Same motive = same killer

[RockySullivan]

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

.

Trevor, only one of the victims was pregnant.

[Fisherman]

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.

I think you are basically correct when saying that there was probably not much of a difference among those not so very well off. However, what I am suggesting is that the chemise may have been supplied by the killer, and thus it may not have been worn at all by the victim before she was killed. Of course, I have not a scintilla of proof to tell me that the chemise was supplied by the killer, but I do have an overall scheme in which such a thing would fit in, hand-in-glove, and so I am interested and intrigued by the possibility. Don´t let that annoy you too much, Gareth!
You are saying that the chemise being dirty and tatty suggests that it was worn frequently, not just for a few hours a night, but that has to be something that we cannot know. Obviously, the chemise may have been dragged along a dirty floor, victim inside, and then it was thrown onto what was basically a scrap-heap in Pinchin Street. It would be extremely odd if it was shiny white at that stage, methinks.
However, IF the chemise was supplied by the killer as per my possible scenario, I would have expected it to be clean at that stage, although it is no absolute prerequsite for my thinking to work.

A final point: You are saying that among the less well-off, chemises were worn day and night, no difference made. And as I said, I agree. But do we know that the victim WAS less well-off? The guess is a useful one, but still a guess only.

[RockySullivan]

Hey atleast we can rule out Lechmere as the torso killer since he'd be feeding them to the cats instead

[Fisherman]

Hey atleast we can rule out Lechmere as the torso killer since he'd be feeding them to the cats instead

Well, Rocky, nobody would be happier to discuss that than me, but as you know...

[Abby Normal]

I think you are basically correct when saying that there was probably not much of a difference among those not so very well off. However, what I am suggesting is that the chemise may have been supplied by the killer, and thus it may not have been worn at all by the victim before she was killed. Of course, I have not a scintilla of proof to tell me that the chemise was supplied by the killer, but I do have an overall scheme in which such a thing would fit in, hand-in-glove, and so I am interested and intrigued by the possibility. Don´t let that annoy you too much, Gareth!
You are saying that the chemise being dirty and tatty suggests that it was worn frequently, not just for a few hours a night, but that has to be something that we cannot know. Obviously, the chemise may have been dragged along a dirty floor, victim inside, and then it was thrown onto what was basically a scrap-heap in Pinchin Street. It would be extremely odd if it was shiny white at that stage, methinks.
However, IF the chemise was supplied by the killer as per my possible scenario, I would have expected it to be clean at that stage, although it is no absolute prerequsite for my thinking to work.

A final point: You are saying that among the less well-off, chemises were worn day and night, no difference made. And as I said, I agree. But do we know that the victim WAS less well-off? The guess is a useful one, but still a guess only.

HI Fish
IMHO I think if the chemise/s have any significance we should focus on how it was cut and what it was then used for afterward re dumping.

How was it cut again?

[Fisherman]

HI Fish
IMHO I think if the chemise/s have any significance we should focus on how it was cut and what it was then used for afterward re dumping.

How was it cut again?

Torn down the middle, and cut from neck lining to the sleeve linings in both directions.

[Abby Normal]

Torn down the middle, and cut from neck lining to the sleeve linings in both directions.

Thanks Fish

how many other of the torsos or parts were found with a chemise?

[Fisherman]

Thanks Fish

how many other of the torsos or parts were found with a chemise?

None, as far as I know.

[Sam Flynn]

how many other of the torsos or parts were found with a chemise?

None, as far as I know.

But then, none of the others were dumped anywhere near the East End.

[drstrange169]

Unless you were so poor not have a choice, chemises were not sleepwear, i.e. something that you specifically put on for sleeping, that was called a nightdress.

The fact that those that saw it called it a chemise, indicates, rightly or wrongly, that they believed it looked like underwear.

[jerryd]

It was only remnants of a chemise and it wasn't on the body except to cover the neck wound.

The Times, Wednesday, September 25th, 1889

The blood had oozed from the cut surface of the neck. Over the surface of the neck and the right shoulder were the remnants of what had been a chemise. It was of common length and such a size as would be worn by a woman of similar build to the trunk found. It had been torn down the front, and had been cut from the front of the armholes on each side. The cuts had apparently been made with a knife. The chemise was bloodstained nearly all over, from being wrapped over the back surface of the neck. There was no clotted blood on it. I could find no distinguishing mark on the chemise.

Lloyd's Weekly, September 29, 1889

Covering the cut surface of the neck and right shoulder were the remnants of what had been a chemise, of common make, and of such a size as would be worn by a woman of similar build to the trunk found. It had been torn down the front, and had been cut out from the front of the armholes on each side. The cuts appeared to have been made with a knife. The chemise was blood-stained nearly all over, I think from being wrapped over the cut surface of the neck. There was no clotted blood on it, and no sign of arterial spurting. I could find no distinguishing mark on the chemise.

[drstrange169]

Thanks Jerry, that pretty much seals it as a chemise not a nightshirt.

From those descrition, it seems it's purpose was to staunch blood flow from the neck.

[RockySullivan]

would prostitutes wear a chemise under their clothes? what about girls in a brothel? I imagine a chemise would be like their uniform? I think it's long been suggested the Whitehall victim might have worked in one because of the hands.

[Fisherman]

To be as clear as I can - it cannot be established whether the chemise the Pinchins Street torso was found with was a garment you would sleep in or not. Maybe it was, maybe it was not.
For the garment to fit in with my thoughts, it need actually not have been used as nightwear.
I am absolutely certain that I am not going to be able to prove that it was used the way I think it may have been used, and equally certain that it cannot be disproven that it was.
Regardless of this, it fits in with what I have in mind.

[Sam Flynn]

would prostitutes wear a chemise under their clothes?

Yes, and so would women of all walks of life and all social classes. Both Stride and Eddowes were wearing chemises under layers of other clothing when found. Chemises were practical undergarments, pure and simple.