The case evidence and its implications

[Abby Normal]

Hi Fisherman,



The actual injuries of the throats were not present since the torsos had no heads so the reasoning of the doctors was based on the condition of the heart and/or respiratory system, not on actual evidence. This makes it next to impossible to tell how the injuries looked like and whether they were similar to those of the Ripper victims.

All the Ripper victims except Stride received severe cuts to the throat that sometimes touched the vertebrae of the neck. Would it be factually correct to add a victim to the body count of a killer if an important part of his signature is missing? It probably would, but some doubts might remain.

Cheers,

Boris

to add-a couple of the ripper victims had evidence of blows to the head also, as did one of the torsos as fish mentioned.
one of the most common ways a killer murders a woman is blunt force trauma to the head/face (punch or with a hard object) followed by strangulation to death. In the ripper cases some combination above was probably used followed by the throat cut to finish it and or bleed out the victim. given the torso evidence of a blow to the head also, not so much of a stretch to see this is how he rendered his victims also, and we know torsoman took of heads, so that he cut there throats also is a reasonable assumption.

plus we know the ripper more than likely used a ruse to get the victims where he wanted them, and it would appear torsoman did the same.

[Abby Normal]

But the Whitehall victim was stored for weeks. Why would it take him that long to find a wheelbarrow or a few tools? And Dr Hebbert was firmly of the view that the perpetrator exhibited a degree of skill in cutting up the bodies.

And as I've noted numerous times now, a defensive dismemberer will try and dispose of the body as expeditiously as possible. How does the Whitehall building site catacombs meet this criteria?

Here's another thing:

"The body is commonly dismembered into six pieces This is normally achieved by removing the head and neck at approximately the level of the 4th or 5th vertebrae, both arms through the proximal third of the humorous, and both legs through the upper part of the shaft of the femur, leaving the torso and pelvis as a single piece." (Rutty et al., 2017.)

Now, howling earth does separating the pelvic viscera from the torso meet that criteria (Whitehall)? In fact, presumably that would be a seriously bad idea, I.e. because it would presumably expose the internal organs:

https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle...-a3830216.html

hi john

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.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,



The actual injuries of the throats were not present since the torsos had no heads so the reasoning of the doctors was based on the condition of the heart and/or respiratory system, not on actual evidence. This makes it next to impossible to tell how the injuries looked like and whether they were similar to those of the Ripper victims.

All the Ripper victims except Stride received severe cuts to the throat that sometimes touched the vertebrae of the neck. Would it be factually correct to add a victim to the body count of a killer if an important part of his signature is missing? It probably would, but some doubts might remain.

Cheers,

Boris

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 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.

[John G]

He's got to cut the body up up first which, if he's not used to it, would need some thinking through. If he's not a butcher (or similar), he may not have the right equipment, so that'll need sorting out. There's planning how to go about disposing of the body parts... waiting for the right moment(s) to do so... maybe getting hold of some kind of transport, even if it's only a wheelbarrow with some sacking thrown over it.

All kinds of practical reasons, before we need to reach for the "paraphilia" button.

But the Whitehall victim was stored for weeks. Why would it take him that long to find a wheelbarrow or a few tools? And Dr Hebbert was firmly of the view that the perpetrator exhibited a degree of skill in cutting up the bodies.

And as I've noted numerous times now, a defensive dismemberer will try and dispose of the body as expeditiously as possible. How does the Whitehall building site catacombs meet this criteria?

Here's another thing:

"The body is commonly dismembered into six pieces This is normally achieved by removing the head and neck at approximately the level of the 4th or 5th vertebrae, both arms through the proximal third of the humorous, and both legs through the upper part of the shaft of the femur, leaving the torso and pelvis as a single piece." (Rutty et al., 2017.)

Now, howling earth does separating the pelvic viscera from the torso meet that criteria (Whitehall)? In fact, presumably that would be a seriously bad idea, I.e. because it would presumably expose the internal organs:

https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/books/all-that-remains-a-life-in-death-by-sue-black-review-a3830216.html

[bolo]

Hi Fisherman,

Not present or not detectable? Which is it? The doctors reasoned that the cutting of the neck was the reason of death in most cases, although the 1873 torso was believed to possibly have died from two blows to the temple.

I don´t think that we should reason that an unknown cause of death equals a dissimilar cause of death. Somehow, that would not be factually correct, would it?

The actual injuries of the throats were not present since the torsos had no heads so the reasoning of the doctors was based on the condition of the heart and/or respiratory system, not on actual evidence. This makes it next to impossible to tell how the injuries looked like and whether they were similar to those of the Ripper victims.

All the Ripper victims except Stride received severe cuts to the throat that sometimes touched the vertebrae of the neck. Would it be factually correct to add a victim to the body count of a killer if an important part of his signature is missing? It probably would, but some doubts might remain.

Cheers,

Boris

[Fisherman]

He's got to cut the body up up first which, if he's not used to it, would need some thinking through. If he's not a butcher (or similar), he may not have the right equipment, so that'll need sorting out. There's planning how to go about disposing of the body parts... waiting for the right moment(s) to do so... maybe getting hold of some kind of transport, even if it's only a wheelbarrow with some sacking thrown over it.

All kinds of practical reasons, before we need to reach for the "paraphilia" button.

But Hebbert was of the mindset that this killer was VERY accustomed to cutting up bodies, and knew his handiwork quite well, making him quick and efficient. Moreover, he did not hesitate to get cutting - the cutting is made in very close connection to death in the torso cases, implicating that the killer had no problems getting on with it, the way most dismembers do. The normal dismemberer will feel sick, he will wait in the longest, and he will make a hasch of the cutting. Not so our man! He did NOT sit around hesitating at all. Or, eh, "think through" what he wanted to do.

Any chance you can spend a minute or two on the question I put to you? No?

[Sam Flynn]

Yes, so why doesn't he just sling the remains in The Thames? What is he doing storing these victims in the first place?

He's got to cut the body up up first which, if he's not used to it, would need some thinking through. If he's not a butcher (or similar), he may not have the right equipment, so that'll need sorting out. There's planning how to go about disposing of the body parts... waiting for the right moment(s) to do so... maybe getting hold of some kind of transport, even if it's only a wheelbarrow with some sacking thrown over it.

All kinds of practical reasons, before we need to reach for the "paraphilia" button.

[John G]

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 could wish to interpret (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.

Welcome to the boards. And there's nothing wrong with being highly spent. After all, if that were the case I doubt we'd have any suspects, as all suspect theories seem highly speculative to me, even my own!

[Fisherman]

Since you are around, Gareth, how about explaining what I asked for before: If the cut away abdominal wall on Jackson was about offering access, then what were the Ripper case abdominal walls about? You DO have an answer?

[John G]

Dead bodies tend to stink really bad at some stage, so I'd say that's something to defend against in itself.

Yes, so why doesn't he just sling the remains in The Thames? What is he doing storing these victims in the first place? Moreover, why we're Jackson's internal organs exposed? That would be a really bad idea from the perspective of a defensive dismembered: https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle...-a3830216.html

[Sam Flynn]

It's not practical, but it's what the perpetrator did (or to be more precise, the remains were stored somewhere prior to dismemberment.) Which is why it's inconsistent with defensive dismemberment!

Dead bodies tend to stink really bad at some stage, so I'd say that's something to defend against in itself.

[Fisherman]

Hello Boris, I would absolutely agree with you on this. Although we can say that other SK's MO or signature or victimology isn't necessarily a reflection of what may have happened her, there is not a single SK that I have been able to find (and believe me I have tried) that concurrently presents with two distinct methods of killing. Not one. Yes, we have SK who kill opportunistically and therefore may use a knife, then a gun etc but the rest of their MO and signature remains consistent. I think the most important part of JTR's signature is the post mortem posing. Even Elizabeth Stride showed signs of it. With regard to the Torso cases you simply can't pose a dismembered corpse! Personally, I am far from convinced we have a SK here, and I have looked at all cases from 1873 to 1902, not just 1887 to 1889.

Objection. You CAN pose a dismembered corpse. Danny Rolling put the head of one of his victims on a shelf, for all to take in as they entered the room. If that is not posing, I don't know what is.
In fact, any narcissistic dismemberment killer would be very likely to pose the remains of his victims, in order to show off. Which is exactly what it seems the Torso killer/Ripper did.
As for different methods of killing, try William Heirens and Peter Kürten for starters. And also you may do wise to realize that the serial killers who make a point of this behavior will perhaps not be caught and therefore many murders that ought to be coupled in a series are left as one-offs.
Its a good thing you looked at all the cases, by the way. The 1902 Salamanca case can of course be ruled out - it was an example of sloppy cutting; it bears no resemblance at all to the rest of these cases, where the cutting was skilled, quick and bold which is what tells them apart from ordinary dismemberment murders. Like the Salamanca case.

[Fisherman]

Hello Fisherman, through the research that I have done. There a quite a few newspaper articles which provide details relating to this and the discussions at the inquests. Incidentally, this is also noted in Rainham and EJ. Obviously, because they are newspaper articles a note of caution must be applied but given the articles are not identical, and therefore haven't come from the same news agency source, to me it is a fairly reliable indication that this information was accurately commented upon by more than one journalist.

The problem is that it would make Hebbert wrong. And Hebbert saw the wounds on his slab, as opposed to the journalists. He bases his whole argument on the quality of the cuts and their inherent similarities, and to throw his professional insights and judgment overboard in favour of a measure of journalists would not be wise.

[Fisherman]

Hi all,

the cause of death is an important point indeed, at least in comparison to the Ripper killings where there was no question about it and most/all victims received severe cuts to the throat. This could be rated as signature that was not present or not detectable in the Torso cases.

Grüßle,

Boris

Not present or not detectable? Which is it? The doctors reasoned that the cutting of the neck was the reason of death in most cases, although the 1873 torso was believed to possibly have died from two blows to the temple.

I don´t think that we should reason that an unknown cause of death equals a dissimilar cause of death. Somehow, that would not be factually correct, would it?

[John G]

Whats practical about keeping a dead, decaying body on your premises or, if you don't have your own premises, somewhere to which you might be traced? Disposal of the bodies seems eminently practical to me, and chopping them up into portable chunks is equally practical.

It's not practical, but it's what the perpetrator did (or to be more precise, the remains were stored somewhere prior to dismemberment.) Which is why it's inconsistent with defensive dismemberment!