Torso Killer discussion from Millwood Thread

[Debra A]

Hebbert refers to the "rugae of the vagina," which, along with the appearance of the breasts, is evidently why he determined she had never been a mother.

I was always under the impression that Hebbert was describing the condition of the vagina as a means to determining a recent birth, rather than a previous birth. A recent birth being a pointer towards abortion.

[rjpalmer]

Hebbert refers to the "rugae of the vagina," which, along with the appearance of the breasts, is evidently why he determined she had never been a mother.

This is a sweeping generalization, but, all in all, and considering that the Regent Canal victim was over 25, is it really likely that this is the description of a "prostitute" as some argue?

I suppose some "unfortunates" might have been able to avoid pregnancy, but as the years rolled by, this would have been more and more unlikely; I think I recall Donald Rumbelow finding a case of middle-aged prostitute that was still a virgin, but that must have been a wild aberration.

[JeffHamm]

Yes, and Hebbert's exact wording is:

“The uterus was that of a virgin, but the vulva was too decomposed to give indication with regard to old or recent injury.”

Which raises a lot of questions.

I read in a modern forensic book that is actually difficult to determine by the uterus whether a woman has carried a child to full term or not, but, for whatever reason, the Victorian medicos believed they could do it. Now Hebbert even seems to say that he can tell the difference between the womb of a virgin and a non-virgin. Curious.

Ah, then I suspect by "virgin" he is referring to not carrying to term rather than the individual. And, from the modern information, that his interpretation is based upon erroneous beliefs. That's important information, thanks.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

They can be found in A System of Legal Medicine, in a section written by Hebbert using his and Bond's original autopsy notes of the 87-89 torso cases (labelled I to IV chronologically), on pages 75-87
(pages 84-96 of the reader).

https://archive.org/details/asysteml...dkgoog/page/n9

Oh brilliant. Thanks a lot for that.

- Jeff

[rjpalmer]

Yes, and Hebbert's exact wording is:

“The uterus was that of a virgin, but the vulva was too decomposed to give indication with regard to old or recent injury.”

Which raises a lot of questions.

I read in a modern forensic book that is actually difficult to determine by the uterus whether a woman has carried a child to full term or not, but, for whatever reason, the Victorian medicos believed they could do it. Now Hebbert even seems to say that he can tell the difference between the womb of a virgin and a non-virgin. Curious.

[Joshua Rogan]

Not sure where the full autopsy notes are that Debra A was working from, which would be even better to review, but her summary contains some important information.

They can be found in A System of Legal Medicine, in a section written by Hebbert using his and Bond's original autopsy notes of the 87-89 torso cases (labelled I to IV chronologically), on pages 75-87
(pages 84-96 of the reader).

https://archive.org/details/asystemlegalmed00godkgoog/page/n9

[JeffHamm]

I have seen references to a "virgin uterus" in old medical textbooks, which means the uterus of a woman that has never carried a child; I don't **think** Hebbert means to imply that he can tell the difference between the womb of a sexually active woman and a non-sexually active woman, granting that they both never carried a child. At least that's my interpretation. It would be odd if he's implying that she was a virgin merely on the appearance of her womb.

That's a good point, virgin may be used here to describe the uterus, so a virgin uterus is one that has never been pregnant, rather than virgin as a descriptor of the person, meaning has never been sexually active. That makes a lot of sense, particularly as it appears he indicates that it is possible that the person was unable to conceive (so there must have been something notable about the uterus to suggest that).

An examination of the original notes would be useful to clarify what Debra A was being summarized.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Not necessarily so, Jeff.

It was impossible to know if the Whitehall victim was pregnant because her uterus was missing, which in itself is highly suggestive of either an abortion case or a "pregnancy murder."

True. However, in the autopsy notes the doctor links the Whitehall case to the 1887 case in their assessment of the disarticulations, and the 1887 case the doctor identifies the victim as a virgin (the uterus was present; so presumably the hymen was intact). If those two were performed by the same person (which is what those who argue for a series claim), then an abortionist is ruled out. The doctor also noted that the Whitehall victim had not suckled a child, and while that doesn't rule out them being pregnant at the time, it would be their first pregnancy if they had (most likely). Presumably, if they were pregnant, the breasts would show signs of that, depending upon how far along the pregnancy was.

Meanwhile, in the 1873 case, it was specifically theorized that the victim had had an abortion. Since Jackson was pregnant and cut to pieces, the prime suspect HAS to be the man who had impregnated her. Perhaps he was innocent, but he certainly would need to explain himself and furnish an alibi.

Yes, the father of Jackson's child would definitely be a top Person of Interest.

The point though, Jeff, isn't that all of the victims can be pinned on abortionists; the point is that if even if only one or two of them were, it raises the possibility that we are looking at unrelated murders and there was no "series" at all. Excuse me if I misunderstand, but you seem to be working from the premise that there IS a series, and then working backwards, dismiss possible motives based on the medical condition of the victims in the other cases.

I agree, if these are not a series by the same person, then that changes the possibilities for individual cases. I should have stated that I was considering these from the point of view of a series. I'm not convinced, though, that they are all linked to one person, only that there does appear to be a basis upon which to consider that possibility.

By the way, in reference to those notes, what on earth does Hebbert mean by saying the victim had the "uterus of a virgin"? That's nonsensical, isn't it?

No, not necessarily. If the hymen was still intact, that would indicate lack of penetration, and since the uterus was present I took it to mean he examined that, though the hymen is not part of the uterus itself. There may be other changes to the uterus that occur that indicate a prior pregnancy, or at least one that was carried to term, though of course that doesn't mean the person was a virgin. The full autopsy notes would (or I should say "should") indicate upon what evidence the doctor drew that conclusion. It's possible his conclusion was based upon ideas that have since been proven to be invalid.

- Jeff

[rjpalmer]

I have seen references to a "virgin uterus" in old medical textbooks, which means the uterus of a woman that has never carried a child; I don't **think** Hebbert means to imply that he can tell the difference between the womb of a sexually active woman and a non-sexually active woman, granting that they both never carried a child. At least that's my interpretation. It would be odd if he's implying that she was a virgin merely on the appearance of her womb.

[rjpalmer]

the only pregnant victim was Elizabeth Jackson (putting the "illegal abortionist" line to rest I think).

Not necessarily so, Jeff.

It was impossible to know if the Whitehall victim was pregnant because her uterus was missing, which in itself is highly suggestive of either an abortion case or a "pregnancy murder."

Meanwhile, in the 1873 case, it was specifically theorized that the victim had had an abortion. Since Jackson was pregnant and cut to pieces, the prime suspect HAS to be the man who had impregnated her. Perhaps he was innocent, but he certainly would need to explain himself and furnish an alibi.

The point though, Jeff, isn't that all of the victims can be pinned on abortionists; the point is that if even if only one or two of them were, it raises the possibility that we are looking at unrelated murders and there was no "series" at all. Excuse me if I misunderstand, but you seem to be working from the premise that there IS a series, and then working backwards, dismiss possible motives based on the medical condition of the victims in the other cases.

By the way, in reference to those notes, what on earth does Hebbert mean by saying the victim had the "uterus of a virgin"? That's nonsensical, isn't it?

[jerryd]

A few personal observations I have regarding the torsos:

*Dr. Bond was involved in the 1873 case, yet he never included her with the "four" from 1887-1888.

*The Tottenham Court torso of 1884 had the head recovered. The eyes were plucked out, the nose cut off and cheek slashed to the mouth. The body parts appeared to have been packed on top of each other and covered in a disinfectant such as Chloride of Lime. A few months earlier, a large black portmanteau was found with clotted blood and something like decomposed flesh inside. It was found thrown over into a garden at Clarendon Gardens, Maida Vale, a block or two from Warwick Lock. Warwick Lock was thought to be a possible location of the dumping site of the Rainham torso parts by the St Pancras Lock Keeper. My point, don't count this torso out as a possible link to the series.

*And last, just as RJ stated, people put missing ads in the papers, I found this interesting one awhile back.


Lloyd's Weekly, August 21st, 1887 (referring to the Rainham torso)

[JeffHamm]

Just checking some of the other discussions on the torso killings, and there's a good one summarizing the autopsy notes here : https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...-autopsy-notes

Not sure where the full autopsy notes are that Debra A was working from, which would be even better to review, but her summary contains some important information.

Importantly, the medical opinion was that there was no surgical skill being shown, rather, the skill set appeared to be that of a butcher/knacker/hunter, all of which would explain why the internal organs tend to be removed prior to the sectioning of the body.

Also, the kidneys seem to have been left in all of them. The uterus is often not removed. The 1887 torso appears to have been a virgin (so not a prostitute), and I think the only pregnant victim was Elizabeth Jackson (putting the "illegal abortionist" line to rest I think). No mutilation/removal of breasts appears to have occurred, unlike Kelly. Of course, the Pinchin Street torso did not have the arms removed, deviating from the pattern of other torso victims.

Medical opinion did suggest a strong likelihood of the 1887 torso and the Whitehall torso being dismembered by the same individual due to the skill employed in the disjointing of the limbs. I would want to ask, since I'm not knowledgeable enough to have an informed opinion of my own, if that could reflect two separate individuals both with similar knowledge (i.e. are we looking at two separate murders, perhaps where the killer was a butcher, and both resorted to dismemberment in order to get rid of the body? Or was there something individualistic about the methods employed that go beyond both knew what they were doing?)

- Jeff

[rjpalmer]

Too many assumptions, Bundy.

In the 1873 case from Battersea, it was reported in the press that many people came forward looking for lost or missing relatives--wives, sisters, mothers, etc. That the victim remained unidentified was not down to the fact that there weren't people looking for missing friends or relatives, thus proving it was an "unfortunate." People were looking. This was an era with no safety net, weak methods of identification, and where people simply vanished off the face of the earth. I'm sure you've heard of "Potter's Field." There were entire graveyards devoted to unclaimed people or those who had no known living relatives. They weren't all prostitutes. In immigrant newspapers one sees "information wanted" ads by the dozens, of people looking for sisters or cousins that went abroad and were never heard from again.

Instead of gratuitously assuming that theses women were prostitutes, why not look at some solved cases, and see what you find? I think what you'll find is that a great many of the women found cut-up and dumped in the river or in ditches in the 19th Century were servant girls impregnated by their employers, and who subsequently fell prey to the back-alley abortionists, or were otherwise murdered by a seducer who didn't want the shame/expense of paying for an illegitimate child.

How about the most famous case of all, the young woman who was murdered in Whitechapel in 1875 and chopped up and thrown in the River? Was she a prostitute killed by a punter?

Actually, no. Harriet Lane was murdered by the man who had been "keeping her" as his mistress and poorly paid employee. And Wainwright got away with it for months. He initially explained Harriet's absence by claiming she ran-off to Europe with another man. And no one could prove otherwise. The police managed to solve this case, but if they hadn't, would Harriet Lane have been another one of the unidentified "torso victims" and "prostitutes" supposedly killed by Jack the Ripper?

And would that assumption have been correct?

By the way, on what do you base your assumption that the average prostitute fell between the ages of 20-50? I recently read a Victorian medical study, and of the prostitutes surveyed, the great majority were under the age of 20. One was 15 and several were 16. Only 1 woman was over the age of 40.

The Ripper, for the most part, killed middle-aged women, but this does not mean that the average East End prostitute was middle-aged.

[RedBundy13]

With having all but one of the Torso Victims unidentified (arguably), its difficult to be certain if they were or were not prostitutes. But that said, I think we can make some reasonable assumptions. First off they were all women from the ages of between 20 to 50 give or take, which does put them in the age range of most of the unfortunates at the time (and I understand that thats probably the age of most women alive at that time in history, when life expectancy was much shorter than it is today), even still, there were no children or seniors, which IMO, besides prostitutes, would be the next best (or easiest) targets when looking for victims.
2nd, they were all but one unidentified. Which does say something about the possible class that they came from. Just as it is today, when prostitutes would go missing, it generally didn't cause as big a stir, unfortunately. If someone had a wife go missing or a daughter in college or mom who takes care of her kids who ends up going missing, chances are it would cause a bigger stir than a missing unfortunate.

Basically what I'm saying is, generally, more people would be going out of their way too search for the stay home mom, or daughter or working wife who's home every night than would be looking for a prostitute who may be using an assumed name, who may have moved to the city to escape her past life for whatever reason. However fair or unfair that is, I think we can all pretty much agree that thats more likely true than not. So besides being the easiest victims to get alone, the unfortunates were also the least likely to cause a fuss when missing.
Plus the one victim that was positively ID'ed had been a known prostitute.
Given everything that was known, but even more telling what was UNknown, points to the women most likely being prostitutes. Obviously thats not 100%, and possibly 1 or even 2 weren't active prostitutes at the time they were killed. But if I were a betting man, I think I would feel comfortable going "all-in" on they being Unfortunates.

[Kattrup]

But the real reason I wish to comment is that Fisherman suggests that all the Torso victims were "prostitutes." Please don't let Ms. Rubenhold get wind of this amazing claim, or Fish, too, will end up swimming in The Thames. Abby tried to pull this same stunt a while back. The Battersea, Regent's Canal, and Pinchin Street bodies, among others, were never positively identified. So by what stretch of the imagination does one conclude that they were all "prostitutes," let alone murdered during an act of prostitution?

i agree with your point about dismemberment, same as with ripping, when done it appears similar, does not mean it’s the same perpetrator.

i don’t think people are claiming ALL the torso victims were prostitutes. But that in the “series” there was a sometimes prostitute, so they can claim JtR and the torso killer both targeted prostitutes.

the fact that the only real clues about the unidentifieds’ social status points to them being not lowclass never seems to bother such theorists.