The case evidence and its implications

[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?

[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.

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

[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]

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 donīt 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!

[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.

[Debra A]

Indeed, but where there are indications that the body had been prepared for easier transportation and disposal - i.e. by cutting it up into chunks - then I'd suggest that there's a good chance that the removal of organs was done for similar, practical reasons.

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.

[Debra A]

Hi Debra,

Sorry to interject. I apologize if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember that Trevor once posted an email reply from Dr Biggs , in which he conceded that he was relatives recently qualified and had only been involved in one dismemberment case.

I don't think Dr Biggs can be right if he's saying that you can't determine motive from the way a body is dismembered: Forensic experts, such as Rutty and sue Black, do it all the time, which is why they've assigned different categories to dismemberment cases: defensive, aggressive, offensive (lust murderer), necrophilic) etc.

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.

Thus, Rutty et al. (2017), list around 85 dismemberment crimes which have taken place in the UK since 1985. However, only one victim was eviscerated: Samantha Bisset, who was murdered by Robert Napper, an aggressive dismemberer, who also took away part of the abdominal wall of the victim, as as a "trophy." Interestingly, even Stephen Griffiths, the Crossbow Cannibal, who dismembered three prostitutes, didn't actually eviscerate a victim, although he did cut the bodies up into 81 parts (I belive he was desribed as an offensive/defensive dismemberer.)

Put simply, removing body organs for practical purposes, i.e. ease of disposal, is not what dismemberers seem to do. And I'm not sure why they would.

And as I noted in an earlier post, a defensive dismemberer, whose motivation is to conceal a crime or/and to dispose of the body parts, will try and dispose of the remains as expeditiously as possible, and I don't see how depositing remains in the catacombs of a police building under construction or, indeed, between two drunks in Pinchin Street, where he must have risked detection, meets this criteria.

I have no idea about Dr Biggs qualifications and when they were gained, John. I knew he seemed to have limited experience and I have mentioned in the past that Rutty is much more experienced. I noted before that Rutty does not agree with Biggs.

[Debra A]

Hi Debra. It's not you. They are working from The Daily Telegraph coverage of the inquest (October 8th) which quotes Dr. Bond as saying "the uterus was absent." But other newspapers quoted him differently, merely stating "organs were missing."

It is obvious (to me) that Bond is merely giving a rundown of the state of the various internal organs (heart, liver, stomach) as a physician would, in describing an autopsy. When it came to the uterus, he can't describe it, since it was absent from the crime scene.

Obviously, Hebbert's medical notes are more trustworthy than the (possibly) misquoted press report of the inquest.

Here is how the London Daily News reported it, on the same date. "Portions of the body were missing."

Hi RJ

Thank you very much for clearing that up!

I was alerted by someone that my name had been mentioned in connection to this issue but couldn't really get to the bottom of who was saying what and in relation to what! I am declaring myself officially past it.

[John G]

Indeed, but where there are indications that the body had been prepared for easier transportation and disposal - i.e. by cutting it up into chunks - then I'd suggest that there's a good chance that the removal of organs was done for similar, practical reasons.

I think you have to look at the whole picture, Gareth. Thus, Stephen Griffiths chopped up his victims into 81 parts, which is why he was presumably identified as an offensive dismemberer; this went far beyond what would have been necessary for ease of body disposal-in that respect he was simply making life difficult for himself!

Similarly removing body organs or, say, strips of skin from the abdominal wall, seems to serve no practical purpose. The assailant is simply making life more difficult for himself, i.e. more body parts to dispose of/time taken to commit the additional mutilations etc. Which is why this type of dismemberment is, presumably , very rare: only one case in the UK since 1985, which I referred to earlier.

[rjpalmer]

Thus, Rutty et al. (2017), list around 85 dismemberment crimes which have taken place in the UK since 1985. However, only one victim was eviscerated: Samantha Bisset, who was murdered by Robert Napper, an aggressive dismemberer, who also took away part of the abdominal wall of the victim, as as a "trophy." Interestingly, even Stephen Griffiths, the Crossbow Cannibal, who dismembered three prostitutes, didn't actually eviscerate a victim, although he did cut the bodies up into 81 parts (I belive he was desribed as an offensive/defensive dismemberer.)

John -- you can't equate modern 20th/21st Century cases, in the age of the automobile, with the Victorian era, where people were overcrowded in boarding houses, etc., and had to dismember bodies in order to smuggle them outdoors without the use of modern vehicles. Look at the Harriet Lane case in Whitechapel in 1875. He cut her up and tossed her into the Thames. Was this a "lust killing"? No. He did it in order to hide the body in a crowded metropolis.

[John G]

I speculate that it was done simply to dispose of those larger extraneous pieces. Bundled together, wrapped, dumped in the river.

I personally find it odd how the random disposal of body parts is imbued with meaning by so many.
The murders’ debris are often interpreted as being masterfully planned and planted when there’s no evidence that this is the case. The torsos were sectioned and dismembered and the parts disposed of.

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.

[John G]

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.

Hi Debra,

Sorry to interject. I apologize if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember that Trevor once posted an email reply from Dr Biggs , in which he conceded that he was relatives recently qualified and had only been involved in one dismemberment case.

I don't think Dr Biggs can be right if he's saying that you can't determine motive from the way a body is dismembered: Forensic experts, such as Rutty and sue Black, do it all the time, which is why they've assigned different categories to dismemberment cases: defensive, aggressive, offensive (lust murderer), necrophilic) etc.

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.

Thus, Rutty et al. (2017), list around 85 dismemberment crimes which have taken place in the UK since 1985. However, only one victim was eviscerated: Samantha Bisset, who was murdered by Robert Napper, an aggressive dismemberer, who also took away part of the abdominal wall of the victim, as as a "trophy." Interestingly, even Stephen Griffiths, the Crossbow Cannibal, who dismembered three prostitutes, didn't actually eviscerate a victim, although he did cut the bodies up into 81 parts (I belive he was desribed as an offensive/defensive dismemberer.)

Put simply, removing body organs for practical purposes, i.e. ease of disposal, is not what dismemberers seem to do. And I'm not sure why they would.

And as I noted in an earlier post, a defensive dismemberer, whose motivation is to conceal a crime or/and to dispose of the body parts, will try and dispose of the remains as expeditiously as possible, and I don't see how depositing remains in the catacombs of a police building under construction or, indeed, between two drunks in Pinchin Street, where he must have risked detection, meets this criteria.

[rjpalmer]

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.

[Sam Flynn]

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.

Indeed, but where there are indications that the body had been prepared for easier transportation and disposal - i.e. by cutting it up into chunks - then I'd suggest that there's a good chance that the removal of organs was done for similar, practical reasons.

[John G]

If the foetus was that the torso killer was after, why did he not kill pregnant women only, John? If that was his driving force? The way some serial killers only kill women with certain features?

Any idea that the fetus was what made the torso killer take the uterus out, and that he was really never an eviscerator at all, falls flat on its belly when we consider that he also took out heart and lungs from Jackson. And any idea that the foetus was the true focus of the torso killer in the Jackson case can only be speculation, a speculation that is not reinforced by how none of his other victims were pregnant.

Does that mean that I am saying that he was indifferent about the foetus? No, it does not. My own take on things is that he may well have regarded it as a bonus, for reasons that are closely linked to my ideas about the driving force behind the deeds. But I am very much aware that this too is speculation only, and that it cannot therefore be used as a weighty argument.

This man eviscerated, and NOT ONLY that uterus! On other occasions, he CHOSE not to eviscerate, so we are sure that this was not his true driving force. It DID however, belong to the things that were to a degree likely to happen to his victims.

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."