Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Torso Killer discussion from Millwood Thread

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

  • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
    I don't see anything particularly impractical or dangerous in going for a quiet stroll in the dead of night to drop off one or two pieces at a time.
    Actually, having to make more than one trip to dispose of body parts is the very definition of impracticality. And since the risk of being seen raises with every trip, it goes without saying that there is danger involved in such a course of action. I´m sure you can see how that works.

    Comment


    • Hi Fisherman,

      Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

      Actually, having to make more than one trip to dispose of body parts is the very definition of impracticality. And since the risk of being seen raises with every trip, it goes without saying that there is danger involved in such a course of action. I´m sure you can see how that works.
      what if the dismemberment of the bodies was done to a) make identification difficult and b) to be able to individually dispose the parts at varying times at different spots (maybe even by more than one person)? If we assume for a moment that the dismemberment had a more practical rather than ritualistic meaning, dumping all parts of one body at one and the same spot seems counterproductive to me.

      Cheers,

      Boris
      ~ All perils, specially malignant, are recurrent - Thomas De Quincey ~

      Comment


      • Originally posted by bolo View Post
        If we assume for a moment that the dismemberment had a more practical rather than ritualistic meaning, dumping all parts of one body at one and the same spot seems counterproductive to me.
        Quite, and it's almost certain that the dismemberment and disposal were indeed for entirely practical reasons.
        Kind regards, Sam Flynn

        "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

        Comment


        • Originally posted by bolo View Post
          Hi Fisherman,



          what if the dismemberment of the bodies was done to a) make identification difficult and b) to be able to individually dispose the parts at varying times at different spots (maybe even by more than one person)? If we assume for a moment that the dismemberment had a more practical rather than ritualistic meaning, dumping all parts of one body at one and the same spot seems counterproductive to me.

          Cheers,

          Boris
          What if? The exact same thing applies. There will be the impracticability of having to make several rounds imposed on the killer and that will carry with itself a much enlarged danger of being sighted and caught.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
            Quite, and it's almost certain that the dismemberment and disposal were indeed for entirely practical reasons.
            No. Don´t pass your ideas off as facts or near certanties. It was wrong when you said that it is almost certain that the killer lived close to or in Battersea and it is equally wrong now. In how many cases of practically led on dismemberment has the killer taken out the heart, lungs and uterus from a victim? In how many cases of practically led on dismemberment has the victim had her abdominal wall cut away in large flaps?

            It´s okay to say that you "strongly feel" something, but please leave it like that if you want to hold on to some level of trustworthyness.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by jerryd View Post

              I believe he did, Christer. He may have traveled one way over Albert Bridge on his way to work at the new police offices and then the other way over the bridge on his way home on Maysoule Road.
              Ah! That Wildbore fellow again? So where would he have chopped up the body, do you think? And why would he place it in a vault to which he and very few other had access and were aquainted with? Tipping of the coppers?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                What if? The exact same thing applies. There will be the impracticability of having to make several rounds imposed on the killer and that will carry with itself a much enlarged danger of being sighted and caught.
                Well, at least in case of the Pinchin St. and New Scotland Yard torsi, the killer did just that, he dumped one more or less big part of the bodies on different locations and not in one place. This tells me that the dismemberment was mostly done for practical reasons which does not mean there wouldn't have been ritualistic elements involved in the whole process but I don't think it was cutting down the bodies to easy-to-transport portions. In my opinion, a possible ritual part took place post-mortem, pre-dismemberment.
                ~ All perils, specially malignant, are recurrent - Thomas De Quincey ~

                Comment


                • What practical reason could there be that once youve dumped most of the torso parts off or very near the bridge, you hold onto one last part, the leg, some half mile before getting rid if it.
                  "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 bolo View Post
                    at least in case of the Pinchin St. and New Scotland Yard torsi, the killer did just that, he dumped one more or less big part of the bodies on different locations and not in one place
                    And, by extension, not at the same time. Individual parts are easier to much easier to transport and conceal than a whole bunch of parts.
                    Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                    "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                      Since Jeff has moved the discussion here, I will give my answer to both him and Kattrup on this thread.

                      I earlier listed a large collection of similarities inbetween the Ripper and the Torso series:

                      Same town.

                      Same time.

                      Ripped from sternum to pelvis.

                      Took out uteri.

                      Took out hearts.

                      Cut away abdominal walls in large flaps.

                      Didn't use physical torture before killing the victims.

                      Took rings from victims fingers.

                      Were considered anatomical experts/surgeons by contemporary medicos.

                      Killed prostitutes.

                      If we want to entertain the idea that there were two eviscerating serial killers who both opted for doing these things, it follows that we must accept that these similarities were coincidental.

                      Not one of them.

                      Not some of them.

                      ALL of them. Each and every one.

                      I would argue that since there are no other examples of coexisting serial killers in the same geographical area with eviscerations on their agendas, that in itself is quite enough to weigh the scales down in favour of just one killer. And that is before we look at the specifics.

                      A curiosity like cutting abdominal walls would on its own be quite enough to point unequivocally to a single killer. It plays in the same league as Charles Albrights gouging out the eyes from his victims. Add the rest and the case for one killer only becomes watertight.

                      Kattrup points out that these things do not prove a link. Technically, that is correct. Practically, though, I have no doubt that the information would be enough to convict on in a capital case. And I am careful when it comes to such matters - I have frequently pointed out that if I was put in a jury in a capital case against Charles Lechmere, I would let him walk on account of how there is no decisive proof. I would, however, feel that I was allowing a guilty man to walk free - but that is what we need to do when the evidence is not strong enough.

                      If I had the same task in deciding whether or not a single killer was responsible for both murder series in Victorian London, I would have no qualms in saying that this was so. The weight of the evidence is way too strong to enable us to reach any other conclusion. Any other suggestion must be regarded as a fluke possibility of the weirdest kind only.

                      And speaking about flukes, I am told that the fact that the Torso killer dumped a torso in the cellar vaults of New Scotland Yard and a thigh in the garden of Percy Shelly, the descendant of Mary Shelley, who wrote Frankenstein´s Monster about a man sewn together with the help of body parts from dead people, were just that - flukes.

                      This presents us with the same kind of problems as the long list of similarities inbetween the deeds: Should we accept any amount of flukes? The New Scotland Yard building was the heart of Londons police force. A killer who put a torso in the deepest and most hard-reached recesses of such a building will definitely look like somebody taunting the police. There were a million other buildings in London, so the specific choice of this one seems an extremely focused thing.

                      But no - I am told it was a fluke only; it carries no importance. And I am of course told that I cannot prove that it did.

                      Similarly, the killer could have thrown that thigh into any garden in London - there were tens of thousands to choose from. But for some reason, he threw it into a descendant of the bloodline who wrote about Frankensteins monster. Once we combine it with the knowledge about the New Scotland Yard building, we can see that we have TWO very specific addresses employed for the killers body parts.
                      But no, I am told - it is once gain a mere fluke. And I am told - knee-jerk style - that I cannot prove that it wasn't a fluke.

                      So it all boils down to the balance of probabilities.

                      Is it probable that a dismemberment killer just happens to choose these two addresses? Stumbles over them? Is it probable that this was just a - sorry, two - flukes?

                      Is it probable that the two series can have as many rare and odd inclusions, some of them rarer than hens teeth in murder cases, as the result of how a swarm of coincidences descended upon serial murder London in 1887-89?

                      No, it is not probable. In fact, it never CAN be probable. The likelihood of a single killer is infinitely stronger than the major(est ever) fluke possibility of two killers.

                      Kattrup has a long history of not liking what I say. He has his own remedy for it - he parrots the same thing over and over again: I am not saying what I say because of the facts, I am saying it because I have a theory to defend. Or so I am told.
                      It is of course a useful tool if it can be pulled off - it paints a picture of me as deeply biased, unable to see clearly and always ready to make dishonest claims.

                      Thankfully, it is never hard to show where Kattrup is wrong: This time he says that I only promote the 1873 Torso murder as belonging to the Torso series because it fits my theory with Charles Lechmere as the killer.
                      He makes it sound as if I am the only one promoting this murder, and as if nobody who does not regard Lechmere as the killer would ever think that the 1873 murder belonged to the 1887-89 series.

                      This of course is as ridiculous as it is untrue; it is not I who presented the 1873 murder as belonging to the series. On the contrary, it normally is counted into the series. And that owes to the similarities inbetween the murders. The 1873 murder was one where the cutting was dexterious and precise, just like in the 1887-89 series. The joints were opened up and disarticulated, just as the joints were in the 1887-89 series. The victim was killed and immediately cut up afterwards, just like in the 1887-89 series. It has therefore always been a case that has been looked upon as quite probably belonging to the torso series.

                      So now we can see that Kattrup is unfair and incorrect. The reason I include this murder in the torso series is because of the similarities, generally recognized as quite telling by most Torso series students. And they are certainly not saying so on account of how Lechmere fits the bill, but instead on sound anatomical and medical grounds.

                      Now that we know this, it applies that I am NOT being dishonest when I say that the 1873 case most probably belongs to the Torso series - I am making the same call as most other researchers and students of the case do. One of them is Mei Trow, who wrote a book on the Torso murders in which he included the 1873 case. Maybe Kattrup thinks he only did so because he favors Robert Mann as the killer?

                      The crux of matters like these are that once we know that Kattrup is wrong, only two reasons for him saying what he says remains:

                      He is suffering from a misconception - or he is deliberately trying to paint me out as biased and dishonest. If the former, it is nothing to brag about. If the latter, he has shot himself in the foot, leaving himself as a target for the exact same accusations he - wrongfully - leveled at me: bias and dishonesty.

                      It would have been far more charitable and very, very true if he had instead said that I am very intrigued about how Lechmere fits the bill, as one of the very few. The inclusion of the Torso cases into Jack the Rippers tally, the 1873 case not forgotten, waves goodby to many, many of the so called hot contenders for the Ripper title:
                      Aaron Kosminski, Montague Druitt, Jacob Levy, William Bury, Francis Tumblety, George Chapman....
                      In Chapmans case, it is interesting to see how Michael Gordon in his book on the Torso murders as one of the few does not mention the 1873 murder. It stands to reason, since he promotes George Chapman as the killer. Chapman was 8 years old in 1873, and so he does not fit that bill. Gordon instead adds the 20:th century Salamanca Place murder, that fits neatly with Chapman - but that has no resemblance at all to the precise and careful cutting in the Torso series. The cutting in Salamanca Place was a shambles.
                      In conclusion, if Kattrup had taken the that I seem overjoyed by how Lechmere fits the bill, I would have admitted that freely - I AM very pleased about it.


                      Fisherman, not only was a body part found (dropped accidentally?) on the Shelley property, but Percy Jr was buried with a heart.. Supposedly his fathers heart whom had been dead 60 years already. He died in December 1889 around the time the Ripper disappeared. Given his family background as Frankenstein's son lol I'm surprised no one has made the connection. What if the heart he was buried with was Mary Kelley's and he was either the Torso killer, the Ripper, or both?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Fisherman
                        Same town.

                        Same time.

                        Ripped from sternum to pelvis.

                        Took out uteri.

                        Took out hearts.

                        Cut away abdominal walls in large flaps.

                        Didn't use physical torture before killing the victims.

                        Took rings from victims fingers.

                        Were considered anatomical experts/surgeons by contemporary medicos.

                        Killed prostitutes.
                        Still peddling the same old distortions, half-truths and generalisations I see.
                        Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                        "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                          Still peddling the same old distortions, half-truths and generalisations I see.
                          Or simply known as, similarities, in the real world.

                          "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
                            What practical reason could there be that once youve dumped most of the torso parts off or very near the bridge, you hold onto one last part, the leg, some half mile before getting rid if it.
                            it's called dispersal, meant to delay or prevent the finding of the body parts and hinder identification of the victim.

                            Comment


                            • Or corpus interuptus!
                              dustymiller
                              aka drstrange


                              "Whenever an expert says something that bolsters the Lechmere theory, it is not my task to disprove him ..."
                              Fisherman

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                                Ah! That Wildbore fellow again? So where would he have chopped up the body, do you think? And why would he place it in a vault to which he and very few other had access and were aquainted with? Tipping of the coppers?
                                Good question, Christer. I think the Whitehall woman could have been cut up somewhere inside the expansive basement of the Police Building. I'm thinking the torso was moved around depending on where the men were working. At least 6 men swear the torso was not in the vault on that weekend. Henry Edge is adamant it wasn't there and he was recalled to swear he did not see it when he was in that very corner with a struck match. Then, on Monday, it appears and Wildbore sees it. Twice that day. And once more the next day. Then he reports it to the Foreman.

                                When Jasper Waring had Smoker sniffing around, the dog hit on other areas of loose dirt but nothing was found. I believe these areas at one time may have contained parts of the body. That vault became an area of attention because the surveyor and others were going to be in there for measurements. That was the time to move the body that lay upon the wall to another area in the basement. The vault was not visited on a daily basis by many, other than Wildbore and Lawrence, because they decided to keep tools in there rather than the newly built locker in another vault. The workmen were looked suspiciously upon. They were watched outside of work.
                                Echo
                                London, U.K.
                                10 October 1888

                                "The fact that everyone is of opinion that no stranger could have put the parcel in such and out-of-the-way corner considerably narrows the inquiry; and on Monday week other workmen will be called who will prove that the parcel was not in the vault on the Saturday before the Monday when it was found."

                                As far as Elizabeth Jackson goes. I guess she could have been cut up in the Park. The area where the upper torso was found was said to be an area not too frequently visited by employees. The Police Buildings were near completion at this point, so doubtful the basement could have still been used.

                                As you know, we can speculate until we turn blue, but there is not enough known about little details that could break the case. Wildbore had a home in Battersea. His route to work may have taken him across the Albert Bridge and down Grosvenor Road past the Shelley House, past the timber wharf where the Pimlico arm was found etc etc. Did his home have a workshop in the backyard? I can't answer that. He was a professional carpenter so it very well may have. He would have had saws at work. He probably had saws at home. Was he handy with a knife? Who knows?

                                All I DO know is he was one of a very few men that knew how to safely get into that vault in all lighting conditions. He located the torso and held back telling anyone after seeing it 2 times the day before. At inquest nobody smelled the body yet several press reports state Wildbore himself said it stunk when he examined it. Somebody seemed to be pouring Condy's fluid on it also. When would someone be able to do that?

                                Lots of questions left unanswered.




                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X