Jack the Ripper & The Torso Murders

[rjpalmer]

one of the most original being that a possible inspiration/ motive by torsoman was the anatomical venus displays in the local museums, which closed right around the time the first torso victims started to surface.

Not to join in the argument, but for the sake of accuracy, that idea has been around for a long time, actually. At least one feminist writer speculated about anatomical Venus displays inspiring murderers of this type in a book in the late 1980s, and Mike Hawley had an article about in the Ripperologist several years ago, and Shirley Harrison mentioned anatomical museums in one of her books on Maybrick, claiming he once lived near one. Why Fisherman applied it to an East End cart driver is hard to say. What is the connection supposed to be?

[Fiver]

one of the most original being that a possible inspiration/ motive by torsoman was the anatomical venus displays in the local museums, which closed right around the time the first torso victims started to surface.

Did he propose it before CallMeBill in 2018?

[Abby Normal]

Not to join in the argument, but for the sake of accuracy, that idea has been around for a long time, actually. At least one feminist writer speculated about anatomical Venus displays inspiring murderers of this type in a book in the late 1980s, and Mike Hawley had an article about in the Ripperologist several years ago, and Shirley Harrison mentioned anatomical museums in one of her books on Maybrick, claiming he once lived near one. Why Fisherman applied it to an East End cart driver is hard to say. What is the connection supposed to be?

did any of them apply it to torsoman? the connection being what i said in my post

[Abby Normal]

Did he propose it before CallMeBill in 2018?

a post in creative writing that had all of seven responses that none including op mention anything about the torsos.

[The Rookie Detective]

If the Torso killer had intended for the victims to never be found...then they never would have been.

We would instead have been looking at a series of missing persons and that would gave never made the press, and the term "Torso Killer" would never had come to light.

When we look at the factual data regarding the locations where the Torso Killer chose to place/dump the victims, we can see that there is a deliberate intention for at least SOME of the body parts to be discovered.

To state that the Torso killer dumped all of the victims in the River Thames is also misleading; because while some body parts were indeed discovered in the river, other body parts from multiple victims were discovered in various land-based locations.

We have to understand the distinct difference between DISCOVERY and IDENTIFICATION.

The Torso Killer took the heads of his victims for many possible reasons, maybe to conceal, maybe as a token treasure, or maybe for some warped pleasure...

It is therefore fair to say that by taking the head, the killer intended for none of the victims ever to be identified.

However, by choosing to place some body parts in the park, under a railway arch, in a cellar etc...we can get an insight into the killer's mind in terms of their intent for the victims to be discovered.

And that's the difference right there.

A killer who intends to stop their victim ever being discovered and identified; lends itself to the concept of a defensive kill strategy, and perhaps a murder committed through impulse or a psychotic episode.

However, a killer like the Torso Killer, whilst intending to stop their victim ever being identified (by them taking the head), has every intent for their victim to be discovered, lending itself more to the realm of Pathological Psychopathy and an offensive kill strategy.
This is evidenced by the additional post-mortem injuries inflicted on their victims that surpass the basic need to conceal to evade capture (defensive strategy)

After all, what good is a psychopath, if they are never known for their work?

A psychopath's inherent narcissistic tendency means that they have a desire for the world to know what they have done; and to be attributed for their actions.

It is on this basis that we can conclude that the Torso killer desired for the victims to be discovered, and for it to create an element of shock value to the masses.


This is also why the case of Elizabeth Jackson is of utmost importance to the series as a whole.

She was the only Torso victim to ever be identified, and because of this we can perhaps determine that the killer made a mistake, in that while he wanted her body parts to be discovered, he did not want Jackson to ever be identified.


Once we can grasp the concept of the difference between Discovery and Identification, then we can better put things into context.


Of course, if we were to open our minds further and possibly incorporate the torso victim found dumped in 1902, in Salamanca Place, just outside the back of Doulton's factory, then we can ask why this time the killer left the head on top of the pile of other dissected body parts, ergo, the killer didn't take the head as a trophy.

What does that suggest about the mindset of the killer?

By leaving the head, the killer didn't seem too concerned about whether the victim would be identified this time around.

What's interesting is that in 1901, a year before the Salamanca torso, the Doulton's factory received Royal approval, and was soon to become what we know today as "Royal Doulton."

The torso was "Piled up, with the head placed on top" outside the back of the factory in a little alley called Salamanca Place.

The Doulton's factory at the time specialized in a lot of stonework/marble ware/stoneware etc...

This is rather coincidental in relation to the Pinchin St torso, which was of course left next to the Board of Works stone breakers yard.

The idea of the torso killer being a stone mason/marble mason, is something that runs as a (potential) link through the series.

Geographically speaking, the torso was dumped just a stone's throw from the River Thames, and so again, the waterways are another connection that runs through the sequence of murders.

Did the torso killer begin his murderous campaign circa 1870, and then continue as long as 1902 and beyond? i.e over a 32-year campaign?


RD

[jerryd]

It is on this basis that we can conclude that the Torso killer desired for the victims to be discovered, and for it to create an element of shock value to the masses.

Hi RD.

I think the answer is much simpler than that. The fact that word got out to John Arnold that a body was going to be found in Backchurch Lane was an announcement in itself. With the same affair happening the day before the Whitehall torso was found, I'd say this person highly desired the bodies to be found, for whatever reason?

[Abby Normal]

Hi RD.

I think the answer is much simpler than that. The fact that word got out to John Arnold that a body was going to be found in Backchurch Lane was an announcement in itself. With the same affair happening the day before the Whitehall torso was found, I'd say this person highly desired the bodies to be found, for whatever reason?

hi jerry
is there any connection between wildbore and arnold?

[jerryd]

hi jerry
is there any connection between wildbore and arnold?

Not that I have found Abby. John Arnold sold papers at Charing Cross though, which was fairly close to Scotland Yard. Never know who runs into whom?

[Fiver]

a post in creative writing that had all of seven responses that none including op mention anything about the torsos.

e

Fisherman claims the Torso Killer was the Ripper. Did Fisherman propose the Anatomical Venus theory before Michael Hawley published it in The New Independent Review in 2012?

Or how about Hawley's 2013 article in Ripperologist 130? In it, Hawley noted that public anatomy museums in England were shut down in 1873 under the Obscene Publications Act of 1857.

[Abby Normal]

Not that I have found Abby. John Arnold sold papers at Charing Cross though, which was fairly close to Scotland Yard. Never know who runs into whom?

thanks Jer

the prediction of the other torso was anonymous correct?

so if arnold foretold a torso, wouldnt it be reasonable to suspect arnold of being the killer?

[jerryd]

Here is one report on it Abby.

Sheffield Evening Telegraph
11 October 1888

AN EXTRAORDINARY STORY

An extraordinary story is going the round of journalistic circles in connection with the mysterious discovery on the Thames Embankment. It will be remembered that the woman's remains were found on the Monday afternoon of last week. The previous evening, however, a man went to most of the daily newspaper offices, saw the respective subeditors[?] and inquired if they had heard of a woman's body being discovered on the Embankment. The man evidently expected remuneration, but, in accordance with practice, was required to call again after inquiries had been made. Reporters were despatched in hot haste to Westminster, and calls were made at all the police stations and other likely quarters, but without result, no discovery of the kind reported having been made. In less than twenty-four hours the remains of the unknown woman were found between the Embankment and Whitehall at the spot previously described. If this reported discovery was a hoax, and a strange coincidence, it is very singular indeed. Moreover, the man who called at the newspaper offices did not call a second time.

[jerryd]

I would suspect John Arnold was informed by somebody in the know at least. He may have been the subject of this incident in 1888 with the Whitehall torso I just posted. It all sounds too familiar.

[Fisherman]

That's only correct because you borrow myths from other people instead of creating your own myths.

Except perhaps for the Ley Line myth. Everything else seems to be borrowed from Von Stow or early TorsoRipper theorists.

It is perfectly true that I have made use of finds that were made by other theorists in my work. That is something that anybody who knows the two cases will be quite aware of. I think you will also find that this is something universal when it comes to presenting a theory on the Ripper case - we read and absorb what earlier research has brought to light, and then we make our own interpretation of it.

In my case, it has resulted in how I have been part of a presentation of the Ripper case in St Johns Church, Bethnal Green, how I have been involved in making the Missing Evidence documentary, how I have been a podcast guest, and how I have written my book Cutting Point and had it published. I am proud and happy about how the book has been rated very highly by the various sites that have reviewed it on the net.
Along this way, none of the people I mentioned before - the ones who are well read up on the case, have made any allegations about how my only contribution to the field has lain in recycling other theorists work. It is only you, Fiver.

Then again, I am perhaps not all that sure about how well read up you are. You were blissfully unaware about how the Torso murders involved the cutting of the abdomens of the Rainham victim and Liz Jackson open all the way down, just like in four of the canonical Ripper murders.
With that level of insight lack, it is understandable if you get things wrong. And when you add that you believe that the fact that the dismembered torso victims were not found displayed on their backs, is another thing that tells us that the two series would not have had the same originator, I tend to despair about your chances of ever getting these things right at all.

What I want to say with all of this (and I was uncertain whether or not to say anything at all) is that in the choice of playing my role and yours, I genuinely believe that - regardless of how I to a large degree have based my theory about the case on reading up on other theorists and researchers work - I have had the good fortune to play the less sad role of the two of us.

Merry Christmas, Fiver!

[Michael W Richards]

The one myth there ever was, was that the Torso killer was another man than the Ripper.

I have never tried to create any myth in any way relating the these cases. Claiming that is trying to create a myth.

Try and discuss the factual matters instead, Michael. It lowers the blood pressure and makes for a much more useful debate.

I thought we were discussing the facts Fish, your unwavering belief that the 2 series are in reality just 1 longer series. Your conviction is admirable, however your supporting evidence..not so much. Were the Torso murders in 1888-89 the only time in history, to that point, that we see these kinds of acts? No. They are not. Are there any murders prior to 1888 that seem very similar to the ones pinned on Jack the Ripper? Lets just say, to the murder of Annie Chapman? Not really. Some of those murders were quite unique, but dismemberment, again, not so much.

Your suggestion that the 2 series must be by one man doesnt account for very similar Torso murders that pre-date the Ripper crimes by over a decade. They could have been by the same man in 1888. Who knows? So you want to put on the table that you believe a killer who may have dismembered a few times over the course of 14 years from 1873 until 1888 suddenly begins a whole new rain of terror and style of murder, while still continuing on with his old habits?

I find a lot of Ripperology embraces the Marvel Universe philosophy, where the practically impossible is held in the highest regard.

[The Rookie Detective]

Not that I have found Abby. John Arnold sold papers at Charing Cross though, which was fairly close to Scotland Yard. Never know who runs into whom?

Hi Jerry (and Abby)


According to the 1921 census, Frederick J Wildbore was living at 133 Harbut Road, Clapham Junction, Battersea.

Harbut Road was nearer to Wandworth Bridge.


I noticed on the Forums site, that there is a mention of Frederick Wildbore being possibly employed by the Met Police in the 1911 census?

Well in the 1921 census, he is listed as a (retired) "senior office carpenter"...although in the "Employer" column, it does indeed state that he "Receives of Metropolitan Police."

That confirms that he had a connection to the Met and that they paid him for his services.

I find his connection to the Police rather unusual considering he is the man who pointed out the torso in the Whitehall mystery.

I must say Jerry, your research on this is exceptional and I have looked through the links you supplied.

Abby was right; I've had a field day looking through all that data.


Please keep it coming ha ha!


RD