The Thames Torso Murders questions

[praline]

Evening everyone! I have been studying the Thames Torso murders and am unsure why they were discounted as JTR? I understand the dismemberment being with the torso murders and JTR didn't dismember in Whitechaple. Was this the only reason they were crossed off of the list of possible JTR victims? Has anyone done a dissertation explaining the finer points of discounting these murders as JTR?

I have a hard time believing there were 2 serial killers with overlapping territories who were not copy cats being in the same place time frame wise. I am sure in the past 100 years I am not the only one to think this I was looking for some good opinions and dissertations on the subject. Thanks

[Wickerman]

Evening everyone! I have been studying the Thames Torso murders and am unsure why they were discounted as JTR?..

You're not the only one..

Has anyone done a dissertation explaining the finer points of discounting these murders as JTR?

Enjoy!

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/thames-torso-murders.html

http://www.casebook.org/victims/whitehal.html

http://www.casebook.org/victims/pinchin.html

There has been others, I just can't locate them this minute..

I have a hard time believing there were 2 serial killers with overlapping territories who were not copy cats being in the same place time frame wise.

Even among the Whitechapel Murders there could have been 3 or 4 killers involved, Torso may have been extra, another 2 or 3?
No-one is convinced that all the Torso murders were by the same individual either, they have not really been studied in any depth......good luck!

Regards, Jon S.

[sdreid]

It is unusual for a murderer to kill some and dismember sometimes but not dismember other times but it has happened - with William Heirens for instance - that is if you think he's guilty.

[praline]

Thank you Wickerman! I am still a bit inept with the search engine on this site. I have been able to cross reference people with that great Wiki but some things such as papers written comparing the murders of the torso killer and JTR were hard for me to find. I am off to read!

[praline]

Hi again I swear I am going to drive you guys insane with questions

At this link (which is the one I am currently reading)
http://www.casebook.org/official_doc...whitehall.html

The date the torso was found isn't very clear to me. I know casebook has the victim date of 3 oct 1888. News articles publish it as 2 oct 1888. I know the date of the inquest is 8oct 1888.

The arm was found after the torso if I am reading correctly but then Moore and Williams both say they found the arm on Sept 11.

If this is correct that would mean the torso was found before Sept 11? Bond testifies the woman had been dead 6-8 weeks. I am trying to establish a VERY general idea of date of death for this poor woman.

Has anyone found out why the discrepancies with the dates or are Moore and Williams both mistaken? Maybe I am understanding it incorrectly?

[Mitch Rowe]

Unless Police knew with 100% certainty who committed any of the other murders its quite a stretch to say JTR did not commit them!
I personally think that the victims and suspects mentioned by Macnaghten were put forth because it was better than telling your superiors we have no clue at the risk of being thought of as useless and lazy. At least concerning the suspects I dont believe Police really thought they were all that viable. That probably explains why they didnt have their facts straight. They didnt bother to investigate the suspects further because they werent that good to begin with. They were put forth as a sort of starter list based on theory and not fact.

[Rob Clack]

There's at least two books on the Thames Torso Murders.

'The Thames Torso Murders' by M J Trow and
'The Thames Torso Murders of Victorian London' by R Michael Gordon.

There was also a chapter on them in 'Great Thames Mysteries' by Elliott O'Donnell which is a bit hard to find and when you do it's not cheap.

Rob

[Phil H]

Mei Trow's book on the torso Murders arrived from Amazon yesterday, and i spent last night perusing it.

I'll admit that I know very little about these murders, other than what I have picked up en passant (Pinchen St etc). This book fleshes out the facts and the context and it is clear - to me at least - that studying the JtR case separately from the Torso killings is potentially like putting on a production of Hamlet and excluding the prince.

My only problem with Mr Trow's book is that his conclusions in the previous one on JtR were so strange that I am unsure whether I can now trust his judgement. Nevertheless, I will trust him factually until/unless I am persuaded otherwise.

Among the JtR-related questions that arise for me, are:

a) we surely have here PROOF that at least two serial killers were at work in London during the late 1880s, thus other hands could at least notionally have been responsible for some of the Whitechapel crimes;

b) very much tongue-in-cheek - could MJK have been killed by someone seeking to emulate the Torso killer rather than JtR? but with less expertise;

c) could "Jack" have been an accomplice assistant of the Torso killer? It is often asserted (with some sense, I believe) that "Jack" needed to have honed his skills before Polly Nichols' murder - could he have done this by helping with the Toso killings without being the actual murderer?

d) there is a reference to rumours among hop-pickers about the identity of the killer - could this be something Eddowes picked up while in Kent (she is reputed to have said she knew who "Jack "was - but could she have meant the Torso killer?);

e) Trow points a finger at a horse-slaughterer as a potential "type" of the torso killer - then relates this to cats' meat salesmen. He links that possibility to Mrs Hardiman's shop at the front of 29 Hanbury St.

Now I have often pondered whether "Jack" was familiar with arrangements (access, people's movements) at, and the layout of the passage and yard at No 29 - it would explain his readiness to enter what might have proved a fatal cul-de-sac. So a link via young hardiman might be of interest.

f) Mei trow points out that if a horse-slaughterer was the Trso killer, then there were slaughter-houses (linked to ones in battersea, where body parts were found) in Winthrop St (adjacent to the site of Nichols' death. Is there a potential link here - either as a place for "Jack" to hide if disturbed by Cross/Lechmere, or to work before finding Nichols staggering along?

g) why was one torso (Pinchen St) put where it was - close to Berner St and the location of the Stride killing - thinks links the two (apparently) separate murder groups (Ripper and Torso) but was it a deliberate taunt, an acknowledgement or what?

These are just my initial musings, as I read the book in detail more may flow.

I recommend the book, which is slightly confusing (at first read) in arrangement, and choice of illustrations, but engaging and easy to read.

I would welcome the views of other casebook posters on my thoughts above.

Phil

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi all,

I have both books on the subject and prefer R Michael Gordon's. The full authoritative book on the Thames murders has yet to be written. What strikes me the most curious about the Thames murders are th following features:

1) It was not always obvious how the women were murdered, but they seem to have been dispatched quite quickly and cleanly.

2) Much effort was made in dismembering the corpses and scattering the remains.

3) Their heads were never found and only one was identified.

It seems that far more energy was put into the dismembering of the corpse and distribution of the body parts than was put into the murder itself, suggesting the possibility these women were killed for a practical purpose and not out of the lust of a serial killer that we see in similar crime series.

I personally am not at all convinced that the torso murders of the early 1870s were related to the ones from the late 1880s/early 1890's.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

The full authoritative book on the Thames murders has yet to be written.

Incidentally, there is a new book in preparation by 2 great Ripperologists, but I'd rather go through the Spanish Inquisition than mention further details.

It seems that far more energy was put into the dismembering of the corpse and distribution of the body parts than was put into the murder itself, suggesting the possibility these women were killed for a practical purpose and not out of the lust of a serial killer that we see in similar crime series.

Interesting, I've always thought so myself.

[ChrisGeorge]

Mei Trow's book on the torso Murders arrived from Amazon yesterday, and i spent last night perusing it. . . .

Among the JtR-related questions that arise for me, are:

a) we surely have here PROOF that at least two serial killers were at work in London during the late 1880s, thus other hands could at least notionally have been responsible for some of the Whitechapel crimes;

I think the torso killer and the Ripper were different men, certainly.

b) very much tongue-in-cheek - could MJK have been killed by someone seeking to emulate the Torso killer rather than JtR? but with less expertise;

Possibly although the deep neck cut and the removal of organs would argue that the canonical murders were done by the same hand, including MJK.

c) could "Jack" have been an accomplice assistant of the Torso killer? It is often asserted (with some sense, I believe) that "Jack" needed to have honed his skills before Polly Nichols' murder - could he have done this by helping with the Toso killings without being the actual murderer?

Seems a bit too fanciful. My hunch is that it was two lone killers. The torso killer probably had a cart to haul the body parts around.

d) there is a reference to rumours among hop-pickers about the identity of the killer - could this be something Eddowes picked up while in Kent (she is reputed to have said she knew who "Jack "was - but could she have meant the Torso killer?);

Possible.

e) Trow points a finger at a horse-slaughterer as a potential "type" of the torso killer - then relates this to cats' meat salesmen. He links that possibility to Mrs Hardiman's shop at the front of 29 Hanbury St.

Unfortunately the cat's meat man or the horse-slaughterer is just a type much like Mei Trow's advocacy of Robert Mann, so I am not sure that the theory has much going for it. But the cat's meat man, advocated by Rob Hills, would have had a cart, wouldn't he. Hmmmmm.

Now I have often pondered whether "Jack" was familiar with arrangements (access, people's movements) at, and the layout of the passage and yard at No 29 - it would explain his readiness to enter what might have proved a fatal cul-de-sac. So a link via young hardiman might be of interest.

Yes, conceivable.

f) Mei trow points out that if a horse-slaughterer was the Trso killer, then there were slaughter-houses (linked to ones in battersea, where body parts were found) in Winthrop St (adjacent to the site of Nichols' death. Is there a potential link here - either as a place for "Jack" to hide if disturbed by Cross/Lechmere, or to work before finding Nichols staggering along?

There were slaughterers all over the place in working class areas of London and in the countryside.

g) why was one torso (Pinchen St) put where it was - close to Berner St and the location of the Stride killing - thinks links the two (apparently) separate murder groups (Ripper and Torso) but was it a deliberate taunt, an acknowledgement or what?

There might be something to this because it would appear that the Whitehall Torso, placing a body part in the unfinished cellar of New Scotland Yard, was a definite dig at the police. So to dump a torso near the site of the Stride murder around a year later might have had some significance to the killer. Or else it could have been mere coincidence.

Chris



Norman Shaw Building, New Scotland Yard, Victoria Embankment, London, 1890

[sdreid]

e) Trow points a finger at a horse-slaughterer as a potential "type" of the torso killer - then relates this to cats' meat salesmen. He links that possibility to Mrs Hardiman's shop at the front of 29 Hanbury St.

Now I have often pondered whether "Jack" was familiar with arrangements (access, people's movements) at, and the layout of the passage and yard at No 29 - it would explain his readiness to enter what might have proved a fatal cul-de-sac. So a link via young hardiman might be of interest.

Hmmm - Let me think.

[Tom_Wescott]

g) why was one torso (Pinchen St) put where it was - close to Berner St and the location of the Stride killing - thinks links the two (apparently) separate murder groups (Ripper and Torso) but was it a deliberate taunt, an acknowledgement or what?

A little fact you won't see in the two books is that the word 'Lipski' was written above the Pinchin Street torso. The pragmatics of Ripperology will tell you this was a coincidence, like the Goulston Street graffito or double event murders. I'm not sure I an accept that literally everything in this series of murders was one coincidence after another.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Phil Carter]

A little fact you won't see in the two books is that the word 'Lipski' was written above the Pinchin Street torso. The pragmatics of Ripperology will tell you this was a coincidence, like the Goulston Street graffito or double event murders. I'm not sure I an accept that literally everything in this series of murders was one coincidence after another.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hello Tom,

Hold on to your hat, sit down..take a deep breath... you do realise that you are walking down the line I and others believe?.. Careful Tom, you'll be labelled one who dabbles near conspiratorialism next. Hahaha!

Seriously, there ARE too many things in Ripperology called, individually, coincidental. It simply cannot ALL be coincidence, no..I agree.

best wishes

Phil

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Phil C,

I've never understood the willingness of so many to write off so much as mere coincidence. Perhaps this makes it easier for them to meet their need of fitting the Ripper in with the profiles of serial killers establishd a hundred years later. The problem is, such comparisons are never satisfying, no matter how you twist the facts. If we were all honest with ourselves, we'd have to admit part of the appeal of this mystery is that there was something unique going on. Some dynamic that sets the Ripper murders apart from every crime series before and after.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott