Jack the Ripper & The Torso Murders

[Fisherman]

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.

Steve

Me, I am more confused by this snippet. Isnīt the fact that Neil was in Bucks Row regularly, every half hour, a very good reason to plan when to use the street for a murder …?

Of course, the schedule leaves lots of room to get lucky, so I agree that we need not predispose any planning. But that does not take away from how it could be a good idea, does it?

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi Steve.

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

I believe the lines are on different branches of the Great Eastern Railway, and not the same line of track.

I am taking Steve's word for it of course ha ha!

RD

[The Rookie Detective]

How confident are we that the Torso killer intended to hide the heads of his victims?

Just because the heads and various other body parts were never found; does that automatically mean that the killer had made a concerted effort to conceal the heads permanently, or is it simply a case of the heads were there to be found, but nobody succeeded in finding them?

Now I imagine the instinctive reaction would be to believe the killer deliberately hid the heads, but it is possible that the killer didn't care either way.


I am asking this question for a reason, as I feel there's more to this.


RD

[Fisherman]

How confident are we that the Torso killer intended to hide the heads of his victims?

Just because the heads and various other body parts were never found; does that automatically mean that the killer had made a concerted effort to conceal the heads permanently, or is it simply a case of the heads were there to be found, but nobody succeeded in finding them?

Now I imagine the instinctive reaction would be to believe the killer deliberately hid the heads, but it is possible that the killer didn't care either way.


I am asking this question for a reason, as I feel there's more to this.


RD

As I have said before, my belief is that this killer was a ”killer of strangers”, very likely prostitutes, and so he would have no reason to hide the identities of his victims - likely making for a good comparison with the Ripper murders. There may be various reasons for the missing heads, such as how they were perhaps thrown into the Thames and were weighed down by a higher density than the rest of the body. One of the many other alternatives would be how the killer may have kept the heads as trophies.
There are so many examples of how the torso victims were found with personal marks on them, as well as clothing that offered a direct link to the identity of a victim, that it makes it hard to believe that there was ever any intention of hiding identities.

[Michael W Richards]

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.

That is one possible reason for preventing the identification of a victim, it is not the only possible reason. It could be as simple as a desire to prolong the identification as long as possible, essentially arresting any investigative effort so he could flee. I assume that this angle relates to the absence of heads, which could also be explained by the killer keeping trophies. It could also be he didnt want to see, or didnt see the victims as real people. Just parts. A head can be easily weighted and dropped anywhere in water, easy to bury, or carry. The Torso's themselves present a more difficult disposal problem, in both size and weight.

My point being that there is no evidence here that specifically suggests the killer intend to "hide" the victims identity. But there is more than ample evidence that he intended to cut these women up in private. And perhaps over a period of days or weeks. The delay of gratification, the extended period of time to be actively involved in the crime or the criminal post mortem acts related to the crime seem quite unlike someone who may have spent 5 minutes or less with his victim, in total. I believe the totality of time involved in the committing of these Torso crimes separates the dismemberments from the on the spot killing and cutting in some of the Ripper crimes. If the Ripper killer is satisfied with perhaps a 5 minute experience why would anyone assume he is also fine with something that takes days, weeks to complete?

The crux of all this is, we have some very different factors at play with Jack the Ripper and the fella who made Torso's. Or fellas.

[Pcdunn]

How confident are we that the Torso killer intended to hide the heads of his victims?

Just because the heads and various other body parts were never found; does that automatically mean that the killer had made a concerted effort to conceal the heads permanently, or is it simply a case of the heads were there to be found, but nobody succeeded in finding them?

Now I imagine the instinctive reaction would be to believe the killer deliberately hid the heads, but it is possible that the killer didn't care either way.


I am asking this question for a reason, as I feel there's more to this.


RD

Well, given the amount of damage and reconstruction London underwent in the 20th century, if no stray skulls have been found over the course of so many years... Wouldn't it seem logical that the heads from the Torso cases were not concealed either aboveground OR belowground?

This suggests to me that they might have been defleshed and sold to medical schools as teaching specimens. (H.H. Holmes had defleshed entire skeletons of his female victims, and sold them assembled to American medical schools.)

[Fisherman]

That is one possible reason for preventing the identification of a victim, it is not the only possible reason. It could be as simple as a desire to prolong the identification as long as possible, essentially arresting any investigative effort so he could flee. I assume that this angle relates to the absence of heads, which could also be explained by the killer keeping trophies. It could also be he didnt want to see, or didnt see the victims as real people. Just parts. A head can be easily weighted and dropped anywhere in water, easy to bury, or carry. The Torso's themselves present a more difficult disposal problem, in both size and weight.

My point being that there is no evidence here that specifically suggests the killer intend to "hide" the victims identity. But there is more than ample evidence that he intended to cut these women up in private. And perhaps over a period of days or weeks. The delay of gratification, the extended period of time to be actively involved in the crime or the criminal post mortem acts related to the crime seem quite unlike someone who may have spent 5 minutes or less with his victim, in total. I believe the totality of time involved in the committing of these Torso crimes separates the dismemberments from the on the spot killing and cutting in some of the Ripper crimes. If the Ripper killer is satisfied with perhaps a 5 minute experience why would anyone assume he is also fine with something that takes days, weeks to complete?

The crux of all this is, we have some very different factors at play with Jack the Ripper and the fella who made Torso's. Or fellas.

There can be no fruitful investigative effort if the victim cannot be linked to the killer.

And why would we predispose that the Ripper was satisfied with five minutes with a victim? Since he did did not get around to eviscerating two of the canonical ones, I think we can bet that he was not satisfied at all. Ergo, if he was also the torso killer, then he was looking for another type of gratification than extended time with the victims in the Ripper series. It could be about a heightened public interest, a wish for thrill killing or even practical reasons. The point being that we donīt know, and so we cannot tell the series apart by way of second guessing the psychological implications of the murders.

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve.

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

Hi Jerry,
Happy New Year.

Happy to clarify my point.

The line which passed directly over where the Torso was found was a spur which headed to the goods yard to the north.

The adjacent line which carried on westward, over Swallow Garden via the station at Leman street, did not cross directly over the arch, although it was indeed adjacent to it.

Today it's still possible to travel on the adjacent line and look at the disused viaduct and see the inner side of the arch if you look down.
Some nice photos of it were posted in a FB group in September.

I would post a map and the photo but have been having issues with posting images recently.

Steve

[The Rookie Detective]

As I have said before, my belief is that this killer was a ”killer of strangers”, very likely prostitutes, and so he would have no reason to hide the identities of his victims - likely making for a good comparison with the Ripper murders. There may be various reasons for the missing heads, such as how they were perhaps thrown into the Thames and were weighed down by a higher density than the rest of the body. One of the many other alternatives would be how the killer may have kept the heads as trophies.
There are so many examples of how the torso victims were found with personal marks on them, as well as clothing that offered a direct link to the identity of a victim, that it makes it hard to believe that there was ever any intention of hiding identities.

I must admit Fisherman, I think I concur with your summary and I'm inclined to agree with you on this.

I say this because there is some evidence to support your views on this.

I am in the process of putting together a post that will explain this, but I just need to formulate it correctly.


RD

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi Jerry,
Happy New Year.

Happy to clarify my point.

The line which passed directly over where the Torso was found was a spur which headed to the goods yard to the north.

The adjacent line which carried on westward, over Swallow Garden via the station at Leman street, did not cross directly over the arch, although it was indeed adjacent to it.

Today it's still possible to travel on the adjacent line and look at the disused viaduct and see the inner side of the arch if you look down.
Some nice photos of it were posted in a FB group in September.

I would post a map and the photo but have been having issues with posting images recently.

Steve

Any chance that the head of the Torso victim is still buried inside that wall?

If the inner side of the arch is still there, could there be any possibility whatsoever that the killer had placed the head inside the wall of the arch?


Random, but thought I'd ask anyway.


Rd

[jerryd]

Hi Jerry,
Happy New Year.

Happy to clarify my point.

The line which passed directly over where the Torso was found was a spur which headed to the goods yard to the north.

The adjacent line which carried on westward, over Swallow Garden via the station at Leman street, did not cross directly over the arch, although it was indeed adjacent to it.

Today it's still possible to travel on the adjacent line and look at the disused viaduct and see the inner side of the arch if you look down.
Some nice photos of it were posted in a FB group in September.

I would post a map and the photo but have been having issues with posting images recently.

Steve

Thank you and Happy New Year back atcha, Steve.

I thought you meant something like that, but I wasn't sure.

[Elamarna]

Any chance that the head of the Torso victim is still buried inside that wall?

If the inner side of the arch is still there, could there be any possibility whatsoever that the killer had placed the head inside the wall of the arch?


Random, but thought I'd ask anyway.


Rd

Hi RD,
One assumes they carried out a proper search of the arch and found no indication of any alterations to the Brickwork, which would have been needed. The arches have been extensively used over the years, and nothing reported.

I think we can probably discount it RD.

Steve

[New Ford Shunt]

Well, given the amount of damage and reconstruction London underwent in the 20th century, if no stray skulls have been found over the course of so many years... Wouldn't it seem logical that the heads from the Torso cases were not concealed either aboveground OR belowground?

This suggests to me that they might have been defleshed and sold to medical schools as teaching specimens. (H.H. Holmes had defleshed entire skeletons of his female victims, and sold them assembled to American medical schools.)

There have been innumerable amounts of skulls and other body parts found throughout London and in the Thames since the LVP. There is also the theory, which was prevalent at the time, that the heads of the victims were destroyed in furnaces.

All options are valid and we're unable to prove or disprove any of it.

[rjpalmer]

There have been innumerable amounts of skulls and other body parts found throughout London and in the Thames since the LVP. There is also the theory, which was prevalent at the time, that the heads of the victims were destroyed in furnaces.

All options are valid and we're unable to prove or disprove any of it.

The head of one of Victorian London's "torso" victims was found and conclusively identified.

And lo and behold, hiding it had not been the act of a 'sexual' murderer--it was a standard 'disposal' case.

Skull found in David Attenborough's garden was murder victim Julia Martha Thomas | Daily Mail Online

Kate Webster murdered and then dismembered her landlady Julia Thomas in 1879 in order to dispose of the body. (She even briefly assumed her landlady's identity to sell her property, which was her undoing). Webster took particularly care with the head because the head was the Victorian equivalent of DNA.

Without out it--provided there were not highly distinguishable birth marks or a club foot, etc. --a body could not be identified.

That fundamental forensic reality should not be lightly dismissed. 'Hiding a body' didn't mean the same then as it means now.

[Fiver]

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.

You are missing my points and presenting another straw man. Some of the other torso bits could have gone weeks without detection. The Pinchin Street Torso was investigated within a half hour, but it could have lain undisturbed for much longer than that.

As I previously mentioned, Pennett was new on the beat. Here is his testimony again.

"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."

Note the amount of variation. He went down Frederick Street - occasionally. When he did, he usually went as far as the stables, but cut it short once or twice. At 5:25 he went in the direction of the railway arch, but had no particular reason for doing so, which is a clear indication that Pennett did not check the arch every circuit of the beat.

Pennett was new to the beat. He was clearly varying what areas he was checking and the thoroughness of what he checked. He does not appear to have checked the archway every circuit of the beat. And he obviously could have chosen not to investigate the bundle the first time he noticed it. It could have been hours or even days before Pennett did so.

And we have no idea if the constable who had the beat the day before would have noticed the bundle. For him, the beat would have been routine and he could have fallen into the habit of seeing what he expected to see. He certainly wouldn't have been exploring parts of his route to learn them better like Pennett was.