Torso Killer discussion from Millwood Thread

[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.

[Michael W Richards]

Yes, but at the time, any grizzly murder was being linked to the JtR series.

That is the single largest error made with respect to investigating these murders...then and now. Although there are obvious differences in what took place and the eventual outcomes, the primary reason for anyone to kill another person is unclear. Its uncovering the Motive that often solves crimes.

Most people who study these crimes assume a motive of uncontrolled madness for many or all of the unsolved murders, painting themselves into a corner. Any subsequent murders, no matter how different, with an assumed Motive of Madness, must lead to a single individual or group. After all, how many homicidal maniacs are likely... that live within a stones throw of each other and commit murders during the same small window of time?

For myself, I can easily see, just within what is known today, some viable alternate explanations for Liz, for Kate and for Mary. I think a homicidal maniac...or more importantly...someone who desired to cut into dead people, killed the first 2 victims...just the first 2. Liz could have been killed because someone mistook her for a spy on the club, Kate could have been killed because she sought to negotiate her silence with a killer she felt was responsible for the recent murders...that might be what she was doing Sat afternoon.., and Mary, if that body was actually someone named Mary Kelly, might have been killed as part of a love triangle, or to erase someone named Mary Kelly from the area. People kill people all the time, and sometimes they resort to mutilation and dismemberment in order to hide what they have done. Doesn't mean that they craved that kind of activity, just that it seemed a logical answer to the disposal problem at the time.

My contention, supported by the physical evidence, is that the person who killed Polly and Kate did so to obtain access to a female corpse to cut into. Homicidal maniac.

I think Torso Man had a much more complex reason. I don't think he dismembered for ease of disposal, I think he liked disjointing and the bold nature of cutting someone in half. Maybe like Dahlia.

[rjpalmer]

If they are tossing parts from a wagon, cart or just carrying for that matter-why the torso left on the river bank/park?

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.

[Sam Flynn]

If they are tossing parts from a wagon, cart or just carrying for that matter-why the torso left on the river bank/park?

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.

[Abby Normal]

That's pretty much how I imagine it, too, albeit I see the wagon as optional.

Hi Sam and RJ
If they are tossing parts from a wagon, cart or just carrying for that matter-why the torso left on the river bank/park?

[Sam Flynn]

Reading an old post by Debra A on Howard's site, I think she is 100% correct. The bundles seemed to have been tossed from a wagon that crossed over the Albert Bridge; the conspirators evidently ran out of time or were scared off by traffic, so they didn't finish the task before reaching the Battersea Park shore. They then probably went south down the Albert Road to turn around, and, in a moment of stupidity, tossed the last bundle into the shrubbery from the road, where it was later found.

That's pretty much how I imagine it, too, albeit I see the wagon as optional.

[Fisherman]

Ahem. Emanuel Delbast Violena didn't try to implicate Pizer? I rather think he did. And unlike George Hutchinson, the police really did believe Violena was lying. But give it time; EBV, too, will be a suspect some day. It's the current flavor of Ripperology---if you can't solve the case, start blaming the bystanders and the witnesses.

As for Fisherman's original points. London was, and is, one of the largest and most populated cities in the world. To say that the Battersea case and the Pinchin Street torso case happened in the same "town" is about as meaningful as saying that a murder in Harlem and a murder on Staten Island happened in the same "town." Had the torsos all turned up in Wagon Wheel, North Dakota, the point would have been valid.

Further, in domestic killings, as well as in botched abortion cases, one strips the body of jewelry and other items in order to hide the identification of the victim. So the mere fact that two or more of the supposed victims had missing rings (which also have obvious monetary value) does not point to the same perpetrator; it merely points to inherent similarities in crimes of this sort. They share motive.

And that is the problem that Fisherman and other 'torso' theorists are up against. There are only so many ways to rob a bank or knock off a liquor store or to saw a leg in two. The mere fact that such crimes can be similar, or even amazingly similar, does not mean they were committed by the same individual.

But the real reason I wish to comment is that Fisherman suggests that all the Torso victims were "prostitutes." Please don't let Ms. Rubenhold get wind of this amazing claim, or Fish, too, will end up swimming in The Thames. Abby tried to pull this same stunt a while back. The Battersea, Regent's Canal, and Pinchin Street bodies, among others, were never positively identified. So by what stretch of the imagination does one conclude that they were all "prostitutes," let alone murdered during an act of prostitution?

Upon reading things like these, I am always a tad flustered - and disappointed.

R J Palmer starts out by saying that London was one of the larger and most populated cities in the world in 1888, and that it is therefore somehow not "meaningful" to note that the Ripper and the Torso killer were both killing there.

I fail to see how that can be sustained. Surely, the fact that both series played out in London tells us that the possibility of a common originator meets no obstacle on the geographical count?
If the series had played out in Kinshasa and Ontario, R J would have had an eminent point. But in London?
What is implied here is that since so many people lived in London, there are very many options for making different choices of suggestions for the killerīs role(s).

But that would have applied in Banbury, Bradford, Portsmouth, Badgerīs End and Pittenweem too; once we have many people living in a community, we get numerous possibilities - all other parameters excluded - to point our finger at different possible suspects.

The thing is, though, that once two series of murders are played out, roughly simultaneously, in Banbury, Bradford, Portsmouth, Badgerīs End, Pittenweem or London, it immediately becomes crucial to accept that if there are inclusions of similarities in the series, then we are probably dealing with the same killer, given how rare serial murder is. And the more similarities there are, the more likely it becomes with a single killer. Plus the more rare the similarities are, the larger the chance of a common originator.

These are basic matters. Why anybody would choose to try and confuse the cards by saying that London was large in 1888, I have problems understanding. The geographical ties are in place, and that's that. We can discuss til the cows come home whether the issue of the dumping sites visavi the Ripper murder area is significant or not, but that will never take away from how we know that the opportunity is proven for a possible connection.

Next, R J bafflingly claims that the missing rings "do not point to a common originator". Actually, what I think he perhaps wants to say is that the matter of the missing rings MUST not point to a common originator. On that score, I concur - it is no proof. It IS, however, evidence of how both killers chose to do the exact same thing to victims in their series, and as such, a parameter like that can never be useless. It is instead weighty evidence, not least in combination with the other points of similarities. Add to this how we know that the commonest driving force behind serial murder is sexuality, almost always coupled to a wish to control. That means that financial gain becomes a less likely driving force in the Ripper and Torso murders, not least since we know that the identified victims were women of very small economical means. Accordingly, the thing to expect is that the killer came for something else than the rings, in which case it becomes increasingly odd that he took them. Many victims of sexual serial killers are found with rings and jewelry on their persons.
At the end of the day, let's not make a claim like the one that R J Palmer made here - that the lost rings do not point to the same killer. Before we have any evidence to the opposite, they of course do precisely that.

Next - "there are only so many ways to saw a leg in two". So why is it that Hebbert said that the work was in all respects similar within the four murders he wrote about? Because dismemberment cases always all look the same? Why was it that Galloway was blown away by the killers cuts in the Rainham case? Because he had never seen a dismembered corpse before? Why is it that the medicos were required to observe and describe the quality of the cutting in their reports? And - not least - why do we speak of sawing legs in two, when we know perfectly well that most of the dismemberment was about disjointing and disarticulating, and NOT about sawing? Because the point R J is making sits better with only allowing for the saw? Galloway originally claimed that the Rainham killer must have been a surgeon or a skilled anatomist. Was that because ALL dismemberment killers always come across as likely surgeons and/or anatomists, given that there are "only so many ways a leg can be sawed in two"? And was that why the Lancet corrected the idea that the 1873 murder was sloppy ands crude, by pointing out that it in fact was dexterious and neat?

R J also takes it upon himself to claim that I suggest that all the Torso victims were prostitutes. Really? I always though that I was saying that all the torso victims MAY have been prostitutes, given that the one identification we have is that of Jackson - who WAS a prostitute. Add to this that we have a huge string of serial killers preying on prostitutes throughout history, and I don't think my suggestion is half bad.
It is however, ALL bad to claim that I would have somehow accepted that the torso victims must have been prostitutes. I fully understand that such a thing would help to paint me out as undiscerning, rash and untrustworthy - but can we please wait with that celebration until I make such a statement before using it against me? Getting things in the correct order, so to speak? Just asking.

I also find this in a later post of the same - somewhat unfortunate - author:

" ...it is rather obvious that cutting up a body and throwing it in the Thames is an attempt to both hide the victim's identity, and hope to heck the body parts never resurface, as Wainwright evidently hoped would happen in the Harriet Lane case."

A question: Once the killer noted in the press and by speaking to people on the town that just about each and every part of his bodies floated ashore all over London and were found, time after time - is it not a tad odd that he did not start weighing the parts down or something similar, if he really entertained such high hopes of them never being found? I mean when you note that a stone can do what hopes cannot, maybe the time has come to act upon that insight?
In conclusion, what I am saying is that it is anything but "obvious" that the killer wanted his parts to go unnoticed. A VERY fair case can be made for the exact opposite, can it not?

[rjpalmer]

I still haven't located the original plan I saw marking the frame ground but it does exist so no reason why it shouldn't turn up eventually.

the wandsworth.gov website has a pdf of the "Battersea Park Conservation and Management Area" that has contemporary plans of the park and other old images. On page 12 there is one from 1896. It doesn't designate the cold frames, but there are two areas marked "nursery," immediately north and south of the Albert Gate entrance. Since the southern one is roughly 200 yards south of the Thames, it must certainly be where the gardener found the remains. It's right next to the road, separated only by shrubbery.

Reading an old post by Debra A on Howard's site, I think she is 100% correct. The bundles seemed to have been tossed from a wagon that crossed over the Albert Bridge; the conspirators evidently ran out of time or were scared off by traffic, so they didn't finish the task before reaching the Battersea Park shore. They then probably went south down the Albert Road to turn around, and, in a moment of stupidity, tossed the last bundle into the shrubbery from the road, where it was later found.

It looks to me like the work of some desperate characters, scared witless, and probably done in the dark of the night. I theorize they then returned to Chelsea and went north on the Embankment. At this point, they realized they had screwed-up and had one last bundle, and tossed it into the shrubbery on the left (the Brits driving on the wrong side of the road --which is not a sexist remark, but merely American ethnocentrism) and this is what landed in Sir P Shelley's old house (I think he was actually living in Bournemouth by 1889)/ Had they dumped this one first, it would have been the opposite side of the road. Thus, I conclude Liz Jackson's remains originated from the Chelsea side of the River. As Debra noted back in the day, some of the shrubbery had broken tops, so the bundle might have been tossed as the wagon moved along at high speed.

[John G]

True. However, in the autopsy notes the doctor links the Whitehall case to the 1887 case in their assessment of the disarticulations, and the 1887 case the doctor identifies the victim as a virgin (the uterus was present; so presumably the hymen was intact). If those two were performed by the same person (which is what those who argue for a series claim), then an abortionist is ruled out. The doctor also noted that the Whitehall victim had not suckled a child, and while that doesn't rule out them being pregnant at the time, it would be their first pregnancy if they had (most likely). Presumably, if they were pregnant, the breasts would show signs of that, depending upon how far along the pregnancy was.



Yes, the father of Jackson's child would definitely be a top Person of Interest.



I agree, if these are not a series by the same person, then that changes the possibilities for individual cases. I should have stated that I was considering these from the point of view of a series. I'm not convinced, though, that they are all linked to one person, only that there does appear to be a basis upon which to consider that possibility.



No, not necessarily. If the hymen was still intact, that would indicate lack of penetration, and since the uterus was present I took it to mean he examined that, though the hymen is not part of the uterus itself. There may be other changes to the uterus that occur that indicate a prior pregnancy, or at least one that was carried to term, though of course that doesn't mean the person was a virgin. The full autopsy notes would (or I should say "should") indicate upon what evidence the doctor drew that conclusion. It's possible his conclusion was based upon ideas that have since been proven to be invalid.

- Jeff

I would just point out that Dr Hebbert took the view that the latter Torso victims were all murdered.

[Debra A]

Ah yeah, cold frame, that's what I was thinking of. Which is actually a very small greenhouse. You can tell I'm not much of a gardener. But yes, sounds like it could well be the nursery area adjacent to the road. Shame my map doesn't show any more detail than the name in that spot.

Me neither. Although I am capable of mowing the lawn, despite being female.
I still haven't located the original plan I saw marking the frame ground but it does exist so no reason why it shouldn't turn up eventually.

[JeffHamm]

Thanks Abby and Sam, much appreciated.

- Jeff

[Sam Flynn]

Oh, what's the book that's coming out? Is there a title and/or author name I should keep an eye out for?

"Jack and the Thames Torso Murders: A New Ripper?" by Drew Gray. A historian.

[Abby Normal]

No problem, there's not enough information to work with in many of these historical cases so at some point one always has to weigh the evidence there is and do the bet they can to view the case from different angles. I try to look at it as a series and will consider what inferences I might be able to draw and I also try to consider them as different and unrelated cases. In a way, I'm trying to see which point of view brings the whole picture into sharper focus without me having to fiddle too much with the settings from behind the camera (I love metaphors too! ha). At the moment, I'm not getting a clear picture from the series vantage, but I'm also not as familiar with all the details surrounding them, so that could change.

Anyway, I'm not trying convince you to change your point of view, just presenting mine and discussing how things look from where I'm standing. If, during such conversations one or the other person decides to shift and change their position better to them "over there", that's fine but it's not the primary goal of sharing what you see (or it shouldn't be in my view).

Oh, what's the book that's coming out? Is there a title and/or author name I should keep an eye out for?

- Jeff

Jack and the Thames Torso Murders: A New Ripper? by Drew Gray

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Jack-Thames...ack+the+ripper


Looks like he will be linking them and possibly even naming a suspect. the thread here on Casebook is in the Books section-first one.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff!
You make some very good points, but well just have agree to disagree. 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, but should be interesting at least. I believe I heard he is a reputable author and the definitive book, or even a good one, has yet to be written.

No problem, there's not enough information to work with in many of these historical cases so at some point one always has to weigh the evidence there is and do the bet they can to view the case from different angles. I try to look at it as a series and will consider what inferences I might be able to draw and I also try to consider them as different and unrelated cases. In a way, I'm trying to see which point of view brings the whole picture into sharper focus without me having to fiddle too much with the settings from behind the camera (I love metaphors too! ha). At the moment, I'm not getting a clear picture from the series vantage, but I'm also not as familiar with all the details surrounding them, so that could change.

Anyway, I'm not trying convince you to change your point of view, just presenting mine and discussing how things look from where I'm standing. If, during such conversations one or the other person decides to shift and change their position better to them "over there", that's fine but it's not the primary goal of sharing what you see (or it shouldn't be in my view).

Oh, what's the book that's coming out? Is there a title and/or author name I should keep an eye out for?

- Jeff