The Thames Torso Murders questions

[Trevor Marriott]

Thanks Phil, I guess they are still working on it but the location and lone finding of a skull adds a bit of weight?!

In linking the torso murders I'm more inlined to believe that where body parts had been boiled, burnt etc. there was some part of the murderer that wanted to get rid by any means but as a last resort dumped the parts, after exploring all other means of disposal?

Between 1887 and 1889 we have four dismembered corpses, ( with organs missing...is this dissection?) a glut compared to previous years, and all dumped within hours of death without a thought about disposal by other means.All dismembered by a sharp knife and fine toothed saw too, something not apparent in previous murders.

If you are a murderer and have just killled a woman and you want to dispose of the body, so you cut it up with a view to disposing of it in the thames why are you going to remove the organs first ?

[Raoul's Obsession]

I've just been rereading the inquest testimony for the pinchin st case, and a number of things strike me.

First of all, the body was reported to have been dead for at least 24 hours (though possibly longer), however wasn't brought to that spot until just shortly before discovery. Both the policeman who found it and the sailers in nearby arches testified that in their opinion it had not been there when they went by, which in the policeman's case was a mere 30 minutes before. Now certainly then other men were drunk and could have missed it, but on the whole I'm inclined to think they didn't. Further to this the constable stated that there was a nearby light which illuminated the area which was why he noticed it (not the smell - though this he noticed later).

So, once more, we have a murderer (and I'm inclined to think it was a murder) out on the streets of whitechapple in the early hours of the morning. May I suggest that a possible reason for dismemberment was for transportation. A whole body is a heavy and large thing and not easily transported. In fact, I still don't know that a legless, headless torso is much better. So, this leaves us with someone using a cart or a barrow in the early hours of the morning. But then, if you have a cart, why bother cutting up the victim? Many questions.

[Debra A]

If you are a murderer and have just killled a woman and you want to dispose of the body, so you cut it up with a view to disposing of it in the thames why are you going to remove the organs first ?

Perhaps they weren't removed for any specific purpose other than to aid dismemberment? Or removal of organs happened as a consequence of trying to make the body pieces as small and manageable as possible? The torsos of the majority of these women (1887-89) were cut into at least two sections, they didn't just have their limbs removed.

[Raoul's Obsession]

A couple more thoughts on the issue of why they were cut up and why they were put where they were.

I'd certainly go along with suggestion that there is a degree of 'show' involved in the 'presentation' of these bodies. If you want to avoid someone being identified, it seems logical that in an age before DNA testing that you avoid getting rid of the head. Other than this, about the only thing that is going to identify someone would be things like scars and birth marks. So then ask yourself - why cut off an arm and throw it over a wall? A limb on it's own is unlikely to identify anyone and if it had any features, I'm sure these would have been noted. Or for that matter, why cut off limbs and leave them with the trunk in the same vault? If you are removing limbs to avoid identification, don't leave them in the same place you leave the rest of it. These actions make no sense from the point of view of identification. But they do make sense if you take the viewpoint that they were for 'show'. I suspect the New Scotland Yard torso was an attempt at saying "see I can put it right under your noses and you still can't catch me!". That said, I think they must have also aided transportation. I suspect you can't get a cart into the vaults of New Scotland Yard, so short of dismemberment you would have to carry an entire body to where you want it - not an easy task. I suspect also that throwing away a limb at a time is much less likely to look suspicious than if you dumped an entire body. As for the removal of organs and the cut to the abdomen (pinchin st) - maybe our Jack was the man?

[Abby Normal]

A couple more thoughts on the issue of why they were cut up and why they were put where they were.

I'd certainly go along with suggestion that there is a degree of 'show' involved in the 'presentation' of these bodies. If you want to avoid someone being identified, it seems logical that in an age before DNA testing that you avoid getting rid of the head. Other than this, about the only thing that is going to identify someone would be things like scars and birth marks. So then ask yourself - why cut off an arm and throw it over a wall? A limb on it's own is unlikely to identify anyone and if it had any features, I'm sure these would have been noted. Or for that matter, why cut off limbs and leave them with the trunk in the same vault? If you are removing limbs to avoid identification, don't leave them in the same place you leave the rest of it. These actions make no sense from the point of view of identification. But they do make sense if you take the viewpoint that they were for 'show'. I suspect the New Scotland Yard torso was an attempt at saying "see I can put it right under your noses and you still can't catch me!". That said, I think they must have also aided transportation. I suspect you can't get a cart into the vaults of New Scotland Yard, so short of dismemberment you would have to carry an entire body to where you want it - not an easy task. I suspect also that throwing away a limb at a time is much less likely to look suspicious than if you dumped an entire body. As for the removal of organs and the cut to the abdomen (pinchin st) - maybe our Jack was the man?

Hi RO
I have often posited it that Jack was the man for the Torso murders also. As in, The torso murders were victims he took pack to his place and killed there.

[Sally]

I have often posited it that Jack was the man for the Torso murders also. As in, The torso murders were victims he took pack to his place and killed there.

I have wondered about this as well. One consequence of distributing parcelled up body parts about is that there is effectively no murder scene to discoveor. If the torso victims were by the hand of one killer, it seems most likely that they were killed in a place of his choosing - a private space from which he could dismember them and dispose of the body parts without notice. Apparently it was quite common to carry a parcel or two in the course of every day business - would anybody have really noticed a man with a well-wrapped parcel?

[Abby Normal]

I have wondered about this as well. One consequence of distributing parcelled up body parts about is that there is effectively no murder scene to discoveor. If the torso victims were by the hand of one killer, it seems most likely that they were killed in a place of his choosing - a private space from which he could dismember them and dispose of the body parts without notice. Apparently it was quite common to carry a parcel or two in the course of every day business - would anybody have really noticed a man with a well-wrapped parcel?

Hi Sally
I agree. Someone brazen enough to deposit a murdered victims remains in the basement of the new Scotland Yard is brazen enough to pull off the double event. Both the torso murders and JtR display a certain amount of thumbing ones nose at the police.

[HelenaWojtczak]

Some news on the Barnes Mystery

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/attenborough-skull-mystery-finally-solved-2307530.html

[John Wheat]

Profiling The Torso Killer

Does anyone out there know of any psychological profiles of the Torso Killer? If not what would be the psychological make up of the Torso Killer?

[Debra A]

Anatomy act as an excuse?

The Lancet 1873

[Phil H]

I've been thinking quite a lot about the possible links between the Torso Murderer and JtR since reading Mei Trow's book.

I have concluded that ,on the evidence I have seen, the two killers were entirely separate. The presence of the Pinchen St torso in "Jack's" territory is, to me, explicable by other means.

a) The nature of the crimes and the disposal of the bodies seems utterly different to me.

b) A "Jack" capable of leaving a body part off Whitehall, would have been likely to find victims elsewhere than in the backstreets of Whitechapel and Spitalfields. If he can dispose of body parts as the Torso Murderer did, why restrict himself in regard to other victims?

c) The Torso Murderer clearly had a "secure" place where he could cut up his victims' bodies - equally clearly "Jack" did not (at least until MJK, IF he killed her). Jack left the bodies as the were after he had completed his "work", the Torso killer took them apart and distributed the parts in various places. I assume "Jack" either did not care once he was finished, or relished the element of "display".

d) I don't see one killer as alternating his practices as one would have to assume if one man were responsible for both sets of murders.

That said, I do think the two men were aware of each other's exostence and work - at least the Tosro Murderer was aware of "Jack" (the reverse may not have been true). I think this explains why the Torso Man left the torso in Pinchen St - he was effectively saying "I can come on your territory "Jack"!". It may ave been a taunt, a challenge or an attempt to gain some of the publicity attained by JtR.

It is also possible that the two men knew each other and that "Jack" might have assisted the Torso killer, even been motivated or inspired by the former's work. I am attracted to Mei Trow's (albeit unproven) suggestion that a slaughter house producing cat's meat, might have been cover for the disection of the bodies and a barrow used to distribute the cat food, could have been used to carry body parts. A link to No 29 Hanbury St (with its cat meat shop) which I think "Jack" may have been familiar with, would open some interesting possibilities.

Phil

[Nemo]

Hi Phil

Some of the locations of the body parts implied to me that they had been dumped from a boat, and that a ship would be a good place for the dissection to have occurred

Regards

Nemo

[Phil H]

Not a bad idea, Nemo - the Thames then, in contrast to today, would have been chock full of barges, lighters, etc as well as the sort of launch Holmes hires in "Sign of Four". The Port of London was then a major international entrepot, so that too would have generated a huge amount of traffic - ships and boats of all sizes.

But I think one would have to look at something smaller that could navigate up to Hammersmith and beyond.

Interesting thought that occured to me as I typed - Druitt committed suicide in the river and at Hammersmith. [I refuse to take the inference any further.... ]

Phil

[RockySullivan]

Were there any ever dismembered male victims in the torso killers era? It also seems like it would be difficult to sneak down into the new Scotland Yard cellar carrying half a body. I think it was someone who had access to cellar. Since tools were kept down there and that seems to be the reason workers ventured down to the cellar, there's a good chance whoever put the torso there has a connection to the tools in the basement.