Jack the Ripper & The Torso Murders

[John Wheat]

The Ripper was clever enough to be able to enact his murders without being seen or heard, even when there were potential witnesses close by, and to avoid being caught. How cunning was Bury to claim to the police that his wife had suicided, but he had then inflicted upon her body Ripper like mutilations because he was afraid of being suspected of being the Ripper?

But we've drifted off topic, so back to the Torso murders.

Bury was cunning enough to get his wife up to Dundee falsely claiming he had a job there. Also forging paperwork. Burys actions in Dundee may seem strange however it seems to me that Bury was having some sort of a breakdown by this point.

[New Ford Shunt]

Very fair comments NFS.

The date that Faicloth met Jackson was indirectly stated by him. I would need to double-check my notes, but I believe it was around the 29th November 1888 (I need to confirm that so please don't quote me on that just yet)

Faircloth stated his recollection of when he first made the acquaintance of Jackson.

When we look at the timings, Jackson was due in September; which would have made her around 6 months pregnant at the time of her murder. The evidence from her mother, and all other recorded sources supports this time-frame.

Faircloth states that they soon after traveled together to Ipswich, and so it would appear that Jackson was looking for an escape, or an adventure of some kind; to get away as it were.
Based on the timings, she must have conceived in December/January; ergo, very soon after getting together with Faircloth.

I have no data regarding how or when Victorian women found out they were with child; apart from the obvious. But it would be fair to assume that once Jackson got past her first Trimester, ergo, past 3 months, it's much more likely she would have known she was pregnant. This would then fit in with the timing of her coming back to Whitechapel.

In other words, we know the date that she returned to London, and we know almost certainly that she would have known she was pregnant when she made that journey.

And so, what was her motivation?

Faircloth finished his work after 4 months, but when we combine the fact that they were known for having a tempestuous relationship, it would be fair to state that Jackson may have wanted to be closer to her family once she realized she was pregnant.


RD

Hi RD,

Yes, without doing a trawl on which newspapers reported it, the 29th November 1888 is mentioned, and others just state the end of November (I think there are a couple that say early December too IIRC). On the issue of when Elizabeth fell pregnant we unfortunately have to consider all the following points:

• Hebbert states that the "placenta would indicate that the pregnancy had advanced to between six and seven months" which places his estimate of conception at some point between the start of November and the start of December 1888.
• According to the newspapers, Elizabeth told her mother Catherine that she was due the first week of September. We don't know whether Elizabeth was making an informed statement when she said that or if she was creating a due date to coincide with her leaving Chelsea. IF she was making what she believed to be an informed comment, we have no idea of how she had calculated this. We have to remember that at this time 'Reckoning Tables' and estimates based on 'The Quickening' were still very much in use. Reckoning Tables assumed a Quickening of 4.5 months when in reality the first time a baby may move in utero can be anything from the 3rd to the 6th month (and even that is open to debate). She may have been influenced by midwifery tales from Ireland, so we can't even assume she is basing her statement on lower class social understanding in England at that time. Other than state that Elizabeth was pregnant and was in the mid to late stages of that pregnancy, it's dangerous to speculate further based on this evidence.
• Average modern estimation is 40 weeks based on the first day of your last menstrual period. They obvious key here is the word average as we all know pregnancies can be less than or exceed those 40 weeks. Just because Elizabeth probably met Faircloth on the 29th November (which makes 40 weeks from there the first week in September) we cannot say for certain she fell pregnant as soon as they met, although this is possible. Again, it's impossible to speculate.
• It is possible that Elizabeth may have also been suffering from Polycystic Ovary Syndrome, which can cause irregular or heavy menstrual bleeds, which may have skewed Elizabeth's perception of when she conceived.
• Dr McCoy who first examined the abdomen is reported to have stated that he believed Elizabeth was 8 months pregnant at the time of her death, meaning an even earlier conception date.
• Dr Bond is on record in some of the newspapers as stating he also believed her to be 8 months pregnant, although I would state that as Bond and Hebbert had worked closely on the Westminster Hospital reports, it seems that this maybe more a case of misreporting on the part of the Press - but again, it muddies the waters and makes it extremely difficult to count or discount anything.
• And just when we think things couldn't get more confused Faircloth is reported as saying that he believed her to be 4 months pregnant at the end of April when he left her - meaning conception was around new year.

So, we are up against it, Faircloth may have been the father, or he may not. Elizabeth may have been already pregnant when she left for Ipswich with him, or she may not. Elizabeth may have 'ran away' after less than 24 hours of knowing Faircloth because she already knew she was potentially pregnant and needed for whatever reason to have some stability with Faircloth......or.....she may not.....

[GBinOz]

Bury was cunning enough to get his wife up to Dundee falsely claiming he had a job there. Also forging paperwork. Burys actions in Dundee may seem strange however it seems to me that Bury was having some sort of a breakdown by this point.

Hi John,

Bury was also cunning enough to use his wife's inheritance for his own purposes, setting himself up in his own sawdust business, but stupid enough to then squander the proceeds on drunken binges. I see him as, to use the Australian vernacular, a no-hoper, embittered at not receiving the respect to which he felt he was entitled, and desperate to be thought of as someone superior to others. I agree that he may have had some sort of breakdown that lead him to imagine that by assuming a persona of a vicious serial killer he would be perceived as someone to be admired. IMO, rat cunning does not equate to intellect. JMO.

Cheers, George

[Fiver]

The Ripper was clever enough to be able to enact his murders without being seen or heard, even when there were potential witnesses close by, and to avoid being caught.

Yes, the Ripper wasn't caught, but how does that imply that he was clever? If anything, his repeated near escapes imply a man who did not learn from his mistakes and escaped based on nothing more than luck.

[John Wheat]

Hi John,

Bury was also cunning enough to use his wife's inheritance for his own purposes, setting himself up in his own sawdust business, but stupid enough to then squander the proceeds on drunken binges. I see him as, to use the Australian vernacular, a no-hoper, embittered at not receiving the respect to which he felt he was entitled, and desperate to be thought of as someone superior to others. I agree that he may have had some sort of breakdown that lead him to imagine that by assuming a persona of a vicious serial killer he would be perceived as someone to be admired. IMO, rat cunning does not equate to intellect. JMO.

Cheers, George

I still don't think you can rule Bury out on intellectual grounds.

[Lewis C]

Hi LC,

I have to admit that I struggle to take Bury seriously as a person of interest. After murdering his wife he went to the police (some days later) and stated that he awoke from a drunken stupor to find his wife dead with a rope around her neck. An obvious suicide, according to Bury. He then stated that he mutilated her and stuffed her in a box because he was afraid he might be suspected of being JtR....Huh...WHAT??????.

I find it difficult to believe that it was anyone but Bury that was responsible for the chalk graffiti messages. A symptom of his delusions of grandeur, and an attempt to further intimidate his wife. His alleged conversation with his hangman adds to the evidence that he was an attention seeker craving to be thought of as a special person of note.

Description of Bury from the Dundee Courier 12 Feb. 1889:

"In his own clothes he was a fairly decent looking man but in prison garb . . . he strikes one as being weak minded. Bury is of fresh complexion, his hair is dark brown, his moustache and whiskers being a shade lighter. He has a somewhat timid and excitable appearance. Viewed from the side he presents features somewhat of the Jewish or Semite type. He has dark but not heavy eyebrows and his eyes are keen and sharp. His nose is long and prominent, his cheeks thin, and his beard sparse and straggling . . . he appeared a diminutive and insignificant creature."

I tend to agree with the above, and regard Bury as a person of limited intellect, a drunken bully who craved to be thought of as someone special, who murdered his wife in a drunken rage and lacked the intellect to be JtR.

Cheers, George

I note that the description from the Dundee Courier says that he comes across rather differently in prison garb than in his own clothes. So the assessment is dependent on the clothes that he was wearing, which makes it a rather superficial assessment.

[The Rookie Detective]

Have we been missing something with the Whitehall Mystery, that may have been right in front of our eyes?

I've just been sifting through some of the newspaper reports, and comparing them with some of the excellent viewpoints from others on this site, and noticed something I wanted to re-highlight to get your views and feedback.

The Whitehall Torso was placed in the vault of the cellar that had only been constructed within the 3 months before the body was found.
There was a trench through the area, where the new sewer line was being constructed/finalized that effectively separated the Torso from the rest of the vault, ergo, the person who placed the torso needed to traverse the trench and place the body on the other side.

We also know that despite the police having searched the area to try and locate any additional body parts, they somehow missed a left leg that was discovered by the reporter and his dog over 2 weeks after the initial torso. (He may have had a tip-off that there were more body parts to be found.) The leg was found on the opposite side of the vault to where the main torso was found, ergo, close, but not together.

And so how can this all be explained?

We have often pondered on how and when the killer managed to place the torso where it was found.

But what if we have been looking at this from the wrong angle?

I know that some believe that the victim was murdered in the cellar, and even the newspapers reported that same belief.

So let's say for argument's sake that this was the case...this would explain a lot that has yet to be explained.

Now we know that there was a limb found in Pimlico on the 11th September, a few weeks before the discovery of the torso in the vault on the 2nd October, which proves that the woman was deceased at least a few weeks before the torso was discovered.

And so where did the killer keep the body?

Could the answer be that he had dismembered and then buried the victim in the vault?

And so when the torso was discovered, it wasn't a case of how the killer managed to get the body in there, it's a case of...was the killer in the process of transferring some more body parts, but the body was found BEFORE he could move the body?

In other words, it's not about the mystery of the killer getting the body in the vault; it's whether or not he was trying to move/dig up the torso, but was disturbed and so had to quickly think on his feet and be part of the team who discovered the torso.

Could this then explain why a reporter came in and somehow found a left leg? Because the killer knew that the leg was still buried in there.

The killer wasn't getting the torso in, he was trying to move it and get it out.


Could the killer have been working on the construction of the sewer? And perhaps used the sewer line to partially hide/conceal the body parts?

I believe that the killer was a Navvy, as witnessed seen talking with Jackson in June 1889.

Now a Navvy works specifically on the Railways/Canal Ways/Tram Ways etc... but could also be an engineer/worker/builder who dealt with the sewerage system IF it was part of the overall public engineering project, i.e. not a domestic project.

It;s also important to remember that prior to becoming a Police building, the site was a former site for an Opera House that never came to be...but by the time of of the NSY build, the foundations of the previous building were already in place.
The original schematics for the site included a walk way to the train station and a corridor straight to the parliament building.
Now IF those corridors were indeed constructed, then the killer MAY have transported the body via the train line...which again links back to the Railway.

I have no idea whether those underground corridors linking to the train station were built, but I would assume that some work must have been done on them because the former plan for the Opera House were so close to becoming reality.

Could the murder of the Whitehall torso be connected to the theatre world/opera house, and she was murdered because of a connection to the proposed opera house, and nothing to do with the police building?

Lots to ponder,,,and lots more to come.


RD

[rjpalmer]

The killer wasn't getting the torso in, he was trying to move it and get it out.

Could the killer have been working on the construction of the sewer? And perhaps used the sewer line to partially hide/conceal the body parts?

I've long suspect it could have been a combination of the two. He initially buried, or planned to bury, the body in the vault, but at some point, he feared he was going to be detected and started to smuggle it out again.

It sounds convoluted, but this is basically what happened in the 1875 Whitechapel 'Torso' case. Wainwright had buried the body and there it stayed, but when he lost his lease, he knew he had to dig it back up, and move it elsewhere. That's when he was detected.

There is, to my mind, some evidence that this may have happened in the Whitehall case, because despite Christer's theory, the leg was not buried under the drain trailing. It was in the middle of it---only one foot down inside a two-foot-tall mound. Further, while the leg was beautifully preserved (according to Dr. Bond), the foot itself was badly decomposed, as if the leg had been buried but the foot had been above ground and exposed to oxygen and/or sunlight---which could be taken as evidence of a prior burial.

Further, when 'Smoker' was brought back into the vault, the dog detected more remains besides the leg, but when they dug down to a level of two feet, there was nothing....except a very strong odor. As if something had been buried and brought back up. Like the leg, for instance. Or the victim's head.

Personally, I don't think the body was supposed to be found. That's more the thing of Hollywood movies and a heck of a stretch for a case where there was a clear intent to bury the body--or parts of the body.

RP

[rjpalmer]

Could the murder of the Whitehall torso be connected to the theatre world/opera house, and she was murdered because of a connection to the proposed opera house, and nothing to do with the police building?

Bond only thought the foot had been buried for six weeks, though. About the same length of time the victim had been killed.

The National Opera House project began in the mid-1870s and had been abandoned quite a long time before 1888. I believe the work had stopped before 1884.

[Abby Normal]

if the whitehall victim was killed and dismembered on site it points even more stronger to a worker there like wildbore.
I could see it perhaps not be too difficult to lure a drunk prostitute there for many reasons: the excitement of it, privacy, a ruse of stashed liquor. tjeres tools already there correct? perhaps the cutting instruments are already in place. could this actually be torsomans chop shop for some or all of the other torso victims?

question: was wildbore married at the time? or did he live alone?

[The Rookie Detective]

I've long suspect it could have been a combination of the two. He initially buried, or planned to bury, the body in the vault, but at some point, he feared he was going to be detected and started to smuggle it out again.

It sounds convoluted, but this is basically what happened in the 1875 Whitechapel 'Torso' case. Wainwright had buried the body and there it stayed, but when he lost his lease, he knew he had to dig it back up, and move it elsewhere. That's when he was detected.

There is, to my mind, some evidence that this may have happened in the Whitehall case, because despite Christer's theory, the leg was not buried under the drain trailing. It was in the middle of it---only one foot down inside a two-foot-tall mound. Further, while the leg was beautifully preserved (according to Dr. Bond), the foot itself was badly decomposed, as if the leg had been buried but the foot had been above ground and exposed to oxygen and/or sunlight---which could be taken as evidence of a prior burial.

Further, when 'Smoker' was brought back into the vault, the dog detected more remains besides the leg, but when they dug down to a level of two feet, there was nothing....except a very strong odor. As if something had been buried and brought back up. Like the leg, for instance. Or the victim's head.

Personally, I don't think the body was supposed to be found. That's more the thing of Hollywood movies and a heck of a stretch for a case where there was a clear intent to bury the body--or parts of the body.

RP

Ah yes, I am very familiar with the 1875 Wainwright case, and I agree that it does sound similar in many ways.

Henry Wainwright had shot, murdered and buried his victim in the cellar of his workshop and had used lime to treat the body.

I can't recall if he dismembered her at the time or whether he only dismembered her when he knew he needed to move her body.
This is a particularly important detail.

He only moved her on the 1 year anniversary of the murder, which had taken place in 1874.

I have always wondered whether his brother Thomas Wainwright was the torso killer.

There were 3 brothers, Henry the convicted murderer hanged, William the high ranking freemason and pastor who was shot in the head on a train, and the youngest, Thomas...who served 7 years for being complicit in helping his brother Henry move the body.

What's interesting is that Henry was very well known amongst the theatre going social circle, having met the woman he later went on to murder, in the theatre.

When Thomas was released in 1881, he falls off the radar.
He was always suspected of having been involved in the murder and dismemberment of the woman that his brother Henry had murdered in the cellar.

Did Thomas go on to murder women in a similar manner, developing a warped sense of vengeance because his brother had been hanged?

It's also important to note that Henry Wainwright had both a shop and a private workshop on Whitechapel road, one of which was directly next to the Pavilion theatre.

The Pavilion theatre IMO has always been a key location for potentially connecting the Ripper and Torso cases.

Charles Reeves himself performed there and so I find the possible connection with the Wainwrights very interesting.

I also believe that the Whitehall victim worked in the theatre, possibly as a barmaid.

Jackson herself had worked as a barmaid if I recall correctly.

Did the torso killer acquire his victims through going to the theatre and the social circles involved with that?

I say this because I believe that the Coram Street murder on Christmas day 1872 is rooted firmly in the Ripper/Torso murders.
The victim having been a prostitute who picked up her clients by frequenting the Alhambre theatre; the famous building named after its distinctive red brickwork.

But I digress...

I believe that the truth of whether the Whitehall torso was buried in the cellar lies somewhere in-between and that because the arm was found in pimlico on the 11th September, that proves that the killer hadn't tried to bury ALL of the body.
I believe that the torso killer used the vault not to bury, but to STORE his victim with the intent of dumping multiple body parts over a sustained period of time over various locations.

But when the sewer pipe was placed he has to adapt and the torso was discovered. The killer then took advantage of this find to avoid being caught.

IF the torso killer made a mistake and the body he has stored in the cellar was not meant to be found at THAT TIME, then that may explain why there was a long period of time before he used dismemberment in Jackson.

He instead focused on Ripping his victims without dismemberment.

I other words, did he murder Kelly in the manner he did, purely because he had nearly got caught in the botched storing of the Whitehall torso?

If the vault WAS his bolthole for the Whitehall torso, and then his plans to store her and gradually dismember and dump her body parts over time had been thwarted, could that have been the catalyst for murdering Kelly in such a savage manner?

After Kelly, there was a big gap... Because of a botched Whitehall murder and nearly being caught killing Kelly.

He then went back to basics...

When he dismembered Jackson he made sure she was discovered exactly how the Whitehall victim should have been found ...

And then when he murdered Mckenzie, which was very similar to the Nichols murder, he had more control by playing it safe.


Lots to think about

RD

[New Ford Shunt]

Have we been missing something with the Whitehall Mystery, that may have been right in front of our eyes?

I've just been sifting through some of the newspaper reports, and comparing them with some of the excellent viewpoints from others on this site, and noticed something I wanted to re-highlight to get your views and feedback.

The Whitehall Torso was placed in the vault of the cellar that had only been constructed within the 3 months before the body was found.
There was a trench through the area, where the new sewer line was being constructed/finalized that effectively separated the Torso from the rest of the vault, ergo, the person who placed the torso needed to traverse the trench and place the body on the other side.

We also know that despite the police having searched the area to try and locate any additional body parts, they somehow missed a left leg that was discovered by the reporter and his dog over 2 weeks after the initial torso. (He may have had a tip-off that there were more body parts to be found.) The leg was found on the opposite side of the vault to where the main torso was found, ergo, close, but not together.

And so how can this all be explained?

We have often pondered on how and when the killer managed to place the torso where it was found.

But what if we have been looking at this from the wrong angle?

I know that some believe that the victim was murdered in the cellar, and even the newspapers reported that same belief.

So let's say for argument's sake that this was the case...this would explain a lot that has yet to be explained.

Now we know that there was a limb found in Pimlico on the 11th September, a few weeks before the discovery of the torso in the vault on the 2nd October, which proves that the woman was deceased at least a few weeks before the torso was discovered.

And so where did the killer keep the body?

Could the answer be that he had dismembered and then buried the victim in the vault?

And so when the torso was discovered, it wasn't a case of how the killer managed to get the body in there, it's a case of...was the killer in the process of transferring some more body parts, but the body was found BEFORE he could move the body?

In other words, it's not about the mystery of the killer getting the body in the vault; it's whether or not he was trying to move/dig up the torso, but was disturbed and so had to quickly think on his feet and be part of the team who discovered the torso.

Could this then explain why a reporter came in and somehow found a left leg? Because the killer knew that the leg was still buried in there.

The killer wasn't getting the torso in, he was trying to move it and get it out.


Could the killer have been working on the construction of the sewer? And perhaps used the sewer line to partially hide/conceal the body parts?

I believe that the killer was a Navvy, as witnessed seen talking with Jackson in June 1889.

Now a Navvy works specifically on the Railways/Canal Ways/Tram Ways etc... but could also be an engineer/worker/builder who dealt with the sewerage system IF it was part of the overall public engineering project, i.e. not a domestic project.

It;s also important to remember that prior to becoming a Police building, the site was a former site for an Opera House that never came to be...but by the time of of the NSY build, the foundations of the previous building were already in place.
The original schematics for the site included a walk way to the train station and a corridor straight to the parliament building.
Now IF those corridors were indeed constructed, then the killer MAY have transported the body via the train line...which again links back to the Railway.

I have no idea whether those underground corridors linking to the train station were built, but I would assume that some work must have been done on them because the former plan for the Opera House were so close to becoming reality.

Could the murder of the Whitehall torso be connected to the theatre world/opera house, and she was murdered because of a connection to the proposed opera house, and nothing to do with the police building?

Lots to ponder,,,and lots more to come.


RD

RD, I did mention this to you in the Torso Chronology and implications thread #6

[Elamarna]

And then when he murdered Mckenzie, which was very similar to the Nichols murder, he had more control by playing it safe.


Lots to think about

RD

Again I see absolutely nothing To connect either Nichols or Alice McKenzie to the Torso cases RD.

With all respect I think you are fixed on the suggestion the torso man was a navvy and thus want to connect Nichols to the series by the location.

On broader grounds,

We still have no evidence that the Torsos and the Whitechapel murders are connected. Lots of debate, lots of speculation, but no actual evidence RD.

I also raised the issue of attempting to connecting all of the cases from 73 - 02 early and you didn't address that issue.

Steve

[Abby Normal]

Again I see absolutely nothing To connect either Nichols or Alice McKenzie to the Torso cases RD.

With all respect I think you are fixed on the suggestion the torso man was a navvy and thus want to connect Nichols to the series by the location.

On broader grounds,

We still have no evidence that the Torsos and the Whitechapel murders are connected. Lots of debate, lots of speculation, but no actual evidence RD.

I also raised the issue of attempting to connecting all of the cases from 73 - 02 early and you didn't address that issue.

Steve

hi el
nichols and mackenzie both had the vertical gash down the midsection like some of the torsos. both were same victimology and mckenzie was killed around the same time as pinchin, both were left displayed in a public street like pinchin.

[The Rookie Detective]

RD, I did mention this to you in the Torso Chronology and implications thread #6

Ah yes, my apologies.

I responded to you on that thread in post #8 and then you replied again in post #11

I think the points you made were excellent and having just re-read through our exchange on the thread, it has brought it more into line with this one.

The area of the cellar that the dog detected a scent, but where none of the victim wss found, would imply that the dog had located the exact spot where the body was buried and from where it was dug up.


RD