Torso Killer discussion from Millwood Thread

[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, thereīs 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 killerīs 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.

[Fisherman]

Sorry, Christer. I agree with RJ that the Shelley estate dump seems to have been a fluke. I've said it all along.

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 thereīs 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.

[jerryd]

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

[jerryd]

Shelley House, 18 Dec, 1909



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

[jerryd]

I agree about the Shelley estate dumping. As I've said before, many times, the bush tops were broken were the parcel was thrown in, as noted by police according to the press. They went as far as to say that there was no way the parcel could have been pushed through the railings, it had to have been thrown over. The Shelley house was being rented. I used to have the name of the tenant noted but I have lost it now.

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.

[Joshua Rogan]

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.

[Trevor Marriott]

Sorry, Christer. I agree with RJ that the Shelley estate dump seems to have been a fluke. I've said it all along.

Not necessarily, if medical students were behind the disposal. Shelley wrote Frankenstein in 1817 quite easy for students to carry out a prank if the connection were made.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Debra A]

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.

Just for jolly, wouldn't you? No.

[Joshua Rogan]

Sorry, Christer. I agree with RJ that the Shelley estate dump seems to have been a fluke. I've said it all along.

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.

[Debra A]

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.

[Joshua Rogan]

Good. I agree she wasn't killed in the park, Abby. Dave Gates suggested it as a possibility a long time ago and I think Joshua just mentioned it again? I am obviously confused by the Casebook layout at the moment.

I didn't mean she was necessarily killed and dismembered in the park either, although come to think of it, all that blood would probably be good fetilizer for the nursery plants....

[Joshua Rogan]

Interesting reflection (you produce them in spades, it would seem), but I donīt think the doctors would have made the distinction if they realized it was a matter of a wound surface being opened up by peeling away the cloth from it. Not that I'm sure, though, since you ask. I am sure of very few things, although it may perhaps sometimes seem the other way around.

Fair enough.
Interestingly, the New York Herald (who were approached by "John Cleary" described the torso but said that one of the leg cuts was fresh, and the neck and other leg were older. I think I'd go with Hebbert, though, sounds like the Herald got things more or less arse about face...

[Debra A]

Perhaps. IMHO she was neither killed nor dismembered in the park. She may have been approached by her killer in the park though.
thanks for the response and all the info debs your a godsend! : )

Good. I agree she wasn't killed in the park, Abby. Dave Gates suggested it as a possibility a long time ago and I think Joshua just mentioned it again? I am obviously confused by the Casebook layout at the moment.

[Debra A]

With whom do you agree, Debra? And what is it you agree about? There are differing views out here.

Sorry, Christer. I agree with RJ that the Shelley estate dump seems to have been a fluke. I've said it all along.