Torso Murders

[Varqm]

I kinda agree with you Trevor.We meed more info on what happened to the victims individually.
Otherwise it's all guesswork.
Whatever supposedly is logical/makes-sense may not be true.
Add to that a lot of people act illogically.

[Trevor Marriott]

The National Archives calculator puts it at half that amount for all 15 bodies, but anyway: Have you ever seen what medical students did during anatomical dissections? They stripped practically everything away to make the most of the chance for hands on anatomical study. The torso bodies, in contrast were simply dismembered and had a couple of organs missing. Dr Biggs said in his email that there's no evidence of anatomical study.
And If body parts were being sold off why not make a bundle and sell off all the organs and valuable pieces ?

and the victorian doctors were divided in their opinions were they not?

The reality is that we cannot be certain about anything connected to these torsos. So we should keep an open mind, and not simply say they were all murdered.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

I kinda agree with you Trevor.We meed more info on what happened to the victims individually.
Otherwise it's all guesswork.
Whatever supposedly is logical/makes-sense may not be true.
Add to that a lot of people act illogically.

Thank you for concurring it is a sensible approach !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Elamarna:

I would say a mixture of coincidence and copy cat.

Coincidence between Rainham and Hanbury street, particularly in the case of the colon. once this is learned about, by press and gossip, it is copied by one or the other, to my mind probably by the Torso killer.

But Rainham was 1887, so if there was any copying done, it was done by the Ripper in Mitre Square, Steve.

The issue I have with the flaps, may initially sound like Trevor’s but it is different.

That is without actually seeing the flaps of skin, their actual shape, not a written description, I feel it is not possible to say how alike the flaps are.

Why would the flaps need to be alike at all? Surely, the more important thing is that they all represented the removal of the abdominal wall. And we know from the Chapman case that it was intentionally and skilfully done.

It is possible that a common approach was responsible for similar methods and cuts.

Why would these two killers HAVE a "common approach" at all? And what particular methods and cuts are you speaking of here?

For instance in my school days when animal dissection still took place in biology lessons, diagrams were provided to assist, these showed the abdomen being opened down a central line, the skin and muscle then being cut back to the side of the body to create a flap and this then being removed by another cut.

The result was similar looking dissections, done by different hands, any written description would have sounded very similar, but the actually pieces of tissue may and often did look very different.

Yes, I am sure thatīs true - but why would both killers take an interest in cutting away the abdominal wall? Plus, as I have asked of Trevor to no avail, what other cases of murder are there where this element is included? I have failed to find any examples. Can you do it?


For that reason as much as any other, I consider the methods not proven similar enough to not accept a single killer, but obviously cannot rule it out conclusively, its a gut feeling based on the evidence as I see it.

Personally, since the details of the Rainham case were in all probability very sparsely reported in the papers when it comes to which inner organs went where, I think that the Ripper would be very hard pressed to get any inflrmation about the removal of part of the colon. Therefore, my own gut would never suggest a copy-cat act on behalf of the Ripper more than one year afterwards.

There is also the fact that the colon copycat would be the Ripper, whereas the abdominal wall copycat would be the Torso man. To me, that sinks the copycat ship altogether. If we do not accept these commonalities as indicative of a single killer, it must be because we regard the differences as more important. And in this case, if I may say so, the suggestion is not a good one. The two commonalities mentioned are both rare and odd, whereas both killers on the surface are people who like to cut up women, end of.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor Marriott: I am suggesting the same as I have been suggesting all along that there are other plausible explanations which must be considered other than murder. I have already said and accepted that a domestic murder might be the cause of death of one of the torsos

Oh, Iīve considered it alright. I came to the conclusion that anything nut murder is unlikely.

On another point removing the uterus doesn't point to murder in fact in my opinion it points to something medical.

Was Chikatilo a medico, Trevor? Although serial killers are rare, we should not rule serial murder out on statistical grounds. It would be stupid.

One or more of the torsos was found with chord around the joints that might indicate a tourniquet used to stop bleeding if someone was bleeding heavily during an operation. Not used by a killer to stem blood flow !!!!!!!!!

The chord was found on an arm that had been severed from the body, Trevor. Are you really proposing that this stemmed the bleeding from the body...?

You whole theory seems to be based upon your interpretation of the medical evidence and in particular these flaps of skin.

It is based on the medical evidene to a great deal. But on other matters too. How many cases of removal of the abdominal wall have you managed to find, Trevor - you seem unwilling to tell me...?

Do you consider it coincidental that Ripper victims and Torso victims alike had their abdominal walls removed? Do you consider it coincidental that Ripper victims and Torso victims alike had sections of their colons cut out?

Another poster suggested to you the same as I did, that each of these torsos should be looked at in more detail, before jumping up crying murder.

That was Abby. He thinks you are ridiculously wrong, he does not concur with you.

Looking at the flaps of skin issue. I previously highlighted the fact that they all appear to be different in descriptions in relation to where they were, what was attached to them. You also know that this term is generic and widely used back then and today.

They all represented a wilful act of removing the abdominal cavity. Has that not sunk in yet, Trevor? Once more, how many other cases can you find where this happened?

Yes in some case wilful verdicts were recorded but looking at how some of them came to be recorded is nothing more than shambolic, so you cant totally rely on those verdicts to prop up your theory.

Nor do I do so. I rely on the medical evidence and the commonalities proven. I simply point out the verdicts to show you how much off the mark you are.

You mention one torso with a head injury, which does point to a murder or an accidental death. So that is another reason why you need to take a step back and look at each one in detail and you will find that there are not so many similarities as you perhaps believe.

But the other heads are generally missing, Trevor. How can we rule out that they too were hit over the head if we donīt have the heads? Can you tell me how that is supposed to work?

Again you rely on the doctors of the day, we now know that much of what they opinionated on was nothing more than guesswork.

... while they were very exact on other matters. What particular "guesswork" is it you are pointing to, that would dissolve the idea of a serial killer at work? Specify, please!

If as you believe all of these were murdered what would be the motive?

What was Gacyīs motive? What was Chikatilos? Dahmers? Think long and hard, Trevor.

If organ removal as in the WM then why were they not removed in the street as it is alleged the WM did? That killer felt no need to dismember his victims. or hide their identities

You are being very unclear here. Letīs just say that if the killer wanted to extract organs, then we know that this is what he did. If the killer wanted to take aprt bodies, then we know that this is what he did. If he wanted to "own" and "control" a human body, then that is what he did. How about that for a motive? Ask Gacy, Chikatilo and Dahmer!

Why would a killer go to such great lengths to dispose of his victims in this way, why would he want to hide their identities ? Body parts here there and everywhere.

He did not want to hide them or their identities, Trevor. He presented the urrounding world with the parts, some of them wrapped in identifiable clothing, even. He displayed his victims to the world, as per Whitehall. When he discarded the 1873 head, he had taken the time and effort to cut the face away first, floating it down the Thames!
This was not a killer who tried to hide himself and what he did from the world!

Then there is the prank issue it is written that it was considered that some of these body parts etc could have been dumped by medical students as a prank. We know body parts and bodies were freely available, how have they come to be discounted?

Freely available? Letīs be a bit more truthful, Trevor. And anatomical specimens were not put on the slab in chequered overcoats.

Body parts thrown over the wall of Mary Shelleys estate if that did happen does that not point to some form of a prank?

It was not Mary Shelleys estate, it was that of a relative of hers, Percy Shelley. And what says that a killer cannot be possesed of a morbid sense of humour? The Whitehall case seems to strengthen that idea.

Some of the torsos were found with incisions from sternum to pubes. We know that is how post mortems were carried out. It has been dismissed that these bodies were not from mortuaries, because some were clothed.

And soundly so! Look at Jackson, for example. What mortuary client has her abdominal wall removed, and why? What mortuary client has part of the colon cut out, and why?
Answers, Trevor, please!

How do we know that after a post mortem they were not dressed again, or after their bodies were used for medical research ? On that note any bodies obtained for such a purpose was the responsibility of those acquiring it to dispose of it thereafter.

So a doctor aquired a body for dissection or research, went about his job, and then he dismembered the body afterwards, and cut the overcoat the body had supposedly arrived in up in parts, wrapping the body parts in them and floating them down the Thames? And he supposedly launched the parts from different places at different days? And carried a torso down the basement of the New Scotland Yard, while still under construction?
Yeah, right.

On that topic one poster made a comment that if they wanted the body for research why dispose of it. Well I guess legs arms etc would be 10 a penny so no need to retain those if they already had a supply. But heads were of great demand as perhaps were the heart and other vital organs.

Perhaps? Guessing, are we? How about a severed yard of a colon - what did that bring in?

How do we know that one or more of these torsos did not come from a mortuary? How could they be identified as having come from, or not come from a mortuary with no heads ?

So was it the mortuary keeper who was fond of cutting away abdominal walls and sections of the colon? Or did he sell the bodies to somebody with that particular interest?

Wrapping body parts up in brown paper parcels that shows someone has gone to extra lengths if wanting to dispose of the body parts. A killer might simply put them in a sack and throw them in the thames, and if that were the case might pick the same spot of somewhere nearby not go 10 miles along the thames to do so carrying incriminating evidence.

A killer may dig the parts down too. Or weigh them down. Or burn them. But not all killers do it this way. Hundreds of serialists have been known to discard of bodies much more openly.
Why did not Ridgway take the heads off? He was a serial killer. Why did not Buono and Bianchi dig their victims down? They were serial killers. Why did not Rolling hide what he had done? He was a serial killer.
Are you proposing that all serial killers do things the same way, and that the Torso man should adjust to your thinking retrospectively...?

You see you cant even prove where any murder took place, where any of the bodies would have been cut up, or where the victims came from.

And you canīt disprove it, remember?

Then there is the back street procedures which I am not going to go over again.

Thank you - a very sensible decision. Next to back street detectives, back street medicos are the worst people I donīt know.

As I said before to describe these as murder -NO to describe them as Torso Mysteries- YES

As I said before: Balderdash. No wait a minute, I have not said that before. Well, thereīs a first time to everything.

Christer it is no point in any one trying to discuss these torsos sensibly with you because you are so obsessed and fixated in the belief that they were all murdered.

Lots of things happen to bodies and bodies parts when they are cut up and are transported from point A to point B, and when they are floating about in the water for god knows how long.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

and the victorian doctors were divided in their opinions were they not?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Werenīt they all just guessing away...? Or are you going to pick your favourites here?

[Fisherman]

Christer it is no point in any one trying to discuss these torsos sensibly with you because you are so obsessed and fixated in the belief that they were all murdered.

Lots of things happen to bodires and bodies parts when they are cut up and are transported form point A to point B, and when they are flosting about in the water for god knows how long.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Okay, if you cannot answer, you cannot answer.

Letīs just choose one little part, shall we: Your "tourniquet". You brought that one up a year or so ago too, and at that stage, Edward Stow was the one who pointed out to you that the chord was on the arm and not on the trunk, so it could never have been used to stem a bleeding.

Why did you not learn from that? Why bring it up again? I hope you can answer these questions, since I think they are totally vital to understanding how you work. You bring up things, you are proven wrong - and the you bring the exact same things up again as if it never happened. Abra-kadabra!

Now, Trevor, an answer please: What have you learnt about that tourniquet of yours? And are you ever going to bring it up again?

My prediction is that this issue will go unanswered for VERY obvious reasons.

[Trevor Marriott]

Elamarna:

I would say a mixture of coincidence and copy cat.

Coincidence between Rainham and Hanbury street, particularly in the case of the colon. once this is learned about, by press and gossip, it is copied by one or the other, to my mind probably by the Torso killer.

But Rainham was 1887, so if there was any copying done, it was done by the Ripper in Mitre Square, Steve.

The issue I have with the flaps, may initially sound like Trevor’s but it is different.

That is without actually seeing the flaps of skin, their actual shape, not a written description, I feel it is not possible to say how alike the flaps are.

Why would the flaps need to be alike at all? Surely, the more important thing is that they all represented the removal of the abdominal wall. And we know from the Chapman case that it was intentionally and skilfully done.

It is possible that a common approach was responsible for similar methods and cuts.

Why would these two killers HAVE a "common approach" at all? And what particular methods and cuts are you speaking of here?

For instance in my school days when animal dissection still took place in biology lessons, diagrams were provided to assist, these showed the abdomen being opened down a central line, the skin and muscle then being cut back to the side of the body to create a flap and this then being removed by another cut.

The result was similar looking dissections, done by different hands, any written description would have sounded very similar, but the actually pieces of tissue may and often did look very different.

Yes, I am sure thatīs true - but why would both killers take an interest in cutting away the abdominal wall? Plus, as I have asked of Trevor to no avail, what other cases of murder are there where this element is included? I have failed to find any examples. Can you do it?


For that reason as much as any other, I consider the methods not proven similar enough to not accept a single killer, but obviously cannot rule it out conclusively, its a gut feeling based on the evidence as I see it.

Personally, since the details of the Rainham case were in all probability very sparsely reported in the papers when it comes to which inner organs went where, I think that the Ripper would be very hard pressed to get any inflrmation about the removal of part of the colon. Therefore, my own gut would never suggest a copy-cat act on behalf of the Ripper more than one year afterwards.

There is also the fact that the colon copycat would be the Ripper, whereas the abdominal wall copycat would be the Torso man. To me, that sinks the copycat ship altogether. If we do not accept these commonalities as indicative of a single killer, it must be because we regard the differences as more important. And in this case, if I may say so, the suggestion is not a good one. The two commonalities mentioned are both rare and odd, whereas both killers on the surface are people who like to cut up women, end of.

One serial killer obsessed with abdominal walls, and another with colons. that takes the biscuit

You do make me laugh

[Trevor Marriott]

Okay, if ytou cannot answer, you cannot answer.

Letīs just choose one little part, shall we: Your "tourniquet". You brought that one up a year or so ago too, and at that stage, Edward Stow was the one who pointed out to you that the chord was on the arm and not on the trunk, so it could never have been used to stem a bleeding.

Why did you not learn from that? Why bring it up again? I hope you can answer these questions, since I think they are totally vital to understanding how you work. You bring up things, you are proven wrong - and the you bring the exact same things up again as if it never happened. Abra-kadabra!

Now, Trevor, an answer please: What have you learnt about that tourniquet of yours? And are you ever going to bring it up again?

My prediction is that this issue will go unanswered for VERY obvious reasons.

You need to look at where tourniquets can be applied on the human body !

With each reply you are digging yourself deeper into a hole !

https://www.trevormarriott

[Fisherman]

Lots of things happen to bodies and bodies parts when they are cut up and are transported from point A to point B, and when they are floating about in the water for god knows how long.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Two such things are emphatically NOT that the colons are cut in two places and removed and that the abdominal wall is cut away.
I hope we may agree on that?

If you disagree, you are facing the dilemma of explaining how the abdominal wall fell off in two parts from Jackson, two parts that subsequently wrapped themselves around the uterus, the placenta and part of the chord, only to drift ashore some time later.

Tough nut, eh?

[Fisherman]

One serial killer obsessed with abdominal walls, and another with colons. that takes the biscuit

You do make me laugh

Yes, the mere idea is hilarious! That is PRECISELY why I think it was just the one killer.

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot! Bazooka-style!!!

[Fisherman]

You need to look at where tourniquets can be applied on the human body !

With each reply you are digging yourself deeper into a hole !

www.trevormarriott

I must be careful then - I would not want to join you in the deepest dungeons...!

Yes, a tourniquet can be applied in many places. But you suggested that a doctor had done it to stem blood. That is why I am asking you how the f...k a tourniquet on a severed arm would have stemmed any blood.

Donīt you think a doctor would have put the tourniquet BETWEEN the cut and the body, instead of on the severed part...?

This getting more amusing by the minute. I canīt wait to see what you will answer!!

[Elamarna]

But Rainham was 1887, so if there was any copying done, it was done by the Ripper in Mitre Square, Steve.

Sorry fisherman, my reply is clear, the initial similarities are coincidence, which are later possibly copied. in which case it is not important which comes first.

Why would the flaps need to be alike at all? Surely, the more important thing is that they all represented the removal of the abdominal wall. And we know from the Chapman case that it was intentionally and skilfully done.

Because if they are by the same killer, it is highly probably he will cut the same way each time, the shape of the flaps, the angle of the cut. Not sure why you cannot see that is important and confirmation of such would be indicative of the same hand!

Why would these two killers HAVE a "common approach" at all? And what particular methods and cuts are you speaking of here?



Yes, I am sure thatīs true - but why would both killers take an interest in cutting away the abdominal wall? Plus, as I have asked of Trevor to no avail, what other cases of murder are there where this element is included? I have failed to find any examples. Can you do it?

Again, I am some what confused that you do not see this?

The common approach is to gain access to the body cavity, and the removal of organs, here we are specifically discussing the colon are we not?

The cuts I am talking about are the actual cuts to create and remove the flaps, and the cuts to remove the colon.


Two totally separate killers may have the same need to cut away flaps to gain access to the body cavity, it is certainly the easiest way to work.

With regards to the second point is there any need to have other examples?

Fisherman you obviously know far more about this than I, but can I ask how many other murders there are in the period say 1888-1900 where victim are disembowelled to the same extent, which you could compare these too?

The point is that lack of other similar cases does not prove a link, it may cause one to look carefully at the issue, but it is not sufficient in itself in my opinion to prove a link

Personally, since the details of the Rainham case were in all probability very sparsely reported in the papers when it comes to which inner organs went where, I think that the Ripper would be very hard pressed to get any inflrmation about the removal of part of the colon. Therefore, my own gut would never suggest a copy-cat act on behalf of the Ripper more than one year afterwards.

But I made it very clear the link between Rainham and the Ripper killings is just coincidence. there is no copycat at that point.
Coincidences of that type do happen.

There is also the fact that the colon copycat would be the Ripper, whereas the abdominal wall copycat would be the Torso man. To me, that sinks the copycat ship altogether. If we do not accept these commonalities as indicative of a single killer, it must be because we regard the differences as more important. And in this case, if I may say so, the suggestion is not a good one. The two commonalities mentioned are both rare and odd, whereas both killers on the surface are people sho like to cut up women, end of.

I feel you are missing the points I made:

1. Rainham and Hanbury street are coincidence.
Indeed the view that Chapman's cuts were skilful, in reality says the killer knew what he was doing, cutting the correct way, following a obvious procedure, such as opening the body up correctly, rather than just diving in.


2. A copycat could have followed the release of details in the Ripper series, hence my suggestion that the latter Torso's may have been copycats, but a suggestion is a long way from a fact.
It is possible that similar results came about by accident; I will however say that it is somewhat improbable!


3. The aim in both sets of murders was to remove organs and cut, to destroy the body.
While that is very rare, being rare does not prove the two are related, but it does mean we must consider the possibility.

4. The removal of flaps of skin suggests the killers of both sets of murders knew what they were doing, and while not essential that they were medically trained, they knew how to cut a body and the procedure used to gain access to the body cavity.

Did notice that had not made it clear that I consider them all to be murders, I see no other option in the light of the evidence.


Although my views obviously do not fit yours, they hold up medically, and that is my point.

I may well be wrong, it could be the same killer!

However at present, all I see is two sets of murders, carried out by persons who knew what they were doing when they cut.
unfortunately that does not even prove the same background and training, but it does suggest similar.

At the end of the day, is it possible they are the same kille for both sets?

Yes, of course it is possible!

Is it probable?

No that has not be proven.


I fear we will not agree on this at present, I need more to reach your conclusion.

Nevertheless all the best

Steve.

[Jon Guy]

Perhaps, Jon, but only if she'd told someone what she was having done - and who was doing it.

True Colin, but I was thinking along the lines that a back street abortionist would be located by word of mouth or introduction only.

[Jon Guy]

But who is to say that none of the others could have been ID:d? If he had dug them down that problem would have gone away. Acid would have done the same. Weighing them down - same thing.

It would have taken a lot of acid, Christer, and that would have been expensive.

I only read the other day how difficult it is to keep dead bodies weighed down in water. Maybe, all the parts found in the Thames were weighed down originally?

But he put a torso in the cellar of the New Scotland Yard, Jon. Whatīs your reply to that...?

But it was where building work was going on, wasn't it ?
Perhaps, the fact that it was New Scotland Yard is irrelevant, and it was just a construction site that would be cemented over.
Maybe, the building site was just close and convenient ?

"Why cut off a hand on one side and not the other ...." ?Because they were trying to fit the body into a sack, or a pram or something ?

Why would a body fit better in a sack with one hand cut off?

Well, obviously, the sack or whatever may just not have been big enough.
Or, the body was in rigor, or the hand had identifying marks on it ?