The case evidence and its implications

[John G]

john
Its not known whether the pelvic viscera was removed from the body cavity because the lower part of the torso(the pelvic area) was never found. the upper part is what was found in the vault. so we dont whether the killer specifically removed any pelvic viscera from the body/torso.

now that being said, why cut the torso section in two? not the work of a defensive dismemberer. so agree with you there. did the killer remove the uterus/pelvic viscera from the lower part of the torso? we dont know for sure, but seeing is he took the trouble to separate the torso into two sections, the lower part containing the pelvic viscera never found, that torso man did remove the uterus from at least one victim and maybe another, than IMHO it seems he probably did remove the uterus and pelvic viscera from that lower half of the torso.

Hi Abby,

Yes, I realize that it could be argued that the body organs were not removed. However, why detach the pelvic viscera from the rest of the torso? It's not something a defensive dismemberer would tend to do, and as I've noted, by exposing internal organs he was making life extremely difficult for himself. Again, not what a defensive dismemberer would be motivated to do.

[Joshua Rogan]

One final point if these were all murdered and they were someones daughters sisters, or even mothers hardly anyone came forward with a story that one of the aforementioned had gone missing and perhaps could be identified by clothing

Hardly anyone?

Lloyds Weekly 7 Oct 1888

"With reference to any clue, the police state that they have very little at present. Since the publication of the shocking discovery [of the Whitehall torso] they had received up to yesterday over 500 applications and inquiries about missing friends."

[Fisherman]

There you go hiding again behind you misguided belief.

In the Jackson case in particular, there was no evidence to prove a homicide, this you need to start accepting as you do the point that they simply gave opinions those opinions were not based on any evidence that corroborated those opinions, and gave no specific cause of death !

And I notice as usual you cherry pick the points you choose to reply on and ignore others

And for seven years you have been banging on about a torso serial killer with nothing to back it up that stands up as direct evidence its time you took the blinkers off.

Just for the record under The Anatomy Act 1832 bodies were allowed to be taken from mortuaries for teaching and medical research, it was then the responsibility of those taking and using the bodies to dispose of them afterwards. I would imagine that a cemetery burial would have cost money whereas disposing of the parts in the thames would cost nothing, and as stated before no heads were ever found.If you were a killer and cutting up a body for disposal would that not also include the head. Or is it the case that their head would be kept and used for research and teaching if the Anatomy Act acquisitions apply.

One final point if these were all murdered and they were someones daughters sisters, or even mothers hardly anyone came forward with a story that one of the aforementioned had gone missing and perhaps could be identified by clothing

On the subject of opinions you seek to rely on not only on the torsos but in relation to Lechmere. I have already pointed out that the opinions given by Victorian doctors can now be shown to be unreliable. In the case of the murder of Nichols which is your trump card in trying to show Lechmere was the killer may i refer to the following

Dr Llewellyn "I belive she had not been dead more than half and hour"

What does Dr Biggs a modern day forensic pathologist say

"In the olden days, doctors used to state a confident and precise time of death, based on subjective observations, but this was little more than guesswork"

"Suggesting that death happened 30 minute previously based on subjective observations would be laughed out of court these days...... but in 1888 people believed just about anything a doctor said"

So it is not unreasonable to cast a doubt about the opinions given by the doctors in the torso cases.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Cast away, Trevor, cast away. Just don't expect me to agree with you.

A minor correction: There is no PROOF to tell that Jackson was murdered. There is a lot of evidence that implicates that she was, however, and the inquest reacted accordingly, as did Hebbert, the press, the society on the whole and the bulk of Ripperology.

As far as I know, the one/s disagreeing are rarer than cut away abdominal flaps in murder cases.

[Trevor Marriott]

More of the same. We have heard this tune coming from you for years on end. Seven years ago, Debra provided you with this answer to the same question:

You of all people know that murder and dismemberment for disposal was and still is not an uncommon crime. Why between 87 and 89 would it suddenly become so that anatomists were chopping up and dumping females bodies of a certain age in the Thames!! The anatomy act was in place before and after that period.

Liz Jackson was considered by Hebbert and by an inquest. Both parties arrived at the conclusion willful murder, and both parties based it on the evidence. We are not dealing with four counts of abortions gone wrong, all performed by the same hapless quack.

Just as id did seven years ago, this puts an effective end to the discussion today, as far as I'm concerned. And I cannot see how it would change tomorrow.

There you go hiding again behind you misguided belief.

In the Jackson case in particular, there was no evidence to prove a homicide, this you need to start accepting as you do the point that they simply gave opinions those opinions were not based on any evidence that corroborated those opinions, and gave no specific cause of death !

And I notice as usual you cherry pick the points you choose to reply on and ignore others

And for seven years you have been banging on about a torso serial killer with nothing to back it up that stands up as direct evidence its time you took the blinkers off.

Just for the record under The Anatomy Act 1832 bodies were allowed to be taken from mortuaries for teaching and medical research, it was then the responsibility of those taking and using the bodies to dispose of them afterwards. I would imagine that a cemetery burial would have cost money whereas disposing of the parts in the thames would cost nothing, and as stated before no heads were ever found.If you were a killer and cutting up a body for disposal would that not also include the head. Or is it the case that their head would be kept and used for research and teaching if the Anatomy Act acquisitions apply.

One final point if these were all murdered and they were someones daughters sisters, or even mothers hardly anyone came forward with a story that one of the aforementioned had gone missing and perhaps could be identified by clothing

On the subject of opinions you seek to rely on not only on the torsos but in relation to Lechmere. I have already pointed out that the opinions given by Victorian doctors can now be shown to be unreliable. In the case of the murder of Nichols which is your trump card in trying to show Lechmere was the killer may i refer to the following

Dr Llewellyn "I belive she had not been dead more than half and hour"

What does Dr Biggs a modern day forensic pathologist say

"In the olden days, doctors used to state a confident and precise time of death, based on subjective observations, but this was little more than guesswork"

"Suggesting that death happened 30 minute previously based on subjective observations would be laughed out of court these days...... but in 1888 people believed just about anything a doctor said"

So it is not unreasonable to cast a doubt about the opinions given by the doctors in the torso cases.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Yes there was a conscious act to cut up the bodies, but the question is, and it is not one to which there is a definitive answer, and that is who was the person or persons who did those acts of cutting up. You suggest a killer, but for that to be a plausible explanation you first have to prove a homicide, and in these torsos there is no definitive evidence, other that inferences that you and others have drawn from the speculative opinions given by these medical men in some cases, despite there being no direct evidence to show causes of death, and in some case coroners verdicts were recored as "found dead"

As to Jackson the facts surrounding her demises clearly give rise to the inference that she was not the victim of a homicide, yet you continually use her as a yardstick to support what you suggest happened to the other torsos and their dismemberment's.

You and other have been told many time that much on what victorian doctors stated is now shown to be nothing more than opinions which modern day medicine does not support.

As to the suggestions that if there was a killer, he had some bolthole where he took the victims to and then murdered and dismembered them there. This also does not stand up to close scrutiny. The killers bolthole would not change, so a killer not having transport would need to pick up a woman fairly close to that bolthole, and he would not want to risk going back and forth any great distance with an assortment of body parts to dispose of them, and the fact that body parts were dumped or thrown from different locations suggest he didnt have transport or else he might have taken all the body parts in one go from his bolthole.

The fact that it would seem that these torso women appeared to frequent different areas of London, and the body parts dumped from and in different locations, is also interesting. As to picking up women if he had a bolthole in Whitechapel would a woman from another part of London walk with him that great distance to engage in sex, when prostitutes were territorial and would know where to go within their known territory.

Aa has been said before there are other plausible explanations as to how these women met there demise and their bodies dismembered other than by being murdered.

Are there any other instances where body parts of women have been found in the thames or any other waterways oustide of what you have documented where it has been proven that they were murdered?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

More of the same. We have heard this tune coming from you for years on end. Seven years ago, Debra provided you with this answer to the same question:

You of all people know that murder and dismemberment for disposal was and still is not an uncommon crime. Why between 87 and 89 would it suddenly become so that anatomists were chopping up and dumping females bodies of a certain age in the Thames!! The anatomy act was in place before and after that period.

Liz Jackson was considered by Hebbert and by an inquest. Both parties arrived at the conclusion willful murder, and both parties based it on the evidence. We are not dealing with four counts of abortions gone wrong, all performed by the same hapless quack.

Just as id did seven years ago, this puts an effective end to the discussion today, as far as I'm concerned. And I cannot see how it would change tomorrow.

[Trevor Marriott]

We are never going to get any clearer proof of a conscious act on behalf of the killer than that. Never.

Yes there was a conscious act to cut up the bodies, but the question is, and it is not one to which there is a definitive answer, and that is who was the person or persons who did those acts of cutting up. You suggest a killer, but for that to be a plausible explanation you first have to prove a homicide, and in these torsos there is no definitive evidence, other that inferences that you and others have drawn from the speculative opinions given by these medical men in some cases, despite there being no direct evidence to show causes of death, and in some case coroners verdicts were recored as "found dead"

As to Jackson the facts surrounding her demises clearly give rise to the inference that she was not the victim of a homicide, yet you continually use her as a yardstick to support what you suggest happened to the other torsos and their dismemberment's.

You and other have been told many time that much on what victorian doctors stated is now shown to be nothing more than opinions which modern day medicine does not support.

As to the suggestions that if there was a killer, he had some bolthole where he took the victims to and then murdered and dismembered them there. This also does not stand up to close scrutiny. The killers bolthole would not change, so a killer not having transport would need to pick up a woman fairly close to that bolthole, and he would not want to risk going back and forth any great distance with an assortment of body parts to dispose of them, and the fact that body parts were dumped or thrown from different locations suggest he didnt have transport or else he might have taken all the body parts in one go from his bolthole.

The fact that it would seem that these torso women appeared to frequent different areas of London, and the body parts dumped from and in different locations, is also interesting. As to picking up women if he had a bolthole in Whitechapel would a woman from another part of London walk with him that great distance to engage in sex, when prostitutes were territorial and would know where to go within their known territory.

Aa has been said before there are other plausible explanations as to how these women met there demise and their bodies dismembered other than by being murdered.

Are there any other instances where body parts of women have been found in the thames or any other waterways oustide of what you have documented where it has been proven that they were murdered?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

I accept Hebbert’s and the police’s opinion.

as for the other argument, I don’t consider it very strong.

Travelling now so brief in answering, sorry

What you need to accept is that the level of insights within the professionals will govern the level of trust we should put in them. To be fair, that IS a no-brainer, right? The judicial authorities used to think that a woman thrown in a pond would float if she was a witch. It was the professional insight level of the day, and there were professionals hired to sniff the witches out, but I would strongly advice against believing in their "facts".
Hebbert was fit to describe exactly how a wound looked and what could have caused it, but he was NOT fit to understand the concept of offensive dismemberment, since it was unheard of in victorian times.

Have a good journey!

[Kattrup]

Such an argument HAS been presented, but you have not been able to understand it or accept it, Kattrup. The insights into the psychology of dismemberment killers, mutilators and eviscerators did not allow for making the connection. There was an understanding that dismemberment was always about hiding a deed/being able to transport the parts. The concept of offensive dismemberment was not on the map. The perhaps clearest example of this is when Hebbert, trying to tell the Ripper and the Torso killer apart, says that the Riper even took out organs from his victims! since we are acutely aware that the torso killer did that too, we can see and understand the problems involved for the victorians.

I note that you are very eager to speak of professional capacity when it comes to parts that you like, whereas the professional capacity Hebbert exhibited when saying that the four 87-89 victims were cut by the same hand is one instance where professionalism means very little to you, and you have no problems sidestepping THAT professional verdict.

Telling, is it not?

I accept Hebbert’s and the police’s opinion.

as for the other argument, I don’t consider it very strong.

Travelling now so brief in answering, sorry

[Fisherman]

Excellent post, Bolo, I agree completely. Except for the part about the fence. There’s no fence: police and medical examiners at the time concluded the two series were not related.
It will take a very strong argument to disregard the judgement of the professional contemporaries. No such argument has so far been presented.
Drew Gray’s book on this topic coming out in May? will be interesting, I’m sure.

Such an argument HAS been presented, but you have not been able to understand it or accept it, Kattrup. The insights into the psychology of dismemberment killers, mutilators and eviscerators did not allow for making the connection. There was an understanding that dismemberment was always about hiding a deed/being able to transport the parts. The concept of offensive dismemberment was not on the map. The perhaps clearest example of this is when Hebbert, trying to tell the Ripper and the Torso killer apart, says that the Riper even took out organs from his victims! since we are acutely aware that the torso killer did that too, we can see and understand the problems involved for the victorians.

I note that you are very eager to speak of professional capacity when it comes to parts that you like, whereas the professional capacity Hebbert exhibited when saying that the four 87-89 victims were cut by the same hand is one instance where professionalism means very little to you, and you have no problems sidestepping THAT professional verdict.

Telling, is it not?

[Fisherman]

Well theres the 84 torso, but its still about ten years difference. That being said, serial killers do sometimes lay dormant for many years, although ten years is quite a long time.

Plus there is a three year hiatus between 84 and 87, so any way we look at things, the gaps are there. And we cannot tell if they are genuine gaps, since we cannot establish the victim count. There may be victims that we have not heard of.

[Fisherman]

I have an issue with connecting the 1873 and 1874 Torsos to the 1887-1889+ Torsos for a major reason:

Unless we can find some additional Torso Victims in between that time frame, its an unrealistically long time frame for a murderer to take a break from killing. Its only 1 year less than the break that the Grim Sleeper serial killer was at 1 point alleged to have taken, which earned him a very dated and inaccurate nickname, as additional murders in between those years were later connected to him. Adjusting for changes in expected human lifespans between them, this is an even longer gap than the gap the Grim Sleeper was falsely believed to have taken.

IF there is a gap, that is - we actually don't know that. But we DO have examples of serial killers where we know exactly how many people they killed and when they did it. One such example is Jeffrey Dahmer, who had a nine-and-a-half year hiatus between victims one and two. And typically in serial murder, there will be a longer pause between the first victims than what is the case further down the line, although a hiatus of many years is not a common thing.

There is a very good reason for linking the 1873 murder to the murder of Mary Kelly, as I have often said. I am not yet prepared to disclose that reason, but it is there and it is compelling, I can say that much.
There is also the fact that all of these victims had in common that they were skillfully cut up and they were all cut up in very close connection to their respective deaths.

Apart from that, you have a good point. We are looking at something that should normally allow for doubt as to the originator being the same.

[Fisherman]

Sweet Jesus indeed.

If you actually would have read and contextually reacted to what I've said several times now and not just picked on some out-of-context element in order to defend your version of the story, the discussion would be way less sigh-sigh and eye rolling for the both of us.

Just qualify the exact point you want me to react to, if that is the case. You cannot possibly write that we cannot say that organs were plucked out of any of the torso victims and expect me NOT to react!

Make your point, and I will answer.

[Kattrup]

Hi Fisherman, all,

we don't know for sure if organs had been taken from the Torso victims, the state of facts simply does not allow to tell whether the organs were missing as a consequence of the dismemberment or actually had been taken out of the body by the killer and were significant to him.

Same with the dismemberment. It could have been part of the "fun" for the killer but also a simple way to hinder ID and make getting rid of the bodies easier. We cannot tell for sure.

Was the placement of body parts in a dark vault in NSY a message, a makeshift solution or fluke? We cannot tell for sure.

Was the body part found on the Shelley estate a emergency drop, a message from the Even Newer Prometheus or coincidence? We cannot tell for sure.

Were all Torso victims prostitutes? We cannot tell for sure.

Was there any significance in the dumping of the body parts in the Thames and various places on land? We cannot tell for sure.

What was the cause of death of the Torso victims? At least Hebbert was unable to tell in all cases but one.

And so it goes on and on. There may be similarities between Torsoman and the Ripper but they're only striking on the first look IMHO. If one keeps in mind that most of them are open to interpretation due to lack of evidence, the list sort of falls apart. It certainly is not wrong to assume that certain injuries that are present in both the Torso and Ripper cases may point to a common killer but at the same time it's definitely is not wrong to say that the injuries could have been the result of the dismemberment and were not intentional or part of an important ritual.

Of course you could say that two serial killers at work at the same time in London might be unlikely but that does not change the scope of the available facts one bit (see above). If anything, it opens up another valid alley of interpretation but in the end, it's all speculation and should be taken as such to avoid going in circles.

I go with what we have and remain on my not very comfortable seat on the fence until further notice.

Grüße,

Boris

Excellent post, Bolo, I agree completely. Except for the part about the fence. There’s no fence: police and medical examiners at the time concluded the two series were not related.
It will take a very strong argument to disregard the judgement of the professional contemporaries. No such argument has so far been presented.
Drew Gray’s book on this topic coming out in May? will be interesting, I’m sure.

[Abby Normal]

I have an issue with connecting the 1873 and 1874 Torsos to the 1887-1889+ Torsos for a major reason:

Unless we can find some additional Torso Victims in between that time frame, its an unrealistically long time frame for a murderer to take a break from killing. Its only 1 year less than the break that the Grim Sleeper serial killer was at 1 point alleged to have taken, which earned him a very dated and inaccurate nickname, as additional murders in between those years were later connected to him. Adjusting for changes in expected human lifespans between them, this is an even longer gap than the gap the Grim Sleeper was falsely believed to have taken.

Well theres the 84 torso, but its still about ten years difference. That being said, serial killers do sometimes lay dormant for many years, although ten years is quite a long time.

[Stacker]

I have an issue with connecting the 1873 and 1874 Torsos to the 1887-1889+ Torsos for a major reason:

Unless we can find some additional Torso Victims in between that time frame, its an unrealistically long time frame for a murderer to take a break from killing. Its only 1 year less than the break that the Grim Sleeper serial killer was at 1 point alleged to have taken, which earned him a very dated and inaccurate nickname, as additional murders in between those years were later connected to him. Adjusting for changes in expected human lifespans between them, this is an even longer gap than the gap the Grim Sleeper was falsely believed to have taken.