Jack the Ripper & The Torso Murders

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[FrankO]

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.

Well, Christer, it would have been nice & usefull if you'd just written just this, instead of putting words in my mouth.

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.

You did a good job hiding all this then, my Swedish friend, because your previous post to me certainly didn't come across that way. So, thanks for clearing that up.

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.

As to your last sentence, I hope you speak for yourself, but the main point is that we agree on there being no reason to be sensitive and that we've cleared things up. Discussing Torso and/or Ripper related things if fine, but there are more important things in life than squabbling over them.

Vi ses & the best,
Frank

[Fisherman]

Well, Christer, it would have been nice & usefull if you'd just written just this, instead of putting words in my mouth.

You did a good job hiding all this then, my Swedish friend, because your previous post to me certainly didn't come across that way. So, thanks for clearing that up.

As to your last sentence, I hope you speak for yourself, but the main point is that we agree on there being no reason to be sensitive and that we've cleared things up. Discussing Torso and/or Ripper related things if fine, but there are more important things in life than squabbling over them.

Vi ses & the best,
Frank

I never put any words in your mouth, Frank, but of course, if you felt I did, I will readily apologize. On my last point I speak for anybody who is perhaps too sensitive about all of this, because it produces misunderstandings that are extremely improductive. I myself am at times guilty of it, certainly. Embarrasingly so at times.
And yes, there are more important things than Ripper related quibbles (and oh yes, I intentionally called the Torso series Ripper related there …)

Vi ses absolut, och jag ser alltid fram emot det!

[FrankO]

I never put any words in your mouth, Frank, but of course, if you felt I did, I will readily apologize.

Apoligy accepted, Christer. Moving on!...

And yes, there are more important things than Ripper related quibbles (and oh yes, I intentionally called the Torso series Ripper related there …)

I got that, respect it and wouldn't have expected anything else, really.

Vi ses absolut, och jag ser alltid fram emot det!

Same here!

[Fiver]

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.

I was using Pennett's own testimony.

"I went on duty at 10 o'clock on Monday night. Nothing attracted my attention that was unusual. I was on a regular beat during the night and morning. I had to go through Pinchin-street about every half-hour. I entered it from Christian-street and Backchurch-lane. I occasionally turned down Frederick-street to where the stables were. I then returned to Pinchin-street. Once or twice I cut it short, and simply went into Backchurch-lane. About 25 minutes past 5, I came from the direction of Christian-street to Pinchin-street. I went across the road from the northern side, in the direction of the railway arch, and had no particular reason for so doing."

Which sounds to me as if Pennett did not check the arch every time he made a circuit. Pennett also testified that it was his first day on that beat, which likely meant he spent some time familiarizing himself with the route.

[Fisherman]

I was using Pennett's own testimony.

"I went on duty at 10 o'clock on Monday night. Nothing attracted my attention that was unusual. I was on a regular beat during the night and morning. I had to go through Pinchin-street about every half-hour. I entered it from Christian-street and Backchurch-lane. I occasionally turned down Frederick-street to where the stables were. I then returned to Pinchin-street. Once or twice I cut it short, and simply went into Backchurch-lane. About 25 minutes past 5, I came from the direction of Christian-street to Pinchin-street. I went across the road from the northern side, in the direction of the railway arch, and had no particular reason for so doing."

Which sounds to me as if Pennett did not check the arch every time he made a circuit. Pennett also testified that it was his first day on that beat, which likely meant he spent some time familiarizing himself with the route.

Pennet was new on the beat. He told the inquest how he, on the round preceding the one when he found the torso, had also checked the arch, enabling him to be certain that the torso was not on place at that stage.
So we are informed about two occasions, following on each other, and on each occasion PC Pennet checked the arch.

That does not make for any truly good reason to suggest that the torso could have lain around for weeks before somebody eventually stumbled upon it. On the contrary, it suggests that the torso was always going to be found very quickly.

Of course, it can be suggested - anything can be suggested, as always - that Pennet would have checked the vault twice within an hour on back to back rounds, only to then revert to checking it every fortnight afterwards. But it sounds distinctly unrealistic to me, and seerms to be in utter conflict with the evidence we have at hand.

Painful though it may feel, isnīt it better to acknowledge that evidence? Not easier - just better.

[The Rookie Detective]

I was using Pennett's own testimony.

"I went on duty at 10 o'clock on Monday night. Nothing attracted my attention that was unusual. I was on a regular beat during the night and morning. I had to go through Pinchin-street about every half-hour. I entered it from Christian-street and Backchurch-lane. I occasionally turned down Frederick-street to where the stables were. I then returned to Pinchin-street. Once or twice I cut it short, and simply went into Backchurch-lane. About 25 minutes past 5, I came from the direction of Christian-street to Pinchin-street. I went across the road from the northern side, in the direction of the railway arch, and had no particular reason for so doing."

Which sounds to me as if Pennett did not check the arch every time he made a circuit. Pennett also testified that it was his first day on that beat, which likely meant he spent some time familiarizing himself with the route.

The killer chose the time between Pennett's beat to dump the torso. The killer must have been aware of the beat, because even though it was Pennett's first, the beat was a "REGULAR" beat, meaning that another officer had walked the same beat before on many occasions.
Interestingly, Pennett was only put onto that particular beat by his superior officer shortly before his beat started earlier that evening.

I have always wondered whether that was significant.

It's also a striking coincidence that PC Ernest Thompson was also on his first beat on the night he found Frances Coles...And on the very same stretch of Great Eastern Railway as the Pinchin Street Torso.

2 Railway Arches
The same stretch of Railway
2 Police officers on their maiden beat each "discover" the Pinchin St Torso and Frances Coles respectively.

It's almost as though the killer had orchestrated when and where to kill/dump the torso.

There's also strong evidence to explain HOW and WHY the Ripper wasn't caught mutilating Eddowes, Nichols, and McKenzie...he timed everything perfectly and that takes a lot of planning and foresight.

RD

[Elamarna]

The killer chose the time between Pennett's beat to dump the torso. The killer must have been aware of the beat, because even though it was Pennett's first, the beat was a "REGULAR" beat, meaning that another officer had walked the same beat before on many occasions.
Interestingly, Pennett was only put onto that particular beat by his superior officer shortly before his beat started earlier that evening.

I have always wondered whether that was significant.

It's also a striking coincidence that PC Ernest Thompson was also on his first beat on the night he found Frances Coles...And on the very same stretch of Great Eastern Railway as the Pinchin Street Torso.

2 Railway Arches
The same stretch of Railway
2 Police officers on their maiden beat each "discover" the Pinchin St Torso and Frances Coles respectively.

It's almost as though the killer had orchestrated when and where to kill/dump the torso.

There's also strong evidence to explain HOW and WHY the Ripper wasn't caught mutilating Eddowes, Nichols, and McKenzie...he timed everything perfectly and that takes a lot of planning and foresight.

RD

Not meaning to throw a dampened RD, but just an alternative.

While it's indeed possible that the killer intentionally dumped the Torso inbetween rounds of Pennet's beat, it's also possible that it was not planned and it just took place during the gap.

If we look at Nichols, it does not need any planning, Neil would be in Bucks Row for only a couple of minutes every half hour, no need for planning, to avoid being caught.

And Pinchin street and Swallow Gardens are NOT the same stretch of railway, they are close to each other, but are distinctly separate stretches.

Steve

[jerryd]

And Pinchin street and Swallow Gardens are NOT the same stretch of railway, they are close to each other, but are distinctly separate stretches.

Steve

Hi Steve.

Not quite sure what you mean about this statement? Could you explain?

[The Rookie Detective]

t.

And Pinchin street and Swallow Gardens are NOT the same stretch of railway, they are close to each other, but are distinctly separate stretches.

Steve

Ah, just to clarify I meant as in the Great Eastern Railway, not literally the same railway line. But that's my fault entirely for not clarifying my point.

Thank you sincerely for pointing that out, because my post reads exactly as you have highlighted, and on that basis my comment on the "same stretch of Railway" was inaccurate, so I accept your point; because in context with my comments, I was factually wrong.

Please allow me to clarify that it's the link with the "Great Eastern Railway" that I intended to highlight in my post.


RD