Torso Murders

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott: You still cannot prove an identical system with regards to the cutting of the flaps of skin. All you have is the fact that flaps of skin were cut and having been cut they were removed, a natural progression in the dismemberment process?

Nope. A "normal" dismemberment is carried out to facilitate the transport or hiding of a body. Itīs the classical case of cutting off the head and limbs in order to fit a body into a suitcase.

This is something different. Removing the abdominal wall does nothing to facilitate the transport or hiding of a body.

The internal organs can be reached and excised by cutting the abdomen open. There is no need at all to remove the abdominal wall to do that.

So once again, this is something radically different. I think you will struggle to find any other reason for cutting away the abdominal wall than a wish to do precisely that.

Plus - which you avoid to realize - nobody is speaking of "an identical system" of removing the abdominal flaps.

As we know Victorian doctors said a lot in 1888 which the public believed which we now know was at times guesswork.

Exactly what is it you propose was guesswork? That the abdominal wall was cut away? No? Good.

Then what?

How can a doctor give evidence as to what a butcher may or may not be able to do to a human body. It would be for a butcher to give evidence to say he could be capable of that act.`

A doctor can read up on and study what a butcher does and how he does it. Thatīs how, Trevor.

That is why I used the service of a master butcher to prove or disprove this. He disproves it.

He "disproves" what, Trevor? Remember that "disprove" is an absolute term, so tread carefully here.

You still have not said what you think happened to the torso victims. You still have not said what use it would be to take away the abdominal wall in combination with any sort of operation.

We are getting curious now, Trevor. Letīs hear it!

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes I'd like to know what you think happened to these victims Trevor.

I will answer this question in detail when I get back replies to questions put to Dr Biggs and another expert, a consultant gynaecologist.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor Marriott: You still cannot prove an identical system with regards to the cutting of the flaps of skin. All you have is the fact that flaps of skin were cut and having been cut they were removed, a natural progression in the dismemberment process?

Nope. A "normal" dismemberment is carried out to facilitate the transport or hiding of a body. Itīs the classical case of cutting off the head and limbs in order to fit a body into a suitcase.

This is something different. Removing the abdominal wall does nothing to facilitate the transport or hiding of a body.

The internal organs can be reached and excised by cutting the abdomen open. There is no need at all to remove the abdominal wall to do that.

So once again, this is something radically different. I think you will struggle to find any other reason for cutting away the abdominal wall than a wish to do precisely that.

Plus - which you avoid to realize - nobody is speaking of "an identical system" of removing the abdominal flaps.

As we know Victorian doctors said a lot in 1888 which the public believed which we now know was at times guesswork.

Exactly what is it you propose was guesswork? That the abdominal wall was cut away? No? Good.

Then what?

How can a doctor give evidence as to what a butcher may or may not be able to do to a human body. It would be for a butcher to give evidence to say he could be capable of that act.`

A doctor can read up on and study what a butcher does and how he does it. Thatīs how, Trevor.

That is why I used the service of a master butcher to prove or disprove this. He disproves it.

He "disproves" what, Trevor? Remember that "disprove" is an absolute term, so tread carefully here.

You still have not said what you think happened to the torso victims. You still have not said what use it would be to take away the abdominal wall in combination with any sort of operation.

We are getting curious now, Trevor. Letīs hear it!

I will answer your questions when you prove to me conclusively that the four torsos found between 1887/89 were murdered with evidence to show that fact. I wont hold my breath !!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

I will answer your questions when you prove to me conclusively that the four torsos found between 1887/89 were murdered with evidence to show that fact. I wont hold my breath !!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Ah, Trevor - what a shame! We all know that there is no conclusive evidence that the torso women were killed. There is circumstatial evidence only, but that circumstantial evidence was quite enough to conclude wilful murder in three of the cases back in the late nineteenth century.

I think it is a bit cowardly to avoid answering my questions on account of that - what you are basically saying, is that you will never answer them, since there will never be conclusive evidence of murder.

Like I said, that is a shame. And it will look to most people as if you have no answer to offer.

Which makes sense.

[Trevor Marriott]

Ah, Trevor - what a shame! We all know that there is no conclusive evidence that the torso women were killed. There is circumstatial evidence only, but that circumstantial evidence was quite enough to conclude wilful murder in three of the cases back in the late nineteenth century.

I think it is a bit cowardly to avoid answering my questions on account of that - what you are basically saying, is that you will never answer them, since there will never be conclusive evidence of murder.

Like I said, that is a shame. And it will look to most people as if you have no answer to offer.

Which makes sense.

No point in trying to discuss a murder when you cant prove one !

[Debra A]

Does found drowned justify an open verdict being recorded? I am sure back then as they can today determine if a body was dead before it entered the water?

In the case of Jackson, the flaps of skin as you have pointed out were attached to other organs, which as I have suggested was simply a part of the dismemberment process and not done as a specific individual act.

In the case of Kelly it is different Dr Bonds says

"The skin & tissues of the abdomen from the costal arch to the pubes were removed in three large flaps. ( no mention of organs being attached)

Then he refers to another flap of skin
"The right thigh was denuded in front to the bone, the flap of skin, including the external organs of generation & part of the right buttock."

Annie Chapman as described by a non medical man

"2 flaps of skin from the lower abdomen lay in a large quantity of blood above the left shoulder" (No idea of size etc could have been small or could have been large)

I cannot see how you, or anyone can say that there are strong similarities regarding these flaps of skin, which you say, as do others that link all those three victims.

The term flaps of skin is clearly a common medical term and is and was a term widely used by the victorian doctors and is still used today.

Some other examples of the use of the term flap of skin

1879 murder of a Mrs Thomas by her servant Kate Webster who after murdering her cut the body up and disposed of most it in the thames, But before doing so put some bones and flaps of skin in a bag and a box depositing them in the Thames. They were found !

Another murder where the same term was used

"Owens had been stabbed 38 times in the neck, chest, and back, his penis slashed but still appended to his body by a bloody flap of skin.

Mr Tame suffered severe injuries including broken bones and a severe head wound which opened a flap of skin on his head.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

How could they differentiate between someone who accidentally fell in, was thrown in while alive, or threw themselves in as a suicide? They could determine if someone was dead before they went in the water because of the state of the lungs.

[Fisherman]

No point in trying to discuss a murder when you cant prove one !

No point in leading a horse to water if it will not drink. Three of these cases are legally described murder cases, recorded as murders and accepted generally as murders.

If you cannot defend our take, just say so.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;382091]Trevor Marriott: You still cannot prove an identical system with regards to the cutting of the flaps of skin. All you have is the fact that flaps of skin were cut and having been cut they were removed, a natural progression in the dismemberment process?

[B]Nope. A "normal" dismemberment is carried out to facilitate the transport or hiding of a body. Itīs the classical case of cutting off the head and limbs in order to fit a body into a suitcase.

This is something different. Removing the abdominal wall does nothing to facilitate the transport or hiding of a body.

The internal organs can be reached and excised by cutting the abdomen open. There is no need at all to remove the abdominal wall to do that.

So once again, this is something radically different.

Yes, it is. And it is not Lechmere.

Regards, Pierre

[Fisherman]

Yes, it is. And it is not Lechmere.

Regards, Pierre

Are you trying to annoy me, Pierre, or what? I think this is an utterly immature and pointless post of yours. If you have somthing to support your ideas, then spit it out; put up or shut up.

You really need to consider doing something else than ripperology...

[Trevor Marriott]

How could they differentiate between someone who accidentally fell in, was thrown in while alive, or threw themselves in as a suicide? They could determine if someone was dead before they went in the water because of the state of the lungs.

Oh so you reckon the best part of 547 toros/body parts fished out of the thames were as a result of victims being thrown in or suicides by drowning ? I am sure some were.

But if bodies were intact there would be no problem for the doctors would there, drowning, suicide, easy to determine cause of death. But the open verdict figures tell us that it was not the case in those open verdicts. otherwise they would not have been open.

We dont know the ratio of males or females or dismembered corpses, but what we are told is that body parts and dismembered bodies were quite common.

So as they were quite common you highlight only 4 cases in 3 years, a drop in the ocean are they not amongst the many cases, or should I say a drop in the thames.

With all you research expertise I am surprised you haven't uncovered details of other dismembered corpses and body parts so we can see what the verdicts were on those and look at those in the same way these 4 torsos are being looked at

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Oh so you reckon the best part of 547 toros/body parts fished out of the thames were as a result of victims being thrown in or suicides by drowning ? I am sure some were.

But if bodies were intact there would be no problem for the doctors would there, drowning, suicide, easy to determine cause of death. But the open verdict figures tell us that it was not the case in those open verdicts. otherwise they would not have been open.

We dont know the ratio of males or females or dismembered corpses, but what we are told is that body parts and dismembered bodies were quite common.

So as they were quite common you highlight only 4 cases in 3 years, a drop in the ocean are they not amongst the many cases, or should I say a drop in the thames.

With all you research expertise I am surprised you haven't uncovered details of other dismembered corpses and body parts so we can see what the verdicts were on those and look at those in the same way these 4 torsos are being looked at

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Now, thereīs a worthy cause for you, Trevor: Just find all those dismemberment cases that did not belong to the Thames Torso series - but were nevertheless examples of very clean cutting and straight angles, no fraying and so on, combined with evisceration.

Find them, and Debra will look silly. So will I, by the way.

Iīm sure you can do it. Who knows, you may perhaps even find the odd cut away abdominal wall too!

[Joshua Rogan]

Oh so you reckon the best part of 547 toros/body parts fished out of the thames were as a result of victims being thrown in or suicides by drowning ? I am sure some were.

But if bodies were intact there would be no problem for the doctors would there, drowning, suicide, easy to determine cause of death. But the open verdict figures tell us that it was not the case in those open verdicts. otherwise they would not have been open.

For a verdict of suicide, doesn't there have to be some evidence of intent? So unless they left a note, or someone had seen the deceased jumping into the water, an open verdict seems the most likely.

[Fisherman]

For a verdict of suicide, doesn't there have to be some evidence of intent? So unless they left a note, or someone had seen the deceased jumping into the water, an open verdict seems the most likely.

If Trevor wants to believe that the victorian medicos could tell a suicidal drowning from an accidental one, then I suggest we let him do so; he is normally not very generous towards the victorian medicos so this makes for a welcome change...

[Trevor Marriott]

Now, thereīs a worthy cause for you, Trevor: Just find all those dismemberment cases that did not belong to the Thames Torso series - but were nevertheless examples of very clean cutting and straight angles, no fraying and so on, combined with evisceration.

Find them, and Debra will look silly. So will I, by the way.

Iīm sure you can do it. Who knows, you may perhaps even find the odd cut away abdominal wall too!

I have no need to find them, but you do to add weight to your misguided theory. I already mentioned another detected murder of a female in 1879 by another female, where the body was dismembered and parts thrown in the Thames. So you see bodies and body parts were a common thing turning up in the Thames. In this case flaps of skin were also described, and were seemingly described on many other occasions. So the term flaps of skin is nothing that links all 4 torsos.

Dr Biggs told you that there are only so many ways to cut up a body.

Clean cuts are obtained with a sharp knife, even you must comprehend that ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Debra A]

Oh so you reckon the best part of 547 toros/body parts fished out of the thames were as a result of victims being thrown in or suicides by drowning ? I am sure some were.

But if bodies were intact there would be no problem for the doctors would there, drowning, suicide, easy to determine cause of death. But the open verdict figures tell us that it was not the case in those open verdicts. otherwise they would not have been open.

We dont know the ratio of males or females or dismembered corpses, but what we are told is that body parts and dismembered bodies were quite common.

So as they were quite common you highlight only 4 cases in 3 years, a drop in the ocean are they not amongst the many cases, or should I say a drop in the thames.

With all you research expertise I am surprised you haven't uncovered details of other dismembered corpses and body parts so we can see what the verdicts were on those and look at those in the same way these 4 torsos are being looked at

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No, you are wrong. Those are not torso cases or body parts, those figures reflect men, women and children whose bodies were found in the Thames. An 'open verdict' of 'found drowned' was common and there was no way a medical man could tell whether it was a suicidal drowning, an accidental drowning or deliberate drowning without any supporting evidence e.g. signs of violence, suicide note etc. They all drowned-can you not understand that? I've seen numerous of those verdicts in drowning cases-an open verdict of found drowned where the jury were unable to say how the person got into the water.

I have looked. Thames dismemberment cases were very rare, that is why the three similar in three years are interesting. I have also looked at other dismemberment cases where bodies were placed in gardens, barrels in the cellar, chimneys and so on. They were not a common occurrence and you are skewing the statistics to claim they say something they actually don't!