Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Charles Lechmere and the Pinchin Street torso

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Jennifer Shelden View Post
    What is an alternative plausible hypothesis?

    Back steet abortionists

    Bodies obtained from post mortem rooms as per anatomy act when this happened the obtainees were resposible for the disposal of the body after use. That entailed a significnat cost. Why pay out when you can dispose of it and the parts in the thames for nothing.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
      Dr Bond hit the nail on the head witj Jackson in the first instance when he indicated she had died as a result of failed medical procedure (abortion)
      The mention of abortion was made before Bond had performed the post mortem based on the contents of the first parcel found as I described. His final conclusion was that there was no evidence of an attempt at abortion.

      Comment


      • #33
        The Pinchin St torso still had the uterus and appendages intact so it was simple to establish no pregnancy. The Rainham torso also had her uterus still in place and she was not pregnant, it was also mentioned that she may not have been able to conceive. Elizabeth Jackson's foetus was removed from her uterus after her death. The only one that cannot be ruled out of death due to abortion is the Whitehall torso as her uterus was missing.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

          Bodies obtained from post mortem rooms as per anatomy act when this happened the obtainees were resposible for the disposal of the body after use. That entailed a significnat cost. Why pay out when you can dispose of it and the parts in the thames for nothing.
          And Hebbert again rules this out by telling us that there was no dissecting room preparation such as blood vessels injected with fluid and preservation by antiseptics.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post
            The facts do speak for themselves, yes. The fact is trained medical men who were there and did the autopsies fully investigated the abortion angle in all cases and concluded it could not be so in the case of Jackson, Pinchin or the Rainham torso, for differing reasons.

            We've been through the death through abortion angle many times on these boards, it would work as a theory only if the abortionist had first administered Jackson with poison that killed her immediately. Any other scenario does not fit with the evidence shown by the post mortem examination of the internal and external organs of generation. There was no sign of instrument use and no damage to any part of the vagina or cervix.

            The majority of women who died though having abortions died many days, sometimes weeks later and normally from septicaemia. I have read loads on the subject.
            But how many died from blood loss during a procedure or other complications did you read up on that ?

            Notice most of the heads never came to light do you not think that strange. Could that be because the bodies had been acquired from a mortuary and by leaving the head, the body might be traced back to whoever acquired it.

            Why would a killer go to those lengths to hide the head ?

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
              But how many died from blood loss during a procedure or other complications did you read up on that ?
              What procedure would cause blood loss?

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                But how many died from blood loss during a procedure or other complications did you read up on that ?

                Notice most of the heads never came to light do you not think that strange. Could that be because the bodies had been acquired from a mortuary and by leaving the head, the body might be traced back to whoever acquired it.

                Why would a killer go to those lengths to hide the head ?
                There was a recent case where the head of a 120+year old solved Thames torso case was found in ground that used to be the victims own garden.
                http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...er-victim.html

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post
                  What procedure would cause blood loss?
                  I am not a doctor but any operation where an unskilled person might sever main arteries or blood vessels and where they were ill equipped and lacking in knowledge to be able stem the blood flow.

                  These women could have gone for abortions and died on the table before those procedures took place.

                  I also note that with Jackson it was suggested that a piece of fine linen had been inserted into the anus. I beleive this could suggest that the victim had been in a mortuary as that process sometime occurs as part of the mortuary process or equally if she had been operated on inserted inside to prevent any accidents.

                  You put to much faith in your doctors. The same doctors who failed to notice whether or not the organs from Chapman and Eddowes had been removed at the crime scenes.

                  The same Dr Bond who makes no mention of the missing organs of any of the victims in his report to Anderson. The same Dr Bond who apparenty suggested that Jackson had been subjected to an illegal operation then changes his mind in mid stream.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post
                    There was a recent case where the head of a 120+year old solved Thames torso case was found in ground that used to be the victims own garden.
                    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...er-victim.html
                    no comparison to what we are discussing you are citing a case where the victim and the killer are known and were known to each other what is commonly called a domestic murder.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                      no comparison to what we are discussing you are citing a case where the victim and the killer are known and were known to each other what is commonly called a domestic murder.
                      And you know for sure that these victims didn't know their killer?

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post
                        And Hebbert again rules this out by telling us that there was no dissecting room preparation such as blood vessels injected with fluid and preservation by antiseptics.
                        Now i dont know if all deaths in 1888 resulted in post mortems. In this day and age it is not the case so if the cause of death were known there would be no need for those procedures you seek to rely on.

                        Besides why would they need to inject and preserve in all cases. A person dies on Monday the post mortem is carried out the same day or the following day. Following this the body is disposed of one way or the other. Why the need to inject and preserve

                        Besides the Pall Mall Gazette article states that bodies and body parts could be obtained 12 hours after death from the mortuary room.

                        So Debs after all this arguing we are no further forward in coming to a conclusive ending to this argument.

                        I have stated the two other plausible explantions for these suspicious deaths. YOu wil stick to your murders and I will stick to my plausible explantions.I have nothing further to say on this topic.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                          I am not a doctor but any operation where an unskilled person might sever main arteries or blood vessels and where they were ill equipped and lacking in knowledge to be able stem the blood flow.
                          This is exactly what was looked for at autopsy, damage to the vagina, cervix, uterus etc. caused by instrument use. Everything was normal. You do know abortion is never effected through abdominal incision don't you? The uterus was accessed through the vagina and cervix by abortionists and violence then inflicted with instruments.

                          These women could have gone for abortions and died on the table before those procedures took place.
                          As I said, of the four we are discussing-the uterus was present in 3 of the 4 cases and two were definitely not pregnant.Jackson was 7 to 8 months pregnant and the Whitehall torso's uterus was missing.

                          I also note that with Jackson it was suggested that a piece of fine linen had been inserted into the anus. I beleive this could suggest that the victim had been in a mortuary as that process sometime occurs as part of the mortuary process or equally if she had been operated on inserted inside to prevent any accidents.
                          I discovered this mentioned in the papers, yes. We've also discussed this at length on the boards when I found the articles originally. A variety of suggestions were made and medical procedure was among them..so was relief for pregnancy piles.

                          You put to much faith in your doctors. The same doctors who failed to notice whether or not the organs from Chapman and Eddowes had been removed at the crime scenes.
                          Eh?

                          The same Dr Bond who makes no mention of the missing organs of any of the victims in his report to Anderson. The same Dr Bond who apparenty suggested that Jackson had been subjected to an illegal operation then changes his mind in mid stream.
                          What have him not mentioning missing organs got to do with anything? I'd have thought you'd like that anyway as it might mean he didn't think any were missing! The poor guy can't win with you.

                          And once again-an official conclusion was given by Bond after the post mortem that there was no evidence of abortion being attempted.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post
                            And you know for sure that these victims didn't know their killer?
                            Well if it were the same killer who knew all of them he didnt killl and cut them up outside and dispose of the parts all in one go. So that in itself poses a risk to such a person.

                            Are you not forgetting all the other similar bodies and body parts found in the thames over these years. Surely one killer did not kill and disect them all.ide

                            A killer would only kill and do this for a reason

                            1. To hide and unlawful act i.e abortion.
                            2. To hide the identity of the victim
                            3. To prevent the victim being linked to him or his address

                            If you kill someone why cut the body up in these specific ways surely if you simply want to dispose of the body you cut the head off cut the arms and the legs off and get rid. YOu dont go to the length of this full blown disection. It takes time and gives you more parts to get rid off.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                              Now i dont know if all deaths in 1888 resulted in post mortems. In this day and age it is not the case so if the cause of death were known there would be no need for those procedures you seek to rely on.

                              Besides why would they need to inject and preserve in all cases. A person dies on Monday the post mortem is carried out the same day or the following day. Following this the body is disposed of one way or the other. Why the need to inject and preserve

                              Besides the Pall Mall Gazette article states that bodies and body parts could be obtained 12 hours after death from the mortuary room.

                              So Debs after all this arguing we are no further forward in coming to a conclusive ending to this argument.

                              I have stated the two other plausible explantions for these suspicious deaths. YOu wil stick to your murders and I will stick to my plausible explantions.I have nothing further to say on this topic.
                              See you in 6 months then when you try the same old arguments that don't fit the evidence again. Night.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                                A killer would only kill and do this for a reason

                                1. To hide and unlawful act i.e abortion.
                                murder is also an unlawful act.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X