Evidence of innocence

[Fiver]

No, not really, Christer, because I already know that and have known this since I started reading about the torso murders. What strikes me is how the Torso killer seems to have wanted, just as you see it, recognition, which is evidenced, just as you see it, by how and where he dumped/placed/threw remains of his victims, but didn't succeed in making it known without a doubt that he and the Ripper were one and the same. Making it known wouldn't have been that difficult, if he really wanted to, if you ask me.

If the Ripper wanted the public to know he was also the Torso Killer dropping a body in Pinchin Street was a useless waste of time. Multiple doctors who examined both sets of victims concluded there were two different killers. The Torso Killer wasn't going to change that view by killing more women.

Writing a letter, preferably accompanied by a grisly bit of remains, would have been the Ripper's best chance of getting "credit" for the Torso Killings.

[MrBarnett]

Ma Lechmere had three husbands. The later marriages might have been bigamous, but they still happened.

But legally invalid, so not actually marriages.

[MrBarnett]

The railway arch appear to have been at Backchurch Lane and Pinchon Street, so it's hardly surprising that some sources referred to Backchurch while others referrred to Pinchin. It is probably the arch that Israel Schwartz claims to have run to to escape Pipesmoking Man.

No, the arch in question was in Pinchin Street and went through to what had once been the notorious Frederick Street. It carried a viaduct that briefly crossed Backchurch Lane.

[Harry D]

You mean, as in the perpetrator suffering from some kind of untreatable medical condition or ailment that entailed a measure of atrophic decline and loss of function? <*wink*...>

M.

Did you have anyone specific in mind?

[Abby Normal]

Could there be a correlation between the Pinchin St torso and Alice McKenzie being relatively 'tame' murders compared to their predecessors?

hi harry
i kind of see what your saying but i dont think they were tame. it seems to me he may have been interupted with mackenzie and with pinchin, the last of both series, if they were the same man, its the grand unified finale. legless beheaded torso dumped in wide open in the heart of ripper territory with the signature gash down the middle. and poof.. the torsoripper is gone for good.

[jerryd]

the torsoripper is gone for good.

Or was he....?

Evening News and Post
September 29, 1890

[FrankO]

Hi Frank.

I think Wildbore had no choice at this point but to reveal the body. Here is the testimony of six witnesses that were in the vault at various times from August 22nd to Saturday, September 29th, 1888. The body was discovered on Tuesday, October 2nd, 1888. All of them claim the body was NOT there prior to the discovery. Most of them used a candle or some kind of light while in the vault.

Morning Advertiser, 23 October 1888

William Brown was the first witness called. He stated, in reply to questions from the coroner, that on the 22nd ult., when engaged with two others in making out the quantities of completed work, he visited the vault where the remains were found subsequently, and in the particular corner, though he made measurements, he did not notice anything particular or observe that the earth had been disturbed. If there had been a parcel there at the time he must have trod upon it. Light was afforded by a paraffin lamp, and the trench in the vault to which frequent reference had been made was dry so far back as the middle of June. He had made a ground plan of the several vaults and of the road leading to them. He saw, on Tuesday, the vault after the discovery of the remains, when the earth was lower in the corner than in the other parts.

Mr. Robert Erant, clerk of the works, said that on the Saturday previous to the finding of the trunk of the body he was on the premises up to three o'clock, but did not go into the vault that day. He had done so, however, the previous day, and did not then notice any parcel there. There were about the place a few rags which the workmen used for rubbing brickwork with when it was pointed.

Richard Lawrence, labourer, 40, Sterndale-road, Battersea, stated that on the Saturday he placed for safety, at the end of the vault, on a mortar board, until the following Monday morning, a basket of workmen's tools, and on the latter day, at ten minutes past six o'clock in the morning, he fetched them out. On neither occasion did he notice anything extraordinary. The tools had not been disturbed in the meantime. A fellow workman (Young) had asked him to take the tools there. About half-past three o'clock that afternoon he saw, for the first and the last time, the parcel of remains as it was brought out into the light. The body might have been there at the time he groped in the dark into the vault, but he was strongly impressed with the idea that it was not.

Alfred Young, carpenters' labourer, stated that on the Saturday, about twelve o'clock, before the finding of the parcel of remains, he went to the vault, taking with him a basket of workmen's tools, and placed it on the mortar board to which the last witness had referred, but he noticed nothing particular in this place. There was no light or lamp.

Mr. A. Franklin, surveyor, stated that on the Friday he had been to the vault measuring work. He did not actually go into the corner where the remains were found, and he noticed nothing in that direction beyond rubbish and some old bricks and stones. If there were a parcel there he certainly thought he should have noticed it, especially if any smell pervaded the place. But he found no offensive smell. Still it was just possible that a parcel which did not give out an offensive odour might have escaped his observation.

Henry Edge, labourer, said he was the last person in the vault on the Saturday before the discovery of the body, and did not see any parcel, though he happened to look specially into the corner, believing that the tools he went to fetch were there; but when he struck a match light he discovered his mistake, and found them on a mortar-board at the corner of the vault, to the left of the trench as one entered.

Now, Wildbore said he was in the vault Monday morning (October 1st, 1888) at 6:00 a.m and said he saw what he thought was a workman's coat in that corner of the vault. He said nothing to anyone. He went back in the vault at 5:30 p.m that same evening and said he saw the parcel there and drew his mate's attention to it by lighting a wax vesta. Neither man mentioned anything to anyone at this point. The next morning, Tuesday, he was again in the vault in the morning and saw the parcel and again said nothing. Then he says at 1:00 (2:30 according to other witnesses) Mr. Brown, the assistant foreman, came to see him in the vault. It was then that he pointed the parcel out to Brown. Brown then told Mr. Cheney, foreman of the bricklayers, who went down and pulled the parcel into the light and discovered it was a body. Upon opening the parcel the men gagged from the smell.

So, two occasions on Monday, October 1st he sees the parcel but says nothing. One more time on the morning of Tuesday, October 2nd he examines the parcel and says nothing. The fourth time he decides to tell the foreman. Interesting to say also, Wildbore was off that weekend. Out of the 3 times he examined the parcel, did he not understand what it was? Or was he thinking his way out of the mess? If he was responsible for the torso being there, he had two choices. 1)Get rid of it or move it so nobody finds it, or 2) Act like he found it and alert his boss. also important to note, the men gagged from the smell but Wildbore smelled nothing in the 4 times he examined the parcel?

This is why I think there is something fishy with Wildbore. And Christer, to answer your question about there being a connection with the two series of murders. I do think it is a possibility. After all, in my opinion, and also the opinion of Dr. Neville who first examined the arm found at Pimlico, this victim seems to have been killed very near the date of September 8th, 1888. I differ in that I think there is more than one perpetrator involved.

Thanks Jerry! I agree there seems to be something fishy about Wildbore, if only his choice of placing the trunk there and then 'discovering' it himself - if he was the perpetrator, of course.

All the best,
Frank

[FrankO]

If the Ripper wanted the public to know he was also the Torso Killer dropping a body in Pinchin Street was a useless waste of time. Multiple doctors who examined both sets of victims concluded there were two different killers. The Torso Killer wasn't going to change that view by killing more women.

I don't believe the Torso killer killed the Pinchin Street victim just to send out a message. He primarily did that because he felt an urge to kill and cut. If he really wanted to send a message with this victim, it was probably something he came up with after having killed her. As I've said in previous posts, I am sceptical of the idea that the Torso killer did want to send a message other than a sort of reference to the Ripper crimes.

Writing a letter, preferably accompanied by a grisly bit of remains, would have been the Ripper's best chance of getting "credit" for the Torso Killings.

I agree there would have been better ways to get credit for both series of crimes, if that's what he really wanted.

[Mark J D]

Thanks Jerry! I agree there seems to be something fishy about Wildbore, if only his choice of placing the trunk there and then 'discovering' it himself - if he was the perpetrator, of course.

All the best,
Frank

I definitely remember suspicions being voiced about the body part that was unearthed elsewhere in the vault a few days later by the journalist with the dog.

M.

[Harry D]

hi harry
i kind of see what your saying but i dont think they were tame. it seems to me he may have been interupted with mackenzie and with pinchin, the last of both series, if they were the same man, its the grand unified finale. legless beheaded torso dumped in wide open in the heart of ripper territory with the signature gash down the middle. and poof.. the torsoripper is gone for good.

They were comparatively tame, Abby - yes. Alice McKenzie's throat was stabbed (rather than slashed open) and her wounds were superficial. Perhaps there was an interruption, but we know the killer was a fast-mover, and it doesn't look like the killer had the same technique seen in the canonical series. The Pinchin St torso was also less ghastly than the previous torso murders and absent signature elements.

Similarly, didn't Elizabeth Jackson & the Whitehall Mystery both have their uteri missing? If the killer is going to make a statement by dumping a torso in Ripper territory, why would he inflict a minor stomach wound and not take out the uterus? It's not like time was a factor here. What was going on? This doesn't look like the same animal, unless of course, the animal was losing its edge.

[Fisherman]

Could there be a correlation between the Pinchin St torso and Alice McKenzie being relatively 'tame' murders compared to their predecessors?

I try never to say never in these matters, Harry, and I know Abby has pointed to the possible link. However, we will always have to weigh in the circumstances and as you are aware, the Ripper murders were carried out in public spaces whereas the Torso murders were likely committed in some sort of bolthole. Therefore, there is always the chance that the Ripper deeds were aborted deeds to some degree, owing to somebody arriving and scaring the killer off. That is not something that holds true for the torso murders. The really odd thing in the Pinchin Street case is the long abdominal cut that was not carried through. It would not take longer to cut deeper, would it? This is what makes me think that this cut may have had a different purpose than the other abdominal cuts in these series.

[Fisherman]

I don't believe the Torso killer killed the Pinchin Street victim just to send out a message. He primarily did that because he felt an urge to kill and cut.

... and when he put his knife to the victimīs flesh, he only cut shallowly into her abdomen? The person I call the Torsoripper would indeed have been a man who very much enjoyed cutting into flesh and opening bodies up.

He would however not be a man who engraved shallow cuts on his victims.

Plus, of course, there is no conflict between the two matters. You can BOTH killand cut AND send a message - if the cutting is adjusted to do so.

[Fisherman]

They were comparatively tame, Abby - yes. Alice McKenzie's throat was stabbed (rather than slashed open) and her wounds were superficial. Perhaps there was an interruption, but we know the killer was a fast-mover, and it doesn't look like the killer had the same technique seen in the canonical series. The Pinchin St torso was also less ghastly than the previous torso murders and absent signature elements.

Similarly, didn't Elizabeth Jackson & the Whitehall Mystery both have their uteri missing? If the killer is going to make a statement by dumping a torso in Ripper territory, why would he inflict a minor stomach wound and not take out the uterus? It's not like time was a factor here. What was going on? This doesn't look like the same animal, unless of course, the animal was losing its edge.

Jackson had her uterus carved out by her killer. In the Whitehall case, the pelvis was missing and so we cannot know anything about the uterus.

[Fisherman]

...he found a body on his walk to work and he chose to use the name of the stepfather who raised him. Beyond that there is utterly nothing. It’s not even the beginning of a case against him.

Isnīt it strange then, that a man infinitely more versed in matters legal than your own good yourself says that there is a legal case against him, good enough to take to trial?

Who are we to believe here? You or James Scobie?

Wait a sec ... what if we "flippantly dismiss" Scobie? Maybe that would take care of things, eh?

You see, people out here are not deaf, dumb and blind, R J. They know that disagreeing with the police the way Lechmere did is not "nothing". They know that the geographical correlation suggested by his morning treks is not "nothing". They know that refusing to help prop Nichols up is not "nothing". And so on. And on. And on.

Itīs all good and well to say that these matters, taken one by one, MUST not be indicative of murder. But that is NOT the same as them being "nothing". The same goes for somebody standing over a dead person, gun in hand. That does not HAVE to prove murder - but it is not "nothing" either. And it becomes a lot less "nothing" once more and more matters are added, the way the are in Lechmeres case.

He would warrant a modern day trial says Scobie, a trial with a jury that would not like him, a trial that would suggest he was guilty.

No, R J Palmer says, there is not a iot that suggests guilt on his behalf, the QC is less fit to assess this than I am! He is wrong on all counts, there is "nothing"!

It really is a no-brainer to decide who is likely to be the much better judge.

[caz]

The October report is a month and 16 days after his inquest appearance. And they still thought that he was called Cross. That tells me that he was never investigated in any depth - if at all. The police would have been greatly embarrased by his surfacing and turning things upside down, ridiculing the Met, and I think this very much contributed to how they would not want to question the carman in any way; the sooner their blunder was forgotten, the better. And forgetting about it would decisively not include doubting the man who had set things right when they were themselves unable to.

On the contrary, Christer, if the cops had been cross with Cross for coming forward and questioning their competency, that would have been their cue to keep a quiet eye out for the carman, and come up with any dirt they could find on the critter, to restore the status quo. Nobody else would have needed to know if nothing came of it, but boy what a coup if they had caught him on his cart with Annie Chapman's chitterlings in his pockets.

Love,

Caz
X