Torso Murders

[Fisherman]

You have got carried away with this term flaps of skin. The easy explanation is that this was all part of the dismemberment process of which you cannot disprove.

We have no photos, nor do we have any other descriptions which can show us that they were cut all specifically made by the same person in the same way. It is just how you want to interpret what you have read.

It is strange that Dr Biggs read exactly the same things you did but he cannot see any connection. Shall I remind you what he says again because he was asked a specific question as whether they showed the work of a singular killer

Q. You have perused the post mortem reports from both the Kelly Murder and Elizabeth Jackson whose body is believed to have been one of the Thames Torsos. In your professional opinion are there any comparisons, which you can see which might indicate that they were killed and mutilated by the same person? In particular the doctors reports which mention flaps of skin being removed in both cases.

A. I don't think the removal of 'flaps' of tissue can be taken as evidence of a 'signature' of the killer. By signature, I am including both the intentional (i.e. 'calling card') and unintentional (habit, MO) interpretations of the word. Essentially, these two individuals could have been killed by the same person, or by different individuals. There is no way of telling one scenario from the other based purely on the pattern of body dismemberment.

Even the Victorian doctors could not prove a singular killer.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

We all know what Biggs thought the flaps were - collateral damage. And you are of the same meaning, obviously, writing that they were "part of the dismemberment".

They were, to be sure - but they were intentionally cut away. You do not "happen to" cut away the abdominal wall in large sections. If it was to happen once (which would be utterly odd and very nearly impossible), we can be totally certain that it would never happen twice.

But it DID happen twice with Jackson, three times with Kelly and four with Chapman. And I am still awaiting your explanation to how it came about!

I donīt care that you try to paint me out as posessed with the idea that the Torsos were serial killings. I mean, what else can you do, given that I have all the rational reasoning whereas you have a stillborn idea about failed abortions?

So by all means, go on arguing your case. I am quite content about how things are going,

[jerryd]

He doesn't discount murder the same as he doesn't discount other means of death/ He says :

"It is interesting that one of the cases was in an advanced stage of pregnancy... goes with what you said before about the potential explanation that some of the cases may have been abortionists disposing of 'failures'"

The fact is as I have been saying continually you cannot prove a murder.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor,

You can't prove it wasn't a murder, either. So why continually belittle those that think murder is a possibility? Personally, I see a lot more evidence that weighs toward murder than not, including the verdicts in three of the torso cases of "Wilful murder".

[Trevor Marriott]

So why are you so emphatic that Dr Biggs discounts the idea that Jackson could have been murdered, Trevor?

He doesn't discount murder the same as he doesn't discount other means of death/ He says :

"It is interesting that one of the cases was in an advanced stage of pregnancy... goes with what you said before about the potential explanation that some of the cases may have been abortionists disposing of 'failures'"

The fact is as I have been saying continually you cannot prove a murder.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[jerryd]

Essentially, these two individuals could have been killed by the same person -Dr Biggs-

So why are you so emphatic that Dr Biggs discounts the idea that Jackson could have been murdered, Trevor?

[Trevor Marriott]

By hitting low?

Well, that suits you eminently, Trevor!

Explain to me why Jackson, Chapman and Kelly had their abdominal walls removed in large panes, Trevor.

It should be interesting. Or maybe "entertaining" is the more appropriate term...

You have got carried away with this term flaps of skin. The easy explanation is that this was all part of the dismemberment process of which you cannot disprove.

We have no photos, nor do we have any other descriptions which can show us that they were cut all specifically made by the same person in the same way. It is just how you want to interpret what you have read.

It is strange that Dr Biggs read exactly the same things you did but he cannot see any connection. Shall I remind you what he says again because he was asked a specific question as whether they showed the work of a singular killer

Q. You have perused the post mortem reports from both the Kelly Murder and Elizabeth Jackson whose body is believed to have been one of the Thames Torsos. In your professional opinion are there any comparisons, which you can see which might indicate that they were killed and mutilated by the same person? In particular the doctors reports which mention flaps of skin being removed in both cases.

A. I don't think the removal of 'flaps' of tissue can be taken as evidence of a 'signature' of the killer. By signature, I am including both the intentional (i.e. 'calling card') and unintentional (habit, MO) interpretations of the word. Essentially, these two individuals could have been killed by the same person, or by different individuals. There is no way of telling one scenario from the other based purely on the pattern of body dismemberment.

Even the Victorian doctors could not prove a singular killer.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[John Wheat]

I see you are still at it, making it up as you go along !!!!!!!!!!:

You have to some become a casebook shepherd, with a flock of sheep following you, hanging on your every word. Shame your journey is only heading one way, that to the slaughter house.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I hope your not suggesting I am following Fisherman and hanging on his every word. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact Fisherman and I disagree on who Jack the Ripper was. However I do agree with Fisherman on the Torso Victims being a set of victims that were murdered and dismembered because he's right.

[Fisherman]

How do you play a low ball ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

By hitting low?

Well, that suits you eminently, Trevor!

Explain to me why Jackson, Chapman and Kelly had their abdominal walls removed in large panes, Trevor.

It should be interesting. Or maybe "entertaining" is the more appropriate term...

[Trevor Marriott]

Play the ball, not the man, Trev.

How do you play a low ball ?

This ridiculous torso serial killer theory should be dead and buried with the torsos themselves.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Harry D]

I see you are still at it, making it up as you go along !!!!!!!!!!:

You have to some become a casebook shepherd, with a flock of sheep following you, hanging on your every word. Shame your journey is only heading one way, that to the slaughter house.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Play the ball, not the man, Trev.

[Trevor Marriott]

What I am wondering is why anybody clearing away prostitutes who had accidentally died from a brothel, would take care to very meticulously cut the joints open, leaving no frays or tears at all, why he/they would cut away hands from one side but not from the other, underarms from one side but not from the other, underlegs from one side but not from the other, why the cuts would be straight and skilled...?
Furthermore, would not people like these be likely to try and hide what they had done, instead of floating the evidence down the Thames? Even if they did not know that the parcels would float, they should have learnt it at their first effort.
And why would they cut the face away from one accidentally dead woman? Why would they cut away the abdomen in flaps from another?

The simple truth is that it is very unlikely that there was more than one cutter involved. The simple truth is that the cutting as such meant something to the cutter. The simple truth is that we are looking at a series of murders where there was an element of cutting involved that meant a lot to the killer, and that he consciously displayed what he had done.

I see you are still at it, making it up as you go along !!!!!!!!!!:

You have to some become a casebook shepherd, with a flock of sheep following you, hanging on your every word. Shame your journey is only heading one way, that to the slaughter house.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Abby Normal]

Absolutely Fisherman. There is no other reasonable explanation for the Torso Victims than a serial killer.

Agree John and fish.
Why would anyone in a brothel get themselves involved in a murder anyway?
A client kills a prostitute. The owner calls the police.
Or
A client kills a prostitute. The owner aids the murderer in cutting up the body, taking out organs, slashing the abdomen, dumping/displaying parts all about town,seven times, all in similar fashion, now putting the noose around his neck??

This is getting silly.

It's a serial killer with a thing for killing and cutting up women and as you say it has specific meaning to him as does the dumping method.

[John Wheat]

Absolutely Fisherman. There is no other reasonable explanation for the Torso Victims than a serial killer.

[Fisherman]

What I am wondering is why anybody clearing away prostitutes who had accidentally died from a brothel, would take care to very meticulously cut the joints open, leaving no frays or tears at all, why he/they would cut away hands from one side but not from the other, underarms from one side but not from the other, underlegs from one side but not from the other, why the cuts would be straight and skilled...?
Furthermore, would not people like these be likely to try and hide what they had done, instead of floating the evidence down the Thames? Even if they did not know that the parcels would float, they should have learnt it at their first effort.
And why would they cut the face away from one accidentally dead woman? Why would they cut away the abdomen in flaps from another?

The simple truth is that it is very unlikely that there was more than one cutter involved. The simple truth is that the cutting as such meant something to the cutter. The simple truth is that we are looking at a series of murders where there was an element of cutting involved that meant a lot to the killer, and that he consciously displayed what he had done.

[Pcdunn]

Rough trade is not traditionally a longevity game. Women would work it for a few weeks until they couldn't take it anymore, or they were so marked up they became unattractive to customers. Subs at least. Doms had staying power. But it was a desperation game to show up at a rough trade brothel and work for a few weeks. And of course these brothels were carefully hidden, as were the workers. So it's possible Jackson was working despite her pregnancy, and no one knew about it.

Right, and when she couldn't conceal it any longer, she was disposed of permanently, instead of being turned out on the street, as they wouldn't have wanted any witnesses. If the police can't identify a body, there won't be questions asked...

[jerryd]

Jerry

I would hazard a guess that this is because he is unable to find evidence that the killer he suspects was in London in 1888.

Therefore discard the bits of the theory which may cause a problem!



Steve

Is that Pierre's answer? He hasn't cared to reply, so I'm assuming he agrees with you, Steve?