Torso Killer discussion from Millwood Thread

[Fisherman]

I have mentioned before that the way the portions were wrapped did make me think at one time that not all the clothing was removed from the body before it was dismembered.

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.

[Debra A]

Hi Sam
The major part of her torso was found in Battersea Park usually closed to the public. and some 200 yards from the river. dosnt seem like it was tossed in the river or quickly jettisoned by the road.

Hi Abby
The idea I suggested was that the park find was in an area directly beneath a section of the Albert Bridge and may even have accidentally landed in the frame ground in an area of the park not open to the public and had also been meant for the river. Dave Gates suggested a few years ago that Jackson may have been killed in the park in the spot where a section of her torso was found but it has to be remembered that this portion found in the frame ground was wrapped. I have mentioned before that the way the portions were wrapped did make me think at one time that not all the clothing was removed from the body before it was dismembered. 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?

[Fisherman]

Im looking forward to the new book coming out soon on the torso cases and see what this authors analysis is. Not sure if he links them to the ripper...

He does. This is from the AdLibris page:

"A sensational new theory - and an insight into the late Victorian city through an intensively researched social history.Between May 1887 and February 1891, a succession of horrific murders shook Victorian London. During a reign of terror lasting nearly four years, numerous women were attacked. The police at the time believed the killings comprised two distinct sets - with two different killers. Several were attributed to the relatively unpublicised `Thames Torso' series while the majority found their way into the Met's `Whitechapel' or Jack the Ripper file.Despite the best efforts of contemporary detectives, no-one was ever prosecuted for these crimes and, until now, no convincing suspect has been put forward for both sets of murders. This ground-breaking work has examined new lines of enquiry generated by recent scholarship. With several `Thames Torso' killings now attributable to his hand, `Jack' it seems was culpable in upwards of sixteen assaults - at least thirteen of them fatal. This individual was amply possessed of the three `cardinals' of the murderer - means, motive and opportunity - and the authors offer long-sought solutions to several case conundrums such as the Goulston Street `evidence', the enduring `Mad Doctor' theory and the Pinchin Street `cross-over'."

I will be interested to see the solution he offers for the "Pinchin Street cross-over". He will have a hard time beating my suggestion on that point, methinks. He will present a suspect who is not Charles Lechmere, I know that much.

[Fisherman]

But Battersea Park was just one instance involving one section of body. Hard to draw any inferences from that.

Weren´t all of the murders isolated instances? And does that mean that no inferences can be drawn from any of them?'

If so, you may be interested to know that Abby actually concludes from all of the murders, and that is it the collected evidence that governs his view that there was some sort of deeper meaning hidden in what the killer did. Just as I do the exact same. It is others who single out matters and try to dismiss them (Oooh, it is obvious that the torso killer cut out the uterus from Jackson on account of the baby inside it, whereas the Ripper must have had other reasons, so it cannot be the same killer) one by one instead of taking them as an entity.

The whole picture MUST be looked at - that is, if we are interested in the whole answer.

[Sam Flynn]

Something more here is going on than just dumping to get rid of, hide or prevent ID. Theres some deeper meaning to the killer.

But Battersea Park was just one instance involving one section of body. Hard to draw any inferences from that.

I see this as a haphazard dump with the river the obvious target, but fear and pedestrians complicating matters.

Quite.

[Fisherman]

It's just speculation, but I've often wondered if the torso section was dumped in Battersea Park at the same spot that her killer encountered Jackson, since she was said to frequent the park after dark.

That is very thought-provoking, Joshua! Of course, it can not be proved in any shape or form, but it is nevertheless extremely interesting, and something I had not considered before. Many thanks for offering it!

[Fisherman]

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.

Was it fear and pedestrians that led him down into the deep vaults of the New Scotland Yard building too? Is that what fearful and squeamish dismemberers do - venture into the darkest spot on Mother Earth and go as deep as they can before dumping their body parts there? He was on his way to the river, he was scared by approaching footsteps, and he decided to duck into the nearest building - that just happened to be the New Scotland Yard building, precisely as he just happened to choose the Shelley estate for dumping that leg - and when he had come inside, he thought to himself "I may just explore this building to the full now that I'm here?

In the Tottenham Court Road case, a quantity of flesh was placed in a spot outside a house in Fitzroy Square that was constantly patrolled by the police, and the Pall Mall Gazette pointed out how this would have been done with great coolness and in a tiny window of opportunity. Fitzroy Square is about a mile from the Thames, so he presumably did not loose his nerve on his way there. Its also a mile from St Pancras Lock, its some miles from Battersea Park and many miles from Pinchin Street. So we can easily see that the killer did not exactly creep out of his bolthole and dump his parts as quickly as he could - instead, he intentionally and by his own choice travelled far and wide to do so.

How do we explain that?

I think your approach is an eminent one - until we have evidence pointing away from it, the simplest solution is the most likely one to be true: he probably tossed the parts away with the intention to have them disappear, at places that had no inherent meaning to him, it was all about practicality and opportunity.
A wise approach indeed! But once the evidence is there to dispel those notions, it is simply arrogant not to conclude from that. And it involves a steadily growing need to name everything that goes against the Book of Simplicity flukes:

The New Scotland Yard dumping - fluke.

The Shelley estate dumping - fluke.

The cutting out of uteri in both series - fluke.

The cutting out of hearts in both series - fluke.

The taking of the rings in both series - fluke.

The cutting away of abdominal walls in both series - fluke.

The absence of signs of physical torture before death in both series - fluke.

The placing of both series in London - fluke.

The overlapping times - fluke.

The fact that in both series, there were medicos who testified about skill on the perpetrators part - fluke.

The fact that both series involved prostitutes - fluke.

I have a hard time accepting that anybody can take a look at a list like this, keep a straight face and say "Yeah, that must be it, it will all have been a set of flukes".
And to think that I am the one being pointed out as suffering from an overactive imagination!!

[rjpalmer]

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.

[Abby Normal]

It's just speculation, but I've often wondered if the torso section was dumped in Battersea Park at the same spot that her killer encountered Jackson, since she was said to frequent the park after dark.

Hi JR and Sam
exactly! Something more here is going on than just dumping to get rid of, hide or prevent ID. IMHO its pretty obvious. Theres some deeper meaning to the killer.

[Joshua Rogan]

Ah, I was thinking about the limb chucked into the garden of Shelley's house. God knows what happened in Battersea Park.

It's just speculation, but I've often wondered if the torso section was dumped in Battersea Park at the same spot that her killer encountered Jackson, since she was said to frequent the park after dark.

[Sam Flynn]

The major part of her torso was found in Battersea Park usually closed to the public. and some 200 yards from the river. dosnt seem like it was tossed in the river or quickly jettisoned by the road.

Ah, I was thinking about the limb chucked into the garden of Shelley's house. God knows what happened in Battersea Park.

[Abby Normal]

Tossing the section in the park has been explained in the previous post. The section found on the Chelsea side of the river was among broken shrubbery, showing it was thrown forcefully, and not "placed."

The Thames, at London, is a tidal river. Any section found on the river bank was not 'left' there. It was tossed in the river from the bridge and got stuck in the mud at low tide. Best wishes.

HI RJ
As I just responded to Sam-the major portion of her torso was found in Battersea park-some 200 yards from the river. I don't think that was deposited that far from the rivers shore by tidal action.

[Abby Normal]

My guess is they saw/heard someone approaching in the distance, and decided to quickly jettison any incriminating evidence, just in case it was the police.

Hi Sam
The major part of her torso was found in Battersea Park usually closed to the public. and some 200 yards from the river. dosnt seem like it was tossed in the river or quickly jettisoned by the road.

[Fisherman]

My guess is they saw/heard someone approaching in the distance, and decided to quickly jettison any incriminating evidence, just in case it was the police.

Let's look at the options! To begin with, there can be no certainty whatsoever that the parts were tossed from the Albert Bridge. They may have been floated from the shore, they may have been thrown from a boat and so on. The bridge scenario is nothing but a suggestion of many.

That said, if we go with the bridge scenario, then what do we have? We have most parts being chucked into the Thames, and one part found close by the bridge but on dry land.

You say that the killer/s (when was the "they" introduced and why...?) possibly heard somebody approaching and that this was what governed the outcome.

So if we work from an idea where the kille/s carried the parts around in a sack, we either have:

1. The landbound part being tossed in the shrubbery first, and then the killer walks up onto the bridge and dumps the other parts from it.
2. The part that are dumped in the river came first, and the killer then proceeded down the bridge and dumped the landbound part.
3. Some parts were thrown into the river first, then the killer threw the landbound part away, and then he returned to the bridge and dumped the rest.

I think we can exclude option 3 - it is just weird. Which means that we are either looking at option 1 or 2. Number 1 seems to fit poorly with your suggestion - if somebody hears approaching steps, he is not likely to run up onto a bridge and start making splashing sounds, is he?
So you presumably favor option 2 - the killer was throwing part after part from his sack into the river when he heard approaching steps. He then thought that he needed to get off the bridge, and did so accordingly. He had one part left in his sack, so when he arrived at the bridge head he chucked it onto the ground.

Does such a scenario have problems? Yes, it does. The first problem is that if the killer thought that the parts would disappear from the world by throwing them into the Thames, then throwing one part on dry land would ruin that effort. Why not hide or just sit down on a park bench and wait until the coast was clear again, and then dump the remaining part in the Thames too?
Because he panicked? Maybe.
But if he really wanted to hide what he did, then why did he throw the remaining part "forcefully" into the shrubbery? This is how R J Palmer words it: "The section found on the Chelsea side of the river was among broken shrubbery, showing it was thrown forcefully, and not "placed."
Such a thing would not be very discreet, would it? Why not just lay it down gently and leg it? One must presume that he was not being observed as he dumped that part - it would be stupid to throw it forcefully away if he was, would it not? I presume this part was the one found at the Shelley estate? Correct me if I am wrong. If so, it was thrown over a fence, actually, when it could presumably just as easily have been put on the ground outside the fence. It would have been quicker and quieter.

Although I find the idea laden with problems, it cannot be ruled out, of course. But once we move out of this bubble and into the Whitehall case, it seems we are not dealing with a squeamish man who would drop his body parts and run for it. Instead, he was willing to descend into a deep and remote part of the New Scotland Yard building to dump his torso and a few more parts there.

The whole picture tells a very different story from the suggested Albert Bridge scenario.

Two dumpsites have extremely interesting connotations in this regard. Is it a case of not one but two coincidences?

Personally, I don't think so. I dislike coincidences, regardless if they are tied to dumping sites or to panels of flesh cut from women's abdominal walls.

[Fisherman]

Surely you can see that the presence of the baby has to be significant in Jackson's case? Why weren't the uteri of ALL the torso victims removed if not?
[/I]

So if a uterus is cut out of a pregnant woman's body, then the presence of the baby MUST be the reason for it happening?

If so, where does that take us regarding the heart and the lungs removed from the same body? Why did he do that? There was no baby inside either organ, so presumably that was not the reason.

And if he could cut out a heart and a pair of lungs for other reasons than the owner being pregnant, then why could he not cut out a uterus for other reasons than the owner being pregnant?

I think you are transferring your own convictions into facts here, and that is never a good thing. That is not to say anything at all about whether your hunch (which is what it is) is correct or not. A case for the baby playing a role can easily be made, although it cannot be verified.

Me, I am thinking along lines that points to an eviscerator who saw Jacksons pregnancy as a possibility to get at a real prize - a womb with a baby inside it. It fits my theory of what happened like a glove. So I actually think you are right. But I would not say that either of must be, nor would I infer that the combination of us is enough to turn a hunch into a fact.