Jack the Ripper & The Torso Murders

[Fiver]

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

PC Long also found the Goulston Street Graffito on the first night of his beat. Which is evidence that the killers were lucky, not that the killers timed everything perfectly. It's possible to time around a beat that has become routine for the constable. A new man on the beat is far less predictable.

[Fiver]

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

Based on that reasoning there can be no fruitful investigation of any of the Ripper or Torso killings, since no one can be linked to any of them or any of the other unsolved murders of the time. Not one shred of forensics or eyewitness testimony points to anyone in any of these cases.

[Fiver]

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.

The killer's failure to conceal the identity of one victim is not proof that they did not try to hide the victim's identity. Only one victim was identified by a scar on their hand, and not all of Elizabeth Jackson's family thought the body was her.

[Fisherman]

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.

I have written about this case here in Sweden, so I am well aquainted with it. Are you suggesting that if Webster wanted to hide the ID of her victim, that means that all heads that are missing are always and inevitably evidence of a will to hide the identity of the victim?
Or are you trying to make some other point?

[Fiver]

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

Wasn't the arch at Pinchin Street fairly recent construction? Or am I misremembering?

[Fisherman]

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.

No, it couldn´t. Pennet describes hpw he, on back to back rounds, looked in the arch both times. Realistically, that tells us that the body was always going to be found quickly.

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.

We actually know that he did not check the arch on every beat. And we know that when he said that he had no particular reason for checking the arch, that was not to say that he was disinterested in the arch. He only says that he decided tpo check it, but not for any specific reason. And we know that he checked it on back to back rounds, so we can conclude that the arch was likely in the extreme to be checked when Pennett was around.

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.

Back to back checks, Fiver. Hours? Yes. Days? Not in any way likely, and likelihoods are what we must go by.

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.

But the constable from the day before was not doing the rounds on the morning in question. Pennett did. Meaning that this PC - that you claim was making very thorough checks to get to know the beat - would most likely find the torso double quick.
As for deciding for the other PC how lazy and disnclined he was to search arches, that just won´t do.

[Fisherman]

Based on that reasoning there can be no fruitful investigation of any of the Ripper or Torso killings, since no one can be linked to any of them or any of the other unsolved murders of the time. Not one shred of forensics or eyewitness testimony points to anyone in any of these cases.

You may have missed it, but the sentence you quoted me on was of a general nature.

[Fisherman]

The killer's failure to conceal the identity of one victim is not proof that they did not try to hide the victim's identity.

And missing parts from a body is not proof of a desire to hide the identity of the victim.

Only one victim was identified by a scar on their hand, and not all of Elizabeth Jackson's family thought the body was her.

Yes, one victim WAS identified, and that victim was identified conclusively on account of how the killer had not cared about removing bodily marks that were specific to the victim. Furthermore, he had wrapped parts of her in her own clothes, marked with a name and all, and easily traceable back to the victims identity.

More victims had marks that could have given their identities away, so we may see that the killer did not take even basic precautions to hide the identities of his victims. Furthermore, since we know that the one identified victim was a prostitute, we are dealing with the distinct possibility that the killer targetted unfortunates and that there was never any risk in the first place that the identities of his victims would lead the police to his treshold.

[Michael W Richards]

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

Ripperologists, to name one group, have been presuming its acceptable for over 135 years Fish.

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.

There is the evidence that validates my comment above. The Canonical Group is as it infers, a collective agreement, not an established "series". The murder that did not show evidence of evisceration or any mutilation beyond a single cut, Liz Stride, is the only one that matches that criteria. And it seems by the evidence in that murder that a single cut is all that was intended. So stating that the one murder in the "Canonical" Group is evidence of his inability to complete his desires is, at best, a guess. Guessing is fine, but if you intend to have your guesses find "Canonical" agreement with others, some actual evidence needs to be presented. Presumptions and guesses have gone as far as they can go I believe without something substantial to support them.

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 don´t know, and so we cannot tell the series apart by way of second guessing the psychological implications of the murders.

I know that it seems perfectly rational to you to suggest that there is little difference between someone who is focused on murder and abdominal mutilation with short duration public events, and someone who dismembers in secret with untold amounts of time with the victims remains, but I would disagree with that.

You have used an as yet uproven theory of a connected number of murders to begin this, and then you have demonstrably different acts which you seek to marry to the same individual killer, based on the idea that we dont know anything about the killers motivations or psychology so we cant assume they are disparate events. In all, its just you guessing. I for one would be pleased if you would remember that sand foundation you are building on.

[Fisherman]

Today, 05:17 PM
Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
There can be no fruitful investigative effort if the victim cannot be linked to the killer.

Ripperologists, to name one group, have been presuming its acceptable for over 135 years Fish.

And still, just as I say, there can be no fruitful investigative effort if the victim cannot be linked to the killer. How would that work, Michael? Why would a killer of strangers, who had no link at all to his victim, fear getting caught by way of an identification of that victim? Please explain!

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.

There is the evidence that validates my comment above. The Canonical Group is as it infers, a collective agreement, not an established "series". The murder that did not show evidence of evisceration or any mutilation beyond a single cut, Liz Stride, is the only one that matches that criteria. And it seems by the evidence in that murder that a single cut is all that was intended. So stating that the one murder in the "Canonical" Group is evidence of his inability to complete his desires is, at best, a guess. Guessing is fine, but if you intend to have your guesses find "Canonical" agreement with others, some actual evidence needs to be presented. Presumptions and guesses have gone as far as they can go I believe without something substantial to support them.

Your take that the killer wanted just the one cut to Strides neck is every bit as much a guess as is my view (the one favored by most ripperologists) that he was interrupted. So yes, by all means, bring on your evidence!

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 don´t know, and so we cannot tell the series apart by way of second guessing the psychological implications of the murders.

I know that it seems perfectly rational to you to suggest that there is little difference between someone who is focused on murder and abdominal mutilation with short duration public events, and someone who dismembers in secret with untold amounts of time with the victims remains, but I would disagree with that.

Please do. It alters absolutely nothing for me.

You have used an as yet uproven theory of a connected number of murders to begin this, and then you have demonstrably different acts which you seek to marry to the same individual killer, based on the idea that we dont know anything about the killers motivations or psychology so we cant assume they are disparate events. In all, its just you guessing. I for one would be pleased if you would remember that sand foundation you are building on.

Then what shall we call your take, Michael? Air? Farts? Laughing gas? Surely not "proven", eh?

There is, as I can remind you, no demand from the administrators of these boards to only write about proven stuff. The one way forward when things cannot be proven, is to suggest different scenarios and to work from that. The reason I connect the series is the large amount of similarities, some of which are rare in the extreme. If they are not connected, they are instead a mind boggling collection of astounding coincidences, cut open abdomens, excised uteri and hearts, removed abdominal walls, stolen rings and all.
My view is, as far as I can tell, gaining ground every day. Fifteen years ago, making the suggestion I make would get you laughed off the boards. A few decades back, this discussion could not have been had. That is a very, very different matter today, lamented by some but welcomed by others.
It is reminiscent of the dinosaurs in a funny way. They ruled the earth until they got extinguished. My humble guess is that you are about to join that self same group, although it will take time.

But I can wait.

[The Rookie Detective]

Wasn't the arch at Pinchin Street fairly recent construction? Or am I misremembering?

Yes, fairly recently. I am not sure of the exact time frame, but it was noted in multiple newspapers that the archway had been recently constructed.

I believe this is relevant.


RD

[Herlock Sholmes]

It’s my opinion (so no attempted ‘refutation’ is needed) that the alleged connection stems from a desire for something new. Perhaps a sense of inertia within the subject as a whole? It’s become a bit of a crusade. When cutting up bodies and hacking around inside it’s hardly remarkable that similarities occur; the argument isn’t an impressive one. So we have torsos that can’t even be connected to each other. We can’t even assume that they were actually murders. Then we have the huge differences that we are all aware of. The differences massively outweigh the supposed similarities. I don’t understand the ‘excitement’ over this topic. To me it’s as clear as day that they weren’t connected. But that’s just my opinion.

[The Rookie Detective]

It’s my opinion (so no attempted ‘refutation’ is needed) that the alleged connection stems from a desire for something new. Perhaps a sense of inertia within the subject as a whole? It’s become a bit of a crusade. When cutting up bodies and hacking around inside it’s hardly remarkable that similarities occur; the argument isn’t an impressive one. So we have torsos that can’t even be connected to each other. We can’t even assume that they were actually murders. Then we have the huge differences that we are all aware of. The differences massively outweigh the supposed similarities. I don’t understand the ‘excitement’ over this topic. To me it’s as clear as day that they weren’t connected. But that’s just my opinion.

Even though I disagree with you on this Herlock, I admire your views because every thread needs a balance for it to retain a degree of contextual integrity.
I find that the best threads are those that offer different views and ways of thinking, and that's by far the best way to raise open discussion.

I believe one of the main issues with both the Ripper and Torso series respectively, is that nobody can be sure the correct number of victims and/or the correct parameters of time relating to the killer/s first and last kills.

It's the same concept as trying to statistically analyse the will of the people through democratic voting, but only half the people vote and so the full true picture is never realised and considered.

As they say...

"72% of all statistics are completely made up."

That is Ripperology in a nutshell.

RD

[The Rookie Detective]

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.

An absolutely brilliant post.

This is a key example of the fact that not all the torso killings can be attributed to THE torso killer, ergo, of Whitehall and Pinchin Street fame.

I knew of this case of Webster, and of course the Barnes Mystery...but hadn't realized that this related the same case.
By highlighting the fact that a female killer chose to dismember another woman, bury the head to conceal her identity and then boil the victim's body and THEN dump the parts into the Thames, proves that anything is possible.

We know that she was hanged in 1879, so any torso killing after that weren't her.

But something I do find rather interesting is that when Kate was hanged, she had a young child, possibly a son.

The process of boiling the victims torso occurred in the 1902 Lambeth case.

Just wondering if the 2 are connected in some way.

I do have a working hypothesis on the 1902 case that I have been formulating and will attempt to post later today.

I believe the 1902 Lambeth case was also the Torso killer


RD

[Fisherman]

It’s my opinion (so no attempted ‘refutation’ is needed) that the alleged connection stems from a desire for something new. Perhaps a sense of inertia within the subject as a whole? It’s become a bit of a crusade. When cutting up bodies and hacking around inside it’s hardly remarkable that similarities occur; the argument isn’t an impressive one. So we have torsos that can’t even be connected to each other. We can’t even assume that they were actually murders. Then we have the huge differences that we are all aware of. The differences massively outweigh the supposed similarities. I don’t understand the ‘excitement’ over this topic. To me it’s as clear as day that they weren’t connected. But that’s just my opinion.

Nope. The connection stems from wanting to have something very old properly recognized.