Torso Killer discussion from Millwood Thread

[Fisherman]

Are you sure about that? The doctors make no such assumption, merely noting that the "cut surfaces at the hips were black and dry, but the surface at the neck moist and red".
To my mind, this can be accounted for by Dr Clarke's description of the body as he found it; "Covering over the cut surface of the neck & over the right shoulder were the remains of what had been a chemise".

The simple act of removing the chemise would have exposed the cut surfaces of the neck again, like picking a scab.

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.

[Debra A]

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.

[Fisherman]

It is said because I am saying it as an idea. We are allowed those still aren't we?!
The police were reported as claiming that all the remains were thrown from the Albert Bridge at the same time, experiments were done with times and tides and a time of a 6am dumping from the bridge concluded.

There are differing reports of the Battersea Park find. It was reported to have been found in a thicket or shrubbery, near the wall of the frame ground, 200 yards from the river but there are also reports that it was in the same shrubbery but 200 yards from the nearest gate, 200 yards being the common factor...but from which? Which is correct? Are both correct even?. One thing that goes against my suggestion of a throw from the Albert bridge in to the shrubbery below of the park below is that a large portion of the Ulster was also found nearby where the remains had been found and fabric would be harder to land from a throw.

The chest and portion of midriff (minus organs of the chest) of the torso in the shrubbery was wrapped in a skirt and brown paper, tied with Venetian blind cord, as in the Whitehall case. This parcel was not on public display though and had lain in the same spot for 24 hours before police were called by the gardener Davis, alerted by the smell. He ignored it the previous day and no one else spotted it in the meantime because it was in an area not accessible to the public. Was there a message for the gardener in that case?

Okay, Debra, thanks for the clarification.

On your question whether we are allowed ideas out here, I wish I could be all optimistic. However...

[Fisherman]

Sorry, Fish, but yes, I think it is a fluke.

Sir P Shelley was in Bournemouth in 1889 and died at the end of the year. He left Chelsea in disgust sometime in the early 1880s after the legal fight over his theatre. So the house was evidently let out to someone else.

More to the point, his mother Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein in 1818, some 70 years earlier. Why would Lechmere or anyone else be expected to know the former address of her son? Let's find an example of a well-known British author of 70 years ago. William Golding will do (Lord of the Flies). Do you know the former address of any of his sons? No doubt there were long-time residents in Chelsea in the immediate neighborhood that would be familiar with the Shelley estate, but why would Lechmere or some random abortionist know of it? There were shrubs by the side of the street; someone had to own the house. The remains were tossed into the shrubbery.

If this was an attempt to associate the crime with Frankenstein, then it failed miserably, because no connection was made until quite recently. Or do you have a contemporary source of someone making this obscure, if colorful, connection? It seems a bit too subtle for someone who elsewhere hacks women to death on the pavement.

Finally, most of Jackson's body was thrown into the river. Why do people throw bodies into rivers? To put them on display? Not likely.

I'm afraid I see no "psychological" connection between this case and the Whitechapel murders. Most people see them as birds of a very different feather.

Another question you might ask yourself: if the Whitehall victim was another 'display,' then why was part of the body buried, and the main section in a pitch black vault? Doesn't that sound like an attempt at concealment? If the culprit had put the body in a chair in the front of the building site with a sign around its neck, I might agree with you.

But these observations have been made before and will be made again.

All the best, Fisherman. I don't mean to sound like a nay-sayer; I just can't agree with you on this one.

ONE fluke is fine, R J - but ALL of them?

And cutting away the abdominal wall in large flaps from two victims is not and can never be birds of a very different feather. It is the same plumage all over. Just saying. That's one of the other flukes you must allow for.

Do you?

On how it was "only lately" realized that there may be a Frankenstein connection - that's hardly the fault of an inventive killer, is it? He really could not have tried any harder or in any other way if that connection was what he strived for, could he?

And is there any chance you could react to my post 108?

[rjpalmer]

The Shelley estate dumping - fluke.

Sorry, Fish, but yes, I think it is a fluke.

Sir P Shelley was in Bournemouth in 1889 and died at the end of the year. He left Chelsea in disgust sometime in the early 1880s after the legal fight over his theatre. So the house was evidently let out to someone else.

More to the point, his mother Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein in 1818, some 70 years earlier. Why would Lechmere or anyone else be expected to know the former address of her son? Let's find an example of a well-known British author of 70 years ago. William Golding will do (Lord of the Flies). Do you know the former address of any of his sons? No doubt there were long-time residents in Chelsea in the immediate neighborhood that would be familiar with the Shelley estate, but why would Lechmere or some random abortionist know of it? There were shrubs by the side of the street; someone had to own the house. The remains were tossed into the shrubbery.

If this was an attempt to associate the crime with Frankenstein, then it failed miserably, because no connection was made until quite recently. Or do you have a contemporary source of someone making this obscure, if colorful, connection? It seems a bit too subtle for someone who elsewhere hacks women to death on the pavement.

Finally, most of Jackson's body was thrown into the river. Why do people throw bodies into rivers? To put them on display? Not likely.

I'm afraid I see no "psychological" connection between this case and the Whitechapel murders. Most people see them as birds of a very different feather.

Another question you might ask yourself: if the Whitehall victim was another 'display,' then why was part of the body buried, and the main section in a pitch black vault? Doesn't that sound like an attempt at concealment? If the culprit had put the body in a chair in the front of the building site with a sign around its neck, I might agree with you.

But these observations have been made before and will be made again.

All the best, Fisherman. I don't mean to sound like a nay-sayer; I just can't agree with you on this one.

[Debra A]

Albert Bridge and Battersea Park

[Debra A]

Forgive me for asking, but why is it said that the part found 200 yards from the river may have been thrown with the intent to get it into the river? Isnt that an almighty throw? I am probably misunderstading things, but I need an explanation!

It is said because I am saying it as an idea. We are allowed those still aren't we?!
The police were reported as claiming that all the remains were thrown from the Albert Bridge at the same time, experiments were done with times and tides and a time of a 6am dumping from the bridge concluded.

There are differing reports of the Battersea Park find. It was reported to have been found in a thicket or shrubbery, near the wall of the frame ground, 200 yards from the river but there are also reports that it was in the same shrubbery but 200 yards from the nearest gate, 200 yards being the common factor...but from which? Which is correct? Are both correct even?. One thing that goes against my suggestion of a throw from the Albert bridge in to the shrubbery below of the park below is that a large portion of the Ulster was also found nearby where the remains had been found and fabric would be harder to land from a throw.

The chest and portion of midriff (minus organs of the chest) of the torso in the shrubbery was wrapped in a skirt and brown paper, tied with Venetian blind cord, as in the Whitehall case. This parcel was not on public display though and had lain in the same spot for 24 hours before police were called by the gardener Davis, alerted by the smell. He ignored it the previous day and no one else spotted it in the meantime because it was in an area not accessible to the public. Was there a message for the gardener in that case?

[Joshua Rogan]

I would not make that guess myself - we are dealing with a killer who seemed to spare no time between killing and cutting. Of course, the head was cut off at a later stage than the legs, but my guess is that this may have been a simple precaution in order to make identification harder. Overall, my belief is that the head more often than not played a big role in what he did, and I believe he left it on as long as he was "doing his thing" with the body. and only disposed of it when the time had come for dumping it.

Are you sure about that? The doctors make no such assumption, merely noting that the "cut surfaces at the hips were black and dry, but the surface at the neck moist and red".
To my mind, this can be accounted for by Dr Clarke's description of the body as he found it; "Covering over the cut surface of the neck & over the right shoulder were the remains of what had been a chemise".

The simple act of removing the chemise would have exposed the cut surfaces of the neck again, like picking a scab.

[Sam Flynn]

I'm not following, Gareth. You quoted me but addressed Abby (Abs?)

My mistake. Slip of the mobile keyboard.

[Fisherman]

I'm not following, Gareth. You quoted me but addressed Abby (Abs?) I was asking Abby what about the brown paper and clothing wrapping in relation to a suggestion that Elizabeth may have been dismembered in the park where a section of her torso, which was divided in to three, was found in the frame ground shrubbery. This was 200 yards from the river (in 1889) in an area not open to the public but probably accessible through the small wicker gate opened at 5am every morning or maybe possible to reach by being thrown from the end of the Albert bridge section directly above a small area of the park. Of course brown paper was accessible to anyone. I was wondering if those thinking Elizabeth may have been killed in the park thought teh killer made parcels there too and where did the brown paper come from?

Forgive me for asking, but why is it said that the part found 200 yards from the river may have been thrown with the intent to get it into the river? Isnīt that an almighty throw? I am probably misunderstading things, but I need an explanation!

[Fisherman]

I always wondered if that was cut off that way because rigor mortis had set in?

I would not make that guess myself - we are dealing with a killer who seemed to spare no time between killing and cutting. Of course, the head was cut off at a later stage than the legs, but my guess is that this may have been a simple precaution in order to make identification harder. Overall, my belief is that the head more often than not played a big role in what he did, and I believe he left it on as long as he was "doing his thing" with the body. and only disposed of it when the time had come for dumping it.

[Debra A]

In this context, it deserves mentioning that the Pinchin Street torso was found together with a chemise that had been cut open all the way down the front, and that this chemise also had cuts from the neckline to the sleeve openings. This is consistent with the killer having completely exposed the body while the victim was lying on her back.

I always wondered if that was cut off that way because rigor mortis had set in?

[Debra A]

I don't think that brown paper was "standard issue" for the homeless, Abs. For obvious reasons, I'd guess that butchers, bakers and grocers might have had supplies of brown paper readily available, but I don't imagine it was too hard to get hold of by just about anyone.

I'm not following, Gareth. You quoted me but addressed Abby (Abs?) I was asking Abby what about the brown paper and clothing wrapping in relation to a suggestion that Elizabeth may have been dismembered in the park where a section of her torso, which was divided in to three, was found in the frame ground shrubbery. This was 200 yards from the river (in 1889) in an area not open to the public but probably accessible through the small wicker gate opened at 5am every morning or maybe possible to reach by being thrown from the end of the Albert bridge section directly above a small area of the park. Of course brown paper was accessible to anyone. I was wondering if those thinking Elizabeth may have been killed in the park thought teh killer made parcels there too and where did the brown paper come from?

[Sam Flynn]

The thigh being wrapped in a leg of the underwear for example but IIRC the park portion was also wrapped in brown paper. Did homeless people sleeping rough carry brown paper to sleep on to keep warm?

I don't think that brown paper was "standard issue" for the homeless, Abs. For obvious reasons, I'd guess that butchers, bakers and grocers might have had supplies of brown paper readily available, but I don't imagine it was too hard to get hold of by just about anyone.

[Abby Normal]

There is no deeper meaning. The common denominator is the Albert Bridge and the Albert Bridge Road. Most of the remains were found downstream...obviously thrown into the river. The rest follows. The part by the embankment was left high and dry by the tides. The section in Battersea Park (which Abby seems to be confusing with the other piece) was by the side of Albert Road just on the other side of a hedge. The bit in Chelsea (the former Shelley estate) was also by the side of the road on the other side of a hedge. 2 + 2 = 4. Because the Brits drive on the left side of the road, it is easy enough to realize the direction of travel. This was simply one quick dump by someone in a vehicle, getting rid of the remains as quickly as possible, undoubtedly in the dark. The idea that he was placing them deliberately here and there seems barmy to me. A little too theatrical for a botched operation case.

By the way, the Cremorne Gardens in Chelsea was one of the most notorious pick-ups spots for prostitutes in the Victorian era. Look at the map. It is just south of the area in question, on the Chelsea side of the river. There is even a Victorian pornographic novel from the 1880s titled Cremorne Gardens. Yes, I've read it (research purposes only). One of the Ripper suspects (Tumblety) mentions the Cremorne Gardens in a letter written in the 1870s. He makes it sound delightful, but it was, in reality, a raunchy pick-up spot by then, involving both male and female practitioners of the fleshy arts.

As a totally irrelevant aside, I walked around Chelsea in the mid 1990s, looking at the sights. Lots of history along that stretch. Various artists, wits, writers, the Rolling Stones, etc. connected to this small hood. Anyway, out of the blue a drunken Peter O'Toole pulled up in a sports car and asked me directions. I was a Yank with no idea where I was, but, being on a self-guided walking tour I knew exactly where he wanted to go (Chenye Walk) and gave him directions. A bit later I learned that Pete had an actress friend who lived on that street. He seemed like a nice bloke, but I was surprised to see him tipsy at 9 am on a Sunday morning. Probably a continuation of the previous night. No harm, no foul. He was pretty brilliant in Lawrence of Arabia, among others. This was before I was a Ripper enthusiast, and I curse myself now for not studying the landscape more closely.

But these days, as Elvis Costello once famously sang, I Don't Want To Go To Chelsea. Anyway, I reserve the right to be wrong. Go ahead with your own thinking, but I see this as a haphazard dump with the river the obvious target, but fear and pedestrians complicating matters.

Hi rj
im not sure who is confused here. I was talking about the major portion of jacksons torso, which you said was found where it was on land due to the rivers action and that it had been originally thrown in the water. I responded that it was some 200 yards from the river shore, so probably impossible it had got there from tidal action. The other lesser portion of her torso was found floating in the river. Perhaps you are confusing the two.

So we have the major part of her torso dumped on land in Battersea park.and her leg thrown in the shelly estate. The rest in the river.
How close was the major part of her torso that was found on land 200 yards from land in battersea park, in area generally closed to the public, to the road?