Torso Killer discussion from Millwood Thread

[Joshua Rogan]

I can't find it now, but I'm sure someone recently asked at what time the first parts of Jackson's body were found. The South Wales Daily News 17 June supplies the answer;

"The coroner informed the jury that the first portion of the remains was found on Tuesday week, at a quarter to nine, in the Battersea Park, and the second portion at Horselydown at half-past ten."

[Joshua Rogan]

The time of the deposits off the bridge have been a question of mine. I did find some interesting reports and posts for everyone to chew on.

First, the police point of view initially:

Then, thanks to John Savages research, he came up with this model:

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread....dge#post129870

THE FIND AT HORSLEYDOWN

We do not have an exact time that the body parts were found at George's Stairs but from the information we have it would seem likely that it was sometime about midmorning. The distance from Albert Bridge to George's stairs would be approximately 4.7 nautical miles and the body would have to travel on an ebb tide. To decide the speed that the body part would travel at, consider that maximum speed of 3.5 knots would be at spring tides, but on the date in question neap tides were occurring and this would give a slower maximum speed of about 2 knots. The tide does not move at this speed all the time but starts from zero at high water and increases for the next three hours or so and then starts to decrease in speed until low water is reached. Therefore let us assume an average speed of 1 knot.

High water at Albert Bridge on 4th. June 1889 occurred at 05.16hrs., taking the assumed average speed it would need 4 hrs. 45mins. to travel the 4.7 miles from Albert Bridge to George's Stairs, this gives an arrival time of 10.01hrs. George's stairs were on the south side of the river opposite St. Katherine's Dock and this would be in keeping with the northerly breeze mentioned earlier. This model suggest that the body parts were placed in the water around 4-5am, a time when the area may have been at it's most quiet.

Debs added to this by stating the wicket gates of the park were opened at 5 a.m.

Side note: Frederick Wildbore in 1888 was arriving for work (according to inquest testimony) around 6 a.m. The construction of the police building was still ongoing when Elizabeth Jackson was murdered. In the thread I linked to, Dave Gates had this to say about the Shelley Estate deposit, which I think is something to consider.

I am looking at the Battersea area land finds. The find of the 6th comes from a killing on the 4th at the latest. The next land find ( Shelly's pad) is on the 9th. Would the police still have the area of the find on the 6th still cordoned off? Could there have been an intermittent stream of gaukers at the dump site of the 6th. Is the recovery site of the 9th a function of post discovery activity on the site of the 6th? Is it reasonable to assume a package of this variety could have been there 3 days? Grosvenor road is close to gardens as depicted on the 1888 directory map, would there have been a smell? The find of the 9th was wrapped in part of the jacket, not wrapping paper, is that sufficient to suggest multiple depositional events? Dave

Aah, it was you Jerry. I hope it's useful. The Times 26 July reports Tonbridge as saying this about police activity after the first finds;

"Inspector Tunbridge watched the case as before on the part of the Criminal Investigation Department, and stated that he had been placed in charge of the case, assisted by other officers, after the discovery of a portion of the thigh on the 4th of June. Orders were at once given to the Thames police to watch the river, with a view both of discovering any further portion of the remains and of arresting any person found depositing them. Prior to this the local police had been actively moving in the matter. The police were now of the opinion that the whole of the remains had been deposited at the same time, although they could not have formed that opinion at the time. "

[Abby Normal]

Aah, it was you Jerry. I hope it's useful. The Times 26 July reports Tonbridge as saying this about police activity after the first finds;

"Inspector Tunbridge watched the case as before on the part of the Criminal Investigation Department, and stated that he had been placed in charge of the case, assisted by other officers, after the discovery of a portion of the thigh on the 4th of June. Orders were at once given to the Thames police to watch the river, with a view both of discovering any further portion of the remains and of arresting any person found depositing them. Prior to this the local police had been actively moving in the matter. The police were now of the opinion that the whole of the remains had been deposited at the same time, although they could not have formed that opinion at the time. "

Thanks jr
well that takes care of the question if it was done in one trip or if there were multiple trips, does it not?

[jerryd]

Aah, it was you Jerry. I hope it's useful. The Times 26 July reports Tonbridge as saying this about police activity after the first finds;

"Inspector Tunbridge watched the case as before on the part of the Criminal Investigation Department, and stated that he had been placed in charge of the case, assisted by other officers, after the discovery of a portion of the thigh on the 4th of June. Orders were at once given to the Thames police to watch the river, with a view both of discovering any further portion of the remains and of arresting any person found depositing them. Prior to this the local police had been actively moving in the matter. The police were now of the opinion that the whole of the remains had been deposited at the same time, although they could not have formed that opinion at the time. "

Hi Joshua,

I was really questioning the time of day the parts were suggested to have been thrown from the bridge. It appears to be early morning. This made me wonder, if the parts were thrown at the same time, how one part ended up near Wandsworth Bridge and all the other parts seemingly headed in another direction completely.

I'm not much of an authority on tides and flow of the Thames.

[Fisherman]

Apologies if I've misremembered, but as I recall, Jackson's chest was cut through somewhere between the nipples and the armpits. Do you not think this would have cut through the heart?

My understanding was that the upper part of the thorax was a small one, so I checked; the upper part contained the first three ribs and the second part commenced with the fourth one. That seems to put the cut right above the heart, so I should not have written "nowhere near the heart". Near the heart it will have been, but just above it nevertheless, I think.
Anyway, as I wrote before, although the muscle structure is tough in the heart, a very sharp knife - which was the type of implement used by the killer - would have had no problems slicing through it.

[Fisherman]

Lloyds Weekly 9 June;

"Great hopes are entertained that the missing head will soon come to light, as the decomposition of the brain, which proceeds very quickly, will give the skull sufficient buoyancy to float, provided, of course, it has not been placed in a heavily weighted parcel."

Whoa! Didn't Bond say that the head would sink...? I found this longish discussion on the net, that can perhaps shed a little light on the matter:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x1960486

[Fisherman]

I don't know why you keep mentioning the eyelashes Fish...how would you flay a skull without taking the eyelashes?

And the Lancet's description of the removal hardly sounds like a meticulous job;

"The scalp and skin of the face were probably next removed by making, a longitudinal incision through the scalp at the top of the head and a horizontal incision behind. The skin and peri-cranial tissues were then forcibly drawn forward and the skull thus laid bare, occasional touches of the knife being necessary to remove the skin of the face. Where the integument was thin or firmly adherent to the subjacent tissues, it was "buttonholed," and large portions thus remained attached to the bones. The face has in this manner - accidentally, perhaps rather than purposely - been rendered incapable of identification. The upper part of the nose is absent, as well as the inner part of the right cheek and the lower lip and chin, all of which would have required some time for their complete removal.

Its meticulous, alright - although it could have been more meticulous, of course. But we do have a cutter who opens up the skin at the back/top of the skull, who starts to pull the face forward and who works it free by help of the knife as he does so. That is quite an effort.
The thing is, originally, I believed that the face was what he aimed to produce as he cut, if you see what I mean; I thought that he thought to himself "Now, let's take this face away as cleanly and neatly as I can, and I will try to get it away unharmed and in one piece". That was why I was much impressed by the many delicate features that were in place in the mask he produced.
It was not until I thought it over some more that it dawned on me that there is always two cutting surfaces left when you use a knife. And the fact of the matter is that it is more likely that what was left on the body was what he was after. And what was left on the body will have looked something like what was left on Mary Kelly. Which is what I believe he was after.
That is not to say that it is insignificant that he cut the face away as a whole part and not in shreds - on the contrary, I think it belonged to the work he did, but only as part of it, not as the main feature.
The interesting thing is that the inspiration ground for what he did can be found, if I'm correct.

[Fisherman]

Hi Joshua,

I was really questioning the time of day the parts were suggested to have been thrown from the bridge. It appears to be early morning. This made me wonder, if the parts were thrown at the same time, how one part ended up near Wandsworth Bridge and all the other parts seemingly headed in another direction completely.

I'm not much of an authority on tides and flow of the Thames.

Nor am I. But would it not be a case of either a different dumping spot or the part having been caught by incoming tide, flushing it backwards up the Thames? It sounds strange that just the one part could perhaps travel backwards, but water currents are strange things. Not only can water on the surface of a river travel in more than one direction depending on where on the surface we look, there can also be currents traveling in opposite directions in different layers of the water. Maybe the part at Wandsworth bridge was heavier or lighter, denser or less dense, packaged differently or something like that, and thus ended up at a different level in the water than the rest of the parts?
To me, it sounds like a different dumping spot, but I would not rule out that it could be a trick of the currents.

[Trevor Marriott]

Whoa! Didn't Bond say that the head would sink...? I found this longish discussion on the net, that can perhaps shed a little light on the matter:

https://www.democraticunderground.co...ss=105x1960486

Do you not think it strange that despite an array of body parts found in different locations, some nicely and neatly wrapped, NO skulls were ever found !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

Hi jeff
at the end of the day is there really that BIG of a difference between removing an arm or a head and removing a breast, or large sections of flesh, or internal organs?

Yes, particularly in the skill required. JtR did not have the skill to decapitate, and showed no inclination to disjoint parts of the body - hack, remove internals, and deflesh crudely, yes, but section or dismembe no. The torso killer(s?) did, and had the skills to do it. Since the argument put forth has been that the torso killer(s?) had a desire / need to dismember, but didn't for the outdoor murders because of lack of time (apparently) but the whole committing of the outdoor murders fails in logic - if the need / desire is to dismember and you have a place to do that, where you demonstrate skill and fine precision work, then you are someone with the skill knowledge to realize you don't have time for your special time in the street. Why go berserk in the street, where there's no time to dismember, no time for the careful precise artwork, and no chance to throw limbs and things into the river so they can be assured to be found (apparently)? Why does the torso killer(s) become such a completely different character in terms of demonstrable skills and desires reflected through behavior? - simple, because they are a different character, they are not one in the same as the torso killer.

That's the only conclusion I keep coming back to.

- Jeff

[Sam Flynn]

well that takes care of the question if it was done in one trip or if there were multiple trips, does it not?

Not really. It's only a police opinion, and unless they were experts in fluid dynamics it can hardly be taken as fact.

[Fisherman]

Do you not think it strange that despite an array of body parts found in different locations, some nicely and neatly wrapped, NO skulls were ever found !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No, I donīt, Trevor. They were taken off in each case, and the bulk of the parts were thrown into the Thames. If the skulls went the same way - which is the logical bid - they were likely to sink, as far as I understand. So where's the mystery? True, the Pinchin Street victim was found on dry land, but her legs were missing too, as well as the skull. Should that make me think that the killer had a thing for keeping dismembered legs?

One cannot rule out that the heads were kept by the killer, of course, but so far, there is no evidence pointing in that direction. And even if he did, I would not think that strange either, other than in the meaning that most people do not decapitate their ways through life.

[Fisherman]

Yes, particularly in the skill required. JtR did not have the skill to decapitate, and showed no inclination to disjoint parts of the body - hack, remove internals, and deflesh crudely, yes, but section or dismembe no. The torso killer(s?) did, and had the skills to do it. Since the argument put forth has been that the torso killer(s?) had a desire / need to dismember, but didn't for the outdoor murders because of lack of time (apparently) but the whole committing of the outdoor murders fails in logic - if the need / desire is to dismember and you have a place to do that, where you demonstrate skill and fine precision work, then you are someone with the skill knowledge to realize you don't have time for your special time in the street. Why go berserk in the street, where there's no time to dismember, no time for the careful precise artwork, and no chance to throw limbs and things into the river so they can be assured to be found (apparently)? Why does the torso killer(s) become such a completely different character in terms of demonstrable skills and desires reflected through behavior? - simple, because they are a different character, they are not one in the same as the torso killer.

That's the only conclusion I keep coming back to.

- Jeff

To be precise: I am not claiming that the killer had a need or desire to dismember, Jeff. What I AM saying is that the killer was somebody who eviscerated and who went beyond what he needed to do if it was all just about getting rid of a body.

My personal take is that some of the dismemberment WAS part of his urge, but it is not something I can prove. I can only prove that he went beyond what is needed for practical dismemberment and that he for some reason happened to take out the same organs as the Ripper in the process, just as he happened to cut from ribs to pubes (like the Ripper did), just as he happened to cut away an abdominal wall (like the Ripper did), just as he happened to take away a ring from the finger of one of his victims (like the Ripper did), just as he happened to show enough skill with the knife for medicos to be impressed (like the Ripper did).

All in all, that makes for a pretty watertight case of a shared identity.

Why "go berserk" in the streets, if your true nature is to cut away under safe and time wise unlimited conditions? My best guess is because he wanted a maximum press coverage and a maximum terror would ensure that. The interesting thing is that the torso murders continued along and beyond the Ripper murders, so if safe and timewise generous conditions was his favored game, it would seem he hung on to it throughout.

Last, but not least, I think it is dangerous to read too much of a character into the scant evidence we have. The two series may have been mirror images of each other in many a way, regardless of how you think that there were two different temperaments at work, Jeff. If the Ripper was a smooth-talker who chatted up his victims, why would the torso killer not be the exact same? If the Ripper struck quickly as soon as he had his victim where he wanted her, why would not the torso killer be the exact same? If the Ripper immediately set about cutting as his victim was dead, why would not the torso killer be the exact same? If the Ripper enjoyed cutting into his victims, why would not the torso killer be the exact same? If the Ripper was a narcissist, putting his victims on display to terrorize, why would not the torso killer be the exact same? If the Ripper was a psychopath, feeling no remorse whatsoever, instead feeling entitled to what he did, why would not the torso killer be the exact same? If the Ripper cut out uteri, hears and lungs, cut away abdominal walls and stole rings from his victims, why would not the torso killer do the exact same?

You THINK they were of different mindsets, but it is pretty unlikely that two people of different mindsets would both end up killing, eviscerating, taking away abdominal walls and stealing rings, Jeff. People of different mindsets normally do different things.

Oh, and once again: The torso killer did NOT prove an ability to cut the head off with a knife until in September 1889. Up until the stage, he used a saw. Therefore it may well be that both killer were unable to decapitate by knife up until that date. Consequently, we cannot tell them apart by this criteria - either.

[JeffHamm]

1. He did not HAVE to dismember the Ripper victims. They were not in his house!

Oh, I hadn't realized you have come around to accept that the dismemberment and scattering was practical in nature. Up until now I have been under the impression you believed the torso killer(s) had a desire to dismember.

2. Kelly had notches on her spine, leading Phillips to suggest a botched decapitation. Chapman had something along the same lines. Chapman was killed in September-88 and Kelly in November-88. The Rainham victim was found in May -87, the Whitehall victim was found in September -88, Jackson was found in June -89. All of these victims had had their heads SAWN off. When the Pinchin Street victim was found in September of 1989, she had had her head taken off by means of knife, and Charles Hebbert pointed this out as a sign of the killer progressing in his skills.

The disjointing of the torso victims was done white a high level of skill, noted by the doctors at the time. The cuts were clean, and clearly done by someone with the skills of a butcher most likely, according to the medical reports by doctors who actually examined the injuries. Therefore, the torso killer was someone who had the skill to disjoint, whether it be arms, legs, or necks. Decapitation by knife would be in their skill set as demonstrated by the totality of the skill demonstrated. Use of a saw would just be easier if it was available.

Can you see how the two series fit together? Before September -89, NEITHER man seems to have been able to decapitate by knife. So at the stage when you say that the Ripper was unable to decapitate, I think you are totally wrong: he would be perfectly able to decapitate, given a saw. But he did not carry a saw into the streets, did he? So he (possibly) tried with a knife - and failed.

Well, I guess that makes us even as I think you're completely off base thinking the torso killer's evidenced skills at disarticulation and separation of joints pre Sept 89 somehow vanishes when it comes to neck bones. That doesn't fit with the evidence, and I can't understand how it's all supposed to logically hold together - he's got the skills to disjoint legs and arms cleanly and shows evidence of having a high proficiency, but move up the body above the shoulders and - poof - don't know how anymore? What, did he skip that class? It has too many twists and turns of argument trying to stuff the evidence into the theory to be credible.

Is there any evidence that the Torso killer knew how to decapitate by knife at this stage in time? No, there is not - because he used a saw on the three victims of May 1887 to June 1888.

Sorry, but the correct answer is "yes there is- they can disjoint every other limb just fine, they have shown high skills with their use of the knife and how to break down a body. It's easier with a saw, so if you got one at hand, use it. But every last bit of evidence we have with regards to the skills available to the torso killer(s) points to someone who had the skill to disjoint the neck/spine and decapitate with a knife if they so chose. JtR "so chose" to try, and JtR failed. The torso killer would not have. They are not the same person.

Both men were deemed to possess a high level of skill with their knives, by the way. That's one more of those "coincidences".

No, JtR was not universally thought to have high skills with the knife. Dr. Bond, who performed the autopsy on Kelly and read the case notes on the other cases states "In each case the mutilation was inflicted by a person who had no scientific nor anatomical knowledge. In my opinion he does not even possess the technical knowledge of a butcher or horse slaughterer or any person accustomed to cut up dead animals." Dr. Phillips saw no skill in the Eddowes case and thought her by a different killer, though did see skill of some level in the case of Nichols, Chapman, and Kelly. With JtR, basically, opinion was highly varied, with the torso killer(s) it appears universally agreed upon. Again, different levels of skills being shown, with the torso killer(s) having the higher demonstrable skill set; ergo, not the same person.

I can't help it, the two series won't fit together, it's like one is a corner piece to a jigsaw and the other a duck.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

To be precise: I am not claiming that the killer had a need or desire to dismember, Jeff. What I AM saying is that the killer was somebody who eviscerated and who went beyond what he needed to do if it was all just about getting rid of a body.

My personal take is that some of the dismemberment WAS part of his urge, but it is not something I can prove. I can only prove that he went beyond what is needed for practical dismemberment and that he for some reason happened to take out the same organs as the upper in the process, just as he happened to cut from ribs to pubes (like the Ripper did), just as he happened to cut away an abdominal wall (like the Ripper did), just as he happened to take away a ring from the finger of one of his victims (like the Ripper did), just as he happened to show enough skill with the knife for medicos to be impressed (like the Ripper did).

All in all, that makes for a pretty watertight case of a shared identity.

No, it's leaking on the floor I'm afraid. If you're going to dismember a body to aid in removing it from your house, and you have the butchering skill (which the torso killer(s) apparently did), then you will break down the body like you would an animal carcass. You remove the stomach flaps (done), all the innards, including lungs, etc (torso case done, JtR, nope, just a few choice bits now and again - this is not a similarity), cutting from ribs to pubes? If your goal is to get at the innards, as both a mutilator and a practical dismemberment/body break down person have for different reasons, then how else are they going to get at them? This is not a similarity that links the two cases, both JtR and the torso killer(s) have a need to get at the innards to do what they do - one to mutilate, one to break the body down for transport.

And the taking of rings? The taking of souvenirs from victims is so common a behaviour come talk to me when there's evidence that he left jewelry both times. That's like saying both victims were prostitutes, one of the more high risk victim groups. It's not a similarity that is anything more telling than going "Oh look, that leaf is green, must be the same plant as I saw before? Oh, has roots too", these are non-informative similarities.

JtR's skills were highly debated at the time, the torso killer(s)' skills were not. The latter had more skills before JtR even started, they can't be the same individual.

Why "go berserk" in the streets, if your true nature is to cut away under safe and time wise unlimited conditions? My best guess is because he wanted a maximum press coverage and a maximum terror would ensure that. The interesting thing is that the torso murders continued along and beyond the Ripper murders, so if safe and time wise generous conditions was his favored game, it would seem he hung on to it throughout.

Last, but not least, I think it is dangerous to read too much of a character into the scant evidence we have.

I'll stop if you stop.

The two series may have been mirror images of each other in many a way, regardless of how you think that there were two different temperaments at work, Jeff. If the Ripper was a smooth-talker who chatted up his victims, why would the torso killer not be the exact same?

I think it is dangerous to read too much of a character into the scant evidence we have.

If the Ripper struck quickly as soon as he had his victim where he wanted her, why would not the torso killer be the exact same? If the Ripper immediately set about cutting as his victim was dead, why would not the torso killer be the exact same? If the Ripper enjoyed cutting into his victims, why would not the torso killer be the exact same? If the Ripper was a narcissist, putting his victims on display to terrorize, why would not the torso killer be the exact same? If the Ripper was a psychopath, feeling no remorse whatsoever, instead feeling entitled to what he did, why would not the torso killer be the exact same? If the Ripper cut out uteri, hears and lungs, cut away abdominal walls and stole rings from his victims, why would not the torso killer do the exact same?

You THINK they were of different mindsets, but it is pretty unlikely that two people of different mindsets would bot end up killing, eviscerating, taking away abdominal walls and stealing rings, Jeff. People of different mindsets normally do different things.

I also know they evidenced different levels of skills with the knife. Hence, they cannot be the same person.

- Jeff