The case evidence and its implications

[rjpalmer]

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?

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."

[John G]

I know, John. I've known as said so for the last 14 years when people have mentioned that the uterus was missing.

In terms of language, I don't think there's a problem in me saying 'the pelvis and its contents' were 'removed',as in separated as one unit, from the "trunk" that was found in the vault which Hebbert describes as the "thorax and upper part of the abdomen". Similarly we say the head was 'removed' don't we?

I thought I'd resolved this matter on Friday, when I cited Dr Hebbert's in respect of the "pelvic viscera" and even included a handy diagram, showing exactly what the pelvic viscera contained. Frankly, going back over old ground is getting pretty exhausting, I'm starting to feel like a physical and emotional wreck! I mean, I intended to spend just half an hour on here on Sunday, but was still typing away 2 and half hours later, although, to be honest, that waa mainly my own fault!

[Debra A]

I think the problem has lain in how Hebbert supposedly stated that the uterus was missing from the body. That is a wording that leads on that the pelvis was taken off at a low enough level to allow for such a thing to be noted. However, Joshua Rogan has made the point that the wording as such may not have been Hebberts own, and that puts a different slant on matters.
I have never seen - and never said, for that matter - that you have claimed that the uterus was gone from the body and would not be inside the pelvis (wherever that was). What I have read is that you have said something to the effect that it cannot be determined whether it was in the body or not, and that of course rhymes quite well with the pelvis being gone.
To me, it is not much of a problem either way - since Joshua has found that Hebbert may not have used the wording "the uterus was missing", I think that the only logical thing to do is to accept that there is no way of knowing if the killer took it out or not, and we must accordingly accept that as it stands, all we can say is that it went missing together with the pelvis.

As I noted before, that has no impact as such on the question this thread is about. It still applies that once we know that there organs missing from other victims than Jackson, once we know that the killer DID take organs out in her case, that means that it becomes logical to make the assumption that he also lay behind the missing organs in in the Rainham case.
I have often heard it being said the the torso killer only eviscerated/took out organs in one case, that of Jackson, and this has been used as some sort of evidence that he was really not an eviscerator. To me, that is not a sound approach. He is instead a proven eviscerator, and the logical inference is that he did it in more than one case.

What is really very interesting in the context, though, and where the searchlight should be allowed to shine, is on the fact that just as we know for a fact that this man eviscerated, we also know that he actively chose not to do so in the Pinchin Street case. To me, that is of pivotal importance, because it tells us that organ extraction was not his only reason for killing, something I believe was also the case in the Ripper murders. The carving of the faces, the defleshing of Kellys thigh, the removal of the abdominal walls, the cutting away of the nose in Eddowes case etcetera, are all examples of a broader agenda, an agenda that certainly involved - or could involve - organ excision, but that is in my world better described as a deconstruction of the human body.

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.

[Fisherman]

Hi Sam,

Yes, very good points. I've argued myself that the foetus was the main focus of the killer's attention, although it's certainly odd that he cuts out two irregular pieces from the abdominal wall, and then bundles these pieces up with the umbilicus etc. I can only speculate that this was possibly done for shock value.

Of course, Kelly's uterus was removed but not retained by the perpetrator (unlike in the case of Chapman and Eddowes.) Therefore, JtR wasn't consistent in this respect, either. Always assuming that Kelly was a Ripper victim, of course!

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.

[Fisherman]

Thanks for the correction, John. The main point for me is that the uterus once had a baby in it; so, it was more a case of a baby being removed than a uterus being targeted. Jack the Ripper can almost certainly be be ruled out on that basis alone, never mind that Jackson frequented, was killed, and was disposed of in a totally different part of London to where Jack operated.

But Gareth, how do we know that Jack would not have taken out a baby, given the chance?

You cannot say that the torso killer targeted pregnant women only, since only one victim was pregnant.

Ergo, cutting out a baby from a victim seems not to have been the torso killers read driving force.

None of the Rippers victims were pregnant. But how can we tell that this was because he avoided pregnant victims...?

So how in the whole world would we be able to say that the fact that the torso killer took a baby out of the uterus he extracted from Jackson rules out that the Ripper could have been the culprit? I can see no such evidence at all, so you are going to have to explain it to me, I'm afraid.

[Fisherman]

Well I don't think there are Fish. I have always made a point of saying the pelvis and its contents were missing when ever I can in response to people saying the uterus was removed. You could perhaps show me where I have said otherwise and I will accept I must have done. I have always known that the pelvis was missing since I first strarted reading the source material back in 2005.

I think the problem has lain in how Hebbert supposedly stated that the uterus was missing from the body. That is a wording that leads on that the pelvis was taken off at a low enough level to allow for such a thing to be noted. However, Joshua Rogan has made the point that the wording as such may not have been Hebberts own, and that puts a different slant on matters.
I have never seen - and never said, for that matter - that you have claimed that the uterus was gone from the body and would not be inside the pelvis (wherever that was). What I have read is that you have said something to the effect that it cannot be determined whether it was in the body or not, and that of course rhymes quite well with the pelvis being gone.
To me, it is not much of a problem either way - since Joshua has found that Hebbert may not have used the wording "the uterus was missing", I think that the only logical thing to do is to accept that there is no way of knowing if the killer took it out or not, and we must accordingly accept that as it stands, all we can say is that it went missing together with the pelvis.

As I noted before, that has no impact as such on the question this thread is about. It still applies that once we know that there organs missing from other victims than Jackson, once we know that the killer DID take organs out in her case, that means that it becomes logical to make the assumption that he also lay behind the missing organs in in the Rainham case.
I have often heard it being said the the torso killer only eviscerated/took out organs in one case, that of Jackson, and this has been used as some sort of evidence that he was really not an eviscerator. To me, that is not a sound approach. He is instead a proven eviscerator, and the logical inference is that he did it in more than one case.

What is really very interesting in the context, though, and where the searchlight should be allowed to shine, is on the fact that just as we know for a fact that this man eviscerated, we also know that he actively chose not to do so in the Pinchin Street case. To me, that is of pivotal importance, because it tells us that organ extraction was not his only reason for killing, something I believe was also the case in the Ripper murders. The carving of the faces, the defleshing of Kellys thigh, the removal of the abdominal walls, the cutting away of the nose in Eddowes case etcetera, are all examples of a broader agenda, an agenda that certainly involved - or could involve - organ excision, but that is in my world better described as a deconstruction of the human body.

[Debra A]

Hello Debra,

Of course, Dr Hebbert states that the "lower parts are absent as well as the pelvic viscera." Presumably that doesn't necessarily mean that the organs were actually removed from the pelvic viscera. Interestingly, the patella was also missing, so caution is required when trying to draw any firm conclusions.

I know, John. I've known as said so for the last 14 years when people have mentioned that the uterus was missing.

In terms of language, I don't think there's a problem in me saying 'the pelvis and its contents' were 'removed',as in separated as one unit, from the "trunk" that was found in the vault which Hebbert describes as the "thorax and upper part of the abdomen". Similarly we say the head was 'removed' don't we?

[Kattrup]

I've argued myself that the foetus was the main focus of the killer's attention, although it's certainly odd that he cuts out two irregular pieces from the abdominal wall, and then bundles these pieces up with the umbilicus etc. I can only speculate that this was possibly done for shock value

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.

[John G]

Thanks for the correction, John. The main point for me is that the uterus once had a baby in it; so, it was more a case of a baby being removed than a uterus being targeted. Jack the Ripper can almost certainly be be ruled out on that basis alone, never mind that Jackson frequented, was killed, and was disposed of in a totally different part of London to where Jack operated.

Hi Sam,

Yes, very good points. I've argued myself that the foetus was the main focus of the killer's attention, although it's certainly odd that he cuts out two irregular pieces from the abdominal wall, and then bundles these pieces up with the umbilicus etc. I can only speculate that this was possibly done for shock value.

Of course, Kelly's uterus was removed but not retained by the perpetrator (unlike in the case of Chapman and Eddowes.) Therefore, JtR wasn't consistent in this respect, either. Always assuming that Kelly was a Ripper victim, of course!

[Sam Flynn]

The uterus and placenta were found but not the foetus.

Thanks for the correction, John. The main point for me is that the uterus once had a baby in it; so, it was more a case of a baby being removed than a uterus being targeted. Jack the Ripper can almost certainly be be ruled out on that basis alone, never mind that Jackson frequented, was killed, and was disposed of in a totally different part of London to where Jack operated.

[John G]

Indeed, and I also recall that all but two of the torso victims didn't have missing uteri and, of those, her uterus - and the baby that it once carried - weren't "missing", as they were found.

The uterus and placenta were found but not the foetus.

[John G]

The “lower parts” in that sentence were of the colon, though, not lower body parts in general.

But the "pelvic viscera", which includes the vagina and uterus, is expressly referred to as being absent.

[John G]

Great post johng

full disclosure. I am not near as confident as fish that they were the same man but do lean heavily.

It may just be a coincidence but i do find it interesting, even if the uterus is missing because its part of the lower part of the torso thats missing in the whitehall case, that it does just happen to be the section that contains the uterus.

anyway, its blatenly obviuos to me that torso man is not a defensive dismemberer and the way he deposited the body parts did have some kind of special meaning to him. The ripper made no attempts to hide either and left them posed.

i just find it hard to beleive that two such cretins were lurking about in the same city at the same time, post mortem mutilating, cutting up, removing body parts of unfortunates and leaving remains to be found in odd and public places. IMHO both series end at the same time with pinchin and mckenzie and ive never heard a good explanation for that -if they were different men, for some reason that coincidence really sticks with me. Also, no signs of torture or sexual abuse in either series, seems just a quick kill to obtain a body to cut up.

and eventhough torsoman did dismember, he also cut up smaller parts of flesh and organs.... is that really so different than the ripper who also flayed flesh off the corpse, cut off breasts, and cuts necks to the bone?

Many thanks Abby. I started off believing that it was very unlikely that the two "series" were linked, now I'm about 70-30 on there not being a link. And I really don't know how anyone can draw firm conclusions either way.

Thus, on one hand Fish makes a fair argument, i.e. based on the unlikeliness of two lust murderers operating in the same city at the same time-this may actually be unprecedented-as well as the abdominal wall issue, which I've previously addressed.

However, there are problems with the argument. Thus, if Torso Man was an offensive dismemberer (lust murderer), then the dismemberment process itself becomes part of his signature. In other words, a defensive dismemberer is just trying to make it easier to get rid of the body for practical reasons, i.e. "to hide evidence from discovery and forensic examination."(Rutty et al. 2017.) However, for an offensive dismemberer it's actually part of his signature: " Dismemberment for the purposes of sexual gratification, whether part of the homicide or on those already dead, would be considered 'offensive dismemberment'" And this signature element is missing with the C5 murders.

Then there's the issue of decapitation. Thus, it could have been done for practical reasons: the head is very heavy and therefore difficult to transport, as well as being an important factor in identification ( Rutty, 2017). However, it may be related to ritual: "The head is also the central component of the body and thus significant as a trophy or representation of the victim." (Rutty, 2017;Rajs et al. 1998.) As an example, Dahmer regularly retained his victims skulls. Of course, if this was the case it presents another problem, because JtR didn't seem to be interested in retaining heads.

Then there's the issue of body storage: All of the Torso victims were stored, none of the C5 were. This again seems related to signature, and serial killers who exhibited this pattern are usually pretty consistent: all of Jack the Stripper's victims were stored.

Finally, as I noted earlier, the geographical profiles are a big problem for me, with JtR presenting as a classic marauder, and the Torso perpetrator as obviously commuter killer.

[Kattrup]

Hello Debra,

Of course, Dr Hebbert states that the "lower parts are absent as well as the pelvic viscera." Presumably that doesn't necessarily mean that the organs were actually removed from the pelvic viscera.

The “lower parts” in that sentence were of the colon, though, not lower body parts in general.

[John G]

I haven't had time to read through everything here but someone pointed me to this thread. As I have said all along (rightly or wrongly because I am not following the argument here) the Whitehall torso had the WHOLE pelvis and its contents removed. I have pointed that out a few time when people say the uterus was removed, reminding that the pelvis and its organs were missing, not just the uterus. Is that being challenged now?

Hello Debra,

Of course, Dr Hebbert states that the "lower parts are absent as well as the pelvic viscera." Presumably that doesn't necessarily mean that the organs were actually removed from the pelvic viscera. Interestingly, the patella was also missing, so caution is required when trying to draw any firm conclusions.