The case evidence and its implications

[John G]

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.

Okay, fair point Joshua. Although it's clearly coincidental that the pelvic viscers, which contain the organs of reproduction, were never recovered.

[Debra A]

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!

No. I was confused what source was being talked of that' all.

[Fisherman]

I am, though, John

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.

So why were the latter cases not examples of allowing easier access in your book, Gareth? Why was it entirely different when the Ripper cut away abdominal flaps? And what WAS it about in the Ripper´s case, if I may ask?

[Fisherman]

No. I was confused what source was being talked of that' all.

Good to hear - thanks for sharing!

[Sam Flynn]

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.

I agreed with the idea, regardless of whose it was.

[Sam Flynn]

In modern understanding I believe most people think of a dismemberment murder as ams, legs, head cut off, torso left intact.

In last week's BBC documentary, both Professor David Wilson and a police expert, whose name I forget, seemed to think that dismemberment was the same as evisceration, stating more than once that the Ripper victims were dismembered!

Slightly off-topic, but I found it irritating. As indeed I found the entire documentary, even though it was extremely well presented by Emilia Fox (who deserved better).

[Fisherman]

In last week's BBC documentary, both Professor David Wilson and a police expert, whose name I forget, seemed to think that dismemberment was the same as evisceration, stating more than once that the Ripper victims were dismembered!

Slightly off-topic, but I found it irritating. As indeed I found the entire documentary, even though it was extremely well presented by Emilia Fox (who deserved better).

Strictly speaking, I think dismemberment refers to the taking away of the limbs. With that definition, Jackson and the Rainham victim are examples of dismemberment, decapitation and mutilation of the torso. The Swedish term is "styckning", parting, which kind of covers the phenomenon more fully.
But I am more interested in hearing why the Rippers taking away of abdominal walls was not about allowing access to the inside of the body - and what it was instead. As an aside, I personally think it was not about access to the inside in either case, but I would like to hear your take on things.

[John G]

Did someone make the point earlier that the strips pf skin removed from Liz Jackson wss on account off the fact that she was about 7 months pregnant, i.e. suggesting the perpetrator was cutting around the bulge in the stomach? If so, the question that springs to mind is why cut into the stomach in the first place? I mean, the Pinchin Street victim just had the legs, head and arms removed, so it wasn't completely necessary.

In any event, defensive dismemberment is usually a one-off. However, Dr Hebbert was certainly of the opinion that these were linked cases of murder. Nor does a defensive dismembererment argument explain the storage of the bodies, or the fact that the perpetrator made little effort to prevent the body parts from being discovered. Nor the places were, say, the Whitehall victim and Pinchin Street were deposited. It might explain the missing heads. However, it's also possible that the heads were removed for ritualistic purposes.

[John G]

In last week's BBC documentary, both Professor David Wilson and a police expert, whose name I forget, seemed to think that dismemberment was the same as evisceration, stating more than once that the Ripper victims were dismembered!

Slightly off-topic, but I found it irritating. As indeed I found the entire documentary, even though it was extremely well presented by Emilia Fox (who deserved better).

I was a bit perplexed about that, particularly as none of the C5 were dismembered. They also said all of the victims were killed in a frenzy. Well, I'm not sure Chapman and Eddowes were, particularly as there is evidence, per Dr Phillips, of a significant amount of skill being exercised.

[Abby Normal]

Did someone make the point earlier that the strips pf skin removed from Liz Jackson wss on account off the fact that she was about 7 months pregnant, i.e. suggesting the perpetrator was cutting around the bulge in the stomach? If so, the question that springs to mind is why cut into the stomach in the first place? I mean, the Pinchin Street victim just had the legs, head and arms removed, so it wasn't completely necessary.

In any event, defensive dismemberment is usually a one-off. However, Dr Hebbert was certainly of the opinion that these were linked cases of murder. Nor does a defensive dismembererment argument explain the storage of the bodies, or the fact that the perpetrator made little effort to prevent the body parts from being discovered. Nor the places were, say, the Whitehall victim and Pinchin Street were deposited. It might explain the missing heads. However, it's also possible that the heads were removed for ritualistic purposes.

exactly John

If The dumping/leaving of torsos and parts is non practical, which to me is obvious in the torso cases, then the dismemberment reasons are probably the same. Both have special meaning to the killer above and beyond just the practical.

[Sam Flynn]

If The dumping/leaving of torsos and parts is non practical, which to me is obvious in the torso cases.. .

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.

[New Ford Shunt]

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.

[Fisherman]

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.

Hi, New Ford Shunt, and welcome to the boards! My question to you would be why you suppose that there were skilled and skilled cutting present. Charles Hebbert made no such remark, and firmly placed the torso together with the other three 87-89 torsos on account of comparisons of the cuts.

[bolo]

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

[New Ford Shunt]

Hi, New Ford Shunt, and welcome to the boards! My question to you would be why you suppose that there were skilled and skilled cutting present. Charles Hebbert made no such remark, and firmly placed the torso together with the other three 87-89 torsos on account of comparisons of the cuts.

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.