No announcement yet.

Torso Murders

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Hello again STEVE, and Nice to meet you MR BARNETT, and ALL.

    Hope all is well with you, Steve. I've been trying to drop a line on the board for you, but it's been a hot bed of activity lately (good stuff!).
    Apparently the 'R' in 'Robert' stands for Random, but these reports have been occupying the 'little grey cells' the past few days. My apologies to the board for the diversion.

    Morning Advertiser - 6 October

    Mr. Edward Deuchar has communicated some information to the police which may afford a clue to the discovery of the man who deposited the body of the woman in Whitehall and the arm in the Thames. Mr. Deuchar is a commercial traveller, and a little over three weeks ago he went on a tram-car from Vauxhall station to London-bridge. He noticed a man on the car carrying a parcel. He would not have taken particular notice of the parcel but for the fact that there was a terrible smell emanating from it. The olfactory organs of most of the passengers were affected by the extraordinary stench which pervaded all the car. A lady gave her husband, who was sitting next to the man, some lavender to hold to his nose. The parcel seemed to be heavy. The man carried it with extreme care under his arm. It was tied up in brown paper. The top of it was under his arm while he held the corner end in his hand. Mr. Deuchar says the man looked ill at ease and agitated. He described him as a powerfully built man, of rough appearance, with a goatee beard, and rather shabbily dressed. Mr. Deuchar is confident that he could recognise him again. The car went on, and when at the Obelisk, St. Georgeís-circus, several persons alighted. Mr. Deuchar still remained on the car, but when about 30 yards past the Obelisk said, "This stink is awful; I canít stand it any longer," and proceeded to go out. Just at that moment the suspicious-looking individual with the parcel asked the conductor, "Have we passed the Obelisk yet?" and then jumped out. Mr. Deuchar, when he had descended and walked some distance towards London-bridge, called a policemanís attention to the retreating form of the "man with the stinking parcel," and told him to "keep an eye on him."

    Morning Advertiser - 18 October

    Dr. Bond, of Broad Sanctuary, Westminster, who was one of the surgeons who made the post-mortem examination of the trunk, was summoned. On his arrival he pronounced the limb to be that of a finely-developed woman. It was the left leg, and had been severed at the knee, and the doctor's opinion was that it had been in the vault for a period of about six weeks. As the earth in which the leg was found had been thrown back for eight or ten weeks, Dr. Bond's estimate of time is no doubt correct.
    there,s nothing new, only the unexplored


    • #92
      Autopsy report on arm suggests;

      'maceration in water for three to four weeks, and the absence of ecchymosis proves that the limb was separated after death'

      'Decomposition had begun after maceration in water'

      'The fingers of the hand are firmly flexed and stiff, and the thumb oppo[sed] and flexed. In dissecting the limb it is found that [the] flexion of the fingers is due to the rigor mortis of the flexores digitorum'.

      'The ligature was either tied around to prevent the bleeding from the veins, or to fix a newspaper wrapper around the limb. In either case it had the result of preventing the draining out of the blood'


      • #93
        Originally posted by jerryd View Post
        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?
        Hi Jerry

        I agree it is a very interesting coincidence, and it may be more, I at this moment do not see enough to go that far.

        Guess at the end of the day its about if you think we have one killer (or groups of killers) or two.




        • #94
          Nice to meet you, too, Robert. There's a simple explanation for the Deuchar incident - cheese:



          • #95
            Originally posted by John G View Post
            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?

            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:

            Hi John,
            Of course I am not suggesting you shouldn't post your opinion too, you just seemed to be coming over as a little more dismissive of others than you usually are was all.

            As I already mentioned earlier, when asked about similarities in the torso cases Dr Biggs did not deal with the specifics in the material of the number of sections etc. Instead he made generalised comments that dismemberment cases would look similar because they have a head and limbs removed and that cutting the trunk in half is common and that's about it. He also called MJK's case a dismemberment in emails sent via Trevor so is obviously not aware of the individual cases in any detail. In his defence this is all second hand via Trevor through email and we had to rely solely on Trevor asking what we wanted to know.The information given by Dr Biggs in Trevor's book is also generalised in the same way and also doesn't rule out the torso cases being one or more murders.
            My apologies for claiming you rely on Trevor's writing, glad to hear that you don't because he failed to get the simplest of details right despite me providing him with material. I have no objection to Dr Biggs, I think he is a very sensible, honest man and if he ever does a detailed analysis and comparison of the torso cases I will be the first to welcome it, whatever the conclusion as I know it will have stemmed from honest, direct questions .

            Yes, taht is the Star report I was referring to. Dr Brownfiled was the one promoting the theory that Mylett linked to the Whitechapel cases because they had also been strangled and the Star then reproduced some of Dr Phillips findings to support this. The comment attributed to Dr Phillips was denied by Phillips himself and the details are in the sourcebook IIRC.
            Dr Brownfield was at odds with Dr Bond over whether or not Mylett's case was a homicidal strangulation.


            • #96
              Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
              Pierre, I suggest you look for an earlier date for disturbing events. The Whitehall torso victim had probably died 2 months before it was found, and a matching arm was found at Pimlico in mid-September, so it is very unlikely that events from 30th Sept or thereabouts had any influence.
              Hi Joshua,

              Yes, I know that the victim probably died 2 months before they found her. That historical fact can be placed in a solid time frame of other historical facts.

              Regards, Pierre


              • #97
                Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
                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?
                Putting it short: No, I donīt.

                What makes you ponder the possibility?


                • #98
                  Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                  quit wasting your time here trevor-youve got tee shirts to sell


                  • #99
                    [QUOTE=John G;380599]
                    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                    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?

                    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.
                    sorry John
                    its you having a bad day-and this last post was one of the sorriest ones Ive seen from you.

                    you've already demonstrated your mind is closed on the subject-so why don't you just do yourself a favor and quit wasting your time?

                    I know I am.


                    • [QUOTE=Elamarna;380534][QUOTE=Pierre;380525]

                      Pierre What you have said is most interesting.

                      Obviously you will not discuss this in detail I understand, fair enough, but I think we can look at one or two possible options.

                      Either the killer is undergoing some form of immense stress related to events following the "double event", Was he almost caught? Did he think someone recognised him near one of the scenes?
                      Both are certainly possible.
                      Hi Steve,

                      Or we might as well postulate that he was not at all worried about being caught and therefore the actions escalated and the options for his actions increased. If the murderer was very self assured and did not think he would ever be caught, he might not have experienced any limits as to the idea about what he could do. He could even have planned to do not just a double event, but a triple event.

                      Or you are suggesting something happened in his Personal life: family, work etc over this short period.

                      All are certainly interesting.
                      An hypothesis could be that a serial killer has a trigger that sets him off. The trigger is working over a certain time period, and the effects of it starts at one point in time and ends at one point in time. During this hypothetical time period there would be smaller events along the way, causing the serial killer to interact with these events to handle them, but not being able to do so causes him to commit murder.

                      For such an hypothesis about a chain of events we, of course, must have sources. Otherwise it would be merely theoretical.

                      Of course, such an hypothesis can also be connected to historical motive explanations. I often (but not always) prefer those since they theoretically give the acting subject more space to act in, especially if he has secured such a space for himself in life due to his position.

                      When you say the sources could be easily produced, I assume you are talking about sources for the reaction, not the actual event?
                      Of course we must have sources for both types if we would want high validity for our interpretations. And there must also be confirmative other sources, sources that support any hypothesis about the motive(s).
                      If am wrong on that, I assume there is no chance that those easily produced sources will be produced soon?


                      I know that I have a responsibility.

                      Regards, Pierre
                      Last edited by Pierre; 05-12-2016, 12:32 PM.


                      • Pierre

                        Can I congratulate you on a post which says loads, but avoids all the points I made, giving no information at all!

                        That is the reply I was expecting, and hoping for.

                        Thank you so very much, that is very helpful.



                        • Pierre

                          I have just seen your reply to Joshua:

                          "Yes, I know that the victim probably died 2 months before they found her. That historical fact can be placed in a solid time frame of other historical facts."

                          Must say I am somewhat at a lose, really fail to see how that squares with the earlier comment:

                          "My own answer to the last question, considering the Whitehall victim, is that one must understand the Whitehall victim from an hypothesis about the murderer experiencing very disturbing events in the days from the 30th of September to the 2nd of October 1888. Such an hypothesis implies an escalation of activities, where the murderer must let off steem to handle his situation. But that is just an hypothesis, although it is easy to produce sources for it."



                          • I was just scratching my head over that too, Steve.

                            Pierre, can you explain? And more to the point, will you?


                            • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post

                              Pierre, can you explain? And more to the point, will you?
                              Or better yet Pierre, just tell us the name of your secret suspect. That is still our number 1 problem in regards to your posts. We don't know what you're talking about.


                              • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
                                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?
                                Wasn't there a hit man who froze the corpses of his victims in order to throw off the TOD estimates? I think that actually worked, and that was in the 1980s or thereabouts, so I'd be surprised if the 1880s doctors could tell.
                                However, they also had electric freezers in the 1980s, and I suspect very few places in London even had an ice shed in the LVP. Do you have a theory in mind?