The case evidence and its implications

[Fisherman]

Yes there was a conscious act to cut up the bodies, but the question is, and it is not one to which there is a definitive answer, and that is who was the person or persons who did those acts of cutting up. You suggest a killer, but for that to be a plausible explanation you first have to prove a homicide, and in these torsos there is no definitive evidence, other that inferences that you and others have drawn from the speculative opinions given by these medical men in some cases, despite there being no direct evidence to show causes of death, and in some case coroners verdicts were recored as "found dead"

As to Jackson the facts surrounding her demises clearly give rise to the inference that she was not the victim of a homicide, yet you continually use her as a yardstick to support what you suggest happened to the other torsos and their dismemberment's.

You and other have been told many time that much on what victorian doctors stated is now shown to be nothing more than opinions which modern day medicine does not support.

As to the suggestions that if there was a killer, he had some bolthole where he took the victims to and then murdered and dismembered them there. This also does not stand up to close scrutiny. The killers bolthole would not change, so a killer not having transport would need to pick up a woman fairly close to that bolthole, and he would not want to risk going back and forth any great distance with an assortment of body parts to dispose of them, and the fact that body parts were dumped or thrown from different locations suggest he didnt have transport or else he might have taken all the body parts in one go from his bolthole.

The fact that it would seem that these torso women appeared to frequent different areas of London, and the body parts dumped from and in different locations, is also interesting. As to picking up women if he had a bolthole in Whitechapel would a woman from another part of London walk with him that great distance to engage in sex, when prostitutes were territorial and would know where to go within their known territory.

Aa has been said before there are other plausible explanations as to how these women met there demise and their bodies dismembered other than by being murdered.

Are there any other instances where body parts of women have been found in the thames or any other waterways oustide of what you have documented where it has been proven that they were murdered?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

More of the same. We have heard this tune coming from you for years on end. Seven years ago, Debra provided you with this answer to the same question:

You of all people know that murder and dismemberment for disposal was and still is not an uncommon crime. Why between 87 and 89 would it suddenly become so that anatomists were chopping up and dumping females bodies of a certain age in the Thames!! The anatomy act was in place before and after that period.

Liz Jackson was considered by Hebbert and by an inquest. Both parties arrived at the conclusion willful murder, and both parties based it on the evidence. We are not dealing with four counts of abortions gone wrong, all performed by the same hapless quack.

Just as id did seven years ago, this puts an effective end to the discussion today, as far as I'm concerned. And I cannot see how it would change tomorrow.

[Trevor Marriott]

More of the same. We have heard this tune coming from you for years on end. Seven years ago, Debra provided you with this answer to the same question:

You of all people know that murder and dismemberment for disposal was and still is not an uncommon crime. Why between 87 and 89 would it suddenly become so that anatomists were chopping up and dumping females bodies of a certain age in the Thames!! The anatomy act was in place before and after that period.

Liz Jackson was considered by Hebbert and by an inquest. Both parties arrived at the conclusion willful murder, and both parties based it on the evidence. We are not dealing with four counts of abortions gone wrong, all performed by the same hapless quack.

Just as id did seven years ago, this puts an effective end to the discussion today, as far as I'm concerned. And I cannot see how it would change tomorrow.

There you go hiding again behind you misguided belief.

In the Jackson case in particular, there was no evidence to prove a homicide, this you need to start accepting as you do the point that they simply gave opinions those opinions were not based on any evidence that corroborated those opinions, and gave no specific cause of death !

And I notice as usual you cherry pick the points you choose to reply on and ignore others

And for seven years you have been banging on about a torso serial killer with nothing to back it up that stands up as direct evidence its time you took the blinkers off.

Just for the record under The Anatomy Act 1832 bodies were allowed to be taken from mortuaries for teaching and medical research, it was then the responsibility of those taking and using the bodies to dispose of them afterwards. I would imagine that a cemetery burial would have cost money whereas disposing of the parts in the thames would cost nothing, and as stated before no heads were ever found.If you were a killer and cutting up a body for disposal would that not also include the head. Or is it the case that their head would be kept and used for research and teaching if the Anatomy Act acquisitions apply.

One final point if these were all murdered and they were someones daughters sisters, or even mothers hardly anyone came forward with a story that one of the aforementioned had gone missing and perhaps could be identified by clothing

On the subject of opinions you seek to rely on not only on the torsos but in relation to Lechmere. I have already pointed out that the opinions given by Victorian doctors can now be shown to be unreliable. In the case of the murder of Nichols which is your trump card in trying to show Lechmere was the killer may i refer to the following

Dr Llewellyn "I belive she had not been dead more than half and hour"

What does Dr Biggs a modern day forensic pathologist say

"In the olden days, doctors used to state a confident and precise time of death, based on subjective observations, but this was little more than guesswork"

"Suggesting that death happened 30 minute previously based on subjective observations would be laughed out of court these days...... but in 1888 people believed just about anything a doctor said"

So it is not unreasonable to cast a doubt about the opinions given by the doctors in the torso cases.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

There you go hiding again behind you misguided belief.

In the Jackson case in particular, there was no evidence to prove a homicide, this you need to start accepting as you do the point that they simply gave opinions those opinions were not based on any evidence that corroborated those opinions, and gave no specific cause of death !

And I notice as usual you cherry pick the points you choose to reply on and ignore others

And for seven years you have been banging on about a torso serial killer with nothing to back it up that stands up as direct evidence its time you took the blinkers off.

Just for the record under The Anatomy Act 1832 bodies were allowed to be taken from mortuaries for teaching and medical research, it was then the responsibility of those taking and using the bodies to dispose of them afterwards. I would imagine that a cemetery burial would have cost money whereas disposing of the parts in the thames would cost nothing, and as stated before no heads were ever found.If you were a killer and cutting up a body for disposal would that not also include the head. Or is it the case that their head would be kept and used for research and teaching if the Anatomy Act acquisitions apply.

One final point if these were all murdered and they were someones daughters sisters, or even mothers hardly anyone came forward with a story that one of the aforementioned had gone missing and perhaps could be identified by clothing

On the subject of opinions you seek to rely on not only on the torsos but in relation to Lechmere. I have already pointed out that the opinions given by Victorian doctors can now be shown to be unreliable. In the case of the murder of Nichols which is your trump card in trying to show Lechmere was the killer may i refer to the following

Dr Llewellyn "I belive she had not been dead more than half and hour"

What does Dr Biggs a modern day forensic pathologist say

"In the olden days, doctors used to state a confident and precise time of death, based on subjective observations, but this was little more than guesswork"

"Suggesting that death happened 30 minute previously based on subjective observations would be laughed out of court these days...... but in 1888 people believed just about anything a doctor said"

So it is not unreasonable to cast a doubt about the opinions given by the doctors in the torso cases.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Cast away, Trevor, cast away. Just don't expect me to agree with you.

A minor correction: There is no PROOF to tell that Jackson was murdered. There is a lot of evidence that implicates that she was, however, and the inquest reacted accordingly, as did Hebbert, the press, the society on the whole and the bulk of Ripperology.

As far as I know, the one/s disagreeing are rarer than cut away abdominal flaps in murder cases.

[Joshua Rogan]

One final point if these were all murdered and they were someones daughters sisters, or even mothers hardly anyone came forward with a story that one of the aforementioned had gone missing and perhaps could be identified by clothing

Hardly anyone?

Lloyds Weekly 7 Oct 1888

"With reference to any clue, the police state that they have very little at present. Since the publication of the shocking discovery [of the Whitehall torso] they had received up to yesterday over 500 applications and inquiries about missing friends."

[John G]

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.

Hi Abby,

Yes, I realize that it could be argued that the body organs were not removed. However, why detach the pelvic viscera from the rest of the torso? It's not something a defensive dismemberer would tend to do, and as I've noted, by exposing internal organs he was making life extremely difficult for himself. Again, not what a defensive dismemberer would be motivated to do.

[John G]

Hi Fisherman, all,

we don't know for sure if organs had been taken from the Torso victims, the state of facts simply does not allow to tell whether the organs were missing as a consequence of the dismemberment or actually had been taken out of the body by the killer and were significant to him.

Same with the dismemberment. It could have been part of the "fun" for the killer but also a simple way to hinder ID and make getting rid of the bodies easier. We cannot tell for sure.

Was the placement of body parts in a dark vault in NSY a message, a makeshift solution or fluke? We cannot tell for sure.

Was the body part found on the Shelley estate a emergency drop, a message from the Even Newer Prometheus or coincidence? We cannot tell for sure.

Were all Torso victims prostitutes? We cannot tell for sure.

Was there any significance in the dumping of the body parts in the Thames and various places on land? We cannot tell for sure.

What was the cause of death of the Torso victims? At least Hebbert was unable to tell in all cases but one.

And so it goes on and on. There may be similarities between Torsoman and the Ripper but they're only striking on the first look IMHO. If one keeps in mind that most of them are open to interpretation due to lack of evidence, the list sort of falls apart. It certainly is not wrong to assume that certain injuries that are present in both the Torso and Ripper cases may point to a common killer but at the same time it's definitely is not wrong to say that the injuries could have been the result of the dismemberment and were not intentional or part of an important ritual.

Of course you could say that two serial killers at work at the same time in London might be unlikely but that does not change the scope of the available facts one bit (see above). If anything, it opens up another valid alley of interpretation but in the end, it's all speculation and should be taken as such to avoid going in circles.

I go with what we have and remain on my not very comfortable seat on the fence until further notice.

Grüße,

Boris

Yes, I would tend to agree with most of this. However, it seems to me very unlikely that, say, a defensive dismemberer, would make things so ridiculously complicated for himself by placing the torso in the Whitehall building foundations. Or place the Pinchin Street Torso next to two drunks, in an area frequented by homeless people, when he could have simply buried it or thrown it in the Thames.

And consider what happened with Liz Jackson, with body parts being scattered all over the place: A bundle of body parts found near the Albert Bridge; a thigh wrapped in clothing, which could have helped identification, found floating in the Thames; a leg found on the foreshore in Fulham; a piece of flesh found in mud at Palace Wharf; a bundle tied up with string, containing a leg and foot, found at Limehouse; a floating brown paper package found at Bankside, containing the left arm; more body parts found in the garden of Sir Percy Shelley's house. None of these body parts were weighed down or buried.

Now it seems to me that this is not the most expedient way to dispose orca corpse, and therefore it is much more likely that the perpetrator was trying to create a sense of shock value.

[John G]

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.

Except Dr Hebbert doesn't say what he based the date of death on. He simply says, "The date of death was from. 6 weeks to two months previously."

[Sam Flynn]

Yes, I would tend to agree with most of this. However, it seems to me very unlikely that, say, a defensive dismemberer, would make things so ridiculously complicated for himself by placing the torso in the Whitehall building foundations. Or place the Pinchin Street Torso next to two drunks, in an area frequented by homeless people, when he could have simply buried it or thrown it in the Thames.

This could be a strong indicator that we're looking at different perpetrators, with different methods and motivations.

[John G]

This could be a strong indicator that we're looking at different perpetrators, with different methods and motivations.

Hi Gareth,

I certainly don't think the C5 murders are linked to the Torso crimes, I.e. radically different signatures, MOs and geographical profiles. It's possible, of course, that the Torso murders involved more than one perpetrator, although personally, I believe Rainham, Whitehall, Jackson and Pinchin Street are most likely linked.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

Yes, I realize that it could be argued that the body organs were not removed. However, why detach the pelvic viscera from the rest of the torso? It's not something a defensive dismemberer would tend to do, and as I've noted, by exposing internal organs he was making life extremely difficult for himself. Again, not what a defensive dismemberer would be motivated to do.

well I agree with you there

[Abby Normal]

Hi Gareth,

I certainly don't think the C5 murders are linked to the Torso crimes, I.e. radically different signatures, MOs and geographical profiles. It's possible, of course, that the Torso murders involved more than one perpetrator, although personally, I believe Rainham, Whitehall, Jackson and Pinchin Street are most likely linked.

Hi JohnG
are they really radically different sigs, MOs and geographical profiles?

Sig-the sig for me is basically the same for both-post mortem mutilation and cutting up and into a female body, removing both internal and external body parts. secondary motivation/sig is how they were left (shock value, liked hearing about himself, taunting police). no torture, sexual abuse/rape apparent

MO-prostitutes targeted with probable ruse (money for sex and or some kind of work)used in both to get victims were he wanted them so he could murder and mutilate. blows to head and or strangulation to knock out, cut throats to finish off and or bleed out. knife, cutting instruments used. Dumped, or left in public areas, displayed-special meaning to killer in how they were ultimately left.

geographic-same city, within easy walking distance. Pinchin in ripper location. Whitehall in between.

radically different? no I would say the same, or at least very similar.

[Sam Flynn]

are they really radically different sigs, MOs and geographical profiles?.

Speaking for myself, yes - they're totally different crimes in totally distinct parts of London.

[Joshua Rogan]

Except Dr Hebbert doesn't say what he based the date of death on. He simply says, "The date of death was from. 6 weeks to two months previously."

Luckily, Bond did say;

"The date of death, so far as we can judge from the state of decomposition, would have been six weeks to two months"

[Fisherman]

Except Dr Hebbert doesn't say what he based the date of death on. He simply says, "The date of death was from. 6 weeks to two months previously."

Decomposition, John. There was no other indication to use.

[Fisherman]

This could be a strong indicator that we're looking at different perpetrators, with different methods and motivations.

... who cut in the exact same way and who - in the case of the Pinchin Street killer - added the final touch to the neck severing school starting with the Rainham victim.

Maybe your post is instead a strong indicator that you dislike having the Pinchin Street case providing a cross-over murder between the series? I seems a better underbuilt case.