Same motive = same killer

[Sam Flynn]

I thought chemises were commonly worn by prostitutes

They were undergarments commonly worn by all kinds of women.

[Sam Flynn]

But honestly, were you really thinking that I for some reason simply grabbed the idea that the torso killer may have had a thing for chemises out of thin air...?

It was clear that this was your favoured explanation in your very first post on the subject:

Let´s take a look at something I always found a bit odd. When the Pinchin Street torso was found, a chemise was also found, bloodied and dirty. The chemise had been cut all the way up front and also from the neck lining down to the sleeve openings on both sides.

To me, this tells a very clear story: The victim was on her back as the chemise was cut, and the cutting made allowed the killer to expose the body completely.

However, the question I would like for you to comment on is why the victim was dressed in a chemise at this stage?

As far as I can tell, there are three working suggestions to answer the question:

1. The victim was staying with the killer, and had dressed in a chemise to go to bed.

2. The victim was abducted in the chemise from her own lodgings.

3. The killer supplied the chemise.

I don´t like the first suggestion, on account of how I regard the killer as a killer of strangers. This of course does not have to be true, but the fact that he dumped Jackson in her own, marked, clothes speaks to me of an indifference probably based on how he had no ties to the victim. For example.

I don´t like the second suggestion, on account of how it would be hard to abduct a woman alive without being noticed, plus such a thing would probably have been commented on in the press.

I do like the third explanation a lot because it goes hand in hand with my thinking about a ritualistic behaviour tied to the murders.

Is it possible that your belief that there was a ritual dimension to the murders preceded - and shaped - your suggesting Option 3 above, i.e. that the killer was the one who supplied the chemise? I must confess that I don't think I'd have thought of that option, anymore than I'd have thought up the idea that JTR brought a chemise for Kelly to wear.

The most obvious explanation, as I think Abby pointed out, was that the victim was already wearing the chemise before she met her killer, but you didn't consider listing that among your three options. Perhaps that was because it would an easy mistake to assume that a chemise was invariably an item of nightwear but, as we've seen, that wasn't the case.

[RockySullivan]

On 10th Sept. '89 the naked body, with arms, of a woman was found wrapped in some sacking under a Railway arch in Pinchin St

I'm sure this has been discussed frequently but why does Sir Melville Macnaghten say it was wrapped in sacking?

[Joshua Rogan]

On 10th Sept. '89 the naked body, with arms, of a woman was found wrapped in some sacking under a Railway arch in Pinchin St

I'm sure this has been discussed frequently but why does Sir Melville Macnaghten say it was wrapped in sacking?

Well, it was wrapped in the remains of the chemise, but Inspector Pinhorn was reported to have made this cryptic remark at inquest;

"The position of the trunk was such as to indicate it had been carried in a sack, or closely bound up together. The arms were close to the body, and the hands beneath the abdomen."

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: It was clear that this was your favoured explanation in your very first post on the subject.

But what you suggested was this:

"...you latched onto the word "chemise" believing that it was definitely an item of nightwear, which then led you to read some sort of kinky dimension into the murder ...

And that was anything but clear in my post. It was a rather onedimensional and groundless suggestion, and that was what I found a bit worrying. Why on earth would I suggest something like that when a chemise was just about the most basic garment around in 1888 - unless I had something to go on?

Is it possible that your belief that there was a ritual dimension to the murders preceded - and shaped - your suggesting Option 3 above, i.e. that the killer was the one who supplied the chemise? I must confess that I don't think I'd have thought of that option, anymore than I'd have thought up the idea that JTR brought a chemise for Kelly to wear.

The chemise seemingly fits into the ritualistic part I am suggesting, yes. It could have been provided by the killer for that very reason - and it could have been the victims own, with no underlying ritualistic cause at all.

The most obvious explanation, as I think Abby pointed out, was that the victim was already wearing the chemise before she met her killer, but you didn't consider listing that among your three options. Perhaps that was because it would an easy mistake to assume that a chemise was invariably an item of nightwear but, as we've seen, that wasn't the case.

That depends on the type of chemise, Gareth. Not all chemises were worn at day- and nighttime, and we do not know which type this was. That being said, you are of course correct in saying that IF the chemise was the type that could be worn at daytime, then she could have had it on her person as she met the killer.
If it was NOT, then Abbys suggestion is not the most obvious explanation at all, I´m afraid.

[elmore 77]

The MO is very important in determining whether or not all the murders were the work of the same hand. In the torso cases you cannot even conclusivley state the causes of death.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I don't mean MO isn't important but that many killers use various methods over their careers depending on circumstances. There have been plenty of murders not attributed to a series that were added later, or that have raised suspicions of a connection. I know Kuklinski was a professional hitman but he shows the right type of psychology for a serialist. Vicious, relentless. Interview on Youtube is worth a visit, cheers

[Fisherman]

Well, it was wrapped in the remains of the chemise, but Inspector Pinhorn was reported to have made this cryptic remark at inquest;

"The position of the trunk was such as to indicate it had been carried in a sack, or closely bound up together. The arms were close to the body, and the hands beneath the abdomen."

Another, slightly deviating, version was in the Woodford Times, also reporting from the inquest, Dr Clarke testifying:

"It was lying with the right arm doubled under the abdomen, and left arm at the side."

[Joshua Rogan]

Another, slightly deviating, version was in the Woodford Times, also reporting from the inquest, Dr Clarke testifying:

"It was lying with the right arm doubled under the abdomen, and left arm at the side."

Quite. I think Pinhorn was saying that because the arms were tucked in, rather than splayed out, the body looked like it had been in a sack, rather than dragged there by the arms, for instance. Indeed, PC Pennett says much the same;
"I should think the body had been carried to the arch in a sack or something of that description, and then taken out and placed where it was found. Had it been dragged along I should have seen marks of a trail in the dust."

So my suggestion for Rocky is that MacNaghton misremembered the torso being found wrapped in sacking from these remarks.

[Harry D]

With all the ramblings about a serial killer, you have to accept that firstly, if you dont have 3 or more murders, which can be conclusively be linked by identifiable and common traits then you dont have a serial killer.

Secondly and most importantly before you can say you have a serial killer or a murderer, you have to show that deaths were as a result of murder. In most of these cases you cannot do that, and it beggars belief that despite being told this, here you all are still referring to them in the same old way.

And you can't prove they weren't a series of murders, so nyah!

When you have a group of bodies being mutilated, chopped up and dumped in the same city, there's either a series of remarkable coincidences or there's a common denominator, in this case, serial murder.

[Joshua Rogan]

That depends on the type of chemise, Gareth. Not all chemises were worn at day- and nighttime, and we do not know which type this was. That being said, you are of course correct in saying that IF the chemise was the type that could be worn at daytime, then she could have had it on her person as she met the killer.
If it was NOT, then Abbys suggestion is not the most obvious explanation at all, I´m afraid.

From Pinhorn's evidence, again;

"The chemise was cut jaggedly, and made to appear like rags. It was an old chemise, and had been worn some time.
I must have it accurately described. I don’t know whether you will do it. What material was it made of? - Calico.
Was it well made? Hand-made or machine made? - Machine made. It was very old, such as the very poor class of women wear. There was no lace on it. There were large bloodstains it, though it was not saturated. Was there blood on the body? - No, not much. Had it been washed? - No, I should say not, from the somewhat dirty appearance."

[Sam Flynn]

From Pinhorn's evidence, again;

"The chemise was cut jaggedly, and made to appear like rags. It was an old chemise, and had been worn some time.
I must have it accurately described. I don’t know whether you will do it. What material was it made of? - Calico.
Was it well made? Hand-made or machine made? - Machine made. It was very old, such as the very poor class of women wear. There was no lace on it. There were large bloodstains it, though it was not saturated. Was there blood on the body? - No, not much. Had it been washed? - No, I should say not, from the somewhat dirty appearance."

Hardly a negligee, then.

[Fisherman]

Quite. I think Pinhorn was saying that because the arms were tucked in, rather than splayed out, the body looked like it had been in a sack, rather than dragged there by the arms, for instance. Indeed, PC Pennett says much the same;
"I should think the body had been carried to the arch in a sack or something of that description, and then taken out and placed where it was found. Had it been dragged along I should have seen marks of a trail in the dust."

So my suggestion for Rocky is that MacNaghton misremembered the torso being found wrapped in sacking from these remarks.

That sounds very feasible to me - there were even accounts saying that there were imprints of sacking upon the body, and that may well have stuck in MacNaghtens mind.

[Fisherman]

From Pinhorn's evidence, again;

"The chemise was cut jaggedly, and made to appear like rags. It was an old chemise, and had been worn some time.
I must have it accurately described. I don’t know whether you will do it. What material was it made of? - Calico.
Was it well made? Hand-made or machine made? - Machine made. It was very old, such as the very poor class of women wear. There was no lace on it. There were large bloodstains it, though it was not saturated. Was there blood on the body? - No, not much. Had it been washed? - No, I should say not, from the somewhat dirty appearance."

Thanks for this. The one thing I would like to know illudes us, though - was it the kind of garment meant for sleeping in or was it the underwear type?

[Trevor Marriott]

And you can't prove they weren't a series of murders, so nyah!

You are right, so that is why I have taken the common sense approach and I refer to them as The Thames Torso Mysteries

However there has to be a grave doubt as to murder in any event when you cannot prove a cause of death.

Do you not accept that women did die as a result of failed back street abortions etc or being given noxious substance to procure an abortion, and when that happened what happened to the bodies. The deaths could not be reported to the authorities for obvious reasons, and the bodies still had to be disposed of, and so where is a good place to dispose of a body, in the Thames. These people would no where to sell organs so even money can be made out of the dead.

There is also the possibilty that one or more died as a result of a domestic assault, which happened with no witnesses. If that be the case the other half is not liklely to report the matter to the police but simply dispose of the body and hope that no one misses the victim. If that did occur the offender could simply say the victim has gone away etc etc.

You people on here who keep babbling on about a serial killers need to take the rose tinted glasses off.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

.

[Sam Flynn]

Thanks for this. The one thing I would like to know illudes us, though - was it the kind of garment meant for sleeping in or was it the underwear type?

Among the less well-off, I don't suppose there was a difference. It's not as if most of them had the luxury of choosing between daywear and nightwear, and many people lived, and slept, in their everyday clothes. The very fact that this chemise was dirty and tatty suggests that it was worn very frequently, not just for a few hours a night.