Torso Murders

[Debra A]

Come Debra on you are getting as bad as Fisherman making it up as you go along to suit your theory.

Was there any evidence from the inquest to show that anything was asked to be withheld.? No ! Had there been it would have been reported as it was in the case of Chapman.

The coroner simply "suggested" that is a long way from what some coroners do and that is to direct a jury to come to a specific verdict.

As I said it was shambolic, with nothing to show a cause of death, and that it was a coroners inquest is for, if there is no proven cause of death it should be an open verdict.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I didn't say anything was 'withheld', I said how do you know that all the evidence that went towards a verdict of wilful murder was reported in the press? Who was Fred then? His name is mentioned but there is nothing further said about him, My point is that we are not always privy to the full inquest blow by blow in the press.

[Debra A]

How do you know he wasn't taking her to one ?

Being even more realistic. You cant prove he murdered her can you?

I see from reading your dissertation that it is believed she may have been murdered in or near Battersea Park an area where she was known to frequent some 30 mins or more away from Whitechapel

Looking at that scenario then, why would a killer kill her in a park and then cut up the body.Why not simply leave it in the park? The longer he would have spent with the victims body the more risk of detection.

Another problem with that scenario is the disposal of the body parts, they could not have all been taken away at the same time so again more problems for a would be killer.

There are always two sides to every argument !!!!!!!

Two other parts of the Jackson torso which seems to not want to be discussed and I can see why with its implications to the murder scenario, is firstly part of her body was found wrapped in a specific type of material

This was how Macnaghten decsribes it

"One of the last portions of the body which turned up was enveloped in a curious piece of white cloth, such as is used by certain students engaged on a particular kind of work"

What certain students is he referring to, medical ?

I would also mention the report which mentions the fact that a swab had been inserted in her rectum. This is interesting is it not? A killer and dismemberer hardly likely to do this?

So what is the explanation for this swab?

These swabs could have been used to prevent an involuntary bowel movement during labour, or some other procedure which involved an extreme amount of pain for the patient and so we get back to a possible death during or as a result of some unlicensed procedure.

I am sure you and the other members of "Murder Inc" on here will come up with other explanations to negate this very plausible one.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor, you are telling me to consider things that originated with me! I was the first person to find that Elizabeth Jackson had a piece of linen in her back passage! It was me that found and posted that this was a technique used by abortionists. I was telling the story of Elizabeth's case, therefore I included the progression made by the police and doctors in their investigations. No one said Elizabeth was definitely killed near Battersea Park, it was an idea suggested by someone. When will you realise that research involves reading and weighing up all sources available and giving other people the chance to do the same? I post when I can see that you are deliberately making things up to suit your own agenda,
Whatever problems you envisage a person had with dumping the body that would also apply in any scenario. Whoever dismembered Elizabeth, had the same risk in dumping the body parts!! Being an abortionist dumping body parts does not make you invisible!

Again, I see you like to quote Macnaghten when it suits yet when he disagrees you dismiss him as 'unreliable.'

And there you go again with your patronising comments. If I posted what I really thought about you I would be banned instantly! instead I have more respect and the good grace to realise that people are entitled to their own opinion when basing their conclusions on facts.

[Trevor Marriott]

With Elizabeth Jackson there may have been additional reasons for the jury bringing in a verdict of 'wilful murder'. You should consider that other evidence might have been produced but not reported on to make them come to that verdict. .

Come Debra on you are getting as bad as Fisherman making it up as you go along to suit your theory.

Was there any evidence from the inquest to show that anything was asked to be withheld.? No ! Had there been it would have been reported as it was in the case of Chapman.

The coroner simply "suggested" that is a long way from what some coroners do and that is to direct a jury to come to a specific verdict.

As I said it was shambolic, with nothing to show a cause of death, and that it was a coroners inquest is for, if there is no proven cause of death it should be an open verdict.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Thanks Dusty and Joshua. The descriptions are all more or less the same, there's no major discrepancy is there? I mention him looking like a navvy in my casebook dissertation. There would have been plenty of work in the area and I think it was Jerry who asked what we know about the men working in the Whitehall basement vault. If a rowing hat was similar to the one in the picture posted by Jerry, then a navvies hat is very similar in general, a soft cloth hat with a peak:

http://www.railwayarchive.org.uk/stories/pages.php?enum=LE123&maxp=8&pnum=1

He certainly doesn't sound like the type of man you'd expect to be involved in the back street abortion trade does he?

How do you know he wasn't taking her to one ?

Being even more realistic. You cant prove he murdered her can you?

I see from reading your dissertation that it is believed she may have been murdered in or near Battersea Park an area where she was known to frequent some 30 mins or more away from Whitechapel

Looking at that scenario then, why would a killer kill her in a park and then cut up the body.Why not simply leave it in the park? The longer he would have spent with the victims body the more risk of detection.

Another problem with that scenario is the disposal of the body parts, they could not have all been taken away at the same time so again more problems for a would be killer.

There are always two sides to every argument !!!!!!!

Two other parts of the Jackson torso which seems to not want to be discussed and I can see why with its implications to the murder scenario, is firstly part of her body was found wrapped in a specific type of material

This was how Macnaghten decsribes it

"One of the last portions of the body which turned up was enveloped in a curious piece of white cloth, such as is used by certain students engaged on a particular kind of work"

What certain students is he referring to, medical ?

I would also mention the report which mentions the fact that a swab had been inserted in her rectum. This is interesting is it not? A killer and dismemberer hardly likely to do this?

So what is the explanation for this swab?

These swabs could have been used to prevent an involuntary bowel movement during labour, or some other procedure which involved an extreme amount of pain for the patient and so we get back to a possible death during or as a result of some unlicensed procedure.

I am sure you and the other members of "Murder Inc" on here will come up with other explanations to negate this very plausible one.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Debra A]

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.

With Elizabeth Jackson there may have been additional reasons for the jury bringing in a verdict of 'wilful murder'. You should consider that other evidence might have been produced but not reported on to make them come to that verdict. A witness saw Elizabeth with a man at a time that must have been close to her death and at the inquest the name of her 'Charley' and a mention of a man named 'Fred' came up but was not elaborated on in the newspapers.
That may have been significant, or, it could be that despite what doctor Bond had said about there being no signs of instrument use to bring on an abortion and the foetus was removed after death, it could be the jury doubted that evidence and brought in a wilful murder verdict against that evidence in belief that there was an abortion. Juries didn't always follow medical witness testimony.

[Debra A]

Thanks Dusty and Joshua. The descriptions are all more or less the same, there's no major discrepancy is there? I mention him looking like a navvy in my casebook dissertation. There would have been plenty of work in the area and I think it was Jerry who asked what we know about the men working in the Whitehall basement vault. If a rowing hat was similar to the one in the picture posted by Jerry, then a navvies hat is very similar in general, a soft cloth hat with a peak:

http://www.railwayarchive.org.uk/stories/pages.php?enum=LE123&maxp=8&pnum=1

He certainly doesn't sound like the type of man you'd expect to be involved in the back street abortion trade does he?

[drstrange169]

or this description ...

[Joshua Rogan]

Yes, it could be either style I think, Jerry, The Thames Watermen definitely wore straw boaters.
Another interesting thing is the date of the sighting as 3rd June 9pm when the doctors, Bond and Kempster, both said at inquest that the remains were consistent with a time of death 24 hours before they were washed up on Tues 4th June in the a.m.

edit: Looking back, they said within 24 hours, so that fits okay.

The Times 5th July says it may not have been a rowing hat at all....

"Jennie Lee, of 14, Turks-row, said she had known the deceased Lizzie Jackson two years. She confirmed the former evidence as to the destitution of the girl. Witness last saw her on the Monday before Whit Sunday, and she was then with a man who had on light moleskin trousers, dark cloth coat, and a rough cap, and she thought he was a navvy. She was wearing the check ulster and skirt produced, and went away with the man to Battersea."

[jerryd]

Destroying the sources from the past by imposing our common sense on them and then claim that they say X when we do not KNOW this is meaningless. It will NOT help us find the killer.

Way off topic again, but I want to address Pierre's point and then be done with it.

A few months back I found a news clip of the death of John Arnold. Nowhere in the clip did it say this was the John Arnold of Pinchin torso fame or anything close. It just said his age at death and what he did for a living. Using good old common sense, matching age and occupation, it is easy to see it is no doubt John Arnold of Pinchin torso fame. Pierre would disagree, I'm sure, because the article didn't spell it out for him, yet he will use a cryptic message about an address for Miller's Court in a news clip.

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

OK, I see. Sorry!

Regards, Pierre

thats ok

steve

[Pierre]

Pierre I said somewhat intact, Jerry said not completely destroyed

I agree that we have nothing which gives a clear picture of if the eyes were damaged or not. the sources do not contain enough information on that to allow us to make an hypotheses.


Of course I know that will not do and I am not suggesting it.


You seem to have misunderstood what I have said. Have you misread something as a quote from me when it is from someone else?

The hypotheses from Fisherman was that the eyes were deliberately left undamaged.

I have said:

I don't think one can say they were not damaged!
Even if they were, it cannot be shown this was intentional!

I have not mentioned common sense. that was someone else!


Either I am misunderstanding what you are posting or you are misunderstanding what I am saying.

For once we are in total agreement on something, rare I know.

so please don't have a go at me about something I have not said

Steve

Hi Steve,

OK, I see. Sorry!

Regards, Pierre

[jerryd]

Jerryd:

Why do you quote me and then respond to Steve?

He didnīt check the sources...?

[jerryd]

No. Because it wasnīt Xmas in the past and Santa didnīt bring us the sources we wish for, would anyone wish for such a source. Wishful THINKING leads nowhere. Either we will find a serial killer, or we will not. Hoping for it will not help. Destroying the sources from the past by imposing our common sense on them and then claim that they say X when we do not KNOW this is meaningless. It will NOT help us find the killer.

Nobody is destroying your precious sources, Pierre. Why is it that only YOUR interpretation of the sources is correct? A lot of us here are really not looking for the killer. We enjoy researching and finding archives that add to the case. Archives that are rearing their heads after all these years and pertain to the case. Or we just enjoy taking a deeper look into some of the interesting lives of people in the Victorian era. To find the killer, I'm afraid, is too late. Good luck in your fruitless search though. Even if you are fortunate to have some pretty good evidence, good luck convincing the mob.

I've had it up to my own eyeballs with you, though. It's the first time in my life I have felt like I was speaking to a robot. Thanks for that experience, I guess!

[Debra A]

Pierre cocked up the code in one of his earlier posts and it's been copied wrongly for about a dozen or more posts, altering the name of the person being quoted in all those posts.
Pierre does it regularly.

[Elamarna]

Dew said her eyes were photographed in attempt to capture an image of the killer. It says eyes [plural] so both were at least somewhat intact.

Steve,

Now we are beginning to get a small range of variation in the talk about Kellyīs eyes.

1. Fisherman said: "We know that the killer managed to do this without inflicting any damage in Kellyīs eyeballs".

2. You said A) "Somewhat intact" and then B) "Not completely destroyed".

So we go from no inflicted damage to somewhat intact to not completely destroyed. This means there is low validity in the interpretations. I could live with that if there was a good source. But there isnīt.

Because the sources do not speak about eyeballs or damage to those eyeballs. So we know nothing about them.

Pierre I said somewhat intact, Jerry said not completely destroyed

I agree that we have nothing which gives a clear picture of if the eyes were damaged or not. the sources do not contain enough information on that to allow us to make an hypotheses.

No, never. Common sense is very dangerous. Especially when you have insufficient sources and you fill in your lack of knowledge with "common sense". You get garbage in - garbage out immediately.

You get: "No one actually said that the eyeballs of Kelly were not damaged but hey, letīs say they were not completely destroyed AND without any damage.

You know this will not do, Steve. I know that you know this and you know that I know that you know this.

Of course I know that will not do and I am not suggesting it.


You seem to have misunderstood what I have said. Have you misread something as a quote from me when it is from someone else?

The hypotheses from Fisherman was that the eyes were deliberately left undamaged.

I have said:

I don't think one can say they were not damaged!
Even if they were, it cannot be shown this was intentional!

I have not mentioned common sense. that was someone else!

No. Because it wasnīt Xmas in the past and Santa didnīt bring us the sources we wish for, have anyone wished for such a source. Wishful THINKING leads nowhere. Either we will find a serial killer, or we will not. Hoping for it will not help. Destroying the sources from the past by imposing our common sense on them and then claim that they say X when we do not KNOW this is meaningless. It will NOT help us find the killer.

And you know what, Steve. "Common sense" very often is just a disguise for our own simple social bias. You see what you WANT to see. I know you agree with me on that. And Fisherman has an hypothesis about the killer being careful with the eyes of the victims, because this hypothesis is good for his ideas about Lechmere. But I say that the killer, if he left the eyes, might as well have had no particular interest in them. Or he might have had that, but we need sources for it. Not "common sense.

Either I am misunderstanding what you are posting or you are misunderstanding what I am saying.

For once we are in total agreement on something, rare I know.

so please don't have a go at me about something I have not said

Steve