Torso Murders

[Errata]

I don't suppose there is anyone who can explain to me how these bodies were wrapped in a way that makes sense? Because I read the descriptions, and i seems like five times more knots than necessary. Which seems like a telling thing to me, but maybe I'm not understanding.

[Fisherman]

I don't suppose there is anyone who can explain to me how these bodies were wrapped in a way that makes sense? Because I read the descriptions, and i seems like five times more knots than necessary. Which seems like a telling thing to me, but maybe I'm not understanding.

I am listening, Errata - but you are going to have to be a bit more explicit.

[Fisherman]

Letīs take the next step now:

In the Rainham case, a meter or so of the colon was gone, leaving the sigmoid flexure - and a little more than so of the colon was absent in the Jackson case, leaving just the rectum part.

These colons were therefore severed in two places and removed.

In the Whitehall case, "the lower part of the large bowel (the colon), and all the contents of the pelvis, were absent" according to Michael Gordon.

"The lower part" - sounds like the same kind of damage done to the two other victims.

And itīs the same thing there - in order to take part of the colon away, you need to cut in two places. So it seems like a very conscious thing to do.

So it seems the Torso killer took an interest in cutting out a portion of the colon, the lower part, from his victims.

Now, what about the Ripper? Surely, he would not share such an odd interest?

But it seems he did - lying beside the corpse of Catherine Eddowes was a two-feet part of the colon, severed in two places and placed "by design" beside her. And which part of the colon was it? It was the descending colon, which is about two feet long in an adult female, and located on the left hand side of the body running from the region of the left kidney to a point just above the sigmoid flexure and the rectum.
Well, whaddoyouknow? Surprise, surprise!

From the Chapman testimony, Phillips speaking:

"I removed the intestines as I found them in the yard. The mesentery vessels were divided through. The large intestine (the colon) remained in situ, but cut through with a keen incision transversely. ... It was evident, continued the witness, that these absent portions, together with the incision in the large intestine (the colon), were the result of the same excising power."

This is one more matter that points to a shared identity, but is rarely - if ever - mentioned in the debate. So letīs go through the list again:

- Both men worked in the same city.
- Both men worked at times that overlap.
- Both men killed prostitutes.
- Both men eviscerated.
- Both men cut out the uterus from a number of their victims.
- Both men took out both sexually related and non-sexually related organs.
- Both men cut away the abdominal walls in large sections in a number of cases.
- Both men cut out the lower part of the colon of their victims in a number of cases.

How am I doing so far?

[Debra A]

As no one other than you seems to suggest something sinister regarding these flaps of skin, which I note you have now changed to panes of skin I will put them down to part of the dismemberment process.

As I said previous all you are left with is a brief description of these pieces of flesh that were removed. You haven't seen them, there are no photographs to show the size of them, there is nothing to show they were large or small or how they were cut away.

Again, you cant see the wood for the trees with regards to alternative methods of death and a need to dispose of a body, other than murder.

From an earlier post of mine which you seem to have missed !!!!!!!!!!!!

Figures for 1882 show that in 1882 547 bodies were fished out of the thames of which 277 had open verdicts recorded against them. That is at least one a day. As to how many of those bodies were dismembered the answer is not known. I wouldn't mind betting quite a considerable amount for open verdicts to have been recorded.

Lets hypothesise and ask if only 5% of those recovered bodies were dismembered, and females that amounts to 27 females, were they all murdered in that 12 month period ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

In Elizabeth Jackson's case the flaps of skin and tissue removed covered such a large area- they included the umbilicus and parts of the buttock and external genitals-that they could only have been removed after death and that seems most likely to be able to access the pregnant uterus. The uterus was removed in such a way that sliced through the top of the vagina and a portion of the bladder. Whether or not we argue this was done to aid dismemberment, it still does not take away from the fact that this resembles what was done in Annie Chapman and Mary Kelly's case.

Dismembered bodies found in the Thames gained massive press coverage-the Victorians loved sensation. Although the odd limb may have washed up with no further follow up because it didn't warrant an inquest, I'd bet that most dismembered bodies found made the papers. Medical Jurisprudence texts of the time actually generally gave details of most cases like these but there is nothing for 1882 regarding the Thames. There are hundreds of stories reporting people 'found drowned' though.

[Abby Normal]

Letīs take the next step now:

In the Rainham case, a meter or so of the colon was gone, leaving the sigmoid flexure - and a little more than so of the colon was absent in the Jackson case, leaving just the rectum part.

These colons were therefore severed in two places and removed.

In the Whitehall case, "the lower part of the large bowel (the colon), and all the contents of the pelvis, were absent" according to Michael Gordon.

"The lower part" - sounds like the same kind of damage done to the two other victims.

And itīs the same thing there - in order to take part of the colon away, you need to cut in two places. So it seems like a very conscious thing to do.

So it seems the Torso killer took an interest in cutting out a portion of the colon, the lower part, from his victims.

Now, what about the Ripper? Surely, he would not share such an odd interest?

But it seems he did - lying beside the corpse of Catherine Eddowes was a two-feet part of the colon, severed in two places and placed "by design" beside her. And which part of the colon was it? It was the descending colon, which is about two feet long in an adult female, and located on the left hand side of the body running from the region of the left kidney to a point just above the sigmoid flexure and the rectum.
Well, whaddoyouknow? Surprise, surprise!

From the Chapman testimony, Phillips speaking:

"I removed the intestines as I found them in the yard. The mesentery vessels were divided through. The large intestine (the colon) remained in situ, but cut through with a keen incision transversely. ... It was evident, continued the witness, that these absent portions, together with the incision in the large intestine (the colon), were the result of the same excising power."

This is one more matter that points to a shared identity, but is rarely - if ever - mentioned in the debate. So letīs go through the list again:

- Both men worked in the same city.
- Both men worked at times that overlap.
- Both men killed prostitutes.
- Both men eviscerated.
- Both men cut out the uterus from a number of their victims.
- Both men took out both sexually related and non-sexually related organs.
- Both men cut away the abdominal walls in large sections in a number of cases.
- Both men cut out the lower part of the colon of their victims in a number of cases.

How am I doing so far?

awesome-keep going!!!

I would just add-
both men left bodies or parts displayed with no overt attempt at hiding.
both men were smart enough to never get caught.
both men(probably) used a ruse to get victims where they wanted them.

[Pierre]

Pierre, unless you have noticed yourself, you are dealing with people who have infinitely more knowledge about the case than you have. Admittedly, that does not go for all posters out here, but it goes for a fair number of them.

For you to try and "correct" them, if you will, is a bit rich. It is a little bit like a seven-year old child taking it upon himself to correct his teacher.

Please note that I am not specifically talking about myself here - I leave it to others to decide for themselves whatever level of knowledge I may have. And in that vein, I feel justfied to make the call that your contributions to the boards tell a story of woefully lacking insights into the case.

Maybe you need to weigh that in before you try to advice and criticize others?

You donīt understand the word correct, Fisherman. It means "right".

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

Letīs take the next step now:

In the Rainham case, a meter or so of the colon was gone, leaving the sigmoid flexure - and a little more than so of the colon was absent in the Jackson case, leaving just the rectum part.

These colons were therefore severed in two places and removed.

In the Whitehall case, "the lower part of the large bowel (the colon), and all the contents of the pelvis, were absent" according to Michael Gordon.

"The lower part" - sounds like the same kind of damage done to the two other victims.

And itīs the same thing there - in order to take part of the colon away, you need to cut in two places. So it seems like a very conscious thing to do.

So it seems the Torso killer took an interest in cutting out a portion of the colon, the lower part, from his victims.

Now, what about the Ripper? Surely, he would not share such an odd interest?

But it seems he did - lying beside the corpse of Catherine Eddowes was a two-feet part of the colon, severed in two places and placed "by design" beside her. And which part of the colon was it? It was the descending colon, which is about two feet long in an adult female, and located on the left hand side of the body running from the region of the left kidney to a point just above the sigmoid flexure and the rectum.
Well, whaddoyouknow? Surprise, surprise!

From the Chapman testimony, Phillips speaking:

"I removed the intestines as I found them in the yard. The mesentery vessels were divided through. The large intestine (the colon) remained in situ, but cut through with a keen incision transversely. ... It was evident, continued the witness, that these absent portions, together with the incision in the large intestine (the colon), were the result of the same excising power."

This is one more matter that points to a shared identity, but is rarely - if ever - mentioned in the debate. So letīs go through the list again:

- Both men worked in the same city.
- Both men worked at times that overlap.
- Both men killed prostitutes.
- Both men eviscerated.
- Both men cut out the uterus from a number of their victims.
- Both men took out both sexually related and non-sexually related organs.
- Both men cut away the abdominal walls in large sections in a number of cases.
- Both men cut out the lower part of the colon of their victims in a number of cases.

How am I doing so far?

Hi Fisherman,

You added the colon but we knew the rest. And you have not referred to the source(s).

By the way, is there any correlation between the lower part of the colon having been cut / cut out and the uterus having been cut out?

I.e. in how many cases did he do both, and in how many cases exclusively the uterus?

Or where there any case(s) where he cut out the uterus but did not cut or cut out the lower part of the colon?

Regards, Pierre

[Trevor Marriott]

In Elizabeth Jackson's case the flaps of skin and tissue removed covered such a large area- they included the umbilicus and parts of the buttock and external genitals-that they could only have been removed after death and that seems most likely to be able to access the pregnant uterus. The uterus was removed in such a way that sliced through the top of the vagina and a portion of the bladder. Whether or not we argue this was done to aid dismemberment, it still does not take away from the fact that this resembles what was done in Annie Chapman and Mary Kelly's case.

Dismembered bodies found in the Thames gained massive press coverage-the Victorians loved sensation. Although the odd limb may have washed up with no further follow up because it didn't warrant an inquest, I'd bet that most dismembered bodies found made the papers. Medical Jurisprudence texts of the time actually generally gave details of most cases like these but there is nothing for 1882 regarding the Thames. There are hundreds of stories reporting people 'found drowned' though.

Does found drowned justify an open verdict being recorded? I am sure back then as they can today determine if a body was dead before it entered the water?

In the case of Jackson, the flaps of skin as you have pointed out were attached to other organs, which as I have suggested was simply a part of the dismemberment process and not done as a specific individual act.

In the case of Kelly it is different Dr Bonds says

"The skin & tissues of the abdomen from the costal arch to the pubes were removed in three large flaps. ( no mention of organs being attached)

Then he refers to another flap of skin
"The right thigh was denuded in front to the bone, the flap of skin, including the external organs of generation & part of the right buttock."

Annie Chapman as described by a non medical man

"2 flaps of skin from the lower abdomen lay in a large quantity of blood above the left shoulder" (No idea of size etc could have been small or could have been large)

I cannot see how you, or anyone can say that there are strong similarities regarding these flaps of skin, which you say, as do others that link all those three victims.

The term flaps of skin is clearly a common medical term and is and was a term widely used by the victorian doctors and is still used today.

Some other examples of the use of the term flap of skin

1879 murder of a Mrs Thomas by her servant Kate Webster who after murdering her cut the body up and disposed of most it in the thames, But before doing so put some bones and flaps of skin in a bag and a box depositing them in the Thames. They were found !

Another murder where the same term was used

"Owens had been stabbed 38 times in the neck, chest, and back, his penis slashed but still appended to his body by a bloody flap of skin.

Mr Tame suffered severe injuries including broken bones and a severe head wound which opened a flap of skin on his head.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Debra A]

Does found drowned justify an open verdict being recorded? I am sure back then as they can today determine if a body was dead before it entered the water?

In the case of Jackson, the flaps of skin as you have pointed out were attached to other organs, which as I have suggested was simply a part of the dismemberment process and not done as a specific individual act.

In the case of Kelly it is different Dr Bonds says

"The skin & tissues of the abdomen from the costal arch to the pubes were removed in three large flaps. ( no mention of organs being attached)

Then he refers to another flap of skin
"The right thigh was denuded in front to the bone, the flap of skin, including the external organs of generation & part of the right buttock."

Annie Chapman as described by a non medical man

"2 flaps of skin from the lower abdomen lay in a large quantity of blood above the left shoulder" (No idea of size etc could have been small or could have been large)

I cannot see how you, or anyone can say that there are strong similarities regarding these flaps of skin, which you say, as do others that link all those three victims.

The term flaps of skin is clearly a common medical term and is and was a term widely used by the victorian doctors and is still used today.

Some other examples of the use of the term flap of skin

1879 murder of a Mrs Thomas by her servant Kate Webster who after murdering her cut the body up and disposed of most it in the thames, But before doing so put some bones and flaps of skin in a bag and a box depositing them in the Thames. They were found !

Another murder where the same term was used

"Owens had been stabbed 38 times in the neck, chest, and back, his penis slashed but still appended to his body by a bloody flap of skin.

Mr Tame suffered severe injuries including broken bones and a severe head wound which opened a flap of skin on his head.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

What organs do you imagine were attached to the flaps of skin in Elizabeth's case?!
Yes, flaps is a descriptive term and in the case of EJ it was 'slips' referred to which were 2 large pieces of skin and underlying tissue removed form her abdomen and placed separately away from the body...so not attached.
What on earth a flap of skin on the head has to do with anything I don't know!

[Trevor Marriott]

What organs do you imagine were attached to the flaps of skin in Elizabeth's case?!
Yes, flaps is a descriptive term and in the case of EJ it was 'slips' referred to which were 2 large pieces of skin and underlying tissue removed form her abdomen and placed separately away from the body...so not attached.
What on earth a flap of skin on the head has to do with anything I don't know!

The purpose of the post is to show that the term flaps of skin is, and was widely used to describe skin either attached or detached. That term is being used on here to try to show that a killer killed more than one victim in similar fashion and is linked by these flaps of skin which were removed or cut.

There is nothing to show that these flaps were not removed in the course of a dismemberment not relative to a murder.

If Jackson turned up in the Thames how can it be said that these were placed away from the body ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

You donīt understand the word correct, Fisherman. It means "right".

Regards, Pierre

I must correct you - it means "left": what is left to do when somebody gets it wrong.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,

You added the colon but we knew the rest. And you have not referred to the source(s).

By the way, is there any correlation between the lower part of the colon having been cut / cut out and the uterus having been cut out?

I.e. in how many cases did he do both, and in how many cases exclusively the uterus?

Or where there any case(s) where he cut out the uterus but did not cut or cut out the lower part of the colon?

Regards, Pierre

The sources are readily available out here, Pierre - check for yourself!

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott:

Annie Chapman as described by a non medical man.

Why did you not use what Phillips said? He was a medical man and he was much more exact when describing the flaps. He specifically pointed to the skill with which they were excised, even. So why choose a non-medical man when there is evidence from a medico? Any special plan? Tell me, Trevor!

I cannot see how you, or anyone can say that there are strong similarities regarding these flaps of skin, which you say, as do others that link all those three victims.

No? I will help you, then: these nine flaps were all purposefully removed from the abdominal walls of three murder victims. Their removal left the contents of the abdomens uncovered and open to view.

You seem to be thinking that somebody has claimed that the flaps were identical to each other, but nobody has ever claimed that. And furthermore, it is not of much interest. It is the fact that the killer removed the abdominal walls from these three victims by means of cutting them away in large panes that counts, not the individual shape of each flap.

[John Wheat]

Trevor, how do you believe these torso victims met their ends? Botched abortions? Accidental deaths? Suicides? You're all for telling us what ain't, but you've yet to offer an alternative.

Yes I'd like to know what you think happened to these victims Trevor.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor Marriott:

Annie Chapman as described by a non medical man.

Why did you not use what Phillips said? He was a medical man and he was much more exact when describing the flaps. He specifically pointed to the skill with which they were excised, even. So why choose a non-medical man when there is evidence from a medico? Any special plan? Tell me, Trevor!

I cannot see how you, or anyone can say that there are strong similarities regarding these flaps of skin, which you say, as do others that link all those three victims.

No? I will help you, then: these nine flaps were all purposefully removed from the abdominal walls of three murder victims. Their removal left the contents of the abdomens uncovered and open to view.

You seem to be thinking that somebody has claimed that the flaps were identical to each other, but nobody has ever claimed that. And furthermore, it is not of much interest. It is the fact that the killer removed the abdominal walls from these three victims by means of cutting them away in large panes that counts, not the individual shape of each flap.

You still cannot prove an identical system with regards to the cutting of the flaps of skin. All you have is the fact that flaps of skin were cut and having been cut they were removed, a natural progression in the dismemberment process?

As we know Victorian doctors said a lot in 1888 which the public believed which we now know was at times guesswork.

How can a doctor give evidence as to what a butcher may or may not be able to do to a human body. It would be for a butcher to give evidence to say he could be capable of that act.

That is why I used the service of a master butcher to prove or disprove this. He disproves it.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk