Torso Murders

[harry]

The first part of any murder trial,consists of evidence that murder had been committed.As Trevor has pointed out,no source in the torso mysteries has proven murder.Whatever else was done is immaterial,first prove murder.
Whatever my thoughts are opinions are,I have to acknowledge that Trevor is correct.
No matter the time interval,there is still information.That the information,to some,might strongly suggest murder,is there evidence that proves murder,and does that perceived evidence,connect two series of happenings?

[John Wheat]

Hi John
Well since it seems that the 70s and 80s cases are by the same killer, then I think older suspects bode well. And of course since the ripper and torso cases are probably by the same hand IMHO then older ripper suspects and ripper suspects who were in London in the 1870s.


So let me ask you-was bury in London in the 1870s and how old was he?

To Abby Normal

If the Torso Murders were committed by Jack which I don't believe they were then that would rule Bury out.

Cheers John

[John Wheat]

Just to follow up. I wonder what other favored ripper suspects would be viable for the 1870s torso cases. I know it bodes well for lech because he was in London at the time and is one of the older suspects.

What year was the first 1870 torso case?

To Abby Normal

I would say Wentworth Bellsmith as he moved into Penge, London in 1873 before the first Torso Mutder and left London shortly after the 1889 Torso murder. Also in 1887 I believe was the breakdown of his first marriage if I remember correctly, which could have been a trigger for the 1887-1889 Torso Murders. Also if Francis Tumblety could be placed in London in 1889 he would be worth considering. He was certainly in England in 1973 although wether he was in London is a different matter.

Cheers John

[jerryd]

The first part of any murder trial,consists of evidence that murder had been committed.As Trevor has pointed out,no source in the torso mysteries has proven murder.Whatever else was done is immaterial,first prove murder.
Whatever my thoughts are opinions are,I have to acknowledge that Trevor is correct.
No matter the time interval,there is still information.That the information,to some,might strongly suggest murder,is there evidence that proves murder,and does that perceived evidence,connect two series of happenings?

Hi Harry,

If one of the torsos had a verdict of willful murder, and the authorities had reason to connect the series [87-89], wouldn't reason be the others in the series have a greater chance of being murdered?

Here is the verdict from the Pinchin Torso inquest.

The jury at once returned a verdict of "Wilful murder against some person or persons unknown."

[jerryd]

Back to THE TORSO MURDERS. How were the Torso victims murdered?

I think their throats were probably cut and then they were mutilated. With the cutting off of the head it was impossible to see the marks of the knife in the neck. In the 1873 case, and I am 70/30 on connecting that one to the series, the face was stripped off the skull. "Where the integument was thin or firmly adherent to the subjacent tissues, it was "buttonholed," and large portions thus remained attached to the bones. The face has in this manner—accidentally, perhaps rather than purposely—been rendered incapable of identification." If this was the same killer as the later series, maybe he thought he should just cut the head off completely [in the later victims] and not have to waste time with the tedious task of scalping the face. The heads in the later series were never recovered, so maybe the idea succeeded?

[Fisherman]

OK, the post I am referring to is your #269 where you wrote:

"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!!!"

And the statements I was wondering about was:

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.

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...

Maybe you regard all this as some sort of common knowledge (I donīt know), but what are the actual sources you are using here?

Kind regards, Pierre

Ah! Well, obviously the source for Chapmans damages is the many paper covering the inquest, and the source for Jackson is Hebberts "A system of Legal Medicine". When it comes to the bit with part of the bladder being attached to Jacksons uterus, the source is Debra, who posted it out here. She will have secured that information from Hebberts work to, in all probability. Anyhow, I simply trust her on these matters, and wisely so - she knows her stuff.

[Fisherman]

Just to follow up. I wonder what other favored ripper suspects would be viable for the 1870s torso cases. I know it bodes well for lech because he was in London at the time and is one of the older suspects.

What year was the first 1870 torso case?

1873, Lechmere being 24, Bury being 14, Kosminski 8 (and not in Britain), Chapman 8 (and not in Britain), Levy was 17...
Another viable suspect agewise would be Tumblety - but he was not in Britain when Elizabeth Jackson and the Pinchin Street victim were killed. So he is not our man.

[Fisherman]

I think their throats were probably cut and then they were mutilated. With the cutting off of the head it was impossible to see the marks of the knife in the neck. In the 1873 case, and I am 70/30 on connecting that one to the series, the face was stripped off the skull. "Where the integument was thin or firmly adherent to the subjacent tissues, it was "buttonholed," and large portions thus remained attached to the bones. The face has in this manner—accidentally, perhaps rather than purposely—been rendered incapable of identification." If this was the same killer as the later series, maybe he thought he should just cut the head off completely [in the later victims] and not have to waste time with the tedious task of scalping the face. The heads in the later series were never recovered, so maybe the idea succeeded?

If I am correct, he did not consider it tedious at all to remove the face from the 1873 victim. The head as such was never recovered, so if he hid it from the world, why not hide the face with it? Instead he floated it down the Thames where it was recovered, and allowed the medicos to stretch it over a wooden block for identification purposes. Not the most efficient identification disenabling, Iīd say!

As for cutting the neck, it was concluded that the body had been bled off, since there was not a clot of blood to be found anywhere in the vessels of the retrieved body parts It was suggested that this bleeding was performed via the cut vessels of the neck,
However, the reason of death in this particular case was probably the two hard blows to the temple, according to Dr Kempster. The absence of the head and skull made it impossible to confirm Kempsters guess.

So what do we have? We have a murder (that WAS what the jury concluded, Trevor) where a woman was hit on the temple, probably killing her. We know that the body was cut up very close in time to death, so technically, the cutting could actually have commenced even before the temple blows. The killer then bled the victim, arguably by means of severing the large neck vessels. And then he meticulously cut the face and scalp away from the skull, and floated this horrific death mask down the Thames together with the other body parts. with a possible exception of the skull which was never recovered. It may of course just have sunk to then bottom of the Thames. In any case, he had no reason to hide it since there were no features left to identify the victim by. The cutting work was skillfully performed, just as in the later cases. The removal of the face and scalp by means of the knife was just one example of how skilled a cutter the killer was.

[jerryd]

If I am correct, he did not consider it tedious at all to remove the face from the 1873 victim. The head as such was never recovered, so if he hid it from the world, why not hide the face with it? Instead he floated it down the Thames where it was recovered, and allowed the medicos to stretch it over a wooden block for identification purposes. Not the most efficient identification disenabling, Iīd say!

As for cutting the neck, it was concluded that the body had been bled off, since there was not a clot of blood to be found anywhere in the vessels of the retrieved body parts It was suggested that this bleeding was performed via the cut vessels of the neck,
However, the reason of death in this particular case was probably the two hard blows to the temple, according to Dr Kempster. The absence of the head and skull made it impossible to confirm Kempsters guess.

So what do we have? We have a murder (that WAS what the jury concluded, Trevor) where a woman was hit on the temple, probably killing her. We know that the body was cut up very close in time to death, so technically, the cutting could actually have commenced even before the temple blows. The killer then bled the victim, arguably by means of severing the large neck vessels. And then he meticulously cut the face and scalp away from the skull, and floated this horrific death mask down the Thames together with the other body parts. with a possible exception of the skull which was never recovered. It may of course just have sunk to then bottom of the Thames. In any case, he had no reason to hide it since there were no features left to identify the victim by. The cutting work was skillfully performed, just as in the later cases. The removal of the face and scalp by means of the knife was just one example of how skilled a cutter the killer was.

Thanks Christer,

So if you include the 1873 case in the series, then 2 of the 5 had a verdict of "Willful murder by person or persons unknown". As I posted earlier, to prove one of the series was murdered would add greatly to the odds the others were as well.

[Fisherman]

Thanks Christer,

So if you include the 1873 case in the series, then 2 of the 5 had a verdict of "Willful murder by person or persons unknown". As I posted earlier, to prove one of the series was murdered would add greatly to the odds the others were as well.

Itīs three, Jerry: The 1873 case, Jackson and the Pinchin Street case were all deemed wilful murders. But I make it seven torso cases: 1873, 1874, 1884, 1887, 1888, 1889 and 1889.

[jerryd]

Itīs three, Jerry: The 1873 case, Jackson and the Pinchin Street case were all deemed wilful murders. But I make it seven torso cases: 1873, 1874, 1884, 1887, 1888, 1889 and 1889.

Jackson, yes of course, thanks!

In regard to Lechmere, I did find something interesting when researching the '84 Tottenham case. I didn't realize you counted that torso in the mix and so I never mentioned this fact before. Incidentally, I also have a feeling the Tottenham torso was in the series.

It has to do with the use of Chloride of Lime. This substance was found on parts of the Tottenham torso. CoL was used as a "deodorant" for smells as well as a preservative. But it had another use, and this is where Lechmere or more directly, a butcher, would come into the picture.

Look at the fourth use:Tainted Meat, Fish, Game &c- I wonder if butcher shops actually used this substance when they hung meat outside their shops? Anyways, I thought you and Ed might like that one for Mama Lechmere's meat shop.

I still think I could build a pretty good circumstantial case for Thomas and/or William Wainwright. They actually sold Chloride of Lime to the police and also used it on the body of Harriet Lane. I know you disagree with me on that subject, but my research is ongoing with them. Deeming also used CoL in his dismemberment.




'Chloride of Lime' , paper, 1876–1900. Museum of London.

[Trevor Marriott]

I feel this thread has become rather derailed and has become a debate about wether The Torso Victims were murdered and dismembered or the absurd notion that they were abortions gone wrong. The first post of the thread was about wether anyone had any suspects for The Torso Murders? I suggest anyone with the misguided idea that The Torso Victims were abortions gone wrong start a new thread. Rather than attempting to highjack this thread.

There is only one specifc abortion issue and that is in realtion to Elizabeth Jackson with regards to the fact that she was pregnant at the time of her death, and other facts point to that conclusion. As to the other torsos and I am only dealing with those relative to the WM murders, there is no conclusive evidence to show specific causes of death.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[John Wheat]

Itīs three, Jerry: The 1873 case, Jackson and the Pinchin Street case were all deemed wilful murders. But I make it seven torso cases: 1873, 1874, 1884, 1887, 1888, 1889 and 1889.

To Fisherman

Yes seven cases of murder.

Cheers John

[John Wheat]

If I am correct, he did not consider it tedious at all to remove the face from the 1873 victim. The head as such was never recovered, so if he hid it from the world, why not hide the face with it? Instead he floated it down the Thames where it was recovered, and allowed the medicos to stretch it over a wooden block for identification purposes. Not the most efficient identification disenabling, Iīd say!

As for cutting the neck, it was concluded that the body had been bled off, since there was not a clot of blood to be found anywhere in the vessels of the retrieved body parts It was suggested that this bleeding was performed via the cut vessels of the neck,
However, the reason of death in this particular case was probably the two hard blows to the temple, according to Dr Kempster. The absence of the head and skull made it impossible to confirm Kempsters guess.

So what do we have? We have a murder (that WAS what the jury concluded, Trevor) where a woman was hit on the temple, probably killing her. We know that the body was cut up very close in time to death, so technically, the cutting could actually have commenced even before the temple blows. The killer then bled the victim, arguably by means of severing the large neck vessels. And then he meticulously cut the face and scalp away from the skull, and floated this horrific death mask down the Thames together with the other body parts. with a possible exception of the skull which was never recovered. It may of course just have sunk to then bottom of the Thames. In any case, he had no reason to hide it since there were no features left to identify the victim by. The cutting work was skillfully performed, just as in the later cases. The removal of the face and scalp by means of the knife was just one example of how skilled a cutter the killer was.

Thanks for the detailed description Fisherman. Exactly what this thread should include rather than the mumbo jumbo about failed abortions etc.

Cheers John

[Fisherman]

Jackson, yes of course, thanks!

In regard to Lechmere, I did find something interesting when researching the '84 Tottenham case. I didn't realize you counted that torso in the mix and so I never mentioned this fact before. Incidentally, I also have a feeling the Tottenham torso was in the series.

It has to do with the use of Chloride of Lime. This substance was found on parts of the Tottenham torso. CoL was used as a "deodorant" for smells as well as a preservative. But it had another use, and this is where Lechmere or more directly, a butcher, would come into the picture.

Look at the fourth use:Tainted Meat, Fish, Game &c- I wonder if butcher shops actually used this substance when they hung meat outside their shops? Anyways, I thought you and Ed might like that one for Mama Lechmere's meat shop.

I still think I could build a pretty good circumstantial case for Thomas and/or William Wainwright. They actually sold Chloride of Lime to the police and also used it on the body of Harriet Lane. I know you disagree with me on that subject, but my research is ongoing with them. Deeming also used CoL in his dismemberment.




'Chloride of Lime' , paper, 1876–1900. Museum of London.

Well, to be fair, the Tottenham case is the one case that I am least convinced about. There is a dearth of information making it hard to say to what extent there was skill involved in the cutting work, the head was found - which is atypical - and I am struggling to understand why a killer who seems to me to be proud of what he did, would suddenly use lime. That said, I am not saying that it does not belong, only that it seems the least typical one to me.

As for me disagreeing with you about the Wainwrights, I would like to say that since there are no certainties to be found, I think it is reassuring that people with your insight into the case does good work on potential suspects like these men. I couldnīt be happier about it, since it adds to the overall knowledge, regardless of whether my misgivings are justified or not.

Thanks for your thoughts on the lime - interesting!