Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The case evidence and its implications

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

  • Kattrup
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    I think that Abby is the one poster who has actually answered the question I ask on this thread: Is it not true that once we know that a serial killer has eviscerated a victim, when there are organs missing from other victims, the likelier thing is that this also depends on eviscerations on behalf of the killer?

    Any takers?
    Maybe people are unlikely to answer if they disagree with the premise?

    but worded as you have done now I would say yes, it is true.

    but itís not what you asked at first, and we donít know that any of the torso victims were eviscerated, in the sense you use it. Yes, Jackson had inner organs removed but this may have been a byproduct of cutting her up.

    just saying. Evisceration is a theory, not a fact. We can discuss whether it can be proven or disproven but itís not certain either way with the current evidence.

    Just because the murderer dismembered differently to what CSI used as the norm does not mean anything in itself. Just because it does not conform to some late 20th century model of common dismemberment does not mean anything in itself. The dismemberer(s) lived in another time.
    just as the fact that body parts were found does not mean that the dismemberer wanted them to be found.

    So yeah. If a killer takes organs in one case, and another victim of the same killer lacks organs, itís probably reasonable to surmise the killer took them.
    But we still donít know that anyone deliberately took organs from the torso victims.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    I think that Abby is the one poster who has actually answered the question I ask on this thread: Is it not true that once we know that a serial killer has eviscerated a victim, when there are organs missing from other victims, the likelier thing is that this also depends on eviscerations on behalf of the killer?

    Any takers?

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by John G View Post

    No, it most definitely does not look like the Ripper.
    As noted earlier, The Whitehall victim had the pelvic viscera removed from the rest of the torso, so the victim had been effectively eviscerated. It is certainly not how a defensive dismemberer would go about cutting up a body. The following victim, Liz Jackson, had internal organs removed. Once again, this is not consistent with defensive dismemberment, i.e because once internal organs are exposed "they will leak copiously and create a really noxious stench." (Sue Black.) The perpetrator is therefore making things unnecessarily complicated for himself and repeating past mistakes. In fact even Pinchin Street had a deep gash in the abdomen, suggesting the killer may considered opening up the abdominal cavity.

    The perpetrator is also taking other unnecessary risks. For instance, Whitehall victim deposited in the catacombs of the foundations of the new police headquarters. In fact, one of the workman stated that the vault where the reamins were found would be difficult to find, and it was so dark a torch was required even in daylight. And Pinchin Street was deposited in an area frequented by homeless people, placed between two drunks, who swore the victim wasn't there when they arrived.

    Then there's the scattering of body parts. I believe this was probably part of the perpetrator's signature, becuse it can't be an efficient way to dispose of a body. In the case of Jackson, for instance, body parts were scattered in numerous locations over a wide area-he even lobbed a thigh over the wall of Sir Percy Shelley's garden wall. Sir Percy was the ancestor of Mary Shelley, who wrote Frankenstein. Make of that what you will!
    John, you have misunderstood the pelvic viscera part, I'm afraid. It was never established that any of the pelvic organs/viscera were taken out. The lower part of the torso was never found, and so we cannot tell whether the killer plucked anything out of it.

    I agree overall with the rest of your post - we are dealing with an offensive dismemberer who made it his business to shout out from the rooftops the he was around.

    Leave a comment:


  • John G
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
    That's interesting, John, because I don't think too many of the other torso victims were kept that long, so we have to wonder why. Was the victim somehow "special" to the killer, e.g. a girlfriend or wife? Does this prolonged period of storage point to a different killer than the other torso cases? Either way, this doesn't really look like Jack the Ripper, does it?
    It wouldn't take that long to source a wheelbarrow or a good, sharp knife, but - as I suggested - there could have been many other practical reasons behind the delay.
    No, it most definitely does not look like the Ripper.
    As noted earlier, The Whitehall victim had the pelvic viscera removed from the rest of the torso, so the victim had been effectively eviscerated. It is certainly not how a defensive dismemberer would go about cutting up a body. The following victim, Liz Jackson, had internal organs removed. Once again, this is not consistent with defensive dismemberment, i.e because once internal organs are exposed "they will leak copiously and create a really noxious stench." (Sue Black.) The perpetrator is therefore making things unnecessarily complicated for himself and repeating past mistakes. In fact even Pinchin Street had a deep gash in the abdomen, suggesting the killer may considered opening up the abdominal cavity.

    The perpetrator is also taking other unnecessary risks. For instance, Whitehall victim deposited in the catacombs of the foundations of the new police headquarters. In fact, one of the workman stated that the vault where the reamins were found would be difficult to find, and it was so dark a torch was required even in daylight. And Pinchin Street was deposited in an area frequented by homeless people, placed between two drunks, who swore the victim wasn't there when they arrived.

    Then there's the scattering of body parts. I believe this was probably part of the perpetrator's signature, becuse it can't be an efficient way to dispose of a body. In the case of Jackson, for instance, body parts were scattered in numerous locations over a wide area-he even lobbed a thigh over the wall of Sir Percy Shelley's garden wall. Sir Percy was the ancestor of Mary Shelley, who wrote Frankenstein. Make of that what you will!

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by John G View Post

    But he didn't need to retain the body for 6 to 8 weeks.
    I cannot for the life of me see how we can know that he retained the body for 6-8 weeks. The arm was found on September 11, the medicos allowed for the body being killed close in time to that day, the examining medico said that he believed it to have been amputated recently. Why can it not be a case of the killer not having retained the body at all, or only for a very short period of time, before dumping it?

    Leave a comment:


  • John G
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

    There were three parts found from the Whitehall victim. The first was an arm, found in the Thames on the 11:th of September. Dr Nevill, who examined it, said that he believed that it had recently been amputated.
    Two and a half weeks further down the line, on the 1:st of October, the torso was found in the vaults of the New Scotland Yard. Dr Bond was of the meaning that it had been in place there for quite some time, given the black stain it had set off on the wall behind it as it decomposed.
    Lastly, a leg was found buried in the vaults, whether by accident or design, we cannot say. It was found on the 17:th of October.

    Owing to the different conditions under which the parts were found, one in water, one in air and one in the ground, it is hard to say whether they were simultaneously dumped or not. Death was believed to have occurred in late August or early September. There was a dated newspaper found together with the bundled-up torso, dating from August the 24:th, giving us a starting point before which the murder could not have taken place. Obviously, it could have taken place any date AFTER the 24:th.

    How all of this provides us with a certainty that the killer stored the parts for a given amount of time, I cannot see. The best implication we have that some amount of storing occurred is perhaps the Condys fluid addition, pointing to how the killer was trying to avoid any smell coming from the body. But one cannot presuppose that the fluid must have been added when the body had started decomposing, it could just as well have ben added as a precaution before such a time and there is of course the possibility that it was only added when the body was put in the vault, in order not to give it away.

    You say that it does not look like something the Ripper would have done. Well, since he killed and left his prey lying in the street, it is of course self-evident that if he killed in premises the could be tied to himself, he needed to dispose of the body and thereby faced a different task.
    I thought we had covered that part long ago.
    But he didn't need to retain the body for 6 to 8 weeks.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Stacker View Post
    Could the heads of the Torso Killer Victims have simply drowned instead of washing ashore like everything else did if they were dumped into the Thames River too?
    Yes, of course they could have sunk to the bottom. They were a lot more dense than the rest of the parts.
    Last edited by Fisherman; 04-09-2019, 06:16 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by bolo View Post

    At least four of the Ripper victims recieved severe cuts to the throat that sometimes went down to the spine, which is one of the injuries many people (including some of the doctors of the time) rate as a signature that links the cases and points to a serial killer at work. I don't think supporting this would mean going on a stretch.
    It is not unreasonable at all to suggest that the neck cutting was part of the signature of the Ripper. Nor is it unreasonable to suggest that it was part of the signature of the Torso killer. What would be unreasonable would be to suggest that the measure as such can be used to tell the two series apart from each other. If the Torso victims had NOT had their heads taken off by severing the neck, it would have been a different matter. I would merrily accept that all of the canonicals had their necks cut. But then again, I would also point out that Tabram did not.

    Originally posted by bolo View Post
    Call it bananas all you want, but in order to find out whether the Ripper and Torso killings were done by the same man or two (or more) different killers, we have to consider ALL differences and similarities there are. I'm just trying to go with the official documents/evidence we have, which tells us that the Torso victims may or may not have died from getting their throats cut but since the heads were missing, there was no way to tell for the doctors whether the throat cuts looked Ripper-like or not. So - like it or not, at least in terms of throat cuts, it's not possible to link the Ripper and Torso series because there simply is no proof that the cuts looked familiar in the latter.
    I cannot remember denying that all the similarities and differences must be weighed in a comparison between the Ripper and the Torso killer. Can you remember me doing that?
    I must disappoint you on your belief that there was no proof that the cuts to the necks were similar inbetween the Ripper and the Torso series, by the way. Phillips compared the cutting work on the necks inbetween the Pinchin Street victim and Mary Kelly:

    The CORONER. - I should like to ask Dr. Phillips whether there is any similarity in the cutting off of the legs in this case and the one that was severed from the woman in Dorset-street?
    Dr. Phillips. - I have not noticed any sufficient similarity to convince me it was the person who committed both mutilations, but the division of the neck and attempt to disarticulate the bones of the spine are very similar to that which was effected in this case.


    I am all for looking at the dissimilarities, Bolo. But I struggle to understand what kind of dissimilarity could weigh up the many specific and many times extremely rare similarities of the cases. Dissimilarities cannot do that in cases like these, unless they factually prove two killers.

    Look at it like this - two murders are committed in the same town and at the same approximate time. Let's list a number of very large dissimilarities:

    -Different gender of the victims
    -Differing ages of the victims
    -Victims from neigbourhoods far apart
    -One criminal victim, one honest citizen
    -One killed by gun, one by strangulation

    Now, that is as far apart as two victims from the same town and time can come, right?

    Now add one very odd similarity:
    -Victims both had all their teeth pulled out by the killer

    What happens, Bolo? Which of the indications will decide whether there was a connection, or not? Exactly, the tooth thing will rule the day!

    Now, turn it around, and list similarities first:

    -Victims had their teeth pulled out by the killer
    -Victims had their abdominal walls cut away
    -Victims had their fingernails painted red
    -Victims had a shoestring tied around their pinkies
    -Victims had their eyelids punctured

    Now, lets try and weigh that up with a dissimilarity:

    -Victims came from different parts of town

    Surely the detectives would quickly see that there was no connection? Or?

    This is why similarities rule these kinds of matters, if they are odd and peculiar. And cutting away the abdominal wall is as peculiar as it gets. Of course, taking out uteri and hearts and cutting from sternum to pelvis are not exactly run-of-the-mill measures either, are they?
    Last edited by Fisherman; 04-09-2019, 06:18 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
    That's interesting, John, because I don't think too many of the other torso victims were kept that long, so we have to wonder why. Was the victim somehow "special" to the killer, e.g. a girlfriend or wife? Does this prolonged period of storage point to a different killer than the other torso cases? Either way, this doesn't really look like Jack the Ripper, does it?
    There were three parts found from the Whitehall victim. The first was an arm, found in the Thames on the 11:th of September. Dr Nevill, who examined it, said that he believed that it had recently been amputated.
    Two and a half weeks further down the line, on the 1:st of October, the torso was found in the vaults of the New Scotland Yard. Dr Bond was of the meaning that it had been in place there for quite some time, given the black stain it had set off on the wall behind it as it decomposed.
    Lastly, a leg was found buried in the vaults, whether by accident or design, we cannot say. It was found on the 17:th of October.

    Owing to the different conditions under which the parts were found, one in water, one in air and one in the ground, it is hard to say whether they were simultaneously dumped or not. Death was believed to have occurred in late August or early September. There was a dated newspaper found together with the bundled-up torso, dating from August the 24:th, giving us a starting point before which the murder could not have taken place. Obviously, it could have taken place any date AFTER the 24:th.

    How all of this provides us with a certainty that the killer stored the parts for a given amount of time, I cannot see. The best implication we have that some amount of storing occurred is perhaps the Condys fluid addition, pointing to how the killer was trying to avoid any smell coming from the body. But one cannot presuppose that the fluid must have been added when the body had started decomposing, it could just as well have ben added as a precaution before such a time and there is of course the possibility that it was only added when the body was put in the vault, in order not to give it away.

    You say that it does not look like something the Ripper would have done. Well, since he killed and left his prey lying in the street, it is of course self-evident that if he killed in premises the could be tied to himself, he needed to dispose of the body and thereby faced a different task.
    I thought we had covered that part long ago.

    Leave a comment:


  • jerryd
    replied
    Originally posted by New Ford Shunt View Post
    Hello, long time lurker, first time poster. Re Whitehall and the interpretation of what potentially occurred, I think there are three key issues that don't appear to have been discussed. Firstly, the lack of a uterus, the lack of a cause of death and the fact that the lady concerned was suffering from severe pleurisy when she died. Secondly, the cuts made to the body were both 'competent' and 'incompetent' (sorry I can't think of a better description but I think you get my drift). Thirdly, and I think most importantly in bringing the above two issues together is that the body had been coated with Condy's Fluid, better known today as Potassium Permanganate, which was readily available and used by everyone from housewives to undertakers as a preservative. It has a brown/red/purple hue which colours anything it touches. Now, if you wanted to be highly speculative, and bearing in mind the body parts had evidence of having been pressed down by a heavy object you [I]could wish to interpret [/I](ahem) the following......that the lady was pregnant, that her severe pleurisy weakened her to the point that she did not survive an illegal operation to remove the foetus. That the abortionist was part of a partnership or even a gang, and in order to dispose of the body more than one person (one with more medical knowledge, possibly the abortionist himself and one with less medical knowledge) dismembered her, hence the discrepancy in cuts. Storage of the body parts was necessary until such time as she could be moved and so she was placed in a tub or barrel or some such impliment and soaked in Condy's Fluid and a weight placed on her remains, both as a means to lessen the size for hiding and also to hide the remains. When she was eventually disposed of, again more than one person did this, hence the remains being able to be dumped in NSY. Just putting it out there....and please be gentle with me.
    Hi New Ford,

    Welcome and thanks for your first post!

    Regarding the Whitehall torso and the "evidence of having been pressed down by a heavy object"? Where was this reported on? I have not heard that in regard to that particular case. In the Tottenham Court torso in 1884, there was evidence of that being done, though.

    Also, in regard to Condy's Fluid. That chemical was used as a preservative, yes, but also to mask smell. If, as Gareth and others state, the idea was to get rid of the body, why not use Lime powder? Lime would cause the opposite effect on the remains and destroy the flesh and tissues.

    Regarding the possibility the Whitehall victim was an abortion gone wrong. Would a woman wear a nice dress complete with a dress improver to attend an abortion procedure?

    Last edited by jerryd; 04-09-2019, 04:17 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Joshua Rogan
    replied
    On the subject of heads, I came across this mention of the disposal of one from a famous dismemberment murder from 1879.

    "As in former Thames mysteries, any new discovery will be awaited with great interest. It will be recollected that in the case of the Richmond murder the head of Mrs. Thomas was never found. Kate Webster was entreated to say what she had done with it, and it is asserted that she kept the secret till just before she was executed, when she stated that she carefully dropped it between some supports of Old Battersea-bridge, down which it slid till it got to the bottom of the Thames. The secret was kept for several years, and we believe has never yet been published. It will be well, therefore, to search for any missing remains in this case in unsuspected nooks and corners."

    As it turned out, however, the head was not actually dropped into the Thames, but buried in a pub's stables near the victim's home, and unearthed only recently in what is now David Attenborough's garden;

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...er-victim.html

    So....nothing to do with the torso cases, but at the least it shows that evidence can still turn up even after more than a century.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stacker
    replied
    Could the heads of the Torso Killer Victims have simply drowned instead of washing ashore like everything else did if they were dumped into the Thames River too?

    Leave a comment:


  • bolo
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

    One would need to correctly establish that signature first, Bolo. And just because you think that the cutting of the neck in the Ripper cases belongs to that signature, we cannot be sure that this was so. It may well be that the neck cutting was a practicality, allowing for the killer to move on to the true signature.
    At least four of the Ripper victims recieved severe cuts to the throat that sometimes went down to the spine, which is one of the injuries many people (including some of the doctors of the time) rate as a signature that links the cases and points to a serial killer at work. I don't think supporting this would mean going on a stretch.

    At any rate, saying that the lack of factual evidence regarding what the torso victims died from is something that should make us accept that these victims died in a different manner than the Ripper victims is, excuse my French, bananas. It has no evidential value at all as an indication of dissimilar causes of death.
    What we do have on record is how the 1873 victim was seemingly hung up and emptied of all blood. In that respect, we may also be talking about a practicality, albeit there is a fair chance the this was not the case of death. It nevertheless took care of the problem of having to deal with the blood, just as the cutting of the neck in the Ripper cases provided the killer with a dryer environment to work in.
    But I am perfectly happy to admit that this is nothing but uninformed guesswork. I think we owe it to ourselves to acknowledge that when we enter the realms of speculation.
    Call it bananas all you want, but in order to find out whether the Ripper and Torso killings were done by the same man or two (or more) different killers, we have to consider ALL differences and similarities there are. I'm just trying to go with the official documents/evidence we have, which tells us that the Torso victims may or may not have died from getting their throats cut but since the heads were missing, there was no way to tell for the doctors whether the throat cuts looked Ripper-like or not. So - like it or not, at least in terms of throat cuts, it's not possible to link the Ripper and Torso series because there simply is no proof that the cuts looked familiar in the latter.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

    maybe because that's exactly what he wanted to do. It hasn't escaped me that this torso was divided in two, the part not found containing the sexual organs.
    The skull wasn't found either. Perhaps he was into necro-fellatio?

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by John G View Post
    But the Whitehall victim was stored for weeks.
    That's interesting, John, because I don't think too many of the other torso victims were kept that long, so we have to wonder why. Was the victim somehow "special" to the killer, e.g. a girlfriend or wife? Does this prolonged period of storage point to a different killer than the other torso cases? Either way, this doesn't really look like Jack the Ripper, does it?
    Why would it take him that long to find a wheelbarrow or a few tools?
    It wouldn't take that long to source a wheelbarrow or a good, sharp knife, but - as I suggested - there could have been many other practical reasons behind the delay.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X