Torso Killer discussion from Millwood Thread

[rjpalmer]

Strictly speaking, RJ, the entire pelvis was missing, so it's unknown whether or not the uterus was itself removed, or damaged in any way.[/LEFT]

True enough; I should have been more specific, but the point I was making was in reference to Abby's remarkable claim that none of the other "torso" victims were pregnant, which is obviously pure speculation in the Whitehall cases, since the entire lower section of her body, including her uterus, was never found.

By the way, earlier, I wrongly referred to the 1873 "Battersea" case; what I should have stated was the Bedford-Square case from 1884. The possibility of a 'botched' abortion was specifically noted at inquest.

At the risk of stating the obvious, abortion was illegal. The consequences of performing one of these "illegal operations" could be dire. In 1875, a Liverpool chemist named Alfred Heap performed an abortion on a Manchester woman named Margaret M'Kivett. He punched her womb twice with a sharp instrument and she died.

Heap was duly convicted of murder, sentenced to death, and in less than five weeks was dangling from the prison gallows, executed.

I think that would send a pretty strong message to any other back-alley abortionists that it would be extremely prudent, if the 'patient' died, to dispose of the body in the river or a disused building site.

Which is why we see the medical men looking for signs of botched abortions in these cases. Not all the so-called 'torso' victims fall into this category, but 2 or 3 of them very well might.

I think many modern commentators are simply unaware of how common botched abortion cases were in the 19th Century, and how horrifically women who found themselves pregnant and unwed were treated by these quacks. My apologies for the gory details, but I found a case where a woman was tied to a bed stead, and a length of rope used to abort the child. The infant was beheaded and the woman bled to death. These crimes (for they were certainly considered crimes) could be every bit as violent and repulsive as a "Ripper" killing.

[rjpalmer]

Chapman and eddowes had there uterus missing also-is that also "highly suggestive of either an abortion case or a "pregnancy murder."? If anything its a similarity that points to a link with the ripper series.

The obvious difference, Abby, is that Chapman and Eddowes were left lying dead where they were murdered, as opposed to the torso cases, where there was an obvious and undeniable attempt to hide the victims' bodies...

And that, of course, is exactly what one would expect to find in 'domestic' murders cases, or in botched abortion cases, where the identity of the victim is an obvious clue to the perpetrator.

You have to look at the whole circumstances of the crime, as well as the age in which they were committed.

[Sam Flynn]

The obvious difference, Abby, is that Chapman and Eddowes were left lying dead where they were murdered, as opposed to the torso cases, where there was an obvious and undeniable attempt to hide the victims' bodies...

Plus, neither Chapman's nor Eddowes' uteri had contained any foetuses for many years. Unlike Jackson's.

[Abby Normal]

The obvious difference, Abby, is that Chapman and Eddowes were left lying dead where they were murdered, as opposed to the torso cases, where there was an obvious and undeniable attempt to hide the victims' bodies...

And that, of course, is exactly what one would expect to find in 'domestic' murders cases, or in botched abortion cases, where the identity of the victim is an obvious clue to the perpetrator.

You have to look at the whole circumstances of the crime, as well as the age in which they were committed.

Hi rj
thanks for the response.

as opposed to the torso cases, where there was an obvious and undeniable attempt to hide the victims' bodies...

well we'll have to just disagree with that one because to me its obvious that in the torso cases there was an attempt to distribute, dump or display but not to hide. especially pinchin.

And that, of course, is exactly what one would expect to find in 'domestic' murders cases, or in botched abortion cases, where the identity of the victim is an obvious clue to the perpetrator.

and again, I understand, but in the torso cases, there is no evidence of botched abortion OR that these were domestic murder cases. None of the medicos at the time said they were botched abortions, nor is there ANY evidence for it.

You have to look at the whole circumstances of the crime, as well as the age in which they were committed

I have. which is why I believe they were a series of murders by the same man, as did the police, the doctors and other experts who were there at the time. and that more than likely, they were killed by the ripper as well.

[Abby Normal]

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.

well said red
completely agree.

[Debra A]

Debs and Joshua,

Found this in a gardening magazine.

GC & HTJ., Volume 18 1895

Great stuff! Thanks, Jerry.

[Sam Flynn]

as opposed to the torso cases, where there was an obvious and undeniable attempt to hide the victims' bodies...

Did you mean "hide the victims' identities", perhaps?

[Abby Normal]

Plus, neither Chapman's nor Eddowes' uteri had contained any foetuses for many years. Unlike Jackson's.

right. no evidence of botched abortions. but clear evidence, like chapman and Eddowes, of a desire to remove the reproductive organs of a female prostitute.

[Sam Flynn]

right. no evidence of botched abortions. but clear evidence, like chapman and Eddowes, of a desire to remove the reproductive organs of a female prostitute.

Well, yes, but with no baby inside either of them.

Surely you can see that the presence of the baby has to be significant in Jackson's case? Why weren't the uteri of ALL the torso victims removed if not? Torso man clearly wasn't fixated on the uterus or any other organ, otherwise we'd assuredly see more of a pattern in the torso cases. As it is, we don't even see much of a pattern in how the victims were chopped up.

[rjpalmer]

Did you mean "hide the victims' identities", perhaps?

Perhaps both. I don't accept the theory that the location of the Whitehall torso was necessarily an attempt to embarrass the police or to shock the public. To me, it appears to have been a legitimate attempt to hide a body. It is often stated that this was a well-used section of the building site where workmen kept their tools, but it actually appears to have been a seldom-used, "jet black" pit where only one workman kept his tools...on the weekend. As Joshua R. and others have noted, parts of the body were already buried and weren't discovered except through the use of a "sniffer" dog. If this was an attempt to put the body on "display" that makes little sense. Hence I state it was an attempt to hide the body. Either the culprit meant to come back later and finish the job (did he hear something and got scared off?) or some accomplice was hired to bury the body and did a poor job of it.

Similarly, it is rather obvious that cutting up a body and throwing it in the Thames is an attempt to both hide the victim's identity, and hope to heck the body parts never resurface, as Wainwright evidently hoped would happen in the Harriet Lane case. So when I say "hide the body," I mean in contrast to the usual domestic killing where there was no attempt to smuggle the corpse out of the building.

To me, the psychology behind these various torso killings appears to be the polar opposite of the "Ripper" killings. Evidently a small band of people see it otherwise.

[Abby Normal]

Well, yes, but with no baby inside either of them.

Surely you can see that the presence of the baby has to be significant in Jackson's case? Why weren't the uteri of ALL the torso victims removed if not? Torso man clearly wasn't fixated on the uterus or any other organ, otherwise we'd assuredly see more of a pattern in the torso cases. As it is, we don't even see much of a pattern in how the victims were chopped up.

hi Sam
why weren't the uteri of all the ripper victims removed? who knows why these sickos do what they do-all we can do is find the similarities (and differences) and see what we can figure out. what we cant see, AT ALL, is any evidence of botched abortions, in either series, including Jackson. that's my whole point.

Surely you can see that the presence of the baby has to be significant in Jackson's case?

at this point no-other than the fact that she had her uterus removed, like in the ripper series.
and yes, I concede it may have helped in dismemberment and moving the body/parts-you've convinced me on that possibility a while back. but unless there is any evidence of any kind of abortion, I don't. not yet anyway.

now, Im sincerely not just trying to be a contrarian nob-If there is any kind of scenario where her being pregnant IS significant I would love to discuss. we know there was talk of her wanting to end the pregnancy and rpalmer mentioned the case of the woman being punched.

With EJ, Im wondering what exactly would be the scenario of an abortion gone wrong? poison and overt surgical procedure I believe are ruled out, but perhaps a punching in the stomach type thing? where she died immediately? Im just thinking out loud here of any scenario where she went to visit some quack and he tried something where she died in his "office" and he was the one who dismembered and got rid of.

would love to hear Debs, palmers, your or anyone ideas on it!

[jerryd]

Hi Abby,

If the four women (1887-1889) are indeed linked to the same dismemberer, as stated by the medicos, then they all met the same back street abortionist that was not only handy at abortion but also disarticulating joints like a butcher.

[Kattrup]

With EJ, Im wondering what exactly would be the scenario of an abortion gone wrong? poison and overt surgical procedure I believe are ruled out, but perhaps a punching in the stomach type thing? where she died immediately? Im just thinking out loud here of any scenario where she went to visit some quack and he tried something where she died in his "office" and he was the one who dismembered and got rid of.

Poison was not ruled out, since her stomach was not recovered no tests could be performed.

the scenario would be she ingested some concoction meant to abort her foetus. She ODed and died. And the abortionist cut her up to conceal the crime.

[Abby Normal]

Perhaps both. I don't accept the theory that the location of the Whitehall torso was necessarily an attempt to embarrass the police or to shock the public. To me, it appears to have been a legitimate attempt to hide a body. It is often stated that this was a well-used section of the building site where workmen kept their tools, but it actually appears to have been a seldom-used, "jet black" pit where only one workman kept his tools...on the weekend. As Joshua R. and others have noted, parts of the body were already buried and weren't discovered except through the use of a "sniffer" dog. If this was an attempt to put the body on "display" that makes little sense. Hence I state it was an attempt to hide the body. Either the culprit meant to come back later and finish the job (did he hear something and got scared off?) or some accomplice was hired to bury the body and did a poor job of it.

Similarly, it is rather obvious that cutting up a body and throwing it in the Thames is an attempt to both hide the victim's identity, and hope to heck the body parts never resurface, as Wainwright evidently hoped would happen in the Harriet Lane case. So when I say "hide the body," I mean in contrast to the usual domestic killing where there was no attempt to smuggle the corpse out of the building.

To me, the psychology behind these various torso killings appears to be the polar opposite of the "Ripper" killings. Evidently a small band of people see it otherwise.

hi RJ
I would concede the possibility of trying to prevent ID, but not really to hide. I just don't see it:
Pinchin-no. found in open on the street
Jackson-no-torso found on the shore, leg in Percy estate. some parts in the Thames
Whitehall-not really. Torso found in NSY-I think people are pretty much split on whether this was an attempt to hide. another part found on the side of the road.
Rainham-perhaps-all found in the thames.

To me, there is obviously something more going on here than to hide the body/parts (or even prevent ID). why not throw EJs torso in the river too? why throw her leg in the Percy estate of all places! why not all in the river?
why take the trouble and risk of hualing a body into the basement of New SY?
why dump Pinchin in the street?

why not throw all in the thames, or bury or burn? Surely the killer would know that the body/parts were going to be found.and with river dumping-especially after Rainham surfaced and was found (the first in the 80s series).

Something more is going on here-only known to the killers twisted mind-some kind of significance: polluting London? marking his territory? putting them in areas that have some meaning for him?

haven't quite put my finger on it, but something more than just trying to hide, get rid of.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

If the four women (1887-1889) are indeed linked to the same dismemberer, as stated by the medicos, then they all met the same back street abortionist that was not only handy at abortion but also disarticulating joints like a butcher.

wheres the winky thing? lol