Torso Murders

[jerryd]

Hi Joshua,

For the most part, yes. I think, IIRC, Hurley had asked to be knocked up the entire week at the same time so maybe not so much of a coincidence. I think my thoughts at the time were that once Hurley was knocked up, he could deposit the torso because he knew where the PC was in his beat. Initially though, I thought the man asking to be knocked up lived on Ely Place [that's what that press report stated the name of the street was], just north of Whitechapel Road, but asked to be knocked up at Pinchin Street, which I found odd.

The Scotsman report was misprinted I'm sure.

[Joshua Rogan]

The coincidence, I meant, was that Hurley happened to bump into PC Pennett on Pinchin Street, rather than Ellen Place or any of the other roads on his beat. Which has led to a bit of confusion. Did Hurley have to wander round the PCs beat until he found him? Setting an alarm clock is so much easier.
Or maybe it wasn't a coincidence at all, and he was in Pinchin Street checking out the arches and timing Pennett's beat...

[jerryd]

The coincidence, I meant, was that Hurley happened to bump into PC Pennett on Pinchin Street, rather than Ellen Place or any of the other roads on his beat. Which has led to a bit of confusion. Did Hurley have to wander round the PCs beat until he found him? Setting an alarm clock is so much easier.
Or maybe it wasn't a coincidence at all, and he was in Pinchin Street checking out the arches and timing Pennett's beat...

Yes. Maybe a dry run for a week to work the kinks out?!

[Joshua Rogan]

Not sure about that. Hurley might have asked to be woken up every day that week, but the torso was deposited on Pennett's first night on that beat. So either he felt confident enough to go with the plan after a minimum of preparation.... or he was just some guy who needed to get to work early.

[jerryd]

Not sure about that. Hurley might have asked to be woken up every day that week, but the torso was deposited on Pennett's first night on that beat. So either he felt confident enough to go with the plan after a minimum of preparation.... or he was just some guy who needed to get to work early.

Needed to be to work at 5:30, asked for a wake up call at 5:00 and left for work at 25 minutes to 6:00.

[Mayerling]

Hello MAYERLING.

I thought Fisherman asked some interesting questions on pg. 41; the most interesting being, why distribute the body around London if the murderer is trying to conceal the identity.
Also, why dismember the body more than is necessary?
Also, why "float" the body parts in the river where they will be found (rather than sinking them down with weights)?
Also, I think the aspect of scalping may have come into the discussion.

Either way, it seemed to me to be ritualistic. Because of the scalping, I netted "Native American dismemberment", and I hit upon the story of Oroonoko. In A Companion to the Literature of Colonial America (p.272) Derek Hughes writes in his essay that Oroonoko sacrifices his wife,

to prevent the child from entering the cycle of the marketplace; and to the final ritual of dismemberment, in which the body reverts to being an abacus, quartered and distributed through the plantations.

I was hoping that you could fill in the gaps of the story

Hi Robert,

The irony of what you found is that I've never heard of Oroonoko. I just looked him up on Wikipedia, and he is the hero (or anti-hero) of what may be the most important novel of the Stuart period in the late 17th Century. Oroonoko is the central figure of a novel of that name by female poet, dramatist, and novelist Aphra Behn, and he kills his wife in the novel (written in the 1680s). But he kills her to spare her rape and torture in a slave revolt.
The plot of the book begins in the New World but ends in Surinam, where the central person and his wife are slaves. Hence the revolt. The details of the death of the wife are not given in the article, but it appears she's not dismembered.

I'm sorry there is little I can tell you on this. But I do recommend the article in Wikipedia.

Jeff

[Joshua Rogan]

I still think it would be risky in the extreme to tell the policeman where you lived, if you were planning to dump a body on his beat.

[jerryd]

I still think it would be risky in the extreme to tell the policeman where you lived, if you were planning to dump a body on his beat.

I agree, Joshua,

Sometimes it's nice to get the "big picture" of what was going on that night. It may help piece together clues.

[harry]

Stupid am I Abby.
Well consider,nowwhere in my postings have I said the torso killings were not murder,So read my posts carefully before making such comments.
You and others presume they are murders,yet the most important element in proving murder is missing.That is ,the cause of death.Now that I think is stupid.
I know we should all think like you and fisherman,you both are so knowledgeable,articulate,and wellversed in both the torso and ripper crimes.Unfortunately you do not seem so understanding when it comes to defining w hat is murder,nor how the law interprets it.
By the way,what was the law in those days?

[Fisherman]

Stupid am I Abby.
Well consider,nowwhere in my postings have I said the torso killings were not murder,So read my posts carefully before making such comments.
You and others presume they are murders,yet the most important element in proving murder is missing.That is ,the cause of death.Now that I think is stupid.
I know we should all think like you and fisherman,you both are so knowledgeable,articulate,and wellversed in both the torso and ripper crimes.Unfortunately you do not seem so understanding when it comes to defining w hat is murder,nor how the law interprets it.
By the way,what was the law in those days?

I know that the jury reached a verdict of wilful murder in three cases, and that the consensus was that the same applied in all cases - but out of legal necessity they settled for found dead whe they thought that the evidence for a verdict of wilful murder was lacking.
That did not mean that the polce regarded any of these cases as anything but murder, but they followed praxis anyway.
It was the logical thing to do.

To reason that what a medico called two blows to the temple as having come about as the result of an implement that could deliver two bruises with one blow, now that is what I call reasoning against logic.

It CAN happen. But what are the odds, Harry...? Really?

[RockySullivan]

thanks for the info on Hurley. I'm not sure if the rumor was that Hurley himself was the one who disposed of the torso, but rather he was part of a conspiracy to distract the officer. Do you know where the rumor started that this may have been a distraction? i wonder who else lived at Hurley's address...

[RockySullivan]

Jer just looked at the map you posted....Hurley's home seems quite far from the dump site

[jerryd]

Jer just looked at the map you posted....Hurley's home seems quite far from the dump site

Hi Rocky,

That map shows Ely Place where i have the arrow. Ellen Place was a very short distance from the dump site.

[Trevor Marriott]

I know that the jury reached a verdict of wilful murder in three cases, and that the consensus was that the same applied in all cases - but out of legal necessity they settled for found dead whe they thought that the evidence for a verdict of wilful murder was lacking.
That did not mean that the polce regarded any of these cases as anything but murder, but they followed praxis anyway.
It was the logical thing to do.

To reason that what a medico called two blows to the temple as having come about as the result of an implement that could deliver two bruises with one blow, now that is what I call reasoning against logic.

It CAN happen. But what are the odds, Harry...? Really?

And in the case of Jackson the coroner "SUGGESTED" to the jury they should return a verdict of wilful murder when there was not a scrap of evidence to support wilful murder. So much for your reliance of verdicts of wilful murder.

I havent looked at the others yet !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[harry]

A coroners jury is not a trial jury.Irrespective of any verdict by the former,a murder charge,in a trial, requires evidence a murder has been commited.First and foremost,and a cause of death established.
One blow or two,ivé no doubt a good defense would provide ample evidence that head injuries of a more numerous and forcefull nature,have not resulted in death,and that alternatives to murder was a valid consideration.
As regards the police and the torsos, there is little evidence of what they believed,or what steps were taken by them,and even less evidence they connected the two separate series of crimes,and none at all that Cross was a perpetrator.