The case evidence and its implications

[Debra A]

John, you have misunderstood the pelvic viscera part, I'm afraid. It was never established that any of the pelvic organs/viscera were taken out. The lower part of the torso was never found, and so we cannot tell whether the killer plucked anything out of it.

I agree overall with the rest of your post - we are dealing with an offensive dismemberer who made it his business to shout out from the rooftops the he was around.

Yes. This caused a big part of my confusion on what was being said on the thread the other day! However many times I said the pelvis and its contents were missing there continued to be discussion of removal of the viscera from the whole torso. I gave up trying to understand if new evidence was found or what.

[Abby Normal]

Yes, but the point I was trying to make is: the pelvic viscera had been removed from the rest of the torso, and that is not how a defensive dismemberer would be expected to cut up a body (I did quote Rutty on this point in an earlier post, the most relevant bit being, "leaving the torso and pelvis as a single piece). It, of course, means that internal organs are now exposed, which would be a very bad idea, as Sue Black's comments, which I quoted earlier, perfectly illustrate.

Not only that, as a "defensive" dismemberer he then apparently repeats the mistake with Jackson, suggesting he must have been a bit of a simpleton if he was, indeed, a defensive dismemberer!

Just to clarify the point about Whitehall Torso:

"The date of death was from six weeks to months previously.", per Dr Hebbert.

john
Its not known whether the pelvic viscera was removed from the body cavity because the lower part of the torso(the pelvic area) was never found. the upper part is what was found in the vault. so we dont whether the killer specifically removed any pelvic viscera from the body/torso.

now that being said, why cut the torso section in two? not the work of a defensive dismemberer. so agree with you there. did the killer remove the uterus/pelvic viscera from the lower part of the torso? we dont know for sure, but seeing is he took the trouble to separate the torso into two sections, the lower part containing the pelvic viscera never found, that torso man did remove the uterus from at least one victim and maybe another, than IMHO it seems he probably did remove the uterus and pelvic viscera from that lower half of the torso.

[Fisherman]

Yes, but the point I was trying to make is: the pelvic viscera had been removed from the rest of the torso, and that is not how a defensive dismemberer would be expected to cut up a body (I did quote Rutty on this point in an earlier post, the most relevant bit being, "leaving the torso and pelvis as a single piece). It, of course, means that internal organs are now exposed, which would be a very bad idea, as Sue Black's comments, which I quoted earlier, perfectly illustrate.

Not only that, as a "defensive" dismemberer he then apparently repeats the mistake with Jackson, suggesting he must have been a bit of a simpleton if he was, indeed, a defensive dismemberer!

Just to clarify the point about Whitehall Torso:

"The date of death was from six weeks to months previously.", per Dr Hebbert.

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.

[Fisherman]

HI John
what if torsoripper lived in WC but his chop shop was in the west?
or vice versus?

Nah. Too easy.

[New Ford Shunt]

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.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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]

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]

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!

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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."