autopsy notes

[Debra A]

Thanks for outlining this. The reason I posted is that kjab3112 seems to think that the uterus was found within Jacksons body.

Yes, that's why I posted it and asked Paul those earlier questions. It would be good to get a professional opinion on this. Marriott describes the Horsleydown parcel as a 'torso', as does Trow as far as I remember, but that isn't a correct description. It was two portions of abdominal flesh and a uterus, so unless the uterus is somehow attached to the abdominal flesh in a way I have never heard of before, the uterus must have been cut from the body also? as evidenced by the division of the vagina I would have thought? but then again I am not medically trained so who knows!

[Fisherman]

Yes, that's why I posted it and asked Paul those earlier questions. It would be good to get a professional opinion on this. Marriott describes the Horsleydown parcel as a 'torso', as does Trow as far as I remember, but that isn't a correct description. It was two portions of abdominal flesh and a uterus, so unless the uterus is somehow attached to the abdominal flesh in a way I have never heard of before, the uterus must have been cut from the body also? as evidenced by the division of the vagina? I would have thought? but then again I am not medically trained so who knows!

I am as little medico as you are, Debra, but we are working from the same assumption - that parcel was the result of the killer cutting out the reproductive organs from Jackson, wrapping them up in the two large slips of abdominal wall, and floating them down the river. I believe it was the second parcel found in the case.

This is a description from a medical page on the net:

The uterus is attached to broad bands of ligaments, bundles of nerves, and networks of arteries and veins. Regardless of whether the hysterectomy is “total” or “partial,” all of the ligaments, nerves, and blood supply attached to the uterus must be severed to remove it.

To me, this strongly suggests that the uterus of the Whitehall torso had also been removed by the killer.

[kjab3112]

Hi Fisherman and Debra

My interpretation was that the flesh parts were not explicitly stated to include the uterus, but the pelvic section explicitly stated it was not (hence my statement presumably with the abdominal section), thanks for clarifying.

As far as the anatomical relations, the pregnant uterus would have been behind the bladder (in fact part of the rear bladder wall was described as being with the uterus) and by that point be above the belly button. Thus there would have been no direct association with the abdominal flaps or reason to package together. There are though missing organs: sternum opened (only time he bothered from Hebbert's notes) and heart and lungs removed (and not listed in the found organs); same is true for most of the intestine which would be made easier by removing the uterus.

There is one other oddity though, that of the missing foetus (although one was found in the river of the right approximate age). Current medical practice would open the uterus either across at the thinnest part at its bottom or lengthways through the muscle (classical caesarean). Torso did neither, opening the uterus from the side, which would be difficult if in situ.

If I missed any other part of the question please restate and I'll look again.

Paul

[Debra A]

Hi Fisherman and Debra

My interpretation was that the flesh parts were not explicitly stated to include the uterus, but the pelvic section explicitly stated it was not (hence my statement presumably with the abdominal section), thanks for clarifying.

As far as the anatomical relations, the pregnant uterus would have been behind the bladder (in fact part of the rear bladder wall was described as being with the uterus) and by that point be above the belly button. Thus there would have been no direct association with the abdominal flaps or reason to package together. There are though missing organs: sternum opened (only time he bothered from Hebbert's notes) and heart and lungs removed (and not listed in the found organs); same is true for most of the intestine which would be made easier by removing the uterus.

There is one other oddity though, that of the missing foetus (although one was found in the river of the right approximate age). Current medical practice would open the uterus either across at the thinnest part at its bottom or lengthways through the muscle (classical caesarean). Torso did neither, opening the uterus from the side, which would be difficult if in situ.

If I missed any other part of the question please restate and I'll look again.

Paul

Thanks very much for this , Paul. Just to clarify; are you agreeing that from the description, the uterus appears to have been removed from the body and parcelled up with two section of flesh taken from the abdominal wall?

The found foetus was of 5 months gestation and going from memory the general consensus was that the pregnancy was advanced between 6 and 7 months. The size of the uterus is given and it seemed to correspond to the 6/7 month size given in medical texts of the time, remembering old research I did and I think I'm right in saying it would not have reduced in size had the foetus been removed after death as concluded by Hebbert and Bond?

Do you think the uterus was removed and the foetus removed subsequently?

It was because the lungs and part of the windpipe were missing that it couldn't be determined if Elizabeth had swallowed some noxious substance and the missing heart has always been of interest.

[kjab3112]

I agree the uterus was removed from the pelvis but hadn't seen the statement that it was included with the abdominal walls but that would explain where it was.

The uterus was described as six to seven months, but given Elizabeth's precarious social set up the foetus may well have been small for dates and I believe was described as not provable rather than not being hers (correct me if wrong).

If you open up the abdomen down the midline, a twenty plus week uterus would have been obvious, a fact postmortem Caesarean sections relies upon. To remove the foetus from the left lateral wall would thus be odd if in situ, why bother to hide the cut yet leave the placenta!?

Late nineteenth century text books do describe tests on the stomach for poisons, including how to suture the stomach so as not to spill its contents so I doubt there was a missing toxin but can't be proven.

Of interest one and three of the series were found without a heart and lungs, whilst Jackson's cause of death could not even be ascertained (despite being the freshest corpse, the only one positively identified and effectively only missing head, neck, heart, lungs and intestine). The only one missing a uterus completely in the 1887-9 series also lacked a pelvis so that might explain the lack (Whitehall).

Paul

[Debra A]

I agree the uterus was removed from the pelvis but hadn't seen the statement that it was included with the abdominal walls but that would explain where it was.

The uterus was described as six to seven months, but given Elizabeth's precarious social set up the foetus may well have been small for dates and I believe was described as not provable rather than not being hers (correct me if wrong).

If you open up the abdomen down the midline, a twenty plus week uterus would have been obvious, a fact postmortem Caesarean sections relies upon. To remove the foetus from the left lateral wall would thus be odd if in situ, why bother to hide the cut yet leave the placenta!?

Late nineteenth century text books do describe tests on the stomach for poisons, including how to suture the stomach so as not to spill its contents so I doubt there was a missing toxin but can't be proven.

Of interest one and three of the series were found without a heart and lungs, whilst Jackson's cause of death could not even be ascertained (despite being the freshest corpse, the only one positively identified and effectively only missing head, neck, heart, lungs and intestine). The only one missing a uterus completely in the 1887-9 series also lacked a pelvis so that might explain the lack (Whitehall).

Paul

Bond and Hebbert don't mention the foetus at all and the uterus was measured and corresponded to a size larger then the foetus found, so the foetus being smaller on account of Elizabeth's lifestyle wouldn't have a bearing there?
I believe it is my own words that say Bond and Hebbert were undecided about the origin of the foetus? Actually, they made no comment, which is something I probably should correct.

http://www.casebook.org/victims/jackson.html

[kjab3112]

Thanks for that.

The finding of the foetus of Elizabeth Jackson would not be essential.

My reading of Hebbert and Bond is that there was a theory of death by illegal abortion, but the only one who was even pregnant was Liz, and thus the theory was dispatched at the time.

[Debra A]

Thanks for that.

The finding of the foetus of Elizabeth Jackson would not be essential.

My reading of Hebbert and Bond is that there was a theory of death by illegal abortion, but the only one who was even pregnant was Liz, and thus the theory was dispatched at the time.

Originally, after the finding of the uterus and flesh parcel containing the placenta, it was reported in the press that Elizabeth's death was thought by Bond to be as the result of an 'illegal operation'. This observation was guided by the contents of the Horsleydown parcel specifically.
By the conclusion of the inquests in July however, the remains of the pelvis containing lower vagina and cervix showed conclusively that no vaginal delivery had occurred, which is what an illegal abortionist would be out to achieve- an early vaginal delivery. In his inquest evidence, on record, Bond concluded that no illegal operation had taken place, there had been no sign of instrument use or violence and that the foetus had been removed after death by an incision in to the uterus.

The four cases were treated and investigated as separate events.

The Whitehall torso had the whole of the pelvis and pelvic viscera missing so no conclusion could be made in that case as the uterus was never found. The victim in the Pinchin St case had recently menstruated and her uterus was found to be in its normal state with no sign of pregnancy or recent birth. The Rainham case also involved a woman whose uterus was in a normal state, not pregnant and had not recently delivered. Doctors Bond and Hebbert concluded she had never borne children.

Hebbert was of the opinion that these four cases were linked because of the method employed to disarticulate the joints. He argued that a doctor or physician would not be able to perform these disarticulations as well as a butcher or hunter who regularly used the technique. Surgeons not usually amputating through the joints.

[Debra A]

By the conclusion of the inquests in July however, the remains of the pelvis containing lower vagina and cervix showed conclusively that no vaginal delivery had occurred,

I meant to say- by examining the lower portion of the vagina and surrounding area found in the pelvis and further examination of the condition of the cervix, which were all undamaged.

[Fisherman]

The only one missing a uterus completely in the 1887-9 series also lacked a pelvis so that might explain the lack (Whitehall).

Paul

Could you elaborate on this? It was stated that the length of the body found was 17 inches, the circumference of the chest was 35 and a half inches and of the waist 28 and a half. The doctors concluded that the woman had been around 5,8 or 5,9 feet.

The divisions had been performed at the sixth cervical vertebra at the neck, and the fourth lumbar vertebra had been sawn through, dividing the pelvis from the upper torso.

In a post on Jackson above, you wrote: "As far as the anatomical relations, the pregnant uterus would have been behind the bladder (in fact part of the rear bladder wall was described as being with the uterus) and by that point be above the belly button."

Given the figures mentioned and the placement of the cuts, how do you reason about the uterus and where it would have ended up? Many thanks in advance for any light you can throw on the matter.

[John G]

I am still going to need examples, not just an unsubstantiated idea that it probably happened.

Be patient Young Fisherman.

[John G]

...nor of cutting along the dotted line, as the case may be.

Hi Gareth,

What Fisherman fails to realize is that we're dealing with three very distinct cases. Moreover, in respect of the evisceartions, it's important to determine that any "similarities" is a result of ritualistic behaviour rather than any other factor, and that the ritual is consistent.

Thus, Annie Chapman was seriously emaciated, her body "showing signs of great deprivation." This is highly significant, for as Philip Harrison, an experienced eviscerator, notes, "I would imagine that the deceased was very emaciated. This would have made the abdominal opening much tighter to work in to delicately remove the pelvic organs." (Marriott, 2013, the emphasis is mine). Importantly, he also opines, " I mention this as in my opinion evisceration is more difficult in a person with a poor covering of body fat. When a person is very thin the skin at autopsy looses its elasticity. It is more difficult to carefully remove organs when the opening cannot be stretched. Surgeons use a retractor to make the opening as big as possible." Finally, he adds, "As I have previously stated, deceased persons who have very little body fat covering tend to have very tight skin covering especially over the abdomen thus making it difficult to enter the abdominal space." (ibid)

In fact, the perpetrator may have inadvertently made things even more difficult for himself: "With the legs in those positions it would have been a hindrance to the killer in attempting to remove the organs. The normal position would be to have both legs flat and open to give free and unhindered access to the abdomen." ((ibid).

Of course, consideration also needs to be given to the immense time restraints the perpetrator would have been under, i.e. because he'd recklessly decided to target a victim in broad daylight at a time when many people were leaving for work. Then there's the fact that he may well have been previously frustrated in his attempt to remove an organ, and thereby acquire a trophy, from his previous victim, Nichols, as a consequence of being disturbed.

It would be therefore unsurprising that, as a consequence of the many difficulties he would have faced, he decided to expedite matters by removing part of the abdominal wall, i.e. in order to obtain freer and quicker access to the pelvic cavity. Therefore, the removal of pieces of the abdominal wall in this case is easily explained by practical considerations, rather than by ritualistic behaviour.

And what of Kelly? Contrary to both the Jackson and Chapman cases, she was subjected to a relentless assault by a perpetrator intent on destroying the body, her body grossly mutilated. Her face, for example, was virtually hacked to pieces. And Dr Bond concluded that her killer, "does not even posses the technical knowledge of a butcher, horse slaughterer or any person accustomed to cut up dead bodies." Moreover, this was very different to the skill he discerned in the Whitehall case. And Dr Phillips described the mutilations as "most wanton" and used the word "savagery".

I think it's therefore reasonable to conclude that her killer attacked the body in an absolute frenzy, making "X" number of cuts into the abdominal wall, and then simply removing it piecemeal, demonstrating no skill whatsoever.

In fact, this seems very reminiscent of Karl Denke's approach. He also removed part of the abdominal wall of a victim (defeating Fisherman's argument that the cases he cited were unique) and also targeted the sexual organs: https://spydersden.wordpress.com/201...serial-killer/

As for Liz Jackson, Debra's expert research has convinced me that, uniquely to these cases, her abdominal wall was probably removed by a skilful perpetrator for ritualistic reasons.

Three different cases. Three very different scenarios.

[Sam Flynn]

consideration also needs to be given to the immense time restraints the perpetrator would have been under...

Precisely as I see it, John. Time restraints that, surely to God, never applied in the case of the Torso Murders.

[John G]

Yeah, I am really, really thick. However, I have sought high and low for parallels, and I have spoken to a criminologist with great anatomical interest and insight, and it seems that thosw who ought to be in the knbow concur that this is a more or less unique thing.

So frankly, much as I accept that a full encyclopedic knowledge is not there in any case (but if the interest is there, a search can be made), and that details like these are not always spelt out for various reasons, there is no other thing I can do but to say that it DOES take evidence to bolster any suggestion that many cases are pie-crust cases.
And as long as I don´t see any evidence at all of such cases, my stance remains the same: this is a VERY odd matter.

And to be fair, Gareth, let´s look at things from a less than fundamentalist view:

Killers are not very common.

Serial killers are very, very much rarer.

Serial killers who eviscerate are very much rarer that serial killers per se.

Serial killers who take away the abdominal walls in large flaps, are rarer than hen´s teeth.

And no matter how we look upon things, we have TWO such killers working in the same city at the same time, in an era when serialists are freakishly poorly listed.

Why would we NOT accept that a common identity is the reasonable suggestion? All "but´s" applied.

I have effectively addressed these issues in my previous post. Of course, as I keep pointing out, you continue to cherry pick the evidence in order to support an increasingly convoluted and outlandish grand theory.

The C5 victims and Tabramwere all killed within an incredibly small geographical area, I believe just 1 square mile, with no more than half a mile between the proceeding victim.

What does this, as a matter of basic common sense, tell you? It tells you that the perpetrator was a local man, a maurauder, who probably had no access to transport. In fact, he was so committed to the small, but labyrinthal, area in which he targeted his victims that not even a dramatic increase in the local police presence, or the fact that locals were no doubt much more cautious and on a their guard following the earlier murders and the enormous amount of publicity focussed on the case, was sufficient to compel him to change tactics.

In sharp contrast, the Torso perpetrator targeted victims over a much wider area. Moreover, he used dump sites and, in contrast to JtR, must have had a disposal site and access to transport. He also took care to prevent his victims being identified, whereas JtR took no such precautions: only one out seven Torso victims was ever identified, despite the strenuous efforts of the police.

Very different psychologies. Very different spacial behaviours. Very different perpetrators.

[John G]

Precisely as I see it, John. Time restraints that, surely to God, never applied in the case of the Torso Murders.

Hi Gareth,

Exactly. Which was surely intentional in respect of the Torso murders- the perpetrator(s) probably wanted to spend as much time as possible with the victims, and didn't want to risk being disturbed- hence the fact that these victims were not simply butchered in public areas at times when large numbers of people were either leaving for work, or staggering out of the pub!