The case evidence and its implications

[Kattrup]

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.

These distinctions can obscure rather than clear up matters. They are technicalities based on late 20th century criminals, not applicable to Victorian times. Serial killers are not robots, behaving identically in every place and time.

how does one cut a body into 81 pieces without parts of the lung, heart, liver, intestine etc being cut? He only sliced the arms and legs?

Look, if dividing a body across the abdomen, one is going to need to consider the stomach and intestines. So one takes them out before cutting. Does that an eviscerator make? No, it’s simply incidental to the dismemberment.

Was the torso killer a throat-cutter? Not necessarily, by cutting off the heads he also cut through the throat, but again, it’s incidental.

In jackson’s Case it’s perfectly reasonable that someone wishing to dispose of the body in small parts would first slice open the abdomen, remove the foetus remove other loose organs and viscera and then divide the body. It does not necessarily carry any independent meaning besides dismemberment. Ditto for the other torsos found: If cutting up a carcass, one starts by removing the intestines etc.

I sometimes feel dismemberment is the wrong word since it emphasizes cutting off the limbs. In modern understanding I believe most people think of a dismemberment murder as ams, legs, head cut off, torso left intact. But that is not always the case. You too (like fisherman and Abby) seem to think the torso “mutilations” were unnecessary to dismemberment. They were not. They were part of and incidental to the dismemberment.

[Fisherman]

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.

I do hope that you don´t think that I have put words in your mouth that do not belong there, Debra. You have clarified your stance and I have no problems at all seeing the logic of it, and I agree to the full; no uterus was found and that was to be expected since the part of the trunk that would have contained it was lost.

I also agree that we cannot know how the organs from the Rainham victim go lost - but I am saying that since we are aware that Jackson suffered organ extraction at the hands of her killer, then it stands to reason to suggest that the logical reason for the organ loss in the Rainham case is likely to have been that the killer extracted them. This is a suggestion that is further reinforced by the similarities inbetween the Jackson and Rainham cases, where Hebbert said that heart and lungs had been removed from Jacksons body.

No certainties, of course - the organs could have come out for another reason than the killer doing it - but once a killer has eviscerated in a case, that must raise the probability of organs lost from other victims belonging to his tally having been eviscerated too.

This we will never be able to prove, of course, but it belongs very much to the overall discussion since it is sometimes claimed as an established fact that the only torso victim that suffered having organs taken out by the killer was Jackson. The simple truth is that this is an unknown factor, and that certainly at the very least the Rainham victim may well have been eviscerated by the killer too.

That is where I am going with all of this. I am definitely NOT going in the direction of claiming that you are of the meaning that the Whitehall victims uterus was removed from the body.

Thank you for your posts on the matter!

[Joshua Rogan]

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.

John,
I don't know how you can conclude, after all these posts, that the Whitehall torso was "definitely eviscerated".
NO organs had been removed from the remains found in the vault. You can speculate all you like about whether any organs were removed from the pelvis - which was never recovered - but saying he eviscerated is akin to saying he removed the ears from the head, when that was never recovered either.

[Fisherman]

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."

There is the possibility that the abdominal flaps were cut away from Jacksons belly on account of the baby, yes. But the fact of the matter is that we cannot tell that this was so. Certainly, there is absolutely no practical need to do it in order to get at the uterus and foetus. And Jacksons belly was opened all the way down, allowing for an easy enough retrieval of uterus and baby with no further additions cuttingwise.
At the end of the day, it wold be exceedingly odd and unexpected if two serial killers simultaneously and in the same town found separate reasons for taking the abdominal wall away from victims. The by far more logical conclusion, not least on account of the numerous OTHER similarities, is that the reason was the same in all three cases. As was the killer.

That´s my contention, and I must say that I would consider a two killer solution an incredible fluke.

[Fisherman]

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.

The overwhelming majority of dismemberment murders are practical affairs. The problem with that is when it is reasoned that dismemberment murders MUST be practical affairs and that statistics call upon us to make that call in all dismemberment murders. In every case, the specifics must be scrutinized. Does the murder you refer to have more parallels to the torso murders than the dismemberment and ensuing dumping in water? Was there eviscerations? Were parts dumped in more than one place, some of them on land? Had the victim had his belly opened up prior to the dismemberment? Did the parts float ashore themselves, all of them?

[Joshua Rogan]

Look, if dividing a body across the abdomen, one is going to need to consider the stomach and intestines. So one takes them out before cutting. Does that an eviscerator make? No, it’s simply incidental to the dismemberment.

Precisely. In Jackson's case, since she was perhaps 7 months pregant, the killer would also need to take into account the enlarged uterus, which would have extended well above the pelvis.
The Rainham torso was cut into three sections, in just the same way as Jackson's torso was. Yet that victim's uterus was left in situ in the pelvis. To me, this points to Jackson's uterus removal as being purely practical.

[Fisherman]

Look, if dividing a body across the abdomen, one is going to need to consider the stomach and intestines. So one takes them out before cutting. Does that an eviscerator make? No, it’s simply incidental to the dismemberment.


In jackson’s Case it’s perfectly reasonable that someone wishing to dispose of the body in small parts would first slice open the abdomen, remove the foetus remove other loose organs and viscera and then divide the body. It does not necessarily carry any independent meaning besides dismemberment. Ditto for the other torsos found: If cutting up a carcass, one starts by removing the intestines etc.

I sometimes feel dismemberment is the wrong word since it emphasizes cutting off the limbs. In modern understanding I believe most people think of a dismemberment murder as ams, legs, head cut off, torso left intact. But that is not always the case. You too (like fisherman and Abby) seem to think the torso “mutilations” were unnecessary to dismemberment. They were not. They were part of and incidental to the dismemberment.

The heart of Jackson would not have gotten in the way of the cutting of Jackson, Kattrup. So there was no need to take that out beforehand.
And no, it is not perfectly reasonable to suggest that a dismemberer would start out by slicing the abdomen open and taking the organs out before cutting the torso in three parts - least of all if you leave liver, spleen, kidneys etcetera in place while you take out the heart, lungs and uterus. Either a killer empties all parts out if he is the practical soul you suggest, or he takes no organs out, à la the ordinary dismemberment killer.
You approach is a pick-and-choose, squeeze and shoehorn approach that really has no logic at all going for it.

[Fisherman]

John,
I don't know how you can conclude, after all these posts, that the Whitehall torso was "definitely eviscerated".
NO organs had been removed from the remains found in the vault. You can speculate all you like about whether any organs were removed from the pelvis - which was never recovered - but saying he eviscerated is akin to saying he removed the ears from the head, when that was never recovered either.

The ears were removed...?

Nah, just kidding, Joshua. One certain evisceration case, Jackson, is what we have. One case involves a certainty of inner organs having gone lost (Rainham). One (Whitehall) lacks parts of the torso, and it cannot be established wether the pelvic organs were inside the torso part when the killer discarded it or not. And the fourth case (Pinchin Street) is proven not to have involved any eviscerations.

[Fisherman]

Precisely. In Jackson's case, since she was perhaps 7 months pregant, the killer would also need to take into account the enlarged uterus, which would have extended well above the pelvis.
The Rainham torso was cut into three sections, in just the same way as Jackson's torso was. Yet that victim's uterus was left in situ in the pelvis. To me, this points to Jackson's uterus removal as being purely practical.

But the heart and lungs were also removed from Jacksons body, while no other organs were. How does that fit into a practical pattern? Why remove these parts from the thorax and no parts but for the uterus (and part of the colon) from the rest of the torso?

[Sam Flynn]

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.

I merely kept the relevant passage that I was expanding upon. It's something I invariably do instead of reproducing entire posts, and I only do so in an effort to keep things pithy and readable.

[Joshua Rogan]

But the heart and lungs were also removed from Jacksons body, while no other organs were. How does that fit into a practical pattern? Why remove these parts from the thorax and no parts but for the uterus (and part of the colon) from the rest of the torso?

Precisely because I believe the heart and lungs (or at the very least the major attachments to them) would have been in the line of dissection across the chest, in both the Rainham and Jackson cases. Just as the cut across Jackson's abdomen would have gone through the enlarged uterus (and foetus) if left in situ. Whereas the same cut across the Rainham torso would not, as she was not pregnant. In both cases, all organs not in the lines of dissection were left untouched.

[Fisherman]

Precisely because I believe the heart and lungs (or at the very least the major attachments to them) would have been in the line of dissection across the chest, in both the Rainham and Jackson cases. Just as the cut across Jackson's abdomen would have gone through the enlarged uterus (and foetus) if left in situ. Whereas the same cut across the Rainham torso would not, as she was not pregnant. In both cases, all organs not in the lines of dissection were left untouched.

Interesting - but why did the killer cut the Rainham victim open from pubes to ribs in that case? He even sawed the sternum open. Was that in order to allow for him to see which organs he needed to take out beforehand, so that they would not get damaged by the saw? And if so, why was he bothered by that in the first place? If he was ready and willing to saw through muscle and tissue and vertebra, why would he be unwilling to saw through lungs and heart? Or organs as such, the way you suggest?
And what purpose did the taking away of the abdominal wall serve in this context?

To note: Kelly looked as if she had been thrown under an industrial lawnmower. But none of her organs seemed harmed, going by what was said in the Bond report. They were seemingly plucked out carefully and placed neatly on the bed.
As a comparison to your thoughts, that makes for fascinating reading and a perhaps useful piece of information.

[John G]

These distinctions can obscure rather than clear up matters. They are technicalities based on late 20th century criminals, not applicable to Victorian times. Serial killers are not robots, behaving identically in every place and time.

how does one cut a body into 81 pieces without parts of the lung, heart, liver, intestine etc being cut? He only sliced the arms and legs?

Look, if dividing a body across the abdomen, one is going to need to consider the stomach and intestines. So one takes them out before cutting. Does that an eviscerator make? No, it’s simply incidental to the dismemberment.

Was the torso killer a throat-cutter? Not necessarily, by cutting off the heads he also cut through the throat, but again, it’s incidental.

In jackson’s Case it’s perfectly reasonable that someone wishing to dispose of the body in small parts would first slice open the abdomen, remove the foetus remove other loose organs and viscera and then divide the body. It does not necessarily carry any independent meaning besides dismemberment. Ditto for the other torsos found: If cutting up a carcass, one starts by removing the intestines etc.

I sometimes feel dismemberment is the wrong word since it emphasizes cutting off the limbs. In modern understanding I believe most people think of a dismemberment murder as ams, legs, head cut off, torso left intact. But that is not always the case. You too (like fisherman and Abby) seem to think the torso “mutilations” were unnecessary to dismemberment. They were not. They were part of and incidental to the dismemberment.

If you belive removing body organs is what a defensive dismemberer does, i.e. to make it easy for him to dispose of the body -and these are not my categories of dismemberment, they are determined by forensic scientists- then maybe you can give an example of where this has happened before. Thus, as I have noted, since 1985 there have been about 85 cases of dismemberment, and in only one of those cases was a victim eviacerated, i.e. had body parts removed.

To summarize, dismemberers are usually known to the victim, i.e relative/friend etc. They dismember to hide the crime, because otherwise they would be an obvious suspect. They are therefore not motivated to make life difficult for themselves i.e. by storing bodies for weeks, before relocating them; disposing of body parts in the catacombs of a building project; cutting irregular strips of skin from a victim (a highly unusual act), or removing body parts.

[Sam Flynn]

I think you have to look at the whole picture, Gareth.

I am, though, John

Similarly removing body organs or, say, strips of skin from the abdominal wall, seems to serve no practical purpose.

That specific act, which occurred only in Jackson's case, would have afforded easier access to the uterus without needing to go to the extent of removing more numerous and/or larger flaps of flesh. That strikes me as a much more economical and practical approach than that adopted in the cases of Chapman and Kelly, for example.

[Debra A]

I merely kept the relevant passage that I was expanding upon. It's something I invariably do instead of reproducing entire posts, and I only do so in an effort to keep things pithy and readable.

And that's acceptable but it was the fact that you left out the mention that I was paraphrasing Dr Biggs, rather than suggesting the idea myself as it appears in your quote. I think that's important myself.