Torso Murders

[jerryd]

Debra

It could have been to remove the baby.

The baby was removed post-mortem, Trevor. Why abort a baby from a dead woman?

[Fisherman]

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?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

There are other possibilitites too, Trevor. By the way, if you look at what happened to the nightgown, you may be less inclined to make the assumption that the victim was dealt with by back street medicos.

You do know what happened to the nightgown...?

[Fisherman]

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.

God, am I SURPRISED?

No, Iīm not.

But since I asked, I thought Iīd answer too.

[Harry D]

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.

Indeed, jerryd, and it's something I'd like to get Trevor's opinion on but he keeps dodging.

[Trevor Marriott]

Indeed, jerryd, and it's something I'd like to get Trevor's opinion on but he keeps dodging.

I never dodge anything, but it seems some on here seem to not want to look at the overall picture as fas as these torsos are concerned. You cant prove murder so others plausible explanations have to be considered, however unlikely they are in some eyes, or by those who simply cant and wont accept any explanation other than murder.

If a killer picked up a prostitute and murdered her what would it matter to him if she were identified, after all the WM victims did not have their heads cut of or totally dismembered. It would create a lot of unnecessary work for him.

Now someone might say if he took her back to his place then there would be a need. But it seems these bodies were put in he thames at different locations in and around the thames suggesting that these women came from different areas bordering the thames. If a killer wanted to pick up a prostitute and take her back to his place would he travel some distance and then take her back when other prostitutes may have been nearer to his home address.

Someone dying at the hands of someone other than a murderer would have a greater need to dispose of the body and would need to hide its identity other than a killer, for obvious reasons.

With that in mind the body parts would need to be spread out when disposed of, and every attempt made to ensure they were not found, so where is there anything different in this course of action from that of a killer committing murder. they both need to hide their crimes, they both need to perhaps hide the body, although why would a killer go to all those lengths to cut the body up and hide the parts in many different places.

It cant even be proven where any of the torsos were cut up for a start let alone try to prove a serial killer at work. It cant even proved where the parts went into the thames. It cant even be proven that any crime was committed in a specific area. Causes of death cannot be established. All of those ingredients go to make up the profile of a serial killer.

As to how verdicts of wilful murder were arrived at in some of the cases beggars belief when no cause of death was established, at the suggestion of the coroner in one case, how good is that.

In the case of Jackson the doctors first suggested that she had been subjected to an abortion procedure then changed their minds, not considering anything else connected to a problem with the pregnancy that might have caused death or necessitated some operation, they didn't consider the facts that she may have been administered some noxious substance.

If researchers on here are going to play amateur detective then they have to adopt the principle in investigations, that being to prove or disprove beyond a reasonable doubt. If those cannot be achieved then based on the evidence it goes back to the balance of probability does the evidence to hand tip the scales in favour of a murder or the opposite.

127 years later we are never going to get the truth.

And I will now withdraw until such time as I have anything new to add to this thread.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

I never dodge anything...[/url]

... he said, dodging Jerrys, Debras and Harry D:s questions once again. Along with mine.

[John Wheat]

I never dodge anything

And I will now withdraw until such time as I have anything new to add to this thread.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

That'll be along time then. And you dodge everything.

[Trevor Marriott]

... he said, dodging Jerrys, Debras and Harry D:s questions once again. Along with mine.

I always answer, but when I do but because the answers are not what you want to hear, the old deflecting shield is raised and the same old chestnut is thrown out about avoiding the answers change the record Christer its wearing thin now.

Go do something useful, such as learning more about the term flaps of skin !

This might help you

http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Idiots-Guide-Criminal-Investigation/dp/0028643461

[John Wheat]

I always answer, but when I do but because the answers are not what you want to hear, the old deflecting shield is raised and the same old chestnut is thrown out about avoiding the answers change the record Christer its wearing thin now.

Go do something useful, such as learning more about the term flaps of skin !

This might help you

http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Idiot.../dp/0028643461

Maybe if you stuck to the thread eg Torso murders rather than coming up with silly hypotheses or not as the case usually is people would appreciate it.

[Trevor Marriott]

Maybe if you stuck to the thread eg Torso murders rather than coming up with silly hypotheses or not as the case usually is people would appreciate it.

The only thing silly is your theory whereby you state categorically that all the torsos were the result of murder. Maybe you should read the same book

http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Idiot.../dp/0028643461

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Abby Normal]

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.

exactly
and trevor keeps banging on about other possibilities other than murder, but all the other explanations just aren't plausible when you look at the circumstances of each of the torso cases. added to that he keeps ignoring the fact that torso cases in general were extremely rare, misleading everyone that they were a common occurrence.
or maybe he dosnt know the difference between bodies "found drowned" and
body parts. LOL.

[jerryd]

Trevor,

The back street abortionist also included in the parcel of the Whitehall torso her steel dress frame. I'm sure he felt that was an important item to include when dumping his accidental victim into a hard to reach vault of the new police building.

[Fisherman]

I always answer, but when I do but because the answers are not what you want to hear, the old deflecting shield is raised and the same old chestnut is thrown out about avoiding the answers change the record Christer its wearing thin now.

Go do something useful, such as learning more about the term flaps of skin !

This might help you

http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Idiot.../dp/0028643461

No, Trevor you do not always answer. Or at least you do not answer the questions put to you - you ramble away on other matters instead.

The question is simple: Why would a back-street medico or abortionist cut away the abdominal wall from his patients even if he dismembered them for practical reasons?

Next one, equally simple: What examples do you have of back-street medicos or abortionists who have done this?

You should not get too hanged up on the term "flap of skin", Trevor. In fact, letīs drop it and speak ony of removed abdominal walls instead. Three victims had that, two of the Ripperīs and one of the Torso manīs.
Three of the Torso manīs victims and one of the Ripperīs had large sections of their colons cut out. Letīs not call them flaps either.

Do you agree that it is very rare for dead women to have their abdominal walls removed?

Have you ever heard of one single woman outside these two series that it happened to?

Now, donīt ramble away again, Trevor. No more insults, no more moving goalposts, no more slithering and wriggling. Just answer these straight questions.

[Fisherman]

Trevor,

The back street abortionist also included in the parcel of the Whitehall torso her steel dress frame. I'm sure he felt that was an important item to include when dumping his accidental victim into a hard to reach vault of the new police building.

Thatīs sooo back street abortionists - totally unpredictable characters.

[Bridewell]

It is also on record that women did die from back street medical procedures, even you have to accept that and when they did the bodies needed to be got rid of and their identities hidden.

Two questions on this:

(1) Why would a back-street abortionist need to keep the identity of the body secret? I can see why he/she might be anxious to conceal his or her own identity, but not that of the woman.

(2) Why would said back-street abortionist need to do more than remove the head in an era before the advent of fingerprint recognition?

Complete dismemberment does not fit the motive of an abortionist seeking to conceal the identity of a woman, even accepting that he/she was motivated to do so.