Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Torso Murders

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

  • #76
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    No, Gary - there would have been no muscle contraction in a frozen body, when cutting it up.
    Of course. How about post-dismemberment?

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by John G View Post
      Hi Debra

      Thanks. I would argue that, as human beings, we are pre-programmed to look for patterns, and therefore drawing conclusions from coincidence is something we should always be wary of.

      In respect of Kelly, for example, I detect no predetermined design or strategy, and the organs may simply have been plucked out. And, putting on my psychology hat, as the perpetrator frienziedly attacked the body, do I think his subconscious mind was speaking to him in a kind of mantra-"remember, you are a three section serial killer"? No, I do not. And, of course, if his objective was to decapitate Kelly, or dismember the body, he had plenty of time to do so.

      And here's a good example of coincidence in a serial killer investigation. Joan Harrison was thought by many to be a Yorkshire Ripper victim, and with good reason. Thus, "the skull injuries were similar to the semi-circular lacerations that featured in most Ripper attacks". (Bilton, 2012). And, one of her boots had been placed on top of her legs, just as Sutcliffe had done with Richardson. Finally, she had been bitten on the breast by a man with a gap in his front teeth, as had Josephine Whitaker.

      In fact, a hoax letter, stated to be from the killer, claimed credit for the Harrison murder, and revealed that he would strike again soon: Josephine Whitaker was killed 12 days latter. The saliva on the envelope even revealed that the author was a B blood group secretor, representative of only 6% of the population, as was Joan Harrison's killer.

      But was Joan Harrison actually a YR victim? No, she was not.

      The power of coincidence even influences the medical profession. Dr Phillips, for example, not only seemed to think that JtR was an expert surgeon, but that he was also an expert in the technique of strangulation, leading him to conclude that Rose Mylett was a Ripper victim.

      But, as I say, at what point does simple coincidence entitle us to conclude there is a viable connection between separate events?
      Thanks John.
      I am aware of the Harrison/YR mistake but in the same vein we know there were also attacks at least that were never linked by police because of their differences, but they since been admitted to be YR attacks.

      Are you certain about Dr Phillips opinion on the Mylett case? Was this official opinion or are you basing that on the articlee published in the Star that mentioned Dr Phillips in connection with comments made by Dr Brownfield on strangulation in the Mylett case providing a link to JTR? Dr Phillips was not one of the doctors who examined Mylett.

      With respect, it is your personal opinion that the similarity between some cases is coincidence, John, and that's fine. Others who have studied primary sources and not relied on inaccurate summaries of the cases by Trevor Marriott or Mei Trow in their books also have the right to explore the idea that there are definite similarities. Dr Biggs comments cannot be used in support of anything here as they were generalised, casual comments not dealing with the specific questions people have about the torso cases.
      ,,`,, Debs ,,`,,

      I am not DJA. He's called Dave.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Robert St Devil View Post
        Heloi Fisherman. Would the body have to be in a certain condition to achieve dismemberment [ie. in rigor, frozen]?
        Hi Robert,

        My understand is that Jackson was alive the day before, she was seen alive.
        That would suggest that hers was a fresh body, certainly not frozen.

        The Whitehall one was a badly decomposed torso, wrapped, but had leaked onto the wall which it was propped against, the opinion was, I understand, it had been there for some time.

        In that case probably impossible given the available science to say what state the body was in before it was dismembered.

        Just been listen to the old podcast on the subject with Debra as the guest.

        Steve

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
          Hi Robert,

          My understand is that Jackson was alive the day before, she was seen alive.
          That would suggest that hers was a fresh body, certainly not frozen.

          The Whitehall one was a badly decomposed torso, wrapped, but had leaked onto the wall which it was propped against, the opinion was, I understand, it had been there for some time.

          In that case probably impossible given the available science to say what state the body was in before it was dismembered.

          Just been listen to the old podcast on the subject with Debra as the guest.

          Steve
          The arm that was matched to the Whitehall torso was found near Pimlico on September 11th, 1888.

          DR. NEVILLE'S OPINION

          Dr. Neville is of opinion that the woman met her death about three days ago, probably on Sunday, and that the limb was cut off soon after the poor creature's decease. There is now an impression that the piece of string on the limb was tied round for the purpose of attaching a weight in order to sink it. Search has been made in the mud at the wharf, but no weight could be traced. The police authorities are this morning confident that the arm was thrown into the Thames at the spot where it was found- or a very short distance from it- and the medical testimony is to the effect that the flesh reveals evident signs of very recent immersion.
          Last edited by jerryd; 05-12-2016, 10:25 AM.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
            Of course. How about post-dismemberment?
            Sorry, Gary - I dont follow you there. What do you mean? That the killer froze the parts after dismembering them...?

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by jerryd View Post
              The arm that was matched to the Whitehall torso was found near Pimlico on September 11th, 1888.

              DR. NEVILLE'S OPINION

              Dr. Neville is of opinion that the woman met her death about three days ago, probably on Sunday, and that the limb was cut off soon after the poor creature's decease. There is now an impression that the piece of string on the limb was tied round for the purpose of attaching a weight in order to sink it. Search has been made in the mud at the wharf, but no weight could be traced. The police authorities are this morning confident that the arm was thrown into the Thames at the spot where it was found- or a very short distance from it- and the medical testimony is to the effect that the flesh reveals evident signs of very recent immersion.

              Thanks jerry

              While I was aware of the discovery of the arm, I was not aware of the report.

              Doubt they could have been so positive with just the discovery from the 2nd October given its condition.


              Steve

              Comment


              • #82
                [QUOTE=Abby Normal;380564]Hi John



                right and she was an unfortunate. and the others-I wonder why they weren't identified? right-probably because they were too-and nobody cared when they went missing.

                .

                right-so they could have met there killer anywhere-inlcuding whitechapel. and anyway its in the same city-close enough my friend.


                sorry- I was only referring to the 80's cases-should have been more clear. but even if the 70s cases are included-so what? again close enough and serial killers have been known to stop for long periods of time-not that the difference between 70's and 80's is that long anyway.



                all the torsos had internal organs removed and/or post mortem mutilation to the abdomen. same basic sig John.

                also, Nichols didn't have any internal organs removed-should we discount her too then from the ripper series?

                oh I don't know-an axe, a large saw, a meat cleaver?heck even a knife. They were all invented by then weren't they?



                so neither the torsos or the ripper victims weren't even series now? were going backward now. I guess there were a dozen or so separate killers? don't think so. even the police at the time thought they were both series.

                torso victims not murdered? I guess theres no proof. but perhaps they dismembered themselves.



                the general consensus is that the ripper acted like he was a client and led or let the victims lead him to a secluded area.

                and unless the torso victims went willingly with torso man for the purpose of being killed, mutilated and hacked apart, then I'm pretty sure a ruse was used here too.



                bite your tongue John. Debra is one of the most gifted researchers around and dosnt need to be a medical expert to read autopsy reports and other source material and find similarities.

                and with all due respect, for someone who is constantly quoting Trevor Marriott, Id be a little more polite with whom you disparage. and quite frankly, Ill go with Debra every time.
                I'm not really sure what points your trying to make. As for your suggestion that I'm somehow disparaging Debra, I think your getting a little carried away, and frankly your comments are unfortunate to say the least. In what way have I disparaged Debra?

                Of course, everyone's entitled to pass comment on the autopsy reports but, in general terms, if you think, say, that more weight should be given to a non-medical professionals opinion-whoever that person may be- than that of a medical professional, then I find that absolutely extraordinary to say the least. However, I acknowledge your entitled to you're own opinion, even though you seem to think I'm not entitled to mine.

                I also have no idea why you say that I'm quoting Trevor, as I'm not. I'm quoting the opinion of Dr Biggs, a forensic expert, whose opinion appears in Trevor's book. Are you seriously saying you can't understand the difference?

                A very unfortunate post, from a normally reliable poster. Perhaps you're just having a bad day at the office.
                Last edited by John G; 05-12-2016, 11:04 AM.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
                  The Whitehall one was a badly decomposed torso, wrapped, but had leaked onto the wall which it was propped against, the opinion was, I understand, it had been there for some time.

                  In that case probably impossible given the available science to say what state the body was in before it was dismembered.

                  Steve
                  I think the muscle contraction would still be apparent if the body was cut up swiftly after death or while still alive. And I think that was the overall case with the Torso victims.

                  PS. Just noticed Jerryds post. It does not mention muscle contraction explicitely, but I think this is what is referred to.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
                    Thanks jerry

                    While I was aware of the discovery of the arm, I was not aware of the report.

                    Doubt they could have been so positive with just the discovery from the 2nd October given its condition.


                    Steve
                    Hi Steve,

                    Actually Debs and I had a discussion about this awhile back and Dr Bond came to a little different conclusion based on ALL the facts he had present. Bond had examined the arm, the body and the leg/foot and felt the death could have been a few weeks earlier than Dr Neville. Bond had a range for the death though and the latter part of the range was in early September.

                    Personally, disagree or agree, I feel the date is somewhat significant if Dr. Neville is correct. That makes another double event on September 8th, 1888 and points a little more to a connection between JTR and Torso man, in my opinion.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                      I think the muscle contraction would still be apparent if the body was cut up swiftly after death or while still alive. And I think that was the overall case with the Torso victims.

                      PS. Just noticed Jerryds post. It does not mention muscle contraction explicitely, but I think this is what is referred to.
                      I have another report from Dr. Neville where he mentions the contraction. I'll have to find it.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                        Sorry, Gary - I dont follow you there. What do you mean? That the killer froze the parts after dismembering them...?
                        Yes, that's what I had in mind. Do you know if that would have been apparent to the doctors who subsequently carried out autopsies?

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Here ya go Christer.

                          Star 12, September, 1888

                          Bye-the-bye, I suppose there is no doubt that it is a woman's arm, and not a man's? - Oh, no; I think not. The contour of the arm, the shape of the hand, and the delicacy of the whole limb told me that it was a woman's.

                          A young woman's, or that of an elderly person? - No doubt that of a young woman under 30 years. I should say, judging from the freshness of the skin and the tension of the muscles and sinews.

                          Can you say whether the owner of the limb was alive or dead when it was severed from the shoulder? - It is difficult to say with certainty, of course, but my opinion is that the person must have been dead very recently when the arm was cut off.

                          By recently do you mean an hour or two? - Yes, or less than that.

                          I should like your reasons for that idea? - Well, the muscles were contracted, and the contraction, and retraction also, of the muscles would indicate that death had not occurred long before, rigor mortis not having set in.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Debra A View Post
                            Thanks John.
                            I am aware of the Harrison/YR mistake but in the same vein we know there were also attacks at least that were never linked by police because of their differences, but they since been admitted to be YR attacks.

                            Are you certain about Dr Phillips opinion on the Mylett case? Was this official opinion or are you basing that on the articlee published in the Star that mentioned Dr Phillips in connection with comments made by Dr Brownfield on strangulation in the Mylett case providing a link to JTR? Dr Phillips was not one of the doctors who examined Mylett.

                            With respect, it is your personal opinion that the similarity between some cases is coincidence, John, and that's fine. Others who have studied primary sources and not relied on inaccurate summaries of the cases by Trevor Marriott or Mei Trow in their books also have the right to explore the idea that there are definite similarities. Dr Biggs comments cannot be used in support of anything here as they were generalised, casual comments not dealing with the specific questions people have about the torso cases.
                            Hello Debra,

                            Well, of course, I didn't suggest that other posters didn't have the right to express their own views, even though, on occasion, I may disagree with them. However, unfortunately at least one poster seems to be of the opinion that I shouldn't express my opinions on this thread, which is regrettable to say the least. I trust you are not of the same opinion?

                            However, perhaps I could, on occasion, express myself better. For instance, regarding autopsy reports, although everyone clearly has the right to express an opinion, what I would regard as "informative opinion" is that given by a medical professional. That, of course, does not mean that opinions expressed by non-medical professionals should be automatically discounted, or that they are necessarily wrong. For instance, I would acknowledge that your understanding of the medical reports is superior to my own, which is why are often consult your opinions, and therefore are relevant. And I apologise if you think I was suggesting the contrary.

                            I disagree that Dr Biggs' views are irrelevant: his statement that perpetrators adopt similar strategies for dismembering bodies, so the final results tend to look similar, for instance, is surely relevant. Do you disagree?

                            I have not, to my knowledge, relied on inaccurate summaries by Trevor Marriott. In fact, I've never quoted Trevor, only the opinions of the experts he consulted. I therefore struggle to understand the point that's being made. However, if you are contending that I have quoted Trevor, I would be obliged if you could refer me to the relevant post.

                            Regarding Dr Phillips' views. This is the reference: http://www.casebook.org/press_report...l?printer=true
                            Last edited by John G; 05-12-2016, 11:21 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by jerryd View Post
                              Hi Steve,

                              Actually Debs and I had a discussion about this awhile back and Dr Bond came to a little different conclusion based on ALL the facts he had present. Bond had examined the arm, the body and the leg/foot and felt the death could have been a few weeks earlier than Dr Neville. Bond had a range for the death though and the latter part of the range was in early September.

                              Personally, disagree or agree, I feel the date is somewhat significant if Dr. Neville is correct. That makes another double event on September 8th, 1888 and points a little more to a connection between JTR and Torso man, in my opinion.
                              Jerry,

                              Of course one cannot rule out a link to the 8th, however for me that is pushing it just a little too far in the connection stakes.
                              Neville says "about", it is guess work on an exact date for death in those circumstances is it not?

                              None the less an interesting idea, at least worth considering.

                              regards

                              Steve

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
                                Jerry,

                                Of course one cannot rule out a link to the 8th, however for me that is pushing it just a little too far in the connection stakes.
                                Neville says "about", it is guess work on an exact date for death in those circumstances is it not?

                                None the less an interesting idea, at least worth considering.

                                regards

                                Steve
                                Thanks Steve,

                                It is hard to determine the exact date, yes. However, the arm was not subject to the length of decomposition that the trunk was. To me, it seems it would have been easier to determine an approximate date of death by the condition of the arm than the badly decomposing torso that was discovered almost a month later.

                                The Pinchin case was also thought to be a September 8th death in 1889. I've been told many times I'm pushing the connections and maybe I am, but it is a rather interesting fact, is it not?
                                Last edited by jerryd; 05-12-2016, 11:08 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X