torso maps

[Fisherman]

I''m saying it's not surprising they would go after it in their "murder spree", arguably,agree?
As far as the rarity, the more important fact to me is there are too many kinds of people and they are unpredictable, that you won't know what 2 of those/them will do.It happened in East End/West End, there it is.And we are not sure yet if in the torso case they were taken only for the purpose of disposal.

In the Pinchin case what's the significance of John Arnold,why would somebody know in advance where a torso would be deposited? Why was
he not suspected? Does this not point to people were tasked to get rid of a body/torso and word spread out, so it was not a serial killing?

We need drawings otherwise it's unclear.

--

It is and remains surprising that anybody would cut out hearts and uteri from murder victims, Iīm afraid. It is a very rare thing and when very rare things occur, then the surprise factor is always there. That is how rarity and surprise are connected: When common things happen, nobody is surprised, when extremely uncommon things do, people are very surprised.

The idea that men are fond of the hearts and uteri of the women they live with is a bit bizarre from the outset: I cannot remember ever having had fond visions of my wifes uterus. I am happy about it, since it has helped my three kids to life, but that happiness does not entail a wish to cut it out.

When you say that it happened in the West End and in the East End, you are dabbling with the facts. We do not know where the extractions of the organs took place in the torso cases. So we donīt know that it happened in the West End, we only know it did in the East End. And the deeds are so rare that if they had happened, uterus removal, heart removal and abdominal wall removal included, in the same time period in Chelmsford, Portsmouth, Swindon and Hastings, our best bet would still be that there was one killer only.

John Arnolds significance is unknown to us, and cannot be established. We can speculate all day, but we cannot ground it in facts.

The same goes for the drawings you ask for. Draw away, you have as good - or bad - a chance to get it right as anybody else. There are too few factors known about the shapes and sizes of the flaps to make it a useful exercise, Iīm afraid.

[Fisherman]

no fair!!!

But perhaps understandable?

[John Wheat]

I''m saying it's not surprising they would go after it in their "murder spree", arguably,agree?
As far as the rarity, the more important fact to me is there are too many kinds of people and they are unpredictable, that you won't know what 2 of those/them will do.It happened in East End/West End, there it is.And we are not sure yet if in the torso case they were taken only for the purpose of disposal.

In the Pinchin case what's the significance of John Arnold,why would somebody know in advance where a torso would be deposited? Why was
he not suspected? Does this not point to people were tasked to get rid of a body/torso and word spread out, so it was not a serial killing?

We need drawings otherwise it's unclear.

--

I think you raise some interesting points Varqm. I know others disagree/will disagree as it suits them.

Cheers John

[Sam Flynn]

And you could not compare the flaps inbetween victims since it is not known how they were shaped.

We do know that, in Jackson's case, they were described as slips/strips, and a strip invariably denotes a piece of something which is longer than it is wide.

They were large and it seems they covered very substantial parts of the victims respective bodies

A pair of strips cut from the level of the navel to the pubis does not constitute a "very substantial part" of the body. Severe, yes, but nowhere near in the same league as Mary Kelly's wound, and arguably not as extensive as Chapman's either. We don't have much detail about the latter, but her wound was evidently large enough to allow her intestines to be quickly lifted out of her body and laid over her shoulder.

[Abby Normal]

But perhaps understandable?

Only if your writing a book.

And ive got your title- Lech the TorsoRipper

[Fisherman]

I think you raise some interesting points Varqm. I know others disagree/will disagree as it suits them.

Cheers John

Yes itīs funny, is it not, just how common that is...?

[Fisherman]

We do know that, in Jackson's case, they were described as slips/strips, and a strip invariably denotes a piece of something which is longer than it is wide.

Agreed. But why would we talk of strips when that term was never used by anybody in contact with the cases? What is it that makes the term so alluring to you, Gareth?

How about we stay true to the facts, and use "slips" instead? If so, I would once more agree - a slip is longer than it is wide. Then again, something that is 100 inches long and 99 inches wide would be a slip, going by your definition! And to be frank, although some things that are NOT longer than they are wide can be called slips (a slip of meat on a sandwich can be a round slice to the americans, for example), my own take is that a slip is not only longer than it is wide, it is actually visibly and decidedly so. To me, 100 x 99 inches is not a slip. I am very dubious about 100 x 70, even - but Iīll be damned if I can put a working figure to it, to draw the line. But I have no problems accepting 40 x 12 centimeters as a slip - and that is around what I think Jacksons slips were. Or 40 x 15. And the width would have varied, from very thin at the ends to 15 at the widest.

So we do not know the exact shape of Jacksons flaps. We suppose, both of us, that they were longer than they were wide - and that allows for more or less the whole of the lower abdomen having been cut open by the two flaps. I also think that is exactly what happened, since that is what the papers are saying, in varying manners.

A pair of strips cut from the level of the navel to the pubis does not constitute a "very substantial part" of the body. Severe, yes, but nowhere near in the same league as Mary Kelly's wound, and arguably not as extensive as Chapman's either. We don't have much detail about the latter, but her wound was evidently large enough to allow her intestines to be quickly lifted out of her body and laid over her shoulder.

No, you are wrong on all counts here, Gareth. Chapmans intestines could have been lifted out of a gash, there was never any need to take the abdominal wall away to reach that goal. It is impossible to guess the size of her flaps using that parameter, but it seems evident to me that they were large enough to open up a substantial amount of her abdomen. The salient point here is that there is no way that anybody can deny that the major part or more of all three victimsī abdominal walls may have been taken away - very clearly, the descriptions allow for such a thing.
And as per the above, the whole of Jacksons lower abdomen could have been removed in two slips that were around 40 cm long and around 12-15 centimeters wide at the widest place. Keep in mind that that the flaps reached all the way down beyond the groin and into the buttock on one side, so thatīs a farily long stretch, maybe 45 centimeters. Drawings of such flaps have been posted before, by me as well as by Joshua Rogan, and they answered very well in every respect to the demand of shapes that were three or four times as long as they were wide - slips, therefore.

In all of this, actually the most intersting question is WHY he cut away the abdominal walls the way he did. He didnīt have to, to get at the organs, something he knew quite well from for example Eddowes. So if there was not a practical reason, then why did he do it? Answer that, and I believe you will move an important step further.

[RockySullivan]

In the Pinchin case what's the significance of John Arnold,why would somebody know in advance where a torso would be deposited? Why was
he not suspected? Does this not point to people were tasked to get rid of a body/torso and word spread out, so it was not a serial killing?

We need drawings otherwise it's unclear.

--

Or why in the Whitehall case did the exact same suspicious circumstance occur, where a man went to the newspaper and said he had information about a body right before they found the torso in the vault!?

[Varqm]

It is and remains surprising that anybody would cut out hearts and uteri from murder victims, Iīm afraid. It is a very rare thing and when very rare things occur, then the surprise factor is always there. That is how rarity and surprise are connected: When common things happen, nobody is surprised, when extremely uncommon things do, people are very surprised.

The idea that men are fond of the hearts and uteri of the women they live with is a bit bizarre from the outset: I cannot remember ever having had fond visions of my wifes uterus. I am happy about it, since it has helped my three kids to life, but that happiness does not entail a wish to cut it out.

When you say that it happened in the West End and in the East End, you are dabbling with the facts. We do not know where the extractions of the organs took place in the torso cases. So we donīt know that it happened in the West End, we only know it did in the East End. And the deeds are so rare that if they had happened, uterus removal, heart removal and abdominal wall removal included, in the same time period in Chelmsford, Portsmouth, Swindon and Hastings, our best bet would still be that there was one killer only.

John Arnolds significance is unknown to us, and cannot be established. We can speculate all day, but we cannot ground it in facts.

The same goes for the drawings you ask for. Draw away, you have as good - or bad - a chance to get it right as anybody else. There are too few factors known about the shapes and sizes of the flaps to make it a useful exercise, Iīm afraid.

What I'm saying is what draws these killers to killing women? It's partly sexual.These body parts symbolize or easily could symbolize a woman - possibly the ripper- who liked the uterus, as an ex..These people have visions/urges that prompt them to kill,all of which are stronger/more impotrant than historical precedence (influenced by a past killer). London did not have a ripper-precedence that I know of but the ripper had urges/visions and he did it,in spite of historical precedence .People are unpredictable.

I agree we do not know if the torso killings was done in the East end or Wwest end.Maybe he used the West end as a dumping ground,significantly far from where he lives for evasive reasons for ex..

The John Arnold incident has to be significant.He seems to have a good reputation with the police and they did not suspect him. His excuse was that somebody told him,a constable/commissaire.But it does not change it, why would he know in advance if he was not the killer? This can't be a serial killingunless John Arnold was the killer.That's why I suggest it's got something to do with "illegal business" or the "criminal underground" of some kind.Word spread out.

--

Since we can't accurately draw the torso victims,I do not think anybody can, and compare it to the ripper victim's,as far as flaps-slip,slit are concerned for ex.,the best option is to defer to Dr. Hebbert's observations,who was there - if I remember right he said there were 2 killers.

--

[Varqm]

I think you raise some interesting points Varqm. I know others disagree/will disagree as it suits them.

Cheers John

Yes the John Arnold incident is important.

--

[Varqm]

Or why in the Whitehall case did the exact same suspicious circumstance occur, where a man went to the newspaper and said he had information about a body right before they found the torso in the vault!?

I was not aware of this.There is a pattern then.It has to be related to an illegal business/underground.

--

[RockySullivan]

I was not aware of this.There is a pattern then.It has to be related to an illegal business/underground.

--

Cleary

jerryd recently found that the man who made a confession deemed false may be related to these incidents.

FALSE CONFESSION
At the Marylebone Police Court, yesterday, Geo. Payne, who described himself as a labourer, and who spoke with a provincial dialect, was charged with being drunk in the street. Detective sergeant Gurtner, F Division, said he received information about eleven o'clock on Thursday night that a man in the Harrow road had been heard to say that he had committed half a dozen murders in the East end of London, and now he had come to the West end to commit half a dozen more. He had also made defiant remarks about the Home Secretary. Witness went after the man, whom he found to be drunk, and having questioned him took him into custody. There was great excitement in the neighbourhood. Mr. George Nash, the landlord of a beerhouse, No 51 Harrow road, said the prisoner entered his house and was supplied with half a pint of beer. At that time he appeared all right, but prisoner said he knew Mr. John Morley and the Home Secretary would like to get hold of him, but he was too clever for them. He had done five or six murders in Whitechapel, and now he thought he would come to the West end. Witness thought that even of what the man had said were not true he (the prisoner) ought not to escape punishment for making the statement.
https://www.casebook.org/press_repor.../18881006.html

Sheffield Evening Telegraph
11 October 1888

AN EXTRAORDINARY STORY

An extraordinary story is going the round of journalistic circles in connection with the mysterious discovery on the Thames Embankment. It will be remembered that the woman's remains were found on the Monday afternoon of last week. The previous evening, however, a man went to most of the daily newspaper offices, saw the respective subeditors[?] and inquired if they had heard of a woman's body being discovered on the Embankment. The man evidently expected remuneration, but, in accordance with practice, was required to call again after inquiries had been made. Reporters were despatched in hot haste to Westminster, and calls were made at all the police stations and other likely quarters, but without result, no discovery of the kind reported having been made. In less than twenty-four hours the remains of the unknown woman were found between the Embankment and Whitehall at the spot previously described. If this reported discovery was a hoax, and a strange coincidence, it is very singular indeed. Moreover, the man who called at the newspaper offices did not call a second time.

[Fisherman]

What I'm saying is what draws these killers to killing women? It's partly sexual.These body parts symbolize or easily could symbolize a woman - possibly the ripper- who liked the uterus, as an ex..These people have visions/urges that prompt them to kill,all of which are stronger/more impotrant than historical precedence (influenced by a past killer). London did not have a ripper-precedence that I know of but the ripper had urges/visions and he did it,in spite of historical precedence .People are unpredictable.

I agree we do not know if the torso killings was done in the East end or Wwest end.Maybe he used the West end as a dumping ground,significantly far from where he lives for evasive reasons for ex..

The John Arnold incident has to be significant.He seems to have a good reputation with the police and they did not suspect him. His excuse was that somebody told him,a constable/commissaire.But it does not change it, why would he know in advance if he was not the killer? This can't be a serial killingunless John Arnold was the killer.That's why I suggest it's got something to do with "illegal business" or the "criminal underground" of some kind.Word spread out.

--

Since we can't accurately draw the torso victims,I do not think anybody can, and compare it to the ripper victim's,as far as flaps-slip,slit are concerned for ex.,the best option is to defer to Dr. Hebbert's observations,who was there - if I remember right he said there were 2 killers.

--

Yes, there is in all probability a sexual element involved in both series - agreed. But I donīt think that the combined killer regarded taking Eddowesī kidney out as any less sexually gratifying than taking Kellys uterus out. Overall, I think this killer was very much about control, and that control manifested itself in a ritualistically coloured agenda.

No, the fact that new types of serialist always have and always will emerge, does not men that we are likely to have two killers at work here. The thing is, these series did NOT differ all that much, but instead had inclusions that were very rare but nevertheless occurred in both series. The inevitable conclusion must be that there was one killer only.

Thank you for recognizing that we do not know where the torso victims were slain and dismembered (with the possible exception of the Pinchin Street torso, where there is reason to believe that it was dismembered in close proximity to the dumping spot).

There is an incident that reminds us of the Arnold affair, where a journalist speaks to a police officer, and it is suggested that the place they are passing looks like a typical murder spot - and then a murder happens there. I canīt recall the details, but that is the gist of it.

There is also the Whitehall example mentioned.

I donīt have all the Arnold details in my head, but I agree that it is an odd affair - but not one that proves that he must have known something about an upcoming murder. The address he gives is not the exact one where the murder occurs, for example, if I remember correctly. But it is nevertheless a strange affair. I will look it up (again) as soon as I have the opportunity.

[RockySullivan]

There is also the Whitehall example mentioned.

I donīt have all the Arnold details in my head, but I agree that it is an odd affair - but not one that proves that he must have known something about an upcoming murder. The address he gives is not the exact one where the murder occurs, for example, if I remember correctly. But it is nevertheless a strange affair. I will look it up (again) as soon as I have the opportunity.

In the whitehall example (which is identical to the later pinchin incident) the torso was found at the spot previously described.

[Fisherman]

In the whitehall example (which is identical to the later pinchin incident) the torso was found at the spot previously described.

Do we know the exact size and location of that spot? Surely, it was not said that it would be found in the building of New Scotland Yard, but perhaps "on the Embankment, not far from the Houses of Parliament" or "close by the river" or something such - which would correspond to a degree.

The source - the Sheffield Evening Telegraph - is also important. They probably got the story from another paper or news agency, and so there are a number of layers to be sifted through before we reach the original source.

But it is extremely interesting anyway!