Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Torso Murders

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    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

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

    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 !!!!!!!!!

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

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

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

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

    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.

    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?

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

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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 ?

    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.

    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.

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

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

    www.trevormarriott.****
    On the torniquet, I just read an article on here where the police say at first they thought it was torbiquet, but then changed their theory to the idea that that the arm was tied to a weight that came loose

    Comment


    • Originally posted by jerryd View Post
      This is the header from the 23rd of August article you referenced. It was indeed a 6:30 Special edition and covered the inquest from that afternoon.

      Hey Jerry, have you seen the 24th edition? Is there any mention of the Tabram inquest?

      Comment


      • Can anyone elaborate on the Charlie and Fred mentioned by Debs? Could Fred be five Finger Freddy or whatever? That sighting sounds like a strong possibity for the SK. Is there any chance of more files turning up in the Jackson case some day? We're they all kept with the ripper files or possibly stored on their own where they haven't need discovered yet do to the extreme disinterest in this case for over a hundred years

        Comment


        • Rocky, could you elucidate? Since reading about the torso killings I've always assumed they were a parallel group of murders that were briefly contemporaneous. Could you please repeat the link (sorry there are 80+ pages)

          Comment


          • Originally posted by kjab3112 View Post
            Rocky, could you elucidate? Since reading about the torso killings I've always assumed they were a parallel group of murders that were briefly contemporaneous. Could you please repeat the link (sorry there are 80+ pages)
            jabs i'm not sure what your asking. Deb mentioned that during the Jackson inquest two men named Fred and Charlie were named but kept out of the press reports. I am very interested in learning more about this

            Comment


            • Originally posted by RockySullivan View Post
              Hey Jerry, have you seen the 24th edition? Is there any mention of the Tabram inquest?
              I have looked through the edition available to me and didn't see anything. Another edition could possibly be available at a later date. I will keep checking.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by RockySullivan View Post
                Can anyone elaborate on the Charlie and Fred mentioned by Debs? Could Fred be five Finger Freddy or whatever? That sighting sounds like a strong possibity for the SK. Is there any chance of more files turning up in the Jackson case some day? We're they all kept with the ripper files or possibly stored on their own where they haven't need discovered yet do to the extreme disinterest in this case for over a hundred years
                Just saw this. I have not checked Debras post, but there was a Charlie mentioned, by Faircloth - this Charlie had apparently hooked up with and given Liz Jackson a place to stay some time before she was murdered.
                Whether or not his last name was Lechmere (or Cross), I couldnīt say.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                  Just saw this. I have not checked Debras post, but there was a Charlie mentioned, by Faircloth - this Charlie had apparently hooked up with and given Liz Jackson a place to stay some time before she was murdered.
                  Whether or not his last name was Lechmere (or Cross), I couldnīt say.
                  Thanks Fishman, do you have a link to {Faircloth's statement perhaps? Would love to read it. Always thought it was so suspicious the way he had the **** beat out of him

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by RockySullivan View Post
                    Thanks Fishman, do you have a link to {Faircloth's statement perhaps? Would love to read it. Always thought it was so suspicious the way he had the **** beat out of him
                    Itīs in the Times of July 9:th 1889:

                    "John Fairclough was then called. he was well dressed in some clothes he had had given him, and bore the appearance of a respectable mechanic. Though uneducated, he evinced marked intelligence, promptly answering all the questions put to him. He said that he was a millstone dresser by trade, a native of March, Cambridgeshire, and 36 years of age. He first made the acquaintance of Elizabeth Jackson about the end of last November, when he met her at a public house at the corner of Turk's row, Chelsea, and she then told him that she had been living with a man named Charlie. He remembered it was a Sunday night, and on the following day she agreed to go with him to Ipswich, which she did, and he was employed there for four months. She was a sober woman, and they only quarrelled now and then. On March 30 they left Ipswich and took the train to Colchester, when they tramped to London, where they stayed for five days at a lodging house in Whitechapel. They afterwards took lodgings at Mrs. Paine's, in Millwall. He then asked her to go with him to Croydon, but she refused saying that she would rather go to her mother at Chelsea until after her confinement. He then went to Croydon alone, having no money to leave her, and got a few days' work at Waddon Flour Mills. From there he went to Wandsworth, sleeping two nights near the railway, then tramped to Isleworth, Uxbridge, Ware, Bishop's Stortford, Saffron Walden, Cambridgeshire, St. Ives, Huntingdon, St. Neot's, Biggleswade (staying at the Red Lion), Hitchin, Luton, and St. Albans, and reached Harpenden on May 31. He also went to Watford, where he slept at the Red Lion, kept by an army pensioner named Sullivan, and on June 3 (the last day deceased was seen alive) he was at High Wycombe, and called at Great Marlow on his way to Reading, where he stayed two night. He subsequently visited Odiham, where he was bitten by a dog, and had the wound cauterised by the parish doctor. On Whit Sunday he visited Basingstoke, and continued travelling westward until he reached Tipton, near Ottery St. Mary, where the police found him on Saturday. From the time he left Jackson at Millwall he had neither seen nor heard anything of her. He had not read the newspapers - in fact, had hardly seen one in the parts he visited, and had consequently not heard of a body being found in the Thames. He knew of no one who would have been likely to have done deceased an injury. He did not hear her mention the address of any house to which she was likely to go in Battersea. The linsey dress produced he had bought for her in Ipswich.

                    By the jury - Deceased was eight months advanced in pregnancy when he left her."

                    It should be noted that Faircloth had a watertight alibi for the murder of Liz Jackson.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by jerryd View Post
                      This is the header from the 23rd of August article you referenced. It was indeed a 6:30 Special edition and covered the inquest from that afternoon.

                      Hi Jerry,

                      thanks for posting this.

                      Is the date 23 August also visible on that page when you see the whole page?

                      And is that date visible on the page where they write about the inquest as well?

                      Best wishes, Pierre

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                        Hi Jerry,

                        thanks for posting this.

                        Is the date 23 August also visible on that page when you see the whole page?

                        And is that date visible on the page where they write about the inquest as well?
                        Are you still going on about THAT?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                          Are you still going on about THAT?
                          You are reacting, David. Perhaps you should try to control your feelings a bit better. They are irrelevant in the forum.

                          Yes, David. I am still going on about "THAT". You see, a historian has long perspectives.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                            You are reacting, David. Perhaps you should try to control your feelings a bit better. They are irrelevant in the forum.

                            Yes, David. I am still going on about "THAT". You see, a historian has long perspectives.
                            I'm reacting to you continuing with a line of questioning in respect of a question that has already been answered.

                            Did you not like the answer then?

                            Comment


                            • Incidentally, Jerry, was there a difference between a "Special Edition" and an "Extra-Special Edition" for the Echo?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                                I'm reacting to you continuing with a line of questioning in respect of a question that has already been answered.

                                Did you not like the answer then?
                                What "answer"?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X