Torso Murders

[Debra A]

Debra
The questions that needed to be asked have been asked, whether you like or accept those and the answers is a matter for you.

With you in mind, further questions and information has been provided to Dr Biggs. I like you will await his answers then I hope all of this can be put to bed once and for all and we can get back to calling these torsos the Thames Torso Mysteries instead of all this rubbish about a serial killer being at work.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I have very little faith in the fact that you will have asked questions relevant or specific to what I would like Dr Biggs to comment on-namely the validity of Bond's opinions when he concluded there was no abortion or vaginal birth based on his observations of the cervix and vagina in Elizabeth Jacksons case and lack of signs of damage and what he means by 'other obstetric procedures' may have been the cause and why they would require a 'back street' operative when it was criminal abortion that was illegal, not obstetric procedures full stop.

[Trevor Marriott]

I have very little faith in the fact that you will have asked questions relevant or specific to what I would like Dr Biggs to comment on-namely the validity of Bond's opinions when he concluded there was no abortion or vaginal birth based on his observations of the cervix and vagina in Elizabeth Jacksons case and lack of signs of damage and what he means by 'other obstetric procedures' may have been the cause and why they would require a 'back street' operative when it was criminal abortion that was illegal, not obstetric procedures full stop.

The fact is we do not know what went on in 1888. But I am puzzled as to how suddenly the abortion issue was dropped when clearly it was first suggested ?

"Dr Bond was instantly of the opinion that the body part was that of a young woman and that an attempt had been made to carry out an illegal operation, which had been successful"

The general consensus was that the victim's identity was destroyed to shield the person or persons involved in the operation.

"There were no signs of any instruments being used to effect this, and the removal of the foetus had definitely occurred after the death of the mother."

Q. How did they know that the foetus had been removed after death ?

Bond says no instruments were used, yet the foetus was cut out of the uterus this testimony is unreliable it is contradictory.

To rule out an obstetric procedure is very naive of you

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Debra A]

The fact is we do not know what went on in 1888. But I am puzzled as to how suddenly the abortion issue was dropped when clearly it was first suggested ?

"Dr Bond was instantly of the opinion that the body part was that of a young woman and that an attempt had been made to carry out an illegal operation, which had been successful"

The general consensus was that the victim's identity was destroyed to shield the person or persons involved in the operation.

"There were no signs of any instruments being used to effect this, and the removal of the foetus had definitely occurred after the death of the mother."

Q. How did they know that the foetus had been removed after death ?

Bond says no instruments were used, yet the foetus was cut out of the uterus this testimony is unreliable it is contradictory.

To rule out an obstetric procedure is very naive of you

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I already explained the context to those comments Trevor, but here we go again: It was the newspapers that reported that Dr Bond was first of the opinion that an illegal operation had been performed-this was reported after the first find, a find of a parcel that contained a uterus and apendeges, placenta, large slips of skin and underlying tissue from the abdomen. Obviously this caused the natural thought that an abortion had occurred. Dr Bond made no official comment on this, it was just reported in the newspapers that that was his thought. Later, when several other body parts turned up Bond was able to inspect the vagina and cervix and determine that no vaginal birth had occurred. Abortion practices in those days involved the use of an instrument introduced into the uterus via the vagina and cervix to induce labour and the aborted foetus would be 'born' the usual way. This is abortion.
Dr Bond said no instruments used in abortion practices had been used i.e no instrument had been introduced into the uterus via the vagina and cervix as was the method used by criminal abortionists. This was his final conclusion given officially at inquest.
If there had been no vaginal birth, the only way Elizabeth's foetus could have been removed from her uterus while she was still alive would be a caesarian section, which involves a incision in both abdomen and uterus. Elizabeth was not at full term in her pregnancy so what you seem to be suggesting is that she had a back street caesarian?! If a 'back street' operative had attempted a ceasarian then he had to have been delusional as it involved skilled surgery, hardly comparable to an attempt at inducing labour.

Perhaps if you could explain who you imagine these back street operatives were. Doctors? Quacks?

I don't have a clue what 'obstetric procedures' you imagine back street operatives carried out and for what reason they did it on the back streets and you haven't given any examples. Abortions were done this way as it was an illegal procedure and so necessitated secrecy. If Elizabeth had required a caesarian for any reason she could have just turned up at the Infirmary and had it done for free. Death from a caesarian in a hospital or infirmary would have been classed as a legitimate cause of death and so there would be no need for any cloak and dagger stuff to cover up anything.

[Joshua Rogan]

The abdomen was cut down the centre but the foetus removed from the uterus by a cut through the left wall. Doesn't that suggest that the uterus was no longer in the abdomen, or the flaps of skin had already been removed?

[Fisherman]

Dr Biggs was asked to compare the case of both Kelly and Jackson he says

"In summary, I don't think (from what I have read) that there are sufficient similarities between the cases to conclude that the same 'killer' dismembered the bodies"

But of course Christer you are a far more experienced medical expert to conclude otherwise !!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

...the poignant matter being the words "from what I have read".

If you could stuff your reoccurring "you are not a medical expert" somewhere the sun does not shine, I would be grateful. I am allowed to have a view, and that view is based on a much more thorough knowledge of the cases as such than Biggs has ever been close to having.

[Fisherman]

I don't understand how that is a comparison between MJK and Elizabeth Jackson when Kelly was not dismembered. It's a generalisation about dismemberment murders looking similar as far as I can see.

Yes, but you are not a medical expert, Debra...!

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,
I haven't suggested a victim fell on anything.All I have outlined is that certain implements might suggest two blows,when only one was suffered.
As to coincidence,similarities are present on many occasions,in different crimes.Two victims shot in the back of the head by the same type of weapon,shows similarities,even if shot by different people.What has that got to do with the torso mysteries.None really,but it answers your question.

How many people are shot in the back of the head each year?

And how many people have their abdominal walls cut away in large flaps by eviscerators each year?

There are coincidences and there are coincidences, Harry...

[John Wheat]

...the poignant matter being the words "from what I have read".

If you could stuff your reoccurring "you are not a medical expert" somewhere the sun does not shine, I would be grateful.

[John Wheat]

Perhaps if you could explain who you imagine these back street operatives were. Doctors? Quacks?

Yes who were these Doctors? Quacks? Francis Tumblety?

[Abby Normal]

Obviously the whole problem with the dr. Biggs debate is that he has minimal knowledge of the torso/ripper cases and what info that comes to and from him is via the warped filter of Trevor.

So unless Dr, Biggs wants to come on here directly and/or learn first hand himself about the cases its absolutely pointless to keep debating referring to him.

[Trevor Marriott]

I already explained the context to those comments Trevor, but here we go again: It was the newspapers that reported that Dr Bond was first of the opinion that an illegal operation had been performed-this was reported after the first find, a find of a parcel that contained a uterus and apendeges, placenta, large slips of skin and underlying tissue from the abdomen. Obviously this caused the natural thought that an abortion had occurred. Dr Bond made no official comment on this, it was just reported in the newspapers that that was his thought. Later, when several other body parts turned up Bond was able to inspect the vagina and cervix and determine that no vaginal birth had occurred. Abortion practices in those days involved the use of an instrument introduced into the uterus via the vagina and cervix to induce labour and the aborted foetus would be 'born' the usual way. This is abortion.
Dr Bond said no instruments used in abortion practices had been used i.e no instrument had been introduced into the uterus via the vagina and cervix as was the method used by criminal abortionists. This was his final conclusion given officially at inquest.
If there had been no vaginal birth, the only way Elizabeth's foetus could have been removed from her uterus while she was still alive would be a caesarian section, which involves a incision in both abdomen and uterus. Elizabeth was not at full term in her pregnancy so what you seem to be suggesting is that she had a back street caesarian?! If a 'back street' operative had attempted a ceasarian then he had to have been delusional as it involved skilled surgery, hardly comparable to an attempt at inducing labour.

Perhaps if you could explain who you imagine these back street operatives were. Doctors? Quacks?

I don't have a clue what 'obstetric procedures' you imagine back street operatives carried out and for what reason they did it on the back streets and you haven't given any examples. Abortions were done this way as it was an illegal procedure and so necessitated secrecy. If Elizabeth had required a caesarian for any reason she could have just turned up at the Infirmary and had it done for free. Death from a caesarian in a hospital or infirmary would have been classed as a legitimate cause of death and so there would be no need for any cloak and dagger stuff to cover up anything.

I am not even going to attempt to speculate on what did or did not go on in 1888 with regards to prostitutes or anyone else getting pregnant who did not or could not afford to have a baby, or died from any other back street procedure or anything noxious administered to them in the course of any procedure.

It is a known fact that there were back street abortionists, what other medical procedures they also involved themselves in is a matter for conjecture, but administering a noxious substance to facilitate an abortion is one that I would suggest was also prevalent back then.

As you also know there are many other complications that a pregnant woman might encounter for which in 1888 they may choose to not go to a normal doctor.

C Sections were in their infancy back then with a very high mortality rate 85% and the midline transverse incision technique was still being developed so abdomens were opened mainly from top to bottom to get the baby out.

For your further information I am also forwarding all the stuff on Jackson to my consultant gynaecologist.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Obviously the whole problem with the dr. Biggs debate is that he has minimal knowledge of the torso/ripper cases and what info that comes to and from him is via the warped filter of Trevor.

So unless Dr, Biggs wants to come on here directly and/or learn first hand himself about the cases its absolutely pointless to keep debating referring to him.

Touché, Abby - Dr Biggs is in all probability both knowledgeable and a very nice and helpful man, but when I mention the abdominal flaps and get a tongue of skin between two unsuccesfully divided slabs of meat in return, I think it is pretty obvious that the good doctor has been woefully underinformed.

But then again I am no medical expert...

[Trevor Marriott]

Obviously the whole problem with the dr. Biggs debate is that he has minimal knowledge of the torso/ripper cases and what info that comes to and from him is via the warped filter of Trevor.

So unless Dr, Biggs wants to come on here directly and/or learn first hand himself about the cases its absolutely pointless to keep debating referring to him.

Let me tell you Miss Know all I have gone out of my way and spent a lot of time trying to get expert opinions on these and other medical issues only for the likes of you and other members of murder inc on here to totally disregard them in favour of you own theories and what you have all read in medical books.

There has been no warped filters and I object to that insinuation. The fact is you and some others on here cannot handle the truth, and dont want the truth destroying your theories and that is sad.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Errata]

For your further information I am also forwarding all the stuff on Jackson to my consultant gynaecologist.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I have a consultant gynecologist. Granted I was raised by him so the relationship is not professional, but..

Dad says in the 1880s, and the twenty year periods bracketing that that time, There were exactly two ob/gyn surgeries practiced. The early medical (as opposed to panicked) c-sections, and hysterectomies. And the c-sections were also hysterectomies, as they mostly just cut out the entire uterus and then freed the infant. Sealing the uterus from infection was a real problem, so typically they didn't bother. Not until the late teens.

Also abdominal problems that required surgery during pregnancy also almost always resulted in hysterectomy. If you got appendicitis while pregnant in 1888, odds are the doctor was not even going to try to save the pregnancy or the uterus. And not from some sort of sexism, although that did exist, but because it was simply too difficult a surgery. A pregnant uterus is hard to shift, it takes over the surgical field, it is very susceptible to scarring should digestive juices leak... it was a real mess. Take the plumbing, save a life was the rule of the day.

Free hospitals existed for these patients. They were cesspools, but they existed. There was no reason to see a back alley guy for an appendix or legal medical need, unless you were picking up a liniment from a granny you knew.

Medical abortions, or chemical abortions involve ingesting substances that stimulate smooth muscle contractions. Rue was quite popular at one point, lots of things can do it, it's finding ones that wont kill you that is the problem. It's really unpleasant. Lots of vomiting. Diarrhea, it can be a real show. But these would be purchased, and the women were instructed to take it before bed, and allow the expulsion to look like a normal miscarriage. No questions, no red flags. These were absolutely not attended. People chose this method specifically so it would look natural, it was incredibly dangerous, and the whole thing would have been rendered moot by an abortionist hanging out and waiting for 6-18 hours for this to finish. Women died from this method as well, typically by stroke or asphyxia depending on what they took. Without testing, these deaths would be written off as accidents.

When Planned Parenthood was first founded, some of the early pioneers of the reproductive rights movement documented hundreds of cases of abortion horror stories, bungled birth control, back alley stuff. They are referenced in a lot of the early correspondence of the movements, and those are available. The stories are not dated, but the letters are, some go back to 1914. It's an interesting look at reproductive care of the era.

[Fisherman]

Touché, Abby - Dr Biggs is in all probability both knowledgeable and a very nice and helpful man, but when I mention the abdominal flaps and get a tongue of skin between two unsuccesfully divided slabs of meat in return, I think it is pretty obvious that the good doctor has been woefully underinformed.

But then again I am no medical expert...

In addition to this, Abby, I would like to add that Trevor himself is not as up to scratch as one would have wanted. The old Brueghel painting of blind people leading each other in a long chain springs to mind.