Location of Annie Millwood's attack

[JeffHamm]

I guess what I'm trying to indicate is that, killer's who move bodies, whether dismembered or intact, are generally trying to delay discovery and distance themselves from the body. Scattering without concealing indicates a primary emphasis on distance (which the torso cases appear to be). Concealing indicates a primary emphasis on time, they are trying to prevent discovery entirely. Concealers (to make up my own term here) usually involves burying the body, or covering it with brush, etc. The the distance they move it can be minimal, as in Gacy, who buried bodies in his house; or the West's, who buried their daughter in the garden; but often with cars available, they may transport the body long distances and then hide them in remote places (so both "scatter and conceal", Williams and Ridgeway). Scatterers (again, a term I just made up), will just transport and dump bodies, often in plain site (along roadways, etc; the Black Dahlia case, for example; again, a body cut into two pieces, and then dumped in one location). Scattering physically distances them from the crime, concealing temporally distances themselves from the crime.

Dennis Rader, for example, tended to leave the victims where he killed them. He did, however, move two victims, and those are the two that lived very close to him in Park City. He moved them a fair distance, because this would physically distance the body from his location and temporally delay the discovery of the body. Both of which would, in his mind, reduce the risk to drawing attention to him. With Rader, it worked, and it wasn't until he started communicating with the police again that he eventually was caught. Was talking to the police a rational thing to do? No, but neither is murdering strangers in their home for sexual gratification.

They don't always succeed. Missing persons get investigated, so the temporal distancing might not result because the killer is quickly determined to be a person of interest (last person to see missing person, let's say). But killer's thinking isn't 100% rational, so you can point out errors in their logic, particularly for those who got caught - hindsight is 20/20, as they say. One can point out that it really doesn't make sense to keep a body in the house by burying it in the basement or backyard - but this happens quite a lot. Simply because what a killer does can be argued as not being the best way to achieve the goal of physical and/or temporal distancing doesn't mean that isn't their objective.

As for "sending a message", that might be indicated if the body is left on display. Posing a body at a crime scene, for example. Or leaving the body in a very open location where it is clear that it must be discovered (i.e. Black Dahlia). Scattering parcels, in rivers, canals, over random fences, etc, is just not the same thing as taking the time to pose a victim, or to deposit a body in a very well traveled location.

JtR, is just leaving the victims where he killed them. There's no attempt to conceal or hide the body, it's in a public location, the arrangement of belongings could reflect some posing, and so forth. There appears to be a lot going on the JtR series that is entirely unlike what's going on with the torso murders.

Anyway, if you have a map of the locations where body parts were discovered, I could have a look and see what I could do with them.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Hi Fisherman,

What you described above sounds like someone scattering parts, hither and thither, not because they want the parts to be found, but because by scattering the parts they are able to get rid of them from their own location. They're simply disposing of evidence. The body was sectioned into smaller pieces to aid the transport, and when they had an opportunity to get rid of it, and they were far enough away from their location that they presumed they would be safe from suspicion, they disposed of their package. The use of the river and canal was just another way to dispose of and scatter the evidence. Nothing indicates a desire for the evidence to be found per se, but as well, dumping of body parts in various locations also indicates they are not concerned if they are found, only concerned that they are not found with him. It's simple self preservation.

A map with the locations where parts were found (not including those that were thrown in the river, since we don't know where they entered the water), could be subjected to a spatial analysis. I've never tried analyzing that type of data locations (I have analysed body dump sites, but these are locations where bodies are definitely hidden, or transported to and dumped afterwards (i.e. Ted Bundy, Wayne Williams, and Gary Ridgeway), and the algorithm is different from analyzing primary crime scenes (as per JtR) as the goal is different (primary crime scenes are locations to commit an offense, disposal locations are locations chosen post-offense, and the decisions involve different risk assessment processes, which are reflected in the choices.

- Jeff

[Fisherman]

Jeff! I think my answer to Kattrup pretty much answers your post too, so I would be grateful if you read it and regarded it as a reply to you.

[Fisherman]

excellently put and argued. The idea that the killer wanted body parts found by throwing them in the river, or burying them, is not very sensible.

Also in the Whitehall case, the torso was hidden in a labyrinthine building site and went unnoticed for days - yet some people still claim the killer did it to send a message or somesuch.

I think we must look at things in a very basic manner, Kattrup. You say that it is not very sensible to throw body parts that you want found in the river. That probably owes to how you reason that they may float to sea and never be seen again. True - that is a possibility.

But we always tell success apart from failure in the same way, don't we: by looking at the outcome. And if we begin buy looking at the Rainham case, it applies that almost every part of the body that had been thrown in the river (or in Regent´s canal!) were found.

Now, let's assume that the killer was of one out of three mindsets:

1. He wanted the parts to go away and never be found.
2. He didn't care a lot about whether the parts were found or not.
3. He wanted the parts to be found.

Which mindset would you say corresponds best with the outcome? Me, I would say that if he hoped for number 1, his effort was a piss poor one. If he was a number 2 adherent, then why did he go through the extra job of going to Regents canal? Why not just throw it all in the water in one dumping and be done with it?
If he wanted the parts to be found, however, then he made a splendid job.

One could reason that the best way of ensuring the the parts would be found, would be to take them to Piccadilly Circus, Leicester Square, Buckingham Palace and the Houses of Parliament and dump them there. The problem, though, is that doing such a thing would get you caught and hanged.

Therefore, if you wanted a maximum press coverage and as large recognition as possible for what you did, and still stay incognito, I would say that the fewest methods could compete with chucking the parts in the river and allowing them to float ashore and be found all along the very centre of the most powerful metropolis in the world.

If we reason that the killer said "What? The parts were FOUND? That wasn't supposed to happen!!" after the Rainham strike, then one must call his wits into question for persisting to use the same method in the following two cases. It would be beyond stupid to do so, knowing full well that the parts would more than likely be found. Equally, if hiding what he did was his agenda, one must ask oneself why he put a torso in the cellar vaults of Scotland Yard, why he threw a thigh over the fence into Percy Shelleys garden, why he scattered remains in the shrubbery of Battersea Park and why he dumped the Pinchin Street victim in the railway arch where she was - naturally - found shortly after. Are those the acts of a secretive genius, hellbent on not being recognized for what he had done...? Not very likely.'

Ergo, floating the parts down the river was evidently a foolproof way of having most or all of them floating ashore and being found. Scores of very mildly gifted people have realized that a sack and a stone does a much better job of obscuring foul deeds, and I see no reason whatsoever why our man would not have been capable of that leap of mind - if it was his intention. Very, very clearly, it never was.

As for burying the parts, you will be referring to the limbs in the Whitehall case. It needs to be said that there is reason to think that the killer was not the one burying these parts, it could have been done accidentally by the workers at the site - or so I am told by many posters out here. So we may want to leave that argument for the moment being.

For how long did the Whitehall torso go unnoticed? We don't know. It is hard to say how long it had been in place. At the end of the day, however, we may be certain that it was bound to be disclosed sooner or later. There was never any possibility of it being left to slowly rot away, unnoticed and forgotten until doomsday, was there?

[Kattrup]

Perhaps I misunderstood, but I thought in a previous post you said the face and scalp were removed, then taken away and thrown in the river? But it was subsequently found? That sounds like someone attempting to hide the identity of the victim should the head be found. The fact that something that was thrown into the river was later found doesn't in any way imply that the killer's intention was for it to be found, quite the opposite. What it does indicate is that the killer is either unaware that the body parts have a good chance of washing up on shore, or that they don't care and their intention is just to use the river to further scatter them, again, to prevent their location of discovery from being informative as to their location. And given we do not have any information about where the parts were entered into the river (which could possibly be modeled as body dump sites), there's not much I could do in terms of adding them [...]

Again, there's no reason to think the killer's aim was for the parts to be found, at best they don't care if they are found and are disposing of body parts in the river to confound the investigation by either preventing or delaying their discovery, and more importantly, dispersing them in a way that their location of discovery cannot be tied to him.


Again, when killer's hide bodies and they are found, that doesn't mean the killer wanted them found. If they display, or leave bodies in the open, as JtR did, then one might consider if the killer's intention is for the body to be found and to shock, or if the killer just doesn't care and leaves the victim there because they're done with them.

Again, wrapping the parts into parcels aids concealment as he transports them. Disposing of them in the river separates the parts from his possession, removing him of the complications of having rather incriminating evidence around. After that, in his mind, he's "rid of the problem". Killer's make mistakes, that's how many of them are caught, their attempts to conceal were insufficient. Not removing identifying marks, like moles, or scars, is because he probably didn't realize those could be used to identify the victims. Clothing, same thing, as to him they would just be more stuff he had to get rid of.


I see an attempt to dispose and scatter, and perhaps an indication of non-concern if the parts are found. I see very little in the form of wanting things to be found (though Whitehall and Pinchin street could be exceptions).

excellently put and argued. The idea that the killer wanted body parts found by throwing them in the river, or burying them, is not very sensible.

Also in the Whitehall case, the torso was hidden in a labyrinthine building site and went unnoticed for days - yet some people still claim the killer did it to send a message or somesuch.

[JeffHamm]

Jeff!

A few remarks relating to your latest post:

The torso cases of 1887-89 were linked by Charles Hebbert, the medico who examined the victims and who afterwards wrote "An exercise in Forensic Medicine" about them. He was adamant that these four victims all fell prey to the same hand, and he said that the cases were in all regards very similar. He recognized a progression throughout, but the cutting was the same type in all cases.
Of course, the Rainham case and the Jackson case are the real "twins", with the trunks being divided into the same three pieces and with then lacking heart and lungs in both cases and a section of the colon having gone lost too in both cases. There can be no realistic doubt that they fell prey to the same killer. The cutting in the Rainham case was commented upon by Dr Galloway, who was absolutely flabbergasted about the quality of the cutting (it was he who said that a surgeon would have been involved), and given that the cutting was of such a rare type, there can be little doubt that Hebbert was able to link all four cases by that parameter.

Again, having not read reports or comments on these, I can't comment meaningfully.

You say that the face taken away in the 1873 case seems to have been done to disenable identification. On the contrary, when the whole face is carefully peeled off, then identification is a clear possibility. The face was actually mounted onto a bust of some sort and exhibited by the police for that precise purpose. If the killer had REALLY wanted to make an identification impossible, he could have achieved that aim very much easier by using lime, by chopping the head up with an axe, by pouring acid on the head, by feeding the head to dogs etcetera - what he did was something that will have been very time-consuming and so we must realise that there was another reason than making identification impossible.

Perhaps I misunderstood, but I thought in a previous post you said the face and scalp were removed, then taken away and thrown in the river? But it was subsequently found? That sounds like someone attempting to hide the identity of the victim should the head be found. The fact that something that was thrown into the river was later found doesn't in any way imply that the killer's intention was for it to be found, quite the opposite. What it does indicate is that the killer is either unaware that the body parts have a good chance of washing up on shore, or that they don't care and their intention is just to use the river to further scatter them, again, to prevent their location of discovery from being informative as to their location. And given we do not have any information about where the parts were entered into the river (which could possibly be modeled as body dump sites), there's not much I could do in terms of adding them.

You make the point that stones are heavy, and so the killer would perhaps not weigh the parts down. I find that a bit strange - the whole river and its banks are full of stones, and it would be very easy to put one of them into a sack of body parts and sink it to the bottom.

Unless, which seems highly probable to me, he throws them off a bridge and never goes down to the banks.

You say that it should be expected that the parts would go lost forever, floating to the sea - but from the outset in 1873, almost ALL of the parts floated ashore along the London riverbanks, so the killer could not possibly have entertained much hope that they would disappear, could he? The talk of the town, highlighted in the press, was how part after part floated ashore and was found. I think the best suggestion we can make is that this was the killers aim - to install fear into the hearts of the Londoners by way of bombarding the city with parts of corpses. It is a methodology worthy of a Stephen King novel.

Again, there's no reason to think the killer's aim was for the parts to be found, at best they don't care if they are found and are disposing of body parts in the river to confound the investigation by either preventing or delaying their discovery, and more importantly, dispersing them in a way that their location of discovery cannot be tied to him.

In the Rainham case, he did not even chuck all parts into the Thames, he took the time to go to Regents Canal and throw some bits and pieces there too, and yes, they were also found.

Again, when killer's hide bodies and they are found, that doesn't mean the killer wanted them found. If they display, or leave bodies in the open, as JtR did, then one might consider if the killer's intention is for the body to be found and to shock, or if the killer just doesn't care and leaves the victim there because they're done with them.

He did not bother to take away moles, scars and marks on the bodies, things that could all have the victims identified, and he floated Jacksons body parts down the river in parcels made up by her own clothing, clothing that was subsequently identified!

Again, wrapping the parts into parcels aids concealment as he transports them. Disposing of them in the river separates the parts from his possession, removing him of the complications of having rather incriminating evidence around. After that, in his mind, he's "rid of the problem". Killer's make mistakes, that's how many of them are caught, their attempts to conceal were insufficient. Not removing identifying marks, like moles, or scars, is because he probably didn't realize those could be used to identify the victims. Clothing, same thing, as to him they would just be more stuff he had to get rid of.

Yes, most dismemberment killers want to hide what they have done. But no, this was apparently not that kind of a killer.

I see an attempt to dispose and scatter, and perhaps an indication of non-concern if the parts are found. I see very little in the form of wanting things to be found (though Whitehall and Pinchin street could be exceptions).

Last, but not least: You see fury and frenzy in the cutting of Kelly. I would suggest that he worked to a specific agenda and that he took great care to make the final product, if you will, answer to that agenda in all respects. It is not a murder where the killer could not contain and steer himself if you ask me. It is instead a ritualistically governed murder where all the elements fit a pattern.

We differ on our interpretation. I see a private sort of ritual I guess, but that's JtR unleashing his violence in a location where he has the luxury to do so uninterrupted. And I see nothing like surgical skill or even a butcher's. It's an all out assault against his victim, fulfilling some private anger and/or hatred. I do not think, or see, any grand plan beyond the unleashing of that anger, which will later fuel his own sense of power and control. The pattern is in the repeating of the same attack, on Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes, and Kelly in particular. The repeating of the same pattern of attacks, progressing each time, possibly simply because he had a bit more time. The torso murders appear very different, there's more pragmatic aspects to them. They were committed in a more secure location for one, there's more care taken to dispose of evidence, and by your account above, there's far more skill and less frenzy involved in my opinion.

- Jeff

[Fisherman]

Thought so, meaning that you "expect" me to get things wrong. Nice.I don't need your permission to suggest that your posts about your pet subject, i.e. the "Torsoripper", are are much too long for a thread that doesn't relate specifically to it. Come to think of it, they'd be of a fairly decent size if they were on a dedicated Torsoripper thread!

And I don´t need your permission to expect you to be wrong. Come to think of it, when a poster (for example) claims that it is "almost certain" that the Torso killer lived in the West of London, that he did not eviscerate, that he was no mutilator, that Lechmere was not found by Paul in Bucks Row - and apparently even at some stage that the Torso killer didn't take out Jacksons uterus! - why would I NOT expect that poster to get it wrong?

Ask yourself which is better: to have a discussion about the torso murders and their viability to the case on a thread that tries to geographically map the killer, or to turn a useful discussion into... well, this? Spending band width on kindergarten crap?
Isn't it true to say that anybody who specifically wants to discuss the location of Annie Millwoods attack can do so on this thread, should they feel so inclined? And that those who see a relevance in how the inclusion of the torso murders would change the geographical mapping relating to Millwood entirely could delve into that topic?

If somebody at such a time should say "But the Torso murders cannot be related, can they?", should the answer to that question end up on another thread, where the information is already present? Should the one who asks be directed to that thread and told that he or she must look up the arguments him- or herself?

Maybe the problem is that you don't like to see the torsos discussed as belonging to the Ripper series at all, regardless of the thread? Could that be it? Surely, surely not ...?

[Sam Flynn]

”Of course” means ”as expected”.

Thought so, meaning that you "expect" me to get things wrong. Nice.

And the length of any post of mine is still none of your business, I’ m afraid.

I don't need your permission to suggest that your posts about your pet subject, i.e. the "Torsoripper", are are much too long for a thread that doesn't relate specifically to it. Come to think of it, they'd be of a fairly decent size if they were on a dedicated Torsoripper thread!

[Fisherman]

”Of course” means ”as expected”. And the length of any post of mine is still none of your business, I’ m afraid.

[Sam Flynn]

You are of course wrong on just about everything again.

What do you mean "of course"? I'm not an idiot, and I'm not wrong on anything in this context either.

"The others", Jeff Hamm, namely, have made posts just as long as mine and a lot longer too.

Yes, but most of those are Jeff explaining his analyses and maps, which are the best things to come out of this thread, so fair enough; but what Jeff and others haven't done is compose essay-long posts on a single pet theory. Now, Klosowski is one of my areas of interest, and I've chipped in with the odd post about him where relevant, but I've not done so at length because I recognise that this is not a Klosowski thread. There's a time and a place for everything.

[Fisherman]

Jeff!

A few remarks relating to your latest post:

The torso cases of 1887-89 were linked by Charles Hebbert, the medico who examined the victims and who afterwards wrote "An exercise in Forensic Medicine" about them. He was adamant that these four victims all fell prey to the same hand, and he said that the cases were in all regards very similar. He recognized a progression throughout, but the cutting was the same type in all cases.
Of course, the Rainham case and the Jackson case are the real "twins", with the trunks being divided into the same three pieces and with then lacking heart and lungs in both cases and a section of the colon having gone lost too in both cases. There can be no realistic doubt that they fell prey to the same killer. The cutting in the Rainham case was commented upon by Dr Galloway, who was absolutely flabbergasted about the quality of the cutting (it was he who said that a surgeon would have been involved), and given that the cutting was of such a rare type, there can be little doubt that Hebbert was able to link all four cases by that parameter.

You say that the face taken away in the 1873 case seems to have been done to disenable identification. On the contrary, when the whole face is carefully peeled off, then identification is a clear possibility. The face was actually mounted onto a bust of some sort and exhibited by the police for that precise purpose. If the killer had REALLY wanted to make an identification impossible, he could have achieved that aim very much easier by using lime, by chopping the head up with an axe, by pouring acid on the head, by feeding the head to dogs etcetera - what he did was something that will have been very time-consuming and so we must realise that there was another reason than making identification impossible.

You make the point that stones are heavy, and so the killer would perhaps not weigh the parts down. I find that a bit strange - the whole river and its banks are full of stones, and it would be very easy to put one of them into a sack of body parts and sink it to the bottom.

You say that it should be expected that the parts would go lost forever, floating to the sea - but from the outset in 1873, almost ALL of the parts floated ashore along the London riverbanks, so the killer could not possibly have entertained much hope that they would disappear, could he? The talk of the town, highlighted in the press, was how part after part floated ashore and was found. I think the best suggestion we can make is that this was the killers aim - to install fear into the hearts of the Londoners by way of bombarding the city with parts of corpses. It is a methodology worthy of a Stephen King novel.

In the Rainham case, he did not even chuck all parts into the Thames, he took the time to go to Regents Canal and throw some bits and pieces there too, and yes, they were also found.

He did not bother to take away moles, scars and marks on the bodies, things that could all have the victims identified, and he floated Jacksons body parts down the river in parcels made up by her own clothing, clothing that was subsequently identified!

Yes, most dismemberment killers want to hide what they have done. But no, this was apparently not that kind of a killer.

Last, but not least: You see fury and frenzy in the cutting of Kelly. I would suggest that he worked to a specific agenda and that he took great care to make the final product, if you will, answer to that agenda in all respects. It is not a murder where the killer could not contain and steer himself if you ask me. It is instead a ritualistically governed murder where all the elements fit a pattern.

[Fisherman]

I knew without checking, thanks. However, as the others didn't wade in with 1000+ word posts, I didn't get the feeling that they were trying to steer the discussion into Torsoripper territory.Of course they do, because the overwhelming likelihood is that we're dealing with different killers committing different kinds of murder in two distinct parts of London. Given the wide East/West separation of the Ripper's killing field and the torso dump-sites, I shouldn't be surprised if a geographical profile pointed the finger of suspicion at a resident of Buckingham Palace! Whilst that might please some people, I'm sure that neither you nor I would be among them

You are of course wrong on just about everything again. "The others", Jeff Hamm, namely, have made posts just as long as mine and a lot longer too - and you know what? He, just as I, are perfectly entitled to do so. Just as we are perfectly entitled to tell you that it is none of your business whatsoever, should we choose to do so.

Moreover, I do not have to "steer" any discussion into any territory at all. I have never had any problem at all to initiate discussions out here, be that a discussion about the Torso cases or about Charles Lechmere. The one problem I DO have is when people like you are trying your hand at policing, spiced up with a little bit of censorship aspirations. Not that it is much of a problem, but nevertheless ...

Lastly, your total and utter failure to grasp what it means when there is a round dozen similarities of odd and specific kinds inbetween two murder series has been on parade out here for the longest now, so it comes as no surprise that you are giving them another embarrassing walk through the circus. Just don't try and peddle the "overwhelming likelihood" rot to the more discerning posters out here. The odds for you being correct on it are much higher than the odds for the killer (singularis) having some sort of connection to Buckingham Palace. And that's saying something.

Now, did you get something - anything at all - right in this post of yours? That's a tough one. Maybe your suggestion that there would be those who would be pleased by a Buckingham connection? Yes, that must be it. That will be true to some extent.

Bravo.

Now, where do we go from here? More manure throwing or some case discussion? It´s your choice.

[Sam Flynn]

I was not the one to bring up the torso murders here, as you would know if you checked

I knew without checking, thanks. However, as the others didn't wade in with 1000+ word posts, I didn't get the feeling that they were trying to steer the discussion into Torsoripper territory.

Furthermore, they have a massive bearing on the geographical mapping

Of course they do, because the overwhelming likelihood is that we're dealing with different killers committing different kinds of murder in two distinct parts of London. Given the wide East/West separation of the Ripper's killing field and the torso dump-sites, I shouldn't be surprised if a geographical profile pointed the finger of suspicion at a resident of Buckingham Palace! Whilst that might please some people, I'm sure that neither you nor I would be among them

[Fisherman]

I was not the one to bring up the torso murders here, as you would know if you checked. Furthermore, they have a massive bearing on the geographical mapping Jeff has suggested. You really should not get all agitaded and nervous when they are brought up. The same goes for Lechmere - who I did not introduce on the thread either.
I will discuss as I see fit to, and I may well move part of the discussion. If, that is, you stop commenting on the length of my posts - it is no concern of yours.
Deal?

[Sam Flynn]

Let´s take it from the start.

...1,155 words cut...

There are other threads available to discuss the Torso murders. Stop trying to turn this into one.