autopsy notes

[Fisherman]

One more for John G.

You say that the killer would never have killed Chapman in Hanbury Street as his next victim if he had had access to transport.

So explain to me why Chapman is the victim closest to Bucks Row of all the C6?

Why did the killer not kill in Mitre Square after Bucks Row? Or even further afield? He would have been able to walk to Smithfield Market if he wanted to spread the murders as much as he could.

Instead he killed quite close to Bucks Row, so it seems he never adjusted to your suggestions?

Two words to keep in mind, extremely useful in this discussion: comfort zone.

[Fisherman]

But letīs not forget about Paul Ogorzow, John! He should suit both you and me:

Known as the "S-Bahn murderer"; SA sergeant convicted of raping and murdering eight women by throwing them off trains in Berlin during blackouts in 1941 and 1942. Executed by guillotine at the Plötzensee Prison on July 26, 1941.

So he used local Berlin trains to kill eight women. How EXTREMELY stupid - he gave away the exact platform (excuse the pun) he used for killing, which is exactly what I am saying - these men will often enough kill in VERY confined areas.

The upside for you - is that he definitely had transport!!

[Fisherman]

Hereīs another guy who had no transport:

Francisco de Assis Pereira (born November 29, 1967), also known as "O Maníaco do Parque" ("The Park Maniac"), is a Brazilian serial killer. He was arrested in 1998 for the rape and murder of 11 women and for assaulting nine others in a São Paulo park.

[Fisherman]

Hereīs one for you, John G:

Robert Lee Yates, Jr. (born May 27, 1952) is an American serial killer from Spokane, Washington. From 1996 to 1998, Yates is known to have murdered at least 13 women, all of whom were sex workers working on Spokane's "Skid Row" on E. Sprague Avenue.

He probably didnīt have transport.

[Fisherman]

John G: I see your clutching at straws now.

I am not clutching at anything - I am correcting your faulty claims. Again.

Of course, the fact that the C5 murders took place within just 1 square mile suggests the perpetrator had no access to transport.

Does it? Do you suggest that the killer would have used a horse and carriage? Has it dawned on you that one of the main features of his MO was silence? What do you think a horse and carriage would add to that striving?

Are you seriously suggesting that this killer MUST have used transport if he had it? Really?

Or are you perhaps telling us that if he had had transport, he would never have killed in Whitechapel? Is that it? If so, do you have any special suggestion in mind? Blackpool? Cropredy? No?

Do elaborate on this. It should have all the makings of a festive and entertaining post.

Otherwise, he would have to be completely stupid not to expand his range, particularly after the greatly increased police presence in the Whitechapel area, coupled with the fact that local residents would have been very much on their guard.

Ah - so he would have killed victim number one in Whitechapel and THEN he would have gone to Blackpool?
Have you read about the many killers who have exploited the SeaTac stretch in Seattle? No? Imagine, those morons did NOT buy a flight ticket to Blackpool, although the police watched SeaTac with some zeal.
And have you read about how many serial killers gain their monikers from the areas where they work? Stupid, stupid people!
Richard Ramirez, he stalked the streets ON FOOT! And when he tried to flee, he had to run. Jerk!

You haven't any evidence whatsoever that any of the Torso victims had any connection to Whitechapel. In fact, the one identified victim certainly didn't, and she'd been living rough on the embankment, no where near Whitechapel.

I think Jerry has already corrected you on that score. Otherwise, what evidence do you have that they did NOT visit on a daily basis?

Only one of the Torso victims was very identified-despite the strenuous efforts of the police- and then by scars on her left arm! I mean, how could the perpetrator possibility have expected such bad luck?

It could have been a mole, it could have been the clothes, it could have been the written name, it could have been the full face cut from the 1873 victim. In fact, the killer was not unlucky. He was lucky.

It seems your of the opinion that the nineteenth century Metropolitan Police had all the experience and technological resources of a modern law enforcement, despite the fact serial murders of the period were incredibly rare if not unprecedented.

Does it? From where did you get that impression? Or are you just making it up. Yes?
Oh dear ... yes. Yes, you ARE making it up.

Maybe you think they had access to a CSI team, psychological profilers, and regularly put out appeals on a late nineteenth century equivalent of Crimewatch UK!

What vodka brand do YOU prefer?

[jerryd]

You haven't any evidence whatsoever that any of the Torso victims had any connection to Whitechapel. In fact, the one identified victim certainly didn't, and she'd been living rough on the embankment, no where near Whitechapel.

No connection per say to Whitechapel, but Elizabeth Jackson did stay five days in a lodging house in Whitechapel at the end of March 1889. It was on her way back from Ipswich with Fairclough.

[John G]

Very wrong.

To begin with, the fact that a man kills within a small area does not mean that he has no access to transport. It means that he probably does not USE any transport.

Very, very basic to see - and you miss it.

You are also saying that the Torso killer targetted victims over a much larger area. That is pure and simple balderdash. Neither of us knows how lare an area he targetted victims over - we know how large an area he DUMPED them over. He could have targetted them in the same pub for all we know.

Simple matters, but totally misunderstood by you.

And then there is all the old misunderstandings on your part, rehashed for the umpteenth time. The torso killer was VERY generous in offering leads to the identities of his victims. Did you forget that? The moles, the scars, the clothes, even with a name in them...

I see your clutching at straws now. Of course, the fact that the C5 murders took place within just 1 square mile suggests the perpetrator had no access to transport. Otherwise, he would have to be completely stupid not to expand his range, particularly after the greatly increased police presence in the Whitechapel area, coupled with the fact that local residents would have been very much on their guard.

You haven't any evidence whatsoever that any of the Torso victims had any connection to Whitechapel. In fact, the one identified victim certainly didn't, and she'd been living rough on the embankment, no where near Whitechapel.

Only one of the Torso victims was very identified-despite the strenuous efforts of the police- and then by scars on her left arm! I mean, how could the perpetrator possibility have expected such bad luck?

It seems your of the opinion that the nineteenth century Metropolitan Police had all the experience and technological resources of a modern law enforcement, despite the fact serial murders of the period were incredibly rare if not unprecedented.

Maybe you think they had access to a CSI team, psychological profilers, and regularly put out appeals on a late nineteenth century equivalent of Crimewatch UK!

[Fisherman]

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.

Very wrong.

To begin with, the fact that a man kills within a small area does not mean that he has no access to transport. It means that he probably does not USE any transport.

Very, very basic to see - and you miss it.

You are also saying that the Torso killer targetted victims over a much larger area. That is pure and simple balderdash. Neither of us knows how lare an area he targetted victims over - we know how large an area he DUMPED them over. He could have targetted them in the same pub for all we know.

Simple matters, but totally misunderstood by you.

And then there is all the old misunderstandings on your part, rehashed for the umpteenth time. The torso killer was VERY generous in offering leads to the identities of his victims. Did you forget that? The moles, the scars, the clothes, even with a name in them...

[Fisherman]

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.

Corrections:

Annie Chapman was described as a strongy built, stout woman. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that she was emaciated. She was destitute and will probably not have been very well nourished, but being emaciated is quite another thing.

Denke has been mentioned before - by me. He cut the body of his victims up in flaps, aimed for consumption. So he is old hat out here, John. The thing you need to get your head around is that this thing is nevertheless practically unheard of.
But if you had found two sets of Denke flesh parts, Iīm sure you would conclude that they belonged to two killers ...

There is reason to think that all three cases involved the same ritualistic element, leading on the removal of the abdominal wall.

It was not "part of" Chapmans abdominal wall that was taken away - it was all of it, more or less. Which tallies with the ritual element I have in mind. Same thing with Kelly, and quite possibly with Jackson.

[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!

[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 donīt see any evidence at all of such cases, my stance remains the same: this is a VERY odd matter.

And to be fair, Gareth, letīs 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 henīs 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 "butīs" 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.

[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]

...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.

[John G]

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

Be patient Young Fisherman.

[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.