Jack the Ripper & The Torso Murders

[Abby Normal]

duplicate

[Abby Normal]

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.

your the one who keeps bringing him up.

[Fisherman]

Did you read up on that arm, Fiver?

[Fiver]

If you read Charles Hebbert, you will find that he mentions that a leg was found some time after the torso. But he mentions no arm, Fiver.

Now, why would that be?

If you read Charles Hebbert, you would see that Hebbert's analysis rather conclusively rules out your favorite suspect, Charles Lechmere.

"The incisions were evidently made by design and were skilfuly performed, as by a man who had some knowledge of the position of joints and the readiest means pf separating limbs - such knowledge as a butcher or slaughterer would possess. They do not indicate a special anatomical knowledge of the human body." - Charles Hebbert

Lechmere was a delivery driver who later became a grocer, not a butcher or knacker.

As to Hebbert's disagreement with the Times account, clearly one of them must be wrong. Obviously, the solution is to look at other sources and see which version they support. The answer is that the other newspaper accounts (Lloyd's Weekly, Sunday Dispatch, Daily Telegraph, Daily News, Illustrated Police News, Morning Post, Sunday People) support Hebbert's version - that only the lower leg was was found. Much like Robert Paul's time estimate, the Times account must be discounted in the face of overwhelming evidence.

Only one body part buried makes it more possible that the burial was accidental, but it still seems unlikely. It would require multiple workman to completely miss spotting the leg bundle and for both Waring and Angle to be wrong about there being no sign of recent digging above the leg.

It also means even more of that victim was undiscovered, so flatly ruling out that at least some of those missing parts were buried makes no sense.

[Fisherman]

How is that arm coming, Fiver? The one that seemed to you to prove two different burial depths?

Here īs a lead for you. Instead of the Times of the 23rd, try the Morning Advertiser from the same date. See if you can spot that arm therein! And while you are at it, try and see if the hard packed earth over the leg was commented on in the same fashion there.

Once you get that far, read Hebberts extremely detailed description of the leg and foot found at the site. And try and find the arm there.

Once you are done, you will be faced with the same thing as when you said that the Torso killer only severed torsos horisontally and through bone, while the Ripper cut abdomens open vertically through soft tissue. That was a clincher for you - two different killers, surely!

But you were wrong. The facts were on my side, not yours.

What if that just happened again, Fiver? Will that humble you and make you say ”I was wrong - the evidence is on your side, not mine”?

What does it take for you to acknowledge having stepped in it, Fiver?

Happy New Year again. May it bring insights, peace, fruitful debates, and put an end to useless quibbles.

I īm off.

[Fiver]

I will not answer any posts where you call Edward ”von Stow”. Grow up, please.

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]

You may well be right, PC. The impression I've always had was that the thigh thrown over railings into the garden of the Shelley estate, the Whitehall and the Pinchin Street torso were all attempts by the Torso killer to be more interesting, shocking, intriguing or something like that rather than anything else. I can't help but wonder if he dumped one of his torsos in Pinchin Street for the exact reason you suggest: that he resented the publicity and, with it, the notoriety that the Ripper was getting and he was not.

Had the Pinchin Street torso actually been dumped "smack bang in the heart of Ripper territory", as some have it, instead of just outside of it, and if the Ripper victims had been killed a great deal more to the west, then I'd be more prepared to believe there was just the one perpetrator.

All the best,
Frank

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.

[Fisherman]

The evidence argues strongly against an accidental burial.

"He thought the leg was found at a depth of only four or five inches when the stones were removed. The ground where the leg was discovered was very hard, as if the ground had been trodden upon." - William Angle - 23 October 1888 Times

"The arm was found some 12 inches down. The dog refused to work when many police came, as they did soon after. There was no appearance in the earth there of its having been disturbed for some time." - Jasper Waring - 23 October 1888 Times

Two limbs buried at two different depths means two different burials, which is vanishingly unlikely to be accidental.

While no other body parts were found to have been buried, we cannot say whether or not the missing pieces were buried. The head and upper torso of the first victim were never found. The head, lower torso, and one leg of the second victim were never found. The head of the third victim was never found. The head, arms. and legs of the fourth victim were never found.

The buried parts of the second victim were missed by multiple searches by men and dogs before finally being discovered. so the idea that the Torso Killer buried at least some of the unfound parts seems likely and certainly can't be ruled out.

If you read Charles Hebbert, you will find that he mentions that a leg was found some time after the torso. But he mentions no arm, Fiver.

Now, why would that be?

[Fiver]

Two parts that we know of - and that may have been accidentally buried. None of the other parts were buried at all.

The evidence argues strongly against an accidental burial.

"He thought the leg was found at a depth of only four or five inches when the stones were removed. The ground where the leg was discovered was very hard, as if the ground had been trodden upon." - William Angle - 23 October 1888 Times

"The arm was found some 12 inches down. The dog refused to work when many police came, as they did soon after. There was no appearance in the earth there of its having been disturbed for some time." - Jasper Waring - 23 October 1888 Times

Two limbs buried at two different depths means two different burials, which is vanishingly unlikely to be accidental.

While no other body parts were found to have been buried, we cannot say whether or not the missing pieces were buried. The head and upper torso of the first victim were never found. The head, lower torso, and one leg of the second victim were never found. The head of the third victim was never found. The head, arms. and legs of the fourth victim were never found.

The buried parts of the second victim were missed by multiple searches by men and dogs before finally being discovered. so the idea that the Torso Killer buried at least some of the unfound parts seems likely and certainly can't be ruled out.

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer,

The above returns me once again to poor Kate's face. Our man's knife-work there was both gross and fine -- the entire spectrum, in fact: savagely deep cuts as well as -- bafflingly! -- tiny nicks to her eyelids. What is the reason behind the latter? Were the eyelids cut first -- or last? Either way, why the 'change of gear'...?

Bests,

Mark D.

Echoes of Tabram, perhaps…? I have no idea what came first, I can only offer a guess - and that says the finer cuts were the last ones. The so called inverted V:s were collateral damage from the failed nose cutting attempt. So says Jon Smythe (Wickerman) and I agree very much, but the nicks to the eyelids are a different matter. I have no explanation to offer, although I am tempted to think they had a symbolic reason for the killer. After that, it is anybodys guess.

[Mark J D]

[...] The killer had apparently tried to take Kellys head off by way of knife, but failed, and he likely did not have the time to carefully cut the face away. And so he may have settled for the next best thing.

Hi Christer,

The above returns me once again to poor Kate's face. Our man's knife-work there was both gross and fine -- the entire spectrum, in fact: savagely deep cuts as well as -- bafflingly! -- tiny nicks to her eyelids. What is the reason behind the latter? Were the eyelids cut first -- or last? Either way, why the 'change of gear'...?

Bests,

Mark D.

[Fisherman]

Is Von Stow claiming that 66 year old Maria Forsdyke, with no previous training or equipment, let alone the space to work, opened an illegal horse slaughtering operation? How did she keep the mess and stench a secret from Edward and Charlotte Dalton, who also lived at 18 St George Street, let alone the people who lived in other houses nearby?

Back in the real world, delivering meat to a butcher is just as likely to turn someone into an expert at anatomy as delivering meat to a restaurant would turn someone into an expert chef.

Charles Lechmere was a van driver and later a grocer. Other members of his family became cats meat vendors, with the first known example being in 1891, after the murders. None were butchers or knackers. A cats meat vendor bought boiled horsemeat from distributors who bought it from the slaughterhouses. A cat's meat vendor dealt with meat, fat, and gristle. The hair, hide, bones, hooves, and organs had been removed at the slaughterhouse.

You'd learn more about anatomy by eating a piece of fried chicken than by being a cat's meat vendor.

I will not answer any posts where you call Edward ”von Stow”. Grow up, please.

[Fiver]

There were - as has been shown by Edward Stow - people along the cats meat chain who circumnavigated the law and handled large and bony chunks of horses, instead of mere cubes of flesh.

Is Von Stow claiming that 66 year old Maria Forsdyke, with no previous training or equipment, let alone the space to work, opened an illegal horse slaughtering operation? How did she keep the mess and stench a secret from Edward and Charlotte Dalton, who also lived at 18 St George Street, let alone the people who lived in other houses nearby?

Back in the real world, delivering meat to a butcher is just as likely to turn someone into an expert at anatomy as delivering meat to a restaurant would turn someone into an expert chef.

Charles Lechmere was a van driver and later a grocer. Other members of his family became cats meat vendors, with the first known example being in 1891, after the murders. None were butchers or knackers. A cats meat vendor bought boiled horsemeat from distributors who bought it from the slaughterhouses. A cat's meat vendor dealt with meat, fat, and gristle. The hair, hide, bones, hooves, and organs had been removed at the slaughterhouse.

You'd learn more about anatomy by eating a piece of fried chicken than by being a cat's meat vendor.

[Abby Normal]

im on the fence if the missing heads meant he was def trying to hide identity. the tottenham head placed in front of the heavily patrolled building in public makes me think probably not. it makes me think he had special purposes in mind for the heads. either keeping them as trophys or something like placing them somewhere that had meaning to him and jut not found.
one things for sure he def was not trying to hide parts /bodies.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

I think you know it, but I look at it a little differently, although I do see some of the same fact-based similarities as you do.

Just looking at what was done to each of the victims in both series – so, leaving the disarticulations apart:

• I see that the faces of the 1873 and 1884 victims were attacked in similar fashion to Eddowes’ face.
• Out of all 7 cases, there’s only one sure case in which the uterus went missing: that of 1873; and one possible case: that of 1884
• It’s impossible to say whether or not the culprit kept any of the unfound organs or other pieces behind. They were just never found. It’s quite possible that they were only cut loose from the body while cutting the body up in pieces and they simply have been tossed in the river and immediately sunk or were just never seen/found.
• Then, there are 3 torso victims who received cuts from sternum to pubes: the Rainham victim, Jackson and the Pinchin Street victim. Of the first we don’t know whether it opened the abdomen or not; it’s not mentioned and, therefore, to me at least, it seems not to have been deep enough to open. Obviously, Jackson’s abdominal cuts were clearly very similar to Chapman’s and Kelly’s. And the one inflicted on the Pinchin Street victim was clearly superficial only.
• latter was only shallow, the one on the Rainham victim we don’t know, but doesn’t seem to have been so deep that it opened up the abdomen, leaving Jackson as the only one whose belly was certainly opened up in Ripper fashion.

If we look at the Ripper victims and considering the perpetrator only had considerable time in Kelly’s case, we see that a lot more was done to them. Chapman’s abdomen was cut away in 3 pieces, of which one – containing the belly button – was missing, i.e. taken away by the killer, just as the uterus had been taken away. Eddowes’ body received the cut from sternum to pubes and in addition was rather severely cut in the groin area and face. And Kelly, who, as far as the mutilations are concerned, might be seen as having approached the Ripper’s fantasy the closest. Her breasts were cut off, her legs were denuded, her arms and one calf were severely cut, her face was savagely cut and her heart was taken away. Even Jackson didn’t look like this (if we leave the dismemberment aside), even though we know her killer had ‘all the time in the world’ with her.

Then, of course, there’s the fact that the Pinchin Street victim was dumped ‘smack bang in the middle’ of the Ripper’s territory. But it really was not ‘smack bang in the middle’, it was more on the outskirts of it.

Furthermore, yes, the series overlapped, but with the very striking difference in frequency. Where the Ripper struck every few weeks on average (4 if you count C5, almost 8 if we also include Tabram and MacKenzie), Torso Man killed every 2 years and over 3 months on average. The way I see it, if they are supposed to be one man, this temporary change would need an important reason, not something like he didn’t have a private workplace at his disposal (which, the Whitehall victim would debunk) or he just wanted to try something else.

As far as shock value is concerned, we can be quite sure that Torso Man dumped on land to create a shock and this seems especially true of the thigh tossed over the railing of the Shelley Estate and the Whitehall and Pinchin Street victims. However, we can’t say for sure the Ripper left his victims for shock value. It could just as well be that he just wanted easy prey in the form of women prostituting themselves out on the street and so, there would be every chance that he had to settle for doing his thing out in the open, having no choice but to leave them where he’d attacked & killed them. We don’t know and, therefore, can’t say whether shocking the public was on his mind when killing his victims.

Of course, if the Ripper just wanted easy prey and didn’t want to plan all that much, the contrast with especially the Whitehall torso would become as large as life, as, obviously, that could not have been done without at least some premeditation.

The same sort of thing goes for the ruses Torso Man and the Ripper used. While it seems more probable that the former had to actively lure or convince his victims to go with him to some private place, the Ripper may have left the initiative completely to his victims in the sense that he would let them approach and accost him, so that the only thing he would have to do was agree with them to go where they led him and to show them the money needed. Of course, he may have been more active, just as the possible story of the Ripper in the Lloyd’s Weekly News of 30 September 1888 suggests, but it’s certainly not a given.

Again, this is just my way of looking at it. But we generally agree about something you wrote before and that is that, even though there are similarities, the torsos were clearly less mutilated than the Ripper victims. Or something along those lines.

Cheers,
Frank

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!