The case evidence and its implications

[New Ford Shunt]

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

Hello Boris, I would absolutely agree with you on this. Although we can say that other SK's MO or signature or victimology isn't necessarily a reflection of what may have happened her, there is not a single SK that I have been able to find (and believe me I have tried) that concurrently presents with two distinct methods of killing. Not one. Yes, we have SK who kill opportunistically and therefore may use a knife, then a gun etc but the rest of their MO and signature remains consistent. I think the most important part of JTR's signature is the post mortem posing. Even Elizabeth Stride showed signs of it. With regard to the Torso cases you simply can't pose a dismembered corpse! Personally, I am far from convinced we have a SK here, and I have looked at all cases from 1873 to 1902, not just 1887 to 1889.

[Sam Flynn]

Hello, long time lurker, first time poster.

And a fine début post it was too

Welcome aboard.

[New Ford Shunt]

And a fine début post it was too

Welcome aboard.

Thank you Sam!

[John G]

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.

Thanks Abby. I keep coming back to the point that in none of the cases does the assailant make any real attempt to hide the remains, and in Whitehall at least he makes the disposal unnecessarily complicated (I've previously cited Rutty on this point, where it is explained that a defensive dismemberer will attempt to dispose of the remains as expeditiously as possible). In fact, ridiculously so if his actions were purely defensive. Moreover, all of the bodies had been stored prior to disposal. It just doesn't seem what a run of the mill defensive dismememberer would do.

[John G]

I would just quote this from Dr Hebbert, referring to the last two Torso cases: " In almost every respect they are similar to the first two cases [Rainham and Whitehall], and appear to belong to a series of murders and dismemberment by the same hand."

The quote is from Dr Hebbert's book, An Exercise In Forensic Medicine.

[John G]

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.

It's not practical, but it's what the perpetrator did (or to be more precise, the remains were stored somewhere prior to dismemberment.) Which is why it's inconsistent with defensive dismemberment!

[Fisherman]

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

Not present or not detectable? Which is it? The doctors reasoned that the cutting of the neck was the reason of death in most cases, although the 1873 torso was believed to possibly have died from two blows to the temple.

I don´t think that we should reason that an unknown cause of death equals a dissimilar cause of death. Somehow, that would not be factually correct, would it?

[Fisherman]

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.

The problem is that it would make Hebbert wrong. And Hebbert saw the wounds on his slab, as opposed to the journalists. He bases his whole argument on the quality of the cuts and their inherent similarities, and to throw his professional insights and judgment overboard in favour of a measure of journalists would not be wise.

[Fisherman]

Hello Boris, I would absolutely agree with you on this. Although we can say that other SK's MO or signature or victimology isn't necessarily a reflection of what may have happened her, there is not a single SK that I have been able to find (and believe me I have tried) that concurrently presents with two distinct methods of killing. Not one. Yes, we have SK who kill opportunistically and therefore may use a knife, then a gun etc but the rest of their MO and signature remains consistent. I think the most important part of JTR's signature is the post mortem posing. Even Elizabeth Stride showed signs of it. With regard to the Torso cases you simply can't pose a dismembered corpse! Personally, I am far from convinced we have a SK here, and I have looked at all cases from 1873 to 1902, not just 1887 to 1889.

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.

[Sam Flynn]

It's not practical, but it's what the perpetrator did (or to be more precise, the remains were stored somewhere prior to dismemberment.) Which is why it's inconsistent with defensive dismemberment!

Dead bodies tend to stink really bad at some stage, so I'd say that's something to defend against in itself.

[John G]

Dead bodies tend to stink really bad at some stage, so I'd say that's something to defend against in itself.

Yes, so why doesn't he just sling the remains in The Thames? What is he doing storing these victims in the first place? Moreover, why we're Jackson's internal organs exposed? That would be a really bad idea from the perspective of a defensive dismembered: https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle...-a3830216.html

[Fisherman]

Since you are around, Gareth, how about explaining what I asked for before: If the cut away abdominal wall on Jackson was about offering access, then what were the Ripper case abdominal walls about? You DO have an answer?

[John G]

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.

Welcome to the boards. And there's nothing wrong with being highly spent. After all, if that were the case I doubt we'd have any suspects, as all suspect theories seem highly speculative to me, even my own!

[Sam Flynn]

Yes, so why doesn't he just sling the remains in The Thames? What is he doing storing these victims in the first place?

He's got to cut the body up up first which, if he's not used to it, would need some thinking through. If he's not a butcher (or similar), he may not have the right equipment, so that'll need sorting out. There's planning how to go about disposing of the body parts... waiting for the right moment(s) to do so... maybe getting hold of some kind of transport, even if it's only a wheelbarrow with some sacking thrown over it.

All kinds of practical reasons, before we need to reach for the "paraphilia" button.

[Fisherman]

He's got to cut the body up up first which, if he's not used to it, would need some thinking through. If he's not a butcher (or similar), he may not have the right equipment, so that'll need sorting out. There's planning how to go about disposing of the body parts... waiting for the right moment(s) to do so... maybe getting hold of some kind of transport, even if it's only a wheelbarrow with some sacking thrown over it.

All kinds of practical reasons, before we need to reach for the "paraphilia" button.

But Hebbert was of the mindset that this killer was VERY accustomed to cutting up bodies, and knew his handiwork quite well, making him quick and efficient. Moreover, he did not hesitate to get cutting - the cutting is made in very close connection to death in the torso cases, implicating that the killer had no problems getting on with it, the way most dismembers do. The normal dismemberer will feel sick, he will wait in the longest, and he will make a hasch of the cutting. Not so our man! He did NOT sit around hesitating at all. Or, eh, "think through" what he wanted to do.

Any chance you can spend a minute or two on the question I put to you? No?