The case evidence and its implications

[Fisherman]

Thanks for the correction, John. The main point for me is that the uterus once had a baby in it; so, it was more a case of a baby being removed than a uterus being targeted. Jack the Ripper can almost certainly be be ruled out on that basis alone, never mind that Jackson frequented, was killed, and was disposed of in a totally different part of London to where Jack operated.

But Gareth, how do we know that Jack would not have taken out a baby, given the chance?

You cannot say that the torso killer targeted pregnant women only, since only one victim was pregnant.

Ergo, cutting out a baby from a victim seems not to have been the torso killers read driving force.

None of the Rippers victims were pregnant. But how can we tell that this was because he avoided pregnant victims...?

So how in the whole world would we be able to say that the fact that the torso killer took a baby out of the uterus he extracted from Jackson rules out that the Ripper could have been the culprit? I can see no such evidence at all, so you are going to have to explain it to me, I'm afraid.

[Fisherman]

Hi Sam,

Yes, very good points. I've argued myself that the foetus was the main focus of the killer's attention, although it's certainly odd that he cuts out two irregular pieces from the abdominal wall, and then bundles these pieces up with the umbilicus etc. I can only speculate that this was possibly done for shock value.

Of course, Kelly's uterus was removed but not retained by the perpetrator (unlike in the case of Chapman and Eddowes.) Therefore, JtR wasn't consistent in this respect, either. Always assuming that Kelly was a Ripper victim, of course!

If the foetus was that the torso killer was after, why did he not kill pregnant women only, John? If that was his driving force? The way some serial killers only kill women with certain features?

Any idea that the fetus was what made the torso killer take the uterus out, and that he was really never an eviscerator at all, falls flat on its belly when we consider that he also took out heart and lungs from Jackson. And any idea that the foetus was the true focus of the torso killer in the Jackson case can only be speculation, a speculation that is not reinforced by how none of his other victims were pregnant.

Does that mean that I am saying that he was indifferent about the foetus? No, it does not. My own take on things is that he may well have regarded it as a bonus, for reasons that are closely linked to my ideas about the driving force behind the deeds. But I am very much aware that this too is speculation only, and that it cannot therefore be used as a weighty argument.

This man eviscerated, and NOT ONLY that uterus! On other occasions, he CHOSE not to eviscerate, so we are sure that this was not his true driving force. It DID however, belong to the things that were to a degree likely to happen to his victims.

[Debra A]

I think the problem has lain in how Hebbert supposedly stated that the uterus was missing from the body. That is a wording that leads on that the pelvis was taken off at a low enough level to allow for such a thing to be noted. However, Joshua Rogan has made the point that the wording as such may not have been Hebberts own, and that puts a different slant on matters.
I have never seen - and never said, for that matter - that you have claimed that the uterus was gone from the body and would not be inside the pelvis (wherever that was). What I have read is that you have said something to the effect that it cannot be determined whether it was in the body or not, and that of course rhymes quite well with the pelvis being gone.
To me, it is not much of a problem either way - since Joshua has found that Hebbert may not have used the wording "the uterus was missing", I think that the only logical thing to do is to accept that there is no way of knowing if the killer took it out or not, and we must accordingly accept that as it stands, all we can say is that it went missing together with the pelvis.

As I noted before, that has no impact as such on the question this thread is about. It still applies that once we know that there organs missing from other victims than Jackson, once we know that the killer DID take organs out in her case, that means that it becomes logical to make the assumption that he also lay behind the missing organs in in the Rainham case.
I have often heard it being said the the torso killer only eviscerated/took out organs in one case, that of Jackson, and this has been used as some sort of evidence that he was really not an eviscerator. To me, that is not a sound approach. He is instead a proven eviscerator, and the logical inference is that he did it in more than one case.

What is really very interesting in the context, though, and where the searchlight should be allowed to shine, is on the fact that just as we know for a fact that this man eviscerated, we also know that he actively chose not to do so in the Pinchin Street case. To me, that is of pivotal importance, because it tells us that organ extraction was not his only reason for killing, something I believe was also the case in the Ripper murders. The carving of the faces, the defleshing of Kellys thigh, the removal of the abdominal walls, the cutting away of the nose in Eddowes case etcetera, are all examples of a broader agenda, an agenda that certainly involved - or could involve - organ excision, but that is in my world better described as a deconstruction of the human body.

In the 'autopsy notes' thread I started years back I wrote brief summaries for each case taken from ASOLM, a book not widely available the time. I did it as a favour for those who didn't have any access to the book as I had. In the Whitehall case I wrote that it could not be determined if the victim had been a mother and in square brackets I wrote ; 'because the uterus was missing'. The square brackets denoting this comment was made by me. Is this the source of that comment that Joshua has had to point out was not a direct quote from Hebbert? That should have been obvious to anyone in the way it written in the notes, surely?! Or is there some other source?

I have always said the pelvis and its contents (as a unit) were absent from the scene. Hebbert describes the find as a "trunk" consisting of the thorax and upper abdomen, and that is it. He then goes on to describe the pelvis had been removed at the fourth lumbar vertebra. None of the pelvic organs were listed as recovered, nor was the pelvis.

We can't know if any organs were deliberately removed because the whole pelvis was missing. We don't know if organ loss in the Rainham case was because the body was cut up in a way as to facilitate easier disposal and the organs were lost as a consequence of that. I have always said this.
I do remember though that Dr Biggs said something along the lines- there is no way to determine motive in the way a body was dismembered because mutilation for mutilation's sake and removal of something for a practical purpose are indistinguishable.

[John G]

I know, John. I've known as said so for the last 14 years when people have mentioned that the uterus was missing.

In terms of language, I don't think there's a problem in me saying 'the pelvis and its contents' were 'removed',as in separated as one unit, from the "trunk" that was found in the vault which Hebbert describes as the "thorax and upper part of the abdomen". Similarly we say the head was 'removed' don't we?

I thought I'd resolved this matter on Friday, when I cited Dr Hebbert's in respect of the "pelvic viscera" and even included a handy diagram, showing exactly what the pelvic viscera contained. Frankly, going back over old ground is getting pretty exhausting, I'm starting to feel like a physical and emotional wreck! I mean, I intended to spend just half an hour on here on Sunday, but was still typing away 2 and half hours later, although, to be honest, that waa mainly my own fault!

[rjpalmer]

In the Whitehall case I wrote that it could not be determined if the victim had been a mother and in square brackets I wrote ; 'because the uterus was missing'. The square brackets denoting this comment was made by me. Is this the source of that comment that Joshua has had to point out was not a direct quote from Hebbert? That should have been obvious to anyone in the way it written in the notes, surely?! Or is there some other source?

Hi Debra. It's not you. They are working from The Daily Telegraph coverage of the inquest (October 8th) which quotes Dr. Bond as saying "the uterus was absent." But other newspapers quoted him differently, merely stating "organs were missing."

It is obvious (to me) that Bond is merely giving a rundown of the state of the various internal organs (heart, liver, stomach) as a physician would, in describing an autopsy. When it came to the uterus, he can't describe it, since it was absent from the crime scene.

Obviously, Hebbert's medical notes are more trustworthy than the (possibly) misquoted press report of the inquest.

Here is how the London Daily News reported it, on the same date. "Portions of the body were missing."

[John G]

If the foetus was that the torso killer was after, why did he not kill pregnant women only, John? If that was his driving force? The way some serial killers only kill women with certain features?

Any idea that the fetus was what made the torso killer take the uterus out, and that he was really never an eviscerator at all, falls flat on its belly when we consider that he also took out heart and lungs from Jackson. And any idea that the foetus was the true focus of the torso killer in the Jackson case can only be speculation, a speculation that is not reinforced by how none of his other victims were pregnant.

Does that mean that I am saying that he was indifferent about the foetus? No, it does not. My own take on things is that he may well have regarded it as a bonus, for reasons that are closely linked to my ideas about the driving force behind the deeds. But I am very much aware that this too is speculation only, and that it cannot therefore be used as a weighty argument.

This man eviscerated, and NOT ONLY that uterus! On other occasions, he CHOSE not to eviscerate, so we are sure that this was not his true driving force. It DID however, belong to the things that were to a degree likely to happen to his victims.

Hi Christer,

Yes, I don't say the foetus was his only motivation; I was merely trying to distinguish Jackson from Kelly and Chapman, i.e. by giving an explanation as to why two irregular strips were removed from the abdominal wall.

There's no question he was sn eviscerator, and I absolutely agree with your argument that this wasn't for defensive purpose; which is why I describe Torso Man as an offensive/defensive dismemberer [I used to argue otherwise, as you know, but now feel that argument is pretty much indefensible] and why, despite our obvious differences, I'm now only around 70-30 on the two "series" of crimes not being linked."

[Sam Flynn]

there is no way to determine motive in the way a body was dismembered because mutilation for mutilation's sake and removal of something for a practical purpose are indistinguishable.

Indeed, but where there are indications that the body had been prepared for easier transportation and disposal - i.e. by cutting it up into chunks - then I'd suggest that there's a good chance that the removal of organs was done for similar, practical reasons.

[rjpalmer]

In 2001, New York millionaire Robert Durst dismembered his neighbor, Morris Black, and threw his body, hidden in various plastic bags, into Galveston Bay.

Was he a "lust killer"? No. It was merely a way of transporting the body and hoping to hell it would never be found. Unfortunately for Durst, the body parts washed ashore, except for the head, which was never found. Sounds awfully familiar. "Lust" is just what people are reading into it.

[John G]

In the 'autopsy notes' thread I started years back I wrote brief summaries for each case taken from ASOLM, a book not widely available the time. I did it as a favour for those who didn't have any access to the book as I had. In the Whitehall case I wrote that it could not be determined if the victim had been a mother and in square brackets I wrote ; 'because the uterus was missing'. The square brackets denoting this comment was made by me. Is this the source of that comment that Joshua has had to point out was not a direct quote from Hebbert? That should have been obvious to anyone in the way it written in the notes, surely?! Or is there some other source?

I have always said the pelvis and its contents (as a unit) were absent from the scene. Hebbert describes the find as a "trunk" consisting of the thorax and upper abdomen, and that is it. He then goes on to describe the pelvis had been removed at the fourth lumbar vertebra. None of the pelvic organs were listed as recovered, nor was the pelvis.

We can't know if any organs were deliberately removed because the whole pelvis was missing. We don't know if organ loss in the Rainham case was because the body was cut up in a way as to facilitate easier disposal and the organs were lost as a consequence of that. I have always said this.
I do remember though that Dr Biggs said something along the lines- there is no way to determine motive in the way a body was dismembered because mutilation for mutilation's sake and removal of something for a practical purpose are indistinguishable.

Hi Debra,

Sorry to interject. I apologize if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember that Trevor once posted an email reply from Dr Biggs , in which he conceded that he was relatives recently qualified and had only been involved in one dismemberment case.

I don't think Dr Biggs can be right if he's saying that you can't determine motive from the way a body is dismembered: Forensic experts, such as Rutty and sue Black, do it all the time, which is why they've assigned different categories to dismemberment cases: defensive, aggressive, offensive (lust murderer), necrophilic) etc.

Of course, Whitehall and Jackson were definitely eviscerated (the word used to describe the removal of body organs) and this is extremely rare, at least in the UK.

Thus, Rutty et al. (2017), list around 85 dismemberment crimes which have taken place in the UK since 1985. However, only one victim was eviscerated: Samantha Bisset, who was murdered by Robert Napper, an aggressive dismemberer, who also took away part of the abdominal wall of the victim, as as a "trophy." Interestingly, even Stephen Griffiths, the Crossbow Cannibal, who dismembered three prostitutes, didn't actually eviscerate a victim, although he did cut the bodies up into 81 parts (I belive he was desribed as an offensive/defensive dismemberer.)

Put simply, removing body organs for practical purposes, i.e. ease of disposal, is not what dismemberers seem to do. And I'm not sure why they would.

And as I noted in an earlier post, a defensive dismemberer, whose motivation is to conceal a crime or/and to dispose of the body parts, will try and dispose of the remains as expeditiously as possible, and I don't see how depositing remains in the catacombs of a police building under construction or, indeed, between two drunks in Pinchin Street, where he must have risked detection, meets this criteria.

[John G]

I speculate that it was done simply to dispose of those larger extraneous pieces. Bundled together, wrapped, dumped in the river.

I personally find it odd how the random disposal of body parts is imbued with meaning by so many.
The murders’ debris are often interpreted as being masterfully planned and planted when there’s no evidence that this is the case. The torsos were sectioned and dismembered and the parts disposed of.

Well, as I've pointed out before, defensive dismemberers do sometimes use more than one site. However, what they don't do is remove body organs! See my post above.

[rjpalmer]

Thus, Rutty et al. (2017), list around 85 dismemberment crimes which have taken place in the UK since 1985. However, only one victim was eviscerated: Samantha Bisset, who was murdered by Robert Napper, an aggressive dismemberer, who also took away part of the abdominal wall of the victim, as as a "trophy." Interestingly, even Stephen Griffiths, the Crossbow Cannibal, who dismembered three prostitutes, didn't actually eviscerate a victim, although he did cut the bodies up into 81 parts (I belive he was desribed as an offensive/defensive dismemberer.)

John -- you can't equate modern 20th/21st Century cases, in the age of the automobile, with the Victorian era, where people were overcrowded in boarding houses, etc., and had to dismember bodies in order to smuggle them outdoors without the use of modern vehicles. Look at the Harriet Lane case in Whitechapel in 1875. He cut her up and tossed her into the Thames. Was this a "lust killing"? No. He did it in order to hide the body in a crowded metropolis.

[John G]

Indeed, but where there are indications that the body had been prepared for easier transportation and disposal - i.e. by cutting it up into chunks - then I'd suggest that there's a good chance that the removal of organs was done for similar, practical reasons.

I think you have to look at the whole picture, Gareth. Thus, Stephen Griffiths chopped up his victims into 81 parts, which is why he was presumably identified as an offensive dismemberer; this went far beyond what would have been necessary for ease of body disposal-in that respect he was simply making life difficult for himself!

Similarly removing body organs or, say, strips of skin from the abdominal wall, seems to serve no practical purpose. The assailant is simply making life more difficult for himself, i.e. more body parts to dispose of/time taken to commit the additional mutilations etc. Which is why this type of dismemberment is, presumably , very rare: only one case in the UK since 1985, which I referred to earlier.

[Debra A]

Hi Debra. It's not you. They are working from The Daily Telegraph coverage of the inquest (October 8th) which quotes Dr. Bond as saying "the uterus was absent." But other newspapers quoted him differently, merely stating "organs were missing."

It is obvious (to me) that Bond is merely giving a rundown of the state of the various internal organs (heart, liver, stomach) as a physician would, in describing an autopsy. When it came to the uterus, he can't describe it, since it was absent from the crime scene.

Obviously, Hebbert's medical notes are more trustworthy than the (possibly) misquoted press report of the inquest.

Here is how the London Daily News reported it, on the same date. "Portions of the body were missing."

Hi RJ

Thank you very much for clearing that up!

I was alerted by someone that my name had been mentioned in connection to this issue but couldn't really get to the bottom of who was saying what and in relation to what! I am declaring myself officially past it.

[Debra A]

Hi Debra,

Sorry to interject. I apologize if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember that Trevor once posted an email reply from Dr Biggs , in which he conceded that he was relatives recently qualified and had only been involved in one dismemberment case.

I don't think Dr Biggs can be right if he's saying that you can't determine motive from the way a body is dismembered: Forensic experts, such as Rutty and sue Black, do it all the time, which is why they've assigned different categories to dismemberment cases: defensive, aggressive, offensive (lust murderer), necrophilic) etc.

Of course, Whitehall and Jackson were definitely eviscerated (the word used to describe the removal of body organs) and this is extremely rare, at least in the UK.

Thus, Rutty et al. (2017), list around 85 dismemberment crimes which have taken place in the UK since 1985. However, only one victim was eviscerated: Samantha Bisset, who was murdered by Robert Napper, an aggressive dismemberer, who also took away part of the abdominal wall of the victim, as as a "trophy." Interestingly, even Stephen Griffiths, the Crossbow Cannibal, who dismembered three prostitutes, didn't actually eviscerate a victim, although he did cut the bodies up into 81 parts (I belive he was desribed as an offensive/defensive dismemberer.)

Put simply, removing body organs for practical purposes, i.e. ease of disposal, is not what dismemberers seem to do. And I'm not sure why they would.

And as I noted in an earlier post, a defensive dismemberer, whose motivation is to conceal a crime or/and to dispose of the body parts, will try and dispose of the remains as expeditiously as possible, and I don't see how depositing remains in the catacombs of a police building under construction or, indeed, between two drunks in Pinchin Street, where he must have risked detection, meets this criteria.

I have no idea about Dr Biggs qualifications and when they were gained, John. I knew he seemed to have limited experience and I have mentioned in the past that Rutty is much more experienced. I noted before that Rutty does not agree with Biggs.

[Debra A]

Indeed, but where there are indications that the body had been prepared for easier transportation and disposal - i.e. by cutting it up into chunks - then I'd suggest that there's a good chance that the removal of organs was done for similar, practical reasons.

I wish you had kept in the part where I was saying that this was Dr Biggs view, Gareth, In your quote it looks as though this is my idea, rather than me remembering something Dr Biggs mentioned about the ability to distinguish between the different motives.