Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Torso Killer discussion from Millwood Thread

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Debra A View Post

    What was his message to Scotland Yard? 'Hands off the opera house?'
    Question to myself: Is Debra aware of all the many serial killers who have made it their business to taunt the police?

    Undoubtedly.

    Does she know that there is a large percentage of narcissists within the serial killer ranks?

    I would think so.

    Conclusion? She is joking.

    Good one, Debra!

    So how to answer? I know!

    Yes, I do think that the killer wanted to shout "Hands off the Opera House!" when he left that torso there. My theory is that he was a Verdi aficionado for all the wrong reasons - he read it out "Vile Eviscerations Rule Days Imminent".

    And, needless to say, he understood Puccini as "Poor Unfortunates, Charles Cross Is Now Invented!"

    No wonder he was appalled by how it all went south when Scotland Yard took over the building.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post

      Since the house fronted on to the embankment, I like to imagine the killer travelling along there and occasionally lobbing a parcel into the water. But with the thigh they went for a big wind-up (maybe the tide was going out), mistimed the release and ended up throwing it backwards over the railings. We've all done it.
      hi JR
      how far was the river from Shelley estate/garden where the leg was found?
      "Is all that we see or seem
      but a dream within a dream?"

      -Edgar Allan Poe


      "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
      quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

      -Frederick G. Abberline

      Comment


      • So the major part of the torso found in Battersea park may have been tossed from the bridge with the intent to get it into the river and or just thrown away in haste because someone else was approaching.
        Or it may have been put there intentionally.

        the leg in the Shelley estate may have been tossed from the road just to get rid of and or because someone else was approaching.
        or it may have been thrown there on purpose.

        both are speculation, both are possible, but the fact remains that most of the other parts were found in the river and yet these are found on land, one part being the largest portion, and one part thrown into the Shelley estate.

        In my mind though, I would think the first thing someone would want to get rid of is the largest, and most difficult to move section, and that this would be the first thing that would be tossed into the river. and yet its found in the park some far distance from the river.

        and the leg, could have been discarded also in the river, it being close to the shelley estate, yet they chose to throw it over a high fence/bushes. It could have been dropped easily anywhere, or thrown into the river with the other parts.

        And come to think of it-how long would it take, once on the bridge (assuming its one person in a cart of course-which I think is most likely scenario) to throw all the parts into the river? not very long-so it would only take a few seconds to throw the major part of the torso and the leg into the river after one has already thrown the other parts in. What are the chances that having thrown most of the parts in the river, something happened in that instance (like someone approaching) that would cause the person to stop and take off, still with a couple of parts in his possession? in the middle of the night? That's a tad too tight for me.

        and as Fish said, add in that other torsos are found in the basement of NSY and smack dab in the middle of Pinchin street and I can only come to the conclusion that the killer was leaving the remains in these places on purpose, for some kind of meaning above and beyond just trying to get rid of, or hide.
        Last edited by Abby Normal; 03-22-2019, 01:27 PM.
        "Is all that we see or seem
        but a dream within a dream?"

        -Edgar Allan Poe


        "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
        quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

        -Frederick G. Abberline

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
          how far was the river from Shelley estate/garden where the leg was found?
          Looking at a map, I'd guess that the distance from the nearest (h)edge of Shelley House to the Thames is roughly 80ft, and someone stood mid-way would have been approx 40ft away from the bushes outside Shelley House on the one hand, and the river on the other.
          Last edited by Sam Flynn; 03-22-2019, 01:34 PM.
          Kind regards, Sam Flynn

          "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
            So the major part of the torso found in Battersea park may have been tossed from the bridge with the intent to get it into the river and or just thrown away in haste because someone else was approaching.
            Or it may have been put there intentionally.

            the leg in the Shelley estate may have been tossed from the road just to get rid of and or because someone else was approaching.
            or it may have been thrown there on purpose.

            both are speculation, both are possible, but the fact remains that most of the other parts were found in the river and yet these are found on land, one part being the largest portion, and one part thrown into the Shelley estate.

            In my mind though, I would think the first thing someone would want to get rid of is the largest, and most difficult to move section, and that this would be the first thing that would be tossed into the river. and yet its found in the park some far distance from the river.

            and the leg, could have been discarded also in the river, it being close to the shelley estate, yet they chose to throw it over a high fence/bushes. It could have been dropped easily anywhere, or thrown into the river with the other parts.

            And come to think of it-how long would it take, once on the bridge (assuming its one person in a cart of course-which I think is most likely scenario) to throw all the parts into the river? not very long-so it would only take a few seconds to throw the major part of the torso and the leg into the river after one has already thrown the other parts in. What are the chances that having thrown most of the parts in the river, something happened in that instance (like someone approaching) that would cause the person to stop and take off, still with a couple of parts in his possession? in the middle of the night? That's a tad too tight for me.

            and as Fish said, add in that later torsos are found in the basement of NSY and smack dab in the middle of Pinchin street and I can only come to the conclusion that the killer was leaving the remains in these places on purpose, for some kind of meaning above and beyond just trying to get rid of, or hide.
            Abby,

            I still, personally, like the angle of the Board of Works/ LCC. The construction of New Scotland Yard was overseen by them, Battersea Park was operated by them at the time, the Pinchin Land was owned by the WBoW and the embankments were managed by them. I recall reading that around the time the BoW took over Battersea Park (1887), many men lost their jobs. Perhaps someone was angry at them for this? We also know George Lusk was on the Board of Works.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post

              Thanks, Jerry. The house seems to have a fittingly Gothic air about it
              A bit off topic, Gareth, but the Shelley House was nothing compared to Dr Phenes " House of Mystery" located just down the road in Chelsea at Upper Cheyne Row.

              https://rbkclocalstudies.wordpress.c...in-his-garden/

              Comment


              • Originally posted by jerryd View Post
                I still, personally, like the angle of the Board of Works/ LCC. The construction of New Scotland Yard was overseen by them, Battersea Park was operated by them at the time, the Pinchin Land was owned by the WBoW and the embankments were managed by them. I recall reading that around the time the BoW took over Battersea Park (1887), many men lost their jobs. Perhaps someone was angry at them for this?
                The Whitechapel Board of Works took over Battersea? Or was Whitechapel and Battersea subsumed into the same, London-wide BOW with local representatives aligned to the boroughs?
                We also know George Lusk was on the Board of Works.
                Wouldn't he be one of the men with interest/responsibility for Whitechapel, rather than his equivalents with interest/responsibility for the Battersea area?
                Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                  The Whitechapel Board of Works took over Battersea? Or was Whitechapel and Battersea subsumed into the same, London-wide BOW with local representatives aligned to the boroughs?
                  The Metropolitan Board of Works acquired (by transfer) Battersea, Kennington and Victoria Parks in 1887.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by jerryd View Post
                    The Metropolitan Board of Works acquired (by transfer) Battersea, Kennington and Victoria Parks in 1887.
                    Thanks, so would Lusk have had little or no interest/influence in what happened way across town from his patch, instead leaving such matters to his counterparts in the West? Would Lusk even have been known to those disgruntled workers who lost their jobs in the subsumption of Battersea into the MBoW?
                    Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                    "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                      Thanks, so would Lusk have had little or no interest/influence in what happened way across town from his patch, instead leaving such matters to his counterparts in the West? Would Lusk even have been known to those disgruntled workers who lost their jobs in the subsumption of Battersea into the MBoW?
                      I'm not sure how involved Lusk was. I believe he was a vestryman for Mile End BoW, IIRC. Regarding the counterparts in the West knowing who he was? Again, not sure, Gareth.

                      The disgruntled workers was speculation on my part, of course. I have never put much stock into it. Or research for that matter. I still believe one of the workers in the Scotland Yard building was involved, somehow.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                        hi JR
                        how far was the river from Shelley estate/garden where the leg was found?
                        I would estimate about 60' or so from the water. I see Sam has gone for 80', but basically it's the width of the Embankment road, so have a look for yourself;

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                          So the major part of the torso found in Battersea park may have been tossed from the bridge with the intent to get it into the river and or just thrown away in haste because someone else was approaching.
                          Or it may have been put there intentionally.

                          the leg in the Shelley estate may have been tossed from the road just to get rid of and or because someone else was approaching.
                          or it may have been thrown there on purpose.

                          both are speculation, both are possible, but the fact remains that most of the other parts were found in the river and yet these are found on land, one part being the largest portion, and one part thrown into the Shelley estate.

                          In my mind though, I would think the first thing someone would want to get rid of is the largest, and most difficult to move section, and that this would be the first thing that would be tossed into the river. and yet its found in the park some far distance from the river.

                          and the leg, could have been discarded also in the river, it being close to the shelley estate, yet they chose to throw it over a high fence/bushes. It could have been dropped easily anywhere, or thrown into the river with the other parts.

                          And come to think of it-how long would it take, once on the bridge (assuming its one person in a cart of course-which I think is most likely scenario) to throw all the parts into the river? not very long-so it would only take a few seconds to throw the major part of the torso and the leg into the river after one has already thrown the other parts in. What are the chances that having thrown most of the parts in the river, something happened in that instance (like someone approaching) that would cause the person to stop and take off, still with a couple of parts in his possession? in the middle of the night? That's a tad too tight for me.

                          and as Fish said, add in that other torsos are found in the basement of NSY and smack dab in the middle of Pinchin street and I can only come to the conclusion that the killer was leaving the remains in these places on purpose, for some kind of meaning above and beyond just trying to get rid of, or hide.
                          I agree totally, Abby. I think the mistake that is often made is to isolate one matter and look at how it in itself may have been a fluke, a coincidence. Once we do that - and it is VERY frequently done - we can easily conclude that a fluke is very possible. It is the combined weight of the many flukes that sinks that vessel in my eyes.

                          A killer who has chopped up a body in little pieces for ease of transportation, and who has brought those pieces along to a bridge with the intent of throwing the parts in the river will be carrying the parts in some sort of sack or trunk or something. The expected thing to do is to throw the whole sack or trunk into the water and be rid of it. I find the concept of the killer opening the sack/trunk up and throwing the parts in, one after the other, hard to believe in UNLESS we are dealing with the kind of culprit I actually believe we ARE dealing with - somebody who used the parts to make a statement.

                          Are we to believe that the killer chucked the parts in one by one, and that he then took his sack or trunk with himself, bloody and gory, as he returned home? Or did he throw it in the river too? If so, why open it up first and take the parts out? And why save some parts for dumping on dry land?
                          Last edited by Fisherman; 03-22-2019, 02:57 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                            Looking at a map, I'd guess that the distance from the nearest (h)edge of Shelley House to the Thames is roughly 80ft, and someone stood mid-way would have been approx 40ft away from the bushes outside Shelley House on the one hand, and the river on the other.
                            That speaks to me of a conscious decision, since he would have come from the riverbank all of them 80 feet up to the house to throw the leg into the garden. And the fence was high, it would seem, so it was no small effort. Surely, it would have been easier to throw it in the river - and certainly, throwing all the parts in at the same time and place, in whatever sort of device they were carried in, would have been the easiest choice of them all.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by jerryd View Post

                              Abby,

                              I still, personally, like the angle of the Board of Works/ LCC. The construction of New Scotland Yard was overseen by them, Battersea Park was operated by them at the time, the Pinchin Land was owned by the WBoW and the embankments were managed by them. I recall reading that around the time the BoW took over Battersea Park (1887), many men lost their jobs. Perhaps someone was angry at them for this? We also know George Lusk was on the Board of Works.
                              That is - and I think I have said it before - sterling work, Jerry. But how do we place a single man tied to the WBoW in all these places? Apart from the New Scotland Yard building, the other sites were not fenced off or anything like that, so why would a killer - regardless if he was tied to the Board - feel compelled to use these settings for dumping body parts? Are you suggesting some sort of coordinator? Was there such a person?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by jerryd View Post

                                Abby,

                                I still, personally, like the angle of the Board of Works/ LCC. The construction of New Scotland Yard was overseen by them, Battersea Park was operated by them at the time, the Pinchin Land was owned by the WBoW and the embankments were managed by them. I recall reading that around the time the BoW took over Battersea Park (1887), many men lost their jobs. Perhaps someone was angry at them for this? We also know George Lusk was on the Board of Works.
                                absolutely Jerry! I know this connection has been talked about extensively before, and your research into it, and I totally agree.
                                "Is all that we see or seem
                                but a dream within a dream?"

                                -Edgar Allan Poe


                                "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                                quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                                -Frederick G. Abberline

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X