Same motive = same killer

[Abby Normal]

There is a common factor in all the torso cases from 1873 to 1889 minus the Pinchin Torso. Dr. Bond. He attended all the cases except the Pinchin torso. At least I haven't seen mention of his direct involvement in that case. According to information from a poster on here named Elmore77, Dr. Bond had left for his annual hunt on September 10th, 1889 and may be the reason he did not attend?

Here is an interesting newsclipping from the 1873 torso case posted a few years ago here on Casebook by Archaic. I am only posting a portion of his article. (The bold is mine) It reminded me of the "Frankenstein" theory.

On the advice of the Acting Chief Surgeon, Metropolitan Police, Dr. Bond, the corpse was "built up" by sewing together the parts. The face was more of a challenge, as the nose and chin had been cut off, and the head had been scalped. The skin on the face of the victim was fitted "as naturally as possible" over a butcher's block. Even though this early attempt at forensic reconstruction was carried out with "ingenuity and skill," the body would only be recognizable by those "intimately acquainted with the physical characteristics of the deceased."

are you suggesting Dr, Bond was the Torsoripper?

[jerryd]

are you suggesting Dr, Bond was the Torsoripper?

Bond was never on my list. I found Elmore's theory interesting, though, and he is suggesting it as a possibility.

[Abby Normal]

are you suggesting Dr, Bond was the Torsoripper?

now I'm thinking Dr Bond may have been pierres suspect-wealthy, part of police, connected to the case, traveled.

pierre also thought some of the torsos were the work of the ripper, and that the police were hiding that they knew who it was, because it was such a devastating thing to the reputation of not only the police but to all of England.

[jerryd]

now I'm thinking Dr Bond may have been pierres suspect-wealthy, part of police, connected to the case, traveled.

pierre also thought some of the torsos were the work of the ripper, and that the police were hiding that they knew who it was, because it was such a devastating thing to the reputation of not only the police but to all of England.

Could be. Maybe Elmore is Pierre?

[Fisherman]

Not commenting much on this thread at moment because I see few facts to comment on.
It's mainly opinion.

Steve

Well, if you feel like abstaining from commenting on material that is mostly speculation based on what little facts there are, then you may need to look for another hobby...

[Fisherman]

Not all of them were found, and not all of them were found at once. Even where this was not the case, distributing the parts in multiple locations, and/or dropping them into a fast-flowing river, was almost certainly intended to make them more difficult to find and piece together.

No, Gareth, there is no "almost certainly" involved in your suggestion. I think you will find that most people believe that it is a near certainty that the killer was looking for recognition of his work in some way, and that the dumping processes he used had that aim. Like, for instance, Mei Trow, who likely voices the common opinion on this score.

You are beginning to sound like Ben used to do.

[Fisherman]

Owner-occupancy was very much lower in the 19th Century, and there was much less privacy overall. Although Nilsen lived in rented accommodation whilst at Cricklewood, he had easy and exclusive access to the back garden.

But he didnīt burn the bodies in his back garden, Gareth. He burnt them on common ground bordering on his lodgings.
And the idea that there were no bonfires in 1888 is of course totally bonkers. And when there are bonfires, you can burn anything you wish to on them, as long as nobody sees you doing so.

Letīs not try and be too clever here, shall we?

[Fisherman]

I don't mean "hiding", Abby, just making the individual bits more difficult to find in one go, which is what transpired.

So why not hide the parts? Any thoughts?

[Elamarna]

Well, if you feel like abstaining from commenting on material that is mostly speculation based on what little facts there are, then you may need to look for another hobby...

Hi Christer,
I corrected that a few posts later to "new facts".
Without new info we are just going over the very same arguments and few people's views are shifting at present.

Steve

[Fisherman]

The sketch of the vault is included in Rob's article.

http://www.ripperologist.biz/pdf/ripperologist133.pdf

Thanks for that, Jerry. I was hoping, though, for more of a total view of the whereabouts of the vault in the whole structure, and the potential difficulties involved in getting there.

[Elamarna]

now I'm thinking Dr Bond may have been pierres suspect-wealthy, part of police, connected to the case, traveled.

pierre also thought some of the torsos were the work of the ripper, and that the police were hiding that they knew who it was, because it was such a devastating thing to the reputation of not only the police but to all of England.

Hi Abbey

It fits In parts, however it fails in others, place of death, where he was based to mention but two. I did consider him as Pierre's suspect at one point but discarded him very swiftly.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Fish, could Lechmere have done so in his backyard?

Nilsen did not burn the bodies in his backyard, but instead on common ground in direct proximity to his lodgings. I absolutely fail to see why Lechmere or anybody else could not have made a bonfire, and fed it with whatever they chose to. Either in his backyard or somewhere else.

The notion that it would be impossible is totally untenable. It would carry risks, but so would any discarding of body parts. Itīs anybodys choice, but burning bodies is an age-old method, employed in every civilization throughout history.

[Fisherman]

If the pieces were dumped at the same time, than it sounds like the idea was to let the river disperse the parts. So anchoring them down would not be constructive

If they disappered from view, how would it NOT be constructive?

[Fisherman]

Abby Normal: Fiiiiiishy??
you havnt responded to this yet. Am I getting warmer?

Winterīs coming, Abby...

did he want to use the parts he disjointed for something?

In 1873? No.

do we have a Frankenstein like thing going on here?

You know-Shelley estate thigh and all that???

No.

[Fisherman]

Abby,

In addition to what you have said here, the victims were cut up very close to their deaths according to the doctors. The Whitehall victim's arm seems to have been discarded very soon after death. Her torso, however, found in the vault, showed signs of the use of Condy's fluid which masks smell and is a preservant. The killer could have used quick lime instead, which would have made the body decay faster and reduce it to bone quicker, but he didn't. He must have stored the torso at his bolthole for some period of time before depositing it in the vault. I think he was waiting for the right time to get her body in there. Whether or not that was days, or weeks, I don't know. Dr. Bond seems to think she was in there since mid to late August. The examination of the arm by Dr. Neville and six witnesses working at the site throw doubt (for me anyways) onto Bond's conclusion.

He KEPT the torso, but DISCARDED the arms. Abby just asked me if the disjointed limbs from the 1873 torso were meant for some purpose, and I answered in the negative. The same thing applies here - he acted so as to enable him to keep the torso in the longest, but had no interest in the arms.

Tallies quite well with 1873, for my money.