Torso Killer discussion from Millwood Thread

[rjpalmer]

There is no deeper meaning. The common denominator is the Albert Bridge and the Albert Bridge Road. Most of the remains were found downstream...obviously thrown into the river. The rest follows. The part by the embankment was left high and dry by the tides. The section in Battersea Park (which Abby seems to be confusing with the other piece) was by the side of Albert Road just on the other side of a hedge. The bit in Chelsea (the former Shelley estate) was also by the side of the road on the other side of a hedge. 2 + 2 = 4. Because the Brits drive on the left side of the road, it is easy enough to realize the direction of travel. This was simply one quick dump by someone in a vehicle, getting rid of the remains as quickly as possible, undoubtedly in the dark. The idea that he was placing them deliberately here and there seems barmy to me. A little too theatrical for a botched operation case.

By the way, the Cremorne Gardens in Chelsea was one of the most notorious pick-ups spots for prostitutes in the Victorian era. Look at the map. It is just south of the area in question, on the Chelsea side of the river. There is even a Victorian pornographic novel from the 1880s titled Cremorne Gardens. Yes, I've read it (research purposes only). One of the Ripper suspects (Tumblety) mentions the Cremorne Gardens in a letter written in the 1870s. He makes it sound delightful, but it was, in reality, a raunchy pick-up spot by then, involving both male and female practitioners of the fleshy arts.

As a totally irrelevant aside, I walked around Chelsea in the mid 1990s, looking at the sights. Lots of history along that stretch. Various artists, wits, writers, the Rolling Stones, etc. connected to this small hood. Anyway, out of the blue a drunken Peter O'Toole pulled up in a sports car and asked me directions. I was a Yank with no idea where I was, but, being on a self-guided walking tour I knew exactly where he wanted to go (Chenye Walk) and gave him directions. A bit later I learned that Pete had an actress friend who lived on that street. He seemed like a nice bloke, but I was surprised to see him tipsy at 9 am on a Sunday morning. Probably a continuation of the previous night. No harm, no foul. He was pretty brilliant in Lawrence of Arabia, among others. This was before I was a Ripper enthusiast, and I curse myself now for not studying the landscape more closely.

But these days, as Elvis Costello once famously sang, I Don't Want To Go To Chelsea. Anyway, I reserve the right to be wrong. Go ahead with your own thinking, but I see this as a haphazard dump with the river the obvious target, but fear and pedestrians complicating matters.

[Fisherman]

There is no deeper meaning. The common denominator is the Albert Bridge and the Albert Bridge Road. Most of the remains were found downstream...obviously thrown into the river. The rest follows. The part by the embankment was left high and dry by the tides. The section in Battersea Park (which Abby seems to be confusing with the other piece) was by the side of Albert Road just on the other side of a hedge. The bit in Chelsea (the former Shelley estate) was also by the side of the road on the other side of a hedge. 2 + 2 = 4. Because the Brits drive on the left side of the road, it is easy enough to realize the direction of travel. This was simply one quick dump by someone in a vehicle, getting rid of the remains as quickly as possible, undoubtedly in the dark. The idea that he was placing them deliberately here and there seems barmy to me. A little too theatrical for a botched operation case.

By the way, the Cremorne Gardens in Chelsea was one of the most notorious pick-ups spots for prostitutes in the Victorian era. Look at the map. It is just south of the area in question, on the Chelsea side of the river. There is even a Victorian pornographic novel from the 1880s titled Cremorne Gardens. Yes, I've read it (research purposes only). One of the Ripper suspects (Tumblety) mentions the Cremorne Gardens in a letter written in the 1870s. He makes it sound delightful, but it was, in reality, a raunchy pick-up spot by then, involving both male and female practitioners of the fleshy arts.

As a totally irrelevant aside, I walked around Chelsea in the mid 1990s, looking at the sights. Lots of history along that stretch. Various artists, wits, writers, the Rolling Stones, etc. connected to this small hood. Anyway, out of the blue a drunken Peter O'Toole pulled up in a sports car and asked me directions. I was a Yank with no idea where I was, but, being on a self-guided walking tour I knew exactly where he wanted to go (Chenye Walk) and gave him directions. A bit later I learned that Pete had an actress friend who lived on that street. He seemed like a nice bloke, but I was surprised to see him tipsy at 9 am on a Sunday morning. Probably a continuation of the previous night. No harm, no foul. He was pretty brilliant in Lawrence of Arabia, among others. This was before I was a Ripper enthusiast, and I curse myself now for not studying the landscape more closely.

But these days, as Elvis Costello once famously sang, I Don't Want To Go To Chelsea. Anyway, I reserve the right to be wrong. Go ahead with your own thinking, but I see this as a haphazard dump with the river the obvious target, but fear and pedestrians complicating matters.

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

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

How do we explain that?

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

The New Scotland Yard dumping - fluke.

The Shelley estate dumping - fluke.

The cutting out of uteri in both series - fluke.

The cutting out of hearts in both series - fluke.

The taking of the rings in both series - fluke.

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

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

The placing of both series in London - fluke.

The overlapping times - fluke.

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

The fact that both series involved prostitutes - fluke.

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

[Fisherman]

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

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

[Sam Flynn]

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

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

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

Quite.

[Fisherman]

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

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

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

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

[Fisherman]

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

He does. This is from the AdLibris page:

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

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

[Debra A]

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

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

[Fisherman]

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

In this context, it deserves mentioning that the Pinchin Street torso was found together with a chemise that had been cut open all the way down the front, and that this chemise also had cuts from the neckline to the sleeve openings. This is consistent with the killer having completely exposed the body while the victim was lying on her back.

[Abby Normal]

There is no deeper meaning. The common denominator is the Albert Bridge and the Albert Bridge Road. Most of the remains were found downstream...obviously thrown into the river. The rest follows. The part by the embankment was left high and dry by the tides. The section in Battersea Park (which Abby seems to be confusing with the other piece) was by the side of Albert Road just on the other side of a hedge. The bit in Chelsea (the former Shelley estate) was also by the side of the road on the other side of a hedge. 2 + 2 = 4. Because the Brits drive on the left side of the road, it is easy enough to realize the direction of travel. This was simply one quick dump by someone in a vehicle, getting rid of the remains as quickly as possible, undoubtedly in the dark. The idea that he was placing them deliberately here and there seems barmy to me. A little too theatrical for a botched operation case.

By the way, the Cremorne Gardens in Chelsea was one of the most notorious pick-ups spots for prostitutes in the Victorian era. Look at the map. It is just south of the area in question, on the Chelsea side of the river. There is even a Victorian pornographic novel from the 1880s titled Cremorne Gardens. Yes, I've read it (research purposes only). One of the Ripper suspects (Tumblety) mentions the Cremorne Gardens in a letter written in the 1870s. He makes it sound delightful, but it was, in reality, a raunchy pick-up spot by then, involving both male and female practitioners of the fleshy arts.

As a totally irrelevant aside, I walked around Chelsea in the mid 1990s, looking at the sights. Lots of history along that stretch. Various artists, wits, writers, the Rolling Stones, etc. connected to this small hood. Anyway, out of the blue a drunken Peter O'Toole pulled up in a sports car and asked me directions. I was a Yank with no idea where I was, but, being on a self-guided walking tour I knew exactly where he wanted to go (Chenye Walk) and gave him directions. A bit later I learned that Pete had an actress friend who lived on that street. He seemed like a nice bloke, but I was surprised to see him tipsy at 9 am on a Sunday morning. Probably a continuation of the previous night. No harm, no foul. He was pretty brilliant in Lawrence of Arabia, among others. This was before I was a Ripper enthusiast, and I curse myself now for not studying the landscape more closely.

But these days, as Elvis Costello once famously sang, I Don't Want To Go To Chelsea. Anyway, I reserve the right to be wrong. Go ahead with your own thinking, but I see this as a haphazard dump with the river the obvious target, but fear and pedestrians complicating matters.

Hi rj
im not sure who is confused here. I was talking about the major portion of jacksons torso, which you said was found where it was on land due to the rivers action and that it had been originally thrown in the water. I responded that it was some 200 yards from the river shore, so probably impossible it had got there from tidal action. The other lesser portion of her torso was found floating in the river. Perhaps you are confusing the two.

So we have the major part of her torso dumped on land in Battersea park.and her leg thrown in the shelly estate. The rest in the river.
How close was the major part of her torso that was found on land 200 yards from land in battersea park, in area generally closed to the public, to the road?

[Sam Flynn]

The thigh being wrapped in a leg of the underwear for example but IIRC the park portion was also wrapped in brown paper. Did homeless people sleeping rough carry brown paper to sleep on to keep warm?

I don't think that brown paper was "standard issue" for the homeless, Abs. For obvious reasons, I'd guess that butchers, bakers and grocers might have had supplies of brown paper readily available, but I don't imagine it was too hard to get hold of by just about anyone.

[Debra A]

I don't think that brown paper was "standard issue" for the homeless, Abs. For obvious reasons, I'd guess that butchers, bakers and grocers might have had supplies of brown paper readily available, but I don't imagine it was too hard to get hold of by just about anyone.

I'm not following, Gareth. You quoted me but addressed Abby (Abs?) I was asking Abby what about the brown paper and clothing wrapping in relation to a suggestion that Elizabeth may have been dismembered in the park where a section of her torso, which was divided in to three, was found in the frame ground shrubbery. This was 200 yards from the river (in 1889) in an area not open to the public but probably accessible through the small wicker gate opened at 5am every morning or maybe possible to reach by being thrown from the end of the Albert bridge section directly above a small area of the park. Of course brown paper was accessible to anyone. I was wondering if those thinking Elizabeth may have been killed in the park thought teh killer made parcels there too and where did the brown paper come from?

[Debra A]

In this context, it deserves mentioning that the Pinchin Street torso was found together with a chemise that had been cut open all the way down the front, and that this chemise also had cuts from the neckline to the sleeve openings. This is consistent with the killer having completely exposed the body while the victim was lying on her back.

I always wondered if that was cut off that way because rigor mortis had set in?

[Fisherman]

I always wondered if that was cut off that way because rigor mortis had set in?

I would not make that guess myself - we are dealing with a killer who seemed to spare no time between killing and cutting. Of course, the head was cut off at a later stage than the legs, but my guess is that this may have been a simple precaution in order to make identification harder. Overall, my belief is that the head more often than not played a big role in what he did, and I believe he left it on as long as he was "doing his thing" with the body. and only disposed of it when the time had come for dumping it.

[Fisherman]

I'm not following, Gareth. You quoted me but addressed Abby (Abs?) I was asking Abby what about the brown paper and clothing wrapping in relation to a suggestion that Elizabeth may have been dismembered in the park where a section of her torso, which was divided in to three, was found in the frame ground shrubbery. This was 200 yards from the river (in 1889) in an area not open to the public but probably accessible through the small wicker gate opened at 5am every morning or maybe possible to reach by being thrown from the end of the Albert bridge section directly above a small area of the park. Of course brown paper was accessible to anyone. I was wondering if those thinking Elizabeth may have been killed in the park thought teh killer made parcels there too and where did the brown paper come from?

Forgive me for asking, but why is it said that the part found 200 yards from the river may have been thrown with the intent to get it into the river? Isn´t that an almighty throw? I am probably misunderstading things, but I need an explanation!

[Sam Flynn]

I'm not following, Gareth. You quoted me but addressed Abby (Abs?)

My mistake. Slip of the mobile keyboard.