Torso Murders

[John G]

To begin with, John, I donīt think the torso killer produced a skill that revealed medical training. We are looking at a handiwork of a very high quality, but not at what a surgeon would do. However, the medicos say that that work actually surpasses what a surgeon could have done in terms of skilled knife work!

What Phillips says is that the killer was able to secure the womb and part of the bladder with "one sweep of the knife". And that is not something surgeons do. Ever. Ergo, Phillips thught that the knofe work was of a very high quality. And that is very reminiscent of the Torso man.

Biology and nursing is not going to help you to assess the torso killers work, I think. What you primarily need to know is not the latin names of the parts he cut into. It is the quality of the cutting as such that is the key. He could cut more skillfully than any surgeon - but he did not cut in the way surgeons cut. He cut according to his own wishes and he did so with a craftsmanship that was highy skilled.

Ask yourself: If a killer feels a need to dispose of a person he has killed - why would he make it his business to cut carefully, meticulously, expertly and with a baffling level of skill? If he was just throwing the body away, why all that exactitude and hard work?

When you have worked that one out, you will see exactly how Kelly fits into the cutting world of the torso man. And thatīs a promise.

Thatīs all I am saying for now. Goodnight, John.

Thanks Fish,

I'll ponder overnight on your observations. Goodnight Fisherman.

[jerryd]

In 1875 Dr Bond was Assistant Surgeon to Westminster Hospital and examined the remains of another body that had been hacked up. That would be the body of Harriet Lane by the Whitechapel Murderer, Henry Wainwright.

I agree with Debs, Bond had examined a few torsos in his day.

[Joshua Rogan]

In 1875 Dr Bond was Assistant Surgeon to Westminster Hospital and examined the remains of another body that had been hacked up. That would be the body of Harriet Lane by the Whitechapel Murderer, Henry Wainwright.

I agree with Debs, Bond had examined a few torsos in his day.

Didn't he also spend some time in the Prussian army doing battlefield surgery?

[Debra A]

As an addendum, I would add that even if the Torso victims were dismembered in similar ways, this doesn't necessarily point to a single killer; as Dr Biggs points out, dismemberers tend to adopt similar strategies.

However, I remember Debra arguing that the victims were dismembered in different ways, which obviously suggests different killers.

When talking of these cases, Dr Biggs suggested that based on his own experiences, someone dismembering a body will commonly cut a body in half, remove limb and head and as a result cases may look similar but we know that in two of the torso cases 87 and 89, the torso was cut into three sections at similar points ,besides removal of the limbs and head. Dr Biggs did not address this is the general comments about torso dismemberment cases that TM published in his revised book leading me to think Dr Biggs did not read or was nor sent the detailed material.
Added to this, in two of the cases (again 87 and 89) the abdomen was opened up before dismemberment commenced by an incision that ran from between the ribs and right down to the pubes. How would this aid dismemberment I wonder?
In all cases except Pinchin St, internal organs were missing.

[John Wheat]

It didnīt surprise the medicos either. So I think we can discard the notion that we donīt know which instruments were used!

To Fisherman

In that case I would say we have a good idea what instruments were used in the Torso murders.

Cheers John

[John Wheat]

When talking of these cases, Dr Biggs suggested that based on his own experiences, someone dismembering a body will commonly cut a body in half, remove limb and head and as a result cases may look similar but we know that in two of the torso cases 87 and 89, the torso was cut into three sections at similar points ,besides removal of the limbs and head. Dr Biggs did not address this is the general comments about torso dismemberment cases that TM published in his revised book leading me to think Dr Biggs did not read or was nor sent the detailed material.
Added to this, in two of the cases (again 87 and 89) the abdomen was opened up before dismemberment commenced by an incision that ran from between the ribs and right down to the pubes. How would this aid dismemberment I wonder?
In all cases except Pinchin St, internal organs were missing.

To Debra

That to me that all suggests that The Torso Murders in 1887, 1888 and 1889 were all by the same hand.

Cheers John

[John G]

When talking of these cases, Dr Biggs suggested that based on his own experiences, someone dismembering a body will commonly cut a body in half, remove limb and head and as a result cases may look similar but we know that in two of the torso cases 87 and 89, the torso was cut into three sections at similar points ,besides removal of the limbs and head. Dr Biggs did not address this is the general comments about torso dismemberment cases that TM published in his revised book leading me to think Dr Biggs did not read or was nor sent the detailed material.
Added to this, in two of the cases (again 87 and 89) the abdomen was opened up before dismemberment commenced by an incision that ran from between the ribs and right down to the pubes. How would this aid dismemberment I wonder?
In all cases except Pinchin St, internal organs were missing.

Hi Debra,

Thanks for this. Unless I've misunderstood it does seem that there was no consistency as to how the Torso victims were dismembered, apart from perhaps the '87 and '89 cases. To my mind, that suggests the possibility of different perpetrators. After all, if a perpetrator had developed a successful strategy for dismembering a corpse, why change?

Regarding the Pinchin Street Torso. It's been suggested that the cut towards the vagina gave the appearance that the knife had slipped (Evans and Skinner, 2000). Moreover, there was no evidence of an attack on the genital area, unlike in the case of Tabram and four of the C5 victims. The incision in the abdomen was clearly superficial, compared with the Whitechapel victims, and no organs were removed, indicating a very different objective/motive.

[Trevor Marriott]

Added to this, in two of the cases (again 87 and 89) the abdomen was opened up before dismemberment commenced by an incision that ran from between the ribs and right down to the pubes. How would this aid dismemberment I wonder? .

Isnt that the way a body would be opened up for the purposes of either a post mortem, or another form of medical procedure ?

You could also argue if these were murders, then what would the motive be for making those incisions and opening the abdomen.

You could also argue that if these were simple murders why remove all the organs ? Why not simply cut the head off to hide the identity and throw the whole body in the thames.

It seems with these folks want to ignore the obvious in favour of the more sinister explanations.

The obvious being that they were not all murders and that the deaths may have occurred through other means.

Likewise any bodies that were obtained for medical research from mortuaries were the responsibility of those acquiring the body to dispose of the remains. That disposal should have been by burial, but funerals cost money and money saved is money gained. So to save money wrap the body parts in brown paper parcels and dispose of them at will.

The offer still stands for you to let me have the issues in writing that you think Dr Biggs didnt cover. Dr Biggs was given everything to peruse which you sent to me.

I keep saying this but there is no evidence to show all of these torsos were as a result of murders.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Debra,

Thanks for this. Unless I've misunderstood it does seem that there was no consistency as to how the Torso victims were dismembered, apart from perhaps the '87 and '89 cases. To my mind, that suggests the possibility of different perpetrators. After all, if a perpetrator had developed a successful strategy for dismembering a corpse, why change?

Regarding the Pinchin Street Torso. It's been suggested that the cut towards the vagina gave the appearance that the knife had slipped (Evans and Skinner, 2000). Moreover, there was no evidence of an attack on the genital area, unlike in the case of Tabram and four of the C5 victims. The incision in the abdomen was clearly superficial, compared with the Whitechapel victims, and no organs were removed, indicating a very different objective/motive.

You are right but the members of Murder Inc on here see it all differently for some reason

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Joshua Rogan]

The incision in the abdomen was clearly superficial, compared with the Whitechapel victims...

While no organs were taken, the wound can hardly be described as superficial, John;

"The skin and muscles of the abdomen had been cut by a vertical incision, running from 2 inches below the ensiform cartilage downward, and ending on the left side of the external genitals, just opening the vagina, but not opening the peritoneal cavity"

[Fisherman]

While no organs were taken, the wound can hardly be described as superficial, John;

"The skin and muscles of the abdomen had been cut by a vertical incision, running from 2 inches below the ensiform cartilage downward, and ending on the left side of the external genitals, just opening the vagina, but not opening the peritoneal cavity"

Plus the suggestion John G made, that there was no attack on the genital region, is effectively dissolved by this. The vagina was opened by the cut.

[Debra A]

To Debra

That to me that all suggests that The Torso Murders in 1887, 1888 and 1889 were all by the same hand.

Cheers John

Dr Hebbert suggested the same thing, John.

[Debra A]

Hi Debra,

Thanks for this. Unless I've misunderstood it does seem that there was no consistency as to how the Torso victims were dismembered, apart from perhaps the '87 and '89 cases. To my mind, that suggests the possibility of different perpetrators. After all, if a perpetrator had developed a successful strategy for dismembering a corpse, why change?

Regarding the Pinchin Street Torso. It's been suggested that the cut towards the vagina gave the appearance that the knife had slipped (Evans and Skinner, 2000). Moreover, there was no evidence of an attack on the genital area, unlike in the case of Tabram and four of the C5 victims. The incision in the abdomen was clearly superficial, compared with the Whitechapel victims, and no organs were removed, indicating a very different objective/motive.

Thanks John.
Yes, there were some differences in the number of sections made in all four cases 87 to 89. The two that were divided into three sections were strikingly similar though and in all cases there were definite similarities recorded in method used.

Can I ask, John- Do you yourself conclude that Mary Jane Kelly's genital area was targeted and what specifically suggests this to you?

[Debra A]

Isnt that the way a body would be opened up for the purposes of either a post mortem, or another form of medical procedure ?

You could also argue if these were murders, then what would the motive be for making those incisions and opening the abdomen.

You could also argue that if these were simple murders why remove all the organs ? Why not simply cut the head off to hide the identity and throw the whole body in the thames.

It seems with these folks want to ignore the obvious in favour of the more sinister explanations.

The obvious being that they were not all murders and that the deaths may have occurred through other means.

Likewise any bodies that were obtained for medical research from mortuaries were the responsibility of those acquiring the body to dispose of the remains. That disposal should have been by burial, but funerals cost money and money saved is money gained. So to save money wrap the body parts in brown paper parcels and dispose of them at will.

The offer still stands for you to let me have the issues in writing that you think Dr Biggs didnt cover. Dr Biggs was given everything to peruse which you sent to me.

I keep saying this but there is no evidence to show all of these torsos were as a result of murders.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Bodies obtained for medical research where stripped and examined in all detail, Trevor. We know that from contemporary illustrations and photographs of dissected bodies. Let me ask you : Why would an anatomist discard such prime medical specimens as arms and legs without any attempt at student dissection?
Why sell off a heart and a foetus and nothing else if demand for anatomical specimens was high and a price paid on all body parts> Why not strip the body completely. Dr Biggs mentioned that no anatomical dissection had taken place. Doctors would hardly incorrectly practice limb removal and then discard their specimen.

You also have to answer why Elizabeth was not parcelled in brown paper but in her own identifiable clothing? Why would an anatomist have an acquired body's clothing and why would he illegally dump his non-anatomically dissected specimen wrapped in that same clothing and risk possibly being identified and traced back to the workhouse or mortuary it came from ?

What is the motive for the Whitechapel victims having their abdomen's opened up?

Operations were not illegal and cost money. A doctor opening someone up from ribs to pubes in the course of an operation would be a very an absolute maniac!
The term illegal operation means an abortion related procedure, not any other operation done illegally! I would be interested in any list of operations deemed illegal in that era.

Can you address any of these points specifically?

[Fisherman]

Thanks John.
Yes, there were some differences in the number of sections made in all four cases 87 to 89. The two that were divided into three sections were strikingly similar though and in all cases there were definite similarities recorded in method used.

Can I ask, John- Do you yourself conclude that Mary Jane Kelly's genital area was targeted and what specifically suggests this to you?

Further to this, I would like to point to how Elizabeth Jackson had the abdominal wall removed in two large flaps, how Mary Kelly had the abdominal wall removed in three large flaps and how Annie Chapman had the abdominal wall removed in four large flaps.
Now, which is the relevant part to keep in mind: that they all had their abdominal walls removed in large flaps, pointing to a connection, or that they had their abdominal walls removed in differing numbers of flaps, pointing to no connection at all?
Where does the actual significance lie?

PS. Thanks for joining the discussion, Debra - much appreciated!