Jack the Ripper & The Torso Murders

[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.

[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 canīt 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!”

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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?

[FrankO]

Based on the assumption that the person who placed the parts there was a serial killer of course.

Quite correct, Mike!

[FrankO]

Frank, you're a thoughtful investigator; I always read your postings, and I wouldn't dream of disrespecting you...

Thanks for the compliment, Mark!

But, really, mate!!!

-- Can you seriously maintain that when a chronically un-apprehended serial murderer places body parts at a location that is not only the basement of the Metropolitan Police's whizzy new HQ, but also literally 500 feet away from the seat of government and the centre of the Empire, it's because he doesn't want them to be found...?!?

I can seriously maintain that as a possibility, yes. Whether I think it’s the most likely possibility is another question.

While you seem to be more of a guy who takes a clear stance, and preferably a provocative one, I might add (although I could be wrong), I’m much more nuanced. So, even though I consider it a possibility, it isn’t the one I see as the most likely.

And regarding the thrill Torso Man might have felt, I can imagine he could also have felt it if the torso & leg wouldn’t have been found. After all, in that case, he had put them right under the workmen’s noses and, still, they weren’t able to find them and, as a consequence, the new headquarters of those dumb coppers ended up being built on one of his very masterpieces. What a laugh!

Mate, getting the torso and leg discovered in that location would have been the ultimate thrill, even with all the other 'successes' our man was racking up. It was the malignant narcissist's jackpot.

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?

Happy New Year!
Frank

[Herlock Sholmes]

Based on the assumption that the person who placed the parts there was a serial killer of course.

[Mark J D]

... As to the Whitehall vault, he might have chosen that because he thought the torso & leg would eventually be ‘lost in the construction’, it just being a coincidence that the killer had connections to the New Scotland Yard building site. Quite possibly.

Frank, you're a thoughtful investigator; I always read your postings, and I wouldn't dream of disrespecting you...

But, really, mate!!!

-- Can you seriously maintain that when a chronically un-apprehended serial murderer places body parts at a location that is not only the basement of the Metropolitan Police's whizzy new HQ, but also literally 500 feet away from the seat of government and the centre of the Empire, it's because he doesn't want them to be found...?!?





Mate, getting the torso and leg discovered in that location would have been the ultimate thrill, even with all the other 'successes' our man was racking up. It was the malignant narcissist's jackpot.

Bests,

Mark D.

[FrankO]

You may be correct about the Torso Killer deliberately seeking publicity, but that is not the only possible explanation. Pert of one of the victims was found in shrubbery in Battersea Park. To me, that sounds more like the killer ditching a body part quickly to avoid being caught with it, rather than an attempt at publicity. The part found on the Shelley estate was also found pitched into the shrubbery and we have no idea if the killer knew it was the Shelley estate. It certainly could have been placed in a easier to find location. The same is true of the Whitehall and Pinchin Street Torsos - it would have taken less effort to just drop them somewhere far easier to find. Only by chance was the Pinchin Street Torso found less than an hour after deposit instead of days later. Only by chance did a workman choose the same hiding place for his tools that the Torso Killer had chosen for hiding the Whitehall Torso. Without that, who knows when it would have been found.

Hi Fiver,

Whether it was to seek publicity, to shock, gain notoriety or all of them, we cannot know of course, but, as you say, the Shelley Estate, Whitehall vault and the Pinchin Street arch were no ‘easy’ choices.

As the killer (seems to have) put thought/premeditation into the latter two choices, I’m inclined to think that’s also true of the first. The toss over the railing of the Shelley Estate seems like a more casual thing in that he didn’t care if the thigh would be found or not, nor that it would be known that he was there (whereas the police wouldn’t know the exact locations from where he threw body parts in the river). It would have been better to have just tossed it into the river.

As to the Whitehall vault, he might have chosen that because he thought the torso & leg would eventually be ‘lost in the construction’, it just being a coincidence that the killer had connections to the New Scotland Yard building site. Quite possibly.

As to the Pinchin Street arch (and supposing there was just one Torso Man), he would have to have moved relatively quite a bit from the west to dump the torso there (seeing that he dumped most, if not all, the body parts (from) there). This location, unlike the Whitehall vault, doesn’t strike me as a place where the killer could have thought that the torso wouldn’t (easily) have been found. No easy choice, with little chance of not being discovered fairly quickly. And that might mean he wanted to say something with it. To me, it gives the impression of a rather half-baked attempt to be linked to the Ripper series.

Happy New Year to you!
Frank

[FrankO]

hi frank
yes ive often said, if the torso victims had more evisceration, or the ripper victims dismemberment (and or chapman or kelly had their heads fully removed) it would be game over for me... def same man. but who knows what goes on in the twisted mind of a serial killer and why they do or do not do certain things at certain times.

as it stands i think there are enough similarities that i lean heavily (although not totally convinced)they were the same man.

happy new year to you!

Hi Abby,

I agree with almost everything you wrote here, so I concede that it's possible that they were one and the same man. If they were one and the same, it’s certainly not a given that he would have wanted to get recognition for both series (although I see evidence to support that he wanted the recognition or notoriety the Ripper got, without success).

As you will have guessed (or already knew), I lean to them being different men.

Happy New Year to you too!
Frank

[FrankO]

Hi Frank.

But isn't that taking the exception and making it the general rule?

That Jackson was ultimately identified may mean nothing more than nifty police work coupled with the murderer screwing up. Murderers do make mistakes, despite taking pains not to, and (in my opinion) police ingenuity cannot be used as evidence of the murderer's or murderers' alleged indifference.

Let me return again to the Robert Durst case in Galveston, Texas. He cut up his neighbor, disposing of the parts in garbage bags and tossed them in Galveston Bay. Only the head--the most distinguishing part of a human body--was never discovered; the other parts washed ashore. Durst never explained what happened to the poor victim's head, but like Kate Webster in London in 1879, he may well have taken particular care that it wouldn't be found because identifying the victim would lead to unpleasant visits from the police.

Even so, Durst screwed-up dramatically and left a receipt for an optometrist in the bottom of one of the garbage bags which allowed the police to trace his eyeglasses and thus him. It doesn't indicate that Durst didn't know the victim or care (he did); only that he made a mistake.

To me, Elizabeth Jackson's undergarment could have been a similar oversight. I don't feel comfortable in using it as evidence that the other victims were unknown to the murder or murderers.

If the murderer wanted to put on a "display" and had no personal relationship to the victims, why didn't he display the head--the most shocking and horrible display of all? The Victorian murderer Fred Baker did, in Alton.

Is it merely a coincidence that the most identifiable feature of the victims was never put on "display" and never located?

Personally, I think not.

Happy New Year.

Hi Roger,

Perhaps I was agreeing a bit too much with Christer (sorry, Chirster) and didn’t express my point well enough.

As I said on page 3 of this thread, I see 3 possible motives for the killer to have cut off the heads of his victims. One would be that he could be (easily) linked to them; two would be that he did it to facilitate getting rid of the bodies and three would be that he did it because he liked to.

My point was that, even if the victim could be identified and be linked to him, the police would still have a very difficult task arriving at the killer’s doorstep.
Unless they caught him in the act of killing, the killer came forward to confess, he could be identified by one or more witnesses as the man seen dumping one or some of the body parts (which still wouldn’t actually prove that he did) or he made a mistake as you suggest, there would be very little, if any, chance at all that they would catch him. I see that as the general rule, due to the police of the day having nothing at their disposal in the form of forensic detection methods.

Which is shown by what happened in the case of Elizabeth Jackson: even though they knew her identity, they still weren’t able to find her killer. That is all I wanted to say.

Of course, you make a good point: if the killer with no link to the victim wanted to shock, then putting the head somewhere on display would be the most horrifying thing he could do, so why (other than perhaps the head of the 1884 victim) were none of the heads of the victims ever put on "display" and never located?

My guess would not be that he cut off the heads just because he liked to and could (i.e. aggressive/offensive dismemberment), or, at least, not only because he liked to and could.

Happy New Year to you too!
Frank

[Fisherman]

So howīs it going, Fiver? Did you get around to reading the Morning Advertiser? And did you see how it is said that the place where the leg was found was where it seemed that earth had been thrown up in a mound, or something such?
That is why it is reasoned that the leg could have been accidentally buried. And those who suggest it will likely have weighed in how it was very dark in these vaults, meaning that they acknowledge that the limb may have been missed out on, perhaps only having looked like a mud formation or stones in the gloom.
You say that Jasper Waring says that he did not see any signs of the earth having been disturbed, but I fail to see what impact that would have. Once the earth had been thrown over the leg, it arguably was not disturbed any further until the dog dug the limb up. As far as I can see, that does not in any way impact the question whether the leg was accidentally or intentionally buried.

The one point you had that would have made a difference was how the leg and the arm were buried on different levels. And as it turned out, there never was any arm at all, was there? And no two level burials.

When I supplied you with that information, you could go two ways. You could either say ”Oh, it seems I was wrong, sorry about that. That changes the matter entirely, and I must now retract my former statement. Thank you for putting me on the right track”. Or you could go ”To hell with that, it may well be that the leg was buried to hide the deed anyway!”

I am not in the least surprised that you chose the latter route. You always do, it seems. So far, I have not heard a iot from you about how I set you right on the business of whether or not the Torso killer cut his victims open all the way down, Ripper style. You have totally ignored it, and failed to acknowledge how it puts a very different hue on the matter of a common killer than the one you suggested. You said ”A applies, therefore it follows…” but it was B that applied. The exact opposite. And that is a game changer, but you ignore it.

Time and again, you come on here with a very bad attitude, and you present total misapprehensions as some sort of facts. Then, when shown that you have gotten things totally wrong, you shoot from the hip about other things altogether. Or ignore it.

Who is to put any trust in you now, Fiver? Once we can see that you are woefully underinformed about the things you are trying to push as truths, why would anybody listen to anything you have to say?

You now try to reintroduce Lehmere into this thread, and I advice against it. There are threads for the carman, use them instead. All I will say is that I find it amusing that you should have the arrogance to think that your interpretation of what Hebbert says should be given any credence at all, after having demonstrated with extreme clarity that you do not know what you are talking about on item after item.

A final word; It need not be like this. I will happily let you in on how I, years ago, made the same mistake as you about that arm, after having read Trows book on the Torso cases. He too forgot to check the information, and it nestled itself into the book.
I was corrected by Debra Arif back then, and I too had two choices: To say ”Oh, I was wrong, thanks for correcting me”, or to go ”To hell with that, I am right anyway!”

I chose the first option, and to be frank, I never even pondered the second one. Going down that path would be factual suicide. It would make me look like a fool. That is how it is and how it genuinely should be.

Which brings us to the last sentence in your post: Flatly ruling out that at least some of the parts missing could have been buried wonīt do, you say. Thereby, you seem to imply that I would have flatly denied that this could have been so.

Of course, I never did that, and I never would. ANY missing parts from ANY torso deed MAY have been buried. Or burnt. Or thrown in the garbage. Or in the Thames. That is the point, is it not - when we do not have a part, we cannot say what happened to it.

We therefore can only go by what we DO have. And what we DO have is one (1) example of a part being found under earth, and we donīt know whether or not it was accidentally buried or intentionally buried. Plus we know that IF it was intentionally buried, it would be outright stupid of the killer to do so with the intention of hiding the deed, since he also left a large torso on display in the same space.

That, I believe, covers the facts nicely. The REAL facts, that is.