Torso Murders

[Trevor Marriott]

While I agree that The Ripper and The Torso Killer were two separate killers the notion that the Torso Victims weren't murdered and dismembered is nonsense.

But you cant prove that all the torso victims were murdered. So the theory falls down at that hurdle. Suspecting and proving are worlds apart. To use the word nonsense beggars belief.

There are other plausible explanations for these torsos which far outweigh the murder theory, with evidential facts to support many of them, but hey lets just forget evidence shall we and go off on our own tangent.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[John Wheat]

But you cant prove that all the torso victims were murdered. So the theory falls down at that hurdle. Suspecting and proving are worlds apart. To use the word nonsense beggars belief.

There are other plausible explanations for these torsos which far outweigh the murder theory, with evidential facts to support many of them, but hey lets just forget evidence shall we and go off on our own tangent.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No it doesn't there are no other plausible explanations for the Torso Murder Theory. There's a reason no one else agrees with your theory, experts and novices alike. Because it's a poorly thought out theory with no evidence.

[Errata]

Lord knows I don't often agree with Mr. Marriott really, ever, but there is at least one explanation that would mean these women were not murdered, though clearly they were mutilated. And that is they died where they really ought not have died. People have gone to amazing lengths to get rid of inconvenient corpses that would bring scrutiny on them they are desperately trying to avoid. It would not be the first time a corpse was chopped up just to get rid of it.

Is it likely? I tend to think they were murdered. But my hometown had a problem with this during Prohibition, so it's not hard for me to believe it could have happened here.

[Trevor Marriott]

No it doesn't there are no other plausible explanations for the Torso Murder Theory. There's a reason no one else agrees with your theory, experts and novices alike. Because it's a poorly thought out theory with no evidence.

The poorly thought out theory is the one the suggests all these torsos were murdered, with no supportive evidence, no motive, and nothing to connect them all.

You must also have a degree in armchair forensic crime and pathology investigation.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Lord knows I don't often agree with Mr. Marriott really, ever, but there is at least one explanation that would mean these women were not murdered, though clearly they were mutilated. And that is they died where they really ought not have died. People have gone to amazing lengths to get rid of inconvenient corpses that would bring scrutiny on them they are desperately trying to avoid. It would not be the first time a corpse was chopped up just to get rid of it.

Is it likely? I tend to think they were murdered. But my hometown had a problem with this during Prohibition, so it's not hard for me to believe it could have happened here.

Hi Errarta

There is a difference between dismemberment and mutilation. The bodies could simply have been dismembered to either simply get rid of them and hide their identities if they died through other means other than murder. I dont see to many signs that point to mutilation and then dismemberment.

It has been mentioned the cutting of the abdomens down to the pubes. That as is known is how post mortems are carried out. We also know that bodies were obtainable from post mortems for medical research. However they would not be released until after a post mortem was carried out, so how do we know that one or more of these torsos did not originate from a mortuary, and was disposed of by the recipient after it had served its purpose. That also explains why in some of the case the whole viscera was missing.

The we have the failed abortions, or those who died and friends or relatives could not afford the funeral costs perhaps. Equally perhaps one was a single domestic murder where the offender needed to get rid of the body for obvious reasons.

You see when you sit down and look at the for`s and againsts there are more against`s these being the work of a serial killer than the for`s to suggest they were. But the members of "Murder Inc" on here cant or wont accept any of those.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Debra A]

Debra!

Good to see you out here!

I would like you to comment on a comparison between the work of the Ripper and the torso killer, when it comes to cutting skills.

You point out how Hebbert meant that a butcher or a hunter could perhaps be traced by the cutting into the torso victims.

Just like you say, Hebbert seemingly thought that it was the frequency with which a butcher disarticulated limbs that would have given him a skill that surpassed that of a surgeon, who would not have been as accustomed to this kind of cutting from his own profession.

However, one must assume that a surgeon would have been just as knowledgeable as a butcher when it comes to where the cuts were to be applied and how the joint was to be opened up and how it should be cut through.

In that purely theoretical department, the killer could have no advantage compared to a surgeon.The killers advantage would only become visible in the handiwork he applied, where his greater experience allowed him to do the cutting with greater ease and speed than a surgeon would be able to apply.

Now, since we may predispose that a surgeon would know where and how to cut, we may conclude that it is in the practical result of the cutting that Hebbert read in a butcher.

So how would the cutting work differ, if both men, killer/butcher and surgeon, knew exactly how to cut?

The answer must lie in the speed of the operation, as far as I understand. Where a surgeon would be cutting more carefully, something that is given away by the veering direction of a cut, the killer never hesitaded, but instead provided long, sweeping, unhesitating cuts, where the knife never halted. And he still managed to direct the cuts exactly as he intended to.

This is how we tell an expert from an amateur. It is the exact same thing as looking at a line that has been drawn slowly and hesitatingly with a pencil to one that has been drawn with an unhesitating sweep of the pencil.

Am I making sense so far? I hope so.

Now, letīs move on to Annie Chapman and how she got elevated to the victim of a surgeon, as per Phillipsī testimony at the inquest. I am quoting from the Lancet of September 1888:

It was appears that the abdomen had been entirely laid open; that the intestines, severed from their mesenteric attachments, had been lifted out of the body, and placed on the shoulder of the corpse; whilst from the pelvis the uterus and its appendages, with the upper portion of the vagina and the posterior two-thirds of the bladder, had been entirely removed. No trace of these parts could be found, and the incisions were cleanly cut, avoiding the rectum, and dividing the vagina low enough to avoid injury to the cervix uteri. Obviously the work was that of an expert--of one, at least, who had such knowledge of anatomical or pathological examinations as to be enabled to secure the pelvic organs with one sweep of a knife, which must therefore, as Mr. Phillips pointed out, have been at least five inches long.

Now, we all know that there is no operation in the world that requires a surgeon to remove the uterus, the upper portion of the vagina and the posterior two-thirds of the bladder. Such an operation would immediately kill the patient.
A hysterectomi can of course be performed, taking out the uterus, but a hysterectomi would never involve parts of the vagina and the bladder.

So why did Phillips speak of expertise? Because, I would suggest, of the quality of the knife-work. We have a long sweep of the knife, unhesitating and leaving cleanly cut surfaces. In other words, we have the exact same thing as we have in the torso cases - a knifework so superior that it makes you think that an expert has been involved.
In Chapmans case, that expertise deprived her of the uterus, the upper part of the vagina and the posterior two-thirds of her bladder...

Dr Galloway, who examined the Rainham torso, first offered the suggestion that somebody with a thorough experience of surgery had done the cutting of the victim.
In court, he had changed his mind, and said that "The body had been divided by someone who knew the structure of the human frame, but not necessarily by a skilled anatomist."

What I read into that is something that dovetails exactly with the rest I mention here - the initial reaction of the medicos when faced with the work of the Ripper AND the Torso man was awe - they were blown away by how skillfully these men used their knives, only to later realize that the cutting they did was not that that of a surgeon or anatomist.

How large is the chance that two contemporary serialists in a world where serialists were extremely rare, would have this in common too - apart from the cutting from breastbone to pubes, the removing of the abdominal walls in large flaps, the taking away of organs that were both sexually and non-sexually related...

I am at a loss to see how anyone can discard the very obvious suggestion that these murders had one perpetrator only.

Hi Christer,

Yes, I understand what you are saying and do agree in the main.
Knife skill is the common factor and that is a very good point about what Dr Phillips meaning was when he mentioned the skill shown in removing the organs using one confident sweeping motion to secure the uterus and no, no doctor is ever required to perform that particular 'operation' on a living patient, it would be a serious botch job so could have shown no 'surgical skill' as surgical skill is surely the ability to remove organs successfully and keep a patient alive without collateral damage of the surrounding organs?

Hebbert does mention the knife work prior to opening the joints and these cuts being precise.

Elizabeth Jackson's uterus perhaps displayed the same sort of method of removal as Annie Chapman's with the upper portion of the bladder still attached but the cervix undamaged? I wonder how those two descriptions compare.

[Debra A]

Hi Errarta

There is a difference between dismemberment and mutilation. The bodies could simply have been dismembered to either simply get rid of them and hide their identities if they died through other means other than murder. I dont see to many signs that point to mutilation and then dismemberment.

It has been mentioned the cutting of the abdomens down to the pubes. That as is known is how post mortems are carried out. We also know that bodies were obtainable from post mortems for medical research. However they would not be released until after a post mortem was carried out, so how do we know that one or more of these torsos did not originate from a mortuary, and was disposed of by the recipient after it had served its purpose. That also explains why in some of the case the whole viscera was missing.

The we have the failed abortions, or those who died and friends or relatives could not afford the funeral costs perhaps. Equally perhaps one was a single domestic murder where the offender needed to get rid of the body for obvious reasons.

You see when you sit down and look at the for`s and againsts there are more against`s these being the work of a serial killer than the for`s to suggest they were. But the members of "Murder Inc" on here cant or wont accept any of those.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Time and again it has been pointed out to you why these scenarios don't fit the individual cases , one by one, in depth, but you choose to ignore all the evidence that counters your claims.
If bodies were released from mortuaries to anatomist why on earth did those anatomist not make full use of them and strip everything of use, take out all the organs? Anatomists stripped bodies of everything during examinations, skin, muscle, sinew, bone, exploring everything. If bodies were so in demand why would every part not be utilised by a medical school? Why were they still in their own clothing and disposed of with their clothing?
Dr Biggs said that they had not been used for anatomical study.

None of what you propose adds up there. So, why else would an incision from ribs to pubes be made?

[John Wheat]

Time and again it has been pointed out to you why these scenarios don't fit the individual cases , one by one, in depth, but you choose to ignore all the evidence that counters your claims.
If bodies were released from mortuaries to anatomist why on earth did those anatomist not make full use of them and strip everything of use, take out all the organs? Anatomists stripped bodies of everything during examinations, skin, muscle, sinew, bone, exploring everything. If bodies were so in demand why would every part not be utilised by a medical school? Why were they still in their own clothing and disposed of with their clothing?
Dr Biggs said that they had not been used for anatomical study.

None of what you propose adds up there. So, why else would an incision from ribs to pubes be made?

To Trevor

You really should read this post. Its written by arguably the World Authority on The Torso Murders and completely blows your theory out of the water.

Cheers John

[John Wheat]

The poorly thought out theory is the one the suggests all these torsos were murdered, with no supportive evidence, no motive, and nothing to connect them all.

You must also have a degree in armchair forensic crime and pathology investigation.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Thanks for the personal insult Trevor. If your expecting a slanging match then your sadly mistaken. I know I'm right so I don't need to stoop to that level

Cheers John

[Trevor Marriott]

Time and again it has been pointed out to you why these scenarios don't fit the individual cases , one by one, in depth, but you choose to ignore all the evidence that counters your claims.
If bodies were released from mortuaries to anatomist why on earth did those anatomist not make full use of them and strip everything of use, take out all the organs? Anatomists stripped bodies of everything during examinations, skin, muscle, sinew, bone, exploring everything. If bodies were so in demand why would every part not be utilised by a medical school? Why were they still in their own clothing and disposed of with their clothing?
Dr Biggs said that they had not been used for anatomical study.

None of what you propose adds up there. So, why else would an incision from ribs to pubes be made?

So why would a killer do that? and if it were the same killer that would be evident in all the torsos would it not?.

You do not know what use bodies were put to for different medical research. some may have wanted certain parts only.

Do you accept that those incisions are used in post mortems ? if you do then why is it not possible that some of those torsos came from mortuaries after post mortems being carried out on them ?

The removal of the heads are significant with trying to hide the identities. Why would a serial killer want to do that specifically? Conversely that could mean trying to hide the identities relative to a body having being acquired from a mortuary thus not wanting it traced back to the acquirer.

Not also taking away the illegal abortion procedures. or some dying of complications from some illegal medical treatment. There are so many others to consider which point away from murder, and as I keep saying murders cannot be proven in many of the cases.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Debra A]

So why would a killer do that? and if it were the same killer that would be evident in all the torsos would it not?.

You do not know what use bodies were put to for different medical research. some may have wanted certain parts only.

Do you accept that those incisions are used in post mortems ? if you do then why is it not possible that some of those torsos came from mortuaries after post mortems being carried out on them ?

The removal of the heads are significant with trying to hide the identities. Why would a serial killer want to do that specifically? Conversely that could mean trying to hide the identities relative to a body having being acquired from a mortuary thus not wanting it traced back to the acquirer.

Not also taking away the illegal abortion procedures. or some dying of complications from some illegal medical treatment. There are so many others to consider which point away from murder, and as I keep saying murders cannot be proven in many of the cases.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I only talk of the four torso 87-89 and three of those had the same incision ribs to pubes. How does it facilitate dismembering? Why did some of the Whitechapel victims have their abdomens opened up?

Yes, it was used in post mortems to open up bodies but it makes little sense that a medical facility would buy a body from a mortuary after post mortem and then not make full use of it. If you are proposing that the mortuary would sell off just a heart or single organ, because in the case of Elizabeth Jackson all organs were retrieved apart from the heart and windpipe, then dismember and illegally dump the remains in the Thames is ludicrous.

If demand was as high as you say they could have sold off every portion of that body to a medical facility and if they had done it according to the rules it would have required the consent of the family and after a certain time internval . Deaths in the workhouse had to be recorded if a post mortem were to take place so why do a post mortem on a body that was going to be dumped illegally after having organs removed, in its own clothing and therefore leave a paper trail? For whose benefit was the post mortem? You just haven't thought these scenarios through.

You are basically suggesting that Elizabeth Jackson possibly died in some sort of establishment [you don't make it clear where], was taken to a mortuary but you don't specify what type of mortuary it was, hospital, workhouse or otherwise, and a costly post mortem was performed that was utterly pointless because no one knew or cared that she was actually dead!
Her family weren't traced or informed even though she was a young, pregnant woman and probably going to be missed by them and the mortuary must have just whipped out her heart her unborn child and after the post mortem and sold them on because they were the things missing from the body. Then someone from the mortuary dismembered the body, parcelled the different parts up in her own clothing and went out one night to dump it in the Thames and Battersea Park to avoid paying the burial costs they were liable for seeing as they hadn't traced the family. So to make a measly couple of quid they went to all that trouble?!! Come off it, Trevor.

[Trevor Marriott]

I only talk of the four torso 87-89 and three of those had the same incision ribs to pubes. How does it facilitate dismembering? Why did some of the Whitechapel victims have their abdomens opened up?

Yes, it was used in post mortems to open up bodies but it makes little sense that a medical facility would buy a body from a mortuary after post mortem and then not make full use of it. If you are proposing that the mortuary would sell off just a heart or single organ, because in the case of Elizabeth Jackson all organs were retrieved apart from the heart and windpipe, then dismember and illegally dump the remains in the Thames is ludicrous.

If demand was as high as you say they could have sold off every portion of that body to a medical facility and if they had done it according to the rules it would have required the consent of the family and after a certain time internval . Deaths in the workhouse had to be recorded if a post mortem were to take place so why do a post mortem on a body that was going to be dumped illegally after having organs removed, in its own clothing and therefore leave a paper trail? For whose benefit was the post mortem? You just haven't thought these scenarios through.

You are basically suggesting that Elizabeth Jackson possibly died in some sort of establishment [you don't make it clear where], was taken to a mortuary but you don't specify what type of mortuary it was, hospital, workhouse or otherwise, and a costly post mortem was performed that was utterly pointless because no one knew or cared that she was actually dead!
Her family weren't traced or informed even though she was a young, pregnant woman and probably going to be missed by them and the mortuary must have just whipped out her heart her unborn child and after the post mortem and sold them on because they were the things missing from the body. Then someone from the mortuary dismembered the body, parcelled the different parts up in her own clothing and went out one night to dump it in the Thames and Battersea Park to avoid paying the burial costs they were liable for seeing as they hadn't traced the family. So to make a measly couple of quid they went to all that trouble?!! Come off it, Trevor.

Elizabeth Jackson had all the hallmarks of a failed abortion. The doctors even suspected that in the first instance. I never suggested she was ever taken to a mortuary that was your idea.

If she had died on a back street table then clearly there would have been a need to dispose of the body would there not so why wouldn't someone cut the body up and throw it in the thames ?

As normal you are missing the points in relation to mortuaries. Bodies or body parts could be obtained. In the case of bodies it was the responsibility of those acquiring them to ensure a proper burial afterwards that costs money.

In many of the case the body parts found could not be positively linked to the torsos found.

Bodies and body parts were available to doctors, surgeons, anatomists, and medical students. One obtained anything could have been done with them, you have to accept that and think outside the box now and again.

You are quick to find fault but wont accept that there are other plausible explanations which have to be considered. You should remember the words prove or disprove !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Lord knows I don't often agree with Mr. Marriott really, ever, but there is at least one explanation that would mean these women were not murdered, though clearly they were mutilated. And that is they died where they really ought not have died. People have gone to amazing lengths to get rid of inconvenient corpses that would bring scrutiny on them they are desperately trying to avoid. It would not be the first time a corpse was chopped up just to get rid of it.

Is it likely? I tend to think they were murdered. But my hometown had a problem with this during Prohibition, so it's not hard for me to believe it could have happened here.

Well, we actually know that the 1873 victim had her temple bashed with something hard, making that the probable cause of death.
We also know that all of the torso victims were dismembered very soon after death, while the corpse was still warm, so that too strenghtens the idea that they were murdered.

[Fisherman]

Elizabeth Jackson's uterus perhaps displayed the same sort of method of removal as Annie Chapman's with the upper portion of the bladder still attached but the cervix undamaged? I wonder how those two descriptions compare.

Thanks for that, Debra!

Itīs absolutely mindboggling how these matters have not been accepted as pointing to a shared identity of the killers. Both women also had their abdomens opened up from ribcage to pubes, and both women had their abdominal walls cut away in large flaps that were subsequently discarded.

To think that two different men got the self same ideas into their heads, and performed the mutilations in the self same way! Truly amazing!

And to think that the person who opened Jackson up from breastbone to pubes , cut away her abdominal wall in flaps, cut the uterus out together with part of the bladder just like in the Chapman case, only to subsequently bundle it all up together with the placenta and part of the maternal chord and launch it on the Thames, was an abortionist who had the bad luck of having Jackson die at his house!

I would never have guessed that in a million years!!!

[Joshua Rogan]

Do you accept that those incisions are used in post mortems ? if you do then why is it not possible that some of those torsos came from mortuaries after post mortems being carried out on them ?

Two torso cases involved a cut from the bottom of sternum down to pubes;

"An incision had evidently been made from the ensiform cartilage to the pubes"

"A vertical incision, running from 2 inches below the ensiform cartilage downward, and ending on the left side of the external genitals"

Whereas a contemporary post-mortem incision started from the top of the sternum;

"The incision for exposing the cavities of the thorax and abdomen, as usually made, commences at the episternal notch and terminates at the symphysis".

I'm sure the doctors performing the post-mortem exam on any of the torso cases would have recognised if one had already been carried out.