Torso Killer discussion from Millwood Thread

[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

[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

[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.

[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]

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]

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.

[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.

[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?

[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. "

[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]

So that payed off guy will meticulously cut away the face, including the eyelashes and lips, from one of the skulls?

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.

[Joshua Rogan]

As far as I understand, yes. Do you have another take on it?

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?

[Joshua Rogan]

If it is the Torso heads you are asking about, the answer has been provided a thousand times: If they were thrown in the river, they would sink.

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."

[Fisherman]

Really?

As far as I understand, yes. Do you have another take on it?

[Abby Normal]

I would like to compare the Ripper and Torsoman timelines to get a better picture of the sequence of events.

bolo
im not research inclined-at all lol. but if you just go to the victims page here they have the ripper dates and torso dates (for the 4 80s cases any way) and basic info. there were two torso cases in the 70s also and two from 84? not listed. but in this thread someone posted a dissertation on the torsos that I believe cover all the torsos that I just mentioned. you can start to put together a basic timeline from that I think.