Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Torso Killer discussion from Millwood Thread

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

    Thanks for confirming that Debra A. Found your summary of the autopsy notes very informative, and appreciate your input here as well.

    I would think he was looking for previous births, as a current pregnancy would show very definite changes in the uterus as it would be larger the further on into the pregnancy and the uterine walls would be far thicker than usual, either or both of which would be notable in an autopsy report; particularly if the fetus were absent (as per Elizabeth Jackson).

    - Jeff
    Thanks Jeff. Yes, we see this in Elizabeth Jackson's case. I think you and RJ are correct actually after thinking about it yesterday and for the reasons I mention in my post to RJ.
    Hebbert didn't describe the finding of the body parts so it mostly goes unnoticed that the first parcel found at Horselydown contained just two flaps of abdominal flesh, a uterus that had been opened up on one side and placenta. These portions of the body and a portion of thigh (IIRC)had their own separate inquest. I have the details of the two inquests in different registration districts and different coroners but not to hand at the moment.
    ,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸, Debs ,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,

    I am not DJA. He's called Dave.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Debra A View Post

      Thanks Jeff. Yes, we see this in Elizabeth Jackson's case. I think you and RJ are correct actually after thinking about it yesterday and for the reasons I mention in my post to RJ.
      Hebbert didn't describe the finding of the body parts so it mostly goes unnoticed that the first parcel found at Horselydown contained just two flaps of abdominal flesh, a uterus that had been opened up on one side and placenta. These portions of the body and a portion of thigh (IIRC)had their own separate inquest. I have the details of the two inquests in different registration districts and different coroners but not to hand at the moment.
      Hi Debs
      Slightly off topic, but I dont know if you have been watching Call the Midwife the Sunday night BBC series based on life in The East End in the 1960`s. The last few episodes have highlighted the extent of back street abortionists back then, and they would seen to have been fairly prevalent. So I wonder how prevalent back street abortionists were in 1888 we know they existed. In the 60`s they were shown to charge between £7-10 for an abortion.

      In the prog the women who used these back street butchers either contracted serious infections, and in some case died even in the 60`s so I wonder what the mortality rate was in 1888?

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

        Hi Debs
        Slightly off topic, but I dont know if you have been watching Call the Midwife the Sunday night BBC series based on life in The East End in the 1960`s. The last few episodes have highlighted the extent of back street abortionists back then, and they would seen to have been fairly prevalent. So I wonder how prevalent back street abortionists were in 1888 we know they existed. In the 60`s they were shown to charge between £7-10 for an abortion.

        In the prog the women who used these back street butchers either contracted serious infections, and in some case died even in the 60`s so I wonder what the mortality rate was in 1888?

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
        Hi Trevor,
        It's funny you should mention that because I just recently started to watch the program on Netflix and got hooked. I can imagine that the setting of the 50s and 60s East End wouldn't be that dissimilar to 88 in terms of the communities that lived there and the attitudes towards abortion etc. Back street abortion definitely happened in 1888 but been one thing you hit the nail on the head with is that the women usually got infections when they were far away from the abortionist and back at home and often so severely that it cost them their lives. One thing Bond would definitely have been able to determine would have been an infected uterus. He examined Eliza Schumacher when Dr Gloster and another were tried for causing her death and he describes the extent of the infection he saw. If Elizabeth died an abortion related death then it would have to have been by something that caused an instant death, before a miscarriage had happened or infection had set in after instrument use.

        I wonder if there are figures available somewhere.
        ,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸, Debs ,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,

        I am not DJA. He's called Dave.

        Comment


        • #49
          there is zero evidence any of the torso victims died from some kind of abortion gone wrong. you don't perform an abortion by ripping a baby out, none of the other women were pregnant and none of the doctors at the time believed this was the case. this is all total speculation and if anyone has any actual evidence that they were abortions then please produce.
          "Is all that we see or seem
          but a dream within a dream?"

          -Edgar Allan Poe


          "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
          quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

          -Frederick G. Abberline

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

            Thanks for that Sam. I'm assuming the locations along the Thames are for the most part, ones that have washed ashore? Given the Thames is tidal, they could drift either direction pending on incoming or outgoing tides. I would think a historic tide timetable would be useful to look around the time the parts were thought to have entered the water (if they were able to make such a determination). Anyway, on the basis that most of these have drifted from somewhere, it looks like a dispersal pattern, where locations concentrate relatively near where they were thrown in, and spread out as they've drifted further (not as many make it that far and wash ashore, before then). So it looks like they may have been tossed in from around the area I've circled in purple (or possibly the next bridge west), but this is just a guess as one needs to know the flow patterns of the specific river. The thing to do would be do dump marked items, of similar buoyancy, weight, etc, and determine how they disperse in the Thames under similar tide conditions (again, if they had a good idea of when the parts entered the water, then it's just a matter of looking up the tide around that time). Working out where the marked items end up would help narrow down where the body parts likely entered into the river. That location would be a good place to start considering where to then search for suspects.

            - Jeff

            Click image for larger version

Name:	torso.jpg
Views:	748
Size:	101.4 KB
ID:	702446
            Hi again Jeff
            A few years ago John Savage, duly qualified , used historical tide tables to calculate if the remains in Elizabeth Jackson's case were deposited from the Albert Bridge and whether the first parcels at Horsleydown would have arrived at the correct time of discovered. Bearing in mind that the first parcel at Horleydown contained teh uterus and abdominal flesh only and was not an often written about 'section of torso' Here's what John wrote:
            Hi All,

            I have managed to get together some details regarding the body parts of Elizabeth Jackson found floating in the Thames. It is all based upon the best information I can find and I apologise if it is a littlelong winded. I should point out that I have no practical knowledge of sailing on the upper Thames, the farthest I ever got was from seawards to Deptford. Any boatman or yachtsman with experience of the upper Thames may be able to add further information and should such a person chance toread this post, I would welcome their comments.

            Anyway, here goes....

            ELIZABETH JACKSON

            Any attempt to track the movement of body parts immersed in a tidal river will need to consider the different forces that may cause or impede movement, so first let us consider the forces involved.

            BOUYANCY
            A complete human body would first of all sink to the river bed and as decomposition takes place gases would build up inside the body until it eventually rises to the surface; this takes between two and four weeks. In this case the body was cut into several parts and due to the fact that medical reports suggest that the first body parts recovered had been in the water for about 24 hours buoyancy can be assumed. There are three states of buoyancy; positive buoyancy were the object floats on the surface, neutral buoyancy were the object floats below the surface and negative buoyancy were the object sinks to the bottom. The recovered body parts would have been of positive or neutral buoyancy, although the head – which was not recovered – would I think have been negative buoyancy. I have little medical or anatomical knowledge but a human head is said to weigh about 10-12lbs. and is composed of a lot of bone, therefore I think that the density would have been greater than the other body parts thus causing it to sink.

            WIND
            Any object floating on the surface may have its direction influenced by the strength and direction of the wind, a wind from the east would cause the object to move in a westerly direction whilst a wind from the north would cause movement to the south. Weather reports published in the Times for the dates in question suggest very light winds from a generally northerly direction; therefore I believe that these would have little effect on the speed and direction of travel.

            TIDES
            The river Thames has two tides a day, that is to say that the cycle of low water to high water and back to low water, happens twice in approximately 24 hours. Each high or low tide occurs progressively later than the last by about 30 minutes, for instance on 9th June 1889 high tide occurs at 09.58 and 22.28, and on 10th June 1889 high tide occurs at 11.03 and 23.32. At high or low water there is a short interval, usually about 30 minutes, when the tide does not travel in either direction, this is known as “slack water”. There are two types of tide which alternate roughly weekly and are known as “spring tides” and “neap tides”, at spring tides the tide rises higher and settles lower than at neaps and this also causes the rate of flow, or current, to be greater on springs than on neaps. The tidal heights predicted for 4th June 1889 are 5.5 meters falling to 5.0 meters on 7th – 8th June, on 9th June they increase to 5.3 meters rising to a maximum of 6.5 meters on 15th June. We can therefore say that the period 4th -10th June was a period of neap tides. Incoming tides which in this case travel from east to west are known as “flood” tides, whilst outgoing tides known as “ebb” tides travel in the opposite direction. Tidal predictions are based on phases of the moon and are generally accurate, however certain weather conditions can cause a variation of the time and height of a tide; strong northerly or north easterly winds and low barometric pressure in the North Sea between Scotland and Norway can cause higher tides and a stronger current on the flood. Recent heavy rainfall can cause storm water to drain through the river giving higher tides and stronger ebb tides. Equinoctial tides will also give higher and stronger flood tides. However there is no evidence to suggest that any of these factors came into play during the period we are concerned with. The current of any tide is not constant, it rises gradually from zero to its maximum at half flood or ebb, and then reduces gradually to zero as high or low water is achieved. I have checked all available resources for further information on tidal streams between London Bridge and Teddington but have found no useful information given beyond a point between Southend and Sheerness, we shall have to rely on the following information from Reed’s Nautical Almanac: Tidal Stream Rate [maximum]. London Bridge: Flood – 2.5knots Ebb – 3.5knots. Tidal Ebb and Flood [average] London Bridge Ebb- 6hrs. 32 mins. Flood – 5h.55min

            OBSTRUCTIONS
            There are several possible obstructions that could delay movement of a floating object, these include jetties, wharves, bridge piers and vessels anchored in the river; the suction or wash from a passing steamboat may also have an effect. Bends in the river although not an obstruction will cause the tide to set to the outside of the bend.

            THE FIND AT HORSLEYDOWN
            We do not have an exact time that the body parts were found at George’s Stairs but from the information we have it would seem likely that it was sometime about midmorning. The distance from Albert Bridge to George’s stairs would be approximately 4.7 nautical miles and the body would have to travel on an ebb tide. To decide the speed that the body part would travel at, consider that maximum speed of 3.5 knots would be at spring tides, but on the date in question neap tides were occurring and this would give a slower maximum speed of about 2 knots. The tide does not move at this speed all the time but starts from zero at high water and increases for the next three hours or so and then starts to decrease in speed until low water is reached. Therefore let us assume an average speed of 1 knot.
            High water at Albert Bridge on 4th. June 1889 occurred at 05.16hrs., taking the assumed average speed it would need 4 hrs. 45mins. to travel the 4.7 miles from Albert Bridge to George’s Stairs, this gives an arrival time of 10.01hrs. George’s stairs were on the south side of the river opposite St. Katherine’s Dock and this would be in keeping with the northerly breeze mentioned earlier. This model suggest that the body parts were placed in the water around 4-5am, a time when the area may have been at it’s most quiet.

            As soon as time permits I intend to attempt to plot the course of the other remains if anyone wishes me to do so.

            Rgds
            John
            ,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸, Debs ,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,

            I am not DJA. He's called Dave.

            Comment


            • #51
              Sorry to be posting so much in one go
              I don't know if it has been mentioned that the 1873 victim was originally identified as a woman named Mary Ann Cayley and that the National Archives file on the case in her name still exists. Cayley, turned up safe and well after being identified as the victim. Perhaps research in to her would uncover some of the methods and beliefs used by police during identification of unkown victims? Has anyone looked at this file?

              Murder of Mrs.Mary Ann Cayley - alias - Bear - alias - Beer: Dismembered portions ...
              Metropolitan Police: Office of the Commissioner: Correspondence and Papers, Special Series. Murders. Murder of Mrs.Mary Ann Cayley - alias - Bear - alias - Beer: Dismembered portions of body recovered from various parts of the River Thames.

              Held by: The National Archives - Metropolitan Police Office
              Date: September 1873
              Reference: MEPO 3/118
              Subjects: Crime | Policing
              Louis Gumprecht, predecessor to police photographer Joseph Martin photographed the 1873 remains according to the press.
              Last edited by Debra A; 03-04-2019, 02:23 PM.
              ,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸, Debs ,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,

              I am not DJA. He's called Dave.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                there is zero evidence any of the torso victims died from some kind of abortion gone wrong. you don't perform an abortion by ripping a baby out, none of the other women were pregnant and none of the doctors at the time believed this was the case. this is all total speculation and if anyone has any actual evidence that they were abortions then please produce.
                You conveniently forgot to mention that there is almost as much zero evidence to show that the victims were actually murdered.

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Debra A View Post
                  Sorry to be posting so much in one go
                  I don't know if it has been mentioned that the 1873 victim was originally identified as a woman named Mary Ann Cayley and that the National Archives file on the case in her name still exists. Cayley, turned up safe and well after being identified as the victim. Perhaps research in to her would uncover some of the methods and beliefs used by police during identification of unkown victims? Has anyone looked at this file?

                  Murder of Mrs.Mary Ann Cayley - alias - Bear - alias - Beer: Dismembered portions ...
                  Metropolitan Police: Office of the Commissioner: Correspondence and Papers, Special Series. Murders. Murder of Mrs.Mary Ann Cayley - alias - Bear - alias - Beer: Dismembered portions of body recovered from various parts of the River Thames.

                  Held by: The National Archives - Metropolitan Police Office
                  Date: September 1873
                  Reference: MEPO 3/118
                  Subjects: Crime | Policing
                  Louis Gumprecht, predecessor to police photographer Joseph Martin photographed the 1873 remains according to the press.
                  Thanks for mentioning it, Debra, I hope someone London-based can swing by and have a look.
                  Actual, archive-based research is of the utmost importance if we are to deepen our understanding of the case.

                  and please never apologize for posting, your posts are the highlights of this show!

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                    You conveniently forgot to mention that there is almost as much zero evidence to show that the victims were actually murdered.

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                    LOL.
                    there is almost as much zero evidence
                    the beauty of that phrase alone! '..almost as much zero..' Classic Trev.

                    Several torso victims were found by the coroner and inquest to have been "murder by person or persons unknown" and this from Melvin Mcnaughten:

                    On 10th Sept. '89 the naked body, with arms, of a woman was found wrapped in some sacking under a Railway arch in Pinchin St: the head & legs were never found nor was the woman ever identified. She had been killed at least 24 hours before the remains, (which had seemingly been brought from a distance,) were discovered. The stomach was split up by a cut, and the head and legs had been severed in a manner identical with that of the woman whose remains were discovered in the Thames, in Battersea Park, & on the Chelsea Embankment on 4th June of the same year; and these murders had no connection whatever with the Whitechapel horrors. The Rainham mystery in 1887, & the Whitehall mystery (when portions of a woman's body were found under what is now New Scotland Yard) in 1888 were of a similar type to the Thames & Pinchin St crimes.


                    but I suppose the torso victims just mutilated and dismembered themselves.
                    "Is all that we see or seem
                    but a dream within a dream?"

                    -Edgar Allan Poe


                    "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                    quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                    -Frederick G. Abberline

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                      there is zero evidence any of the torso victims died from some kind of abortion gone wrong. you don't perform an abortion by ripping a baby out, none of the other women were pregnant and none of the doctors at the time believed this was the case. this is all total speculation and if anyone has any actual evidence that they were abortions then please produce.
                      During the EJ inquest, I think, the coroner heavily implied that an abortionist could theoretically have been responsible for her dismemberment.

                      Combined with what Debra Arif has found about EJ saying shortly before her disappearance that she wanted to get rid of her baby, it’s evidence that contemporary opinion could and did entertain the idea of a botched abortion.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Debra A View Post

                        Hi again Jeff
                        A few years ago John Savage, duly qualified , used historical tide tables to calculate if the remains in Elizabeth Jackson's case were deposited from the Albert Bridge and whether the first parcels at Horsleydown would have arrived at the correct time of discovered. Bearing in mind that the first parcel at Horleydown contained teh uterus and abdominal flesh only and was not an often written about 'section of torso' Here's what John wrote:
                        Hi All,

                        I have managed to get together some details regarding the body parts of Elizabeth Jackson found floating in the Thames. It is all based upon the best information I can find and I apologise if it is a littlelong winded. I should point out that I have no practical knowledge of sailing on the upper Thames, the farthest I ever got was from seawards to Deptford. Any boatman or yachtsman with experience of the upper Thames may be able to add further information and should such a person chance toread this post, I would welcome their comments.

                        Anyway, here goes....

                        ELIZABETH JACKSON

                        Any attempt to track the movement of body parts immersed in a tidal river will need to consider the different forces that may cause or impede movement, so first let us consider the forces involved.

                        BOUYANCY
                        A complete human body would first of all sink to the river bed and as decomposition takes place gases would build up inside the body until it eventually rises to the surface; this takes between two and four weeks. In this case the body was cut into several parts and due to the fact that medical reports suggest that the first body parts recovered had been in the water for about 24 hours buoyancy can be assumed. There are three states of buoyancy; positive buoyancy were the object floats on the surface, neutral buoyancy were the object floats below the surface and negative buoyancy were the object sinks to the bottom. The recovered body parts would have been of positive or neutral buoyancy, although the head – which was not recovered – would I think have been negative buoyancy. I have little medical or anatomical knowledge but a human head is said to weigh about 10-12lbs. and is composed of a lot of bone, therefore I think that the density would have been greater than the other body parts thus causing it to sink.

                        WIND
                        Any object floating on the surface may have its direction influenced by the strength and direction of the wind, a wind from the east would cause the object to move in a westerly direction whilst a wind from the north would cause movement to the south. Weather reports published in the Times for the dates in question suggest very light winds from a generally northerly direction; therefore I believe that these would have little effect on the speed and direction of travel.

                        TIDES
                        The river Thames has two tides a day, that is to say that the cycle of low water to high water and back to low water, happens twice in approximately 24 hours. Each high or low tide occurs progressively later than the last by about 30 minutes, for instance on 9th June 1889 high tide occurs at 09.58 and 22.28, and on 10th June 1889 high tide occurs at 11.03 and 23.32. At high or low water there is a short interval, usually about 30 minutes, when the tide does not travel in either direction, this is known as “slack water”. There are two types of tide which alternate roughly weekly and are known as “spring tides” and “neap tides”, at spring tides the tide rises higher and settles lower than at neaps and this also causes the rate of flow, or current, to be greater on springs than on neaps. The tidal heights predicted for 4th June 1889 are 5.5 meters falling to 5.0 meters on 7th – 8th June, on 9th June they increase to 5.3 meters rising to a maximum of 6.5 meters on 15th June. We can therefore say that the period 4th -10th June was a period of neap tides. Incoming tides which in this case travel from east to west are known as “flood” tides, whilst outgoing tides known as “ebb” tides travel in the opposite direction. Tidal predictions are based on phases of the moon and are generally accurate, however certain weather conditions can cause a variation of the time and height of a tide; strong northerly or north easterly winds and low barometric pressure in the North Sea between Scotland and Norway can cause higher tides and a stronger current on the flood. Recent heavy rainfall can cause storm water to drain through the river giving higher tides and stronger ebb tides. Equinoctial tides will also give higher and stronger flood tides. However there is no evidence to suggest that any of these factors came into play during the period we are concerned with. The current of any tide is not constant, it rises gradually from zero to its maximum at half flood or ebb, and then reduces gradually to zero as high or low water is achieved. I have checked all available resources for further information on tidal streams between London Bridge and Teddington but have found no useful information given beyond a point between Southend and Sheerness, we shall have to rely on the following information from Reed’s Nautical Almanac: Tidal Stream Rate [maximum]. London Bridge: Flood – 2.5knots Ebb – 3.5knots. Tidal Ebb and Flood [average] London Bridge Ebb- 6hrs. 32 mins. Flood – 5h.55min

                        OBSTRUCTIONS
                        There are several possible obstructions that could delay movement of a floating object, these include jetties, wharves, bridge piers and vessels anchored in the river; the suction or wash from a passing steamboat may also have an effect. Bends in the river although not an obstruction will cause the tide to set to the outside of the bend.

                        THE FIND AT HORSLEYDOWN
                        We do not have an exact time that the body parts were found at George’s Stairs but from the information we have it would seem likely that it was sometime about midmorning. The distance from Albert Bridge to George’s stairs would be approximately 4.7 nautical miles and the body would have to travel on an ebb tide. To decide the speed that the body part would travel at, consider that maximum speed of 3.5 knots would be at spring tides, but on the date in question neap tides were occurring and this would give a slower maximum speed of about 2 knots. The tide does not move at this speed all the time but starts from zero at high water and increases for the next three hours or so and then starts to decrease in speed until low water is reached. Therefore let us assume an average speed of 1 knot.
                        High water at Albert Bridge on 4th. June 1889 occurred at 05.16hrs., taking the assumed average speed it would need 4 hrs. 45mins. to travel the 4.7 miles from Albert Bridge to George’s Stairs, this gives an arrival time of 10.01hrs. George’s stairs were on the south side of the river opposite St. Katherine’s Dock and this would be in keeping with the northerly breeze mentioned earlier. This model suggest that the body parts were placed in the water around 4-5am, a time when the area may have been at it’s most quiet.

                        As soon as time permits I intend to attempt to plot the course of the other remains if anyone wishes me to do so.

                        Rgds
                        John
                        Thanks Debra A, that's a great bit of information and detail. That's the sort of thing I was thinking of. It's interesting that 4-5am as an estimated deposit time would fit with someone going to work on foot (I'm thinking some of the JtR witnesses, Carr, Long, etc, were out and about in the early morning hours on their way to work, markets, etc) and so would be able to explain their presence. It would also explain why they may have felt they had to section the body, as then they could carry smaller pieces, more discreetly, and toss them as they go over the bridge on their way to work.

                        If similar tidal analysis all pointed to Albert Bridge, and to similar early morning deposit times to 4-5am, then that would tend to point towards suspect linkage. It would also tend to point to someone who is probably close (ish) to their work place. I'm just extrapolating a bit here from things like Cross being on his way when he found Nichols at 3:40 am, which is 20-80 minutes earlier, , but he was a deliveryman, so probably had an earlier start time than average, so someone who's work day starts and hour or so later, might be roughly a similar distance from their place of employment. All conjecture of course, and totally meaningless without information about the other parts.

                        Did John ever do the other analyses he mentioned at the end of his post?

                        - Jeff

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Kattrup View Post

                          Thanks for mentioning it, Debra, I hope someone London-based can swing by and have a look.
                          Actual, archive-based research is of the utmost importance if we are to deepen our understanding of the case.

                          and please never apologize for posting, your posts are the highlights of this show!
                          Thanks Kattrup. I did inquire about the cost of having the file copied a while back but it was way beyond my budget!
                          ,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸, Debs ,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,

                          I am not DJA. He's called Dave.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                            Thanks Debra A, that's a great bit of information and detail. That's the sort of thing I was thinking of. It's interesting that 4-5am as an estimated deposit time would fit with someone going to work on foot (I'm thinking some of the JtR witnesses, Carr, Long, etc, were out and about in the early morning hours on their way to work, markets, etc) and so would be able to explain their presence. It would also explain why they may have felt they had to section the body, as then they could carry smaller pieces, more discreetly, and toss them as they go over the bridge on their way to work.

                            If similar tidal analysis all pointed to Albert Bridge, and to similar early morning deposit times to 4-5am, then that would tend to point towards suspect linkage. It would also tend to point to someone who is probably close (ish) to their work place. I'm just extrapolating a bit here from things like Cross being on his way when he found Nichols at 3:40 am, which is 20-80 minutes earlier, , but he was a deliveryman, so probably had an earlier start time than average, so someone who's work day starts and hour or so later, might be roughly a similar distance from their place of employment. All conjecture of course, and totally meaningless without information about the other parts.

                            Did John ever do the other analyses he mentioned at the end of his post?

                            - Jeff
                            Unfortunately, John didn't get around to doing any calculations for other cases as far as I am aware, Jeff.
                            If you look at Google street view images of the Albert Bridge and continuing on the road you can clearly see the old frame ground area of Battersea Park where a section of Elizabeth's torso was found after being spotted the day before. You can actually see that someone may have lent over the area of the bridge to throw a parcel in to the rough ground 200 yards from the Thames side. Speculating a little, perhaps the perpetrator din't intend to deposit in the park but it was accidental as he aimed for the river. Both land finds (the park and Shelley house gardens) were apparently thrown.
                            ,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸, Debs ,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,

                            I am not DJA. He's called Dave.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Kattrup View Post

                              During the EJ inquest, I think, the coroner heavily implied that an abortionist could theoretically have been responsible for her dismemberment.

                              Combined with what Debra Arif has found about EJ saying shortly before her disappearance that she wanted to get rid of her baby, it’s evidence that contemporary opinion could and did entertain the idea of a botched abortion.
                              The coroner certainly did seriously entertain the idea of an abortion related death, Kattrup. Dr Bond gave his conclusion that no actual abortion had been performed based on evidence he believed showed the foetus had been removed from the uterus after Elizabeth's death. He said he couldn't determine if poison had been administered, some abortifacients commonly used being poisonous in large enough doses.
                              Faircloth reportedly said that Elizabeth wanted to'shunt' the child she was carrying. This could be seen as something said to either deflect blame away from him, or it was the truth. Despite reports that he 'ill used' Elizabeth, Faircloth had a proven alibi for his whereabouts while off tramping and looking to pick up work at the flour Mills in different areas of England and this coincided with Elizabeth meeting up with her mother again for the first time since she became pregnant.

                              Given that Elizabeth was known to be sleeping rough on the embankment regularly before her death, perhaps she was a victim of JTR after all seeing as he murdered women in their sleep..
                              Last edited by Debra A; 03-04-2019, 07:46 PM.
                              ,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸, Debs ,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,

                              I am not DJA. He's called Dave.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                                LOL.
                                the beauty of that phrase alone! '..almost as much zero..' Classic Trev.

                                Several torso victims were found by the coroner and inquest to have been "murder by person or persons unknown" and this from Melvin Mcnaughten:

                                On 10th Sept. '89 the naked body, with arms, of a woman was found wrapped in some sacking under a Railway arch in Pinchin St: the head & legs were never found nor was the woman ever identified. She had been killed at least 24 hours before the remains, (which had seemingly been brought from a distance,) were discovered. The stomach was split up by a cut, and the head and legs had been severed in a manner identical with that of the woman whose remains were discovered in the Thames, in Battersea Park, & on the Chelsea Embankment on 4th June of the same year; and these murders had no connection whatever with the Whitechapel horrors. The Rainham mystery in 1887, & the Whitehall mystery (when portions of a woman's body were found under what is now New Scotland Yard) in 1888 were of a similar type to the Thames & Pinchin St crimes.


                                but I suppose the torso victims just mutilated and dismembered themselves.
                                Just because body parts turned up in the thames that doesn't automatically mean they were the subject of murder. There is no hard evidence to support that belief when are you going to get that?

                                Where in that you quote does it state a cause of death which points to murder?

                                How do you know that the wounds were not caused after death, and not an attributable cause?

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X