Torso Murders

[Trevor Marriott]

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?

To be honest the answer is no I cant, they are all options that must be considered in the absence of being able to prove a murder in each individual case we can only speculate, but what we can do is look at them all in unbiased fashion.

If you cant prove a murder then there cant be a murderer. That is why I have sugegsted they are now referred to as The Thames Torso Mysteries.

If a killer is targeting prostitutes and murder is his sole motive, why is he after killing them taking great steps to hide the identity, because these dismemberments all point to the identities being hidden.

Did JTR take steps to hide the identities of any of his victims ?

And not forgetting that these were all believed to be prostitutes. One of which we know was heavily pregnant and found minus the foetus. In this case the doctors initially believed that she died as a result of a failed abortion. So this means of death should not be ruled out in the other cases.

Would someone heavily pregnant be out on the street prostituting themselves, and if so would she likely be able to attract any punters, when those looking for the services of prostitutes would have more options to pick from having regard for the number of street prostitutes at that time. Maybe, maybe not. Is there any evidence that at the time she was still prostituting herself?

The sinister attraction to these murders is always going to generate interest but the reality is that there may be nothing sinister at all.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

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!

Dr Biggs went to great lengths to explain the use of the term flaps of skin, so these are not something which link these murders.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[John G]

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?

Hi Debra,

Thanks for the information. Much appreciated.

In respect of Kelly, I would have to conceded that there is no evidence the genital area was specifically targeted. In fact, there seems to have been very little design at all on the part of the killer- as was said at the inquest, the injuries were "most wanton."

In this case, I would argue that the perpetrator appears to have adopted a cut and slash method, and may well have been in a complete frenzy when attacking the body.

In respect of the Torso cases, I think it's important to consider the possibility of coincidence. As Dr Biggs opines:

"If you look at a series of unrelated dismembered bodies you will see some startling similarities between them....when disposing of a body people tend to adopt very similar strategies for dividing up the body to make it more manageable for concealment/transportation. The finished results end up looking very similar." (Marriott, 2015.)

[John G]

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!

Hi Fisherman,

In the case of Chapman, the killer's purpose for inflicting the abdominal injuries was clearly the targeting of the uterus. In any event, he wasn't trying to dismember the body and therefore there's no reason to think that, what you refer to, is anything more than a coincidence.

Kelly's injuries were "most wanton" and very different to Chapman's. Therefore it's difficult to see what purpose the killer had in mind, as he was probably attacking the body in a complete, uncontrolled frenzy.

Now if the sections removed were of identical size, or it could be demonstrated that the same knife was used, then perhaps we could start looking beyond coincidence.

[John Wheat]

Dr Biggs went to great lengths to explain the use of the term flaps of skin, so these are not something which link these murders.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So you do admit they were murders then?

[Debra A]

To be honest the answer is no I cant, they are all options that must be considered in the absence of being able to prove a murder in each individual case we can only speculate, but what we can do is look at them all in unbiased fashion.

If you cant prove a murder then there cant be a murderer. That is why I have sugegsted they are now referred to as The Thames Torso Mysteries.

If a killer is targeting prostitutes and murder is his sole motive, why is he after killing them taking great steps to hide the identity, because these dismemberments all point to the identities being hidden.

Did JTR take steps to hide the identities of any of his victims ?

And not forgetting that these were all believed to be prostitutes. One of which we know was heavily pregnant and found minus the foetus. In this case the doctors initially believed that she died as a result of a failed abortion. So this means of death should not be ruled out in the other cases.

Would someone heavily pregnant be out on the street prostituting themselves, and if so would she likely be able to attract any punters, when those looking for the services of prostitutes would have more options to pick from having regard for the number of street prostitutes at that time. Maybe, maybe not. Is there any evidence that at the time she was still prostituting herself?

The sinister attraction to these murders is always going to generate interest but the reality is that there may be nothing sinister at all.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But some of the options you are trying to suggest can be ruled out if we look at the specifics. If you have no explanation then you have no supporting evidence for your assertions...just a closed-minded counter that doesn't weigh up and likely made only for the sake of countering the idea that there also could be the serial killer option here it seems.

We can definitely say in the case of Elizabeth Jackson that no abortion or birth had taken place before her death, that the doctors looked for signs of disease from a natural death and found none, that her body was not prepared the way a medical specimen would be, that her limbs were not removed using the usual methods taught in medical schools, that her body was not dissected for anatomical study which involved studying veins, muscles, bones, stripping back flesh etc., not keeping a whole arm in tact. We can say that whoever dumped her remains didn't worry about the remains being identified by clothing.These were all options investigated and ruled out at the time.
I have gone into great detail about the abortion suggestion with you and have told you time and again that Dr Bond concluded officially at the last inquest that NO abortion had been performed on Elizabeth Jackson. The means of detecting a vaginal birth were exactly the same then as it is now, by observation of the vagina, cervix and uterus, which were all in tact. Abortion is never done by opening the abdomen from ribs to pubes.

So, what's left? What option is viable now in Elizabeth's case?

That these were a series of murders, one off murders, or one or more were linked to the Whitechapel crimes should not be dismissed if we are to look at them with the unbiased mind you claim to posses. There is no proof of murder, equally there is no proof of any other cause of death.

I don't intend to go around in circles with this again. You have chosen to ignore the evidence and continue peddling your unsupported ideas.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=John G;380508]

In respect of the Torso cases, I think it's important to consider the possibility of coincidence. As Dr Biggs opines:

"If you look at a series of unrelated dismembered bodies you will see some startling similarities between them....when disposing of a body people tend to adopt very similar strategies for dividing up the body to make it more manageable for concealment/transportation. The finished results end up looking very similar." (Marriott, 2015.)

Hi John,

But did Biggs study the Torso cases of 1888-1889 and did he focus on not just the signature (if he did at all consider the Torso cases) but on the wider MO?

I haven´t read the book but I think Trevor Marriot uses Biggs much in the way that Fisherman uses the barrister in his "documentary".

In many cases before 1888 the dismembered bodies were disposed of by throwing them into the water. In 1888-1889 body parts were found in specific places on dry land in London and not just in the Thames. So the question is why one torso was placed at the construction site of the new police building in Scotland Yard and not in the Thames, and why one torso was placed in Pinchin Street in Whitechapel a year after the murder on Chapman and not in the Thames.

Biggs is obviously comparing techniques for dismembering bodies and has a range of examples from his own time so what his ideas could help us see is that the torso cases from 1888-1889 are different.

This also means that the person who performed the dismemberments was different. And perhaps extremely rare. And we do know that Jack the Ripper was an extremely rare serial killer.

But that is naturally no indication for him ("Jack") having anything to do with the Torso cases. Such indications must be connected to the life of someone, to a real motive and it must also be explanatory as to the modus operandi.

Also - and this is very, very important - it must have explanatory power for the question as to WHY he did not use his "usual" methods, ripping destitute women in the streets of Whitehapel and WHY the victims (if they were victims, some do not think so but I do) were placed in those locations.

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.

Anyway, what do you think about the value of the statements of Biggs when applied to the Torso cases - and what do you think the wider MO gives us that Biggs and a simple signature analysis respectively does not?

Regards, Pierre

[Debra A]

Hi Debra,

Thanks for the information. Much appreciated.

In respect of Kelly, I would have to conceded that there is no evidence the genital area was specifically targeted. In fact, there seems to have been very little design at all on the part of the killer- as was said at the inquest, the injuries were "most wanton."

In this case, I would argue that the perpetrator appears to have adopted a cut and slash method, and may well have been in a complete frenzy when attacking the body.

In respect of the Torso cases, I think it's important to consider the possibility of coincidence. As Dr Biggs opines:

"If you look at a series of unrelated dismembered bodies you will see some startling similarities between them....when disposing of a body people tend to adopt very similar strategies for dividing up the body to make it more manageable for concealment/transportation. The finished results end up looking very similar." (Marriott, 2015.)

Thanks, John.
That is a fair answer, if you had suggested Kelly's genitals were specifically targeted I would have been very puzzled how you could determine that in her case compared to the very similar damage done to Elizabeth Jackson's genitals.

When supposedly asked what his thoughts about the similar removal of large flaps of abdominal skin and tissue to possibly access internal organs in the Elizabeth Jackson and Mary jane Kelly's cases, Dr Biggs reply was a general comment that there will be coincidental similarities in dismemberment cases. As we know, Mary Jane Kelly was not dismembered so I feel Dr Biggs was either not asked about a direct comparison concerning the flaps of skin in those two cases, one of mutilation, one of possible mutilation followed by dismemberment , as it's an odd, generalised comment for him to make to such a specific question...I think anyway.

[Debra A]

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!

Thanks Christer.
I certainly don't think it is unreasonable to want to explore and discuss the similarity in the removal of flaps of abdominal skin and tissue in terms of a link, in these cases of butchered women. Can anyone prove that dismemberment was the original or only aim in any of the torso cases?

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;380525]

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.

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.

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

All are certainly interesting.

When you say the sources could be easily produced, I assume you are talking about sources for the reaction, not the actual event?
If am wrong on that, I assume there is no chance that those easily produced sources will be produced soon?

cheers

Steve

[Joshua Rogan]

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.

[John G]

Thanks, John.
That is a fair answer, if you had suggested Kelly's genitals were specifically targeted I would have been very puzzled how you could determine that in her case compared to the very similar damage done to Elizabeth Jackson's genitals.

When supposedly asked what his thoughts about the similar removal of large flaps of abdominal skin and tissue to possibly access internal organs in the Elizabeth Jackson and Mary jane Kelly's cases, Dr Biggs reply was a general comment that there will be coincidental similarities in dismemberment cases. As we know, Mary Jane Kelly was not dismembered so I feel Dr Biggs was either not asked about a direct comparison concerning the flaps of skin in those two cases, one of mutilation, one of possible mutilation followed by dismemberment , as it's an odd, generalised comment for him to make to such a specific question...I think anyway.

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?

[John G]

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"

Superficial in contrast to the Whitechapel victims.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,

In the case of Chapman, the killer's purpose for inflicting the abdominal injuries was clearly the targeting of the uterus. In any event, he wasn't trying to dismember the body and therefore there's no reason to think that, what you refer to, is anything more than a coincidence.

Kelly's injuries were "most wanton" and very different to Chapman's. Therefore it's difficult to see what purpose the killer had in mind, as he was probably attacking the body in a complete, uncontrolled frenzy.

Now if the sections removed were of identical size, or it could be demonstrated that the same knife was used, then perhaps we could start looking beyond coincidence.

Find me one other example where a killer removed the abdominal wall of his victim in large sections of skin with subcutaneous tissue attached, John, and you may have a point.

It is extremely rare, and it is therefore a very clear indicator of a shared identity of the Ripper and the Torso killer. And Kelly and Chapman, arguably slain by the same man, did not have their abdominal walls removed in the exact same fashion. But both DID have the abdominal wall removed, and THAT is the clincher.

[Joshua Rogan]

Superficial in contrast to the Whitechapel victims.

So would you describe the throat wounds of the ripper victims as 'superficial' in contrast to those of the torso victims? Poor choice of word, I think.