Jack the Ripper & The Torso Murders

[Fiver]

It’s difficult to see why the person disposing of the body parts chose this spot if he was looking to shock? Why not put it under a park bench or throw it into someone’s garden? If he wanted to ‘link’ it to the police then he could have just chucked it over the fence onto the building site which was directly connected the new police building or he could have dumped it next to a police station? I’m not suggesting that he couldn’t have placed it where he did in an act of thumbing his nose at the police as it’s entirely possible but we just have no way of knowing. We can’t even be sure that the person that left the package was the person that killed and dismembered it and we certainly don’t know who did it.

Am I misremembering but wasn’t another part found inside with the help of a dog?

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.

[Fiver]

your the one who keeps bringing him up.

So you'd rather be upset that I implied a fascist politician was a fascist instead of attempting to answer the point? Interesting choice of priorities.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

Cheers Fiver.

So does that mean that the killer positioned one package where it would be found for shock value but another part in such a place where it wouldn’t be found? Bit strange? Might this possibly point to some knowledge of the location? These kind of places would have had different parts being dug at different times so could he have dropped one part down a hole that had then been filled in (smelled but not found by the dog) one in another (found by the dog) and the other waiting to be interred? Speculation of course.

[Fisherman]

Cheers Fiver.

So does that mean that the killer positioned one package where it would be found for shock value but another part in such a place where it wouldn’t be found? Bit strange? Might this possibly point to some knowledge of the location? These kind of places would have had different parts being dug at different times so could he have dropped one part down a hole that had then been filled in (smelled but not found by the dog) one in another (found by the dog) and the other waiting to be interred? Speculation of course.

If you read up on the thread, you will find that it has been proposed that the leg that was found by the dog had been accidentally buried. There was earth thrown up over the place where it was situated, making it a logical proposition that the limb had been shovelled over in the gloom without anybody noticing it, only to then be found by Jasper Warings dog weeks later.

If this was so, it would provide a simple enough solution to what had happened - the killer disposed of the torso and leg in the same space, and left them there. The leg was then accidentally shovelled over, while the torso was not.

The suggestion that the leg was deliberately dug down by the killer to hide what he had done - as proposed by Fiver - is severely hampered by the fact that the same killer who tried to hide what he had done, actually left a torso above ground in the same space.

Although there can be no certainties here, I find that the two scenarios can be divided into one completely logical and one where no logic can be found.

[Fisherman]

Of course, I readily admit that getting the torso & leg discovered may would be felt by Torso Man as the ultimate thrill. Although I’d think he might well have put them in a place where he could have been sure that they would be found. I wouldn’t be surprised if it turned out that he had been alone when dumping the torso & leg, so he could have chosen anywhere on the construction site. He could even just have dumped them in some dark corner above ground. So, why almost hide them in the site’s bowels?

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 can´t 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!”

[Herlock Sholmes]

If you read up on the thread, you will find that it has been proposed that the leg that was found by the dog had been accidentally buried. There was earth thrown up over the place where it was situated, making it a logical proposition that the limb had been shovelled over in the gloom without anybody noticing it, only to then be found by Jasper Warings dog weeks later.

If this was so, it would provide a simple enough solution to what had happened - the killer disposed of the torso and leg in the same space, and left them there. The leg was then accidentally shovelled over, while the torso was not.

The suggestion that the leg was deliberately dug down by the killer to hide what he had done - as proposed by Fiver - is severely hampered by the fact that the same killer who tried to hide what he had done, actually left a torso above ground in the same space.

Although there can be no certainties here, I find that the two scenarios can be divided into one completely logical and one where no logic can be found.

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.

[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 can´t 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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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]

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

[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

[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.