Torso Killer discussion from Millwood Thread

[Sam Flynn]

Because there were other torsos found, with skill shown in the dis-articulation that pointed towards a butcher/knacker/slaughterman/hunter etc, and not a surgeon (according to the doc's at the time), we've now got quite a large group of people who would have those skills.

Henry Mayhew, in his 1851 magnum opus London Labour and the London Poor, surveyed 17 years' worth of records for London's "Asylums for the Houseless Poor", and found that 248 butchers were admitted every year on average. Given that these asylums were few in number, and that homeless butchers would only represent a tiny subset of all those employed in the butchering trade, the total number of butchers in London must have been very high indeed. And that's to say nothing of slaughtermen and knackers, for which Mayhew provides no data.

(NB: the Asylums for the Houseless Poor weren't "insane asylums", by the way, but catered for tramps and homeless people in general.)

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff
good post but I couldn't disagree more. LOL

The fact of the matter is simply that post mortem serial killers have an interest in the body after they have killed them. many if not all, have an interest in the body/parts after they have to get rid of them, and the places they leave them usually have some significance for them, whether the body is still there or not. Kemper buried one of his victims head under his mothers window because he hated her. Bundy and river man used to leave the bodies where they could go visit them or at least those sites. gacy buried most of his victims under his house, so he felt he had something "over" them and there are many more examples.

Hi Abby,

I think we see the torso sites quite differently, though I fully agree with the above. Yes, all those you mention put bodies or parts (i.e. Kemper) in places meaningful to them. What I see as very different between the above examples and the torsos is that in the above examples, they were also hiding the bodies and parts in places where either the offenders believed they wouldn't be found, so they could have unlimited access to the secret knowledge of where they were while the torsos and body parts from that series are just dumped in relatively public places, or into the Thames. The dispersal of the body parts in the torso series shows, to me, no sign of hiding parts in places where the killer could revisit and revel in the secret knowledge that the part is there. It lacks that side of the behaviour which the above killers exhibited very strongly. I can't think of any other case where a killer left bodies out in the open, in places meaningful to them, and yet also did so in a way that ensured discovery. I can think of lots of cases where bodies were dumped in relatively public places (behind buildings, in parks or fields, a random barn, etc) when the killer was just disposing of a body they no longer had any interest in (they would, however, retain interest in the event, which is a different matter).

Serial killers, the majority, who are not post mortem types, and usually rape killers, torturers etc, have no interest in the bodies once there victims are dead. Torsoman, being of the post mortem type, obviously did have an interest in the bodies after death, and it follows that what he did with the bodies/ parts after he needed to get rid of them was still important to him.

And here is where our lines of thinking diverge, reflecting how I see the previous bit very differently. Because I don't see the method of disposal as indicating a killer who has any special interest in the locations where the body parts have been dumped (they're not doing what those kind of killers do - hiding the body in their special place, the torso killer is just dumping them there, and dumping is very different from "storing", if you will). As such, I see the dismemberment as reflecting a pragmatic procedure that the killer engaged in because it was how they solved the problem of being able to get rid of a body. It indicates they didn't have the means and/or the opportunity to get rid of an entire body all at once, so they cut it up so they could manage to get rid of it over a series of occasions.

If torsoman just wanted to get rid of the bodies and or hide, he would have dumped them all in the river. if not wanting them to be found, especially after the first (Rainham) victim which was primarily dumped in the river, was all found, he would have known he would need to do something better, like weight them down or cut them up into smaller pieces.

If they could, they might have done that. But it is also possible that one of the things they were doing was avoiding being seen in the same place as previous dumpings, in case those bits were found and that area being watched. They could very well assume that might be the case because of the fact they didn't really make much of an attempt to hide the body parts permanently. And, as the news had over the years, reported that parts do wash up on shore sometimes, the safest thing to do after dumping some in the river is to head along a different route and dump the next bit somewhere else. If you're not trying to conceal discovery of the body per se, just get it away from your location, then tossing it anywhere that allows you to get rid of the evidence and not be seen doing it, and gives you enough time to get out of that immediate location, then when you get the chance you just discard it. That accounts for most of the locations. Only the Whitehall case looks like a location was chosen where they might have been trying to hide it from discovery as it appears they buried it (but not all as I understand it, which is odd), but it may not have been because it was the police headquarters but just because it was a construction site that was accessible. There's not enough to know, though it is worth considering of course, whether or not that location was for the police played a part in the decision to bury things there.

As a matter of fact, we can actually see a kind of escalation in the dumping pattern itself. First most in the river (Rainham), then Whitehall in New SY, then torso on riverbank, some parts in river, leg in Shelley estate with Jackson, then pinchin in the street. they seem to get increasingly weird and public. To me, this is a pattern of significance where they are dumped-- and made stronger by the more public places as the series goes along.
one could even say that perhaps this has some meaning for the ripper series, bodies all being public, which came later, and during the more public dumpings of the torsoman series--another similarity/pattern that may tie these two cases together.

The problem is, that it also looks like choices being made by different people. Yes, if you start from the assumption that it is a series, then one sees a pattern, but if you start from the locations, you see what looks like different people coming to different solutions to a common problem - how to get rid of a body.

as for torso victims not being a series-all the experts at the time thought they were, its the consensus then as now, the medicos showed they had obvious similarities and exhibited skill in the dismemberment, the rarity of dismemberment (then and now)and the specific rarity at the time of parts being found in the river or anywhere for that matter and its pretty obvious that they were the work of a serial killer.

for me the obvious question, is not whether these are all part of the torso series, but whether they are part of the ripper series. A question, thankfully gaining more appreciation lately.

Yes, but at the time, any grizzly murder was being linked to the JtR series. By the time Tabram was murdered, the press was already talking about a series, with Emma Smith, who was set upon by a gang of thugs, being linked to Tabram, who was killed by a lone individual, with suspicion being on a soldier of some sort. And the medical experts of the time were, just like the police, completely inexperienced with serial murders and the kinds of things that some people will do (as I say, cutting up a body to dispose of it occurs frequently enough that it isn't sufficient to automatically signal a link). Because there were other torsos found, with skill shown in the dis-articulation that pointed towards a butcher/knacker/slaughterman/hunter etc, and not a surgeon (according to the doc's at the time), we've now got quite a large group of people who would have those skills. So if over the period of 15 or 20 years, a few members of that large group ended up killing someone, then there's no reason why they might all decide to cut up the body (as they more or less know how) in order to get rid of it. And since the previous cases were in the press, doing just that would be something they had heard about before. And knowing that the others "got away with it", that would very well make it seem like a good solution to their problem.

I do want to be clear, though, I'm not pushing this as the only possible answer. What I am saying, however, is that it is the alternative to "torso series" and as far as I can see it fits the evidence we have just as well as viewing them as a linked series. That puts our ability to draw any firm conclusions on shaky grounds once we go beyond this point. Meaning, once one starts to try and infer more complex reasoning of "the torso killer" based upon all the crimes, one has decided to venture along that particular line of thinking that has not yet been determined to be the right road. I could, for example, believe that it is not a series and you could believe that it is a series. But we both know, it is entirely possible to believe something that is simply untrue. That's where evidence comes in, as it is evidence, and only evidence, that provides an indication of which line of reasoning one should follow. Hypotheses, theories, and conjecture, are simply divination rods - they will point where we want them to, which may not be the direction we should be going.

But, I also admit, that tends to make my offerings a bit dull and boring.

- Jeff

[Sam Flynn]

Re "the rarity of dismemberment", Abby, it's not as if this was happening on a monthly basis. There were a handful of torsos dumped in London over a period of a decade and a half.

[Abby Normal]

There's an important difference with where Bundy, Kemper, Ridgeway (Green River), and I'll add McArthur (in Toronto), hid their bodies and with the torsos. The former set hid the bodies in places where they could revisit and others were unlikely to find them (Bundy, Kemper, and McArthur in particular - Ridgeway disposed of many in the Green River, but then started burying them once they started being found). They wanted to be able to return, and privately relive their conquests. Now it is possible the torsos were deposited for the same reason. Given the Thames would transport the parts to places unknown by the killer, and the on land sites were just "drops" and not burials (save maybe the Whitehall case), then we either have to suggest that just knowing they deposited a body part at that location was enough even though that part would be removed fairly quickly (which would make them different from the others - Ridgeway didn't expect the bodies to be found, so he could go fishing "knowing" the bodies were in the river nearby, for example) or we conclude the beahviour doesn't match with the personality types that deposit body parts for private revisiting.

There are serial killers who, after killing someone, have a body they need to get rid of but who have no "attachment" to the body. For them, it is an inconvenience and they just want to get rid of it. They are the ones who may just drive to a remote location and dump the body on the side of the road, or maybe shift it a bit into the woods, or drive it to some area and leave it in or behind a dumpster, etc. They will engage in dismemberment to make this easier (particularly in the latter case - though again, with cars making transport of whole bodies easier, dismemberment is still uncommon - but it may have been more so in Victorian times, even among non-serial killers).

In my view, the locations where body parts were found, and how they were left there, do not correspond to the locations and disposal methods of known (and of course, more recent) serial killers like Bundy, Kemper, Ridgeway, or McArthur. The locations and the general lack of concealment, if this is all the same person, point more to someone who is just taking care of something they no longer have a need for.

The problem I have, though, is that those who no longer have a need for the bodies, but repeatedly kill in their own private location and so repeatedly have a body to deal with, also tend to be sadists - their need is to inflict pain and to control/dominate the victim, but there does not appear to be any signs of torture or other sadistic behaviours pre-mortem.

Also, how the dismemberment was carried out between cases are not very consistent. The Pinchin street torso still had arms, for example. Some torso's were more or less intact, others sectioned into 2 or 3 sections. The only real consistency seems to be emptying the gut cavity and evidence of skill at disjointing, but that would be something any butcher, knacker, hunter, etc would have in their skill set. In other words, if we envision a single killer who has a need to dismember, one would expect repetition in the process, possibly showing a progression, where they "re-do" what they did before and maybe add a new aspect (similar to how there appears to be a progression in the JtR series with regards to the mutilations). Even if their need (as their motive for murder) wasn't to dismember per se, one would still expect the same approach to how to cut up the body to be shown.

Granted, dismemberment is uncommon, and there suddenly appears to be a number of such cases in a relatively short period of time, but rather than the picture becoming sharper and more focused as the cases are combined, the finer details are not emerging, and that starts to suggest considering these as unrelated cases despite the uncommonness of dismemberment. It may be that only some of the cases are connected, and the inclusion of all the torso cases is the problem (and the sudden rise is because others, who found themselves with a body and had the abilities, resorted to dismemberment because they heard about these cases in the press and figured they could do that too as it seemed to work - the previous cases were still unsolved, most victims not identified, etc.

Anyway, those are just my thoughts, and I've not got notes in front of me so so I could have some details wrong for which I apologize, but there's something about the torso cases that is just not clicking with me as being a series. Also, I'm yet convinced it is simply something different between modern times and Victorian times, but just because I'm not convinced doesn't mean that isn't the explanation of course.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff
good post but I couldn't disagree more. LOL

The fact of the matter is simply that post mortem serial killers have an interest in the body after they have killed them. many if not all, have an interest in the body/parts after they have to get rid of them, and the places they leave them usually have some significance for them, whether the body is still there or not. Kemper buried one of his victims head under his mothers window because he hated her. Bundy and river man used to leave the bodies where they could go visit them or at least those sites. gacy buried most of his victims under his house, so he felt he had something "over" them and there are many more examples.

Serial killers, the majority, who are not post mortem types, and usually rape killers, torturers etc, have no interest in the bodies once there victims are dead. Torsoman, being of the post mortem type, obviously did have an interest in the bodies after death, and it follows that what he did with the bodies/ parts after he needed to get rid of them was still important to him.

If torsoman just wanted to get rid of the bodies and or hide, he would have dumped them all in the river. if not wanting them to be found, especially after the first (Rainham) victim which was primarily dumped in the river, was all found, he would have known he would need to do something better, like weight them down or cut them up into smaller pieces.

As a matter of fact, we can actually see a kind of escalation in the dumping pattern itself. First most in the river (Rainham), then Whitehall in New SY, then torso on riverbank, some parts in river, leg in Shelley estate with Jackson, then pinchin in the street. they seem to get increasingly weird and public. To me, this is a pattern of significance where they are dumped-- and made stronger by the more public places as the series goes along.
one could even say that perhaps this has some meaning for the ripper series, bodies all being public, which came later, and during the more public dumpings of the torsoman series--another similarity/pattern that may tie these two cases together.

as for torso victims not being a series-all the experts at the time thought they were, its the consensus then as now, the medicos showed they had obvious similarities and exhibited skill in the dismemberment, the rarity of dismemberment (then and now)and the specific rarity at the time of parts being found in the river or anywhere for that matter and its pretty obvious that they were the work of a serial killer.

for me the obvious question, is not whether these are all part of the torso series, but whether they are part of the ripper series. A question, thankfully gaining more appreciation lately.

[JeffHamm]

following up with the last--- I know serial killers, especially the post mortem types, (and also ones who keep trophies), when they do have to dump/dispose of the victims, will put them in places that have significance to them, and or many time places where they can "visit" them again. Bundy, green river killer, kemper to name a few did this. perhaps, some where done for this purpose? Whitehall basement , EJs torso on the river bank for example. and if he knew they would be places where they would be found and moved-places that just had meaning to him. as in he could visit these places like pinchin street, or New SY or the river and or his daily routine took him near them and then would give some sort of weird satisfaction and meaning? I don't know just thinking out loud here.

There's an important difference with where Bundy, Kemper, Ridgeway (Green River), and I'll add McArthur (in Toronto), hid their bodies and with the torsos. The former set hid the bodies in places where they could revisit and others were unlikely to find them (Bundy, Kemper, and McArthur in particular - Ridgeway disposed of many in the Green River, but then started burying them once they started being found). They wanted to be able to return, and privately relive their conquests. Now it is possible the torsos were deposited for the same reason. Given the Thames would transport the parts to places unknown by the killer, and the on land sites were just "drops" and not burials (save maybe the Whitehall case), then we either have to suggest that just knowing they deposited a body part at that location was enough even though that part would be removed fairly quickly (which would make them different from the others - Ridgeway didn't expect the bodies to be found, so he could go fishing "knowing" the bodies were in the river nearby, for example) or we conclude the beahviour doesn't match with the personality types that deposit body parts for private revisiting.

There are serial killers who, after killing someone, have a body they need to get rid of but who have no "attachment" to the body. For them, it is an inconvenience and they just want to get rid of it. They are the ones who may just drive to a remote location and dump the body on the side of the road, or maybe shift it a bit into the woods, or drive it to some area and leave it in or behind a dumpster, etc. They will engage in dismemberment to make this easier (particularly in the latter case - though again, with cars making transport of whole bodies easier, dismemberment is still uncommon - but it may have been more so in Victorian times, even among non-serial killers).

In my view, the locations where body parts were found, and how they were left there, do not correspond to the locations and disposal methods of known (and of course, more recent) serial killers like Bundy, Kemper, Ridgeway, or McArthur. The locations and the general lack of concealment, if this is all the same person, point more to someone who is just taking care of something they no longer have a need for.

The problem I have, though, is that those who no longer have a need for the bodies, but repeatedly kill in their own private location and so repeatedly have a body to deal with, also tend to be sadists - their need is to inflict pain and to control/dominate the victim, but there does not appear to be any signs of torture or other sadistic behaviours pre-mortem.

Also, how the dismemberment was carried out between cases are not very consistent. The Pinchin street torso still had arms, for example. Some torso's were more or less intact, others sectioned into 2 or 3 sections. The only real consistency seems to be emptying the gut cavity and evidence of skill at disjointing, but that would be something any butcher, knacker, hunter, etc would have in their skill set. In other words, if we envision a single killer who has a need to dismember, one would expect repetition in the process, possibly showing a progression, where they "re-do" what they did before and maybe add a new aspect (similar to how there appears to be a progression in the JtR series with regards to the mutilations). Even if their need (as their motive for murder) wasn't to dismember per se, one would still expect the same approach to how to cut up the body to be shown.

Granted, dismemberment is uncommon, and there suddenly appears to be a number of such cases in a relatively short period of time, but rather than the picture becoming sharper and more focused as the cases are combined, the finer details are not emerging, and that starts to suggest considering these as unrelated cases despite the uncommonness of dismemberment. It may be that only some of the cases are connected, and the inclusion of all the torso cases is the problem (and the sudden rise is because others, who found themselves with a body and had the abilities, resorted to dismemberment because they heard about these cases in the press and figured they could do that too as it seemed to work - the previous cases were still unsolved, most victims not identified, etc.

Anyway, those are just my thoughts, and I've not got notes in front of me so so I could have some details wrong for which I apologize, but there's something about the torso cases that is just not clicking with me as being a series. Also, I'm yet convinced it is simply something different between modern times and Victorian times, but just because I'm not convinced doesn't mean that isn't the explanation of course.

- Jeff

[Abby Normal]

following up with the last--- I know serial killers, especially the post mortem types, (and also ones who keep trophies), when they do have to dump/dispose of the victims, will put them in places that have significance to them, and or many time places where they can "visit" them again. Bundy, green river killer, kemper to name a few did this. perhaps, some where done for this purpose? Whitehall basement , EJs torso on the river bank for example. and if he knew they would be places where they would be found and moved-places that just had meaning to him. as in he could visit these places like pinchin street, or New SY or the river and or his daily routine took him near them and then would give some sort of weird satisfaction and meaning? I don't know just thinking out loud here.

[Abby Normal]

If you're going to get rid of a corpse in a crowded city like London, Abby, I'd strongly suggest you didn't try to burn the body!

Marcel Petiot at least had the sense to rent a remote villa on the outskirts of Paris, but even then the stench was so great that he soon had a date with Madame Guillotine.

No; your options are limited. The best course is to cut the body in pieces and smuggle it outdoors, bit by bit. Which is exactly what must have happened in a number of the torso cases.

As for burying, exactly where is the average Central Londoner going to bury a body? Most houses didn't even have gardens. Others had tiny back yards that were shared with a dozen other souls (Hanbury Street, for example) The domestic killer doesn't have much of an option, other than to cut the body to pieces and smuggle it outside and bury it at a local building site, or throw it bit by bit into the Thames.

Which is exactly what we are seeing in the many of the Torso cases. Even a railway arch is better than one's own outhouse.

Whoever these grim bastards were, they must have died a thousands deaths, with worry and fear of exposure

no I hear ya RJ. good points. I guess I should have just stuck with why didn't Torsoman just chuck all the parts in the river. lol
But that being said-why this weird pattern of dispersing torsos/parts all over the place and in some pretty strange places.

to my way of thinking-someone with the werewithall to have his own place to lure women to, kill them, cut them up and store them for some time would also have the werewithall and time to cut up more, and get rid of more efficiently if his true purpose was just to get rid of, hide and or prevent ID.

Again, to me there just seems some special significance to the killer in how and where he took and left the victims bodies/parts.

that's just me though, no big whup.

[rjpalmer]

why not throw all in the thames, or bury or burn?

If you're going to get rid of a corpse in a crowded city like London, Abby, I'd strongly suggest you didn't try to burn the body!

Marcel Petiot at least had the sense to rent a remote villa on the outskirts of Paris, but even then the stench was so great that he soon had a date with Madame Guillotine.

No; your options are limited. The best course is to cut the body in pieces and smuggle it outdoors, bit by bit. Which is exactly what must have happened in a number of the torso cases.

As for burying, exactly where is the average Central Londoner going to bury a body? Most houses didn't even have gardens. Others had tiny back yards that were shared with a dozen other souls (Hanbury Street, for example) The domestic killer doesn't have much of an option, other than to cut the body to pieces and smuggle it outside and bury it at a local building site, or throw it bit by bit into the Thames.

Which is exactly what we are seeing in the many of the Torso cases. Even a railway arch is better than one's own outhouse.

Whoever these grim bastards were, they must have died a thousands deaths, with worry and fear of exposure

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

If the four women (1887-1889) are indeed linked to the same dismemberer, as stated by the medicos, then they all met the same back street abortionist that was not only handy at abortion but also disarticulating joints like a butcher.

wheres the winky thing? lol

[Abby Normal]

Perhaps both. I don't accept the theory that the location of the Whitehall torso was necessarily an attempt to embarrass the police or to shock the public. To me, it appears to have been a legitimate attempt to hide a body. It is often stated that this was a well-used section of the building site where workmen kept their tools, but it actually appears to have been a seldom-used, "jet black" pit where only one workman kept his tools...on the weekend. As Joshua R. and others have noted, parts of the body were already buried and weren't discovered except through the use of a "sniffer" dog. If this was an attempt to put the body on "display" that makes little sense. Hence I state it was an attempt to hide the body. Either the culprit meant to come back later and finish the job (did he hear something and got scared off?) or some accomplice was hired to bury the body and did a poor job of it.

Similarly, 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. So when I say "hide the body," I mean in contrast to the usual domestic killing where there was no attempt to smuggle the corpse out of the building.

To me, the psychology behind these various torso killings appears to be the polar opposite of the "Ripper" killings. Evidently a small band of people see it otherwise.

hi RJ
I would concede the possibility of trying to prevent ID, but not really to hide. I just don't see it:
Pinchin-no. found in open on the street
Jackson-no-torso found on the shore, leg in Percy estate. some parts in the Thames
Whitehall-not really. Torso found in NSY-I think people are pretty much split on whether this was an attempt to hide. another part found on the side of the road.
Rainham-perhaps-all found in the thames.

To me, there is obviously something more going on here than to hide the body/parts (or even prevent ID). why not throw EJs torso in the river too? why throw her leg in the Percy estate of all places! why not all in the river?
why take the trouble and risk of hualing a body into the basement of New SY?
why dump Pinchin in the street?

why not throw all in the thames, or bury or burn? Surely the killer would know that the body/parts were going to be found.and with river dumping-especially after Rainham surfaced and was found (the first in the 80s series).

Something more is going on here-only known to the killers twisted mind-some kind of significance: polluting London? marking his territory? putting them in areas that have some meaning for him?

haven't quite put my finger on it, but something more than just trying to hide, get rid of.

[Kattrup]

With EJ, Im wondering what exactly would be the scenario of an abortion gone wrong? poison and overt surgical procedure I believe are ruled out, but perhaps a punching in the stomach type thing? where she died immediately? Im just thinking out loud here of any scenario where she went to visit some quack and he tried something where she died in his "office" and he was the one who dismembered and got rid of.

Poison was not ruled out, since her stomach was not recovered no tests could be performed.

the scenario would be she ingested some concoction meant to abort her foetus. She ODed and died. And the abortionist cut her up to conceal the crime.

[jerryd]

Hi Abby,

If the four women (1887-1889) are indeed linked to the same dismemberer, as stated by the medicos, then they all met the same back street abortionist that was not only handy at abortion but also disarticulating joints like a butcher.

[Abby Normal]

Well, yes, but with no baby inside either of them.

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? Torso man clearly wasn't fixated on the uterus or any other organ, otherwise we'd assuredly see more of a pattern in the torso cases. As it is, we don't even see much of a pattern in how the victims were chopped up.

hi Sam
why weren't the uteri of all the ripper victims removed? who knows why these sickos do what they do-all we can do is find the similarities (and differences) and see what we can figure out. what we cant see, AT ALL, is any evidence of botched abortions, in either series, including Jackson. that's my whole point.

Surely you can see that the presence of the baby has to be significant in Jackson's case?

at this point no-other than the fact that she had her uterus removed, like in the ripper series.
and yes, I concede it may have helped in dismemberment and moving the body/parts-you've convinced me on that possibility a while back. but unless there is any evidence of any kind of abortion, I don't. not yet anyway.

now, Im sincerely not just trying to be a contrarian nob-If there is any kind of scenario where her being pregnant IS significant I would love to discuss. we know there was talk of her wanting to end the pregnancy and rpalmer mentioned the case of the woman being punched.

With EJ, Im wondering what exactly would be the scenario of an abortion gone wrong? poison and overt surgical procedure I believe are ruled out, but perhaps a punching in the stomach type thing? where she died immediately? Im just thinking out loud here of any scenario where she went to visit some quack and he tried something where she died in his "office" and he was the one who dismembered and got rid of.

would love to hear Debs, palmers, your or anyone ideas on it!

[rjpalmer]

Did you mean "hide the victims' identities", perhaps?

Perhaps both. I don't accept the theory that the location of the Whitehall torso was necessarily an attempt to embarrass the police or to shock the public. To me, it appears to have been a legitimate attempt to hide a body. It is often stated that this was a well-used section of the building site where workmen kept their tools, but it actually appears to have been a seldom-used, "jet black" pit where only one workman kept his tools...on the weekend. As Joshua R. and others have noted, parts of the body were already buried and weren't discovered except through the use of a "sniffer" dog. If this was an attempt to put the body on "display" that makes little sense. Hence I state it was an attempt to hide the body. Either the culprit meant to come back later and finish the job (did he hear something and got scared off?) or some accomplice was hired to bury the body and did a poor job of it.

Similarly, 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. So when I say "hide the body," I mean in contrast to the usual domestic killing where there was no attempt to smuggle the corpse out of the building.

To me, the psychology behind these various torso killings appears to be the polar opposite of the "Ripper" killings. Evidently a small band of people see it otherwise.

[Sam Flynn]

right. no evidence of botched abortions. but clear evidence, like chapman and Eddowes, of a desire to remove the reproductive organs of a female prostitute.

Well, yes, but with no baby inside either of them.

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? Torso man clearly wasn't fixated on the uterus or any other organ, otherwise we'd assuredly see more of a pattern in the torso cases. As it is, we don't even see much of a pattern in how the victims were chopped up.