expert Patricia Cornwall used to back her up in saying the Whitehall torso had been dead 5 to 6 weeks going by the stage of decomposition (as Bond said) given that Dr Biggs said it is impossible to determine this by looking at the state of the remains. The head of UT Forensic School must surely even satisfy John G enough to be classed as an expert! So why the difference in opinions over this. It would be interesting to know.

[Errata]

It takes many hours for a cervix dilated from vaginal delivery to constrict back to normal. It takes hours to dilate in the first place. It doesn't just slam shut. Additionally, a back alley abortion is accomplished by taking a sharp object like a knitting needle, forcing it through the cervix and puncturing the amniotic sac. Which prompts delivery of the fetus within a few hours. That leaves telltale marks on the cervix, and often enough fatalities occurred when the needle punctured the uterine wall. It's not a delicate or straightforward procedure.

Docs knew this. If there was no sign of this, then the only abortion she could have tried was chemical, which is not usually attended by an abortionist. Or it didn't happen at all.

[Debra A]

Also to Trevor, Maybe you can answer this:

I do think that the way Elizabeth Jackson was opened up from chest to pubes is how she would have been opened up had a post mortem been performed on her, and in addition, I suspect that dead pregnant women would also have their uterus emptied of it's contents to determine if there was anything that contributed to the death. To do that an incision would have to be made into the uterus post mortem, just like the incision Bond obseved into Elizabeth's uterus and concluded had been done to remove the foetus after death.

One thing though-post mortems were official procedures ordered by the coroner to be undertaken to determine the cause of a sudden or unexpected death. That means that the death was known about if a post mortem was ordered and the results recorded along with the details of the death. In that case there would be no mystery about Elizabeth's death as it would be a matter on record.

Perhaps someone just imagined they were conducting a post mortem...

Edit to add that : I know that besides coroner's orders, hospitals also did post mortems independently when cause of death was known as research into disease, but hospital or infirmary would also have paperwork on this and also there was no apparent signs of disease in Elizabeth's body to show a cause of death from illness.

[Debra A]

It takes many hours for a cervix dilated from vaginal delivery to constrict back to normal. It takes hours to dilate in the first place. It doesn't just slam shut. Additionally, a back alley abortion is accomplished by taking a sharp object like a knitting needle, forcing it through the cervix and puncturing the amniotic sac. Which prompts delivery of the fetus within a few hours. That leaves telltale marks on the cervix, and often enough fatalities occurred when the needle punctured the uterine wall. It's not a delicate or straightforward procedure.

Docs knew this. If there was no sign of this, then the only abortion she could have tried was chemical, which is not usually attended by an abortionist. Or it didn't happen at all.

Hi Errata, spot on! Thanks you for your very sensible input into this.