Torso Killer discussion from Millwood Thread

[jerryd]

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.

[Sam Flynn]

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?

[jerryd]

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.com/2011/10/06/dr-phene-in-his-garden/

[jerryd]

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.

[Sam Flynn]

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.

[Abby Normal]

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.

[Abby Normal]

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?

[Fisherman]

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.

[Debra A]

Debs,

I apologize for cutting in on your posts, but you also posted this on the "Shelley House" thread on JTRforums.

"The third find was made by a newspaper reporter in the private grounds of Shelley House, on the Chelsea Embankment. The houseis a large one, and the garden belonging to it has extensive frontage on to the Embankment, tall ornamental railings and a belt of evergreens securing the requisite privacy.."

Sheffield

Evening Telegraph 10 June 1889

Thanks for finding all this again Jerry. I need memory prods more frequently lately.
It was the greenery alongside the railings that had broken tops from where the parcel crashed through them, apparently but they were too thick for anyone to have pushed the parcel through into the garden.

[Debra A]

Okay, Debra. Well, there's no telling whether it was or not, of course. What I think is that we must look at the entire material, and when we do, we find there´s another case where a dumping site was chosen that lends itself eminently to thinking the killer was communicating some sort of message about what he was doing. The New Scotland Yard building.
And regardless of the degree of belief we apply to the Shelley dumping being a fluke, once we add the New Scotland Yard ditto, the game plan changes. Although I am in no way certain about a conscious choice in either of the two cases, the characters of the two buildings taken together tips me over.

If it had only been the Shelley estate dumping, I would have said "An eerie coincidence, but just a coincidence all the same".

If it had only been the New Scotland Yard, the remoteness of the vault chosen and the trouble built into reading it would not have made for such a lighthearted dismissal on my behalf, though.

Taken together, I don't think we are dealing with two immense flukes.

What was his message to Scotland Yard? 'Hands off the opera house?'

[Debra A]

Another possibility is that the journalist who apparently discovered the limb behind the railings actually found it on the shore but thought it would make a better story with the Shelley connection and so lobbed it into the garden.

That's quite an interesting idea, JR! Somewhat believable, except I may be wrong but I don't recall too much press sensation mentioned about a Frankenstein connection at the time so it fell pretty flat if it was for that reason?

[Sam Flynn]

Shelley House, 18 Dec, 1909



(https://viewfinder.historicengland.o...=all&form=home)

Thanks, Jerry. The house seems to have a fittingly Gothic air about it

[Fisherman]

Hmm. Now I'm left wondering why there was a large piece of the Ulster coat left in the park not far from the torso section.

Do we know HOW far from it?

[Fisherman]

Hi Debs,

I asked you about this several years ago on JTRforums. Here was your response from Lloyd's Weekly, June 9th 1889.

"Shelley house was formerly in the occupation of Sir Percy Shelley, but he removed some time ago, and it is now rented by Sir Arthur Charles, who is at present in the Isle of Wight."

I might add, Sir Arthur Charles was a judge of the High Court of Justice, Queens Bench Division.

Let's see, taunting the New Scotland Yard, taunting a judge of the High Court, hmmm ... one must say that either way, Frankenstein or the judicial system, that choice of that house really lends itself quite well to thinking there was a communication going on!

Thanks, Jerry.

[Fisherman]

Another possibility is that the journalist who apparently discovered the limb behind the railings actually found it on the shore but thought it would make a better story with the Shelley connection and so lobbed it into the garden.

Ha! Now, there´s a cynical idea that I can embrace! Anyways, the lobbing as such, the effort made, surely at the very least tells us that it was no coincidence that the leg ended up in the garden, although it could more easily have been just dropped outside the fence. The killer chose to get it over the fence and into the garden, therefore. Why? To conceal it and make it go away? Not very likely - it would be found and the killer would have known that. So what remains? That the killer wanted it not to be found immediately? If so, why not throw it in the river like he did with the rest?

Is there any really good answer to that question, other than a chosen, conscious act on the killer´s behalf?

Its another matter that the killer may have wanted to create fear and had no idea the house was owned by. It would still point to communication on his behalf if so.