Jack the Ripper & The Torso Murders

[Fisherman]

Excellent questions Fiver

There was a mix of the killer placing various body parts on both land and in the water, and so by choosing to vary the locations, the killer was aware that at least some of the body parts WOULD be found.
If the killer wanted to hide what he had done, then he would have disposed of the body parts in a manner in which NONE of the body parts from any of the victims would have ever been found.
But from a serial killer's point of view; what would be the fun in that? No recognition. The victim would have just become a missing person and there would be no acknowledgement that a murder had even taken place. In placing body parts under a railway arch, in a park, over a fence onto Shelley's estate, in the cellar vault of the NSY building etc, we can see that the killer wanted public awareness that a Torso killer was on the loose.

This is evidenced by the fact that TWO of the torso victims were declared BEFORE the body parts were placed at their respective dumping sites. One of which being the John Cleary (Arnold) incident for the Pinchin Street torso.

In other words, the Torso killings revolved around trying to push a story through the press. John Arnold (Cleary) told the reporters that there was a body, but the torso didn't make an appearance until days later. And so either John was a psychic with special powers of foresight, or he knew of/was told about the murder.

It's almost as though the killer is trying to seek acknowledgment by having someone tell the press about a body before the body has even been dumped.


With regards to the time between the killer dumping body parts, to the point of those said body parts being discovered; I think that the killer wasn't overly concerned about when the torsos had been found, but more concerned with wanting those body parts to be discovered eventually.

The killer would have read the newspaper articles and perhaps enjoyed the waiting game. Another reason why he may have chosen to dismember the victims; could be because he wanted the finding of each body part to be drawn out longer. That is conjecture of course, but it is a reasonable conclusion to make, especially when you consider that he dumped each victim's body parts at different times. I.e. He didn't dump a victim's dismembered body parts at the same time, but instead STAGGERED his placing/dumping of the body parts.

Your last point is the most interesting regarding the heads of each victim. Why indeed were no heads ever found.

I would imagine there could be a multitude of reasons, but I would say that because no heads were found, it implies that he didn't want any of his victims to be IDENTIFIED. He may have also used the heads for other purposes and kept them as trophies.

This is where we must again draw a clear line between; Identification and Discovery.

The torso killer didn't intend for any of his victims to be identified, because no heads were ever found.
However, he did intend for the body parts/torsos to be discovered, because otherwise, none of the torsos would have ever been found.

I do have my own hypothesis on what he did with the heads of each of his victims; I believe he may have put the heads into some of the structures he helped to build. It wouldn't surprise me if he placed the heads in newly built railway arches, within the walls of building projects, within the walls of one of Lusk's theatre renovations, in concrete foundations, in a stone quarry, etc...

The heads must have been put somewhere and I believe that one day they may still be found.

Just a hunch



RD

Although we agree broadly on this, I would like to say that my own take on whether or not the killer wanted the victims to stay unidentified, is that I donīt think he cared about it.
The reason a killer has, who hides the identity of a victim, is invariably that the victim can be linked to himself. Therefore, it is of vital importance that the identity is hidden - so that no link can be made.
When we deal with sexual serial killers who prey on prostitutes, we get another picture. None of the prostitute killers we have on record have made any attempts to hide their victims identities, at least as far as I can tell. And why would they? There is no risk of having the victim disclose who killed them by way of links existing between killer and victim, and so there is no need to hide the identity of the victim.

In our case - and with that expression I mean the combined two series - we are with great likelihood looking at the exact same thing. The killer cannot be linked to his victims, he is what is referred to as a killer of strangers, and so he has no need to hide any identities. Ergo, he takes no precautions to cut away moles and scars. Ergo, he even wraps body parts in the personal clothing of one victim. Ergo, he does not try to hide what he has done, but instead place parts in public spaces where they WILL be found, and he floats his work on the Thames, where the parts end up on the shores of the power center of the Victorian world. He does not throw them in the river to the East, where they would exit London, but instead to the far West, where they will end up outside the houses of Parliament and all along the power centers of 19th century London.

He is an ambitious killer, looking for recognition, a very common trait among the narcissistic serial killer ranks.

So then, the heads - why were they not found? As per the above, it would have had nothing to do with a desire to hide the identitites, if you ask me. There are numerous possibilities: they were of a much higher density than the rest of the body, and so if thrown in the Thames, they would perhaps have more or less rolled along the bottom with the outgoing tide, towards the sea. Alternatively, he kept them as trophies. Alternatively, he used them as sex toys, the way Ed Kemper did. Alternatively, he placed them in spots where he thought they would have a ”magical” meaning, like for example in the basement ground where somebody he wanted to have an impact on lived.

The options are many, and need in no way, shape or form involve hiding the identities of his victims. If, as I firmly believe, the 1873 torso victim was part of the series, then we have an example of where the killer meticulously cut away the face of his victim in one piece, lips, eyelids and all. I think that he emulated the anatomical venuses from the wax exhibitions when doing this; many of them had faces that could be lifted off to show the underlying structures.
And maybe he did the exact same to all of his torso victims, as a ritualistic thing? And then he threw the skull in the Thames where it sunk to the bottom or was washed away at a level under the surface.

It is in this context interesting to ponder what was said about the face of Mary Kelly after her meeting with the killer: it looked like one of those gruesome anatomical models that were found in medical environments, with the eyes staring lidlessly into eternity. I donīt remember the exact wording, but it is in one of the papers.

The killer had apparently tried to take Kellys head off by way of knife, but failed, and he likely did not have the time to carefully cut the face away. And so he may have settled for the next best thing.

Reasoning that dismembered heads that cannot be found must be about hiding the identity of the victim is a tad headless in itself. That said, since we do not know whether or not there were any links between the originator of the torso murders and his victims, it CAN have been about hiding identities. But if it WAS, then the killer was sloppy in the extreme about other details that could give the identity away, and so I opt for him not being interested in hiding anything at all.

[FrankO]

hi rd
Agree.
the fact that pinchin was dumped in ripper territory with a vertical gash to the midsection is enough to link the two series. pinchin was already linked to the torso series, so pinchin by itself links the torso murders with the ripper murders. but we have another torso victim in jackson also linking to chapman and kelly in that her stomach flesh were removed in flaps. we have the tottenham head linked to eddowes, in that the face mutilated eerily similar. amd in general both series victims were displayed and left in public for shock value.
we have a victimology link in that jackson was a prostitute.
we have temporal link in that the series overlapped in time, with both series apparently ending about the same time with pinchin and mckenzie.
we have a mo link in that a ruse was used to get the victims to a secluded place.
we have a general sig link in that post mortem mutilation was apparently the main focus, and specifically with a cutting instrument being the main weapon. and while a saw wasnt used in the ripper series, a knife was used in both. and specifically a vertical gash to the midsection and neck being cut.

and we have the rarity of two post mortem type serial killers operating in basically the same time and same place, in the early history of serial killers when it was still a very rare phenomenon.

theres more than enough fact based similarities to reasonably conclude they were the same man.

Hi Abby,

I think you know it, but I look at it a little differently, although I do see some of the same fact-based similarities as you do.

Just looking at what was done to each of the victims in both series – so, leaving the disarticulations apart:

• I see that the faces of the 1873 and 1884 victims were attacked in similar fashion to Eddowes’ face.
• Out of all 7 cases, there’s only one sure case in which the uterus went missing: that of 1873; and one possible case: that of 1884
• It’s impossible to say whether or not the culprit kept any of the unfound organs or other pieces behind. They were just never found. It’s quite possible that they were only cut loose from the body while cutting the body up in pieces and they simply have been tossed in the river and immediately sunk or were just never seen/found.
• Then, there are 3 torso victims who received cuts from sternum to pubes: the Rainham victim, Jackson and the Pinchin Street victim. Of the first we don’t know whether it opened the abdomen or not; it’s not mentioned and, therefore, to me at least, it seems not to have been deep enough to open. Obviously, Jackson’s abdominal cuts were clearly very similar to Chapman’s and Kelly’s. And the one inflicted on the Pinchin Street victim was clearly superficial only.
• latter was only shallow, the one on the Rainham victim we don’t know, but doesn’t seem to have been so deep that it opened up the abdomen, leaving Jackson as the only one whose belly was certainly opened up in Ripper fashion.

If we look at the Ripper victims and considering the perpetrator only had considerable time in Kelly’s case, we see that a lot more was done to them. Chapman’s abdomen was cut away in 3 pieces, of which one – containing the belly button – was missing, i.e. taken away by the killer, just as the uterus had been taken away. Eddowes’ body received the cut from sternum to pubes and in addition was rather severely cut in the groin area and face. And Kelly, who, as far as the mutilations are concerned, might be seen as having approached the Ripper’s fantasy the closest. Her breasts were cut off, her legs were denuded, her arms and one calf were severely cut, her face was savagely cut and her heart was taken away. Even Jackson didn’t look like this (if we leave the dismemberment aside), even though we know her killer had ‘all the time in the world’ with her.

Then, of course, there’s the fact that the Pinchin Street victim was dumped ‘smack bang in the middle’ of the Ripper’s territory. But it really was not ‘smack bang in the middle’, it was more on the outskirts of it.

Furthermore, yes, the series overlapped, but with the very striking difference in frequency. Where the Ripper struck every few weeks on average (4 if you count C5, almost 8 if we also include Tabram and MacKenzie), Torso Man killed every 2 years and over 3 months on average. The way I see it, if they are supposed to be one man, this temporary change would need an important reason, not something like he didn’t have a private workplace at his disposal (which, the Whitehall victim would debunk) or he just wanted to try something else.

As far as shock value is concerned, we can be quite sure that Torso Man dumped on land to create a shock and this seems especially true of the thigh tossed over the railing of the Shelley Estate and the Whitehall and Pinchin Street victims. However, we can’t say for sure the Ripper left his victims for shock value. It could just as well be that he just wanted easy prey in the form of women prostituting themselves out on the street and so, there would be every chance that he had to settle for doing his thing out in the open, having no choice but to leave them where he’d attacked & killed them. We don’t know and, therefore, can’t say whether shocking the public was on his mind when killing his victims.

Of course, if the Ripper just wanted easy prey and didn’t want to plan all that much, the contrast with especially the Whitehall torso would become as large as life, as, obviously, that could not have been done without at least some premeditation.

The same sort of thing goes for the ruses Torso Man and the Ripper used. While it seems more probable that the former had to actively lure or convince his victims to go with him to some private place, the Ripper may have left the initiative completely to his victims in the sense that he would let them approach and accost him, so that the only thing he would have to do was agree with them to go where they led him and to show them the money needed. Of course, he may have been more active, just as the possible story of the Ripper in the Lloyd’s Weekly News of 30 September 1888 suggests, but it’s certainly not a given.

Again, this is just my way of looking at it. But we generally agree about something you wrote before and that is that, even though there are similarities, the torsos were clearly less mutilated than the Ripper victims. Or something along those lines.

Cheers,
Frank

[FrankO]

Although we agree broadly on this, I would like to say that my own take on whether or not the killer wanted the victims to stay unidentified, is that I donīt think he cared about it.
The reason a killer has, who hides the identity of a victim, is invariably that the victim can be linked to himself. Therefore, it is of vital importance that the identity is hidden - so that no link can be made.
When we deal with sexual serial killers who prey on prostitutes, we get another picture. None of the prostitute killers we have on record have made any attempts to hide their victims identities, at least as far as I can tell. And why would they? There is no risk of having the victim disclose who killed them by way of links existing between killer and victim, and so there is no need to hide the identity of the victim.

In our case - and with that expression I mean the combined two series - we are with great likelihood looking at the exact same thing. The killer cannot be linked to his victims, he is what is referred to as a killer of strangers, and so he has no need to hide any identities. Ergo, he takes no precautions to cut away moles and scars. Ergo, he even wraps body parts in the personal clothing of one victim. Ergo, he does not try to hide what he has done, but instead place parts in public spaces where they WILL be found, and he floats his work on the Thames, where the parts end up on the shores of the power center of the Victorian world. He does not throw them in the river to the East, where they would exit London, but instead to the far West, where they will end up outside the houses of Parliament and all along the power centers of 19th century London.

I completely agree with that, Christer. And the fact that Jackson was eventually identified shows exactly what you mean, as even identifying didn’t get the police one little step closer to discovering who the perpetrator was.

He is an ambitious killer, looking for recognition, a very common trait among the narcissistic serial killer ranks.

And this is one of the things why we don’t agree on there being only one culprit, or two. My view is that if he was looking for recognition, and I think he was, there’s a good chance that he would seek recognition for both series as one murderer. He could have established that in various simple ways, but he never did.

So then, the heads - why were they not found? As per the above, it would have had nothing to do with a desire to hide the identitites, if you ask me. There are numerous possibilities: they were of a much higher density than the rest of the body, and so if thrown in the Thames, they would perhaps have more or less rolled along the bottom with the outgoing tide, towards the sea. Alternatively, he kept them as trophies. Alternatively, he used them as sex toys, the way Ed Kemper did. Alternatively, he placed them in spots where he thought they would have a ”magical” meaning, like for example in the basement ground where somebody he wanted to have an impact on lived.

All good possibilities, but, unfortunately, no evidence to support any of them. I agree that the least sinister explanation would be that he just tossed them in the river and they sank for the reason you mentioned.

The options are many, and need in no way, shape or form involve hiding the identities of his victims. If, as I firmly believe, the 1873 torso victim was part of the series, then we have an example of where the killer meticulously cut away the face of his victim in one piece, lips, eyelids and all. I think that he emulated the anatomical venuses from the wax exhibitions when doing this; many of them had faces that could be lifted off to show the underlying structures.
And maybe he did the exact same to all of his torso victims, as a ritualistic thing? And then he threw the skull in the Thames where it sunk to the bottom or was washed away at a level under the surface.

It is in this context interesting to ponder what was said about the face of Mary Kelly after her meeting with the killer: it looked like one of those gruesome anatomical models that were found in medical environments, with the eyes staring lidlessly into eternity. I donīt remember the exact wording, but it is in one of the papers.

The killer had apparently tried to take Kellys head off by way of knife, but failed, and he likely did not have the time to carefully cut the face away. And so he may have settled for the next best thing.

Once more I agree in that I believe that whoever was or were responsible for the two series may very well have been inspired by the anatomical Venuses on display in London at the time and the general interest in anatomy of people in that era. Although, I think especially Kelly would be the most similar to the Venuses and the torso victims less so.

The best,
Frank

[Fisherman]

And this is one of the things why we don’t agree on there being only one culprit, or two. My view is that if he was looking for recognition, and I think he was, there’s a good chance that he would seek recognition for both series as one murderer. He could have established that in various simple ways, but he never did.

I believe the Pinchin Street torso was an effort to make the police and press understand that he was the sole perrp in both series. That is why things overlap in that murder, I īd say. An obvious torso murder, but in Ripper country. And with the Ripper cut, engraved as a shallow cut on the abdomen, fifteen inches long and carried on all the way down to the genitals.
It really could not get much clearer than that: Here I am, this is me.
Once it failed, it may well be that he lost interest in what he will perhaps have thought of as a collection of bumbling idiots. These killers are often arrogant pricks, with little time to spare for other peoples shortcomings in the thinking department.

Once more I agree in that I believe that whoever was or were responsible for the two series may very well have been inspired by the anatomical Venuses on display in London at the time and the general interest in anatomy of people in that era. Although, I think especially Kelly would be the most similar to the Venuses and the torso victims less so.

The best,
Frank

Well, obviously. But removing the face from a victim like a lid goes a very long way in the self same direction. And there is also the limbs of the 1873 victim - they were dismembered at the knees and elbows, where dismembering is a hard thing to do, but sawed off some way down on the thighs and arms - where dismemberment is supposedly easier to achieve. So why was this? I would suggest that it was done to emulate the anatomical figures too. The wax torsos often had small parts of the limbs on display, cut straight off an inch or two from the torsos, showing how the arms and legs are constructed.

Thanks for a thoughtful and well laid out post, Frank. And Happy New Year to you!

[FrankO]

I believe the Pinchin Street torso was an effort to make the police and press understand that he was the sole perrp in both series. That is why things overlap in that murder, I īd say. An obvious torso murder, but in Ripper country. And with the Ripper cut, engraved as a shallow cut on the abdomen, fifteen inches long and carried on all the way down to the genitals.
It really could not get much clearer than that: Here I am, this is me.

To me, 'much clearer' would have been if he'd have opened up the belly, which was sort of his basic calling card. Let me put like this: if he'd really left her in the middle of Ripper territory and if he'd cut her abdomen so that her intestines would have been protruding, then it would have been much more of a 'here I am' to me. But to each his own, of course.

Well, obviously. But removing the face from a victim like a lid goes a very long way in the self same direction. And there is also the limbs of the 1873 victim - they were dismembered at the knees and elbows, where dismembering is a hard thing to do, but sawed off some way down on the thighs and arms - where dismemberment is supposedly easier to achieve. So why was this? I would suggest that it was done to emulate the anatomical figures too. The wax torsos often had small parts of the limbs on display, cut straight off an inch or two from the torsos, showing how the arms and legs are constructed.

I hadn't considered this, you may well be right about this.

Thanks for a thoughtful and well laid out post, Frank. And Happy New Year to you!

Thanks and the very same to you, Christer!

[rjpalmer]

I completely agree with that, Christer. And the fact that Jackson was eventually identified shows exactly what you mean, as even identifying didn’t get the police one little step closer to discovering who the perpetrator was.

Hi Frank.

But isn't that taking the exception and making it the general rule?

That Jackson was ultimately identified may mean nothing more than nifty police work coupled with the murderer screwing up. Murderers do make mistakes, despite taking pains not to, and (in my opinion) police ingenuity cannot be used as evidence of the murderer's or murderers' alleged indifference.

Let me return again to the Robert Durst case in Galveston, Texas. He cut up his neighbor, disposing of the parts in garbage bags and tossed them in Galveston Bay. Only the head--the most distinguishing part of a human body--was never discovered; the other parts washed ashore. Durst never explained what happened to the poor victim's head, but like Kate Webster in London in 1879, he may well have taken particular care that it wouldn't be found because identifying the victim would lead to unpleasant visits from the police.

Even so, Durst screwed-up dramatically and left a receipt for an optometrist in the bottom of one of the garbage bags which allowed the police to trace his eyeglasses and thus him. It doesn't indicate that Durst didn't know the victim or care (he did); only that he made a mistake.

To me, Elizabeth Jackson's undergarment could have been a similar oversight. I don't feel comfortable in using it as evidence that the other victims were unknown to the murder or murderers.

If the murderer wanted to put on a "display" and had no personal relationship to the victims, why didn't he display the head--the most shocking and horrible display of all? The Victorian murderer Fred Baker did, in Alton.

Is it merely a coincidence that the most identifiable feature of the victims was never put on "display" and never located?

Personally, I think not.

Happy New Year.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

I think you know it, but I look at it a little differently, although I do see some of the same fact-based similarities as you do.

Just looking at what was done to each of the victims in both series – so, leaving the disarticulations apart:

• I see that the faces of the 1873 and 1884 victims were attacked in similar fashion to Eddowes’ face.
• Out of all 7 cases, there’s only one sure case in which the uterus went missing: that of 1873; and one possible case: that of 1884
• It’s impossible to say whether or not the culprit kept any of the unfound organs or other pieces behind. They were just never found. It’s quite possible that they were only cut loose from the body while cutting the body up in pieces and they simply have been tossed in the river and immediately sunk or were just never seen/found.
• Then, there are 3 torso victims who received cuts from sternum to pubes: the Rainham victim, Jackson and the Pinchin Street victim. Of the first we don’t know whether it opened the abdomen or not; it’s not mentioned and, therefore, to me at least, it seems not to have been deep enough to open. Obviously, Jackson’s abdominal cuts were clearly very similar to Chapman’s and Kelly’s. And the one inflicted on the Pinchin Street victim was clearly superficial only.
• latter was only shallow, the one on the Rainham victim we don’t know, but doesn’t seem to have been so deep that it opened up the abdomen, leaving Jackson as the only one whose belly was certainly opened up in Ripper fashion.

If we look at the Ripper victims and considering the perpetrator only had considerable time in Kelly’s case, we see that a lot more was done to them. Chapman’s abdomen was cut away in 3 pieces, of which one – containing the belly button – was missing, i.e. taken away by the killer, just as the uterus had been taken away. Eddowes’ body received the cut from sternum to pubes and in addition was rather severely cut in the groin area and face. And Kelly, who, as far as the mutilations are concerned, might be seen as having approached the Ripper’s fantasy the closest. Her breasts were cut off, her legs were denuded, her arms and one calf were severely cut, her face was savagely cut and her heart was taken away. Even Jackson didn’t look like this (if we leave the dismemberment aside), even though we know her killer had ‘all the time in the world’ with her.

Then, of course, there’s the fact that the Pinchin Street victim was dumped ‘smack bang in the middle’ of the Ripper’s territory. But it really was not ‘smack bang in the middle’, it was more on the outskirts of it.

Furthermore, yes, the series overlapped, but with the very striking difference in frequency. Where the Ripper struck every few weeks on average (4 if you count C5, almost 8 if we also include Tabram and MacKenzie), Torso Man killed every 2 years and over 3 months on average. The way I see it, if they are supposed to be one man, this temporary change would need an important reason, not something like he didn’t have a private workplace at his disposal (which, the Whitehall victim would debunk) or he just wanted to try something else.

As far as shock value is concerned, we can be quite sure that Torso Man dumped on land to create a shock and this seems especially true of the thigh tossed over the railing of the Shelley Estate and the Whitehall and Pinchin Street victims. However, we can’t say for sure the Ripper left his victims for shock value. It could just as well be that he just wanted easy prey in the form of women prostituting themselves out on the street and so, there would be every chance that he had to settle for doing his thing out in the open, having no choice but to leave them where he’d attacked & killed them. We don’t know and, therefore, can’t say whether shocking the public was on his mind when killing his victims.

Of course, if the Ripper just wanted easy prey and didn’t want to plan all that much, the contrast with especially the Whitehall torso would become as large as life, as, obviously, that could not have been done without at least some premeditation.

The same sort of thing goes for the ruses Torso Man and the Ripper used. While it seems more probable that the former had to actively lure or convince his victims to go with him to some private place, the Ripper may have left the initiative completely to his victims in the sense that he would let them approach and accost him, so that the only thing he would have to do was agree with them to go where they led him and to show them the money needed. Of course, he may have been more active, just as the possible story of the Ripper in the Lloyd’s Weekly News of 30 September 1888 suggests, but it’s certainly not a given.

Again, this is just my way of looking at it. But we generally agree about something you wrote before and that is that, even though there are similarities, the torsos were clearly less mutilated than the Ripper victims. Or something along those lines.

Cheers,
Frank

hi frank
yes ive often said, if the torso victims had more evisceration, or the ripper victims dismemberment (and or chapman or kelly had their heads fully removed) it would be game over for me... def same man. but who knows what goes on in the twisted mind of a serial killer and why they do or do not do certain things at certain times.

as it stands i think there are enough similarities that i lean heavily (although not totally convinced)they were the same man.

happy new year to you!

[Abby Normal]

im on the fence if the missing heads meant he was def trying to hide identity. the tottenham head placed in front of the heavily patrolled building in public makes me think probably not. it makes me think he had special purposes in mind for the heads. either keeping them as trophys or something like placing them somewhere that had meaning to him and jut not found.
one things for sure he def was not trying to hide parts /bodies.

[Fiver]

There were - as has been shown by Edward Stow - people along the cats meat chain who circumnavigated the law and handled large and bony chunks of horses, instead of mere cubes of flesh.

Is Von Stow claiming that 66 year old Maria Forsdyke, with no previous training or equipment, let alone the space to work, opened an illegal horse slaughtering operation? How did she keep the mess and stench a secret from Edward and Charlotte Dalton, who also lived at 18 St George Street, let alone the people who lived in other houses nearby?

Back in the real world, delivering meat to a butcher is just as likely to turn someone into an expert at anatomy as delivering meat to a restaurant would turn someone into an expert chef.

Charles Lechmere was a van driver and later a grocer. Other members of his family became cats meat vendors, with the first known example being in 1891, after the murders. None were butchers or knackers. A cats meat vendor bought boiled horsemeat from distributors who bought it from the slaughterhouses. A cat's meat vendor dealt with meat, fat, and gristle. The hair, hide, bones, hooves, and organs had been removed at the slaughterhouse.

You'd learn more about anatomy by eating a piece of fried chicken than by being a cat's meat vendor.

[Fisherman]

Is Von Stow claiming that 66 year old Maria Forsdyke, with no previous training or equipment, let alone the space to work, opened an illegal horse slaughtering operation? How did she keep the mess and stench a secret from Edward and Charlotte Dalton, who also lived at 18 St George Street, let alone the people who lived in other houses nearby?

Back in the real world, delivering meat to a butcher is just as likely to turn someone into an expert at anatomy as delivering meat to a restaurant would turn someone into an expert chef.

Charles Lechmere was a van driver and later a grocer. Other members of his family became cats meat vendors, with the first known example being in 1891, after the murders. None were butchers or knackers. A cats meat vendor bought boiled horsemeat from distributors who bought it from the slaughterhouses. A cat's meat vendor dealt with meat, fat, and gristle. The hair, hide, bones, hooves, and organs had been removed at the slaughterhouse.

You'd learn more about anatomy by eating a piece of fried chicken than by being a cat's meat vendor.

I will not answer any posts where you call Edward ”von Stow”. Grow up, please.

[Mark J D]

[...] The killer had apparently tried to take Kellys head off by way of knife, but failed, and he likely did not have the time to carefully cut the face away. And so he may have settled for the next best thing.

Hi Christer,

The above returns me once again to poor Kate's face. Our man's knife-work there was both gross and fine -- the entire spectrum, in fact: savagely deep cuts as well as -- bafflingly! -- tiny nicks to her eyelids. What is the reason behind the latter? Were the eyelids cut first -- or last? Either way, why the 'change of gear'...?

Bests,

Mark D.

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer,

The above returns me once again to poor Kate's face. Our man's knife-work there was both gross and fine -- the entire spectrum, in fact: savagely deep cuts as well as -- bafflingly! -- tiny nicks to her eyelids. What is the reason behind the latter? Were the eyelids cut first -- or last? Either way, why the 'change of gear'...?

Bests,

Mark D.

Echoes of Tabram, perhaps…? I have no idea what came first, I can only offer a guess - and that says the finer cuts were the last ones. The so called inverted V:s were collateral damage from the failed nose cutting attempt. So says Jon Smythe (Wickerman) and I agree very much, but the nicks to the eyelids are a different matter. I have no explanation to offer, although I am tempted to think they had a symbolic reason for the killer. After that, it is anybodys guess.

[Fiver]

Two parts that we know of - and that may have been accidentally buried. None of the other parts were buried at all.

The evidence argues strongly against an accidental burial.

"He thought the leg was found at a depth of only four or five inches when the stones were removed. The ground where the leg was discovered was very hard, as if the ground had been trodden upon." - William Angle - 23 October 1888 Times

"The arm was found some 12 inches down. The dog refused to work when many police came, as they did soon after. There was no appearance in the earth there of its having been disturbed for some time." - Jasper Waring - 23 October 1888 Times

Two limbs buried at two different depths means two different burials, which is vanishingly unlikely to be accidental.

While no other body parts were found to have been buried, we cannot say whether or not the missing pieces were buried. The head and upper torso of the first victim were never found. The head, lower torso, and one leg of the second victim were never found. The head of the third victim was never found. The head, arms. and legs of the fourth victim were never found.

The buried parts of the second victim were missed by multiple searches by men and dogs before finally being discovered. so the idea that the Torso Killer buried at least some of the unfound parts seems likely and certainly can't be ruled out.

[Fisherman]

The evidence argues strongly against an accidental burial.

"He thought the leg was found at a depth of only four or five inches when the stones were removed. The ground where the leg was discovered was very hard, as if the ground had been trodden upon." - William Angle - 23 October 1888 Times

"The arm was found some 12 inches down. The dog refused to work when many police came, as they did soon after. There was no appearance in the earth there of its having been disturbed for some time." - Jasper Waring - 23 October 1888 Times

Two limbs buried at two different depths means two different burials, which is vanishingly unlikely to be accidental.

While no other body parts were found to have been buried, we cannot say whether or not the missing pieces were buried. The head and upper torso of the first victim were never found. The head, lower torso, and one leg of the second victim were never found. The head of the third victim was never found. The head, arms. and legs of the fourth victim were never found.

The buried parts of the second victim were missed by multiple searches by men and dogs before finally being discovered. so the idea that the Torso Killer buried at least some of the unfound parts seems likely and certainly can't be ruled out.

If you read Charles Hebbert, you will find that he mentions that a leg was found some time after the torso. But he mentions no arm, Fiver.

Now, why would that be?

[Fiver]

You may well be right, PC. The impression I've always had was that the thigh thrown over railings into the garden of the Shelley estate, the Whitehall and the Pinchin Street torso were all attempts by the Torso killer to be more interesting, shocking, intriguing or something like that rather than anything else. I can't help but wonder if he dumped one of his torsos in Pinchin Street for the exact reason you suggest: that he resented the publicity and, with it, the notoriety that the Ripper was getting and he was not.

Had the Pinchin Street torso actually been dumped "smack bang in the heart of Ripper territory", as some have it, instead of just outside of it, and if the Ripper victims had been killed a great deal more to the west, then I'd be more prepared to believe there was just the one perpetrator.

All the best,
Frank

You may be correct about the Torso Killer deliberately seeking publicity, but that is not the only possible explanation. Pert of one of the victims was found in shrubbery in Battersea Park. To me, that sounds more like the killer ditching a body part quickly to avoid being caught with it, rather than an attempt at publicity. The part found on the Shelley estate was also found pitched into the shrubbery and we have no idea if the killer knew it was the Shelley estate. It certainly could have been placed in a easier to find location. The same is true of the Whitehall and Pinchin Street Torsos - it would have taken less effort to just drop them somewhere far easier to find. Only by chance was the Pinchin Street Torso found less than an hour after deposit instead of days later. Only by chance did a workman choose the same hiding place for his tools that the Torso Killer had chosen for hiding the Whitehall Torso. Without that, who knows when it would have been found.