Torso Killer discussion from Millwood Thread

[Fisherman]

Just a lower leg complete with foot were found. No arm. The mentioning of an arm was a mistake by one newspaper in a press agency statement where they changed 'leg' for 'arm'. The leg was found under a mound of earth that had been made when digging a ditch for drainage in the vault six weeks before the torso find. The assumption was that the leg was accidentally buried during that work and had been on the surface originally. As the torso was. The state of decomposition supported the idea of an accidental burial some weeks earlier. The leg had decomposed accordingly with the flesh part buried under the earth not as decomposed as the sole of the sole of the foot, which had been uppermost and not completely covered by earth.

Doctors commented on the three different types of decay shown, the arm in water, the leg under the soil and the much decomposed torso in air. If the remains had been stored elsewhere and deposited in the vault at a later date wouldn't they have needed to have been stored in the same conditions they were found? The torso out in the open, the arm in water and the leg partially buried with sole of foot uppermost, to replicate the rate of decay under different conditions?

Okay, it was just a leg - I think it was Trow who messed it up in his book, and it has stuck in my mind. Just as you say, the decomposition grades seem to speak of a time of burial on the legs account that is later than the dumping of the torso. So unless the killer came back and buried the leg, the suggestion of an accidental burial seems to be on target.

[Debra A]

hi debs
any more ideas about this? could it just have been with the torso when it was dumped, and if thrown together from the bridge with the torso would explain why it landed nearby?

Sorry, Abby, I missed this. There's always a lot of posts made in just one day!
As I said to Rocky in my last post, I wondered if the piece of Ulster being in park pointed away from the section being thrown from the bridge. I don't think a lone piece of fabric would travel/land in the same way/area as a parceled up section of human remains?

[Debra A]

Debs, do you mean to say that the generic image of the Ripper in an ulster coat is actually accurate after all?

No, Rocky.
The Ulster belonged to Elizabeth and it was cut up to use to wrap some portions of her remains in.
I mentioned the piece left in the park because it was reportedly a large piece found close by where the breast below armpit level/upper abdomen section of the remains was found in the shrubbery of the park. That parcel was wrapped in paper and tied so it doesn't look as if the Ulster piece was wrapping as well. I just wondered why it might be there and if it negated my idea that the torso section was thrown in to the park accidentally from the Albert Bridge.

[Debra A]

Was the parcel found at the front of the house, do you know? Judging from old maps and street-view (so I could easily be wrong), the front of the house just had railings protecting a drop to the basement, not really the place for a hedge. Unless possibly there was one outside of the railings. The photo posted by Jerry was taken from the back of the house, and shows an impressively tall hedge to the side, which separates the garden from the substantial grounds of the Chelsea Hospital. Could this be where the leg was tossed over?

I simply don't know, JR. It might well be. Jerry is probably the best person to answer that. I found the newspaper description that mentioned that the house fronted the embankment and had tall trees and railings was all. It's been 15 years since I first read some of this stuff and topography is not my thing at all!

[Debra A]

A correction: The torso in the New Scotland Yard building was not buried. It was wrapped in paper and string and placed against a wall, in plain sight (as plain as it becomes in near total darkness). However, once the premises were searched by a journalist's dog, a leg and an arm (I believe, working from memory) were found buried close by the torso. It has been reasoned that they could have been accidentally buried in the course of work carried out in the vaults, but whether this is likely or not, I cannot say.

Just a lower leg complete with foot were found. No arm. The mentioning of an arm was a mistake by one newspaper in a press agency statement where they changed 'leg' for 'arm'. The leg was found under a mound of earth that had been made when digging a ditch for drainage in the vault six weeks before the torso find. The assumption was that the leg was accidentally buried during that work and had been on the surface originally. As the torso was. The state of decomposition supported the idea of an accidental burial some weeks earlier. The leg had decomposed accordingly with the flesh part buried under the earth not as decomposed as the sole of the sole of the foot, which had been uppermost and not completely covered by earth.

Doctors commented on the three different types of decay shown, the arm in water, the leg under the soil and the much decomposed torso in air. If the remains had been stored elsewhere and deposited in the vault at a later date wouldn't they have needed to have been stored in the same conditions they were found? The torso out in the open, the arm in water and the leg partially buried with sole of foot uppermost, to replicate the rate of decay under different conditions?

[Fisherman]

How do we know the largest bit wasn't the fist bit tossed? Isn't the idea that the torso was tossed from a cart, in the dark, while the cart was on the bridge? Isn't the park still "from the bridge"? If it was thrown too early, say by someone in a bit of a panic, and ended up in the park and not the water, then there's no mystery, when the first large bit doesn't land in the water, they wait and toss the rest when they're further along. If the intent was to make a point, etc, then it seems far more likely one would pitch all the bits right there, where they will be found, scattered about, etc, rather than then pitch most of them into the river, where there's no control of when, where, or if they will be found. A killer trying to "make a point" doesn't leave any doubt (Zodiac, Dennis Rader, and Ted Kaczynski's communications to the police and media, for example).

In fact, the only case I can think about where a killer deliberately disposed of a body in a location "to make a point" is William Suff, and when he did, there was nothing subtle about the connection or difficulty finding the body - they were making a film about his crimes and he left a body on the set for them to find.



But what about starting with your suggestion that the torso would itself be the first part thrown, rather than the last. Why, if as you say it takes so little time to toss all the parts once you start, are not all the parts in the park? What if the intention wasn't to get them in the park but all in the river? And the first part was thrown before the cart gets over the river (killer's make some of the most bizarre mistakes), which would then explain why there was the further "wait" before throwing more. And that also would mean, there was never an intention to put the body in the park in the first place.



Again, if I understand this correctly, the body in the basement was not in plane sight, but buried. And if so, that's looking far more like they were expecting the construction to build over top of it, and seal it away from discovery forever. It looks nothing like someone displaying a body to ensure it is found.

Anyway, everyone sees things differently I guess.

- Jeff

When you say that killers sometimes make bizarre mistakes, you seemingly give away that it WOULD be bizarre if he just happened to miss the water, and I very much agree with that. We are not talking about some woodland stream here, we are talking about a 200 yard wide river. That's not to say that the killer could never have missed the throw of the torso section, only that yes, it would be bizarre if he did.

It seems the idea is forwarded that the killer drove some sort of carriage up and over the bridge and that he threw body parts out of it as he proceeded? I find that suggestion a bit odd, to say the least. To my simple mind, nobody interested in any sort of discretion would toss body parts out from a moving vehicle, hitting the surface in some sort of rain down below, splash, splash, splash.

I know it sounds tedious, but what most dismemberers who are looking to dispose of body parts will do is to bring them along in some sort of bag, and then they will have a good look around to see if anybody is nearby or watching. Once they are satisfied that no-one is about, they heave the bag into the water and leave.

Very clearly, this killer was not an ordinary dismemberer in that respect.

A correction: The torso in the New Scotland Yard building was not buried. It was wrapped in paper and string and placed against a wall, in plain sight (as plain as it becomes in near total darkness). However, once the premises were searched by a journalist's dog, a leg and an arm (I believe, working from memory) were found buried close by the torso. It has been reasoned that they could have been accidentally buried in the course of work carried out in the vaults, but whether this is likely or not, I cannot say.

What we CAN see, is that the first part found in this case was an arm, floating in the Thames. Which brings us right back to the question whether the killer actively chose to put some parts in the river and others on dry land.

It seems he did.

There is also the Rainham example, where parts were thrown in the Thames and in Regents Canal as well. There is no possibility that the parts in the canal came from the river, so we effectively know that the killer chose more than one dumping site here too. For whatever reason.

[Joshua Rogan]

Thanks for finding all this again Jerry. I need memory prods more frequently lately.
It was the greenery alongside the railings that had broken tops from where the parcel crashed through them, apparently but they were too thick for anyone to have pushed the parcel through into the garden.

Was the parcel found at the front of the house, do you know? Judging from old maps and street-view (so I could easily be wrong), the front of the house just had railings protecting a drop to the basement, not really the place for a hedge. Unless possibly there was one outside of the railings. The photo posted by Jerry was taken from the back of the house, and shows an impressively tall hedge to the side, which separates the garden from the substantial grounds of the Chelsea Hospital. Could this be where the leg was tossed over?

[RockySullivan]

Hmm. Now I'm left wondering why there was a large piece of the Ulster coat left in the park not far from the torso section.

Debs, do you mean to say that the generic image of the Ripper in an ulster coat is actually accurate after all?

[JeffHamm]

So the major part of the torso found in Battersea park may have been tossed from the bridge with the intent to get it into the river and or just thrown away in haste because someone else was approaching.
Or it may have been put there intentionally.

the leg in the Shelley estate may have been tossed from the road just to get rid of and or because someone else was approaching.
or it may have been thrown there on purpose.

both are speculation, both are possible, but the fact remains that most of the other parts were found in the river and yet these are found on land, one part being the largest portion, and one part thrown into the Shelley estate.

In my mind though, I would think the first thing someone would want to get rid of is the largest, and most difficult to move section, and that this would be the first thing that would be tossed into the river. and yet its found in the park some far distance from the river.

How do we know the largest bit wasn't the fist bit tossed? Isn't the idea that the torso was tossed from a cart, in the dark, while the cart was on the bridge? Isn't the park still "from the bridge"? If it was thrown too early, say by someone in a bit of a panic, and ended up in the park and not the water, then there's no mystery, when the first large bit doesn't land in the water, they wait and toss the rest when they're further along. If the intent was to make a point, etc, then it seems far more likely one would pitch all the bits right there, where they will be found, scattered about, etc, rather than then pitch most of them into the river, where there's no control of when, where, or if they will be found. A killer trying to "make a point" doesn't leave any doubt (Zodiac, Dennis Rader, and Ted Kaczynski's communications to the police and media, for example).

In fact, the only case I can think about where a killer deliberately disposed of a body in a location "to make a point" is William Suff, and when he did, there was nothing subtle about the connection or difficulty finding the body - they were making a film about his crimes and he left a body on the set for them to find.

and the leg, could have been discarded also in the river, it being close to the shelley estate, yet they chose to throw it over a high fence/bushes. It could have been dropped easily anywhere, or thrown into the river with the other parts.

And come to think of it-how long would it take, once on the bridge (assuming its one person in a cart of course-which I think is most likely scenario) to throw all the parts into the river? not very long-so it would only take a few seconds to throw the major part of the torso and the leg into the river after one has already thrown the other parts in. What are the chances that having thrown most of the parts in the river, something happened in that instance (like someone approaching) that would cause the person to stop and take off, still with a couple of parts in his possession? in the middle of the night? That's a tad too tight for me.

But what about starting with your suggestion that the torso would itself be the first part thrown, rather than the last. Why, if as you say it takes so little time to toss all the parts once you start, are not all the parts in the park? What if the intention wasn't to get them in the park but all in the river? And the first part was thrown before the cart gets over the river (killer's make some of the most bizarre mistakes), which would then explain why there was the further "wait" before throwing more. And that also would mean, there was never an intention to put the body in the park in the first place.

and as Fish said, add in that other torsos are found in the basement of NSY and smack dab in the middle of Pinchin street and I can only come to the conclusion that the killer was leaving the remains in these places on purpose, for some kind of meaning above and beyond just trying to get rid of, or hide.

Again, if I understand this correctly, the body in the basement was not in plane sight, but buried. And if so, that's looking far more like they were expecting the construction to build over top of it, and seal it away from discovery forever. It looks nothing like someone displaying a body to ensure it is found.

Anyway, everyone sees things differently I guess.

- Jeff

[Abby Normal]

You need to cut down on the All-Bran.

lol. good one-your nothing if not a witty bastard Sam : )

[Abby Normal]

Hmm. Now I'm left wondering why there was a large piece of the Ulster coat left in the park not far from the torso section.

hi debs
any more ideas about this? could it just have been with the torso when it was dumped, and if thrown together from the bridge with the torso would explain why it landed nearby?

[Sam Flynn]

to me a 4:30-5:00 dump seems more reasonable.

You need to cut down on the All-Bran.

[Abby Normal]

re the 6am dump time est. Wouldn't it have been totally bright daylight out by that time? and tons of people about?
from memory I thought the estimated dump time was anywhere around 4-6am.

I cant for the life of me imagining someone dumping body parts in the total daylit morning. to me a 4:30-5:00 dump seems more reasonable.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby. See the second half of Post #107. I think it was dumped last. Remember that they would be driving on the left-hand side of the road. Cheers.

Thanks RJ!
Got it.

So theyre in a cart, toss the largest portion of the torso out first (possibly as they are first getting on the bridge) it lands on land in Battersea park but yet some 200 yards from the river, then as they get further over the bridge (and over the water) they toss out most of the remaining parts, then about a half mile away they throw out the last part, a leg, into the shelley estate.

Does this make sense? why hold onto that last part, the leg, so long?

[Fisherman]

I only have time to make one final post, before abandoning ship, but doesn't Debrah Arif's observation that the police ran experiments with the tides, etc., and came up with a theoretical 6 a.m. dump time tend to confirm a single incident? The Thames is a tidal river. If there had been multiple dumps, those experiments would have turned out differently, no?

Basically, it is impossible to predict how a part in the Thames will float and where it will end up unless we use a very short period of time. Just as I said in my post to Gareth, the incoming tide can cause parts to drift westwards. Can, that is; it all depends on where on the surface they float. I am a keen fisherman myself, and I know that even in non-tidal rivers, there are all sorts of streams running in all sorts of directions. When flyfishing, a fly placed on the surface can seem to end up at the approximate same spot two throws in a row - but if there is just a very small deviation, the stream may carry it in very varying directions.

I would think that what can be suggested are very rough general lines only, nothing more than so. I do, however, believe that the parts were dumped at the same occasion, since it would be impractical and dangerous not to do so.