Jack the Ripper & The Torso Murders

[Fisherman]

In post 140, I should have said that I think it is futile to believe that we can establish the underlying psychological motives for the killer to choose a particular dumping site.

[Fisherman]

Boy, am I glad that I NEVER suggested anything remotely of the kind.

Boy, am I glad that I NEVER do any suggestion to PROVE anything. It’s a pity that you know me so little after some 15 years, Christer.

Not that I very much disagree with it, but is the latter part of this sentence a fact or 'just' your opinion/estimate/guess?

Hmm, another one of your observations that falls a bit short. But perhaps that’s due to me not expressing myself well enough.

Let me try this. It’s a fact that the Ripper killed 3 or 4 women out in the street. It’s another fact that killing them somewhere indoors would have been 1. less risky in the sense that there was little chance of people walking into the scene and 2. he had more time with his victims. Now, you’d claim that suggesting fact number 2 as an exercise in futility, but is it really? I don’t agree. the question doesn't give us any answer, but it does put the focus even more on fact number 1. Why did he kill outdoors?

And the same goes for the question: why did he put the torso & leg in the vault, when we know for a fact that leaving it above ground on the construction site would have been 1. much easier to do and 2. guarantee being found? So, what my question does (at least that’s what I think and why I wrote it) is put some extra focus on the fact that the killer left it underground in a dark vault.

But if you'd call that futile, be my guest.

What I regard as futile is if somebody believes that he or she is able to establish the underlying motives for the killer to use a specific dumping location, nothing else. I would not claim that you believe that you can accomplish this. I am instead quite certain that you would never do that. And so, Frank, I may have picked up on how you reason to a larger degree that you give me credit for.

This is not to say that discussing the matter of the killers motivations must be fruitless, and I do so myself. It seemingly can make us a tad sensitive, but there is really no reason for that.

[Fisherman]

So it looks like the leg was actually buried and that the torso was at a slightly different location but not far away?

Letīs just say that it was under ground, that leg. There is no way to know whether or not it ended up under earth accidentally or intentionally. Otherwise, yes, the two parts were in the same space but in opposite corners of it.

So is it at all likely that they were deposited at different times?

Likely? Perhaps not. But it is certainy possible.

It doesn’t seem likely considering the access issues and the ongoing work. So the alternative is that they were both deposited at the same time but one part was in a recess on the surface and the other was buried and only discovered two weeks later. The area would have been searched initially and no one found the leg or saw any suspicious mound of earth which suggests that it was actually buried.

As I said above, the leg was under ground. There was never any question about that. The issue is whether or not the killer buried it, or if it ended up under earth as a result of the workes shoveling it over.

The obvious question then is why bury one and not the other? The accidental covering with earth makes little sense on the face of it when we consider that nothing was found on the initial search.

I disagree. Once the torso was found, why would anybody reason that there were probably buried parts too? The logical thing would be to search for parts above earth.

Could the leg have been placed in a hole which was later filled in? This suggests of course an attempt to conceal. Against that is an assumption on my part - that no mention was made of there being such a hole in that location?

The attempt to cenceal you speak of only comes into play if the leg was buried intentionally. Again, we donīt know if it was. The ”hole” suggestion is interesting - it could perhaps be that the leg was lying in a hollowed out area, perhaps meant for pipes and such, and was therefore hard to note in the gloom. It could help explain how it could, or perhaps even would, be shoveled over. If anybody knows more exactly the details, it would be good to hear about it.

Could the person that deposited the parts have worked on the site? Might he have known that another hole was about to be dug or that some area was going to be opened up so he stored the torso intending to dump it later?

Yes. ”Could” involves all sorts of possibilities. But the fact remains that the parts were seemingly in that vault for a longish time, and so the torso seems to have been on display for many days.

Unknowns of course but it doesn’t sound like the actions of a man that murdered woman in the street, mutilated them and then left them in the open to be discovered whole. No storing of the body. No dismemberment. No wrapping of body parts. No distribution at different locations and over a period of time.

It does not sound like the actions of a man who wanted to hide what he had done to me. We donīt know about storing of the body. We do know there was dismemberment. We also know that the right arm of the body was thrown into the Thames, so parts were distríbuted in different locations.

I think I’ll leave it at that. Old ground.

I welcome the discussion, and I look forward to clearing away much of the ”old ground” surrounding these murders.

[FrankO]

Personally, I find that suggestion an infinitely likelier bid than any suggestion that he would have reasoned ”They will NEVER find that torso down there!”

Boy, am I glad that I NEVER suggested anything remotely of the kind.

Of course, that would be just as futile as your and Herlocks suggestions in terms of the possibilities to prove anything.

Boy, am I glad that I NEVER do any suggestion to PROVE anything. It’s a pity that you know me so little after some 15 years, Christer.

What we CAN do, is to note that he placed the torso in the basement of the New Scotland Yard, in a location that made it very likely, if not absolutely certain, that it would be found.

Not that I very much disagree with it, but is the latter part of this sentence a fact or 'just' your opinion/estimate/guess?

Personally, I think that is an exercise in futility. We can not conclude what kind of motivations the killer worked to, simple as that.

Hmm, another one of your observations that falls a bit short. But perhaps that’s due to me not expressing myself well enough.

Let me try this. It’s a fact that the Ripper killed 3 or 4 women out in the street. It’s another fact that killing them somewhere indoors would have been 1. less risky in the sense that there was little chance of people walking into the scene and 2. he had more time with his victims. Now, you’d claim that suggesting fact number 2 as an exercise in futility, but is it really? I don’t agree. the question doesn't give us any answer, but it does put the focus even more on fact number 1. Why did he kill outdoors?

And the same goes for the question: why did he put the torso & leg in the vault, when we know for a fact that leaving it above ground on the construction site would have been 1. much easier to do and 2. guarantee being found? So, what my question does (at least that’s what I think and why I wrote it) is put some extra focus on the fact that the killer left it underground in a dark vault.

But if you'd call that futile, be my guest.

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi RD and jerryd,

While you may be standing on Deb's shoulders, you are doing so with your eyes open. Keep up the good work.

Cheers, George

Thank you George.

One of the reasons why I love this site, is because I get to openly share ideas amongst some of the greatest researcher and detective minds, and every day is an progressive accumulation of knowledge.
It's a privilege to even be in the room, let alone have a seat at the table.
Jerry's humility is one of the many many reasons why he's one of the best.
And I think we would all agree that Debra is as close to perfection as you can get in terms of her knowledge and integrity.

And George, I am not just saying it, but every thread that has your input, is always improved instantly by your calmness, moderation and excellent perspective.

I think there's so much more to the Torso case, and most of it without any intention of incorporating the Ripper case.
Some things happen very naturally and I believe that very gradually, the 2 cases are moving closer together.

A bit like Andromeda and the Milky Way.

A collision between the 2 cases is inevitable.


RD

[GBinOz]

Hi RD and jerryd,

While you may be standing on Deb's shoulders, you are doing so with your eyes open. Keep up the good work.

Cheers, George

[jerryd]

At this juncture I feel I need to acknowledge that without Jerry (and Debra's) exceptional work on the Torso cases, I would not be in a position to formulate such hypotheses.

I know that others have worked on the torso case, but my personal attained foundations of knowledge have stemmed primarily from them both.

I very much feel like I am standing on the shoulders of giants and so out of respect it's important for me to state that, before I move on with more hypothesis...

And yes...in typical RD fashion, there Is more on the way...

Haha

RD

Hi RD.

No need to acknowledge me, and I am certainly not in the same category as Debs. I'm in the same boat as you, I learned almost everything I know about the torso cases from her research.

Something was going on. I wanted to mention the Pinchin Street case as well. Someone said earlier it was by chance the PC stumbled upon her body in the archway otherwise who knows how long before it would have been found. The truth of the matter is this, PC Pennett discovered the torso after looking in the arched area at 5:25 or so. When asked when the last time he looked in that arch he stated when the daylight was just breaking about 5 o'clock. He said if it would have been there then, he would have seen it. That means most likely, someone was watching his movements (or knew them) and placed the torso on the spot under the arch in between two consecutive passes of his beat so that he would find the body. If that isn't trying to have it seen, then I don't know what is.

There were also 3 men sleeping in an adjacent arch. Pretty risky if you ask me.

[The Rookie Detective]

Sounds like a familiar hypothesis,RD

Don’t forget the Star news reporter, Claude Mellor, and his finding of the thigh in the Shelley Estate. How did he know to look in those bushes? Hmmm

It's almost as though a group of men from the press got together to push the Torso Killer narrative, before a torso had even been dumped.

Mellor
Arnold
Waring

Were ithey part of the same group of men who also wrote many of the Ripper correspondences to Lusk?

RD

[The Rookie Detective]

At this juncture I feel I need to acknowledge that without Jerry (and Debra's) exceptional work on the Torso cases, I would not be in a position to formulate such hypotheses.

I know that others have worked on the torso case, but my personal attained foundations of knowledge have stemmed primarily from them both.

I very much feel like I am standing on the shoulders of giants and so out of respect it's important for me to state that, before I move on with more hypothesis...

And yes...in typical RD fashion, there Is more on the way...

Haha

RD

[jerryd]

Sounds like a familiar hypothesis,RD

Don’t forget the Star news reporter, Claude Mellor, and his finding of the thigh in the Shelley Estate. How did he know to look in those bushes? Hmmm

[The Rookie Detective]

You are correct. Just over 2 weeks after the torso was found on the construction site, a journalist named Jasper Waring, using a dog named Smoker, found another piece of the victim buried nearby. The police had previously searched the area and brought in dogs, but they had missed the additional body part. Smoker also seemed interested in another area, but nothing was found there.

So what does this tell us?

I believe it tells us a lot more than we realise.

I have an alternate hypothesis that partially incorporates both Fisherman's and Herlock's opposing yet brilliant viewpoints

Let's look outside the box and apply some logic that approaches this from a slightly different angle.

Now we know that in the case of the Rainham Mystery, that there was evidence to support that the killer deposited body parts at different times, ergo, the killer had waited until the initial find has been found and reported in the press BEFORE placing additional body parts from the same victim.
The killer took a staggered approach and deposited random body parts at different locations at different times, all in an attempt to push the narrative through the press.
Now when we look at 2 of the torso cases we also have evidence to support that the killer had waited for the press to be involved, ergo, the John Clearly/Arnold episode.

Now... If we then look at the Whitehall Mystery, the same concept can be applied based on what we know.

My hypothesis is this...

The killer places the torso on the Saturday night; the same night as the Ripper's Double Event.

The torso was found and reported

The area was searched thoroughly and nothing else was found.

And yet...

Jasper Waring gets information that there's more to be found...and so based on that knowledge he asks for a dog to search.

The dog finds a partially buried leg in an area very close to the location of the original torso find, all to the astonishment of the police who are certain the area had been searched.

The dog is also drawn to another area but finds nothing.

But here's where I think this can all be explained...

After the torso has been discovered and removed... The killer finds time to PLACE THE LEG into the approximate area of the original find...and then informs the press to take another look...
Enter Jasper who gets tipped off, gets a dog because he can't just go into the basement without one without arousing suspicion.

He then finds the leg which the killer has partially buried on purpose because otherwise it would be too obvious that he had gone into the area TWICE and placed both the Torso AND leg but on 2 SEPARATE OCCASIONS.

And the reason why the dog was drawn to the other area... because part of the body has been in that exact spot but has been MOVED BY THE KILLER.
The dog's nose would have been accurate and a part of the victim would have been in all the places the dog had identified.

All of this supports the idea that the killer WORKED on that building project...and moreover, he had the audacity to place the leg AFTER the reporting of the torso had hit the press.

This is in keeping with the killer's approach in the Rainham case.

I believe that my idea can explain quite logically how all this fits together.

When we look at the logic...

The police searched the area and found nothing else
A reporter brings in a dog and find a leg that wasn't there before.
The killer must have known about the complexity of accessing the vault, including knowledge of the trench that has been dug out to accommodate the new sewer line.

The latch system on the 1 entrance to the vault that only the workers would have known about.

When you add this all together it's quite clear that there's a high probability that the killer knew the site well.

Thoughts please?


RD

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, that is the suggestion that has been made; the space was so dark and gloomy that the leg may not have been noticed for what it was - if it was noticed at all.

The leg and the torso were, if I remember correctly, in the same space, albeit in opposite corners of it.

As for the logic involved, it is a more logical suggestion that somebody who leaves a torso above earth is not intent on hiding it than it is to suggest that the intention is about hiding it. Not least in a context where it is suggested that a leg has been hidden by way of burying it - if this was so, then the person who did it understood the logic ”bury = hide” as well as ”not bury = not hide”.

Apart from that very basic matter, I agree that deciding the logic for a serial killer is a very unsafe business.

So it looks like the leg was actually buried and that the torso was at a slightly different location but not far away? So is it at all likely that they were deposited at different times? It doesn’t seem likely considering the access issues and the ongoing work. So the alternative is that they were both deposited at the same time but one part was in a recess on the surface and the other was buried and only discovered two weeks later. The area would have been searched initially and no one found the leg or saw any suspicious mound of earth which suggests that it was actually buried.

The obvious question then is why bury one and not the other? The accidental covering with earth makes little sense on the face of it when we consider that nothing was found on the initial search.

Could the leg have been placed in a hole which was later filled in? This suggests of course an attempt to conceal. Against that is an assumption on my part - that no mention was made of there being such a hole in that location?

Could the person that deposited the parts have worked on the site? Might he have known that another hole was about to be dug or that some area was going to be opened up so he stored the torso intending to dump it later?

Unknowns of course but it doesn’t sound like the actions of a man that murdered woman in the street, mutilated them and then left them in the open to be discovered whole. No storing of the body. No dismemberment. No wrapping of body parts. No distribution at different locations and over a period of time.

I think I’ll leave it at that. Old ground.

[Fisherman]

So any alternative to your explanation of a complete unknown is futile? It’s possible that this was some kind of message to the police but we can’t assume it.

You obviously missed out on how I pointed out that my suggestion will also be futile in the same manner that all suggestions about how the killer reasoned will. And you accordingly also missed out on how I am saying the exact thing that we cannot assume anything about it all with any certainty at all. We can guess and have gut feelings, but that is as far as it goes.

It would help if you read and digested what I say before jumping on it.

[Fisherman]

So someone shovelling away didn’t notice a leg and just covered it with dirt? Why would he have put the torso and the leg in different places and not just placed them together?

There is no way of deducing an entirely logical explanation. It’s a complete unknown.

Yes, that is the suggestion that has been made; the space was so dark and gloomy that the leg may not have been noticed for what it was - if it was noticed at all.

The leg and the torso were, if I remember correctly, in the same space, albeit in opposite corners of it.

As for the logic involved, it is a more logical suggestion that somebody who leaves a torso above earth is not intent on hiding it than it is to suggest that the intention is about hiding it. Not least in a context where it is suggested that a leg has been hidden by way of burying it - if this was so, then the person who did it understood the logic ”bury = hide” as well as ”not bury = not hide”.

Apart from that very basic matter, I agree that deciding the logic for a serial killer is a very unsafe business.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I note that you and Herlock Sholmes alike provide alternative suggestions for where the torso could have been dumped to provide more schock effect/security for the killer/easier work and so on.

Personally, I think that is an exercise in futility. We can not conclude what kind of motivations the killer worked to, simple as that.

What we CAN do, is to note that he placed the torso in the basement of the New Scotland Yard, in a location that made it very likely, if not absolutely certain, that it would be found.

I can of course point out that his reason for putting the parcel in the bowels of the building instead of just dumping it on ground level could have been a desire to place his work in the very ground of the serving police organization of the mightiest metropolis in the world. Of course, that would be just as futile as your and Herlocks suggestions in terms of the possibilities to prove anything. We canīt do that. And so we have to settle for pointing out the facts at hand, and supply possible explanations - at which stage we will find that suggestions can be made in all sorts of directions.

The possibility remains that when the killer left the New Scotland Yard building after having deposited the torso there, he may well have thought that he felt that he had succeeded to put the fear of God into London, Britain and the entire world. Personally, I find that suggestion an infinitely likelier bid than any suggestion that he would have reasoned ”They will NEVER find that torso down there!”

So any alternative to your explanation of a complete unknown is futile? It’s possible that this was some kind of message to the police but we can’t assume it.