The case evidence and its implications

[Joshua Rogan]

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.

Ta :-)

[New Ford Shunt]

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.

Hello Fisherman, my final post of the day, and my brain hurts. I take your point, you can pose a dismembered corpse. I was playing a bit fast and loose with my language to illustrate my point. It's actually interesting that you mention Salamanca in the context of this as depending on whether you see Charles Whiting or Robert Muntzer's as the stronger witness depends on whether you believe the body parts to be posed or merely discarded from a sack in a rush. I don't however believe that in the case of Whitehall (or Rainham or Pinchin Street or EJ) the disposal of the body parts indicates a form of posing. Posing, conceptually, would to me suggest the perpetrator wished for the body parts to be found so that he could show off his handywork. Otherwise, why do it? To place seemingly randomly selected body parts (there is no commonality in dump sites except for perhaps Battersea 1873 and EJ) in bodies of water or buried in obscure places where they may never have been found does not shout out as posing. But that is just my opinion.

Peter Kurten did not have two distinct signatures and neither did William Heirens. Like I conceded in my previous post, I'm not disputing that SKs develop, and that they may have different methods of death, what I am trying to say, and maybe it got lost in my prose, is that there is no SK that we are aware of where they concurrently operate two very distinct methods of murder. Kurten and Heirens cannot be used as an example of a SK that does.

And finally, phew, Salamanca can be ruled out I think quite safely, I would agree. A stand alone murder, I don't think there is much dispute about that. I would however disagree that the reason is because it is an example of sloppy cutting. Far from it, the inquest and pathologists present (Dr George Henry Nicol and Prof Augustus Joseph Pepper) both agreed that there was competency in the incisions and cuts around the neck, but the torso cuts were sloppier. This they concurred was due to the perpetrator becoming tired during the dismemberment. I also disagree that the earlier cases were indicative of the perpetrator being 'skilled, quick and bold'. I don't see this as clear cut (ha, no pun intended) at all. I don't regard any of the eleven cases from 1873 to 1902 as being as black and white an analysis as that.

Right, off to make a curry. Have fun debating y'all.

[Joshua Rogan]

Aha, here's the Daily Telegraph report in question, from 3 Oct;

"A representative of The Daily Telegraph, who saw the remains within half-an-hour of their discovery, states that the body, placed on its back, was wrapped in a skirt of some stuff like black mohair, and the steel dress improver was included in the parcel. The flesh had a dark reddish hue, as if it had been plentifully sprinkled with antiseptic, such as Condy's fluid. Decomposition, however, had made rapid strides within, for the remains were in an advanced state of putrefaction"

So according to this, it was noted before the torso was disinfected by the doctors. However, it only seems to say the colour of the skin looked as if antiseptic had been used. So not completely conclusive.

[jerryd]

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.

Thanks Debs. Here is the quote from the Daily Telegraph, October 3rd. He seems to have been on the spot of the crime rather fast as he says he noticed the hue within 30 minutes of the discovery. If true, this would be before the doctors placed antiseptic on it.

A representative of The Daily Telegraph, who saw the remains within half-an-hour of their discovery, states that the body, placed on its back, was wrapped in a skirt of some stuff like black mohair, and the steel dress improver was included in the parcel. The flesh had a dark reddish hue, as if it had been plentifully sprinkled with antiseptic, such as Condy's fluid.

[jerryd]

Sorry Joshua. Our posts crossed.

[Joshua Rogan]

Sorry Joshua. Our posts crossed.

Not for the first time. Great minds, and all that!

[jerryd]

Not for the first time. Great minds, and all that!

True, true.

I agree it is not conclusive. Far from it. But, none of the men in inquest testimony stated they noticed a smell. This may be consistent with the use of something like Condy's Fluid. The body was in a heavy state of decomposition and laying in a relatively small, enclosed vault. No smell? I find it hard to believe. I did find a press report [not inquest related] that reported Wildbore did notice a smell. So, what are we to believe? Typical of these cases it seems.

Note: The other reason there may have been no smell was the possibility that the parcel was not in that vault when the witnesses were in there. Just as they state at the inquest.

[bolo]

Hi all,

Condy's Fluid consisted of a watery solution of potassium permanganate, a powerful oxidiser that among other things can be used as a disinfectant. I don't know how concentrated the product was but the killer must have used a whole lot of it over a prolonged period ofl time in order to prevent a suspicious smell. Not sure whether that seems feasible.

Beste Grüße,

Boris

[Fisherman]

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."

Yes, that's it. I seem to remember that Tom Wescott was speculating that the killer could perhaps have urinated over her. If, that is, my memory serves me. It doesn't always do that, sadly.

[Debra A]

Thanks Debs. Here is the quote from the Daily Telegraph, October 3rd. He seems to have been on the spot of the crime rather fast as he says he noticed the hue within 30 minutes of the discovery. If true, this would be before the doctors placed antiseptic on it.

A representative of The Daily Telegraph, who saw the remains within half-an-hour of their discovery, states that the body, placed on its back, was wrapped in a skirt of some stuff like black mohair, and the steel dress improver was included in the parcel. The flesh had a dark reddish hue, as if it had been plentifully sprinkled with antiseptic, such as Condy's fluid.

Thanks, Jerry. As the state of the remains and whether or not there was an attempt to preserve or destroy them would have had a bearing on the date of death wouldn't you expect something like the use of a discinfectant such as Condy's fluid to have been mentioned at inquest?

As an aside, I have come across at least one prosecution for procuring a miscarriage where Condy's fluid had been used along with a cocktail of other noxious substances. Horrific.

[Fisherman]

Hello Fisherman, my final post of the day, and my brain hurts. I take your point, you can pose a dismembered corpse. I was playing a bit fast and loose with my language to illustrate my point. It's actually interesting that you mention Salamanca in the context of this as depending on whether you see Charles Whiting or Robert Muntzer's as the stronger witness depends on whether you believe the body parts to be posed or merely discarded from a sack in a rush. I don't however believe that in the case of Whitehall (or Rainham or Pinchin Street or EJ) the disposal of the body parts indicates a form of posing. Posing, conceptually, would to me suggest the perpetrator wished for the body parts to be found so that he could show off his handywork. Otherwise, why do it? To place seemingly randomly selected body parts (there is no commonality in dump sites except for perhaps Battersea 1873 and EJ) in bodies of water or buried in obscure places where they may never have been found does not shout out as posing. But that is just my opinion.

I agree that we should not speak of posing in the Rainham case, for example. However, I would press the point about how posing is done to create a reaction (normally fear/shock), and I do think that this was what the killer was after in all the torso cases. So a similar aim but a different means of reaching it.

Peter Kurten did not have two distinct signatures and neither did William Heirens. Like I conceded in my previous post, I'm not disputing that SKs develop, and that they may have different methods of death, what I am trying to say, and maybe it got lost in my prose, is that there is no SK that we are aware of where they concurrently operate two very distinct methods of murder. Kurten and Heirens cannot be used as an example of a SK that does.

Heirens first killed two grown up women and then proceeded to kill and dismember a little girl. That IS pretty different in my world. But crying on two concurrent methods of murder in two series will probably be more odd. Then again, Kürten did employ different murder methods and seems to have jumped effortlessly inbetween them. Maybe there are other examples, I cannot say off the top of my head.

And finally, phew, Salamanca can be ruled out I think quite safely, I would agree. A stand alone murder, I don't think there is much dispute about that. I would however disagree that the reason is because it is an example of sloppy cutting. Far from it, the inquest and pathologists present (Dr George Henry Nicol and Prof Augustus Joseph Pepper) both agreed that there was competency in the incisions and cuts around the neck, but the torso cuts were sloppier. This they concurred was due to the perpetrator becoming tired during the dismemberment. I also disagree that the earlier cases were indicative of the perpetrator being 'skilled, quick and bold'. I don't see this as clear cut (ha, no pun intended) at all. I don't regard any of the eleven cases from 1873 to 1902 as being as black and white an analysis as that.

Right, off to make a curry. Have fun debating y'all.

The Salamanca torso is very different from the Thames torso victims in terms of skill. There was no disarticulation of the limbs if I remember correctly, and the sweeping and quick cuts that gave away the torso killer were not there.
Contrary to you, I do think that the Thames torso cases were cases involving exactly what I said, quick, bold and skillful cutting, not least within the 87-89 victims. Doctor Galloways reactions to the Rainham torso says a lot.

Good luck with the curry.

[jerryd]

Thanks, Jerry. As the state of the remains and whether or not there was an attempt to preserve or destroy them would have had a bearing on the date of death wouldn't you expect something like the use of a discinfectant such as Condy's fluid to have been mentioned at inquest?

As an aside, I have come across at least one prosecution for procuring a miscarriage where Condy's fluid had been used along with a cocktail of other noxious substances. Horrific.

Debs,

Dr. Hebbert did say "the skin is fair and not much decomposed". I'm not sure if that indicates use of a preservative or not? He didn't mention it, as you point out.

[Debra A]

Debs,

Dr. Hebbert did say "the skin is fair and not much decomposed". I'm not sure if that indicates use of a preservative or not? He didn't mention it, as you point out.

Thanks, Jerry. Yes, the way Hebbert describes things in his essays is that the cut edges were very much decomposed and full of maggots but not the surface of the skin itself. If this were due to a preservative wouldn't he have mentioned that? Hebbert made detailed observations about the marks on the skin surface made from the strings used to wrap the torso for example. The use of a disinfectant on the remains before discovery would have been crucial inquest evidence I would think? Separate to Hebbert's own interest in forensic examination.

[Fisherman]

Thanks, Jerry. Yes, the way Hebbert describes things in his essays is that the cut edges were very much decomposed and full of maggots but not the surface of the skin itself. If this were due to a preservative wouldn't he have mentioned that? Hebbert made detailed observations about the marks on the skin surface made from the strings used to wrap the torso for example. The use of a disinfectant on the remains before discovery would have been crucial inquest evidence I would think? Separate to Hebbert's own interest in forensic examination.

"Fair and not much decomposed"? Wasn't the skin supposed to be kind of purple? Or did that color go away in the disinfectant storing...?

[Fisherman]

In my post 206, a sentence came out "But crying on two concurrent methods of murder in two series will probably be more odd." That is due to how my Mac autocorrects me, even if I don't want it to. I actually wrote "...carrying on two...". Sorry for that, Ford!