Same motive = same killer

[Abby Normal]

Christer,

First off, thanks for the kind words. Just to address a couple of points you make here, though.

"...but until anything a bit more substantial than relatively close possible distances between people and dumping places surfaces, to me, the sound of the alarm clock is only a faint one..."

Frederick Wildbore (similar to Lechmere) was the man that found the torso. My ideas on him are not only about locations, although they play a big part in this I think you would agree. In the four linked torso cases (1887-1889) one must ask some very important questions. i.e Why did they start/end when they did? In the Rainham case, why were some parts deposited near Battersea and then others up north in Regents Canal? Then you look at who may have had opportunity during those years and where did they live and work. I admit that Lechmere fits a lot of these criteria. With the exception of the access to the Whitehall vault in which Wildbore not only worked there during the relevant time but he also admitted he had no trouble getting to the vault.

In summary, the murder series began in May 1887. Construction of New Scotland yard began in 1887. The series ended in September of 1889. Construction of New Scotland Yard ended 1890. Wildbore lived at a location that his possible route to work took him by major known body part finds. His employer's office was located on the Regents Canal slightly downriver from the finding of the limbs from the Rainham torso. Wildbore was in the vault doing work the week before the discovery. He kept his tools in that same vault rather than the safer storage locker. He saw the package previously before he called attention to it a day later. Nobody else seems to have seen the package there even though they were in the very spot with light.

So, I think there is more to Wildbore than just being relatively close to locations. I didn't mean to turn this into a Wildbore thread. Just wanted to address what you said. Great thread by the way!

Hi Jerry
Yes it is a great thread and great work on Wildbore. Do we know whatever became of him say after fall 1889?

[jerryd]

Hi Jerry
Yes it is a great thread and great work on Wildbore. Do we know whatever became of him say after fall 1889?

Hi Abby,

He seems to have stayed at the Clapham Junction address for many years after. If I have the right guy in the death record I found, and I'm not positive I do, he died age 79 in Chelsea. It appears in one census, IIRC 1901, he was a private carpenter at a residence.

[Fisherman]

While I am at it, Gareth, since you tried to make a case for how it is likely that the torso killer lived in the west, it bears mentioning that the only torso that seems to have been carried from a nearby residence is the Pinchin Street torso, wherefore the indications are that the killer travelled to the west to do his dumpoing, but lived in the east.

And yes, I know that you make a case for the Pinchin Street torso being a case all on it´s own. Then again, Phillips was fascinated by the very similar cutting done to the torso as compared to the Kelly killing.

Maybe Ma Lechmere killed them both? And somebody else, anybody but Charles Lechmere, did the rest?

[Sam Flynn]

67lb according to the autopsy. Which is 4 3/4 stone, or 30kg

Thanks, Josh. Not a bad guess on my part, albeit short by 5kg.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

He seems to have stayed at the Clapham Junction address for many years after. If I have the right guy in the death record I found, and I'm not positive I do, he died age 79 in Chelsea. It appears in one census, IIRC 1901, he was a private carpenter at a residence.

Thanks Jerry
if it was him-why did he stop in 89?

[Joshua Rogan]

Thanks, Josh. Not a bad guess on my part, albeit short by 5kg.

It's always best to underestimate a ladies weight....even when she's legless.

[Sam Flynn]

It's always best to underestimate a ladies weight....even when she's legless.

Ka-boom-tsshhh!

[jerryd]

Thanks Jerry
if it was him-why did he stop in 89?

Abby,

That question goes for any suspect, but I know where you are coming from and I asked that same question on my own thread.

Maybe he didn't stop? Maybe the heat was on and he decided he really did need to weigh the parts down to sink or bury them somewhere. Remember, the heads were never found so a job well done in that regard. Maybe his children got older, smarter and the risk was no longer worth it. Not being a killer myself, I can't say what goes through the mind of one.

[Sam Flynn]

While I am at it, Gareth, since you tried to make a case for how it is likely that the torso killer lived in the west, it bears mentioning that the only torso that seems to have been carried from a nearby residence is the Pinchin Street torso, wherefore the indications are that the killer travelled to the west to do his dumping, but lived in the east.

Not really, Fish. The Pinchin Street torso could very probably have been the work of a different killer or killers, based in the east. I see about as much sense in an East End dweller heading to Battersea to dump a body as I see in a Battersea dweller travelling to one of the shadiest parts of the East End to do the same.

I find it especially unlikely when one considers that, for most of that distance (approx 6.5 miles), one would be passing a number of bridges over the Thames; I make it ten in all. Why not get rid of the incriminating cargo there? If bridges aren't mandatory, then we have the Thames snaking its way between East and West, into which body parts could have been thrown at any time when no-one was around. If neither bridges nor the river are mandatory, there surely must have been abandoned buildings, canals, sewers, deserted side-streets, railway arches (etc) between Battersea and the East End, without the perpetrator having to venture all the way into the heart of the Whitechapel maze to dump a body. (Naturally, the argument works in reverse for an East End based killer heading all the way to Battersea.)

Why change from being a bridge- and/or-river-dumper to a railway-arch dumper just on this one occasion? Why commute all the way to Pinchin Street, or all the way to Battersea, when there were umpteen potential dump-sites on the way? It doesn't add up. My money's on the Pinchin Street perpetrator(s) being different from the others.

[jerryd]

Thanks, that is indeed an interesting thread. Nice one Jerry!

Thanks Joshua. Hard to keep up with these threads sometimes.

[Abby Normal]

Not really, Fish. The Pinchin Street torso could very probably have been the work of a different killer or killers, based in the east. I see about as much sense in an East End dweller heading to Battersea to dump a body as I see in a Battersea dweller travelling to one of the shadiest parts of the East End to do the same.

I find it especially unlikely when one considers that, for most of that distance (approx 6.5 miles), one would be passing a number of bridges over the Thames; I make it ten in all. Why not get rid of the incriminating cargo there? If bridges aren't mandatory, then we have the Thames snaking its way between East and West, into which body parts could have been thrown at any time when no-one was around. If neither bridges nor the river are mandatory, there surely must have been abandoned buildings, canals, sewers, deserted side-streets, railway arches (etc) between Battersea and the East End, without the perpetrator having to venture all the way into the heart of the Whitechapel maze to dump a body. (Naturally, the argument works in reverse for an East End based killer heading all the way to Battersea.)

Why change from being a bridge- and/or-river-dumper to a railway-arch dumper just on this one occasion? Why commute all the way to Pinchin Street, or all the way to Battersea, when there were umpteen potential dump-sites on the way? It doesn't add up. My money's on the Pinchin Street perpetrator(s) being different from the others.

because the dumping/displaying of the tors/parts had special meaning to him Sam, other than just getting rid of.
can you at least admit its a possibility?

[Sam Flynn]

because the dumping/displaying of the tors/parts had special meaning to him Sam, other than just getting rid of.
can you at least admit its a possibility?

Not really, Abby. Firstly, I don't believe there's a scintilla of evidence to support the idea that the dumper(s) were motivated to display either the torsos or the body parts. Secondly, the majority of murderers who dump bodies in places other than where they were killed do so because they want to get rid of evidence, and I see nothing in the torso cases that suggests otherwise. Thirdly, as you have rightly discerned, I'm a stubborn S.O.B.

[Abby Normal]

Abby,

That question goes for any suspect, but I know where you are coming from and I asked that same question on my own thread.

Maybe he didn't stop? Maybe the heat was on and he decided he really did need to weigh the parts down to sink or bury them somewhere. Remember, the heads were never found so a job well done in that regard. Maybe his children got older, smarter and the risk was no longer worth it. Not being a killer myself, I can't say what goes through the mind of one.

Thanks Jerry

re-sinking or burying: as I think that the way torso man distributed the torsos/parts had special meaning to him and he wasn't just trying to get rid of or hide, I would have to disagree with that idea.

your other reason I see as a possibility, or sometimes they just stop as the urge alleviates, perhaps to age, personal circumstances etc.

[Abby Normal]

Not really, Abby. Firstly, I don't believe there's a scintilla of evidence to support the idea that the dumper(s) were motivated to display either the torsos or the body parts. Secondly, the majority of murderers who dump bodies in places other than where they were killed do so because they want to get rid of evidence, and I see nothing in the torso cases that suggests otherwise. Thirdly, as you have rightly discerned, I'm a stubborn S.O.B.

yes you are! : )

but maybe that special meaning wasn't necessarily to "display" (although I think that might be part of it). what if it was weird personal/psychological reasons?like hes marking his territory, or polluting the city with them?

[Sam Flynn]

what if it was weird personal/psychological reasons?like hes marking his territory, or polluting the city with them?

If that's the case, he seems to have sprayed most of his scent in South West London, and he doesn't seem to have made a good job of polluting the city either, with the bulk of the body parts and torsos being found very much to the West of Whitechapel. It certainly looks to me that we have at least two perpetrators at work, only one of whom was based in the East End.