Torso Murders

[jerryd]

and I am struggling to understand why a killer who seems to me to be proud of what he did, would suddenly use lime to destroy the body.

Christer,

Quick Lime, would destroy the body. Chloride of Lime was the opposite, it acted as a preservative. Did you read the "Tainted Meat" section of that label? The top part even says "retards putrefaction".

[Fisherman]

Christer,

Quick Lime, would destroy the body. Chloride of Lime was the opposite, it acted as a preservative. Did you read the "Tainted Meat" section of that label? The top part even says "retards putrefaction".

Yeah, I know. But chloride lime is known to burn the skin, actually. But I was not so much after that as I was after how I think that our man would avoid to use any sort of stuff on the body, since I believe the appearance of his work was very important to him.

Also, there is nothing telling us that he could not dump the body parts at will, whenever he chose to. The lime suggests that he was forced to store the parts for some time before he could dump them.

[jerryd]

The Whitehall torso was found to have what was thought to be "Condy's Fluid" sprinkled on it.

The flesh had a dark reddish hue, as if it had been plentifully sprinkled with antiseptic, such as Condy's fluid.

Condy's Fluid

a dark purple, crystalline, water-soluble solid, KMnO4, used chiefly as an oxidizing agent, disinfectant, laboratory reagent, and in medicine as an astringent and antiseptic.

It wasn't conclusive it was Condy's fluid. It may have been Chloride of Lime. Chloride of Lime in powder form can burn the skin.

[Debra A]

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.

Just going by memory and for interest only, Christer-I believe that there were two separate inquests on Elizabeth Jackson. The first one was opened in Wapping after the first finds and that closed with an open verdict. It was the second inquest in another borough (I forget which exactly now) that closed with a verdict of wilful murder.

[Fisherman]

The Whitehall torso was found to have what was thought to be "Condy's Fluid" sprinkled on it.

The flesh had a dark reddish hue, as if it had been plentifully sprinkled with antiseptic, such as Condy's fluid.

Condy's Fluid

a dark purple, crystalline, water-soluble solid, KMnO4, used chiefly as an oxidizing agent, disinfectant, laboratory reagent, and in medicine as an astringent and antiseptic.

It wasn't conclusive it was Condy's fluid. It may have been Chloride of Lime. Chloride of Lime in powder form can burn the skin.

Thanks, Jerry - that means that we have two possible chloride lime cases. It elevates the Tottenham case in my eyes. Regardless if it was Condyīs Fluid or not - it nevertheless points to what seems to be a need to take away smell.

[Fisherman]

Just going by memory and for interest only, Christer-I believe that there were two separate inquests on Elizabeth Jackson. The first one was opened in Wapping after the first finds and that closed with an open verdict. It was the second inquest in another borough (I forget which exactly now) that closed with a verdict of wilful murder.

Thanks for that, Debra! So added evidence and some deliberation made the difference...

[jerryd]

The lime suggests that he was forced to store the parts for some time before he could dump them.

Not necessarily. It may have been used merely to mask the smell during transport.

Our posts crossed, I think.

[Debra A]

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

The sources have already been discussed, Pierre. Joshua posted a link to a place where you can read one of them too
Doctors Hebbert and Bond examined the four torso cases and Hebbert used them to illustrate his lectures to medical students at the Westminster Hospital on methods used in Forensics to determine identity in the unknown dead.
The first parcel found at Wapping contained two large irregular slips of skin and underlying tissue taken from the abdominal walls and which included the umbilicus, parts of the skin of the external genitals from one side and skin from the buttock on the other. Also contained in it was the uterus, minus foetus and with a six inch incision into its left side, the uterus had the upper portion of the vagina attached and the posterior wall of the bladder was present as was the placenta and cut chord.

[Fisherman]

Not necessarily. It may have been used merely to mask the smell during transport.

Our posts crossed, I think.

Thatīs a possibility, of course.

[Debra A]

Thanks for that, Debra! So added evidence and some deliberation made the difference...

I think the lack of actual remains found by the time of the first inquest meant not much could be determined and so an open verdict was the only option. Elizabeth's remains were recovered almost entirely eventually, save for a couple of internal organs and so there was more to go on.

[Trevor Marriott]

The sources have already been discussed, Pierre. Joshua posted a link to a place where you can read one of them too
Doctors Hebbert and Bond examined the four torso cases and Hebbert used them to illustrate his lectures to medical students at the Westminster Hospital on methods used in Forensics to determine identity in the unknown dead.
The first parcel found at Wapping contained two large irregular slips of skin and underlying tissue taken from the abdominal walls and which included the umbilicus, parts of the skin of the external genitals from one side and skin from the buttock on the other. Also contained in it was the uterus, minus foetus and with a six inch incision into its left side, the uterus had the upper portion of the vagina attached and the posterior wall of the bladder was present as was the placenta and cut chord.

All signs of a medical procedure !

If you think she was murdered can you explain why do you think the killer has gone to the lengths to dispose of the body in the way it was cut up etc, The main body parts recovered.? If it was to hide a murder then the killer has made an overkill (no pun intended)

Simple Dismembering in not only Jacksons case, but all the torsos would have been easy cut the head off, cut the arms off, cut the legs off, all thats then left is the trunk. Why the need to open up the trunk and take oiut the viscear.

Making an incision in the uterus to remove the foetus is not the thing everyman in the street would do or know how to do why would a killer do it?

I dont recall any murders of a similar nature involving a heavily pregnant woman. Would Jackson still be prostituting herself being 6-7 months pregnant, would any punter want to go with a heavily pregnant woman?

You infer she had no money for a back st procedure, you dont know that, you dont know that she knew the father of the child who may have been someone with money who could have assisted. You dont know she had no monet or access to money.

You see it is easy to make these sweeping statements to negate this theory but there is no proof. We simply do not know, and all we can do is weigh up the facts, and be guided by what modern day experts tell us, because we know by reason of 21st Medicine that the Victorian doctors were as often as not wrong and their opinions were at times guess work. But no one seems to want to accept those facts,

In the case of Jackson nothing was put forward to suggest a cause of death, so for the coroner to suggest the jury return a verdict of wilful murder without any evidence beggars belief,

I thought the purpose of having a jury was for them to make the decision based on what was presented to them.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[harry]

Exactly Trevor,
No cause of death could be established.That is the important part,and as such no Prima Facia case would have been established.Not under English Law that is.No intent to murder,unless a confession could be extracted,and that is concerning the death,and not what happened after death.

[Fisherman]

,,,all the torsos would have been easy cut the head off, cut the arms off, cut the legs off, all thats then left is the trunk. Why the need to open up the trunk and take oiut the viscear.

Why would a killer open up the trunk and take out viscera...? Because he wanted to open up the trunk and take out viscera, of course.

What was it the Ripper did, Trevor? He opened up the trunk and took out viscera. And that was not alongside a failed abortion, was it?

Letīs take your question a step further. Jacksons heart was removed. Why would a failed abortion result in that?

The face and scalp of the 1873 victim was cut away from the skull. How does that fit into hiding a failed operation?

Why did the killer sever the right underarm from the 1873 victim but not the left? Why did he sever the right leg of Jackson at the knee and leave the left leg intact? Why did he sever her right hand but not the left, from the arm? How did that hide a failed operation? How did it facilitate transport?

What is the implication if more body parts are severed than necessary? What possible underlying reason can there have been?

More importantly, if he wanted to conceal what he had done, why not bury the parts? Why float them down the Thames and exhibit them in public and private gardens?

Share you thoughts on this with me, Trevor, please!

[Trevor Marriott]

Why would a killer open up the trunk and take out viscera...? Because he wanted to open up the trunk and take out viscera, of course.

What was it the Ripper did, Trevor? He opened up the trunk and took out viscera. And that was not alongside a failed abortion, was it?

Letīs take your question a step further. Jacksons heart was removed. Why would a failed abortion result in that?

Removed in the process of dismembering the body

The face and scalp of the 1873 victim was cut away from the skull. How does that fit into hiding a failed operation?

An attempt to hide the identity ?

Why did the killer sever the right underarm from the 1873 victim but not the left? Why did he sever the right leg of Jackson at the knee and leave the left leg intact? Why did he sever her right hand but not the left, from the arm? How did that hide a failed operation? How did it facilitate transport?

Killer ?

What is the implication if more body parts are severed than necessary? What possible underlying reason can there have been?

Cut a body up into many pieces and dispose at diffret locations making identification difficult should any be found

More importantly, if he wanted to conceal what he had done, why not bury the parts? Why float them down the Thames and exhibit them in public and private gardens?

The same could apply to both a killer or any other means of death

Share you thoughts on this with me, Trevor, please!

You are lumping all these torsos together, wrongly suggesting they were all murdered. You are forgetting that bodies and body parts were regularly fished out of the thames, were they all murdered to, or is it only these females that you suggest were all murdered.

Was it only murdered females that were dismembered and thrown in the thames.I think if you speak to the worlds authority on the torsos she will tell you that it was a regular occurrence.

Get it into your thick head that murder cannot be proven in the majority of cases !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and where verdicts of murder were given by coroners courts. the course of conduct by the coroner beggars belief as I have highlighted.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

You are lumping all these torsos together, wrongly suggesting they were all murdered. You are forgetting that bodies and body parts were regularly fished out of the thames, were they all murdered to, or is it only these females that you suggest were all murdered.

Was it only murdered females that were dismembered and thrown in the thames.I think if you speak to the worlds authority on the torsos she will tell you that it was a regular occurrence.

Get it into your thick head that murder cannot be proven in the majority of cases !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and where verdicts of murder were given by coroners courts. the course of conduct by the coroner beggars belief as I have highlighted.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Thanks for your courteous answer, Trevor!

Right - so Jacksons heart was removed in the process of dismembering? Why did the, ehrm, "abortionist" feel a need to enter the thorax to begin with? And why did the heart accidentally happen to come out, when the organs if the abdomen (apart from the uterus,placenta and chord) did not? Why was the ribcage opened up?

How would cutting away the face and scalp hide the identity? Why not obliterate it? Why not cut it up in miniscule bits and feed them to the fish? Why not leave the face on the skull - which was not recovered, as ususal in these cases.

Why would it be harder to identify a body taken apart in twenty bits than one taken apart in ten? It makes no sense at all. And even if this person was of the mindset that it would be preferable to get rid of the parts in many little bits, why cut them away so neatly and expertly? Why not just chop the women up quickly and be done with it? And if it was about hiding - why not weigh the body down? Or dig it down? Why make sure that the parts would be found, floating them on the river, placing them in parks...?

What possible reason can there have been for then skilled handicraft the medicos testified to? Iīll lead you some little way: If a lot of work goes into making as pretty a job as possible, and if the parts are then placed where they will inevitably be found, what does that imply?