Same motive = same killer

[jerryd]

Yeah, sure, that´s an understandable reflection - but less so if you work from the presumption that a labourer on the site was the killer. Such a man would not really "get rid of it" by putting it on display on his own job.

If anything, the coroner seems to be playing down how the placement was something that would guarantee paper coverage and a tremendeous hooh-haah...

Hi Christer,

Was it on display, though? The leg was buried, and the torso was in a spot that nobody was finding it. To me to display it, the killer would have put it in a more conspicuous location on the site.

[jerryd]

The other thing we need to explain is the arm found at Pimlico. It wasn't wrapped as a parcel. How far can one travel safely with an unwrapped arm, undetected? Does this tell us anything? The arm was found below a sluice that came from the distillery. Two or three months prior to the discovery of the arm, Frederick Moore, the man who fished the arm out, picked up the dead body of a child near the same spot. Does this mean anything? These are all genuine questions I don't have an answer for, yet.

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer,

Was it on display, though? The leg was buried, and the torso was in a spot that nobody was finding it. To me to display it, the killer would have put it in a more conspicuous location on the site.

That all depends, methinks.

I can see your point, and yes, placing it on the roof of the building would have "displayed" it more.

But taking it down to the very roots may well have something to do with making a point too. Of course, things put in nigh on total darkness can not be said to have been traditionally displayed, but I still think that we may be looking at a very conscious choice of locality, meant to tell us something.

[Fisherman]

The other thing we need to explain is the arm found at Pimlico. It wasn't wrapped as a parcel. How far can one travel safely with an unwrapped arm, undetected? Does this tell us anything? The arm was found below a sluice that came from the distillery. Two or three months prior to the discovery of the arm, Frederick Moore, the man who fished the arm out, picked up the dead body of a child near the same spot. Does this mean anything? These are all genuine questions I don't have an answer for, yet.

The dead child is news to me. Otherwise, I share your inability to find answers. I wish it was not so, but it really is.

[Sam Flynn]

Was it on display, though? The leg was buried, and the torso was in a spot that nobody was finding it. To me to display it, the killer would have put it in a more conspicuous location on the site.

Under cover of darkness, he could have left it in plain sight to be discovered at dawn.

[Joshua Rogan]

The other thing we need to explain is the arm found at Pimlico. It wasn't wrapped as a parcel. How far can one travel safely with an unwrapped arm, undetected? Does this tell us anything?

I'm sure at least one press report says that traces of paper were found under the string around the arm, suggesting it had once been wrapped but the paper had come off in the water.
I don't know if there's any truth to this, though.

[jerryd]

I'm sure at least one press report says that traces of paper were found under the string around the arm, suggesting it had once been wrapped but the paper had come off in the water.
I don't know if there's any truth to this, though.

Thanks Joshua,

I know that Frederick Moore tied a piece of string around the upper part of the arm and also wrapped up the arm in a sheet of newspaper that he was given at the William the Fourth Public House. When he first fished the arm out of the water he said it had a piece of flat string or tape wrapped around the muscle. He mentions no newspaper. Not that it wasn't there but I wonder if the paper spoken of was what he used to wrap the arm?

[Sam Flynn]

How far can one travel safely with an unwrapped arm, undetected? Does this tell us anything?

Probably that something was used to transport the arm - a bag, perhaps... a suitcase... a covered wheelbarrow?

[Harry D]

Some people in this thread act like the Torsos were just an unrelated group of murders, botched abortions etc. that had nothing to do with the Ripper series. Does the fact that these Torsos were contemporaneous with the Ripper murders mean nothing? If not, shouldn't we expect to find bits of bodies dumped in the Thames & surrounding area long after the Ripper murders ended? Why do both series appear to conclude in 1889? It can't be mere coincidence.

[Abby Normal]

Some people in this thread act like the Torsos were just an unrelated group of murders, botched abortions etc. that had nothing to do with the Ripper series. Does the fact that these Torsos were contemporaneous with the Ripper murders mean nothing? If not, shouldn't we expect to find bits of bodies dumped in the Thames & surrounding area long after the Ripper murders ended? Why do both series appear to conclude in 1889? It can't be mere coincidence.

exactly Harry. Ive been saying that for awhile now. I think its actually more telling that they ended about the same time. I mean its enough that they were contemperous, but to end at roughly the same time-within a couple of months of each other?
its another too much of a coincidence for me.

[Sam Flynn]

Does the fact that these Torsos were contemporaneous with the Ripper murders mean nothing?

Given that the torso cases spanned the best part of two decades, it's not too difficult to contemplate that another, totally independent series might have happened in the middle. Perhaps more than one series, come to think of it - who's to say that some of the non-canonical Whitechapel Murders weren't perpetrated by another person apart from JTR? There was a lot of violent death around in late Victorian London.

[Harry D]

exactly Harry. Ive been saying that for awhile now. I think its actually more telling that they ended about the same time. I mean its enough that they were contemperous, but to end at roughly the same time-within a couple of months of each other?
its another too much of a coincidence for me.

Particularly as both murder series had gone quiet for a period of time. All of a sudden we have two Torso cases and another Ripper-like murder within a few months.

The only alternative I can think of is that the Ripper & Torso murderers may have been competing with one another. Elizabeth Jackson's murder forces the Ripper out of "retirement" but his heart's no longer in it, hence the half-assed job done on Alice McKenzie. The Torso Murderer responds by ditching the torso of his next victim in Ripper territory (Pinchin St).

Given that the torso cases spanned the best part of two decades, it's not too difficult to contemplate that another, totally independent series might have happened in the middle. Perhaps more than one series, come to think of it - who's to say that some of the non-canonical Whitechapel Murders weren't perpetrated by another person apart from JTR? There was a lot of violent death around in late Victorian London.

But the bulk of the Torso cases happened at the same time as the Whitechapel murders. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the 'Battersea Mystery' of 1873 is the only outlier here.

[Sam Flynn]

But the bulk of the Torso cases happened at the same time as the Whitechapel murders.

It's the other way around, Harry. The torso murders spanned 16 or so years - lots of things happened during that time, including five non-canonical Ripper murders, and several other non-Ripper, non-Torso London murders too.

[RockySullivan]

Yeah, sure, that´s an understandable reflection - but less so if you work from the presumption that a labourer on the site was the killer. Such a man would not really "get rid of it" by putting it on display on his own job.

If anything, the coroner seems to be playing down how the placement was something that would guarantee paper coverage and a tremendeous hooh-haah...

No Fist, you know what this quote shows? read it again: "Probably the main objective of the person who put the body in the vault was to get rid of it, and not to permanently conceal it, which he must have known to be extremely difficult"

once more?

"not to permanently conceal it, which he must have known to be extremely difficult"


what no bonfire? no anchors?

[RockySullivan]

Thanks, Jerry.
That would have to point to an employee in that case?

I'm quite suspicious of the two workers who were there on their day off. However, I do feel that the Whitehall was vault was chosen because of it's proximity to the embankment.