torso maps

[RockySullivan]

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!

Fish, it says "at the spot previously described" and that the man had "inquired if they had heard of a woman's body being discovered on the Embankment".

[Abby Normal]

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 I´ll 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.



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 victims´ 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 that´s 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 didn´t 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.

he did it for ritualistic reasons. Hes wanting to open up the female body -to create a window/view to see the insides. Its why he took the face off the 1873 torso victim also. It could also explain why he carefully disarticulated joints he didn't have to (instead of just sawing)-to see inner workings.

Possible inspiration was the "venus" anatomical display at the museum, which, incedently, just closed prior to the first torso victim.

I nailed it didn't I Fish! : )

[jerryd]

Cleary

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

I think it was HarryD that actually brought the Whitehall report up. IIRC, it was reported to the office of the Daily Telegraph in the Whitehall case. Pinchin was reported to the Herald office. Not that it matters. Just sayin.

As far as Payne goes it could be coincidence that a George Payne of the right age worked at Reuters with a man named John Cleary. Reuters was located next door to the City Police offices on Old Jewry. I have been looking into this further but nothing to report yet.

[Abby Normal]

Fish, it says "at the spot previously described" and that the man had "inquired if they had heard of a woman's body being discovered on the Embankment".

If true
I think may be more of the Torsoripper messing with people (for the thrill?)than a conspiracy. but agree very very odd.

[RockySullivan]

If true
I think may be more of the Torsoripper messing with people (for the thrill?)than a conspiracy. but agree very very odd.

Abby it's not Jack theripper so why is it Torsoripper?

[RockySullivan]

I think it was HarryD that actually brought the Whitehall report up. IIRC, it was reported to the office of the Daily Telegraph in the Whitehall case. Pinchin was reported to the Herald office. Not that it matters. Just sayin.

As far as Payne goes it could be coincidence that a George Payne of the right age worked at Reuters with a man named John Cleary. Reuters was located next door to the City Police offices on Old Jewry. I have been looking into this further but nothing to report yet.

Why didn't police link this after the Clearly event?

[Fisherman]

Fish, it says "at the spot previously described" and that the man had "inquired if they had heard of a woman's body being discovered on the Embankment".

Yes, I noticed - but the Embankment is rather large and "the spot previously described" can be a large one.

One has to wonder just how common a thing this was, that people conjured up murder victims here and there - the Ripper scare was something that made rumours go riot, that´s for sure.

It nevertheless remains that things like this one sound decidedly odd, just like the John Arnold business. It goes without saying that IF Arnold and the Whitehall informer knew beforehand of the victims, then they were in one fashion or another involved it the matters. But Arnold/Cleary was identified, was he not? And there was some sort of story explaining his coming forward, wasn´t there?

I really need to read up on it again ...

[jerryd]

Why didn't police link this after the Clearly event?

I believe it was the 1881 census I got the info from, Rocky. The John Cleary that Claude Mellor suspected is the man I have been trying to pinpoint as the Reuters man. Mellor stated the John Cleary he knew was a compositor working for the Globe. I am thinking the Globe compositor job would have been after Reuters if it is the same man. It's a complicated story.

I can't help but think of Brodie in all this mess, too. He was released from prison on August 24th, 1888 and ended up at 2 Harvey's Buildings. The same address as John Arnold. Two days before the murder of Annie Chapman, he left for South Africa. He arrives back in London at the time of the McKenzie murder and claims responsibility for it. Again, when he came back to London in 1889 he moved in to No.2 Harveys Buildings. Coincidence?

[Fisherman]

he did it for ritualistic reasons. Hes wanting to open up the female body -to create a window/view to see the insides. Its why he took the face off the 1873 torso victim also. It could also explain why he carefully disarticulated joints he didn't have to (instead of just sawing)-to see inner workings.

Possible inspiration was the "venus" anatomical display at the museum, which, incedently, just closed prior to the first torso victim.

I nailed it didn't I Fish! : )

Not really. Then again, some of the points you make are really good ones.

As an aside, not all wax museums were closed down in 1873, but some were indeed.

[RockySullivan]

One has to wonder just how common a thing this was, that people conjured up murder victims here and there - the Ripper scare was something that made rumours go riot, that´s for sure.

Considering this was within 24 hours of when the torso was found and the exact same thing with the Pinchin torso, no chance of coincidence.

[John Wheat]

Yes the John Arnold incident is important.

--

That wasn't just what I meant. There were clearly two murderers at work in London in 1888 Jack and The Torso Killer.

[John Wheat]

Yes the John Arnold incident is important.

--

Yes John Arnold should be looked at. Some won't comment sensibly on John Arnold though as it would ruin there crappy theories on Jack and The Torso Killer being one and the same and who that might be.

[Abby Normal]

Yes John Arnold should be looked at. Some won't comment sensibly on John Arnold though as it would ruin there crappy theories on Jack and The Torso Killer being one and the same and who that might be.

not if the Trosoripper were actually two men (or more) working together on both series.

[Sam Flynn]

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?

It's not alluring at all, Fish. Strips, flaps, pieces... who cares?

[RockySullivan]

That wasn't just what I meant. There were clearly two murderers at work in London in 1888 Jack and The Torso Killer.

just like there's clearly two elves working really hard to keep your brain running.