The Bank Holiday Murders by Tom Wescott (2014)

[Wickerman]

As for sword stick, that's a guess of mine based on the medical evidence, the new police evidence I present that it was not a bayonet, the interesting fictional story by the informed George R. Sims that appeared in print just after the murder, and the fact that sword sticks were not particularly uncommon at the time.

The thing about a swordstick, or long, thin, sword type weapon is if you are going to thrust it into someone, especially the abdomen, the chances are you will run them through.
There is precious little resistance in the abdomen or chest, to a long thin blade.
It is unlikely the blade will stop several inches inside the body unless it came up against bone.
None of Tabrams wounds ran through her.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Wick, I'm not sure about that. Many war time bayonet injuries that didn't go through. Also it was going through a breast plate. Whatever penetrated her was long and apparently double-edged and perhaps harder to wield than a pocket knife (hence the primary use of that).

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

Hi Wick, I'm not sure about that. Many war time bayonet injuries that didn't go through. Also it was going through a breast plate. Whatever penetrated her was long and apparently double-edged and perhaps harder to wield than a pocket knife (hence the primary use of that).

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Ok fair enough, but are you thinking about bayonet wounds in soldiers standing, running and fighting?
Tabram was on her back presumably, with her killer standing over the body, and thrusting downwards.
What are the chances, if using a thin long blade, that it is going to go right through and hit the flagstone floor?

[Tom_Wescott]

Ok fair enough, but are you thinking about bayonet wounds in soldiers standing, running and fighting?
Tabram was on her back presumably, with her killer standing over the body, and thrusting downwards.
What are the chances, if using a thin long blade, that it is going to go right through and hit the flagstone floor?

I'd say it's about the same as a dagger or bayonet. If that had been the killer's intention he could have achieved it.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[RockySullivan]

Hi Rocky,

I don't put much if any stock in 'Fingers Freddy' or any abortionist theory. None of the Ripper or torso victims appear to have died during abortion.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Except liz Jackson who had a fetus go missing from her

[Wickerman]

I'd say it's about the same as a dagger or bayonet. If that had been the killer's intention he could have achieved it.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Well, I think we can accept, it wasn't a bayonet. A dagger will stop when the hilt hits the chest, but a long thin sword blade had nothing to prevent it going straight through.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Rocky,

I don't put much if any stock in 'Fingers Freddy' or any abortionist theory. None of the Ripper or torso victims appear to have died during abortion.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom

I am glad you chose the word "appear" with regards to the torso victims

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[RockySullivan]

Hi Tom

I am glad you chose the word "appear" with regards to the torso victims

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Why not elaborate a bit? What's your opinion on the abortion angle of the torso victims?

[Tom_Wescott]

Well, I think we can accept, it wasn't a bayonet. A dagger will stop when the hilt hits the chest, but a long thin sword blade had nothing to prevent it going straight through.

Except the killer's own will?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Debra A]

Except liz Jackson who had a fetus go missing from her

Hi Rocky
According to Bond and Hebbert, the foetus was removed from the uterus after death in Elizabeth's case. An incision was made into the uterus for this purpose. This is not how abortions were performed. Abortions were an attempt to bring on premature expulsion of a foetus from the womb by using instruments introduced into the uterus through the vagina or by the use of drugs that stimulated the uterus into going into premature labour.
Women undergoing instrument use normally died many days later as a result of infection. An instant death while attempting to abort would normally involve poisoning and the organs that would have shown traces of poison were missing in Elizabeth's case.
I wouldn't rule out a death connected to her pregnancy in some way though.

According to the newspapers, Dr Bond initially suspected abortion because one of the first parcels to turn up contained the uterus, placenta and umbilical cord plus flaps of skin from the abdomen. It wasn't until the uterus was fully examined that the incision was noted.

Of the four torso cases linked by Hebbert and Bond specifically because of the similar method of disarticulation of the joints-the Rainham victim was a virgin, and the Pinchin St victim had an abnormality that suggested she could never get pregnant. Only the Whitehall case is an unknown as the uterus and most of the pelvic organs as well as the pelvis itself was never recovered in that case.

[Trevor Marriott]

Why not elaborate a bit? What's your opinion on the abortion angle of the torso victims?

Hi Tom
At the risk of incurring the wrath of Debs on this topic. I don't think all were murder victims.

Lets face it if you are a killer who kills a woman in her room or in the street. what are you going to do. You are going to simply leave the crime scene and the body as soon as possible for fear of detection. What would be the point of cutting it up and then parceling it up, and running the risk of walking down the road carrying the body parts, and then run the risk of being seen disposing of same.

Two other lines to consider
1. If you were a back street abortionist, and you had a person die on you at your house, then yes you would need to get rid of the body, so cutting it up and parceling it up in nice tidy small parcels and carrying it off to the thames and throwing it in would be ideal.

2. If you were from the medical profession and had acquired a body by lawful means for research. You were required to dispose of the body/parts in proper fashion, but that of course would incur expense, so why not cut the parts up, or the parts already dissected and parcel them up dump them in the thames and save money.

Now I know Debs seeks to rely on the medical evidence, but in the light of what the modern day forensic expert has told us recently when discussing the opinions of Victorian doctors and how they arrived at opinions and conclusions, and shown us how modern day forensics has proved them wrong then I suggest we cannot safely rely on what they said back then as being totally correct.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Debra A]

Hi Tom
At the risk of incurring the wrath of Debs on this topic. I don't think all were murder victims.

Lets face it if you are a killer who kills a woman in her room or in the street. what are you going to do. You are going to simply leave the crime scene and the body as soon as possible for fear of detection. What would be the point of cutting it up and then parceling it up, and running the risk of walking down the road carrying the body parts, and then run the risk of being seen disposing of same.

Two other lines to consider
1. If you were a back street abortionist, and you had a person die on you at your house, then yes you would need to get rid of the body, so cutting it up and parceling it up in nice tidy small parcels and carrying it off to the thames and throwing it in would be ideal.

2. If you were from the medical profession and had acquired a body by lawful means for research. You were required to dispose of the body/parts in proper fashion, but that of course would incur expense, so why not cut the parts up, or the parts already dissected and parcel them up dump them in the thames and save money.

Now I know Debs seeks to rely on the medical evidence, but in the light of what the modern day forensic expert has told us recently when discussing the opinions of Victorian doctors and how they arrived at opinions and conclusions, and shown us how modern day forensics has proved them wrong then I suggest we cannot safely rely on what they said back then as being totally correct.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You never address my specific points though, Trevor.
You are saying killers never dismember and dispose of their victims elsewhere, Trevor?...Oh, hang on, you are saying killers do do that but only when they've done an abortion and killed a person?

When someone acquires a body for medical purposes does it normally come with its own clothing?

[Trevor Marriott]

You never address my specific points though, Trevor.
You are saying killers never dismember and dispose of their victims elsewhere, Trevor?...Oh, hang on, you are saying killers do do that but only when they've done an abortion and killed a person?

When someone acquires a body for medical purposes does it normally come with its own clothing?

I simply quoted two examples which could apply to one or some of these torso murders
I did not expect you to accept them but they cannot be dismissed outright
And I accept you have made some valid points but likewise you also have to accept mine

[Debra A]

I simply quoted two examples which could apply to one or some of these torso murders
I did not expect you to accept them but they cannot be dismissed outright
And I accept you have made some valid points but likewise you also have to accept mine

Trevor, everyone knows this. The next step after proposing a scenario is to find evidence for or against though. You never seem to worry about getting to that step. Just repeating yourself. I'm still unconvinced by your 'anatomist' proposals. When you can explain how an anonymous anatomical specimen gets supplied and dumped with its own clothing and why didn't other doctors recognize any anatomists methods- then that would be interesting.

What I am saying is that definitely two, maybe three of the torso murders (of the four linked by B and H) could not be abortion related. This has all been said before.
I know that you know that murder and dismemberment are not unusual at all, even today.
If you are suggesting there there appears to be nothing that links these four cases, apart from Hebbert and Bond mentioning the method of joint disarticulation was similar if not exactly the same, then I would actually agree.

[Ausgirl]

These women were not important for their prostitution. They made very little and these guys had a bunch of young girls. There appears to be ZERO reason to murder these women. Yet we do know they were murdered. But I'm as much in the dark as to why as anybody.

Tom, sorry for necromancing this post, was just reading through the thread (belated congrats, and please make Deb write books with you, I would totally buy them *cough*torsomurders*cough*) and had a thought..

If they weren't big earners perhaps they were simply expendable, and cost effective as warning not to do (whatever they'd done) -- perhaps something rife among the working girls, withholding monies, getting too drunk to earn, talking to the cops, whatever.

Perhaps a couple of really heinous "lessons" handed out to these few, less lucrative women actually saved the bosses a bunch of money (or trouble. w/e) in the long run.