The case evidence and its implications

[John G]

I would just quote this from Dr Hebbert, referring to the last two Torso cases: " In almost every respect they are similar to the first two cases [Rainham and Whitehall], and appear to belong to a series of murders and dismemberment by the same hand."

The quote is from Dr Hebbert's book, An Exercise In Forensic Medicine.

[John G]

exactly John

If The dumping/leaving of torsos and parts is non practical, which to me is obvious in the torso cases, then the dismemberment reasons are probably the same. Both have special meaning to the killer above and beyond just the practical.

Thanks Abby. I keep coming back to the point that in none of the cases does the assailant make any real attempt to hide the remains, and in Whitehall at least he makes the disposal unnecessarily complicated (I've previously cited Rutty on this point, where it is explained that a defensive dismemberer will attempt to dispose of the remains as expeditiously as possible). In fact, ridiculously so if his actions were purely defensive. Moreover, all of the bodies had been stored prior to disposal. It just doesn't seem what a run of the mill defensive dismememberer would do.

[New Ford Shunt]

And a fine début post it was too

Welcome aboard.

Thank you Sam!

[Sam Flynn]

Hello, long time lurker, first time poster.

And a fine début post it was too

Welcome aboard.

[New Ford Shunt]

Hi all,

the cause of death is an important point indeed, at least in comparison to the Ripper killings where there was no question about it and most/all victims received severe cuts to the throat. This could be rated as signature that was not present or not detectable in the Torso cases.

Grüßle,

Boris

Hello Boris, I would absolutely agree with you on this. Although we can say that other SK's MO or signature or victimology isn't necessarily a reflection of what may have happened her, there is not a single SK that I have been able to find (and believe me I have tried) that concurrently presents with two distinct methods of killing. Not one. Yes, we have SK who kill opportunistically and therefore may use a knife, then a gun etc but the rest of their MO and signature remains consistent. I think the most important part of JTR's signature is the post mortem posing. Even Elizabeth Stride showed signs of it. With regard to the Torso cases you simply can't pose a dismembered corpse! Personally, I am far from convinced we have a SK here, and I have looked at all cases from 1873 to 1902, not just 1887 to 1889.

[New Ford Shunt]

Hi, New Ford Shunt, and welcome to the boards! My question to you would be why you suppose that there were skilled and skilled cutting present. Charles Hebbert made no such remark, and firmly placed the torso together with the other three 87-89 torsos on account of comparisons of the cuts.

Hello Fisherman, through the research that I have done. There a quite a few newspaper articles which provide details relating to this and the discussions at the inquests. Incidentally, this is also noted in Rainham and EJ. Obviously, because they are newspaper articles a note of caution must be applied but given the articles are not identical, and therefore haven't come from the same news agency source, to me it is a fairly reliable indication that this information was accurately commented upon by more than one journalist.

[bolo]

Hi all,

the cause of death is an important point indeed, at least in comparison to the Ripper killings where there was no question about it and most/all victims received severe cuts to the throat. This could be rated as signature that was not present or not detectable in the Torso cases.

Grüßle,

Boris

[Fisherman]

Hello, long time lurker, first time poster. Re Whitehall and the interpretation of what potentially occurred, I think there are three key issues that don't appear to have been discussed. Firstly, the lack of a uterus, the lack of a cause of death and the fact that the lady concerned was suffering from severe pleurisy when she died. Secondly, the cuts made to the body were both 'competent' and 'incompetent' (sorry I can't think of a better description but I think you get my drift). Thirdly, and I think most importantly in bringing the above two issues together is that the body had been coated with Condy's Fluid, better known today as Potassium Permanganate, which was readily available and used by everyone from housewives to undertakers as a preservative. It has a brown/red/purple hue which colours anything it touches. Now, if you wanted to be highly speculative, and bearing in mind the body parts had evidence of having been pressed down by a heavy object you could wish to interpret (ahem) the following......that the lady was pregnant, that her severe pleurisy weakened her to the point that she did not survive an illegal operation to remove the foetus. That the abortionist was part of a partnership or even a gang, and in order to dispose of the body more than one person (one with more medical knowledge, possibly the abortionist himself and one with less medical knowledge) dismembered her, hence the discrepancy in cuts. Storage of the body parts was necessary until such time as she could be moved and so she was placed in a tub or barrel or some such impliment and soaked in Condy's Fluid and a weight placed on her remains, both as a means to lessen the size for hiding and also to hide the remains. When she was eventually disposed of, again more than one person did this, hence the remains being able to be dumped in NSY. Just putting it out there....and please be gentle with me.

Hi, New Ford Shunt, and welcome to the boards! My question to you would be why you suppose that there were skilled and skilled cutting present. Charles Hebbert made no such remark, and firmly placed the torso together with the other three 87-89 torsos on account of comparisons of the cuts.

[New Ford Shunt]

Hello, long time lurker, first time poster. Re Whitehall and the interpretation of what potentially occurred, I think there are three key issues that don't appear to have been discussed. Firstly, the lack of a uterus, the lack of a cause of death and the fact that the lady concerned was suffering from severe pleurisy when she died. Secondly, the cuts made to the body were both 'competent' and 'incompetent' (sorry I can't think of a better description but I think you get my drift). Thirdly, and I think most importantly in bringing the above two issues together is that the body had been coated with Condy's Fluid, better known today as Potassium Permanganate, which was readily available and used by everyone from housewives to undertakers as a preservative. It has a brown/red/purple hue which colours anything it touches. Now, if you wanted to be highly speculative, and bearing in mind the body parts had evidence of having been pressed down by a heavy object you could wish to interpret (ahem) the following......that the lady was pregnant, that her severe pleurisy weakened her to the point that she did not survive an illegal operation to remove the foetus. That the abortionist was part of a partnership or even a gang, and in order to dispose of the body more than one person (one with more medical knowledge, possibly the abortionist himself and one with less medical knowledge) dismembered her, hence the discrepancy in cuts. Storage of the body parts was necessary until such time as she could be moved and so she was placed in a tub or barrel or some such impliment and soaked in Condy's Fluid and a weight placed on her remains, both as a means to lessen the size for hiding and also to hide the remains. When she was eventually disposed of, again more than one person did this, hence the remains being able to be dumped in NSY. Just putting it out there....and please be gentle with me.

[Sam Flynn]

If The dumping/leaving of torsos and parts is non practical, which to me is obvious in the torso cases.. .

Whats practical about keeping a dead, decaying body on your premises or, if you don't have your own premises, somewhere to which you might be traced? Disposal of the bodies seems eminently practical to me, and chopping them up into portable chunks is equally practical.

[Abby Normal]

Did someone make the point earlier that the strips pf skin removed from Liz Jackson wss on account off the fact that she was about 7 months pregnant, i.e. suggesting the perpetrator was cutting around the bulge in the stomach? If so, the question that springs to mind is why cut into the stomach in the first place? I mean, the Pinchin Street victim just had the legs, head and arms removed, so it wasn't completely necessary.

In any event, defensive dismemberment is usually a one-off. However, Dr Hebbert was certainly of the opinion that these were linked cases of murder. Nor does a defensive dismembererment argument explain the storage of the bodies, or the fact that the perpetrator made little effort to prevent the body parts from being discovered. Nor the places were, say, the Whitehall victim and Pinchin Street were deposited. It might explain the missing heads. However, it's also possible that the heads were removed for ritualistic purposes.

exactly John

If The dumping/leaving of torsos and parts is non practical, which to me is obvious in the torso cases, then the dismemberment reasons are probably the same. Both have special meaning to the killer above and beyond just the practical.

[John G]

In last week's BBC documentary, both Professor David Wilson and a police expert, whose name I forget, seemed to think that dismemberment was the same as evisceration, stating more than once that the Ripper victims were dismembered!

Slightly off-topic, but I found it irritating. As indeed I found the entire documentary, even though it was extremely well presented by Emilia Fox (who deserved better).

I was a bit perplexed about that, particularly as none of the C5 were dismembered. They also said all of the victims were killed in a frenzy. Well, I'm not sure Chapman and Eddowes were, particularly as there is evidence, per Dr Phillips, of a significant amount of skill being exercised.

[John G]

Did someone make the point earlier that the strips pf skin removed from Liz Jackson wss on account off the fact that she was about 7 months pregnant, i.e. suggesting the perpetrator was cutting around the bulge in the stomach? If so, the question that springs to mind is why cut into the stomach in the first place? I mean, the Pinchin Street victim just had the legs, head and arms removed, so it wasn't completely necessary.

In any event, defensive dismemberment is usually a one-off. However, Dr Hebbert was certainly of the opinion that these were linked cases of murder. Nor does a defensive dismembererment argument explain the storage of the bodies, or the fact that the perpetrator made little effort to prevent the body parts from being discovered. Nor the places were, say, the Whitehall victim and Pinchin Street were deposited. It might explain the missing heads. However, it's also possible that the heads were removed for ritualistic purposes.

[Fisherman]

In last week's BBC documentary, both Professor David Wilson and a police expert, whose name I forget, seemed to think that dismemberment was the same as evisceration, stating more than once that the Ripper victims were dismembered!

Slightly off-topic, but I found it irritating. As indeed I found the entire documentary, even though it was extremely well presented by Emilia Fox (who deserved better).

Strictly speaking, I think dismemberment refers to the taking away of the limbs. With that definition, Jackson and the Rainham victim are examples of dismemberment, decapitation and mutilation of the torso. The Swedish term is "styckning", parting, which kind of covers the phenomenon more fully.
But I am more interested in hearing why the Rippers taking away of abdominal walls was not about allowing access to the inside of the body - and what it was instead. As an aside, I personally think it was not about access to the inside in either case, but I would like to hear your take on things.

[Sam Flynn]

In modern understanding I believe most people think of a dismemberment murder as ams, legs, head cut off, torso left intact.

In last week's BBC documentary, both Professor David Wilson and a police expert, whose name I forget, seemed to think that dismemberment was the same as evisceration, stating more than once that the Ripper victims were dismembered!

Slightly off-topic, but I found it irritating. As indeed I found the entire documentary, even though it was extremely well presented by Emilia Fox (who deserved better).