Jack the Ripper & The Torso Murders

[jerryd]

whats your thoughts on that it was actually torsomans or men chop shop for some or all of them?

I doubt it was the chop shop for Elizabeth Jackson and Pinchin Street torso due to the fact the building was almost completed by then. Rainham is a possibility and Whitehall, of course.

[The Rookie Detective]

"According to Mapleson, the underground passage to the Houses of Parliament (for silent members ... [to listen to] beautiful music rather than dull debates ... ) and connection into the District Railway station, together with dressing rooms for suburban visitors, were completed."
Source: http://www.parliament.uk/documents/c...office/g13.pdf (page 2)

In the book by Paul Begg and John Bennett:Jack the Ripper, The Forgotten Victims, they state one underground passageway led from the Opera House site into the Houses of Parliament and another (eastern side) led to a station of the district railway which was incorporated into the Scotland Yard building. According to the book, this eastern tunnel "enabled the police to move men around without bringing them onto the streets".

Ah that's brilliant!

So is there a possibility that the killer used the route from the district line train station to access the vault without needing to go above ground?

The direct and accessible link to the railway station could be important because if the killer knew about the route, then it possibly links back to the railway/navvy connection again.

RD

[FrankO]

As I understand it, the basement where the body was found was the very bottom floor. Above this, was a sub-basement. I believe the sub-basement would have been where most of the work at the time was taking place. Tools were kept in the vault in the basement. Work seems to have ended there (basement) about 3 months prior except the carpenters were working on the trench a week before.

So, back to what RJ was saying, I also believe the body/parts were being moved around. Mainly because that part of the building was somewhat finished and probably not the focus of daily work for the majority of the men. So, when the men heard the vault (where the torso was found) was due to be measured by the surveyor, they/he probably began moving stuff around. The body may have been treated with Condy's Fluid.

Very interesting stuff, Jerry. Thanks for sharing. If this is actually what happened, then it means that, whoever was responsible for killing, storing & cutting up the body, he/they had already got rid of the right arm & parts that were never found by the time the torso was discovered at the beginning of October. One odd thing would be: why wasn’t the leg discovered then and took it another two weeks to find it? Another would be: why would he/they toss the right arm in the Thames so far west/away from the Whitehall location, when the Thames was right in front of that location, less than a 100 yards away?

Last, I would like to mention another man of interest. I have spoken of him before. Richard Lawrence. He was Wildbore's mate. His address on Sterndale Road is very near Battersea Park. Just a few blocks SE of the corner of the park on that end. In the 1881 census I believe I found the correct Richard Lawrence living on Jeffrey Street which was a block or so from Camden Lock on Regents Canal. This residence was almost a direct extension of Tottenham Court Road and also near the finding of some of the Rainham Mystery remains. Finding somebody with a connection to possibly three dumpsites for torsos was intriguing. Lawrence moved sometime between 1881 and 1888 to the Battersea Park location. His testimony can be read in inquest reports.

This Lawrence fellow is also very interesting. Not only Wildbore’s mate, but also, as you say, someone to connect to possibly 3 dumpsites and moving from close to one site to another at the right time.

Cheers,
Frank

[Herlock Sholmes]

Excuse the lack of in-depth torso murders’ knowledge but what are the arguments against these victims ending up in the hands of someone seeking to sell organs?

[The Rookie Detective]

Excuse the lack of in-depth torso murders’ knowledge but what are the arguments against these victims ending up in the hands of someone seeking to sell organs?

That could be a possibility, although doubtful as the victim of the Whitehall mystery had healthy organs, except for her left lung which was said to have suffered from severe pleurisy.

The only organ that I am aware of that was removed, was her uterus.

Her uterus was completely absent, but all her other organ (exluding her left lung) were healthy enough to sell, but were left with the body.


Interestingly, in his summing up of the case, the coroner stated "...the aim had been to destroy the possibility of identity, rather than to destroy the body."

RD

[Fiver]

That's a bit like saying that Stride was found laying facing the wall in the pitch dark, and not displayed for all to see.

Stride was found laying facing the wall and not posed like the bodies of the other Ripper victims. Which means that her killer was interrupted or that Stride wasn't killed by the Ripper.

The Pinchin Street Torso was dumped face down in a railway arch, not displayed in the street. It would have take the killer less time and effort to leave it in the street than to drag it 4 to 5 yards into the archway.

[FrankO]

The only organ that I am aware of that was removed, was her uterus.

Are you talking about the Whitehall victim here, RD? Because if you are, then I don't think we can say that the uterus was removed (or even whether it was the only organ to have been removed. The whole of the lower torso was never found, including part of the large intestines, the bladder, vagina, uthera, uterus, ovaries and rectum. That doesn't mean that any or all those parts were removed from the lower torso part. They may have been, but we don't know since the lower torso part was never found, nor any of the organs or large intestines.

Cheers,
Frank

[FrankO]

Excuse the lack of in-depth torso murders’ knowledge but what are the arguments against these victims ending up in the hands of someone seeking to sell organs?

Hi Mike,

If I understand your question correctly, arguments against that idea would be that a number of organs were found either still inside the torso parts and in at least the 1873 case parts of the lungs were recoverd from the river.

Cheers,
Frank

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Mike,

If I understand your question correctly, arguments against that idea would be that a number of organs were found either still inside the torso parts and in at least the 1873 case parts of the lungs were recoverd from the river.

Cheers,
Frank

Hi Frank,

I should have done a bit of reading and re-familiarising before I put that question.

Cheers.

[FrankO]

Hi Frank,

I should have done a bit of reading and re-familiarising before I put that question.

Cheers.

There's just so much torso-related information that one would have to be re-reading and re-familiarising every other week. So, no worries about your question.

Cheers,
Frank

[The Rookie Detective]

Are you talking about the Whitehall victim here, RD? Because if you are, then I don't think we can say that the uterus was removed (or even whether it was the only organ to have been removed. The whole of the lower torso was never found, including part of the large intestines, the bladder, vagina, uthera, uterus, ovaries and rectum. That doesn't mean that any or all those parts were removed from the lower torso part. They may have been, but we don't know since the lower torso part was never found, nor any of the organs or large intestines.

Cheers,
Frank

Hi Frank


Yes, according to Dr Bond's testimony...

"The Uterus was absent"


RD

[New Ford Shunt]

Hi Frank


Yes, according to Dr Bond's testimony...

"The Uterus was absent"


RD

Nope. You maybe looking at an abridged or incorrect newspaper report. The pelvic viscera were missing because the torso was cut through at the 4th lumbar vertebrae.

[jerryd]

Very interesting stuff, Jerry. Thanks for sharing. If this is actually what happened, then it means that, whoever was responsible for killing, storing & cutting up the body, he/they had already got rid of the right arm & parts that were never found by the time the torso was discovered at the beginning of October. One odd thing would be: why wasn’t the leg discovered then and took it another two weeks to find it? Another would be: why would he/they toss the right arm in the Thames so far west/away from the Whitehall location, when the Thames was right in front of that location, less than a 100 yards away?


This Lawrence fellow is also very interesting. Not only Wildbore’s mate, but also, as you say, someone to connect to possibly 3 dumpsites and moving from close to one site to another at the right time.

Cheers,
Frank

Hi FrankO.

You bring up very valid questions that are reasons why I can't personally hang my hat on any scenario, unfortunately.

To address the leg first.

The leg was discovered on the 17th of October, two weeks after the torso. The vault was searched by bloodhounds and terriers PRIOR to the 17th, according to Detective-Sergeant Rose.



The question then is, how did the bloodhounds and terriers miss the leg which eventually was found close to the torso? Was it possibly buried in another part of the yard and moved after the search in the vault where the torso was found?

Regarding the arm. Yes, throwing it in the Thames near the Police Headquarters seems the logical thing to do. And maybe it was. I always thought the flow of the Thames was ALWAYS from West to East. I guess that is not the case. So the arm could have been thrown in the River near Whitehall, I guess, and possibly got moved up river to Pimilco. Seems unlikely, but that is an option. Boats/Ships moving that way could have dragged it, etc.

That is where my original research of Wildbore (before I thought the vault was the "chop shop") I believed he was dropping parts either on his way TO work or on his way home. I'll include a map below that shows a possible, and likely route, he may have taken to and from work.

This crude map has Wildbore's residence on Maysoule Road at bottom left and proceeds across Albert Bridge and up Grosvenor Road through Pimlico and on to Whitehall. Along this route you will find a good amount of the body parts from Rainham Mystery (Battersea area), the arm from Whitehall Mystery (Thames at Pimlico off Grosvenor Road), the thigh of Elizabeth Jackson in the Shelley Estate (also along the red line seen in the map), Whitehall torso and leg (Police offices where he worked as a carpenter) and just to the left of his residence a section of the lower right leg and foot of Elizabeth Jackson were picked up on the foreshore near Wandsworth Bridge wrapped in the same tweed Ulster coat fragments as the previous finds. There was belief at the time by authorities that the parts may have been thrown from Albert Bridge and floated down river to their eventual resting spots. I always wondered if the parts were thrown from the bridge at the same time (approx), how did one piece float opposite as the other parts up to Wandsworth Bridge. Wildbore lived a very short distance from the bridge and location of this find.

Anyways FrankO, that's some of my thinking there for you to chew on.

[GBinOz]

I always wondered if the parts were thrown from the bridge at the same time (approx), how did one piece float opposite as the other parts up to Wandsworth Bridge.

Hi jerryd,

Might this be explained by the fact that any of the bridges could be used to in his daily travel to his destination, providing a possibility for parts thrown from different bridges at a similar time, but necessarily at different stages of the tide, to be carried by the river flows in different directions. Just a thought.

Cheers, George

[The Rookie Detective]

Nope. You maybe looking at an abridged or incorrect newspaper report. The pelvic viscera were missing because the torso was cut through at the 4th lumbar vertebrae.

My apologies for not being clear in my post.

This is what I should have highlighted...

Uterus removed.... Unproven
Uterus absent... Yes

Dr Bond made a specific point relating to the Uterus.

"The Uterus was absent"

He didn't say anything about whether the Uterus had been removed, because there was no way of knowing. But he did highlight that the Uterus was absent.

And so I should have made the definition clear, my apologies for that, because my post response was out of context.

RD