Jack the Ripper & The Torso Murders

[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 couldnīt. 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 wonīt do.

[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]

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]

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.

[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]

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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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

[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

[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

[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.