The case evidence and its implications

[jerryd]

Sorry Joshua. Our posts crossed.

[jerryd]

Yes, Jerry found mention that a journalist from the Daily Telegraph was allowed to view teh remains and commented that the trunk had a purplish red hue as if a disinfectant like Condy's fluid had been sprinkled on it. As you say and according to Lloyds Weekly, the torso was placed in a discinfectant 'bath' straight after discovery.

Thanks Debs. Here is the quote from the Daily Telegraph, October 3rd. He seems to have been on the spot of the crime rather fast as he says he noticed the hue within 30 minutes of the discovery. If true, this would be before the doctors placed antiseptic on it.

A representative of The Daily Telegraph, who saw the remains within half-an-hour of their discovery, states that the body, placed on its back, was wrapped in a skirt of some stuff like black mohair, and the steel dress improver was included in the parcel. The flesh had a dark reddish hue, as if it had been plentifully sprinkled with antiseptic, such as Condy's fluid.

[Joshua Rogan]

Aha, here's the Daily Telegraph report in question, from 3 Oct;

"A representative of The Daily Telegraph, who saw the remains within half-an-hour of their discovery, states that the body, placed on its back, was wrapped in a skirt of some stuff like black mohair, and the steel dress improver was included in the parcel. The flesh had a dark reddish hue, as if it had been plentifully sprinkled with antiseptic, such as Condy's fluid. Decomposition, however, had made rapid strides within, for the remains were in an advanced state of putrefaction"

So according to this, it was noted before the torso was disinfected by the doctors. However, it only seems to say the colour of the skin looked as if antiseptic had been used. So not completely conclusive.

[New Ford Shunt]

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.

Hello Fisherman, my final post of the day, and my brain hurts. I take your point, you can pose a dismembered corpse. I was playing a bit fast and loose with my language to illustrate my point. It's actually interesting that you mention Salamanca in the context of this as depending on whether you see Charles Whiting or Robert Muntzer's as the stronger witness depends on whether you believe the body parts to be posed or merely discarded from a sack in a rush. I don't however believe that in the case of Whitehall (or Rainham or Pinchin Street or EJ) the disposal of the body parts indicates a form of posing. Posing, conceptually, would to me suggest the perpetrator wished for the body parts to be found so that he could show off his handywork. Otherwise, why do it? To place seemingly randomly selected body parts (there is no commonality in dump sites except for perhaps Battersea 1873 and EJ) in bodies of water or buried in obscure places where they may never have been found does not shout out as posing. But that is just my opinion.

Peter Kurten did not have two distinct signatures and neither did William Heirens. Like I conceded in my previous post, I'm not disputing that SKs develop, and that they may have different methods of death, what I am trying to say, and maybe it got lost in my prose, is that there is no SK that we are aware of where they concurrently operate two very distinct methods of murder. Kurten and Heirens cannot be used as an example of a SK that does.

And finally, phew, Salamanca can be ruled out I think quite safely, I would agree. A stand alone murder, I don't think there is much dispute about that. I would however disagree that the reason is because it is an example of sloppy cutting. Far from it, the inquest and pathologists present (Dr George Henry Nicol and Prof Augustus Joseph Pepper) both agreed that there was competency in the incisions and cuts around the neck, but the torso cuts were sloppier. This they concurred was due to the perpetrator becoming tired during the dismemberment. I also disagree that the earlier cases were indicative of the perpetrator being 'skilled, quick and bold'. I don't see this as clear cut (ha, no pun intended) at all. I don't regard any of the eleven cases from 1873 to 1902 as being as black and white an analysis as that.

Right, off to make a curry. Have fun debating y'all.

[Joshua Rogan]

Yes, Jerry found mention that a journalist from the Daily Telegraph was allowed to view teh remains and commented that the trunk had a purplish red hue as if a disinfectant like Condy's fluid had been sprinkled on it. As you say and according to Lloyds Weekly, the torso was placed in a discinfectant 'bath' straight after discovery.

Ta :-)

[Joshua Rogan]

Wasn´t Annie Chapman supposedly also sprinkled with some fluid of sorts? I think this has been debated in absurdum before, but cannot recall the details.

I do recall one of the witnesses who said that it looked like she had been sprinkled with water, or something similar. However, I put that down to the fact that, in removing her uterus, her bladder had been sliced through...


Edit; it was Jame Kent, this in the Daily News 13 Sept;

"She looked as if she had been sprinkled with water or something. I did not touch her."

[Debra A]

Do you have a reference for this? I know it's been brought up before, by JerryD, but can't find it now. If it was noted at the find site then it's significant, however, I would have expected the doctors to have noted this, and also the torso was disinfected as soon as it arrived at the mortuary, since it was so decomposed and riddled with maggots.

MA 9 Oct, Mr Bond's evidence.

"I directed the detectives to take charge of the surroundings of the trunk, and had the trunk removed to the mortuary, where I proceeded and made arrangements for its reception. It was taken there that evening, and I superintended the disinfection and placing the remains in spirits."

Yes, Jerry found mention that a journalist from the Daily Telegraph was allowed to view teh remains and commented that the trunk had a purplish red hue as if a disinfectant like Condy's fluid had been sprinkled on it. As you say and according to Lloyds Weekly, the torso was placed in a discinfectant 'bath' straight after discovery.

[New Ford Shunt]

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?

Hello Jerry, regarding the pressing of the torso, bear with me and I'll see if I can find where I saw it regarding Whitehall. I would agree that the TCR case is the one where the most evidence is presented relating to the compression of body parts although if memory serves correctly those body parts were found with lime rather than Condy's Fluid?

I think the use of Condy's Fluid (which I understand to be a given fact regarding Whitehall) is interesting. I would agree, why not use Quicklime? That also prevents putrifaction odour. I understand (and I am by no means a scientists so please correct me if this is wrong) that in the context of a short time earlier (pre Bazalgette and the new London sewerage system), it was a commonly held belief that Quicklime was used because it prevented disease spreading via the miasma. It does not, as I understand it, prevent things like flies from forming and hastens decomposition. I would therefore speculate, that the chosen usage of Condy's Fluid was in part to do with the understanding of the perpetrator on what Condy's Fluid was used for in comparison to Quicklime and more importantly that it was not convenient, for whatever reason, to immediately transport the body for disposal and the use of Condy's Fluid was 'better' given that context, than the use of Quicklime.

And finally, that is of course, a question no one can answer. We don't know the background to the lady in question, and ownership of multiple dresses was distinctly a middle to upper class luxury. Most working class ladies would have existed on 2-3 dresses at the very best, therefore it may not be necessarily a choice that the lady made of what dress to wear but purely what dress was available. We could, I suppose, speculate that in order to avoid suspicion she had to dress a specific way so that nobody around her thought otherwise. But again, I have no real answer, what are your thoughts?

By the way, my hypothesis provided in my original post is far from cast in stone. I'm quite happy to be shot down in flames if anyone else presents anything stronger.

[Fisherman]

Do you have a reference for this? I know it's been brought up before, by JerryD, but can't find it now. If it was noted at the find site then it's significant, however, I would have expected the doctors to have noted this, and also the torso was disinfected as soon as it arrived at the mortuary, since it was so decomposed and riddled with maggots.

MA 9 Oct, Mr Bond's evidence.

"I directed the detectives to take charge of the surroundings of the trunk, and had the trunk removed to the mortuary, where I proceeded and made arrangements for its reception. It was taken there that evening, and I superintended the disinfection and placing the remains in spirits."

Wasn´t Annie Chapman supposedly also sprinkled with some fluid of sorts? I think this has been debated in absurdum before, but cannot recall the details.

[Fisherman]

Morning Advertiser 9th Oct (before the leg was discovered);

"Mr. Bond - ... The date of death, so far as we can judge from the state of decomposition, would have been six weeks to two months"

Six weeks takes it back to where August turned into September. Still in line. Thanks for sharing!

[Joshua Rogan]

We know because the torso was covered in Condy's Fluid. This is undisputable evidence.

Do you have a reference for this? I know it's been brought up before, by JerryD, but can't find it now. If it was noted at the find site then it's significant, however, I would have expected the doctors to have noted this, and also the torso was disinfected as soon as it arrived at the mortuary, since it was so decomposed and riddled with maggots.

MA 9 Oct, Mr Bond's evidence.

"I directed the detectives to take charge of the surroundings of the trunk, and had the trunk removed to the mortuary, where I proceeded and made arrangements for its reception. It was taken there that evening, and I superintended the disinfection and placing the remains in spirits."

[Fisherman]

It wouldn't make Hebbert wrong, Hebbert is not the be all and end all of the cases. If the observation was not made by whomever then why would separate journalists comment on it from more than one inquest? It wouldn't make sense to randomly mention something like this.

Separate journalists commented on WHAT on separate inquests? That there were cuts that seemed more skilled as well as less skilled? I would want to see these statements, if it is possible.

At any rate, what you are doing here is to put medically untrained journalists before Charles Hebbert, and that really is not a good idea. To begin with, I am anything but certain that arrangements were made for the journalists to look at the victims bodies, but maybe I am wrong there. Hebbert was however of the meaning that the same man killed all four victims from 87-89, and that the cutting was very similar in all cases. If there had been amateurish and sloppy cutting involved by another hand than the very skilled hand of the torso killer, he would reasonably have seen it and remarked on it. With underlying expertise, as it were!

[Joshua Rogan]

I agree that sawing the pelvic section from the torso is not what one would expect from a defensive dismemberer.

As for the date of death, we know that the doctors spoke of the end of August or the beginning of September. Hebberts comment was in relation to the leg found, and that leg was only found on October 17. That means that if we move back six weeks, we end up at September 5, perfectly consistent with the given medical verdict.

Morning Advertiser 9th Oct (before the leg was discovered);

"Mr. Bond - ... The date of death, so far as we can judge from the state of decomposition, would have been six weeks to two months"

[Fisherman]

We know because the torso was covered in Condy's Fluid. This is undisputable evidence.

It is undisputable evidence of the body having been sprayed with Condy´s fluid, nothing else, I'm afraid. It is unknown when and where it was done, and arguably, since we don't know that, we cannot even tell who did it with absolute certainty, can we?
I have no problems seeing the logic in your reasoning, but there can be no certainty on the matter. When the arm was found, it had been recently amputated as per the examining medico. The rest of the body can have been dumped at the same time, meaning that we may be looking at little or no storage period. That's the plain truth.

[New Ford Shunt]

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?

We know because the torso was covered in Condy's Fluid. This is undisputable evidence.